Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact

Rob Clark and the Fake Bomb Threat

On April 11, 1995, Rob Clark, now posting as "PTSC" in ARS, made a post which ended by a sig saying "BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!". When the Church of Scientology (CoS) complained to his ISP about what they considered a threat, Rob Clark claimed the line had been added by the CoS themselves, something which, more than two years later, he admitted was a lie. On October 4, 1995, the CoS deposed a criminal complaint and Clark was fired from his job as he was posting from his work place, where he already had receive several warnings for misbehavior.  This incident became the top example on Ron Newman's page on how the CoS "tries to silence its critics by framing and harassing them". Some time later, Rob Clark claimed to be "broke" and set up a fund to collect money using his new hero and martyr statute for the "cause of free speech".

It was Diane Richardson and Keith Spurgeon who exposed the lie in November 1996. It took another six months for Rob Clark to finally admit he had been lying all along. His "Apology to the Church of Scientology", however, so readily accepted by critics, is replete with derogatory attacks against the very people he is supposed to apologize to. Needless to say, Rod Keller didn't say *a word* about the incident in his "ARS Weeks in Review", anymore than he said anything about the Cooper thread or other incidents that badly reflect against critics.


The so-alled bomb threat
Letter of Termination
The Sham fund
Diane Richardson exposes the fraud
The so-called "apology"

The so-called Bomb Threat

Rob Clark's so-called "bomb threat" post. While the line may be innocuous by itself, the CoS claimed they received an actual threat shortly afterward and were afraid some internet nuts might follow Clark's line through. The explosion of the Oklahoma city building, a mere eight days later, certainly didn't do anything to quell their concern.

anon2c9e@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)

11 Apr 1995 22:31:53 -0600

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: copyright violation?
Message-ID: <3mfl3p$539@nyx10.cs.du.edu>

In article <noodleD6uHCF.468@netcom.com>,
Rick Sherwood <noodle@netcom.com> wrote:
[100 lines of stuff from this spamming jerk deleted]

>  You mean, don't confuse me with the truth. Right, Diane.

hey, at least she doesn't quote a hundred FUCKING LINES of stuff to FOLLOWUP with two lines of stupid zombie gibberish!

you stupid noodlehead motherfucker.

>  Gosh, Diane you won't ever be confused by the truth.

that's for sure. 

unlike you, the truth does not confuse diane. 

evidently, it confuses you greatly.

>You won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

hey, give me that ten foot pole. 

i'll whack the shit out of you with it.




Letter of Termination

On Oct 4, 1995, Rob Clark was fired from his job when the investigation that followed the CoS criminal complain led to his work place from where he was indirectly posting. Here is the letter of termination. The comments are from Rob Clark himself. However, if Clark's behavior at work was anything like what his behavior on ARS is in general, then it is clear that his boss' version is the correct one.


Accu-Weather, Inc. [Note: The name has been changed to AccuWeather]
619 W. College Avenue
State College, Pennsylvania 16801
814/237-0309 * FAX 814/238-1339

Joel N. Meyers, President Elliot Abrams, Sr. Vice President
Barry Lee Myers, Exec. Vice President Evan A. Myers, Sr. Vice President
Michael A. Steinberg, Sr. Vice President Joseph P. Sobel, Sr. Vice President

October 17, 1995

Mr. Robert W. Clark
[P. O. Box 222
State College, PA 16804-0222--this represents my current address]

Dear Rob:

When we met the other day you had requested that I send you a
letter reviewing specifically the reasons for your termination
from employment at AccuWeather.

As you know, when we met on Wednesday, October 4th and I showed
you the various messages containing obscene language, which
could also be interpreted as threatening and intimidating that
were originating from our facilities. [1] You acknowledged
the fact that on work time you were preparing and sending
these messages from our facilities out on the Internet. [2]
This was the third incident in several months of misbehavior
at work and I viewed it to be sufficiently serious, on its
own to terminate your employment. [3] When coupled with
prior infractions this decision was further supported.

Therefore, the reasons for termination can be considered
as follows:

1. Prior incidents of misconduct at work for which you had
been given specific verbal warnings and in fact, the last
time I met with you I told you that I could not have a
situation recur and that was the final warning. [4]

2. An incident of misconduct did occur involving the above
mentioned profanity being sent out on the Internet from
our computer facilities. You admitted responsibility
for it. [5]

3. These activities besides reflecting upon AccuWeather and
placed [sic] AccuWeather in a bad light and could have
potentially lead [sic] to legal liability of the company.

4. These activities were conducted on work time when you
should have been devoting yourself to AccuWeather tasks
rather than consuming many hours of time on the Internet. [6]

We consider these actions to be intentional and willful
misconduct. [7] It is therefore, with regret that I felt
we had no choice but to terminate your employment immediately
as of October 4, 1995. A check has been prepared and is
available to you to pay for the work that you performed
through that day plus accumulated comp time and vacation
time. It is available for you to pick up at your leisure.

Very truly yours,

Barry Lee Myers

CC: Employment File

The Clark comments:

[1] This is very cleverly worded to appear other than it is. I never acknowledged sending any threatening email whatever. I refuse to give credence to the notion that the posts  I had made to alt.angst could be interpreted as threatening or intimidating by even the veriest of idiots, and these seemed to comprise the large part of the posts which I  was presented. It is also neglected that the only message which could be interpreted as threatening or intimidating is a message I never sent. 

[2] Furthermore, none visibly emerged from AccuWeather, and numerous of the messages were in fact not originated from AccuWeather facilities at all. Those which were not could certainly not be considered, and the others would, I assume, have to be judged on a message- by-message basis.

[3] While I am certain that should there ever be a hearing concerning these 'several months of misbehavior,' during which I had volunteered to work Christmas and Thanksgiving, and never once refused additional hours or to change shifts on no notice whatever, as AccuWeather often does, they  will be able to produce something, the only incident in which I was ever warned by a direct superior of anything of consequence was in regard to checking my voice-mail. Never did I received a written warning concerning any of these incidents, and I don't remember any other verbal warnings. Certainly, if one is to deliver a verbal warning it ought to be recognizable as such.

[4] I assume this is a reference to the specific matter of voice-mail. This was, as is well-known, immediately rectified when brought to my attention.

[5] I believe 'an incident' is quite unclear, as earlier he had alleged 'various messages,' which would indicate several 'incidents,' had it been true. Therefore, I  can't respond to this, as I have no idea which 'incident' is alleged to be misconduct, or, for that matter, 'profanity.' I will further note that profanity and obscenity were fairly common elements of language in my work environment, particularly when working on the archaic and outdated equipment used by AccuWeather,  which requires continual jury-rigging and quick-fix solutions.

[6] I had made no secret of spending time on the Internet. Indeed, on most occasions that I came in for a shift change, it was very common for the person I was relieving to be looking around on the World Wide Web while others who were off the clock played Doom or Magic. No direct  superior of mine in my department had ever questioned this, and I had even discussed it with coworkers, specifically an incident in which someone claiming to support a racist organization called the "National Alliance" had sent  unsolicited email to tens of thousands of people.

[7] I will note only that 'willful misconduct' is a legally-recognized phrase given force by, among others, the Unemployment Compensation, thus mandating its use  despite the fact that it is hardly clear whether or not this has been established in a reasonable manner to be the case.


The Sham fund

On October 27, 1995, Rob Clark (always posting here as "henry") claimed he was without resource as a result of the CoS frame up and established a fund, which he called the "sham fund", and which he asked his fellow critics to feed. Here is the post.

henri@netcom.com (henry)

Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:31:55 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.activism,alt.censors hip

As you may be aware, on October 5, the wanted felon Gene Ingram slithered into town with a pack of lies and talked with the State College police of PA, and filed a trumped-up criminal charge against me for "terroristic threats" he claimed I had made on April 11, consisting of the phrase "BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!" I naturally deny this. The entire thread in which the so-called "bomb threat" occurred is available at http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~anon2c9e/forgery and the statute under which I may be prosecuted, as taken from Purdon's Consolidated Statutes for PA, is available at http://nyx10.cs.du.edu:8001/~anon2c9e/threat, as are related statutes.

Shortly thereafter, the State College police came to my job at AccuWeather and produced a sheaf of my posts. I was fired on the spot.

Gene Ingram had already left town to harass Edward Lottick, father of a cult victim whose suicide was documented in the Time article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power," an article which spawned the Fishman-Geertz lawsuit and can thus be seen to be connected with the current conflict. Apparently, he posed as a Medicaid official.

This is the situation. I have been suddenly left with no resources whatever nor any way to do so much as pay my rent. I was really hoping not to be forced into this, but--you guessed it--I'm going to hit you up for money at this point.

Here's the address, suitable for .siggifying, tossing onto web pages, or just scrawl it on a scrap of paper:

Make out check or money order to:
Robert W. Clark
P. O. Box 222
State College, PA 16804-0222

Please write "SAVE HENRY'S ASS" in the memo field of the check.

The Save Henry's Ass Movement (SHAM) is _not_ a defense fund. It is _not_ a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, and therefore donations will _not_ be tax-deductible. In fact, it isn't even an organization. It's just a name I made up. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

You may, if you wish such to be known, provide your name, address and phone number. However, as you may know, it is probably safer to send it anonymously. Nevertheless, you will all have my gratitude. I may think of something to send to hundred dollar donators or something, maybe a tear-stained certificate of slack or something, but I can't quite work up to the cheesiness of that quite yet.

Give me time.

Money sent to this fund will be used to meet the immediate needs of paying rent and keeping the electricity on and food in my refrigerator. It may even buy me a pack of cigarettes. I might even use it to buy peanut butter, if I'm required to dodge the draft any time soon.

If I am indicted based on this crippled dog of a case it will at that point become a defense fund, and perhaps even a 501(c)(3) organization. If I am not, and this emergency passes, any excess funds, should such exist, will be recycled preferably to a 501(c)(3) organization which I believe would be a good idea for someone who knows about such things to create.

Such an organization would serve as an umbrella fund for the defense of any other persons harassed by the criminal cult, and cover incidental expenses concomitant to such harassment. However, the position I'm in makes me rather
less than a credible founder of this organization. It needs to be founded by someone who is not in legal hot water themselves and funds controlled by a Board of Directors of impeccable credibility.

Should such a 501(c)(3) organization not exist, I'll split it up at my own discretion between any such defense funds as still exist. My own emergency situation may be transitory, but repercussions will no doubt continue for some time.

I know I'll find it rather difficult to explain to any local employers precisely why there's a big black spot on the last year or so of my history, despite having performed all my duties of employment. Even my letter of discharge does not state any duty which I failed to perform.

In any case, I will let the following testimonials for this fund attest to the excellence of my character.

- - ---
"Can't you see he's a CON-MAN? This henry person is obviously a psychopath, a pathological liar, and a career criminal. Don't you know about how he got out of gym class by dressing in a cheerleader's outfit, smearing his hair with Smucker's strawberry jelly and singing 'I'm a Little Teapot?' Don't you?

-- Rick "ferSure" Wood

"Even as a child, he was already precocious in a taste for crime. Already prescribed the pernicious psych drug Ritalin, it was obvious to all that this child would come to no good end. You see before you now the culmination of the
psychiatric atrocity."

-- A. A. Milne, author of "Winnie the Shrink"

"Not only that, I hear he's FAT. Real fat! When he sits around the house, he SITS AROUND THE HOUSE!"

-- Virulena Wallace

- - ---
As this glowing praise makes easily apparent, I am obviously of sterling character, a fine person and all that, so SEND ME YOUR MONEY! PLEASE! An eight-hundred mile-high L. Ron Hubbard appeared to me in a dream last night and said he'd "sell me to the Marcabs" if I didn't get

Make out check or money order to:
Robert W. Clark
P. O. Box 222
State College, PA 16804-0222

Please write "SAVE HENRY'S ASS" in the memo field of the check.

- - --
I thank you. The Net thanks you. Xenu thanks you.

(Lest my levity make you think otherwise, I'll state on the record that the situation is actually pretty serious. I just refuse to _take_ it that way. If I did, I'd go nuts.)


Diane Richardson exposes the scam

During the Cooper thread in November 1996, Rob Clark did everything he could to try and stop Diane Richardson from revealing documents she uncovered about Paulette Cooper and which showed Cooper in a bad light. One of the countless tricks he used was to claim Diane cheated on the court where she obtained these documents, and he kept on repeating this lie despite the fact he had been corrected several times and despite the fact it had been proven false by Ron Newman calling up the court. This was the last straw which decided Diane to reveal something she had heard before but which she didn't quite believe until she witnessed Rob Clark at work - that all along he lied about the so-called "frame up" the CoS had supposedly played on him.

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: WERE THE BAST TAPES CUT? (Lies and Libels) [2/3]

referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: WERE THE BAST TAPES CUT? (Lies and Libels) [2/3]
Message-ID: <56tpfs$hq7@clark.zippo.com>#1/1
Organization: Zippo

anon2c9e@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:


>In article <56nvi5$ch1@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <referen@bway.net> wrote:

>>anon2c9e@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:

>>But they don't say the same thing you've said to me or others about this incident.  You've been less than honest to people -- either here on a.r.s. or while you were in your cups and speaking from the heart about all manner of things.  When were you lying and when were you telling the truth, Rob?

>WTF are you talking about?  tell me what you claim i'm stating.  precisely what are you charging?  or is this your usual 'lead up to some utterly minor bogus "revelation" with a lot of dark hints' bullshit.

I am claiming that you have stated on Usenet that the "bomb threat" line was appended to your original post.

I am claiming that you have told others that you yourself included that line in your original post.  You were quite drunk when you wrote that post and didn't think about what the consequences of your words might be.

When you saw the response from Scientologists[tm] to your post, you got scared and invented the "forgery".  You have admitted this directly to someone we both know.

>spit it out or shut the fuck up, you disgusting treacherous joe mccarthy clone.  i asked you a question about the records center--did you answer?

I certainly did answer you, Rob -- repeatedly.

>no, you resort to irrelevant THREATS about events of a year ago.

It is no threat.  It is a direct accusation.

>i hope people remember what this thread is supposedly about--diane has spent well-on a year trying to assassinate paulette cooper.  questions arose as to her own motive. she responded to those questions by digging up the filthiest libels about whoever disagreed with her that she could, and is now helping out OSA in their case. now she is making vague accusations, as usual.  like the clamlike mccarthyite cunt she is.

I am not making any vague accusations.  I am making a direct accusation.  Do you deny it?

Diane Richardson


Clark's so-called "apology"

Here is Rob Clark's "apology". While his honesty in finally admitting to it has to be acknowledged (but did he really have a choice?), the way it is being formulated certainly raises question as to it being a genuine and receivable apology for the CoS, or whether the apology is more targetted at his fellow critics so they can now forget all about the incident. Just ask yourself if you would accept such an "apology".

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.


xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark)


Message-ID: <33b48237.14613979@news.mindspring.com>#1/1
X-Server-Date: 28 Jun 1997 03:33:35 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Reply-To: xenu@mindspring.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

on a certain date a few years ago i responded with intense anger to a posting by one of your paid agents provocateur, and i posted the line "BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!" with no intention that any such thing happen.

in fact, if there were violence against scientology and a violent faction who opposed your cult through violence, i would switch sides long enough to make sure that any such scumbags paid for their crimes. so far, your only true violence has been the six punches in the face to roland. i hope your cult didn't intend such a thing to happen and that this was merely an out-of-control member. for that one transgression i can forgive you, but i only forgive you for the experience i had when knowing that your cult would punch roland six times in the face, so what would it do to me?

susan meister was pulled off the apollo and her body hidden with a bullet-hole in the head. if the story is not discreditable, why did your cult harass her father for years? why'd they hide the body, just like they're doing now in mcpherson?

your cult got away with that one.

i "got away" with what i did as well, in a certain sense. i got overwrought, made an asshole comment, then when called on it i tried to run away from it and lied about it.

this is what your cult does. i was partially-influenced by your tactics when i responded to your tactics by acting on them myself. then i did what you always do whenever you get caught in a lie. "uhhh, i never said that. xenu, what xenu?" then i tried to blame it on my critics.

now i'm saying hell with that. i said it, i was wrong, i retract it, and i apologize to any scientologists anywhere who were actually terrified by the thought of a random net idiot like me spewing whatever silly thoughts came into my head without having the sense to edit what i wrote before i sent it.

i find violence repugnant, and i am ashamed of the possibility of even for a moment seeming to encourage violence.

sorry. i also apologize to anyone i told that lie to, people who deserved better, deserved the truth.



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
Site map
What's New














Who's Who



What Is?



The Tech








Scientologists Speak