From: CL <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Answers ....
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
Date: 17 Jan 2003 20:28:59 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Magoo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Since someone who is
extremely rude and of course "anonomous"...
Yeah, and of course you
fail to mention that I don't charge a dime extra
for either. But for some reason, I have a sneaky feeling we'll be
revisiting "rude" and "anonomous" [sic] before we're done
>a number of questions that he claims I'm too affraid to answer, I
>decided I'd make a seperate post, as his contains all his BS/snide
>remarks, vs just asking the questions. Here are the questions, and my
My god. I'm speechless.
>Let me first state
that although this person seems extremely offended
>that I haven't taken up these issues, the truth is there are skillions
>of issues I haven't taken up,
I'm not talking about "skillions
of issues." Let me 'splain this again
in the exact same words I used before, and maybe you can grok it this
time: I'm referring, specifically, to "dominant, overriding, cardinal
and absolutely central facts and issues." That's ~exactly~ what I said
in my original post. What part of that don't you understand?
>because there are plenty
of people here
>who know TONS more than I re these issues. Remember, I left having
CLUE: If you have no familiarity
or discourse with the "dominant,
overriding, cardinal and absolutely central facts and issues," then you
HAVEN'T "woken up." Can I get you a cup of hot black coffee? Would you
like a crueller with that?
>and have been recovering
Gimme' a second: I'm putting
>I'm still sorting things
>If someone doesn' t like my posts, I suggest you read others.!
A period and a "bang"
are not necessarily good things together. I think
the rule is: "Period: yes, 'bang': no; 'bang': yes; period: no."
Something like that.
>Ok...here's my shot
at areas I know little about:
>>1. Are you aware that the 501(c)(3) corporation known as "Church
>>Spiritual Technology" (CST) owns ALL copyrights to ALL the works
>>Ron Hubbard and Scientology, even those written or altered by others,
>>including ALL the "Advanced Technology"?
>>Yes, or no? (If the answer is "no", go to the url above and
>>and all links on that page until you understand it fully. Teach.)
Knock me over with a feather.
>>2. If your answer
to #1 was "Yes," when did you first become aware of
>>the fact, and how and from whom did you learn of it?
>Not really sure, sorry. I believe I actually started learning about
>this as I began reading ARS when I first started posting here as
>Magoo, in June of 2000.
Excellent! So, if I understand
your testimony, in all the time you were
actively working with OSA and other senior Scientology terminals, this
crucial information about the ownership and control of the copyrights by
CST was entirely withheld from you. You never heard it even mentioned by
any of them. Correct me if I'm wrong, otherwise I'll take it that this
is your record.
>>3. Were you aware
of it while you were closely associated with and
>>actively promoting the proven perjurers Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?
>I've been learning of these thnigs ever since I left.
Well, yes, you've already
alluded to that, but your reply is
non-responsive to the question. The point is that you materially and
actively supported and promoted both Minton and Brooks, and their
organization, and their activities, yet they both made a career out of
the claim that "DM" was the supreme leader over all of Scientology,
having allegedly inherited all the power and control from Hubbard--which
not only is ~a~ fucking lie, but is ~the~ CENTRAL and CRUCIAL fucking
lie. Yet this was Stacy Brooks Young's mantra. This was her raison
d'etre. Didn't you know that or bother to find out? You're not ~that~
fucking profligate and promiscuous in the people and activities you
throw your support and endorsement behind--are you?
Because throughout their
entire history, both she and Minton strenuously
avoided any and all discussion of CST, who ACTUALLY--literally and
figuratively and in every other way--~had~ inherited all the wealth and
power and control of Scientology, AND of the Hubbard estate, including,
even all his fiction works and the income from that.
Yet at the very same time,
both Minton and Brooks were posing themselves
as the great crusaders AGAINST the money and power of Scientology. All
of this is extremely contrary, even to a deaf and blind ox, especially
given the fact that Stacy Young had been the Org Officer at ASI during
the EXACT period when Meade Emory, Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and
Lawrence E. Heller were setting up the new corporations (including
having created ASI itself)--late 1981 through mid 1982.
Didn't you bother to find
So not only did Stacy Brooks--who
you closely allied yourself with and
endorsed and support--have CONSTRUCTIVE and IMPLIED notice of CST's
actual role and power and control, she ~received~ ACTUAL notice from me
right here in this forum as far back as July 1999--prior to you ever
coming into the picture--when I rubbed it into her face while she was
doing more of her peddling of the "DM" myth. Now, I ~know~ she RECEIVED
that actual notice of the facts at issue, because she REPLIED to that
actual notice. And then when it was insisted that she address those
actual issues, she turned tail and ran from the discussion.
That particular exchange
with Stacy is very difficult to find and then
follow in Google, because that "ATTN: GERRY ARMSTRONG--Some Questions
REPOST" thread ranks amongst the most egregiously and voluminously
spammed/sporgeried threads in the a.r.s. archives--thanks in no small
part, I believe, to you. But, GOOD NEWS: it didn't work. Every relevant
actual article in that sporgery storm has been tracked down. It's all
recorded here, and I think you should do whatever it takes to make the
time to study it ~very~ closely:
1. My original "ATTN:
GERRY ARMSTRONG--Some Questions REPOST" article:
2. Stacy's attempt to deflect
the questions and save Gerry's evasive
3. My reply to Stacy's
lies and tap-dance:
4. Lying, perjuring scum
Stacy turns tail and flees:
5. My poignant farewell
to Stacy as she fled:
So now you know that Stacy
had ACTUAL notice of the role, power, and
control of CST all the way back in July 1999. (And if you were too
fucking lazy to go to the links above, never fear: I'm reposting all
five of them for your immediate access and gratification.)
So are you suggesting that
~no~ mention of ANY of this EVER came up in
all of your associations and communications with Minton and Brooks? They
didn't keep you blindfolded while you were there, did they--you know,
like Minton in his trip to the "Dorian" citadel, and Mayo on his secret
trip to write NOTs so they could be used to replace the OT Levels?
You understand my problem
here: I'm getting credulity stretch-marks. You
mean you completely threw your lot in with these two--who were the High
Priest and Priestess of the "DM is all and everything" lie--at the same
time you were "learning of these thnigs" [sic], learning of this
COMPLETE contradiction to everything Minton and Stacy were preaching and
teaching regarding where the money, power, and control resided in
Scientology, and this NEVER came up? You never once raised this question
with them? Even later, when you knew there was a big issue made of
whether those two were attempting to get DM named in the McPherson case?
Please help me out. The
needle on my Bullshit Meter is not only pinned
in the red, it's bending and straining and starting to smoke. I feel
certain you can clear this all up and make it make some kind of sense.
>>4. Were you with
Bobbo when he wrote his immortal words, "I don't
>>give a shit about CST"?
>Who is Bobbo? If you are referring to Bob, was I with him? No.
Yeah, I know. It was a
>>5. Are you aware
that CST owns ALL controlling interest in the most
>>important trademarks associated with Dianetics, Scientology?
>>Yes, or no? (If your answer to #5 was "no," go to the above
>>study it and all links on that page in depth until you understand it
Well, good. Glad you're
on the record.
>>7. While you were
actively working as a covert operative with OSA, or
>>at any time, did you ever meet with or speak with, or otherwise
>>communicate with--through any medium, or by any means--Sherman
>>Lenske, Stephen Lenske, or Lawrence E. Heller or anyone known by you
>>to be representing them or their interests? Yes, or no?
>I wasn't a "Covert Operative".
You fucking covertly secured
an internet account for OSA under false
coloration and representation, without appropriate disclosure of who you
were securing it for, so I don't give a flying fuck HOW you want to
assuage your conscience or slice and dice words.
>See "Magoo's Timeline
with OSA" for facts.
I've seen your anecdotal
account, and, just personally, I prefer
something to be verifiable, reasonably documented, and/or responsibly
and reliably corroborated before I give it the "FACT" label. Maybe I've
got the bar raised a little too high for your standards and tastes.
>Did I speak with any
ofthose people? No..never even heard
>their names while "in".
Good. Glad you're on the
>>8. Are you aware
of the fact that non-Scientologist attorneys Sherman
>>Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller are appointed for life
>>as "Special Directors" of CST, and as such have enormous and
>>powers over both CST and all Scientology materials and assets, and
>>therefore all of Scientology itself?
And your answer, which
you slipped in at the end of that paragraph, was:
Good. Glad you're on the
>>10. Who runs Scientology,
and how do they maintain control over it?
> Hey.... I thought DM and RTC did while I was "in"..... until I
>reading about these attorneys.
Which you said was in 2000,
when you started posting in a.r.s. as
"Magoo." Were you not reading a.r.s. prior to that? Because the
information about "these attorneys" (BTW, it's okay for you to type
their names) and their roles has been being posted in a.r.s. since at
least 1997. Did you somehow miss it all until 2000?
>I still haven't sorted
it all out.
Oh. And when do you think
you might get around to it?
>I've heard the attorneys
OWN it, yet DM and gang still "Maintain
LMFAO! Tell me anything
else, in all of your knowledge and experience,
anywhere, at any time, where one party OWNS something, but another party
"maintains control" of it--other than with the permission and approval
of the owning party, which permission and approval can be rescinded by
the owning party at any time. Anything. Any example. Just one will do.
This I gotta' hear.
>Who did I hear this
from? Not sure...someone here on ARS.
Why would you GIVE a ~FUCK~
who you "heard it from"? What if you heard
that the fucking sky was falling? Would you duck into shelter? I gotta'
find out if you're ~really~ this fucking stupid, or if it's all just an
>Perhaps you can fill
me in more...naw...
Well, see, here's the problem:
I, and plenty of others, have been
"filling you in" for at LEAST 2 1/2 fucking years now, and I didn't
apply for the Special Ed position. Maybe you can find a fucking
"Remedial Education for Problem Students" tutor. Maybe you can go stand
in the fucking Ritalin line so you can focus.
>I'll just read the
sites when I can.
Yeah. Why don't you just
do that. Just when you get around to it. In the
meantime you can keep pumping your usual uninformed horseshit and
anecdotal rabble-rousing into the forum by the gallon.
>>11. Are you aware
that all actual power formerly inherent in the Sea
>>Org was formally stripped by the "Tax Compliance
>>Manual"--particularly complete and sole-discretion power over
>>personnel and their placement and job-security--and was transferred
>>solely to the boards and officers and executives of the "new"
>>corporations created by "former" IRS Assistant Commissioner
>>Emory (with the assistance of Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and
>>Lawrence E. Heller)?
>>Yes, or no? (If your answer to #11 was "no," go to the above
>>study them in depth until you understand it fully. Teach.)
And your answer was:
>No. I'll have to study
them later......gotta go to work.
Yeah, you do that. In the
meantime you can keep spreading completely
false and misleading bullshit around the world about how the Sea Org and
sub-sub-sub-lieutenants at OSA like Bill "Yes Man" Yaude are "The
Story," and keep people endlessly busy chasing red herrings down dead
ends. Somebody's gotta' do it, right?
>>12. Are you aware
that CST--which owns ALL copyrights and sole
>>controlling interest in the most important and controlling
>>trademarks--was founded by non-Scientologist "former" Assistant
>>Commissioner of IRS, Meade Emory, who was in that IRS position when
>>the alleged thefts from IRS occurred that resulted in the destruction
>>of the Guardian Office?
>I've read parts of it....probably will get to reading ALL of it
>sometime, but certainly not right now.
Oh, no, certainly not.
It's only been sitting on your face for three
>I'll leave it up to
you to continue telling people of it.
Thanks. Much obliged.
>Yes....I've read parts of it..,,and will have to read them.
No rush. Give yourself,
oh, three more years.
>Meanwhile, you can
spread the word.
Thanks. Much obliged.
>>13. Why have you
spent years in this forum actively avoiding all of
>>these dominant, overriding, cardinal and absolutely central facts and
>>issues, while simultaneously promoting proven perjurers, and creating
>>endless distractions from these facts with your whines and moans and
>>melodramas over what a "victim" you have been?
>That's your take. Is it true? No. Many people write to me each day
>thanking me for the posts I've made.
>Some people have left
the Cult because of it.
Uh-huh. And look: you got
your "Cult"-word usage stat point for the day!
Ms. Singer will be proud.
(You know her, right? With
the "American Family Foundation" (AFF)
<SPIT!>. You know, she's the one who did the seminal initial
"brainwashing" studies for the CIA in the 1950s on the Big Switch and
Little Switch Korea POWs. Remember--all of which data somehow made its
way into the woof and warp of the RPF. Imagine that! Oh, yeah: she also
worked closely with Jolly West. You know him, right? He was
Wollersheim's personal psychiatrist, and also was the CIA's and DIA's
oversight psychiatrist on the Remote Viewing program--which of course
was entirely based on the OT Levels that Mayo helped the Lenskes and
Starkey replace by writing NOTs. Oh, yeah: West was also with AFF
(actually helped get it started, along with Singer), which FACTNet had
listed as one of the corporations to turn all of its assets over to upon
dissolution. Oh, yeah: Stacy and Minton, like Gerry Armstrong and Arnie
Lerma, served on the Board of FACTNet--but you knew that, right? Oh,
yeah: and West and Singer were also both heavily involved with CAN,
which just happened to wind up belonging to "Scientology"--which of
course is run by Lenske, Lenske and Heller. Oh, yeah: and Singer and
West were tight with Robert Vaughn Young, too. Oh, yeah: And prior to
"joining" Scientology, Robert Vaughn Young did "part time volunteer"
work at Vacaville prison at a time when the CIA just HAPPENED to be
using some of that juicy Singer-researched brainwashing "Tek" on some
black prisoners there--a program that (and this will shock you) West and
Singer were both involved in. Oh, yeah: then Singer and West just
HAPPENED to also be involved in the Patty Hearst "brainwashing" case,
which just HAPPENED to involve one of those key Vacaville prisoners, and
which ALSO just HAPPENED to have the secretly CIA-contracted SRI Remote
Viewing project--in the persons of Hal Puthoff and Pat Price--pulled
into it to "help" police identify Hearst's kidnappers. [Would you like
me to document all this in detail? I'll be happy to.] Jesus! God
~really~ works in mysterious ways. Kinda' starts to make your eyes swim
in their sockets, doesn't it?)
>>You think this
is THE key...and yes...it IS huge.
Nahhhhhhhh. Probably nothing
to it. Just get around to it when you get
around to it.
>>However, you have
studied it, you know it, you can talk of it.
You sure got ~that~ part
>I'm just a person who
was actually here fighting the critics, and
>suddenly one day my entire Scio/Truman show cracked open.
I am just ~SO~ happy for
you! I bet you need a hug.
>posting about my life as people kept asking me questions. IF you find
>that a distraction, I suggest you don't read it. Many others have
>told me it has a) helped them understand the cult better b) has
>helped people learn about OSA and what they do c) Has helped some
>people actually wake up and leave.
I left all that bilge you
wrote in place because I'm trying to help you
get your "cult"-word usage stats up for Meg. :)
>So to me, those are
Uh-huh. By the way, Singer
wasn't involved in any way getting "help" for
the "mystery woman," was she? And "Kim P." isn't connected
is she? "If you know. If you know."
>That isn't to say what
you say isn't
>just as important, or certainly more in many ways. But it's what I'm
>comfortable with, and it's what I know at this time.
>You call me a "Victim".....that's just OSA BS they love to spread.
You know, I've been *wondering*
who torched Joan of Arc.
>Why are you passing
it on? You know in Scientology as soon as someone
>is labled a "Victim', it is considered absolutely worthless.
Look, twit, I don't need
"Scientology" or "OSA" to know a professional
victim when I see one. I was firing them before I ever even HEARD of
Scientology. Got it? So take your "Truman Show" on the road or shove
up your ass.
>So if you consider
my story of how I woke up,
Assumes facts not in evidence.
>and what things helped
me to do so worthless, so be it. Others do not.
>I'll discuss whatever I damn well please, and your stupid futile
>attempts to put me down are just what you say: Distractions (as well
>as a nice assistance to OSA, I might add).
Uh-huh. Oh, yeah. I'm quite
certain that OSA just fucking LOVES me.
Brilliant analysis. Worthy of you. Uniquely worthy of you.
>>Or are you going
to run and evade and muddy the waters and sling
>>around some ad hominem at me? Or are you going to refuse to enter
>>into a discussion of the facts on the unassailable grounds that I use
>>vulgar words? Or even better: you gon' try again one of your
>>flatworn-brained schemes to "out" me?
>None of the above....
LMAO! Okay, that was ~really~
a good one. I've got to give it to you. I
had no idea you had such an appreciable sense of irony.
>although you sure are
a jerk, per your writings.
>It might help *you*
to do a bit more work on the healing end of
I ain't wounded.
>>Well, all of the
above will simply go to reveal your true colors and
>I hope so. No doubt you will twist them around to fit your
I don't need to twist a
single fucking thing. I just lay it bare, that's
all. I deal in documented, verifiable facts--not in an agenda. It's very
easy to spot the "agendas": they always consist largely of anecdotal,
unverifiable assertions, and they always avoid, neglect, or dodge
around the documented, verifiable facts of the most important issues.
>the nice thing is people
aren't as stupid as you'd hope them
>>And do you know
what, Teach? None of your wormings and squirmings and
>>distractions ever change the truth worth a tinker's dam.
>Well....tell that to the people I've helped who are now free from the
Man, I think you're in
"Affluence" on your "cult"-word usage stats. Take
libs. Tell 'em CL said so.
>Oh that's right, you
can't! You're too scared to come out of
>the closet and tell us who you are.
Ohp! I see you're teasing
that "you're an anonymous coward" card up out
of your hand. (Somehow, I just ~knew~ this was going to come back
around.) Gonna' actually play it as an excuse to dodge the facts and
issues, or are you just toying with the idea?
>I know who you are,
<GASP!> You ~do~?!
Oh, please please please don't tell anybody, okay?!
(Oh, but wait: since you said I was helping OSA, I guess they wouldn't
want to come after me, so I guess it wouldn't matter, huh? See, now I'm
getting all confused.)
> but I'll let you play
Uh-huh. You don't have
a clue what "CL" stands for, do you? If you did,
you know how amusing this is. But, well, I'll let you play your game.
>Hope you do work on
the healing end...you could REALLY use some.
Thanks for the OCA evaluation.
Don't bother sending me your bill.
>>Can't wait to watch
you squirm and turn. Or run. It can only be
>Well...I'm sure this will give you tons to bitch and moan about.
>That's all, "CL"...I refuse to get into a long ping pong game with
>someone who is a rude as you.
Ohp! There comes the "rude"
<CHUCKLE> Wow. You
and Stacy and Gerry and Lerma. Everybody in your
little playpen always seems to play the same cards, always seems to have
a "trumping" excuse for not discussing the documented facts, and it
always seems to boil down to some problem with ~me~. Sure you don't want
to go ahead and play that "it's because you're an anonymous coward"
card, too? Then you'd have exactly the same hand they've all held--a
handful of nothing.
>Until you clean up,
spit on someone else.
I wouldn't waste perfectly
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
"In Wollersheim's case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."
--Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid
"Your latest 'post' was longer than two paragraphs, so I didn't read it."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----