From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Diane Richardson
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 1997 11:37:27 GMT
Message-ID: <3504bd7a.80957085@snews.zippo.com>
wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote in article <66ul2c$ijg$1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> (alt.religion.scientology):
>I promise not to 'debate' Richardson on anything until the nonsense on the two silly claims Diane made about my reasons for opposing Scientology have been either proven as challenged.
You still didn't quote the silly claims you said she made. How can she proves or challenges something that does not seem to exist, Barwell?
To make it easy for you, I
neatly put these requests here under
(questions 8 and 9), together with a few other requests for evidences
about some of the statements you have been making in this thread -
evidences which I am sure you will be delighted to provide.
================================================================
From: referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 05:15:02 GMT
Message-ID: <34920eef.11477906@snews.zippo.com>
On 10 Dec 1997 20:37:32 -0600, wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
1 ----------------------- unsupported charges ------------------------
>Cooper repeatedly made accusations of this sort, against the evidence,
You're exhibiting your typical level of confusion here. I assume you meant Richardson when you typed Cooper above. If my assumption is correct, quote the accusations you allude to. Document the accusations you claim I have made. After you've quoted me, provide the evidence you have that you purport refutes these alleged accusations.
>without any evidence to support her charges,
Quote the charges you insist I made against Cooper, Barwell. I don't mean accusations you imagine I've made. I mean the actual words I posted to this newsgroup, not the fuzzy, slurred burbling you've engaged in on this thread.
2 ------------------------ ugly insinuations -------------------------
>and repeatedly afterwards made ugly insinuations. scapegoating Cooper for charges that were ridiculous and not supportable, and which, when pointedly challeneged on,
Again, Barwell, quote the ugly insinuations you claim I made about Cooper. Document these statements. All my posts are archived in Dejanews. Find them. Repost them.
3 ----------------------- specific challenges ------------------------
>Challenged exactly and specifically on the point of if having such hidden evidence to justify her charges, she should then eschew the petty Bast drippings ect. and cut to the heart of the matter, Diane proved to have nothing.
What exact and specific challenges did you make, Barwell? I certainly don't recall your challenging any specific points. You did the only thing you know how to do -- flame. You're capable of producing a lot of heat but no light whatsoever.
>Go back to Dejanews. Note my very specific challenges to Diane on these very specific and narrow points.
I've gone back to Dejanews and cannot find any specific challenges you presented to me. If you are so certain such specific challenges exist, you can certainly locate them and repost them. Or can you?
>Diane had steppeed over the line and that was plain to see from her utter failure to respond to my challenges, made very specific and narrow specifically to cut to the alleged heart of the matter and get this over with, one way or the other.
What "very specific and narrow specifically" challenges did you make, Barwell?
4 ------------------------ Judas to the cause ------------------------
>I gave Diane every chance to put her cards on the table for once and for all and show why ARS critics should hold Cooper to be a Judas to 'the cause'.
When did I state that Cooper should be considered "a Judas to 'the cause'", Barwell? Be specific. Quote my words. Include the message id.
5 ---------------- oppose CoS for the wrong reasons ------------------
>>I just re-read that damn thread and you spent plenty, if not most, time discussing the real/non-real religion thing. Do you honestly believe people were thinking you oppose the CoS for the *wrong* reasons?
>Diane apparently does. Or at least she claims I do.
Would you care to quote my words claiming you oppose the CoS for the
wrong reasons? This is yet another of your fabrications, Barwell.
================================================================
From: referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 13:30:56 GMT
Message-ID: <3492861d.2855858@snews.zippo.com>
On 13 Dec 1997 02:24:50 -0600, wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell) wrote:
6 ------------------------- WNYC ------------------------ -
>Since that fiasco, what vast amounts did this Richardson post here? Specifics now!
I point once again to the WNYC talk show program that ran April of this year. I've repeatedly given you the URL for the transcript and realaudio files of that program. I've continued to ask you for your opinion of that work. You are either too embarrassed or too stupid to admit that your claim I've done nothing since posting the Cooper lawsuit information is inaccurate.
7 ---------------------- real vs. fake religion ----------------------
>Just cause it was a fake religion, and just cause Hubbard had his culties wearing priest costumes. Yeah, that was a real informative debate. Really. How can one not agree with such a scintillatingly logic conclussion with so much scholarly supporting evidence for these conclusions.
I note you ignore the fact that you insisted the CoS was not a "real" religion, as opposed to other religions. That was, after all, the issue which was being debated. I repeatedly asked you for your opinion of what constituted a "real" as opposed to a "fake" religion. Rather than admit the illogic of your argument, you unsuccessfully attempted to place the burden of defining your own terms on me.
8 -------------------- pronoucement about Barwell --------------------
>And do you think I only oppose Scientology just because I think it is a fake religion as Diane so confidently pronounced?
When did I make such a pronouncement, Barwell? As you're demanding from others, I insist that you be specific. Quote my words. Include the message id.
>Do you think I judged Scientology a fake religion because Hubbard decided in teh early 70's to have his cult adopt religous trappings and uniforms, as Richardson so confidently informed all of ARS?
When did I confidently inform a.r.s. of this, Barwell? Quote my words. Include the message id.
9 ------------------ challenge to prove assertions -------------------
>Note I challenged her to prove these assertions and she never ansewred me. And seems to after about the third challenge in as many days, left ARS. Maybe she is researching the answer?
What assertions did you challenge me to prove? Quote my words verbatim. Include the message ids. If you are incapable of backing up your assertions with specifics, you'll prove conclusively that the hot air blowing through this newsgroup is coming from you.
>Whaddya think? Sad to see a superbrian like yer friend Diane make such a silly set of claims, but when you run from one set of claims to another, to another in this sort of flame war, you usually put yer foot in it sooner or later.
What "silly set of claims" was I making, Barwell? Be specific. Quote my words. Repost the entire messages, including message ids.
================================================================
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: And then there is a shill
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 14:32:15 GMT
Message-ID: 35136165.95052773@snews.zippo.com
Joe Harrington <joeharr@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article <666npm$lb5@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> (alt.religion.scientology):
>They have overwhelmed the court systems with their frivilous lawsuits
More HarringtonFact we will never see evidence of.
>and have successfully intimidated the tax collection agency of the most powerful nation in the world
More HarringtonFact we will never see evidence of.
>and gathered potential blackmail on every conceivable enemy.
More HarringtonFact we will never see evidence of.
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: And then there is a shill
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 14:35:27 GMT
Message-ID: 35186289.95345575@snews.zippo.com
Joe Harrington <joeharr@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article <666npm$lb5@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> (alt.religion.scientology):
>And they continue to penetrate government agencies around the globe.
More HarringtonFact we will never see evidence of.
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: And then there is a shill
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 12:23:32 GMT
Message-ID: 3562953a.155529315@snews.zippo.com
Bev <dbj1120@iag.net> wrote in article <3489E981.265B@iag.net> (alt.religion.scientology):
>Bernie wrote:
>> Joe Harrington <joeharr@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
>> >They have overwhelmed the court systems with their frivilous lawsuits
>> More HarringtonFact we will never see evidence of.
>Sigh, see http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/ to begin with. This does NOT cover all of the lawsuits from their front groups and still is not complete yet.
Do you have any evidence that this "overwhelmed the court systems"?
>> >and have successfully intimidated the tax collection agency of the most powerful nation in the world
>> More HarringtonFact we will never see evidence of.
>The lawsuits of scientology against the IRS were costing the tax payers a lot of money as well as the investigations. That does not include all of the individual Co$ members who were also carrying lawsuits with the IRS.
>Also, whether you care to see it or not, the claims that David Miscaviage his own self made, part of which were also carried in Internation Scientology News, were very informative from his own words that an "unexpected" visit by him on IRS headquarters and what he spoke behind closed doors to (can't remember his name now but it's on record) the man in charge at that time, is very suspicious and not the normal avenue taken by other corporations with the IRS.
Do you have any evidence that this resulted in a "successful intimidation"?
>> >and gathered potential blackmail on every conceivable enemy.
>> More HarringtonFact we will never see evidence of.
>Bernie, if you truly were in the Co$ as you say then unless they kept you in a closet :-) you have to know of the policy about writing up Knowledge Reports and about the policies on gathering information on Co$'s enemies. Their files are vast.
>In the TIME magazine article when it tells about the Co$ mother church being raided by the FBI AFTER the Co$ was discovered to have infiltrated government offices and tampered with official government files, Ted Gundersen (sorry if I spelled last name incorrectly) who was one of the FBI heads there even stated that he was amazed at the extensive files that Co$ had, that they even rivaled those files of the FBI. That is a ~real~ validation of the extent of Co$'s files.
>Please don't pretend not to know that Co$ gathers information on their enemies. It won't float here where people know better and it does hurt your credibility as far as being someone who is supposed to be familiar with the Co$.
Do you have any evidence that they gathered potential blackmail on "*every* conceivable enemy"?
These are the kind of overboard statements Joe indulges into posts after posts. The same goes for his statements to the effect that Melton Gordon is on the payroll of the CoS, that OSA kidnap and assault freezoners, etc, etc, etc.
When asked to provide evidences for such ludicrous claims, he is "not interested". Freezoners are never "interested" once you confront them with their own words. They can't take responsibility for their own actions. It's part of the whole escape-into-tech/blame-OSA setup.
Bernie
From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Questions for Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 21:45:50 GMT
Message-ID: <34bc3aff.54201985@snews.zippo.com>
More Bird droppings:
Message-ID:
<Wu4BF2B5QLf0EwhR@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>Thus for Barnie the Barmie Belgian, Lisa
macPherson is "somebody else's problem"
This is being added to the growing list of unsubstantiated and ludicrous allegations from Dave Bird--St hippo of Augustine for which he never provided evidence:
>_________________________________________________
><guZMVCBSr7U0EweK@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>Hmm. I can EXPLAIN the killings: He asserts that they are justified,
><sIdvczBAr9U0Ew9l@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>Oh fuck off, you tedious twit. I simply point out that Barnie constantly promotes and defends a bunch of extortionate killers
><s7Tfw0Ak6OT0EwW7@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>I see. You are a resolute apologist for
killers.
><h3DczoB9gSV0Ewny@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>If only that he was busily earing the
funds to send off to America to kill people (and dogs) there?
>Barnie's trivial picque at finding out he did all that work to support a bunch of killers, I suspect.
>I have never met one so dishonest as to say, "I refuse to acknowledge any connection with this."
><r2sODfBOnjW0EwPS@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>And perhaps Barnie disagrees with reality
because he is barking mad.
><APUUNBBxLqR0EwgR@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>That's my guess. There has been a lot of
noise from obnoxious lying scum, for all I know one person with three accounts,
posting as whippersnapper & barnie & richardson,
>Message-ID: <ggTs20As2VR0Ew2z@xemu.demon.co.uk>
[Bernie]
> is still obsessed with the organisation.
>Message-ID:
<ggTs20As2VR0Ew2z@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>Barnie clings on to the bits of the cult
which halfsane people reject: the killing, extortion and deceit.
>Message-ID:
<ElU1HNAZcAb0EwyL@xemu.demon.co.uk>
> There are only two
[follower of Koos],
>Carol Willis and Koos's cousin Bernie; you might as well email them.
>Message-ID:
<GS6FqCDQtnX0EwAA@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>I agree---
[Sister Clara]
is playing the fool. But gags about why the mafia are such nice guys really are sometimes beyond a joke.
>Message-ID: <23wZDIA5vSX0EwUD@xemu.demon.co.uk>
[Diane says]
>Grady is terrible for all that stuff he says, and we shouldn't say "clams" or "poodelboy" or "'ho of babble-on".
_________________________________________________
Bernie