Scientology in the Media [Internet]

A Documentary History of the Church of Scientology and the Net
Deana M. Holmes

[Part 8 of 10]

Usenet: alt.religion.scientology
April 1995

Main Index A.R.S. Web Summary Media

==========================================================================
A Documentary History of the Church of Scientology and the Net
VERSION 1.0 / April 17, 1995
Compiled by Deana M. Holmes (mirele@xmission.com)
==========================================================================

Compilation (c) 1995 by Deana M. Holmes.


Jeff Jacobsen wrote the following to Martin after Martin's chat with the local gendarmerie.


From: cultxpt@primenet.com (Jeff Jacobsen)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Harassed into silence?
Date: 6 Apr 1995 05:18:35 GMT
Message-ID: <3lvtjb$qr5@news.primenet.com>

   Many former critics of Scientology have made agreements with the 
church that they would agree to stop speaking against the church in 
exchange for getting harassment stopped or for a cash settlement.  
Lawsuits against Scientology have ended this way.
   That's fine for the critics.  They can go on and lead a quieter life 
again.  But what about the rest of the world?  These critics, who knew 
how evil Scientology is and had first-hand accounts of harassment and 
possibly even insider information, are now silent.  The result?  
Scientology continues, and more people are harassed and attacked.
   You have read how I am being mildly abused by the church.  And you've 
read the declarations and first-hand accounts of many people the church 
has abused throughout its history.  Now Martin posts that it's starting with 
him and he wants our input as to what to do.

   Here are your choices as a critic;

1) stop being a critic
2) continue being a critic

   #1 will most likely bring you grief.  It is Scientology scripture to 
go after church critics.  #2 will bring you relief.  But you then let the 
bad guys win.

   That is the dilemma you as a critic are in now.  Knowing that the 
Church of Scientology might come to your neighborhood and begin their 
harassment techniques on you, what should you do?  The easy road is to 
stop being a critic.  The church will probably leave you alone then.  But 
if you do that, you've let thuggery win.  The good people are silenced by 
the bully.  The world is now a worse place to live.
   If all those people who have settled with the church in the past had 
refused instead and continued speaking out about the gross injustices 
brought on by the church, what would the Church of Scientology be like 
today?  How many people could have been saved from the church's Fair Game 
tactics?
   If Scientology is allowed to pick off its critics one by one, then 
Scientology and Fair Game will live on forever.  Is that the future you want?
   Listen to your heart, Martin.

 -- ------------    
cultxpt@primenet.com  Jeff Jacobsen  PO Box 3541  Scottsdale AZ  85271
For Info on Scientology anonymous ftp.primenet.com /users/c/cultxpt OR
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/rnewman/scientology/home.html  OR
http://falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~sloth/sci/sci_index.html 

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

SCAMIZDAT 3 was posted on April 6th with a new introduction. This same document was posted again on April 7th.


From: anon-remailer@xs4all.nl (Name withheld by request)
Subject: Internet WAR against scientology !
Date: 6 Apr 1995 18:36:54 GMT
Message-ID: <3m1cc6$9hs@news.xs4all.nl>


                      Hackers of the world, UNITE !

A fight is going on, an ugly unfair fight. It's a fight between
the Church of Scientology and respected members of the internet.
The church has already used many different methods to silence
critics, they have sued remailer operators, individual users and
internet-providers only because they where critical to the church
it's practices. Scientology members have also physically and emotionally
harassed it's critics, for example by breaking and entering in their
homes, or having phone bills altered, or by many disturbing anonymous
phone-calls. 

They thread, they kick under the belt, they are capable of everything !
The first thing they do with a critic, is threathening them to
sue, sue, sue, sue you so hard that even if you win, you lose
all your money.

Hackers unite and fight this dangerous cult. Let it not impose its
standards on our Network, let us fight for our freedom, for our rights.
This is an all out war, and we will win it, thanks to YOUR help !

Repost this message, copy it, give it to all your friends, put it on
ftp-sites. Let this ugly cult not prevail with these dangerous practices.

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Scientology: Religion, Herbalife or both
 
Scientology is a global movement claiming to be a religion. It has
special (tax-exempt) status in many countries because of this claim.
Others claim the church is nothing but a pseudo-scientific money-scam
that uses violence against those that oppose it.
 
Scientology has on various occasions canceled messages like these
and sued posters, remailer operators and internet-providers. Please
copy this message and repost it for others to read. Expose the practices
of this church and save the internet from it !

Scientology has many secret documents, only to be seen by members that
have reached (and payed for) a certain level within the structure of the
church. Because the church sells all it's documents to it's members, all
documents are copyrighted.
 
Scientology is an influencial (rich) global movement that could impact
the society that you live in. You have a right to judge this 'church' by
seeing the documents that lie at the basis of it. Below is a copy,
that's right ;-)

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

SCAMIZDAT #3   2 April 1995

Twenty-one documents from Scientology secret practices:
(you may want to save this entire document before scientologists
illegally attempt to cancel it)

To contact the editorial staff post a message with the subject:
including the word "SCAMIZDAT" to the group alt.religion.scientology.

[big cut--ed.]

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

Ron Newman told the anonymous spammers to basically cut it out--and gave reasons. Grady wanted to know why the CoS couldn't stop the spam, particularly since the CoS said they had a program to detect when their copyrighted stuff had been posted.


From: rnewman@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
Subject: No, do NOT SPAM these stupid scriptures around !
Date: 7 Apr 1995 18:42:17 GMT
Message-ID: <3m4129$m1d@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>

No, do *NOT* spam this, or anything else.  Such actions are
harmful to the Net.  Spam gets cancelled, and pisses off large
numbers of netizens and system administrators.

For that matter, quit re-posting it here over and over
again.  Once a week is sufficient.  Once a day is spam.
More than once a day is inexcusable.
-- 
Ron Newman          Email: <rnewman@mit.edu>
Web: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/rnewman/home.html
(I speak only for myself, not for any part of MIT.)

===

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
From: grady@netcom.com (Grady Ward)
Subject: Re: No, do NOT SPAM these stupid scriptures around !
Message-ID: <gradyD6oJsq.3Gs@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 19:36:26 GMT

Ron Newman (rnewman@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) wrote:
: again.  Once a week is sufficient.  Once a day is spam.

I would not advise anyone to post this if it turns out
it is considered copyright infringement.  To do so might
be construed as contributory infringement.

But I still want to know how the great and powerful oz -- er --
'ho of babble-on and Blubber and Moxy are going to stop this
from being posted again and again until millions of people on
the net are aware of the criminal cult of scientology.

-- 
Grady Ward  +1 707 826 7715 (voice / 24hr FAX)  grady@netcom.com



**************************************************************************
PART IV

OPENING A SECOND FRONT--THE CoS ATTACKS NON-SCIENTOLOGISTS

**************************************************************************

A furious TarlaStar posted the following on April 7th. The CoS had done some digging and found out her real name.


From: TarlaStar <bmyers@ionet.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Tell The World the Truth Mr. Milne
Date: 7 Apr 1995 10:33:30 GMT
Message-ID: <3m34dq$bbq@ionews.ionet.net>

Here I sit, like so many others of you, reading a newsgroup.  You may be   
doing this at work, or maybe like me you consider the internet your   
entertainment time. I've said a couple of times before what my   
relationship is to this group...a nil. I don't currently know any   
Scientologists. I've never had a run-in with any of them, until this   
newsgroup. Now I sit here wondering what the hell did I do? 
I've asked questions here that the church members cannot or will not   
answer.  I've persisted despite that. I've asked questions on the   
internet, that is all. Because I DARE to ask questions, because I have   
the unmitigated temerity to expose facts and demand same, I am being   
harrassed and investigated.  
 
TELL THE WORLD HOW YOU GOT MY NAME, MILNE. Tell everyone here, why you   
would bother to hunt down a person you never heard of two months ago, and   
who has never threatened you in any way. Tell us again that you are NOT   
working for the Church of Scientology. Your filthy "church" cannot stand   
the light of day, and ANYONE, ANYONE who questions you will be   
investigated, isn't that right?  
 
Lurkers...be glad you lurk. Be glad that you don't have to put your   
beliefs on the line. Be glad that you've never said anything in public   
about this church, or they'd be after YOU now.  
 
Guess what, Mr. Milne...you pricks don't scare me. I'm clean as a   
whistle, and I fight back. You picked the wrong redhead to fuck with,   
buddy.  
 
Come clean now, Milne, tell us all how you got the name, how you sat   
there wringing your hands at the keyboard crying "For God's sake, give me   
something on her, she's destroying me!" and the call went out across the   
land. The spy network engaged and three weeks later, Andy has a name in   
his hand. So, you've proven beyond a doubt that you are what we've been   
saying you are. Oh Andy, you should have kept it to yourself, but you had   
to gloat. Now everyone knows that you are assholes. Everyone knows that   
it's true what we've been saying all along. The church is paranoid and   
dangerous, and you work for the church. 
 
--  
Rev. Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy; 
a Proud Jism Schizm of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping 
"Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986 
http://www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html 

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

It wasn't until a couple of days later when the milne post showed up at my site, and I was able to see what he had done. To protect Tarla's privacy, I have replaced certain personal information with Xs.


From: milne@delphi.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: "Snake" Thompson and Freud: A Few Logical Points WARNING!
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 95 03:12:48 -0500
Message-ID: <pU4+oa4.milne@delphi.com>

TarlaStar <bmyers@ionet.net> writes:
 
>Okay folks, pay attention to this one. Like many folks on the internet, I   
>use a pseudonym. This one (Tarla) is one that I used on another network   
>for a couple of years and thought it would be easiest for those who knew   
>me there to find me here. Besides, I like the name. The point is, that I   
 
That's right, XXXXXX. Your days of anonymity are over. No longer can
you hide behind a pseudonym while telling lies about the religion of
eight million people.
 
Now when you repeat those lies, everyone will know that they are told
by XXXXXX XXXXXX, who lives in XXXXXX, XXXXXXXX.
 
It's time to be upfront.
 
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
 
Many of the regulars on a.r.s found milne's declaration here to be highly ironic, since milne would not answer repeated questions as to whether or not he was in the Office of Special Affairs for the CoS.

The reaction from the denizens of a.r.s to the invasion of Tarla's privacy was swift.


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
Subject: Go Home, Talbot
Message-ID: <modemacD6ror8.Lyv@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 12:16:20 GMT

David Talbot (dlt@covina.lightside.com) wrote:
: I think that TarlaStar is dangerous,
: She is dangerous to herself and others. She is supporting 
: psychiatric treatements, she is saying that everyone is an
: animal and should be treated with ECT.
: She ought to be "involuntarily committed."

You might as well give up now, Talbot, because no one on this newsgroups 
is ever going to believe a word you and your pet OSA slaves say.  Your 
usefulness to the OSA on this newsgroup is at an end, because everyone 
here knows the truth about you and your pack of jackals.  Nothing you say 
will ever matter, because your actions have spoken louder than words ever 
will.  Post your "success stories" - they don't matter.  Insult us - it 
doesn't matter.  No one here believes a word you say.  We know exactly 
what you are.

In case you forgot, Tarla is one of us.  To use your own words, she's a 
"stupid little subgenius."  And we're damn proud of her for being one!

Go home to your OSA barracks, Talbot, and file a report.  Tell them the 
truth about your mission to "handle" this newsgroup: you failed.  Badly.
-- 
               +---------------------------------------+
               | Reverend Modemac (modemac@netcom.com) |
 +-------------+     "There is no black and white."    +------------+
 | First Online Church of "Bob," A Subfaction of the Excremeditated |
 |     Congregation of the Overinflated Head of L. Ron Hubbard      |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------+
       FINGER modemac@netcom.com for a FREE SubGenius Pamphlet!

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

For her own part, Tarla didn't take things lying down; she wrote a protest to Delphi, milne's internet provider. milne disappeared for a couple of days, and it is speculated that he was taken offline by Delphi before he could explain his rude and wanton behaviour to the administration at Delphi.


From: bmyers@ionet.net (Tarla)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.slack,alt.current-events.net-abuse
Subject: Church of Scientology Invades Privacy
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 18:56:21 GMT
Message-ID: <3mc1cc$9u9@ionews.ionet.net>

This is a copy of the letter I sent to the admin@delphi:
From:                 Self </bmyers>
To:                     admin@Delphi.com
Subject:           A complaint about one of your users
Date sent:            Sat, 8 Apr 1995 17:47:05

Dear Sir or Madam,
  I am writing you regarding a problem I am having with a user of 
your service.  I am a regular poster to alt.religion.scientology on 
the Internet.  Mr Andrew Milne (milne@delphi.com) posts in support of 
the Church of Scientology, and I am a critic of that church.  This 
complaint is not about Mr. Milne's religion, however.  It is about 
his investigation of me in order to determine my real name, and his 
subsequent exposure of same to the net as a means of intimidating me 
into silence. I have never used my real name on the net for obvious 
reasons.  As a woman, I don't need everyone in the world knowing how 
to get ahold of me.  I have taken moderate pains to keep my privacy, 
and I can only assume that Mr. Milne has investigated me in some 
fashion that may not be entirely legal, or at the very least, 
unethical.
  It is highly likely that Mr. Milne will claim religious persecution 
as the reason for this letter, however that is wholly untrue.  What 
Mr. Milne believes is his own business.  What concerns me, is the 
attempt at intimidation, the violation of privacy, and the implied 
threat inherent in this situation.  I have never corresponded with 
Mr. Milne privately. I have never threatened his person.  I have only 
been a critic of his church's beliefs and behaviors.

I am including the entire post in which he states my name, and my 
response to it.  I trust that you will handle this matter in a manner 
that you deem appropriate.  I am also posting this letter to the 
internet. Thank you in advance for your attention in this situation. 

sincerely,
TarlaStar
(deleted)

TarlaStar <bmyers@ionet.net> writes:
 
>Because he was a fan. People send cakes, paintings, specially made   
>gifts of all sorts to those they idolize. It's a regular occurance,   
>not wierd at all. 
 
This was not 1923, not 1965 or 1995. And Freud was not a rock star.
 
>That's because you aren't jack-shit in the real world. I get fan   
>letters from people I've never met quite frequently. When you touch   
 
What sort of a big cheese are you, then?
 
>Because Freud was a nice person and probably didn't have a press   
>secretary. 
 
Freud was not a "nice" person.
 
>It strains nothing, Milne. I have two handwritten postcards from Eric   
>Wolfe (famous social theorist). When I was in grad school, I arranged   
>for him to be a speaker at my University. I picked him up at the   
>airport and ferried him around for the two days he was here. After he   
>returned to New York, he wrote me asking me to help get some things   
>straightened out with the Speakers Bureau at my University. I did, and   
>he wrote me a very nice personal note, mentioning my children, and   
>wishing me well. I saved those cards because I admire the man. If you   
>were to ask Eric Wolfe if he remembers ME, I doubt he would.I'd be   
 
You make my point. First, when you wrote to him did you sigyourself
with the nickname your friends give you? Or "[real name deleted]."?
 
The latter, I'll bet.
 
Second, you were doing what I said Thompson would have done if he
didn't know Freud -- write to him in an area concerning his own inteest.
 
Third, you were a student. Thompson was a US Navy commander and a
student of psychoanalysis and couldn't afford to look a fool by sending silly
postcards to the father of the subject.
 
>YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THOMPSON STUDIED UNDER FREUD. And that,Sir,   
>is that. 
 
You don't knowwhat I have. And based on the above alone, my arguments
are a lot more convincing than yours.

milne@delphi.com wrote: 
>TarlaStar <bmyers@ionet.net> writes: 
>  
>>Because he was a fan. People send cakes, paintings, specially made    
>>gifts of all sorts to those they idolize. It's a regular occurance,    
>>not wierd at all.  
>  
>This was not 1923, not 1965 or 1995. And Freud was not a rock star. 
 
Of course it makes no difference what year it was. People sent gifts
and letters to Lindberg, various Presidents etc, even stage actors. 
  
>>That's because you aren't jack-shit in the real world. I get fan    
>>letters from people I've never met quite frequently. When you touch    
>  
>What sort of a big cheese are you, then? 
 
One doesn't have to be a "big cheese" to move others emotionally. And

since it's obvious to me that your little group has been checking me
out, I suppose you know exactly what sort of "big cheese" I am. 
>  
>>Because Freud was a nice person and probably didn't have a press    
>>secretary.  
>  
>Freud was not a "nice" person. 
 
In your opinion. I'm sure he had many friends. 
>  
>>It strains nothing, Milne. I have two handwritten postcards from Eric    
  
>>Wolfe (famous social theorist). When I was in grad school, I arranged    
  
>>for him to be a speaker at my University. I picked him up at the    
>>airport and ferried him around for the two days he was here. After he   
>>returned to New York, he wrote me asking me to help get some things    
>>straightened out with the Speakers Bureau at my University. I did, and   
>>he wrote me a very nice personal note, mentioning my children, and    
>>wishing me well. I saved those cards because I admire the man. If you   
>>were to ask Eric Wolfe if he remembers ME, I doubt he would.I'd be    
>  
>You make my point. First, when you wrote to him did you sigyourself 
>with the nickname your friends give you? Or "[real name deleted]."? 
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Okay folks, pay attention to this one. Like many folks on the
internet, I  use a pseudonym. This one (Tarla) is one that I used on
another network  for a couple of years and thought it would be easiest
for those who knew  me there to find me here. Besides, I like the
name. The point is, that I  have never used my real name online. It's
not available through my return  address (which is my husband's name).
These FUCKS have deliberately  attempted to invade my privacy because
I dared to criticize them in this forum. Be aware of that. YOU will be
next. 
  
>The latter, I'll bet. 
>  
>Second, you were doing what I said Thompson would have done if he didn't 
>know Freud -- write to him in an area concerning his own inteest. 
 
I guess you were too busy looking for a chance to use my name that you
didn't read my post. I said that Wolfe wrote ME, asking me to help him
straighten something out with the speakers bureau. We didn't discuss
anthropology. 
>  
>Third, you were a student. Thompson was a US Navy commander and a   
student of psychoanalysis and couldn't afford to look a fool by
sending   
silly postcards to the father of the subject. 
 
Which is probably one of the reasons that he signed it "Joe Dim Dog" 
and you have yet to prove that he was a student of psychoanalysis. 
>  
>>YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THOMPSON STUDIED UNDER FREUD. And that,Sir,    
  
>>is that.  
>  
>You don't knowwhat I have. And based on the above alone, my arguments   
are a lot more convincing than yours. 
 
I think I'll leave the 'net to be the judge of that. 
 
^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

William Bardwell (not to be confused with William Barwell) reported on a conversation he had with a Scientologist when he called 1-800-FOR-TRUT. Bardwell was unable to get any further with the Scientologists on the phone than had been done with the on-line variety.


From: William Bardwell <wbardwel+@CMU.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Called CoS...
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 19:25:39 -0400
Message-ID: <wjWkzn200YUpMmRmxO@andrew.cmu.edu>

Well, I called 1-800-FOR-TRUT...
They really aren't willing to answer many questions...(but they will
dance around whatever you have...)
(answers and questions are loosly paraphrased)

ME: Why are OT IX-XV not released, didn't Hubbard finish them?
COS: Yes, he did.  The levels can't be released until certain conditions
are true.
ME: Like what?
COS: Certain conditions about the size of the church.
ME: Why would that matter, aren't they for personal growth?
COS: They are more than that...
ME: So you mean they are about Dynamic 4 and above?
COS: Yes.

ME: I see in WIS it says that some people experience a gain in IQ, are
there any studies or published things on averages or such?
COS: Sure, there are.
ME: Like what, what is it called?
COS: Well just ask your local branch.
ME: What do I ask for?
COS: Where are you?
ME: Pittsburgh
COS: Oh well you can go to a branch in Clarion (phn # for them)
ME: ok, I will call them
[note: not sure he understood my question, somewhere in there, he
mumbled about how I can try IQ tests myself...]

ME: I notice in the "Successes of Scientology" in WIS, it says that
there were 8million members in 1988, but if I add things up being
generous, I have a maximum of 7.5million people who have tried
Scientology by 1990...
COS: Well, what section was that from, a person success?
ME: No, the Successes of Scientology in a thing about a class action
suit.
COS: Oh, Well, those numbers are probably just people on courses right
now.
ME: no, it says people who have gotten books or tried a course at a
church or mission.
COS: Is that per year
ME: yes, it has a bar for a bunch of years, and if you add things up,
it doesn't even reach 8M, and presumably not everyone who has tried
it, is a member
COS: you know 16M copies of Dianetics have been sold, and statistics
show that for every copy sold 8 people read it.  So that isn't
counting everyone.
ME: Right, but that doesn't make them members, everyone who is a
member has been to a church or mission right?
COS: Well, some people may do this in all sorts of ways.
ME: Then they weren't members then right?
COS: I haven't seen these numbers, I will have to look at them...I
don't have the book with me right now...
Me: Ok...
[I may present the COS guy as more disjoint than he really was...but
he was quite evasive, and it seems odd that he wouldn't have the whole
library there, to answer questions...]

ME: Is there a price list I can get for everything?
COS: Sure, just call your local branch.
[I guess I should have pressed and pointed out that the high level
stuff would have to be priced by organizations other than the local
Mission...]


ME: I see that there is this thing that you don't audit illegal PCs,
like people who have done ECT or such, aren't those the people who
need it most?
COS: Well, that is why phsych. is so terrible, it scrambles the
memories...
ME: Ok, but why can't they join stuff
COS: Oh, they can do lots of stuff in COS, there is all these policies
about how to do things...[he said this differently, but this is the spirit]
ME: But Auditing is the heart of it, the spiritual part?
COS: Yeah, they can't be audited, the auditor never knows what is
gonna come out.  We can't guarenty that they will experience gains.
ME: You don't guarenty that anyway, it is just a spritual program...
But it says 100 percent effective?
COS: As an auditor I couldn't take a case where I can't help the person.
ME: But it says it is 100 percent effective, so you just exclude
people who would make it not 100 percent effective?
[...went back and forth a couple times with this...]
COS: yes, well...
[this actually happened later, but included here for easy of reading]
ME: So are people who got ECT in a previous life in trouble for the
rest of their lives?
COS: No, as I understand it, they can be audited.

ME: Are there any studies that show the effectiveness of Narcanon?
COS: Make no mistake it works.
ME: Ok, are there like peer reviewed or medical journal articles or
such? I havn't seen any...
COS: Sure, just call them.
[the lead-in to this was a little different...]

ME: I see in "Have you lived lives before" [I mis-spoke the title...]
there are alot of cases where people experience un-reality, how does
the auditor figure out which things are real, which are just made up,
so they don't re-enforce the made up ones?
COS: [corrected the title.]  Well, he just checks their folders.
ME: No, alot of these it was the first time they worked on the
incident described.
COS: Well, if you were an auditor you would understand.
ME: Can you give me the laymans version?
COS: No, you would understand if you were an auditor, it is a
difficult topic, there are any number of things he could do, it is
just like "if they say that".
[...there was more to this, COS mentioned that this was part of a
study LRH did, and mummbled about this not being standard auditing, I
said it was standard dianetics, mostly based on "what can you confront
about this incident"]

ME: I notice in the end of the list of high crimes in Intro to Ethics,
that it has "Disintigration of people and their property" as a high
crime, what is this refering to?
COS: Where is that?
[...we go on for a bit here, I keep saying it is near the end of the
high crimes section of list of offenses...I am not sure if he had the
book with him or not...seemed like not...]
COS: ok, how is the word disintigrations spelled?
ME: standard way
COS: How is it spelled
ME: [I badly spell it for him], but I don't have the book with me...
COS: Oh, so this is from memory.
COS: Ok, [...reads standard deffinition...]  So, thats what it is.
ME: Isn't disintigrating people already covered in murdering them, and
disintigrating property in destroying it?
COS: Well, No, it is more than that.
ME: Why, seems like it hardly matters
COS: Stuff is destroyed for generations, like chernobyl, that land
won't be usable for a long time.[...partially inrefence to part of
definition that mentions nuclear processes to disintigrate something]
ME: No, that is contaminating, disintigrating requires breaking it
into peices.
[...about it...he wouldn't go off source...just said it is what it is,
"what part of the definition fits?"...]

P.S. he only slipped once and used COS speak (said I was "dubbing-in"
stuff about treatment of illegal-PCs...)
Also he was really touchy about being interupted...
P.P.S. the guy put me on hold for a little while fairly often through
out this...
P.P.P.S. my what a persistant guy...also he recomended reading
Diantics, when I mentioned I had read WIS, Scientology: fundimentals
of thought, Intro to Ethics, and had just got A History of Man, "which
looks interesting"

William Bardwell
wbardwel+@[cs.]cmu.edu

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
On April 11, "Vera Wallace" decided to ratchet up the heat a lot more by posting Tarla's address and phone number. She also published the real names of some "nicknamed" posters. I have blacked out the real names and addresses in the posts below.


From: Vera Wallace <vera@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re:
Date: 11 Apr 1995 16:29:17 GMT
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.
Message-ID: <3meaot$oj0@mars.earthlink.net>

clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk (Clara) wrote:

> Just how wrong could I be? I take back everything I said. Milne, what you
> have done by assigning a name to Tarla is one of the most despicable acts I
> have ever observed. It is intimidatory, it is vicious. This is what your
> "religion" teaches you, is it?

Oh give me a break Clara.  Are you serious.  Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx has
had her say about Andrew's religious beliefs for months and has been
hiding behind "Tarla".   Andrew has rights too and if he feels like
finding out who is trying to dennigrate what he believes in, then he
is free to do so.  There is no law against it and he made no threats
to her.  She certainly hasn't shut up, so it is just a bunch of hot
air that there is any intimidation.  I for one am glad to know the
real name behind her postings.  I think if anything it will cause her
to be more honest about her opinions and in that sense Andrew did her
a favor.  She no longer has to hide.

> "Fair Game" is dead, you said. I agree with Barwell: you lie!

You can't think of anything else to say so you try and go with the 
phoney "Fair Game" arguement.  Get real.  Posting the true name of 
someone who has been giving a false picture of someone's religion is
neither immoral nor illegal nor harassive. It is truth which I know
that you and XXXXXXX XXXXXX must have a hard time with. 

> Just how far would you go to defend your cult, milne? Poison gas in the
> subways? See, we can all play that game. What are you *so* afraid of? Why do
> mere words frighten you so much that you react like a cornered wild animal.
> Lash out, don't give a damn who you hurt, harass, intimidate.......

Aren't you getting a bit out of hand?   What does XXXXXXX XXXXXx have
to hide that she can't put her real name behind her posts?  This is a
far cry from poison gas and you are just using that as a cop out to the
fact that Andrew was completely within his rights to publish her name.
It is a free country and a free net right?  Well, if he thinks that
there should be a name to the postings, then so be it.  I am happy to
see that her name is posted now.  Let her bigotry be associated with
her real name. 

> And this is what study of Scientology does for you, is it? This is how you
> get *improved* as a human being? You have just shown to the world what such
> an improvement leads to.

You can't make an arguement that is logical so you are resorting to
trying to make fun of his religion.  Talk about low tactics.  Look,
what law did he violate?  None.  He did not threaten the woman, he 
did not ask anyone else to.  He merely let the other interested people
on this newsgroup know who was behind her postings. I for one think 
that XXXXXXX does not know the first thing about Scientology and is 
just using this forum to be part of harassment campaign.  Now that I
know her name, she can start being responsible for what she writes
like anyone else. 

> 
> In the end it does not matter one jot whether the methodology of
> Scientologists works or not. All we need to look at is the end product. And
> that end product is you, milne, you and vera and brian and jet and
> Sobocinski and woody and rick and huyeh(whatever the rest was) and all the
> rest of you brain-dead or morality-dead morons who claim to be the successes
> of Scientology (a pox on trademarks).

You are also a hypocrite.  You try to stiffle my freedom of expression
simply because you think it is good that people can hide behind phoney
names and spew out any old lies they wish.  Fine. If they have a right
to do that, then I have a right to publish who is really behind the
lies.  

You can't stand to have someone disagree with your opinions or to 
allow another viewpoint than one you agree with be on the net. Sorry,
but you are not god of the net and you type of morality we can do 
without. 

> If you think that I am writing this in anger, you are dead right. Like many
> others who occasionally make their tiny contributions to the so-called
> "debate" that takes place on this newsgroup (and the even greater number who
> lurk without posting) I joined this newsgroup to see what all the fuss was
> about when Dennis was busted and Kobrin attempted to rmgroup ars over a
> month ago. Now I know in spades!

This newsgroup has never been a so-called debate.  It is mainly a forum
for bigots and Scientology haters.  Dennis was busted because Dennis
violated the law.  I know that is a hard concept for you to understand
but it is really very simple.  If someone violates the law, then they
are subject to the penalties of it.  This includes everyone.

> You belong to an nasty evil cult, milne, and you are its chief spokesman. I
> hope you are proud of yourself and your achievement in showing the cult in
> its true colours.
> 
> Now FUCK OFF.

Clara, your foul language does nothing to enhance your postion. I don't
think you get the pont at all.  Andrew does not hate XXXXXXX XXXXXX
for her rantings on the Internet.  He is only trying to get her to
be responsible for what she is writing.  If she still wishes to write
the same trash as before, then fine.  It is her right.  Publishing 
her name and address is certainly not going to silence such an ardent
critic.  However, if she steps over the line, then she has to be 
responsible legally for her actions.  These are the rules of society
and IMHO they should apply to the anarchy that is on the net.  

XXXXXXX XXXXXX - time to be responsible for what you post.  

By the way these are the full particulars:

XXXXXXX XX XXXXXX
and XXXXX XX XXXXX (must be her boyfriend)
XXXX XXXXXX XXXX
XXXXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXXX
(XXX)  XXX-XXXX

Vera

===

From: Vera Wallace <vera@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Names of ars posters
Date: 11 Apr 1995 21:45:29 GMT
Message-ID: <3met9p$rf2@mars.earthlink.net>

I believe in free speech and freedom on the net.  I also believe that
it is my right to publish the names of the true identities of 
individuals on the net who are taking actions which threaten those
freedoms by their irresponsibility.   
 
There have been instances of ars being used for illegal purposes in-
cluding to make death threats (in the case of Martin Hunt), to 
illegally distribute copyrighted materials (in the case of Dennis
Erlich and others), to advocate illegal activities be taken against
Scientologists (this came out recently from an anon poster), and use
of the net as a forum to foment bigotry and hate crimes.

I believe that this type of activity is not really an expression of
freedom of speech and will ultimately cause legislators to start 
making restrictions on the net which will penalize us all.  Laws are
generally made to protect the majority from the criminal minority but
end up restricting the rights of everyone equally. 

Those who are using this newsgroup to criticize are free to do so,
however, IMHO there are those who are using it to create hatred and
bigotry.  This I believe is morally wrong.  Thus, if I learn the 
true identities of anyone on this newsgroup, I will publish them so 
that all can see who is behind such acts.  If anyone has the name of
an anonymous poster or a poster using a false identity and you do not
wish to reveal the name yourself, send it to me and I will publish
them.  There is nothing illegal about this whatsoever and any attempt
to make it seem so is bs.  So far we have:

XXXXXXX XXXXXX - who is on as "Tarla Star"

XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX - from the great state of Texas, who is on as
        "Sri Changi Saar"  (or however he spells it)

XXXX XXXXXr - who is on as "Modemac"

Not to mention "Deeney3" who is really XXXXXXX XXXXX (aka Tubby).

Vera

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

"Vera" also showed that she was unrepentant, and indeed, she encouraged milne to keep up his harassing work.

From: Vera Wallace <vera@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re:
Date: 11 Apr 1995 15:57:32 GMT
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.
Message-ID: <3me8tc$oj0@mars.earthlink.net>

rnewman@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ron Newman) wrote:
>
> Andy:
> 
> You are scum.
> 
> You have committed an unforgiveable act.
> 
> Tomorrow, I'm going to pay a visit to Delphi headquarters in
> Cambridge, Mass., with a printed out copy of your article and Tarla's.

Oh boy, now we see who is really trying to destroy free speech on the
Internet - Mr. Newman.  Andrew has every right to post the name of a 
poster who is not who she says she is. If she has the right to stand 
up on her soapbox and dennigrate Andrew's religion, then certainly he
has a right to publish her name, her address, rank and serial number. 
It is a free country even though Mr. Newman doesn't seem to think so 
and wants to try and control the net by getting Andrew kicked off be-
cause he is a voice of dissention on this newsgroup.  Shame on you 
Newman!  You are a hypocrite of the worst kind.  I think that Ms.
Houser should take her lumps like a grown up and start posting under
her real name so that all can see her real opinions and her bigotry.

Newman should appologize for trying to get Andrew kicked off the net
and thereby violating his first amendment rights.

Well done Andrew.  Do you have any more of the real names of these
hypocrites?  In fact I think I will look some up and post them. 
I find it unbelievable that Newman would resort to censorship tactics
over this.  It is a real mistake on his part.

What was XXXXX XX XXXXXX's address? -  XXXX XXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXX, 
XXXXXXXX. XXXXX.  Telephone: (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

Vera

^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

====================Deana M. Holmes================================
mirele@xmission.com================ Compiler of History of a.r.s ==
========You can get anything you want at Xenu's Restaurant=========
================Practicing encheferation since 1995================