From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 13:43:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anti-Scientologists
Message-ID: <199606090245.EAA05922@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>1. There's a gang of flamers (David Gerard, Jon Noring, Ron Newman, Rob J.
>Nauta, and the like) who try to stop $cientologists from discussing their
>religion on the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology. Most of them are
>disgruntled former cult members and/or members of other similar cults.

Untruth #1. Aside from the "religion" red herring you tossed in (it's a cult), the critics expose the lies, doubletalk and inconsistencies posted by cult apologists. (It should be noted that these people aren't generally "just another satisfied Scientologist," but are cult employees who are carefully vetted to distribute propaaganda without ever answering critics' questions.)

[snip]

>3. These harrassers are Usenet Cabal supporters, and they are sometimes
>joined by initerant cabal enforcers such as Peter Vorobieff, who visit a.r.s
>to lend a helping hand and to flame Co$.

So what's your point? Besides, there is no Cabal fnord. :-)

>4. Recently the anti-scientologists have asked me for a copy of my cancelbot,
>and have been using it to forge cancels for scientologist posts on a.r.s.

Untruth #2. Articles canceled from a.r.s. have been multiple postings of standard Scientology tracts (over 10,000 in all, so my newsreader says), spread out over various alleged users. These aren't intended to promote discussion -- they're intended to bury the newsgroup in noise.

Apparently being selected Kook of the Month causes disturbances in one's ability to distinguish the correct from the incorrect. (Or is that how one gets the award in the first place?)