This is an example of a critic impersonating a
Scientologist to make Scientologists sound as abusive fascists. In this case,
the troll was exposed when I looked at the posts details closely. But how many
more go unnoticed?
"Trolling",
in internet term, consists of posting to elicit a response, usually anger or
argument. It often involves impersonating
someone else.
In this example, because the
Scientologists appeared more level-headed than Scientology critics, a critic
started trolling, pretending to be a Scientologist, and started to be extremely
abusive and obnoxious.
While sometimes trollers reveal the
sting, it was never the case here. Phil Scott, the critic who trolled, simply
let the situation as it was, with the deliberate intention to portray
Scientologists as fascists. It was only found out months later when I dug up
what was behind these posts.
The incident happened in September
1999, when critics invaded the alt.flamme.psychiatry newsgroup to attack a
Scientologist who was posting there. Things didn't turn out too well for
critics, as outsiders remarked on critics' rudeness and bigotry:
Usenet post from the
newsgroup alt.flame.psychiatry
Mr. McKean [the Scientologist]
has shown what the vast majority of ARS commandos have not; respect,
humility and consideration. When Scientologists were politely asked to
leave another mental-health related newsgroup by that group's
regulars, they politely left. And as far as I know, they haven't been
back since. All we've asked is that people from your newsgroup NOT
flood this room with posts that have nothing to do with the topic at
hand. You have every moral right to counter Mr. McKean's CCHR posts
with related material that illustrates what you believe to be
contradictions. You do not have the moral right to flood this room
with taunting, insults and accusations.
Shortly after, a new
"Scientologist", "Sue", appeared in alt.flamme.psychiatry.
In reality a critic impersonating a Scientologist. Contrary to McKlean,
"she" was extremely abusive. Here is one of the many posts
"she" made (the header is left in full for further analysis):
Usenet post from the
newsgroup alt.flame.psychiatry
From: suer9965@my-deja.com
Subject: Re: Why let Scientologists into this newsgroup
Date: 23 Sep 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <7scm2h$nba$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <7san98$8ue$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
<19990922143127.16453.00000527@ng-fu1.aol.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 www.proxymate.com:3128 (Squid/2.2.STABLE4), 1.0
x37.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.178.22.18, 204.178.22.18
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 23 07:49:39 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDsuer9965
Newsgroups: alt.flame.psychiatry
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.07 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i686)
[snip]
YOu know something DB, we spent over 94.2 million
dollars last year
just prosecuting you internet terrorists... we have files on all you
bastards. Big thick ones with photos, and school recordS, bank
records, telephone records...you getting a hint jerk? And yes Hubbard
meant what the hell he said. YOu people are done for, your families
are disease ridden, even your damn pets stink. you SCUMMY filthy sack
of shit.
You know LRH said it best the first time, in
Dianetics Modern Science
of Mental Health, and I will quote him exactly "dispose of them
quietly and without sorrow", got that ASSHOLE. He was talking
about
the scum that cant make it, the misfits, the jerks of the world, the
2% suppressives. Get rid of them and the WHOLE WORLD will be better
off. Its right there in black and white asshole, you better get a
clue, we are growing fast, and soon it will be YOU who is watching
your back, not us. Mike McClean has the courage to do something about
it. Thats a LOT more than I can say about you DB.
arc. sue
As can be seen, the post is clearly
construed to look as if it comes from a Scientologist, and its apparent purpose
is to try to offset the bad impression critics made on outsiders by trying to
make Scientologist sound even worst.
The real author behind "Sue",
however, can be clearly traced to a regular ARS critics, who was also an
assistant on the Operation Clambake website:
Phil Scott. Here is the analysis that led to this undisputed conclusion:
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 07:40:16 -0400 ptsc
<ptsc@my-deja.com> wrote in
<ts88vs0jejmskug1csd04m97f8cqd69l42@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:22:41
GMT, mail@bernie.us-inc.com (Bernie) wrote:
>>OK - so what would you say if I told you that this suer9965@my-deja.com troll was Phil Scott?
>I'd say prove it and then say
let's smack Phil if it turns out true.
Well, I dunno about smacking, but here are the
evidences on which I
base my opinion:
1) Go to Deja.com, switch to discussion search and
type "effudix",
setting the search option to "all". Now examine the result.
Of the
whole of usenet, only Phil Scott and Suer have had the same ailment
and the same unique way of healing, it during the same period.
2) Examine the respective NNTP by choosing
"View original Usenet
Format" - they are the same.
3) Click on
Suer9965 then on "more" and
see how Suer mostly trolled in
the same four newsgroups Phil has been posting at that time:
ARS,
alt.clearing.technology
alt.self-improve
alt.flame.psychiatry
Read
some of Suer's troll and see how often she refers to
Phil Scott and
how some of her preoccupations are similar.
IMO, the evidences are pretty convincing. What you
think?
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:36:30 -0400 ptsc
<ptsc@my-deja.com> wrote in
<hob9vsk8u9v0grdgsr22elhtendqa62quc@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 19:51:27
GMT, mail@bernie.us-inc.com (Bernie) wrote:
>>1) Go to Deja.com, switch to discussion search and type
"effudix", setting the search option to "all". Now examine the
result. Of the whole of usenet, only Phil Scott and Suer have had the same
ailment and the same unique way of healing, it during the same period.
>Fascinating.
>>2) Examine the respective NNTP by choosing "View original
Usenet Format" - they are the same.
>The same ISP at least. It seems like
it might be a different regional dialup. That could also just be a result of a large modem pool.
The 206.180.234 IP block has been fairly stable.
The last block is
just the dialup port.
Something else to observe is that
1) apart for
Suer, nobody else than
Phil has ever used that ISP in ARS, at least not in 1999-2000 which I
checked
2) the use of that ISP by Suer is anterior to Phil's use. She
started to use it in Oct 5 and Philip in Nov 17 - so it can't be
somebody trying to frame him up
3) same for the effudix mention.
Unless the troller had amazing OT powerz who could guess that Phil
would mention it later, it's hard to imagine it's anybody else than
Phil himself.
>>IMO, the evidences are pretty convincing.
What you think?
>I'd tentatively say so.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:02:03
-0700 realpch <realpch@aol.com> wrote in
<39F5EABB.26EA44CC@aol.com>:
>Ouch! The similarities are
striking. But how do you get from there to Marie Jeskar?
It shows that such troll already
happened. It's just a further element to play with in trying to
ascertain the truth behind the Jeksar case.
Despite a couple of critics having to
admit the evidence, there wasn't a single comment made to condemn Scott's
behavior, much less any "smacking". Like for so many other incidents
that badly reflect on critics (The Paulette Cooper
thread, the rogue canceling of Scientologists' posts, the
fake bomb threat, the false accusation of cat killing, etc), the incident is kept quiet. Had the same trolling been demonstrated against a
Scientologist, critics would have raved about it on and on and on for years on
end.
Note1, however, that this kind of
trolls are possible in other newsgroups than alt.religion.scientology (ARS).
In ARS, it would be fairly quickly recognized and exposed as troll by some
other critics because of the sheer exaggerated tone used. This does not mean
that critics would not troll as Scientologists there, but they would have to
be a bit subtler.
Note2: More than five years after I wrote
this page, I received an email, probably from Phil Scott himself,
questioning some of the findings on this page. I do
not have time to analyze it now. I am quite sure to find it faulty when I do,
but in the meantime I just post it as-is.
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.
