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-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.
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.
The Clark comments:
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
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.
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".
Random Quote :