On 5 Aug 1997 04:01:58 -0700, mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:

[snip]

Martin, after reading your recent exchanges with Peter McDermott, I
can't help thinking that you're engaging in a little projection here.

Diane Richardson
refe...@bway.net

Very true.

Me for one.

Get off it.  She answered Dennis' questions - which he already knew
the answers to anyway.  He can't now cry "foul".

I don't see it this way at all.  She has made very good, concise and
straightforward statements all along.  When asked, she answered the
questions.  Unlike many of the people posting on this newsgroup, she
does not seem to have any particular axe to grind and so doesn't have
to take the usual anti-Scientology position, just to get another dig
in.  

This description of events sounds very much like Wollersheim. In fact
those who are really in the know, understand that Wollersheim is first
and foremost a salesman. Actually, he crosses over the line and falls
into the category of a "con" in that he inadvertently hypes the latest
gimmick or product to his customers.  The problem is that every single
money making project that he has ever engaged in has resulted in
failure and people getting burned.  It is the nature of the beast.
That is also exactly what is going on with FACTNet at the present
time.  Wollerhseim has made promises he can't keep, has extended
himself and FACTNet financially, he has even sold shares in his
judgement.  I am sure he has most of his lawyers and other FACTNet
members upset with him for promises that he couldn't keep.

This is only translation of someone who has no judgement.

Bull.

This is quite a vindictive statement in itself and is not meant to be
helpful at all but only to try and hurt Diane's feelings.  

In article <341aac79.77975...@snews.zippo.com>,

What was the deal with Operation Freakout? This is what's
led to Diane's status as being an SP hereabouts, I take it?

In article <33e7b7ec.1993...@snews.zippo.com>,

Indeed. As Dave Bird did to one of my posts recently as well.

I have to say that it rings a bit hollow to have people complaining
about Scieno forgeries and Operation Freakout, and then engage
in exactly the same sort of tactics themselves.

(posted and e-mailed)

In <5DHa+RAcm25zE...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of

I don't use Turnip Version 3.03a but to me it seems you plonked not only
the "Witch of Zun" but also every person posting from bway.net. Because
this From: line is forged you won't see it on the usenet.

Prignillius <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in article
<19970805161805.10921.qm...@nym.alias.net>:

I wouldn't call this type of CAN statement about Wollersheim
exactly a "confidence", except in Dennis manipulative way of
presenting things. It seems to me that these are things that are
being told regularly in the framework of a difficult and
confrontational area such as the cult/anticult one. All it says
is that CAN didn't regard Wollersheim as trustworthy, which is
nothing that will surprise any of us here who can see his many
frailties right here in the newsgroup. Was that such a big
secret that he wouldn't guess already himself on the part of CAN
(if he has a minimum of sense of observation)? Is this something
that they told *only* to Diane and to nobody else and that they
protect as a jealously held secret? Common!

You are a bit quick on the trigger, Prig, playing along with the
typical cult leader game of Dennis and his misrepresentations
and guilt games. You completely ignore the part Dennis played in
the story, as well as his motivations. This makes your analysis,
that are otherwise usually pretty thorough, rather incomplete
this time.

Bernie

e...@address.at.bottom (ef) wrote in article
<ef-0608970822230...@news.portal.ca>:

Hardly.

Diane kept for a long time the Bast tapes for her, out of
courtesy. It must not be easy to keep this type of important
information, yet she did. When Rob Clark and Sister Clara
attacked her and Keith Spurgeon in the most vile and ugly manner
there was post after post in an attempt to silence her and
prevent her to bring that up, she did just that, she brought the
whole thing in full light, and she did well. They called for it
and the information of the Bast tapes really belong to this
newsgroup in the same way as any other information about LRH
that are gathered by ex-members, and other means.

She kept the information about Rob's bomb threat for her, I
don't know for how long. I don't know if *I* or anyone else
could keep such a vital piece of information for that long,
watching how this myth went on and on in the newsgroup, the CofS
being repeatedly "proved" criminal because of it. It is only
when Rob repeatedly insulted her, distorted everything, and
repeatedly misrepresented her dealings with the court where she
obtained the documents, after she had asked him to stop doing so
for post after post, that she came up with this information. And
she did well. Not only he certainly called for it, but it
corrected a serious wrong. Do you think it is something "good"
that a false information such as this one is repeatedly
circulated in the newsgroup? Now, frankly, ef, do you find that
right?

Diane spoke against FACTNet for as long as I can remember it.
She kept this particular piece of information for herself,
though. When Dennis challenged her and actually framed her in
the most manipulative and disgusting manner as he did to
challenge her to reveal this very information, then, yes, I
think that she did well to go ahead and answer the precise
questions he put to her, because that was a clear setup, a clear
manipulative tactic, something that you seem to disregard
completely, ef. *He* certainly has an important part of
responsibility in that, because he *knew* the answer, and he
deliberately pushed Diane's buttons, which he is certainly the
best placed to know. It's too easy to forget the whole context
and just accuse Diane of "breaking confidence" without any
reason.

Diane *proved* that it is not what she does unless she is pushed
to it, she *proved* that she can backup her claim and argue
logically and fairly. How many amongst the dozens claims she
did, did she not substantiate, ef? Yet, nothing of that is
acknowledged. She is putting us the same hard questions she put
the scieno, and for that alone she is a bitch, right? We applaud
when she does it to the CofS, and cry faul and "malevolence"
when we have to face the same questions. How dishonest! How
utterly dishonest. Now how about indulging in deliberate
manipulation, as Dennis did? I have hardly words for it.

As for Dennis, no one can accuse me of telling him for what he
is *now*, because I am not saying anything else than what I said
a few weeks/months ago, when I became aware of his manipulative
and abusive ways. I made posts after posts about that, nothing
new. If anything, he just proved once again the type of
manipulation he engage into. Diane confronted him with his own
words about involuntary conservatorship, something that
supposedly he is not supporting, and since then he didn't stop
trying to pull Diane in his embroiled, messed up, and twisted
state of mind.

Bernie

You have bent judges in the US put there to protect big business. They
are political appointments. They are not earned through merit. What they
do they do because they were appointed to do it. They twist the law to
please their masters knowing they can never be held accountable. The
whole system stinks. "American justice" is an oxymoron.

What you are saying is complete crap anyway - as usual. We know the Co$
lies. It is all based on lies. So to warn people you have to provide the
proof. You have to provide something substantial. The NOTs, or whatever,
are like a photograph taken of the crime in action. Only it belongs to
them. It is proof - but it belongs to them rather than you. To produce
this proof you infringe copyright (not so in the UK). And yet in some
cases this is what you must do.  

I put in the rider "not so in the UK". In the UK it is all decided by
the courts. There isn't even any "fair use" here. The courts will decide
each complaint on its own merits. For a start-off copyright is to do
with protecting the copyright holders entitlement to money from a
performance of their work. In the case described that doesn't apply.
Also if a person is acting in order to protect the public they can do
so, so long as they can convince the courts that that was the reason
they did it. If the courts decided that the Co$ were being immoral in
keeping their stuff hidden from the public then they would not even be
able to use the courts in any case. You are not allowed to use the legal
system to enforce immoral acts. For example, if you had a bet with
someone and they welched on their bet then there is no way you could
take them to court to recover that debt. Gambling is immoral and so you
cannot use the courts to assist you. That is the way it is over here.
That is why the Co$ are going to get crucified when a particular big
case gets to court over here.

*Plonk* the bitch!

On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 01:06:19 GMT, refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:

Diane -

Arnie posted *before* Judge Brinkema offered her ruling.  You make it
seem as though he read her order and then decided to post as he did.

This analogy is getting a little thin, but can you really not think of
a type of danger that should be publicized, and after you do somebody
comes along and says "thanks for the warning, but the material you
quoted is copyright and we don't think it is fair use"?

Finally, the heart of the matter. Arnie did what he did believing it
was right and proper.  Later, the Cof$ brings it to court, and the
Judge says he wasn't completely legal in how he publicized the danger,
and here is a tiny, little, statutory minimum fine for your trouble.

You know, Arnie was probably still *right* to act as he did.  The
point being that if we all failed to act or criticize when we are
confronted with apparent wrongdoing.  If we are self-censored into
silence out of fear that a well-intended and apparently legal protest
would turn to have unfortunate consequences for ourselves, then we
fail in our duty as responsible human beings in a free society.  

We don't have Federal judges standing by to offer binding advice on
the spur of the moment.  We must, each of us, make a good faith effort
to decide what is right and wrong, and how we are going to act in the
face of perceived injustice.  

"When they came for the <....>, I did not complain, because I was not
<....>.  When they came for me, there was no one left to complain."

In article <33e9aad5.2681...@snews.zippo.com>,
"Rev. Dennis Erlich" <inF...@super.zippo.com> writes:

 OK.  I actually like Diane, a lot of the time.  I don't like
what she's doing now -- it pisses me off.  Substitute she's
ACTING LIKE a boil on the butt of humanity.  So long as she keeps
doing it, I'm going to call her for it.  If (ever) she packs in
acting like an asshole, we can be friends again: or at least I
will stop being hostile to her...how she reacts to me is up to her.

                                            |~/           |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P |      Woof Woof, Glug Glug               ||____________||      0  | P
O |   Who Drowned the Judge's Dog?          | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O |         answers on                  *---|_______________  @__o0  | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)