Your attempt to establish credibility by pretending to know Diane or anyone, by using selected google posts is intellectually dishonest Will.

There never was a "Will Pitt" on ars. In all fairness,where would I find your posts Will, and under what nic?

Umike

Don Carlo wrote: Bernie has made alliances with Diane Richardson and others who have investigated critics, and has been bruised by critic charges and attacks, and outraged by some critics' hypocrisies, lies and cover-ups.

Bernie has never made any "alliance" of any sort with me, Don Carlo. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is incorrect.

Don Carlo wrote: Bernie and Diane's mistake (or tactic?) was to be harsh and name-calling to critics.
I guess that depends on what you consider "name-calling." When I see a person deliberately lying and misleading others, I call that person a liar, whether that person is L. Ron Hubbard or a self-styled "critic" of scientology. Do you believe that ALL Scientology critics NEVER lie? Or do you believe calling a critics a liar is some sort of sin? I don't quite get your point here.

Don Carlo wrote: Some people attacked Bernie & Diane just for endlessly posting the same old accusations, and clogging message boards with nit-picking. (Like the 23-page argument about whether L. Ron lied about his grades) That escalated into MORE on-line aggression, and more verbal abuse.
I don't remember ever posting a "23-page argument about whether L. Ron lied about his grades." Could you show me when and where I did? Since that's the only example of my "endlessly posting the same old accusations" you've provided, I'm rather mystified by what it is you think I've endlessly posted. For the record, I most certainly believe L. Ron Hubbard lied about his grades, along with just about every other aspect of his life.

Don Carlo wrote: Everyone involved needs to look at their own imperfections and mistakes, too. Feuds need two sides, and Bernie & Diane have encouraged argument and been triumphant about it "proving" critics are bad and wrong.

It appears to me (though I could be wrong) that you think I believe everything Bernie believes. Let me assure you that I do not, nor have I ever made any sort of "alliance" with Bernie. In fact, I think you've spent far more time reading his website and much more energy analyzing what's on there than I ever have.

Don't you think it would be more productive to discuss with me just what it is I think than for you to "deduce" through some inductive powers what it is you think I think from reading someone else's website?

I'll be glad to offer my opinions here if you'd just as me for them.

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Don Carlo wrote: It appears the protest over the settlement caused a defend-Cooper backlash by trigger-happy critics, insults escalated, Diane R. started a revenge research project
Your assumption is false, Don Carlo. There was never any protest over Paulette Cooper settling with the CoS, not be me or by anyone else I know. I certainly didn't begin a "revenge research project" because of any settlement Paulette Cooper entered into.

Don Carlo wrote:Some outraged Cooper-defending critics decided to become archenemies of Diane & Bernie. Seven years later this is still an open wound.
Since you haven't identified the people you include in "some outraged Cooper-defending critics" I can't speak for them. I can tell you that many of the people with whom I disagreed about Paulette Cooper are the people Tom Padgett and his ilk now link me to as part of their conspiracy-think "Buttersquash" brigade. You seem to believe that I cannot be friends with people with whom I've disagreed, which isn't the case at all. For example, while Rob Clark (ptsc) and I agree wholeheartedly on the subject of Tom Padgett, we still disagree mightily when it comes to Paulette Cooper. If either he or I saw our disagreement as some sort of "open wound" that had festered for 7 years, I'd dare say we wouldn't be amicably chatting with each other on irc as we do.

Don Carlo wrote:The curse behind all this is the gag order Paulette agreed to in order to settle the case.
I'm not at all sure who you believe sees Paulette Cooper's settlement agreement with the CoS as a curse. It doesn't appear that way to me. Paulette Cooper made her decision to settle for her own reasons, and I'm certainly in no position to criticize her for that. I've defended Dennis Erlich's decision to settle with the CoS -- I'm not sure why you think I'd criticize one person and defend another person for settling with the CoS.

Don Carlo wrote:I wasn't around a.r.s. in 1997, and I don't know who did what to whom and who said what bad thing.
That's rather obvious from your confusion over what happened back then. I'm rather miffed, however, that you'd attempt to "explain" what happened back then when you obviously don't know enough about it to even attempt doing any such thing.

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Hi Diane, I have not had a chance to look over Don's analysis of Bernie's site or get back to Bernie's site and look for myself.
I believe he was trying to only make comments based on what is written there. You have laid out 8 point that you find in error. Have you checked Bernie's site to see if the source of the error is there?
I believe Don has performed well in the task that he set out to do, I hopefully will have some time to read everything he has written and take a look at Bernie's site again also.

Will Pitt wrote:It appears that some times when Ms Cooper posted, she would be attacked by Diane Richardson. This has been Richardson's MO for almost ten years. When one of her "targets" appears, she pounches on them.
I seldom if ever read anything posted by Paulette Cooper, primarily because she has very little to say that I'm interested in reading. I think you'd have to go back two years or so to find me replying to anything she had written. That doesn't exactly fit with your statement that "whenever one of her "targets" appears, she pounches [sic] on them." I doubt I've replied to more than one of the last 20 messages she's posted -- probably much less.

Will Pitt wrote:I do see Paulette as someone to be honored and IMO, she is still an effective critic, even though COS and Richardson have tried to silence her.
I have NEVER tried to silence Paulette Cooper. That is a demonstrably false statement. I'm curious as to why you feel compelled to lie about such things.

Will Pitt wrote:Which means......if you dare to disagree with Richardson, she will hound you on several threads she starts and will keep calling you names until you "shudder into silence", you put a hole in her "conclusions" or she finds a new target.

You fail to provide any evidence at all for your conclusions about my behavior, Will Pitt. Although I disagree profoundly with your conclusions about me, I'd much rather have you explain why you hold such an opinion about me rather than silence you because I disagree with you.

Will Pitt wrote:I would bet Richardson has driven more critics away from a.r.s. than COS has......simply because they made her mad.
You would lose that bet, Mr. Pitt.

Will Pitt wrote:The real problem for everybody is that Diane Richardson spits, spins and twists what you say and then calls you a liar and/or an idiot.
I think that's a much better description of what YOU are doing than what I've done, Mr. Pitt.

Will Pitt wrote:Why, "rightly so"? Diane Richardson is not an ex scientologist nor does she have any relative in scientology. Richardson had not endured l/l,000,000 what Paulette Cooper has.
I've most definitely never felt betrayed by anything Paulette Cooper has done. I think Don Carlo's comment is a product of his confusion over what happened long before he was around to witness anything. And no, I've never experienced any harassment from the CoS outside of some crank calls, being tailed while walking through Glendale, CA, and having a Scientologist give me a demonstration of "Tone 40" screaming over the phone at 7:00 in the morning. That certainly doesn't come close to what Paulette Cooper lived through.

Will Pitt wrote:Cooper, after more than a decade of harassment, settled with COS. So did Dennis Erlich....so did Brian Haney and others.

Indeed, and I defended Brian Haney when Minton attacked him for settling with the CoS. I defended Dennis Erlich when Minton, Hausherr and others attacked him for settling with the CoS. I never attacked Paulette Cooper for settling. This is some sort of urban legend that's developed over the years -- there's no truth to it at all.

Will Pitt wrote:Then along comes Diane Richardson to continue the harassment. If anyone has a right to feel betrayed, it's Paulette Cooper.
I never harassed Paulette Cooper. I was curious why she produced an affidavit for the CoS *after* she had settled with them. I asked her about the affidavit, and posted it to a.r.s. Paulette Cooper freaked out when I did so, offering no explanation for why even mentioning that affidavit bothered her so much. Paulette was hysterically emailing, phoning, and otherwise contacting everyone I knew, writing "Stop that woman from destroying me." I had absolutely no intention of destroying her or anyone else, but her hysterical overreaction to my posting of that affidavit made me even MORE curious about it. So I decided to find out more. That's the whole story.

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Umike: "Your attempt to establish credibility by pretending to know Diane or anyone, by using selected google posts is intellectually dishonest Will."
********************
It is you, UMike who has attempted "to establish credibililty by pretending to know people", i.e. Paulette Cooper and others. I did not say I know "anyone" personally. "By their words, ye shall know them." I say that anyone can see for themselves what Diane Richardson's methods are by reading her posts that can be found in a google search. Ditto for Paulette Cooper.

I am posting the diary of Paulette Cooper...her words....via google URL's, which anyone could do whether they know Paulette Cooper ot not.
*************************
UMike says: "There never was a "Will Pitt" on ars. In all fairness,where would I find your posts Will, and under what nic?"
*************************
So who said I was/am a poster on a.r.s. ?
.....there is a first time for everything isn't there?

If you can shoot down anything Will Pitt has posted on OCMB, do it on another thread. If you can't, quit your bitching.

Will

Don Carlo wrote:Nobody knows the true Diane-Paulette story except those two, and they each lived the story as a battle, not watching it as an unbiased witness.
Actually, there are a LOT of people who know the true story, Don Carlo. They're just tired of being shouted down, called names, and otherwise hassled any time they attempt to explain what happened.

Don Carlo wrote:Will, were the two fighting BEFORE the Cooper settlement? If so, then the settlement wasn't the primary cause of the battle. Some earlier slugfest happened.
Paulette Cooper settled with the CoS way back in the 1980s, long before a.r.s. existed. I did not know her or even know about her until I started posting to a.r.s. in 1995. After I heard about her (from Ron Newman, an early critic), I located and read a copy of her book.
Paulette made her appearance online some time later, perhaps in 1997.

Don Carlo wrote:With such an emotional battle, I wonder if the hurt came from a broken friendship between two intelligent and deep-feeling women, and not just from different opinions.
It wasn't an "emotional battle," at least not from my side. I just found an affidavit she had written for the CoS and I innocently posted it to a.r.s. and asked her why she wrote it. That elicited a VERY emotional response from her, but I had no idea why. There was no "broken friendship" -- Paulette Cooper and I have never met.

Don Carlo wrote:Maybe Paulette could secretly write a new book, about her life during and after writing The Scandal of Scientology.
When Paulette Cooper appeared on a.r.s., she made it quite clear she no longer had any interest in the CoS and had no desire to get involved. I imagine she still feels that way. She leads a very full and interesting life, and I don't think she considers her upset with me important or anything worth investing time or effort on.

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Will Pitt wrote:P. S. Paulette has also moved on with her lile.....she has written several books about animals.
Indeed, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Paulette Cooper also writes under pseudonyms, including the prolific "Greta Garbage."

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Thank you Diane, for all the new information. It's true that I was trying to puzzle out the old fight just based on what is in Bernie's site. I don't even know how to find old a.r.s. posts so Bernie's site, with the nasty exchanges on a.r.s., was my sole data source. And I started speculating which leaves me wide open for correction.

I don't see your affidavit post as "innocent" here, Diane. You should have asked Paulette's permission before posting something that could throw her back into litigation. Did you ever apologize to her?

Athiest wrote:Have you checked Bernie's site to see if the source of the error is there?
Don Carlo has written a great deal about me that appears NOWHERE on Bernie's website.

Athiest wrote:I believe Don has performed well in the task that he set out to do,
I certainly have no problem with the comments he's made about Bernie's website. I object only when he ventures further afield, attributing a variety of motives and actions to me that have nothing whatsoever to do with Bernie's website.

Athiest wrote:I hopefully will have some time to read everything he has written and take a look at Bernie's site again also.
I don't think Bernie is at all active in the CoS/critic area any more -- he has a variety of other interest to keep him busy. I haven't looked at his site for at least 2 years, but I doubt there's anything new there.

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Will Pitt wrote:"It is you, UMike who has attempted "to establish credibililty by pretending to know people", i.e. Paulette Cooper and others."

That is a flat out Lie Will, and you know it. I said we exchanged a couple e mails some time ago. period.
I never implied we were friends.


"So who said I was/am a poster on a.r.s. ?
.....there is a first time for everything isn't there?"

Thanks for finally revealing that.
Your source for information is exclusively google groups search. Fine.

"quit your bitching."

Thats not likely in your case as long as you post worn out sterotypes about people you actually know little about.
Don't tell me where to post.

Umike

Don Carlo wrote: I don't see your affidavit post as "innocent" here, Diane.

It was entirely innocent, Don Carlo. I had been working on a project with other critics, searching Lexis/Nexis for every article that mentioned the Church of Scientology. I found it because the Church of Scientology issued it as a press release and it found its way into print.

Don Carlo wrote:You should have asked Paulette's permission before posting that.

There's no reason why I should have asked her permission to post a public document to a public forum. I don't ask the Church of Scientology for permission to post newspaper articles about them to a.r.s. I don't ask critics for permission to post newspaper articles about them to a.r.s. either. I'm not sure why you think different standards should apply.

Don Carlo wrote:Did you ever apologize to her?
I have absolutely nothing to apologize to her for. Do you think I should apologize to the Church of Scientology for posting information about it to a.r.s., too?

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Don Carlo wrote:What did Paulette say to you, when she was hysterical that one time, that made you start investigating her?
She didn't say a word to me. She began emailing everyone who knew me, asking them "How can I stop this woman from destroying me?" Several different people told me they received the same type of message from her. None of the people who told me about it understood why she was so upset or what I was doing that made her think I was destroying her. Paulette Cooper never spoke to me directly about this matter, which made things much more confusing.

Regards,
Diane Richardson

Thank you Diane, I didn't know that CoS had posted the affidavit earlier. (It wasn't on Bernie's site!) I just did a web search and found some back-up so I don't have to depend on good old Bernie for my raw data.

Whatever I wrote about you was partly from Bernie's site, part speculation, which leaves me wide open for correction.

A few clarifications:
I thought Bernie has some alliance with you because he is such a big fan.

It was Bernie who did the 23-page nit-pick about Ron's grades. My sentence was ambiguous.

I said the curse was the gag order, not the settlement. I'd like to clarify it further by saying the publicizing of affidavit started the fight, not the settlement. It might have calmed Paulette down if you had apologized for the upset (even if you felt technically innocent) and made some statement that Paulette had nothing to do with the a.r.s. post.

Let me withdraw the phrase "revenge mission." From your description, it sounds more like you investigated Paulette to defend yourself after she called all kinds of people to "stop" you. Please discuss.

I definitely want to ask just a few questions and then leave you alone. Thanks for your help.

Don Carlo wrote:A few clarifications:
I thought Bernie has some alliance with you because he is such a big fan.
I'm not aware that he's any sort of fan at all. He once asked me years ago if he could put some of my a.r.s. posts on a website he was creating and I told him he was free to post anything of mine that appeared in google. I guess that's what he did.

Don Carlo wrote:It was Bernie who did the 23-page nit-pick about Ron's grades. My sentence was ambiguous.
Thanks for clarifying that. I've actually only looked at a very small part of bernie's website. I didn't know where you got that from.

Don Carlo wrote:I said the curse was the gag order, not the settlement. I'd like to clarify it further by saying the publicizing of affidavit started the fight, not the settlement.
I think if you check google, you'll see that Paulette Cooper regularly stated that she had NOT signed a gag order when she settled with the CoS. I don't know when the gag order myth grew and developed into fact on a.r.s. -- it's certainly not what she was saying when she first arrived on a.r.s.

Don Carlo wrote:Let me withdraw the phrase "revenge mission." From your description, it sounds more like you investigated Paulette to "defend" yourself after she called all kinds of people to "stop" you. Is this accurate?
No, that's not at all accurate. I never felt any need to defend myself from Paulette Cooper or anything she might say. I located and read the court records detailing her lawsuit with the Church of Scientology because I was curious why she cooperated with the cult *after* she had settled with them. Her affidavit was a direct slap at her own lawyer, Michael Flynn, who was representing her (and numerous others who sued the CoS) on contingency. The CoS filed Paulette Cooper's affidavit in a defamation lawsuit they had filed against Michael Flynn. At that time, Flynn was the only lawyer successfully representing people with lawsuits against the CoS. What the CoS did with Paulette Cooper is exactly the same thing they managed to do more recently with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks -- they turned clients against their own lawyer in a desperate effort to prevail.

Don Carlo wrote:I definitely want to ask just a few questions and then leave you alone.
I'll be glad to answer whatever questions I can, Don Carlo. Unfortunately, the entire episode has been turned into a myth that has little to do with reality, all due to the efforts of a very few less than honest people who called themselves "activists."

Regards,
Diane Richardson