Subject: Re: OSA attacks my phone Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 17:20:21 UNDEFINED References: +lt

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

From: (TarlaStar) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: OSA attacks my phone Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 17:20:21 UNDEFINED Organization: Internet Oklahoma Message-ID: References: <3lsji0$> In article <3lsji0$> (Jeff Jacobsen) writes: In addition to what you have mentioned, I would add that I recently got a call from a "Judy" who claimed to be from my internet provider. She said that she had lost some files and was making sure that I was still using my provider. She asked if I used Internet OK and then asked if the account was in the name listed in my return address. I confirmed it, since that stuff is pretty visible who reads here, but I was suspicious, so I immediately called Internet OK, and asked about "Judy". There is no such employee and they did not call me. But the upshot is that Internet OK is warned about Helena et al, and I appreciate the info below. ------------------- From: TarlaStar Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: "Snake" Thompson and Freud: A Few Logical Points WARNING! Date: 6 Apr 1995 13:19:45 GMT Organization: Internet Oklahoma Message-ID: <3m0pph$> References: <3lrppe$> wrote: >TarlaStar writes: >You make my point. First, when you wrote to him did you sigyourself >with the nickname your friends give you? Or "[name deleted - RN] "? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Okay folks, pay attention to this one. Like many folks on the internet, I use a pseudonym. This one (Tarla) is one that I used on another network for a couple of years and thought it would be easiest for those who knew me there to find me here. Besides, I like the name. The point is, that I have never used my real name online. It's not available through my return address (which is my husband's name). These FUCKS have deliberately attempted to invade my privacy because I dared to criticize them in this forum. Be aware of that. YOU will be next. ---------------- From: TarlaStar Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Tell The World the Truth Mr. Milne Date: 7 Apr 1995 10:33:30 GMT Organization: Internet Oklahoma Message-ID: <3m34dq$> Here I sit, like so many others of you, reading a newsgroup. You may be doing this at work, or maybe like me you consider the internet your entertainment time. I've said a couple of times before what my relationship is to this group...a nil. I don't currently know any Scientologists. I've never had a run-in with any of them, until this newsgroup. Now I sit here wondering what the hell did I do? I've asked questions here that the church members cannot or will not answer. I've persisted despite that. I've asked questions on the internet, that is all. Because I DARE to ask questions, because I have the unmitigated temerity to expose facts and demand same, I am being harrassed and investigated. TELL THE WORLD HOW YOU GOT MY NAME, MILNE. Tell everyone here, why you would bother to hunt down a person you never heard of two months ago, and who has never threatened you in any way. Tell us again that you are NOT working for the Church of Scientology. Your filthy "church" cannot stand the light of day, and ANYONE, ANYONE who questions you will be investigated, isn't that right? glad you lurk. Be glad that you don't have to put your beliefs on the line. Be glad that you've never said anything in public about this church, or they'd be after YOU now. Guess what, Mr. pricks don't scare me. I'm clean as a whistle, and I fight back. You picked the wrong redhead to fuck with, buddy. Come clean now, Milne, tell us all how you got the name, how you sat there wringing your hands at the keyboard crying "For God's sake, give me something on her, she's destroying me!" and the call went out across the land. The spy network engaged and three weeks later, Andy has a name in his hand. So, you've proven beyond a doubt that you are what we've been saying you are. Oh Andy, you should have kept it to yourself, but you had to gloat. Now everyone knows that you are assholes. Everyone knows that it's true what we've been saying all along. The church is paranoid and dangerous, and you work for the church. -- Rev. Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy; a Proud Jism Schizm of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping "Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986 ------------------------- From: Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: "Snake" Thompson and Freud: A Few Logical Points WARNING! Date: Sun, 9 Apr 95 03:12:48 -0500 Organization: Delphi ( email, 800-695-4005 voice) Message-ID: References: <3lrppe$> <3m0pph$> TarlaStar writes: >Okay folks, pay attention to this one. Like many folks on the internet, I >use a pseudonym. This one (Tarla) is one that I used on another network >for a couple of years and thought it would be easiest for those who knew >me there to find me here. Besides, I like the name. The point is, that I That's right, [name deleted--RN]. Your days of anonymity are over. No longer can you hide behind a pseudonym while telling lies about the religion of eight million people. Now when you repeat those lies, everyone will know that they are told by [name deleted -- RN], who lives in [town deleted -- RN], Oklahoma. It's time to be upfront. ------------------------- From: (Tarla) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.slack, Subject: Church of Scientology Invades Privacy Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 18:56:21 GMT Organization: Internet Oklahoma Message-ID: <3mc1cc$> This is a copy of the letter I sent to the admin@delphi: From: Self To: Subject: A complaint about one of your users Date sent: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 17:47:05 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing you regarding a problem I am having with a user of your service. I am a regular poster to alt.religion.scientology on the Internet. Mr Andrew Milne ( posts in support of the Church of Scientology, and I am a critic of that church. This complaint is not about Mr. Milne's religion, however. It is about his investigation of me in order to determine my real name, and his subsequent exposure of same to the net as a means of intimidating me into silence. I have never used my real name on the net for obvious reasons. As a woman, I don't need everyone in the world knowing how to get ahold of me. I have taken moderate pains to keep my privacy, and I can only assume that Mr. Milne has investigated me in some fashion that may not be entirely legal, or at the very least, unethical. It is highly likely that Mr. Milne will claim religious persecution as the reason for this letter, however that is wholly untrue. What Mr. Milne believes is his own business. What concerns me, is the attempt at intimidation, the violation of privacy, and the implied threat inherent in this situation. I have never corresponded with Mr. Milne privately. I have never threatened his person. I have only been a critic of his church's beliefs and behaviors. I am including the entire post in which he states my name, and my response to it. I trust that you will handle this matter in a manner that you deem appropriate. I am also posting this letter to the internet. Thank you in advance for your attention in this situation. sincerely, TarlaStar (deleted) ------------- From: Vera Wallace Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Date: 11 Apr 1995 15:57:32 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Lines: 37 Message-ID: <3me8tc$> References: <3m0pph$> <3m8s1f$fvn@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: rnewman@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ron Newman) wrote: > > Andy: > > You are scum. > > You have committed an unforgiveable act. > > Tomorrow, I'm going to pay a visit to Delphi headquarters in > Cambridge, Mass., with a printed out copy of your article and Tarla's. Oh boy, now we see who is really trying to destroy free speech on the Internet - Mr. Newman. Andrew has every right to post the name of a poster who is not who she says she is. If she has the right to stand up on her soapbox and dennigrate Andrew's religion, then certainly he has a right to publish her name, her address, rank and serial number. It is a free country even though Mr. Newman doesn't seem to think so and wants to try and control the net by getting Andrew kicked off be- cause he is a voice of dissention on this newsgroup. Shame on you Newman! You are a hypocrite of the worst kind. I think that Ms. [name deleted -- RN] should take her lumps like a grown up and start posting under her real name so that all can see her real opinions and her bigotry. Newman should appologize for trying to get Andrew kicked off the net and thereby violating his first amendment rights. Well done Andrew. Do you have any more of the real names of these hypocrites? In fact I think I will look some up and post them. I find it unbelievable that Newman would resort to censorship tactics over this. It is a real mistake on his part. What was [name deleted -- RN]'s address? - [address deleted - RN], Norman, Oklahoma. 73069. Telephone: (405) [phone deleted -- RN] Vera ------------- From: Vera Wallace Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Date: 11 Apr 1995 16:29:17 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. Lines: 116 Message-ID: <3meaot$> References: <3lrppe$> <3m0pph$> <> NNTP-Posting-Host: (Clara) wrote: > > Just how wrong could I be? I take back everything I said. Milne, what you > have done by assigning a name to Tarla is one of the most despicable acts I > have ever observed. It is intimidatory, it is vicious. This is what your > "religion" teaches you, is it? Oh give me a break Clara. Are you serious. [name deleted -- RN] has had her say about Andrew's religious beliefs for months and has been hiding behind "Tarla". Andrew has rights too and if he feels like finding out who is trying to dennigrate what he believes in, then he is free to do so. There is no law against it and he made no threats to her. She certainly hasn't shut up, so it is just a bunch of hot air that there is any intimidation. I for one am glad to know the real name behind her postings. I think if anything it will cause her to be more honest about her opinions and in that sense Andrew did her a favor. She no longer has to hide. > > "Fair Game" is dead, you said. I agree with Barwell: you lie! You can't think of anything else to say so you try and go with the phoney "Fair Game" arguement. Get real. Posting the true name of someone who has been giving a false picture of someone's religion is neither immoral nor illegal nor harassive. It is truth which I know that you and [name deleted -- RN] must have a hard time with. > > Just how far would you go to defend your cult, milne? Poison gas in the > subways? See, we can all play that game. What are you *so* afraid of? Why do > mere words frighten you so much that you react like a cornered wild animal. > Lash out, don't give a damn who you hurt, harass, intimidate....... Aren't you getting a bit out of hand? What does [name deleted -- RN] have to hide that she can't put her real name behind her posts? This is a far cry from poison gas and you are just using that as a cop out to the fact that Andrew was completely within his rights to publish her name. It is a free country and a free net right? Well, if he thinks that there should be a name to the postings, then so be it. I am happy to see that her name is posted now. Let her bigotry be associated with her real name. > And this is what study of Scientology does for you, is it? This is how you > get *improved* as a human being? You have just shown to the world what such > an improvement leads to. You can't make an arguement that is logical so you are resorting to trying to make fun of his religion. Talk about low tactics. Look, what law did he violate? None. He did not threaten the woman, he did not ask anyone else to. He merely let the other interested people on this newsgroup know who was behind her postings. I for one think that [name deleted -- RN] does not know the first thing about Scientology and is just using this forum to be part of harassment campaign. Now that I know her name, she can start being responsible for what she writes like anyone else. > > In the end it does not matter one jot whether the methodology of > Scientologists works or not. All we need to look at is the end product. And > that end product is you, milne, you and vera and brian and jet and > Sobocinski and woody and rick and huyeh(whatever the rest was) and all the > rest of you brain-dead or morality-dead morons who claim to be the successes > of Scientology (a pox on trademarks). You are also a hypocrite. You try to stiffle my freedom of expression simply because you think it is good that people can hide behind phoney names and spew out any old lies they wish. Fine. If they have a right to do that, then I have a right to publish who is really behind the lies. You can't stand to have someone disagree with your opinions or to allow another viewpoint than one you agree with be on the net. Sorry, but you are not god of the net and you type of morality we can do without. > If you think that I am writing this in anger, you are dead right. Like many > others who occasionally make their tiny contributions to the so-called > "debate" that takes place on this newsgroup (and the even greater number who > lurk without posting) I joined this newsgroup to see what all the fuss was > about when Dennis was busted and Kobrin attempted to rmgroup ars over a > month ago. Now I know in spades! This newsgroup has never been a so-called debate. It is mainly a forum for bigots and Scientology haters. Dennis was busted because Dennis violated the law. I know that is a hard concept for you to understand but it is really very simple. If someone violates the law, then they are subject to the penalties of it. This includes everyone. > You belong to an nasty evil cult, milne, and you are its chief spokesman. I > hope you are proud of yourself and your achievement in showing the cult in > its true colours. > > Now FUCK OFF. Clara, your foul language does nothing to enhance your postion. I don't think you get the pont at all. Andrew does not hate [name deleted -- RN] for her rantings on the Internet. He is only trying to get her to be responsible for what she is writing. If she still wishes to write the same trash as before, then fine. It is her right. Publishing her name and address is certainly not going to silence such an ardent critic. However, if she steps over the line, then she has to be responsible legally for her actions. These are the rules of society and IMHO they should apply to the anarchy that is on the net. [name deleted -- RN] - time to be responsible for what you post. By the way these are the full particulars: [name deleted -- RN] and [name deleted -- RN] (must be her boyfriend) [address deleted -- RN] Norman, Oklahoma 73069 (405) [phone deleted -- RN] Vera ------------- From: (TarlaStar) Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Scientology harasses innocent Net user Date: Sat, 15 Apr 1995 14:29:44 GMT Organization: Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy Message-ID: <3monne$> References: <> <> wrote: >I was more thinking about who would be in the wrong when the >investigation was done. Would it be the CoS or some poor >sysop or whatever that was strong armed into giving up the info. >Not that it really matters to me, it's her call on what to do, I really >don't see that any harm was done other than a little intimidation >but half of the people here are doing that is one way or anther. I'm not that easily intimidated, so it didn't work. It just pissed off a whole lotta folks that didn't care one way or another about the CoS, and it's just one more strand in the rope that CoS is attempting to choke a.r.s. with. >Out of curiosity, how does Tarla think her name was leaked? >My initial guess would be her net carrier talked or that she uses the >same pseudonym on some BBSes or something and they >got somebody to talk (threaten to sue them?) >From my own experience, the teleco isn't much use in this >type of situation (they won't give names or numbers to >anybody..) I doubt she uses the name anywhere else >besides on the net and BBSes. They could have gone through >discarded records or something, maybe broke into an office.. >I don't know. It would seem like a lot of work just to scare >her. I could see them walking into a net carrier's office with >a stack of fabricated messages and claims about law suits >and walking out with anything they wanted. I want this to be as clear as possible for ONE LAST TIME. Internet Oklahoma is a small very personal carrier. When the person who impersonated an employee of them called me, and I called IO to ask about it, the admin himself assured me that they would NEVER divulge private info. Additionally, there are security measures in place to prevent account info from being retrieved, including password identification. MY real name is NOT on any of the info which my provider has. My husband's name, (which is NOT the same as mine) is not listed in any phone book. Therefore: My husband would have had to have been investigated either through his work (highly unlikely), or some public record like DPS(driver's license) or marriage records or possibly a credit bureau... something like that. THEN, you have to take my real name and make sure that that person is "Tarla". On my web page I list the place where I work. My employer has been warned long ago about the problems I might encounter. However, one of three strange calls I received gives me a hint at what might have happened. I got a call a few weeks ago, which proported to be a survey of family restaurants. The caller said, "Before I begin the survey, do you work for a P.R. firm or a family restaurant?" I said, "Well, sorta...I guess it's a family restaurant kinda." He asked, "What is the name?" I told him, and he said, "Thank you " then hung up. I had a feeling that there was something wrong there. I don't post on BBS's. I used another network for two years, but it was a closed system and had no internet access. I never used my real name on that net either. Let's face it. It would be rather difficult for an individual to hunt down my real name. BUT for an organization like CoS, it's a piece of cake, they probably OWN a credit bureau somewhere and can just fake a credit check.(speculation). Whatever method was used there are two points that we should not forget. 1) Milne has proven that he works for CoS despite his denials. The CoS is so quick to discredit its critics instead of their words (kill the messenger) this case, we have both words and actions which reveal the true nature of both the message and the messenger. (if he got the name legitimately, why doesn't he reveal the method and clear himself?) 2) Critics of the CoS will be attacked for the crime of criticism. Reverend Mutha Tarla, Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy, A Proud Jism Schism of the Church of the SubGenius, Worshipping "Connie" Dobbs and Juicy Retardo since 1986


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank