This usenet post (an excerpt of which I use in my Clam Derogatory Expression Against Scientologists List) is now missing from Google.

I happen to have a copy of it in my archive, though. Here it is.


From: spicelabs@access1.com (IG-88)
Subject: Re: Scientology attacks animal sanctuary
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 05:54:21 GMT
Message-ID: <343ebe0b.89552466@news.accessone.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kirk11-21.accessone.com


On Thu, 09 Oct 1997 03:03:20 GMT, xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark)
wrote:

>:spicelabs@access1.com (IG-88) wrote:
>:
>:>Some people just can't accept they are at fault, and need to blame
>:>everyone but themselves. Just because you feel you are helping out the
>:>little kitties doesn't absolve you of the fact your are in violation
>:>of the local zoning laws. Whining about this in the newsgroup wont
>:>help you the only thing that can is 1. Move or 2. get rid of said
>:>cats.
>:
>:what is your real name, anyway? are there any zoning violations in
>:your residence?
>:
>:the point you seem to have missed is not that the animal sanctuary is
>:in violation of zoning regulations. that should be dealt with by the
>:government, not by vigilante cults libelling and falsely accusing of
>:felony animal abuse. the investigation in fact proved those
>:allegations false.
>:
>:rob

My real name isn't relevant here and is a pretty shallow attempt at
misdirection, as to any zoning violations in my residence I can say
zero I don't have any pets larger then a hedgehog, don't run a meth
lab nor are then any vehicles up on blokes in my front yard. The point
being whether or not the clams called and lodge a bogus complaint
isn't relevant here since there was a violation sure it wasn't the
violation of animal abuse but just having too many animals at the
resident it's just that easy to understand. If Mr. Young had only 2 or
3 cats and the clams had called the city on him for abuse I would have
sided on his side on this subject but hey we can't go around ignoring
laws just so because it pleases us.

I'll play the devils advocate here for a moment.... I may feel that
having 20 or 30 animals living in a single residency house as "abuse"
I call the city they then come out and find all animals healthy they
find no abuse, but they do cite the home owner with a zoning violation
now was I wrong in calling the city because "I" felt there being so
many animals in a single building constitutes abuse and the
owner/renter gets cited for a totally different violation?

If you play with the "Clams" you had better watch your back they have
in the past showed that they play dirty and with little regards to the
law.



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless