A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm


Post by Tigger » Sat Feb 17, 2001 12:09 pm

Transferred from A.R.S.

The A.R.S. Newsgroup and the Scientology Organization's "Combat" Part 4

Group: alt.religion.scientology Date: Fri, Feb 16, 2001, 3:59am (CST+6) From: (RevFredricL.Rice)

One of the more major attempts to silence the discussion about what Scientology is, what it does, what its criminal history is, and how the organization behaves, et al. was the following attempt to remove the A.R.S. newsgroup from the Internet entirely.

An "RMGROUP" is a request that's issued to news servers and to system administrators when a newsgroup is dead and has no traffic running through it (no participants.) It's never issued to remove a newsgroup that's got thousands of participants and hundreds of message postings being disseminated daily.

Note that this illegal attempt to assault one of Internet's most popular newsgroups came 11 months before the Scientology organization killed Lisa McPherson. It was this illegal attempt to silence the discussions about Scientology's criminal activities which resulted in hundreds of thousands of Internet users visiting the A.R.S. newsgroup to see what it was the Scientology organization was trying to silence.

Many freedom of speech activists and human rights activists are still participating in the forum and still protest and picket the killing of Lisa McPherson as a direct result of the Scientology organization's attempt to silence discussion using this RMGROUP attempt. If it hadn't of been for this attempt. Later attempts by the mentally unstable cult leader that issued the illegal attempt merely confirmed what it was about Scientology which had been being discussed in the newsgroup.
Control: rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
Newsgroups: alt.config,,
Path: uunet!!!!!hkk
From: hkk@netcom
Subject: cmsg rmgroup alt.religion.scientology
Followup-To: alt.config
Sender: (Helena Kobrin)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 22:52:23 GMT
Lines: 17
Xref: uunet control:1568915

We request that you remove the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup from your site. The reasons for requesting its removal are: (1) It was started with a forged message;

(2) not discussed on alt.config;

(3) it has the name "scientology" in its title which is a trademark and is misleading, as a.r.s. is mainly used for flamers to attack the Scientology religion;

(4) it has been and continues to be heavily abused with copyright and trade secret violations and serves no purpose other than condoning these illegal practices.

Please confirm that you have removed this newsgroup from your system.
Helena K. Kobrin
Counsel for tradEMARK and copyright owner

Send information concerning incidents of racketeering and terrorism by the Scientology cult to the Domestic Terrorism Task Force at For psychological assistance check:

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

User avatar
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm

Post by Tigger » Sat Feb 17, 2001 1:01 pm


Most of us are aware of all the dirty tricks and underhanded, illegal and often ridiculous attempts made by COS and Its OSA (Office of Special Afffairs)
to either make critics and websites like a.r.s. and Operation Clambake shudder into silence or to "destroy them utterly". So far, the scieno's harassment, lawsuits,threats, frameups, setups, etc. have not been successful.

A few weeks ago, a critic obtained an OSA letter to scienos and posted it to a.r.s. This letter outlined a new approach whereby the war on the internet would be won by COS. The letter instructed scienos to make polite, rational posts to anti-scieno newsgroups to explain their religious beliefs which would point out and highlight how insane, unrerasonable and anti-religious the critics were. Thus public opinion would be with COS and while not silencing the critics would diminish any potential threat the critics might pose for scientology.

The posts to a.r.s. disappear in a few days and if you don't have a special save system set up or email the posts you want to save to yourself, (which I do not have and did not do) the posts are lost. I have asked a.r.s.ers if the letter can be reposted and if/when it is, I will transfer it here.

The reason for bringing this up now? The recent and numero9us posts of E. J., the "happy" scientologist, whom I suspected from the very beginning of being such a "new breed" of OSA agent. I wanted to wait until the thread ran its course to see how it played out (and that now seems to have happened.)

I am glad to see that Clambakers, for the most part, were polite, reasonable and "sane". :) This, along with the questions that E.J. did not want to confront (and didn't) seems to have convinced E.J. that he was wasting his time here. Might he show up now as a kind, caring, sane, polite "happy" scientologitst on a.r.s. to win the public relations battle there?

Yes, I agree with Andreas and those who say we should be polite and to engage any and every scieno who drops by in a rational discussion of scientology. But I also agree with Hans and those who say we should be aware of "ALL" the tactics COs/OSA uses to try to trap, manipulate and destroy critics.

E.J. was rather successful in manipulating and directing the discussion in the way he wanted it to go. Many ended up debating the beliefs of scientology which we claim are not the reasonn for our fight. So who was the manipulator and who was being manipulated here?


"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

Paul Wilkens

Post by Paul Wilkens » Sat Feb 17, 2001 2:01 pm

To me what you say is so reasonable. EJ's rap gave me a feeling of deja vu. It was like seeing someone from the old GO doing a radio or television interview except it was better, much smoother.

Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:38 pm

Post by don_carlo » Sat Feb 17, 2001 3:20 pm

I had a little suspicion. I was glad that the other critics kept up their usual energy and quality on other threads. I tried to keep posting elsewhere, too, so that OSA couldn't claim the long E.J. discussion distracted and entangled the critics and was therefore a "win."


Post by Anonymous » Sat Feb 17, 2001 9:33 pm

If Ron is Xenu, then it's just as possible that EJ is Theta Force.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 1730
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2000 3:24 pm
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Post by admin » Sat Feb 17, 2001 11:42 pm

I think this is a little too simplified. From where I stand E.J. did not manipulate the debate any more than we did, or more than is normal in any debate. I am very aware of what OSA is capable of doing, I might even be giving them more credit than they deserve.

There will be good plant and there will be bad plants. I hope we treat the good plant just as good as we would treat any real and honest person. Because none of us would be able to separate them. I imagine that it is very frustrating and alienating to a real person to experience us critics debating if they are plants in front of them. Just like I don't like to be accused of being one.

I have been many times btw. And just as with E.J. it is possible to make a very good argument too. OSA have had many unsuccessful plants because they weren't able to mingle good enough and live the role as an critic to the fullest extent. I wonder if OSA at one point gave up or said "Okay, we need to go further. We need to create a plant that goes further than most of the other critics. Make him set up a site that will be one of the most trusted."

I doubt they gave up, Hubbard didn't have a policy for giving up. So if I weren't me I would suspect me just as much as I suspected all the rest. But if I let that suspicion direct my activities then I wouldn't be able to do much. I've given this a lot of thought, since it gave me a dilemma, and the best way for me to act was to do everything in the open and not have secret stuff that OSA could reveal (except confidential personal information that I receive, which I encrypt and not even the ones closest to me know the passwords). So if I have nothing to hide I don't have to worry about OSA plant.

Enough rambling. My point was that we should keep the debate going on OSA and their methods, also their plants, but maybe keep it a little separated from the ones we suspect might be one? Don't accuse individuals, but instead keep the subject alive so genuine newcomers are educated about it. Be objective, not subjective.

Just my two cent. :)
Andreas @
[b]- Life is not a test.[/b]

Judith Anderson

Post by Judith Anderson » Sun Feb 18, 2001 2:15 am

I agree, Andreas -

OC has helped me be more objective and to not take so personally what CoS did to my family.

I began suspecting that E.J. might have been on a reconnaissance mission from OSA fairly early on - he seemed to be too good to be true, disingenuous, or ingenuous to a fault - then some of his postings revealed a very complex, mature individual.

Who knows, he may even come over to our side, one of these days - maybe we planted a seed.

I don't think E.J. is Theta Force. T.F. is too intense and opinionated and he invariably pisses people off.

I will still strive to separate the individual from the Church itself, which is sometimes hard to do. I try to always keep in mind that most of the people on the board were former members.

Posts: 1025
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Post by haarek » Sun Feb 18, 2001 6:05 am

I think we can debate anything, as long as
we do it with respect, honesty and kindness.
And if one think a person is from OSA, then
one can raise that question and the person
can reply to it if he wants to.

E.J. did not follow a line of discussion
through to the end, whenever some one
came close to his basic idea, he ran away.
A person seeking the truth does not do that.
He reminded me strongly about some of the people
I met in Co$.
And those people in Co$ that I met witch could
hold a discussion like that, did not
operate alone, it is done using a middle man,
then the person 'behind the curtain' is not
affected by the discussion, and thus is
capable of staying on purpose. And the person
'behind the curtain' is the one pulling the

User avatar
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm

Post by Tigger » Sun Feb 18, 2001 7:23 am


So far, no one has yet come up with the COS (OSA) letter which instructed scienos to be nice. However, I think this post from Bob Minton is related to this topic of How Far Will OSA Go to Destroy Its Critics?.

Group: alt.religion.scientology Date: Sat, Feb 17, 2001, 10:54am (CST+1) From: (BobMinton)

The last 2 days in court with Judge Penick, he asked about and, how to get on ARS, how to get to the LMT website, and other net related matters. Perhaps it is only a coincidence that the following things have occurred:

1. The LMT website was down for a few hours yesterday as a result of some mysterious attack on our LMT server;

2. The LMT site came back up last night but this morning, due to what appears to be an attack on a GTE router, our site was down again;

3. The anti-psychiatry spam by Scientology has suddenly stopped on ARS;

4. Vicious attacks by Scientology directly on the LMT have suddenly stopped on ARS;

5. Posts started this morning to paint some critics as LMT and to show those critics in the worst possible light to a judge.

Critics may want to counter-balance this apparent Scientology effort to deceive Judge Penick by posting material that shows Scientology at its best.

Bob Minton
PS Monday is Day 7 in the trial of the Clearwater 13

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."


Post by Anonymous » Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:36 am

My two cents again.

I said EJ could be Theta Force. I also think EJ might not be Theta Force but that both of them are OSA. My predjudice leads me to think that Theta Force's wacko statements are just a put-on. What he or she is trying to achieve I don't really know but maybe it is the equivalent of a crank phone call and I am pretty sure the OSA is not above that. I just feel that whenever something like this happens a light goes off in my head I get curious. Whenever I get curious the first thing I do is post a message and ask that question that is on my mind which is, "Are you OSA?" After all we are their ememies in their minds and they like to fight a war on as many fronts as possible. So they could do it by different approaches simultaneously. One could have Theta Force and his wacko threatening tone which is designed to annoy and EJ who I don't know what he was trying to accomplish, maybe he was trying to distract all of us. It does make me smile though, I think someone out there is really pissed off with all us and all we are doing is talking the truth. Keep on keepin' on.


Post by Anonymous » Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:48 am

EJ yet again

I just think most of the public Scientologists out there don't have the energy or inclination to post all those lengthy messages that he did. To me he gave himself away by doing that. I could be wrong but what the hell, it's the only opinion I have right now.

User avatar
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm

Post by Tigger » Sun Feb 18, 2001 1:52 pm

In case I stepped on the toes of a few good critics (which Tiggers with big paws and big mouths are prone to do) I apologize. I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify why I started this thread.

1. I agree that we should be polite and courteous to any visitor or new comer to this site (except perhaps those who come charging in with attacks such as the one (sometime ago) who tried to destroy Clamato)

2. There is no reason to use filthy language to get a point across or to engage in personal attacks to "handle"
disruptive posters. Use their own words to verify the absurdity of their attacks.

3. Discussing the methods used by OSA and
whether the words or actions of certain
posters, who appear to be using those
"methods", I think, contributes to our
understanding and knowledge of Scientology. Any poster can object to being so considered and explain why he/she might appear to be OSA. (When I first started posting here as Anonymous, a poster named Dilbert kept insisting I
must be a scientologist or ex-scieno because I knew so much about scientology.
Why? Because he either didn't absorb my
posts or he confused me with another anonymous.) So many of us have been subjected to this type of scrutinty and
(in the long run) have learned from it.

4. We should be aware of all and any
tactics used by OSA. If someone is nice to me, I have a tendency to trust that person and share more than I should about my personal story. At this point, I have no doubt, that COS knows or could very easily determine, who I am. But anyone who wants or must keep their identity a secret should be aware of any new tactic
COs/OSA may be using.

5. Will such questions or scrutiny about the possibility that a poster may be OSA
scare a potential Scientology escapee back into the fold? I think that would depend upon the depth of the doubt that brought the poster here in the first place and our ability to discuss such things without resorting to personal attacks and accusAtions. If we explain why we ask such questions, the poster may realize that we have some of the same concerns he/she has concerning being safe from Scientology harassment and frivilous lawsuits because we are exercising our freedom of speech to inform the public and stop the abuses of the Church of Scientology.


P.S. I was also tring to point out the wisdom of ALWAYS TRYING TO BE POLITE AND COURTEOUS TO EVERYONE.

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:38 pm

Post by don_carlo » Sun Feb 18, 2001 4:07 pm

What made me wonder about E.J. was when we VERY POLITELY suggested he start a new thread, and address one or two Scientology issues at a time. When he showed no inclination to do that, but stayed put and remained evasive, I really wondered. The critics had some hugely important points that he completely ignored.
It looked like he preferred being in a discussion with over a dozen people throwing facts at him, where he could play the politely overwhelmed guy. But when we refuted his points totally, he never acknowldeged that.

Typically, the curious Scientologist who wanders onto this site will start out saying we're tearing down his religion. Then we point him to any of a ton of real facts, and he comes back and says, "Wow, I never knew all this. Let me read some more and get back to you." Then there is a week-long period of silence while he wades through the facts on this website. He comes back and starts asking us questions, hungry for information.

I got no sense that E.J. was that hungry for either information or a solid debate about one issue at a time. When he didn't acknowledge our points, he was obviously on a mission to convince us of his position, and to hell with the facts. Like every other pro-Scientology poster here, he gave up and left.

The other thing that is funny is that we didn't have any other pro-Scientology posts or spam or pornography during the E.J. visit. As I have said before, is it possible that the cult can only send out one guy at a time to argue with us?


Post by el_roto » Sun Feb 18, 2001 5:51 pm


It certainly is possible they *choose* to send one guy at a time because they can't handle the traffic more than one shill would create.

I'll bet they're getting more and more understaffed.

Steve G.


Post by Sparrow » Sun Feb 18, 2001 7:52 pm

My theory is that EJ wanted the chance to put LRH's 'teachings' into the Op Clambake camp, but was removed because he was finding it enjoyable.
All wasted on me, of course, because I don't even know the meanings of most of the initials.

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests