>>email@example.com (Jon Noring):
>>>Whip, your constant harassment of henry is
libelous, vindicative, spiteful, and shows only hatred.
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Diane Richardson):
>>And yet you don't consider Rob Clark's constant harassment of Keith Spurgeon, or any of dozens of others who have been subjected to henry's venom, "libelous, vindicative, spiteful"? Very
email@example.com (Jon Noring):
>Does it matter? I was talking about Whip, not henry.
Whip and you are on the "offensive", a true Inquisition of almost Spanish proportions,
while at this moment henry is on the defensive.
Yes, it matters a great deal, Jon. You are apparently more than
willing to apply a different set of standards to the behavior of an
avowed Scientologist[tm] than you are to a critic.
You haven't uttered a word of protest about the various off-topic
spams this newsgroup is regularly subjected to, at least none that I
can remember. Where is your protest about Christ Sodomizer's myriad
posts? Do you actually consider his posts on-topic to this newsgroup?
You are a hypocrite plain and simple.
Henry's on the *defensive*? Get real, Noring! Rob Clark has not
responded to Whippersnapper's posts.
>When henry becomes "offensive", that should be dealt with at the time, and in the *appropriate* manner, according to accepted Usenet-wide netiquette.
>And if you recall, it is a very well-known Usenet
principle of netiquette that individuals who get into fisticuffs should take it via e-mail rather than doing it in public. Have you and Whip offered to do this? I'm actually surprised this hasn't been brought up as the traditionally offered solution.
Rob Clark long ago informed me that he does not wish to receive email
from me and that he will post as abusive any email that I send to him.
Rob Clark is the person who began littering this newsgroup with his
vicious name-calling, lies, threats, and innuendoes about me and Keith
Of course, Rob's viciousness didn't concern you. It didn't bother
you. You didn't bother reading it, so it meant nothing to you. Why
not deal with what Whippersnapper has to say the same way you dealt
with Rob Clark's spew? Why not just grow a thicker skin, Jon?
>>>It is also very off-topic.
>>No more off-topic than a Senate investigation into
charges of unethical practices by one of its members, Jon. Or would you consider that "off-topic" as well?
>The Charter to a.r.s., just posted,
That's no "Charter," Jon. That's just something that was dreamt up at
the moment and posted to the newsgroup. That "Charter" was never
agreed upon by the readership of this newsgroup. It was never voted
upon. There was never any consensus of the newsgroup to accept such a
You really do appear to be desparate to stop discussion of the
so-called "bomb threat" incident. I find that puzzling.
>specifically states what is and is not acceptable to discuss here. Your example of the Senate does not apply here as I stated in a previous post. If you don't like the current Charter,
*What* current charter, Jon? You are truly grasping at straws.
>then try to get consensus on a revision. On Usenet, there are appropriate places to take possible abuse to, and there is always the ISP of the poster to contact. And regarding henry, the "investigation" was already done
a while back and conclusions were drawn.
What "investigation" was done? Who did it? What conclusions were
drawn? Or was this a secret investigation and the results only
imparted to you and a small chosen few?
>You will not change that unless you can bring *totally new information*. Otherwise, the case is closed, and bringing it up (with no new "smoking gun" data) is a violation of
Usenet netiquette in several ways as I've outlined here and in previous posts.
Jon, who elected you the dictator of a.r.s.? I can talk about
whatever I damn well feel like talking about here, and that's not a
hell of a lot you can do about it.
If you want to go whining to my ISP about my "off-topic" posts, be my
guest. You'll be greeted with the scorn appropriate for such mewling.
>[BTW, it's been brought up that discussing the Charter
and related subjects is not allowed by the Charter! But it is a common Usenet exception that matters dealing with newsgroup operation problems (e.g., talking about what is and is not on-topic) is on-topic even if the Charter does not
specifically mention it (as most Charters don't even say to follow Usenet netiquette, but we know that Usenet netiquette applies even if the Charter does not say
>Of course, I'm sure you'll say then that Usenet tradition does allow a scrutiny of what's been posted in the past for lies, abuse, etc. True, and in the case of henry, that was *already done* a long time ago, when the so- called "bomb your..." was made.
Sorry, Jon, that didn't happen. You're trying to rewrite history
here, and the more you whine about this the more I'm beginning to
wonder why you doth protest so much about it.
>The bringing up of this subject (again) is clearly off-topic since nothing new has been added and it is only being done to dead-agent henry since you didn't like what he said about your equally silly "investigation" into Paulette Cooper. The 'henry affair' is
a historical event that is archived on DejaNews and which is NOW off-topic unless you can find brand-new, never before seen evidence. So far, I have not seen anything new under the sun, and all you and Whip's protestations
are simply noise which clearly works against the purpose of this newsgroup.
Jon, you can scream "off-topic" as often as you like. Be my guest.
Just don't expect me to read your whining drivel after this. I will
continue posting as I like to this newsgroup which does not, btw, have
a charter. No doubt others will disregard your efforts to enforce the
rules that you've unilaterally chosen to apply to a.r.s. and post as
they see fit as well.
>>>Now before you claim I'm being hypocritical
because I'm focusing on you and not others, let me say that, yes, there's a lot of off-topic posts
to a.r.s. (the thread on Paulette Cooper has become off-topic since it is not
focused on CoS anymore), and I hope the readership of this newsgroup can
collectively refocus itself to the clear purpose of this newsgroup which is to
discuss and investigate Scientology.
>>Rob Clark's claim that a line was appended to one
of his a.r.s. posts is quite relevant to this newsgroup. To claim otherwise is specious.
>Sure, but that's old news, and it's been investigated
and dealt with, as Ron Newman's recent post clearly shows. But bringing it up again now (with nonew information as far as I can tell) is clearly *now* off-topic.
Ah, I see. So now you've decided to change the rules. Not only is
discussing another critic's actions on this newsgroup off-topic, but
it is also off-topic to bring up a topic that has been discussed in
the past. Well, I guess you'll rush to quash all those reposts that
appear here (e.g., who drowned Judge Swearinger's dog?) just as
quickly as you've rushed to shush up Whippersnapper.
Does that mean we won't have to live through the agony of Marina's
Singalong again this Christmas? <grin>
>If this can't be buried, then what can? This newsgroup
would drown in minutiae of accusations from posts made several years ago. It would defeat the primary purpose of this newsgroup. A line has to be drawn. Some things will just have to be left uninvestigated because *there's more important things to investigate*. We just can't close everything to our satisfaction. Thus, it is important for each of us to prioritize our focus based on rational criteria, and not let emotions dictate this.
*We* can do whatever the hell *we* wish to do on this newsgroup, Jon.
And there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
>And I did mention one legitimate way around the line
is to create a new newsgroup to investigate the things you want to investigate -- that is your outlet if you need one. Heck, if it's an alt.* newsgroup, I'll create it for you (after it is discussed in alt.config of course)! I know how to issue the appropriate control commands to create newsgroups.
I've got all the outlet I need right here, Jon. If you don't like
what I post, killfile me. If you don't like what Whippersnapper
posts, killfile him. What's the matter, Jon, too thinskinned?
>>>But I'm focusing on you because your posts are
off-topic *and*, in addition, absolutely disgusting by their barrage and intensity. They are a
double and maybe even triple violation of accepted Usenet-wide netiquette. Egregious violations of netiquette require a more vigorous response
than just kill-filing.
>>And Rob Clark's posts to this newsgroup have
always been well-reasoned, polite, and restrained? You must be thinking of someone other than the "henry, henri, rclark," etc., that I'm
>Did I say that? No. But right now, the noise in this
newsgroup (in addition to the spam) has been getting to be ridiculous. And I see several people ganging up on henry for no good reason, and doing it in *public* (rather
than via e-mail). You can argue all you want about it being alright (because maybe henry 'hit' you first), and henry may actually deserve it (debatable), but anybody in their right mind can see the *motives* behind the new Inquisition, and it is not for self-protection or defense -- it is clearly vindictive and in the case of Whip, to divert attention in this newsgroup, and thus by traditional Usenet netiquette is alone not allowable.
This newsgroup is large enough to accommodate numerous threads.
Attention isn't "diverted" -- people can choose to follow whatever
they wish to read here. Your argument is specious.
>>>I haven't contacted your ISP yet, but will
consider doing so if enough other people on a.r.s. think it should be done. Whip, quit hounding henry
on this newsgroup (take it up via e-mail or create your own newsgroup to
harass henry), and begin posting about Scientology, which is
>>Why not contact *my* ISP while you're at it, Jon?
And the ISP of every other participant here with whom you disagree? Your
"off-topic" argument is a thinly-veiled attempt to abridge the right to speak of those with whom you disagree. To claim otherwise is sheer hypocrisy. Perhaps you can fool yourself with this argument, Jon, but I doubt if you're fooling many others.
>I didn't talk about you, I talked about Whip. And
notice you forgot to read carefully (I always thought you to be a careful reader, Diane) "..if
enough other people on a.r.s. think it should be done." If enough other people don't think it should be done, it won't -- I won't. Can't you read what I wrote?
I read it, Jon, but just as you jumped on that proposed Charter and
decided that it was already signed, sealed and delivered, I have no
doubt you'll rush to decide that enough others agree with you to act.
This was done to Cory Brennan quite some time ago. Critics contacted
her ISP and complained about her "off-topic" posts. It ended up
making some critics look like damn fools, and those critics were *not*
supported in their actions by the majority of a.r.s. readers. Diane, your seething hatred for Henry and Paulette
Cooper is clearly seen in your posts. I urge you to consider taking a long vacation and freshen up your mind. It must be wearing on you.
Thank you for your concern, Jon, but it is quite misplaced. I need no vacation -- I'm doing quite well. My mind is as fresh as it's ever
been. Perhaps you should examine your own motivations a little more
closely before you begin issuing judgments on those of others.
>And ask yourself this -- what good does it do? Is it worth it? Twenty years from now, what are you going to think of all the work you put into beating dead horses, while all the
live horses were running all around you?
Neither you nor anyone else is going to tell me what to think, what to
do, or what to write about, Jon. If anything, advice such as that
which you proffer here does nothing but strengthen my resolve to
continue posting to this newsgroup. Thank you for the encouragement.
>The gratification you are getting now for your "investigative" prowess will be very empty when the dust
settles, and very few, if any, will appreciate what you did. Even if you prevail with Paulette Cooper and henry, and convince the world they are scum or worse, what did you win -- what did you accomplish? Did it serve a useful end result that bettered mankind? Somehow I don't see Paulette or even henry as any kind of "threat" to mankind. But you must, otherwise I just
can't understand all the energy you are devoting to investigating Paulette, and even henry, while bigger fish are out there. It is totally confusing.
Sorry that you are confused, Jon. Not much I can do about your
inability to understand the nature of things. Just don't bother your
silly little head over my posts and I'm sure you'll end up just fine.