Question:

– Don Stanford Selby Accounting Service Victoria, Australia Phone:  61-3-9754 4312 In reply to Charles re software. The Australian Taxation Office ("ATO") maintains a register of available software. It describes what each software will do. Points to note: It is slanted to Australian conditions and software that is available in Australia. The same brand of software sold in Australia may have slightly different capabilities in other countries. The catalyst for this service by the ATO was the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax ("GST").  The view in Australia is that any accounting software, that does not handle GST, is not worth using. This link takes you directly to the registered software page of the ATO website: http://www.ato.gov.au/businesses/content.asp?doc=/content/registereds… .htm

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market.

Response:

Try www.findaccountingsoftware.com I would not recommend QuickBooks as their tech support is poor.

all the low end accounting software product’s tech support is poor – quickbooks, peachtree or MYOB, etc.    quickbooks however has a good – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market. You have probably found that there are many accounting packages.  It really depends on your needs, wants and desires.  If you are considering QuickBooks, I would assume you have very little in-depth accounting needs, such as job costing, inventory, purchase order, etc. I am now using Business Works, which can be located on the Sage website, which someone has already referred you to.  It is a lower end system that has much flexibility at a lower cost than some of the bigger systems.  I also us MAS90, which is very costly, but worth the money if you need in-depth accounting. Good luck with your search! There is also Simply Accounting (ACCPAC),  Peachtree, One write, MYOB, BusinessVision,

Response:

Try www.findaccountingsoftware.com I would not recommend QuickBooks as their tech support is poor.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market. You have probably found that there are many accounting packages.  It really depends on your needs, wants and desires.  If you are considering QuickBooks, I would assume you have very little in-depth accounting needs, such as job costing, inventory, purchase order, etc. I am now using Business Works, which can be located on the Sage website, which someone has already referred you to.  It is a lower end system that has much flexibility at a lower cost than some of the bigger systems.  I also us MAS90, which is very costly, but worth the money if you need in-depth accounting. Good luck with your search! There is also Simply Accounting (ACCPAC),  Peachtree, One write, MYOB, BusinessVision,

Response:

Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market.

You have probably found that there are many accounting packages.  It really depends on your needs, wants and desires.  If you are considering QuickBooks, I would assume you have very little in-depth accounting needs, such as job costing, inventory, purchase order, etc. I am now using Business Works, which can be located on the Sage website, which someone has already referred you to.  It is a lower end system that has much flexibility at a lower cost than some of the bigger systems.  I also us MAS90, which is very costly, but worth the money if you need in-depth accounting. Good luck with your search!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market. You have probably found that there are many accounting packages.  It really depends on your needs, wants and desires.  If you are considering QuickBooks, I would assume you have very little in-depth accounting needs, such as job costing, inventory, purchase order, etc. I am now using Business Works, which can be located on the Sage website, which someone has already referred you to.  It is a lower end system that has much flexibility at a lower cost than some of the bigger systems.  I also us MAS90, which is very costly, but worth the money if you need in-depth accounting. Good luck with your search!

There is also Simply Accounting (ACCPAC),  Peachtree, One write, MYOB, BusinessVision,

Response:

Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market.

Try Google. — Peter Saxton from London

Response:

In the US Peachtree, Simply Accounting, goes on and on check Goggle .. ask around .. see your CPA etc. Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market. Try Google.

– Affordable Support Services .. No waiting for help. 660-949-2416 Northeastern Missouri

Response:

Dear Charles Here are some accounting links http://www.anagram-sys.co.uk/ http://www.aptos.co.uk/ http://www.exchequer.co.uk/site/default.asp http://www.icode.com/ http://www.osas.com/html/KBD84LZV0O.htm http://www.sage.com/ http://www.pastel.co.za/ http://www.access-accounts.com/ http://www.pegasus.co.uk/ http://www.tassoftware.com/home.asp Regards David http://www.responda.co.uk – Christian site providing prayer for individuals, for missionaries, share testimonies and newsletters – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market.

Response:

Could someone give me a website that lists all the various types of accounting software products?  I was thinking about QuickBooks, but I just want to know what the competition is like in the accounting software market.

Response:

Question:

Well its about time. Now if the Boards of Accountancy of the 50 states would stop enforcing the pronouncements from these private, big-money groups (AICPA and FASB) as if they were law of the land, we’d be in better shape, Todd Boyle CPA – Kirkland WA – www.gldialtone.com/FinancialDeregulation.htm Reply-To: Accounting Education using Computers and Multimedia 1. SEC Rebukes AICPA on Standards-Setting Posture * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The SEC wants the AICPA to know, in no uncertain terms, who’s in charge of standard setting. Following the release last week of an AICPA exposure draft on internal control reporting, the SEC expressed strong concerns that the AICPA is creating the perception that they are more involved in the standard setting process than they really are. http://www.accountingweb.com/item/97327 AECM Home Page (Subscription info., etc.): http://pacioli.loyola.edu/aecm AECM Archives: http://listserv.loyola.edu/archives/aecm.html

Response:

Assume you are addressing that it’s about time that someone stood up to the AICPA and FASB. As I read the link you included, the SEC was telling the AICPA that they were now in charge of setting standards and procedures. While I do not agree with the AICPA all the time, I am bothered that a governmental body now is in charge. Things will not improve, it will get worse and in time affect private companies also. I do not know the real answer, however there needs to be some "rules" to follow. Your link to the petition suggests that there need to be rules. Who should set?

Response:

Assume you are addressing that it’s about time that someone stood up to the AICPA and FASB. As I read the link you included, the SEC was telling the AICPA that they were now in charge of setting standards and procedures. While I do not agree with the AICPA all the time, I am bothered that a governmental body now is in charge. Things will not improve, it will get worse and in time affect private companies also. I do not know the real answer, however there needs to be some "rules" to follow. Your link to the petition suggests that there need to be rules. Who should set?

There is no doubt, under present law:  The SEC. If you haven’t already, I would suggest that you read the letter at: http://www.sec.gov/info/accountants/staffletters/aicpa031803.htm Jim Hudspeth, CPA

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Assume you are addressing that it’s about time that someone stood up to the AICPA and FASB. As I read the link you included, the SEC was telling the AICPA that they were now in charge of setting standards and procedures. While I do not agree with the AICPA all the time, I am bothered that a governmental body now is in charge. Things will not improve, it will get worse and in time affect private companies also. I do not know the real answer, however there needs to be some "rules" to follow. Your link to the petition suggests that there need to be rules. Who should set? There is no doubt, under present law:  The SEC. If you haven’t already, I would suggest that you read the letter at: http://www.sec.gov/info/accountants/staffletters/aicpa031803.htm Jim Hudspeth, CPA

Perhaps – at long last – the SEC will begin to turn US GAAP into something else than a money making machine for the AICPA (and its extension the Big X).  Obviously the first step is to remove the AICPA from power. Carrying this process through, however, may scarcely be easier than the parallel process currently initialized in the middle east. A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. PGP key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Khatami Kabul domestic disruption Honduras Libya FSF Soviet Peking radar

Response:

Perhaps – at long last – the SEC will begin to turn US GAAP into something else than a money making machine for the AICPA (and its extension the Big X).  Obviously the first step is to remove the AICPA from power. Carrying this process through, however, may scarcely be easier than the parallel process currently initialized in the middle east. A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA

I agree with you, and I applaud the move of the SEC taking total ownership of financial reporting for public companies.  I really don’t see the purpose of the AICPA issuing guidance on matters that are enforced by the SEC.  They are just muddying the water.     The one problem is that privately held companies are not under the jurisdiction of the SEC.  

Response:

Perhaps – at long last – the SEC will begin to turn US GAAP into something else than a money making machine for the AICPA (and its extension the Big X).  Obviously the first step is to remove the AICPA from power. The one problem is that privately held companies are not under the jurisdiction of the SEC.

Where is the problem? Jim Hudspeth

Response:

The one problem is that privately held companies are not under the jurisdiction of the SEC. Where is the problem? Jim Hudspeth

The SEC is more focused on disclosure requirements and GAAP reporting in the large company, public reporting environment.  Many of the pronouncements are not applicable or necessary for financial reporting in a small, privately held company environment. I know the idea of "small company GAAP" has been mentioned on this board a few times.  I don’t think that putting the SEC as the sole arbitrator of GAAP would necessarily move the profession towards that direction.   I do agree that it would be better than the current system, however.    

Response:

The one problem is that privately held companies are not under the jurisdiction of the SEC. Where is the problem? Jim Hudspeth The SEC is more focused on disclosure requirements and GAAP reporting in the large company, public reporting environment.  Many of the pronouncements are not applicable or necessary for financial reporting in a small, privately held company environment.

I agree. I know the idea of "small company GAAP" has been mentioned on this board a few times.  I don’t think that putting the SEC as the sole arbitrator of GAAP would necessarily move the profession towards that direction.

I agree here also. I do agree that it would be better than the current system, however.

At this point I think I will probably live long enough to see "Big GAAP" / "Little GAAP".  If the states don’t step up to the plate regarding "Little GAAP" the SBA might.   I don’t think the SEC will attempt to regulate small companies.   Jim Hudspeth

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Assume you are addressing that it’s about time that someone stood up to the AICPA and FASB. As I read the link you included, the SEC was telling the AICPA that they were now in charge of setting standards and procedures. While I do not agree with the AICPA all the time, I am bothered that a governmental body now is in charge. Things will not improve, it will get worse and in time affect private companies also. I do not know the real answer, however there needs to be some "rules" to follow. Your link to the petition suggests that there need to be rules. Who should set? There is no doubt, under present law:  The SEC. If you haven’t already, I would suggest that you read the letter at: http://www.sec.gov/info/accountants/staffletters/aicpa031803.htm Jim Hudspeth, CPA Perhaps – at long last – the SEC will begin to turn US GAAP into something else than a money making machine for the AICPA (and its extension the Big X).  Obviously the first step is to remove the AICPA from power.

I would assume, based on past history, they will change it into a money making scheme for the US Treasury and securities lawyers. Think of it, US GAAP backed up with the full force of the United States Justice Department, the United States Army and Navy, and the Central Intelligence Agency.  That ought to make you feel all warm an fuzzy at night. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * * Unemployed for seven years, mistake of being an accountant. * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The one problem is that privately held companies are not under the jurisdiction of the SEC. Where is the problem? Jim Hudspeth The SEC is more focused on disclosure requirements and GAAP reporting in the large company, public reporting environment.  Many of the pronouncements are not applicable or necessary for financial reporting in a small, privately held company environment. I agree. I know the idea of "small company GAAP" has been mentioned on this board a few times.  I don’t think that putting the SEC as the sole arbitrator of GAAP would necessarily move the profession towards that direction. I agree here also. I do agree that it would be better than the current system, however. At this point I think I will probably live long enough to see "Big GAAP" / "Little GAAP".  If the states don’t step up to the plate regarding "Little GAAP" the SBA might. I don’t think the SEC will attempt to regulate small companies.

The same way the Treasury exempts small companies from tax compliance I wager. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * * Unemployed for seven years, mistake of being an accountant. * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

I don’t think the SEC will attempt to regulate small companies. The same way the Treasury exempts small companies from tax compliance I wager.

Ron, You are trying to be cute.  Unfortunately, "exemptions" are far more common than you might realize. Jim

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t think the SEC will attempt to regulate small companies. The same way the Treasury exempts small companies from tax compliance I wager. Ron, You are trying to be cute.  Unfortunately, "exemptions" are far more common than you might realize. Jim

Yes, but such exemptions are political.  I doubt that the SEC would be politically motivated to exempting anyone because of size unless it became a situations were the requirements could be judicially determined has unbearable. What people think the motivations behind this S-O is and what it really is are not the same thing. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * * Unemployed for seven years, mistake of being an accountant. * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

Yes, but such exemptions are political.

The "exemptions" I’m referring to are "political" only in the vaguest sense of the term.  I’m referring to "exemptions" people create for themselves without benefit of formal politics. I doubt that the SEC would be politically motivated to exempting anyone because of size unless it became a situations were the requirements could be judicially determined has unbearable.

I highly doubt the SEC will be motivated to take on the task of regulating small business.  They have their plate full with big business. What people think the motivations behind this S-O is and what it really is are not the same thing.

I do not disagree, however I have no idea what you are talking about either. Jim

Response:

Yes, but such exemptions are political. The "exemptions" I’m referring to are "political" only in the vaguest sense of the term.  I’m referring to "exemptions" people create for themselves without benefit of formal politics.

When it comes to Federal regulation the only exemption that a person can unilaterally create is through non participation in the regulated area. If they want to pay, they have to play under the rules. I doubt that the SEC would be politically motivated to exempting anyone because of size unless it became a situations were the requirements could be judicially determined has unbearable. I highly doubt the SEC will be motivated to take on the task of regulating small business.  They have their plate full with big business.

I think that history clearly shows that the extension of regulation has been down from the top towards the bottom.  The motivation of the folks who design these laws is clearly aimed at being all encompassing and eventually ending at the bottom end.  You only have to look at the Alternative Minimum Tax, originally sold "to make the rich pay their fair share" which over the years has clearly covered a larger percentage of the tax paying public.  Notice that the people who support control also fight indexing. What people think the motivations behind this S-O is and what it really is are not the same thing. I do not disagree, however I have no idea what you are talking about either.

Sarbanes Oxley was designed to open the door and create a new controlling instrument.  The motivation had nothing to do with the solving of the ethics problem in public accountancy or corporate America.  It is to create more control and more opportunity for lawyers an bureaucrats. Jim

– *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * * Unemployed for seven years, mistake of being an accountant. * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

I noticed that SEC was just exempted from Federal Merit hiring procedures (a really hot Clinton Administration initiative) to fill the new hires for the Enron, Global Crossing, etc.  fall out. If you understand what the objective was of merit hiring you will understand why this confirms my position on Sarbanes Oxlery and all of the other Congressional – SEC machinations. — *             Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.                  * * Unemployed for seven years, mistake of being an accountant. * *   Students, when someone tells you of your great future as  * *       an accountant, ask him to show you the job.           *

Response:

Question:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Uh….excuse me please.

Well, you’re in luck: I just got back from an all-soccer weekend (well, not ~all~ soccer; there ~were~ the kegs of draft beer and the barbecued ribs), and I am so goddamned jazzed about the US team making it this far that I can probably excuse almost anything right now. Maybe even you. Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!! You seem so knowledgable about everything that I thought you might be able to answer a simple question.

Aw, shucks. You know what a sucker I am for smarmy sarcastic flattery, don’t you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I looked at the website that you posted below, you know that sc-irs site, and I saw this on there: This is not an official site of either the Church of Spiritual Technology, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department, Scientology, or any Scientology organization, and is not approved or sanctioned by any of them. This is a public service educational news and information site about the strange relationships between the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the United States government. All information on site may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. Now I was wondering why I was able to get to this "public information" site without any problem, but I was not able top get to the OCA survey site that Andrew Barbham created?

HTF would I know? WTF is Andrew Barbham? See: I’m ~not~ knowledgeable about everything, just things that matter. Why is the OCA survey site considered to have copyrighted material,

Hmmmmm. Now, let me stroke my goatee here for a minute… I know! I know! Because the OCA test is copyrighted material solely owned by… (Are you feverishly guessing? Do I have you clutching the edge of your chair? Are you hoping hoping hoping that it’s owned by RTC? Are you ~praying~ that the little lawn ornament Davey Dumbass Miscavige is somehow behind it so your favorite myths and superstitions can finally be sanctified?) BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Nope: the OCA test is solely owned by the corporation created by former Assistant Commissioner of IRS Meade Emory… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1992-06-29bruggink.html#… .and run by the IRS through three non-Scientologist tax attorneys… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1992-06-29bruggink.html#… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-06-07cstbylaws.html… .the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (CST), fraudulently doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1993-12-27cstdbafile.html All right, title, and interest in the OCA test was transferred to CST on Tuesday, 27 February 1996 by Church of Scientology International in a transaction with this description: "Scientology drug rundown auditor course & 1,030 other titles; religious works. Author or co-author: Church of Scientology International, derived from or based upon literary works of L. Ron Hubbard a.k.a. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard. Assignment. FULL DOCUMENT RANGE: (In  3229 P151-220)." Now see, if you had your very own copy of the Copyright Transfers database that I’ve been urging you and everyone else to download, you would know this stuff. That database is even linked to on the site you’re whining about, on this page: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/copyrights/copyrightsindex.html Maybe you can even find the link if you’re smart. But even if you’re NOT smart, the record of the OCA test being owned by CST (as a result of that transfer) is here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/copyrights/copyrights21hubon.html Just go there and type "OCA" into your little browser search window and you will immediately find: OWNER: Church of Spiritual Technology TITLE: OCA test NUMBER: TX 3-266-548 (1991) Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!! See, this is like shooting ducks in a barrel now isn’t it? And isn’t it amazing that the COMPLETE answer to your question is right there on that site you are whining about "being able" to access. Maybe I’m not going to be able to excuse you after all. but yet this so called public site that you offered up does not seem to have any restrictions?

That ~I~ offered up? BZZZZZZZZZZTT! No, jackass, I was notified about it here in a.r.s. like the rest of the world, and have since been directing people there for accurate, documented information, since that is what ~I~ find on the site. YMMV. What kind of restrictions would you like to see put on accurate, documented information, little Nazi boy? Why does the Co$ seem to not have any problems with this site?

WTF is the "Co$," moron? That’s probably the root of your problem, is that you spend sleepless nights fretting about THINGS THAT DON’T FUCKING EXIST, you stupid turd. CST, on the other hand, I imagine has MAJOR "problems with this site," but as I read it, there’s not a ~fucking~ thing they can do about it. Last I heard, there is at least a little bit left of the Constitution. Do you understand what I am getting at here?

No. I don’t have a fucking clue what you are "getting at here." I don’t see any copyright violations on that site. Do you? Then cite them. And if you find them (which you won’t) let’s see if CST has the fucking balls to go after them and open themselves up to possible discovery for all of these phantom documents (referenced on that site) that CST principals have laid claim to: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1979-12-15-2intervivos.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1981-10-01estateplan.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-1cstoption.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-2atproposed.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-4markspropose… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-8businessmgmt… Or if they want to open the door to discovery on all the times that Sherman Lenske arranged for "out-of-communication" Mr. "L. Ron Hubbard" to pop up like a fucking Whack-A-Gopher to sign shit, as is described here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/washubbard.html Or if they want to open the door to discovery on the Treasury Department personnel who were in bed with Meade Emory and Sherman Lenske: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/treasdept.html Oh, yeah! I just ~bet~ they want to pick that fight and open those doors to what is referenced on that site. I’ll tell you what: if they do, I would trade tickets to a soccer World Cup final that included the US team to have a seat in THAT courtroom. I would trade fucking SUPER BOWL tickets. Now that I have raised this question I am even more curious as to what your answer will be.

You got it, pal. Please do not hesitate to answer. RD00

Did I seem hesitant to you? http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html

Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!! CL The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag whose excuse for an "editor"–Rod Keller–uses extreme socio-political censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it. Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST–doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller "sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth. "In Wollersheim’s case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."                                   –Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPQ+xDNAKsx0v8qcvEQKb+wCgpxsU5uiZyLYH4v56NbyYTi1jjF8AnRnY YKgR4FLksQ8BfJ4GEihC8wSP =24u9 —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

Mon, 17 Jun 2002 Bozo the Clown masquerading as If you have another explanation, let’s hear it.

Everybody heard it but you. It was in what you cut and it had already been posted in this same thread about four times, man. Get professional help. You are one extreme wanker whacko.

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1

Uh….excuse me please. You seem so knowledgable about everything that I thought you might be able to answer a simple question. I looked at the website that you posted below, you know that sc-irs site, and I saw this on there:  This is not an official site of either the Church of Spiritual Technology, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department, Scientology, or any Scientology organization, and is not approved or sanctioned by any of them. This is a public service educational news and information site about the strange relationships between the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the United States government. All information on site may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. Now I was wondering why I was able to get to this "public information" site without any problem, but I was not able top get to the OCA survey site that Andrew Barbham created? Why is the OCA survey site considered to have copyrighted material, but yet this so called public site that you offered up does not seem to have any restrictions? Why does the Co$ seem to not have any problems with this site? Do you understand what I am getting at here? Now that I have raised this question I am even more curious as to what your answer will be. Please do not hesitate to answer. RD00 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. Then, after you have visited his surreal fantasy world, if you want to see the actual, real-world, thoroughly documented ~truth~ of why the Treasury Department is hiding the information, go here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ Be sure to click on their "Complaint Dept." link in the red navigation bar to fully enjoy the irony of the site, but then come back and go to their chronological "Documents" index, here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html

Response:

Mon, 17 Jun 2002 Bozo the Clown masquerading as If you have another explanation, let’s hear it. Everybody heard it but you. It was in what you cut and it had already been posted in this same thread about four times, man. Get professional help. You are one extreme wanker whacko.

Well, that’s one way to avoid answering questions, I suppose.  Even a URL to the explanation would do.  Shouldn’t take much effort to type, huh?  Well, George? — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ "You can lie about ICR all you want."

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The subject of CL’s commentary, But you **are** CL, Randy.

 You know, I am beginning to get the feeling that life is too short  for this shit and that I am fighting a battle of wits with, not just  an unarmed man, but the black knight from Monty Python & the Holy Grail Dave, I ~love~ being part of the Randy McDonald urban legend, but you obviously didn’t get this week’s ARSCC CL Bulletin. I have it on unimpeachable authority that this week I am Pat Broeker. Also the Librarian, I so hope you don’t fantasize about me in a tube top. It is an ugly, ugly, thought. Hideous. It gives me nightmares. Nigel,

–  FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD,  AND BUGGER THE DWARF  HE RODE IN ON!!  8====3  (O 0)    GROETEN — PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL   no real OT has           |n|    (COMMANDER,  FIFTH INVADER FORCE)   ever existed  STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html            

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why."

The document they’re refusing to distribute is an ROI which has always been a series of public documents available upon polite request leave alone upon formal FOIA requests.  This one document is an exception and the IRS refuses to release it. His commentary was on Fredric Rice’s "explanation" about why the Treasury Department is hiding the information.

Because the document is embarrassing to the IRS and the U. S. Treasury and would result in endless demands for criminal prosecutions to be instigated against the crooks investigated and named in the ROI.  It would also result in endless questions about why indictments have not been handed down over the past nine years.  No, make that 11 years. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. As CL quite correctly pointed out, Mr. Rice did not provide "a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant."

I guess you’ve not been paying attention. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ "You can lie about ICR all you want."

Response:

On 16 Jun 2002 in – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The document they’re refusing to distribute is an ROI which has always been a series of public documents available upon polite request leave alone upon formal FOIA requests.  This one document is an exception and the IRS refuses to release it.

Yes, well, that also goes only to the fact that the IRS refuses to release it, doesn’t it, and not to the reason why. Perhaps you, also, overlooked the operative word, "why." I believe that all who have participated in this discussion have stipulated that the IRS refused to release the document. This seems to be as difficult for you as it was for Mr. Bird, who has folded. Do you think that by continuing to beat this dead horse, you will manage to distract from the real issue? If so, allow me to assure you that you have engaged the wrong person for any such effort, and allow me to redirect your erratic attention to the issue at hand: His commentary was on Fredric Rice’s "explanation" about why the Treasury Department is hiding the information.

Now perhaps we can focus on your "explanation" for the refusal, and not wander back needlessly to yet another expression of the fact of the refusal. And now I believe we are about to be treated to a retrograde restatement of your "explanation" in which you retreat from the specific to the general: Because the document is embarrassing to the IRS and the U. S. Treasury and would result in endless demands for criminal prosecutions to be instigated against the crooks investigated and named in the ROI.

Yes, I see that you have, indeed, abandoned and orphaned your earlier unsupported allegations of blackmail, extortion, and coy hints of rumored pedophaelia, and opted for a more euphemistic and hazy statement that the document is "embarrassing" in non-specific ways to the IRS and the U. S. Treasury. I’m heartened to see that you are able to recognize how fatally flawed your earlier position was and that you now exhibit the good sense to retreat from it. You may even have retreated far enough to reach ground on which we can agree. I don’t doubt that the document is, indeed, embarrassing to the IRS and the U. S. Treasury Department, yet that still does not answer why it would be. It would also result in endless questions about why indictments have not been handed down over the past nine years.  No, make that 11 years.

Perhaps it would. But these are the unsupported claims you earlier made: Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it.

Then, in a separate message in this thread, you claimed: The standard rumor is that that Scientology enterprise provided video tapes or photographs of the IRC [sic: IRS] Commissioner molesting children

Regarding your scandalous, sensationalistic, and unsupported claims, I said: As CL quite correctly pointed out, Mr. Rice did not provide "a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant."

To which you have replied: I guess you’ve not been paying attention.

I guess I have now thoroughly disabused you of that hope-filled fantasy, haven’t I, Mr. Rice? I’ve been paying very close attention indeed. There is no "standard rumor," as you falsely claimed, is there, Mr. Rice? You are a liar, aren’t you? You made that up out of whole cloth in desperation, asserting the false existence of a "standard rumor" in order to pretend some foundation for your vapid claims of "blackmail and extortion," didn’t you? There is no evidence whatsoever that "Scientology" blackmailed and extorted Commissioner Goldberg, is there? If there is, why haven’t you presented or cited any such evidence? You have not, nor has anyone else, so there is no point in pretending that you have. So in support of your "position," that being that the IRS and its Commissioner were at all relevant times "victims" of "Scientology," there is a perfect vacuum of evidence or documentation. There is only your false claim of a "standard rumor," without so much as a cited source for this alleged "standard rumor." That is easily explained: you made it up. Now let us briefly review, in contrast, what lies in the coffers of evidence for the opposing view: that IRS was at all relevant times the causitive and controlling party. And what do we find: 1. Meade Emory, former Assistant Commissioner of IRS (the second highest position in IRS), and former Legislative Attorney for the Joint Committee on Taxation, being the founder of the richest and most powerful Scientology corporation, Church of Spiritual Technology (CST, which was the primary beneficiary of the Closing Agreement), as well as being the architect of the probate and corporate restructuring that made that possible. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/founder.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1970-01-01emoryjointtaxc… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1975-01-01emoryasstcommi… 2. An IRS order in the Closing Agreement transferring the intellectual property of Scientology from "Author’s Family Trust-B" to the Emory-created corporation, CST. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1993-10-01closingagrmt.h… 3. Three non-Scientolgist tax and probate attorneys appointed to lifetime positions as the Special Directors of CST, with virtually unlimited powers over the control of the corporation, and, by virtue of CST’s custody and control of the intellectual property, over all of Scientology. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/contents/howirsruns.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-06-07cstbylaws.html… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-06-07cstbylaws.html… 4. A "Tax Compliance Manual" on which all Scientology organizations are now managed, and "Tax Compliance Sections" in every Scientology organization in the world enforcing compliance to IRS codes on all Scientology public and staff. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/prf03churchstaff.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/prf04tcm1seaorg.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/prf05tcm2tcs.html 5. A fraudulent version of "Scientology" called "the Scientology religion," promoted at taxpayer expense by IRS, in a booklet sent out to world governments by IRS called "A Description of the Scientology Religion," and consisting of CST-owned and IRS-approved altered "versions" of former Hubbard works. That is in evidence here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/scientologyreligion.html That is by no means a complete review. But I believe it is sufficient to expose your mewling, dishonest, and wholly unsupported fiction about "blackmail and extortion" of IRS and its then-Commissioner in these matters for the bag of wind that it is. I guess you haven’t been paying attention. Cambridge

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 —–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Uh….excuse me please. Well, you’re in luck: I just got back from an all-soccer weekend (well, not ~all~ soccer; there ~were~ the kegs of draft beer and the barbecued ribs), and I am so goddamned jazzed about the US team making it this far that I can probably excuse almost anything right now. Maybe even you. Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!

You mean you’ve been on course all weekend. How many student points did you get? You seem so knowledgable about everything that I thought you might be able to answer a simple question. Aw, shucks. You know what a sucker I am for smarmy sarcastic flattery, don’t you.

No need to be that way with me. I’m just a pipsqueak in this vast world of powerful critics that post here. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I looked at the website that you posted below, you know that sc-irs site, and I saw this on there: This is not an official site of either the Church of Spiritual Technology, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Treasury Department, Scientology, or any Scientology organization, and is not approved or sanctioned by any of them. This is a public service educational news and information site about the strange relationships between the corporation known as Church of Spiritual Technology (doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the United States government. All information on site may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. Now I was wondering why I was able to get to this "public information" site without any problem, but I was not able top get to the OCA survey site that Andrew Barbham created? HTF would I know? WTF is Andrew Barbham? See: I’m ~not~ knowledgeable about everything, just things that matter.

Try Google Group search in A.R.S. "Andrew Barnham" OCA. Pull up the thread. Then try to access the site with the OCA survey. Why is the OCA survey site considered to have copyrighted material, Hmmmmm. Now, let me stroke my goatee here for a minute… I know! I know! Because the OCA test is copyrighted material solely owned by… (Are you feverishly guessing? Do I have you clutching the edge of your chair? Are you hoping hoping hoping that it’s owned by RTC? Are you ~praying~ that the little lawn ornament Davey Dumbass Miscavige is somehow behind it so your favorite myths and superstitions can finally be sanctified?)

Actually I have no idea who owns the copyright for the OCA. I would guess that if it is owned by somebody other than its creator, then the rights were transfered. Irregardless the OCA has no worth other than use as a tool to make a person feel worthless and "in need of improvement". But then again, you know all about the OCA because you take one before and after every major auditing service you buy. BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Nope: the OCA test is solely owned by the corporation created by former Assistant Commissioner of IRS Meade Emory…

[cloture the filibuster i.e. snip the cr*p] Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!

I don’t even have a team on the field. You worked hard for that score. See, this is like shooting ducks in a barrel now isn’t it?

I thought the saying was "’fish’ in a barrel". For ducks, isn’t it "’ducks’ on a pond"? And isn’t it amazing that the COMPLETE answer to your question is right there on that site you are whining about "being able" to access. Maybe I’m not going to be able to excuse you after all. but yet this so called public site that you offered up does not seem to have any restrictions? That ~I~ offered up? BZZZZZZZZZZTT! No, jackass, I was notified about it here in a.r.s. like the rest of the world, and have since been directing people there for accurate, documented information, since that is what ~I~ find on the site. YMMV.

Please direct me to the thread where you were notified. I want to see exactly WHO notified you. What kind of restrictions would you like to see put on accurate, documented information, little Nazi boy?

There is really no need for the "colorful metaphor". Why does the Co$ seem to not have any problems with this site? WTF is the "Co$," moron? That’s probably the root of your problem, is that you spend sleepless nights fretting about THINGS THAT DON’T FUCKING EXIST, you stupid turd.

LOL CST, on the other hand, I imagine has MAJOR "problems with this site," but as I read it, there’s not a ~fucking~ thing they can do about it. Last I heard, there is at least a little bit left of the Constitution.

So a little site like Andrew Barnham’s OCA survey can get blocked on the internet, but the CST can’t do a thing about the site that you are trying to send people to. Excuse me for being so incredulous. Do you understand what I am getting at here? No. I don’t have a fucking clue what you are "getting at here." I don’t see any copyright violations on that site. Do you? Then cite them.

Actually I’d like to see Andrew Barnham’s site and see if I can cite any copyright violations there. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And if you find them (which you won’t) let’s see if CST has the fucking balls to go after them and open themselves up to possible discovery for all of these phantom documents (referenced on that site) that CST principals have laid claim to: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1979-12-15-2intervivos.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1981-10-01estateplan.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-1cstoption.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-2atproposed.html http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-4markspropose… http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/1982-05-10-8businessmgmt… Or if they want to open the door to discovery on all the times that Sherman Lenske arranged for "out-of-communication" Mr. "L. Ron Hubbard" to pop up like a fucking Whack-A-Gopher to sign shit, as is described here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/washubbard.html Or if they want to open the door to discovery on the Treasury Department personnel who were in bed with Meade Emory and Sherman Lenske: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/treasdept.html Oh, yeah! I just ~bet~ they want to pick that fight and open those doors to what is referenced on that site. I’ll tell you what: if they do, I would trade tickets to a soccer World Cup final that included the US team to have a seat in THAT courtroom. I would trade fucking SUPER BOWL tickets.

I remember a magazine that some offshoot of the Co$ once put out years ago, but I don’t remember the name of it. I do remember one month the cover had a picture of John Lennon on it and there was some kind of conspiracy theory in the mag about the FBI or pyschs trying to get John Lennon murdered. Did you write for that mag? Now that I have raised this question I am even more curious as to what your answer will be. You got it, pal. Please do not hesitate to answer. RD00 Did I seem hesitant to you?

All right, you’re forgiven for having to spend time in the course room over the weekend. Did you end up in Qual at all? http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html Goooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!

Like I said I don’t even have a team on the field. But I say "Hey man, nice shot" CL

I pity what you are going to go through when the REAL heavy hitters here take a shot at YOU. RD00

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -On 16 Jun 2002 in On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The document they’re refusing to distribute is an ROI which has always been a series of public documents available upon polite request leave alone upon formal FOIA requests.  This one document is an exception and the IRS refuses to release it. Yes, well, that also goes only to the fact that the IRS refuses to release it, doesn’t it, and not to the reason why. Perhaps you, also, overlooked the operative word, "why."

You might try to explain your pet theory — if you have one — as to why the IRS continues to deny the release of this public document.  Given the well documented history of the Scientology criminal enterprise, pedophile blackmail and extortion fits perfectly.  If you have another explanation, let’s hear it. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ "You can lie about ICR all you want."

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I received another letter from the U. S. Treasury which I’ll reproduce below. Previous requests for the investigative report created by the U. S. Inspector General for Tax Administration office of the U. S. Treasury which delved into the racketeering activities which took place in and around 1991 which resulted in the totally unwarranted 1993 tax exemption status of the Scientology criminal enterprise have resulted in the IRS and U. S. Treasury claiming that the document being requested was exempt from distribution due to the information being a matter of "national security." Indeed, the IRS whistleblower which leaked the criminal "closing agreement to the Wall Street Journal which published the document became the subject of an internal lynch mob who, it is believed, never found the correct neck to stretch.  And two moths ago we read a Judicial opinion that the IRS needs to be sued to leverage out full disclosure of what the Judge called a blatant criminal act. I filed a FOIA request dated August of 2001 for the document, identified it by its ROI number, specifically described the document and the number of pages as well as its publication date.  After a considerable amount of time I received a letter claiming the document couldn’t be located. After additional time I received confirmation that the document was found with a request that I wait longer.  Over time I received a number of letters about my FOIA including one which was sent from Washington, some how wound up in Baltimore, got opened, resealed with tape, and then sent to me in California. During this time I telephoned the FOIA fulfillment offices a number of times and kept getting the run-around being told that the FOIA request was being bounced between various internal departments finally winding up in "exempt organizations." Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. Now — with this letter — we find that the claim of "national security" has been dropped and now it’s a blatant, unexplained "exempt" from FIUA recall.  And the excuse?  The criminal enterprise which racketeered its way into tax exemption status is a tax exempted organization and as such the documents which cover the racketeering which resulted in that tax exemption status is exempt from public dissemination. Sweet bit of circular fraud, huh?

If you do some investigation via SEC filings you will find Michael Bayback (OT 8), in close liason with many other billion dollar players such as Lal Gondi (you can search these names on google and the SEC from there) are heavily connected thoughout government, particularly in Canada, california and Nevada…gold and silver mining interests world wide, with the attendant local govt corruption,  and a vast range of fraudulent gold stock manipulations.   At this point, blackmail while I am sure is still a major issue, the money alone, the kickbacks, bribes and sweetheart deals such as we saw in Zwickau Germany is doing the trick for the cult. The cult of scientology has America completely by the balls imho… and the grip is getting tigher each day.  After looking at this mess for a while now, it seems that it will be difficult or impossible to stop.. the deals are difuse, many apparently between friends unrecorded (as with slatkin)… and via shell corporations.   Tagging any of these billion dollar players when they can afford an army of the best attorneys… is not going to work. Even congressional action at this point is going to be difficult.  Thats as of June 2002… by 2005… I think it will be an even less encouraging picture. I thought if the issue had been correctly addressed when I first brought it up in 1995 that it could have been stopped.  Recent review has indicated that the mess was big even by the mid 80’s with Bayback.  Due to the nature of the operation, the espionage, etc.  It may have been unstoppable even then. Lisa’s death and other such issues are merely smoke screens for this cult… imho they could give a rats ass about the orgs or the public opinion now…its the stock, commodities fraud and espionage thats worth billions a year to them now….and they can continue to expand that at warp speed with the current players… they dont need, maybe they dont even want any new raw meat into the orgs. Phil Scott P – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –=- Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Washington, D. C.  20224 Fredric L. Rice             Person to contact                            Barry Windheim (I. D. # 50-07976)                            Telephone Number:                            (202) 622-4264                            Refer Reply to:                            XX-2002-XXXX BW                            [Stamp Jun  7 2002] Dear Mr. Riced:    This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.    Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.  If you have any further questions, please contact the person listed above.        Sincerely,        [Signed Maureen Sapero]        Marueen Sapero        Acting Manager, HQ Disclosure Office        Badge Number: 50-06543 Enclosure Notice 393 — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The subject of CL’s commentary, But you **are** CL, Randy.

Dave, I ~love~ being part of the Randy McDonald urban legend, but you obviously didn’t get this week’s ARSCC CL Bulletin. I have it on unimpeachable authority that this week I am Pat Broeker. Also the Librarian,

I so hope you don’t fantasize about me in a tube top. It is an ugly, ugly, thought. Hideous. It gives me nightmares. Nigel,

I’m Nigel now?! Hey, ~this~ is news! I like that! And apparently, since you are responding to a Cambridge post, he’s also now part of the urban legend, is that correct? I’m trying to mark my scorecard. and various other of your MPD identities or Scientology valences.

Well, I’m relieved to hear that it’s all my problem, and not merely the result of your own paranoid delusions. For a moment I was beginning to worry about you. But now you’ve put my mind at ease. I do not think you-all (or is it you-both)

Do you mean me as Randy McDonald ~and~ me as Pat Broeker? You left out DM. I’m also part of the DM urban legend, and I will NOT have that taken away from me. I am the ultimate body thetan of a.r.s., having become attached to ALL of these urban legends, so quit trying to sell me short–so to speak. Veritas Loons

Oh, that’s right! I’m Veritas, too! I forgot. And wasn’t I–or at least wasn’t Randy McDonald, or wgert’s pig, or somebody–the Public Research Foundation, too? And I don’t know how you could possibly overlook Ace of Clubs. I feel almost certain that I must have been part of that urban legend also at some point. I think you need to get YOUR scorcard up to date, Dave. You’re slacking. I’m an entire industry. I’m a one-man army. I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t diminish my legend. make much sense

You mean like you? in rubbshing Fred as you have tried to.

I wouldn’t rubbshing Fred on a salary, and I also would not promote him to rubbish. It would reflect badly on rubbish. If you have another explanation WHY the request was rejected — I don’t think it is so obviously true that Fred is a fool for even considering different possibilities — then please give it.

You fucking loon. That was the WHOLE POINT of my original post in THIS THREAD that YOU were RESPONDING to, you brain-dead, dole-draining, do-nothing, knee-jerk, lithium-sodden, semi-literate, half-baked, pea-brained, Armstrong-worshipping poster boy for Zippy the Pinhead cartoons! ~JESUS~, what a fucking lunatic! HERE is what ~YOU~ SNIPPED from my ORIGINAL POST, while also removing the reference to it, jerk: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Then, after you have visited his surreal fantasy world, if you want to see the actual, real-world, thoroughly documented ~truth~ of why the Treasury Department is hiding the information, go here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ Be sure to click on their "Complaint Dept." link in the red navigation bar to fully enjoy the irony of the site, but then come back and go to their chronological "Documents" index, here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html There you will find over NINETY (90–although their page says "60") real, tangible, verifiable documents, contracts, corporate papers, court rulings, Copyright and Trademark Office records, and media reports telling the ~real~ reason why the Treasury Department is hiding facts from the American people about IRS’s relationship with Scientology, particularly with the senior corporation in Scientology: the "Church of Spiritual Technology."

And HERE is the message ID you removed: There. Did you GET it this time, bonehead? Or will I have to post it again? Have you READ all the documents on that site? Yes or no? Have you ~studied~ the evidence? Yes or no? YES, or NO? No? Then shut the ~FUCK~ up until you have, because until you do you have NO STANDING to open your stupid fucking uninformed mouth, except to prove conclusively how ~FUCKING~ ignorant you are of the facts. Of course that would provide a complete accounting for why you buy into the insane ranting delusions of a nut case like Fredric Rice, though, wouldn’t it? Because I can GUARANTEE you that ~that~ raving, drooling psycho hasn’t bothered to study the facts and evidence presented there, either. If possible without shrieking or block capitals.

~FUCK~ you. I can’t POST without BLOCK CAPITALS, you fucking moron: that’s how my NAME is spelled: CL The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag whose excuse for an "editor"–Rod Keller–uses extreme socio-political censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it. Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST–doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller "sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth. "In Wollersheim’s case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."                                   –Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPQwPSNAKsx0v8qcvEQKjEACfWLt6IVV2guEKWWg3mRU9ulO6pF0AoIxI B8Z7F56lbOQjkgHqSO0Wuq5h =sLzl —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – On 14 Jun 2002 in Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this. Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The subject of CL’s commentary,

 But you **are** CL, Randy.  Also the Librarian, Nigel, and various  other of your MPD identities or Scientology valences.  I do not  think you-all (or is it you-both) Veritas Loons make much sense  in rubbshing Fred as you have tried to. If you have another  explanation WHY the request was rejected — I don’t think it is  so obviously true that Fred is a fool for even considering  different possibilities — then please give it. If possible  without shrieking or block capitals. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -as I read it, and the only way it possibly can be read using the Queen’s or any other English, is not questioning the fact that the Treasury Department is hiding information, which is the only thing the letter itself is pertinent to. His commentary was on Fredric Rice’s "explanation" about why the Treasury Department is hiding the information. The operative word, which in your twitching paroxysm you apparently overlooked, is "why." That was what Mr. Rice’s "explanation" addressed, which "explanation" you elected to excise: Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. As CL quite correctly pointed out, Mr. Rice did not provide "a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant." The "nut rant" being referred to is the above paragraph. Did you find evidence to support the above "explanation" in the IRS letter itself? If so, was the evidence in secret code that only you and Mr. Rice can decrypt? Or do you stipulate that Mr. Rice has been remote viewing the inner workings at 1111 Constitution Avenue? Perhaps he has planted a bug in one of the conference rooms of the Internal Revenue Service, or do I have that confused with someone else? If you had a name and address (what is your bane and address, Randy?) CL seems to be your bane, as evidenced by your lathered and resentful Freudian slip. which you could disclose even privately, then he could send you a paper copy and a letter with his physical signature on. I presume you are referring to Randy McDonald and implying, yet again, with an absence of foundation second only to Mr Rice’s, that CL and McDonald are one and the same. If you want to send something to Randy McDonald, or think Fredric Rice ought to, why not just go to the Operation Clambake pages hosting "The McDonald Papers" and get his address: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7301/14-960307HC.html It’s right at the bottom of the page along with his phone number. It isn’t difficult at all to find. Why do you pretend that there is some mystery to it when there isn’t any mystery to it at all? Are you that starved for intrigue? Then Mr. Rice can send Mr. McDonald an unsolicited piece of mail that is wholly irrelevant to anything, as Mr. Henson seems absolutely determined to do in the Lisa McPherson case. And the endless balmy conflagration of folly that is a.r.s. can rage on unabated like a Colorado wildfire. Cambridge

–  FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD,  AND BUGGER THE DWARF  HE RODE IN ON!!  8====3  (O 0)    GROETEN — PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL   no real OT has           |n|    (COMMANDER,  FIFTH INVADER FORCE)   ever existed  STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html            

Response:

By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. That’s because delusions are private, internalized mental constructs. So naturally they have no basis or foundation in the real world.

Er, your take on the events don’t include flying saucers, does it? — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

   Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed. The "appeal" consists of writing another letter to the same agency and saying "oh, please?"  These people are simply not going to make this public document public until a Judge orders them to – and even then it’ll take the Supreme Court to order it and even then the IRS will balk.

That’s pretty much the case.  However, your case is not ripe for judicial review until you have exhausted all administrative appeals. ptsc

Response:

On 14 Jun 2002 in – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this.

Goodness, did we forget to take our meds this morning? I also, evidently, am insane to the extent that I cannot comprehend what possible relevance the letter itself has as evidence of "why the Treasury Department is hiding important information." Perhaps you overlooked the operative word, "why." The subject of CL’s commentary, as I read it, and the only way it possibly can be read using the Queen’s or any other English, is not questioning the fact that the Treasury Department is hiding information, which is the only thing the letter itself is pertinent to. His commentary was on Fredric Rice’s "explanation" about why the Treasury Department is hiding the information. The operative word, which in your twitching paroxysm you apparently overlooked, is "why." That was what Mr. Rice’s "explanation" addressed, which "explanation" you elected to excise: Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it.

As CL quite correctly pointed out, Mr. Rice did not provide "a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant." The "nut rant" being referred to is the above paragraph. Did you find evidence to support the above "explanation" in the IRS letter itself? If so, was the evidence in secret code that only you and Mr. Rice can decrypt? Or do you stipulate that Mr. Rice has been remote viewing the inner workings at 1111 Constitution Avenue? Perhaps he has planted a bug in one of the conference rooms of the Internal Revenue Service, or do I have that confused with someone else? If you had a name and address (what is your bane and address, Randy?)

CL seems to be your bane, as evidenced by your lathered and resentful Freudian slip. which you could disclose even privately, then he could send you a paper copy and a letter with his physical signature on.

I presume you are referring to Randy McDonald and implying, yet again, with an absence of foundation second only to Mr Rice’s, that CL and McDonald are one and the same. If you want to send something to Randy McDonald, or think Fredric Rice ought to, why not just go to the Operation Clambake pages hosting "The McDonald Papers" and get his address: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7301/14-960307HC.html It’s right at the bottom of the page along with his phone number. It isn’t difficult at all to find. Why do you pretend that there is some mystery to it when there isn’t any mystery to it at all? Are you that starved for intrigue? Then Mr. Rice can send Mr. McDonald an unsolicited piece of mail that is wholly irrelevant to anything, as Mr. Henson seems absolutely determined to do in the Lisa McPherson case. And the endless balmy conflagration of folly that is a.r.s. can rage on unabated like a Colorado wildfire. Cambridge

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant.

 Er, no, fuckwit, he produces the entire text of the letter. You  are evidently insane to the extent you cannot comprehend this.  If you had a name and address (what is your bane and address, Randy?)  which you could disclose even privately, then he could send you a  paper copy and a letter with his physical signature on. – —  FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD,  AND BUGGER THE DWARF  HE RODE IN ON!!  8====3  (O 0)    GROETEN — PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL   no real OT has           |n|    (COMMANDER,  FIFTH INVADER FORCE)   ever existed  STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html             —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBPQpY/DjC8JjHfXGTEQKVGACg8e4D8ko8DjECzWmjHZ0sa+D4CIEAoPZb DVL7VnShsJIgcdUJditRQeZw =kpVp —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

fr Sweet bit of circular fraud, huh? If you do some investigation via SEC filings you will find Michael Bayback (OT 8), in close liason with many other billion dollar players such as Lal Gondi (you can search these names on google and the SEC from there) are heavily connected thoughout government, particularly in Canada, california and Nevada…gold and silver mining interests world wide, with the attendant local govt corruption,  and a vast range of fraudulent gold stock manipulations.   At this point, blackmail while I am sure is still a major issue, the money alone, the kickbacks, bribes and sweetheart deals such as we saw in Zwickau Germany is doing the trick for the cult.

It seems it’s an impossible task for citizens to leverage out of the IRS and U. S. Treasury any information about the events and any information about the criminal investigation which followed. Some of the people who were there at the time are still there and unwilling to talk about what they know, what they saw, and what the scuttlebutt was around their little domains.  I talked with a number of people and was informed that people know about all of the internal corruption, are aware of this incident to some extent.  Another top down public clensing which would result from the disclosure of this document would reach the people in the trenches since there would be another lynch mob conveined to find the people who talked to me about what little they know about it.  I also got the feeling that the people who answer the phones have been specifically instructed not to discuss such issues with callers even when that’s their designated job description. The standard rumor is that that Scientology enterprise provided video tapes or photographs of the IRC Commissioner molesting children but then I certainly never asked and certainly never even remotely mentioned what seems to be the common rumor. Even congressional action at this point is going to be difficult.  Thats as of June 2002… by 2005… I think it will be an even less encouraging picture.

All Congress needs to do is okay the Federal funding.  The FBI can take it from there, interdepartimentally work with the BATF, and take Miscaviage et al. out of the organized crime business once and for all.  The political ramifications of cleaning house would reach all the way to our unelected "President" who would want to link the Scientology criminal enterprise to vague "terrorists" to get the public on his side.  And that would muddy the water since the criminal enterprise can be taken out standing on its own merits. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

   Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.

The "appeal" consists of writing another letter to the same agency and saying "oh, please?"  These people are simply not going to make this public document public until a Judge orders them to – and even then it’ll take the Supreme Court to order it and even then the IRS will balk. Heavily armed IRS people conducted a lynch mob and went looking for the people who leaked the secret "closing agreement" to the Wall Street Journal, brandishing their firearms in a threatening way — and when an FBI officer who witnessed the incident reported it back to his supervisory controls, they swallowed the hit and the incident went no further. With crimes like that being conducted to cover up the billion dollar fraud that was enacted against the American public, failing to disclose the public document defying the Freedom of Information Act is peanuts. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

Xenu allowed ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com to write:    This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103. Sounds like a crock of shit to me. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode26&STEMMER=en&WOR… An investigative report is not "confidential return information," it’s a fucking investigative report.

Thanks, I’ll check the URL however I’ve finally got someone with a backbone to hold my hand through this.  I was going to give it up like I gave up the FDA FOIA request I was lied to about (the FDA claimed they knew nothing even after I sent them a newspaper article and _a_frocking_photograph_ of their own people conducting the raid I was asking about.) There’s a number of organizations out there on the Internet which have a history of conducting successful lawuits against the IRS for disclosure of FOIAs that have been previously denied.  None of the ones I looked at (when time permits) have had anything remotely as criminal as this one on their dinner plate, though.  But that’s the next step and I won’t be dropping this one. — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

There you will find over NINETY (90–although their page says "60") real, tangible, verifiable documents, contracts, corporate papers, court rulings, Copyright and Trademark Office records, and media reports telling the ~real~ reason why the Treasury Department is hiding facts from the American people about IRS’s relationship with Scientology, particularly with the senior corporation in Scientology: the "Church of Spiritual Technology."

I’m lazy. Could you summarize it for us in a paragraph? And then summarize the differences between your "actual, real-world, thoroughly documented truth"-ful explanation, and Mr. Rice’s "balmy, feverish," "surreal fantasy" one? Thanks! — LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT ASK THEM ABOUT XENU Mike O’Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 There you will find over NINETY (90–although their page says "60") real, tangible, verifiable documents, contracts, corporate papers, court rulings, Copyright and Trademark Office records, and media reports telling the ~real~ reason why the Treasury Department is hiding facts from the American people about IRS’s relationship with Scientology, particularly with the senior corporation in Scientology: the "Church of Spiritual Technology." I’m lazy. Could you summarize it for us in a paragraph?

No. Here, quoted from the site: "It’s not a simple story. There is no ‘TV Guide’ or ‘Reader’s Digest’ version. If you think of Watergate, you’ll begin to get some idea of the scope of the conspiracy and cover-up." Of course you are ~so~ lazy–or snide, or comprehension challenged–that you even snipped this from my message: Also on that site are several press releases that summarize the most important facts: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/newsroomindex.html

So if you’re too lazy to even read the six summarizing press releases, godspeed. And then summarize the differences between your "actual, real-world, thoroughly documented truth"-ful explanation, and Mr. Rice’s "balmy, feverish," "surreal fantasy" one?

No. I think you’ll be better off with the balmy, feverish, surreal fantasy one. It seems more tailored to your sloth. Thanks!

Always glad to help. CL The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag whose excuse for an "editor"–Rod Keller–uses extreme socio-political censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it. Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST–doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller "sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth. "In Wollersheim’s case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."                                   –Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPQpd0tAKsx0v8qcvEQL2yQCgrug4w6TAQ7gYa0N2DqAT1i7u4MwAoJYX 9FPN2JDXaqx4pxYkvxQtji1c =sjjo —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Yes, I’m top-posting, because I want to preserve intact, below, the balmy, feverish ravings of the nut case who wrote this post I’m responding to. By all means, please, ~please~ read his chattering hallucinatory "explanation" of why the Treasury Department is hiding important information relevant to the IRS’s Closing Agreement granting exemption to Scientology corporations. Read it, and please take careful note that he does not provide a scrap, not a hint, not a scintilla, not a mote of evidence or documentation to support his nut rant. That’s because delusions are private, internalized mental constructs. So naturally they have no basis or foundation in the real world. Then, after you have visited his surreal fantasy world, if you want to see the actual, real-world, thoroughly documented ~truth~ of why the Treasury Department is hiding the information, go here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/ Be sure to click on their "Complaint Dept." link in the red navigation bar to fully enjoy the irony of the site, but then come back and go to their chronological "Documents" index, here: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/documents/documentsindex.html There you will find over NINETY (90–although their page says "60") real, tangible, verifiable documents, contracts, corporate papers, court rulings, Copyright and Trademark Office records, and media reports telling the ~real~ reason why the Treasury Department is hiding facts from the American people about IRS’s relationship with Scientology, particularly with the senior corporation in Scientology: the "Church of Spiritual Technology." But first, by all means, read the unsupported ravings of a loon: Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.true-crime,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy I received another letter from the U. S. Treasury which I’ll reproduce below. Previous requests for the investigative report created by the U. S. Inspector General for Tax Administration office of the U. S. Treasury which delved into the racketeering activities which took place in and around 1991 which resulted in the totally unwarranted 1993 tax exemption status of the Scientology criminal enterprise have resulted in the IRS and U. S. Treasury claiming that the document being requested was exempt from distribution due to the information being a matter of "national security." Indeed, the IRS whistleblower which leaked the criminal "closing agreement to the Wall Street Journal which published the document became the subject of an internal lynch mob who, it is believed, never found the correct neck to stretch.  And two moths ago we read a Judicial opinion that the IRS needs to be sued to leverage out full disclosure of what the Judge called a blatant criminal act. I filed a FOIA request dated August of 2001 for the document, identified it by its ROI number, specifically described the document and the number of pages as well as its publication date.  After a considerable amount of time I received a letter claiming the document couldn’t be located. After additional time I received confirmation that the document was found with a request that I wait longer.  Over time I received a number of letters about my FOIA including one which was sent from Washington, some how wound up in Baltimore, got opened, resealed with tape, and then sent to me in California. During this time I telephoned the FOIA fulfillment offices a number of times and kept getting the run-around being told that the FOIA request was being bounced between various internal departments finally winding up in "exempt organizations." Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. Now — with this letter — we find that the claim of "national security" has been dropped and now it’s a blatant, unexplained "exempt" from FIUA recall.  And the excuse?  The criminal enterprise which racketeered its way into tax exemption status is a tax exempted organization and as such the documents which cover the racketeering which resulted in that tax exemption status is exempt from public dissemination. Sweet bit of circular fraud, huh? – -=- Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Washington, D. C.  20224 Fredric L. Rice             Person to contact                             Barry Windheim (I. D. # 50-07976)                             Telephone Number:                             (202) 622-4264                             Refer Reply to:                             XX-2002-XXXX BW                             [Stamp Jun  7 2002] Dear Mr. Riced:     This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.     Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.  If you have any further questions, please contact the person listed above.         Sincerely,         [Signed Maureen Sapero]         Marueen Sapero         Acting Manager, HQ Disclosure Office         Badge Number: 50-06543 Enclosure Notice 393 I hope you enjoyed the paranoid ravings of Fredric Rice that accompanied this blatant slap in the face by the Treasury Department. Now learn the facts behind the cover-up: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/index.html Also on that site are several press releases that summarize the most important facts: http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/newsroom/newsroomindex.html Fortunately, people have done real, honest, responsible investigative reporting on this issue, and backed up their findings with the evidence, so no one has to rely on the pitiable, unsupported Rice ravings. CL The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag whose excuse for an "editor"–Rod Keller–uses extreme socio-political censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it. Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST–doing business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"), and the three tax lawyers who control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller "sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth. "In Wollersheim’s case, make that lying, millionaire, winner scumbag."                                   –Michael Reuss, Honorary Kid —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBPQokvdAKsx0v8qcvEQLl/ACfeGOdMKXG0yzJGWy8jKLEq+A8JTYAn2Vr qwMXL/Jnl0Q5koRWVUmkIn6a =ur+d —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Fredric L. Rice             Person to contact                            Barry Windheim (I. D. # 50-07976)                            Telephone Number:                            (202) 622-4264                            Refer Reply to:                            XX-2002-XXXX BW                            [Stamp Jun  7 2002] Dear Mr. Riced:    This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.    Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.

—  FUCK THE SKULL OF HUBBARD,  AND BUGGER THE DWARF  HE RODE IN ON!!  8====3  (O 0)    GROETEN — PRINTZ XEMU EXTRAWL   no real OT has           |n|    (COMMANDER,  FIFTH INVADER FORCE)   ever existed  STOP PRESS: EIGHTY SEVEN MILLION THIN DIMES FOR WOLLERSHEIM =====  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63143-2002May9.html            

Response:

   This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.

Sounds like a crock of shit to me. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode26&STEMMER=en&WOR… An investigative report is not "confidential return information," it’s a fucking investigative report. ptsc

Response:

I received another letter from the U. S. Treasury which I’ll reproduce below. Previous requests for the investigative report created by the U. S. Inspector General for Tax Administration office of the U. S. Treasury which delved into the racketeering activities which took place in and around 1991 which resulted in the totally unwarranted 1993 tax exemption status of the Scientology criminal enterprise have resulted in the IRS and U. S. Treasury claiming that the document being requested was exempt from distribution due to the information being a matter of "national security." Indeed, the IRS whistleblower which leaked the criminal "closing agreement to the Wall Street Journal which published the document became the subject of an internal lynch mob who, it is believed, never found the correct neck to stretch.  And two moths ago we read a Judicial opinion that the IRS needs to be sued to leverage out full disclosure of what the Judge called a blatant criminal act. I filed a FOIA request dated August of 2001 for the document, identified it by its ROI number, specifically described the document and the number of pages as well as its publication date.  After a considerable amount of time I received a letter claiming the document couldn’t be located. After additional time I received confirmation that the document was found with a request that I wait longer.  Over time I received a number of letters about my FOIA including one which was sent from Washington, some how wound up in Baltimore, got opened, resealed with tape, and then sent to me in California. During this time I telephoned the FOIA fulfillment offices a number of times and kept getting the run-around being told that the FOIA request was being bounced between various internal departments finally winding up in "exempt organizations." Here’s my opinions of what the U. S. Treasury and the IRS did: their Commissioner was blackmailed and extorted by Scientology to grant the criminal enterprise tax exemption status.  The Commissioner and other crooks immediately fled the office and doubtlessly took up fishing now that they could afford never having to work again.  An investigation was eventually launched which doubtlessly enumerated the crimes of the indivuduals who took part in the crime — and possibly including whatever it was that the Scientology criminal enterprise used to blackmail and extort the now-missing IRS Commissioner.  The findings are so damaging to the IRS’s reputation and could put a number of existing and one-time IRS officials behind bars that the IRS and the U. S. Treasury labeled the document a matter of "national security" and refused to divulge it. Now — with this letter — we find that the claim of "national security" has been dropped and now it’s a blatant, unexplained "exempt" from FIUA recall.  And the excuse?  The criminal enterprise which racketeered its way into tax exemption status is a tax exempted organization and as such the documents which cover the racketeering which resulted in that tax exemption status is exempt from public dissemination. Sweet bit of circular fraud, huh? -=- Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Washington, D. C.  20224 Fredric L. Rice             Person to contact                             Barry Windheim (I. D. # 50-07976)                             Telephone Number:                             (202) 622-4264                             Refer Reply to:                             XX-2002-XXXX BW                             [Stamp Jun  7 2002] Dear Mr. Riced:     This is in response to yor Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) dated January 31, 2002 (sic) requesting the investigative report on the closing agreement between the IRS and the Church of Scientology and any other investigative material concerning the agreement.  To the extent that this information may exist, we consider this information exempt from the disclosure requirements in accordance with (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.  The basis for the(b)(3) exemption is 26. U.S.C 6103.     Notice 393, which described the exemptions and provides information concerning your appeal rights, is enclosed.  If you have any further questions, please contact the person listed above.         Sincerely,         [Signed Maureen Sapero]         Marueen Sapero         Acting Manager, HQ Disclosure Office         Badge Number: 50-06543 Enclosure Notice 393 — Insane nut rant at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice "Commodore Rimjob" is available at http://crimjob.tripod.com Why did the Scientologist cross the road? – mimus To slug Bob Minton. – Shydavid (See http://www.BobMinton.ORG/ Without Prozac, you would kill them all.

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ]Does anyone here know how newsgroups actually work.   ] ]Are they stored on some central server somewhere or are they hosted by interested parties? ] ]I use ATT as an ISP and I generally get excellent newsgroup service.   ] ]I also use google, usually to look something up.  Google has phenomenal search capacity. ] ] ] Has anyone tried using Opera for accessing ] newsgroups?  Any better than Netscape or ] OE? ] ]I’m using Opera right now.  It is a bit different.  Better? I don’t know. For a newsreader, I really like Agent from Forte Inc. There is a cut-down version you can try for free. I’d be lost without the filtering and scoring system of Agent. The threading is also very good. It requires a Microsoft OS to run on.

me too. Jim: The posts go to your ISP’s newserver, and that server propogates the posts to other servers. These other servers then propogate the articles to further servers and so on. Have a look at the Path: header in a post to see where it has travelled. Since not all newservers carry all groups, propogation of the different groups varies. Some may not propogate at all, depending on what groups the "uplink" carries. when configuring a newsserver you can set how full you want to let your disks get. When they get to this level, the articles expire, which is one source of the error the Original Poster was talking about. Articles can expire before they have propogated to even the next level of server, and therefore never get anywhere. It all depends on the server and their uplink.

   Mike Block, QuickBooks Tax Cut CPA, 954-566-7540 Lowest QB Prices   http://blocktax.com/lowest_QuickBooks_prices.htm Free 462p QB Book  http://blocktax.com/free-quickbooks-book.htm Error Codes/Fixes  http://blocktax.com/quickbooks-errors.htm Shortcuts Download http://blocktax.com/quickbooks_shortcuts.htm 200 QB Add-ons http://blocktax.com/quickbooks-addons/quickbooks-add-ons.htm

Response:

Does anyone here know how newsgroups actually work.  

Yes. Are they stored on some central server somewhere or are they hosted by interested parties?

There is no central server; they are propagated across a whole horde of servers, most of the one’s you’ll see being run by large ISPs. — http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/news.html "His  power lies   apparently  in his  ability  to  choose incompetent enemies." — Crow T. Robot, MST3K, "Prince of Space"

Response:

Does anyone here know how newsgroups actually work. Yes. Are they stored on some central server somewhere or are they hosted by interested parties? There is no central server; they are propagated across a whole horde of servers, most of the one’s you’ll see being run by large ISPs.

Those were not my questions. "It’s God’s job to sort out what to do with terrorists.    It’s our job to deliver them to God. " I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

]Does anyone here know how newsgroups actually work.   ] ]Are they stored on some central server somewhere or are they hosted by interested parties? ] ]I use ATT as an ISP and I generally get excellent newsgroup service.   ] ]I also use google, usually to look something up.  Google has phenomenal search capacity. ] ] ] Has anyone tried using Opera for accessing ] newsgroups?  Any better than Netscape or ] OE? ] ]I’m using Opera right now.  It is a bit different.  Better? I don’t know. For a newsreader, I really like Agent from Forte Inc. There is a cut-down version you can try for free. I’d be lost without the filtering and scoring system of Agent. The threading is also very good. It requires a Microsoft OS to run on. Jim: The posts go to your ISP’s newserver, and that server propogates the posts to other servers. These other servers then propogate the articles to further servers and so on. Have a look at the Path: header in a post to see where it has travelled. Since not all newservers carry all groups, propogation of the different groups varies. Some may not propogate at all, depending on what groups the "uplink" carries. when configuring a newsserver you can set how full you want to let your disks get. When they get to this level, the articles expire, which is one source of the error the Original Poster was talking about. Articles can expire before they have propogated to even the next level of server, and therefore never get anywhere. It all depends on the server and their uplink.

Response:

Occasionally nealy all articles here are marked "unavailable". Is someone playing havoc with our newsgroup? Can we do something about it? A. Lucien Meyers — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. PGP Key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA  B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15 To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Rumsfeld Panama Treasury Arafat FSF fissionable Iran Cocaine ammunition

Response:

Occasionally nealy all articles here are marked "unavailable". Is someone playing havoc with our newsgroup? Can we do something about it?

It is you server and/or software.  The only time I get articles unavailable is if the newsgroup server is down and a connection can’t be made. Sometimes I will get messages marked as "Repost" some of which have already appeared on my server. Also occasionally I’ll get messages that are many months old showing up out of the blue. Here is a trick you can try: if you don’t see a message showing up in this newsgroup go to http://www.google.com and try viewing the message there.    Occasioanally a mesage won’t show up in this newsgroup through the regular server but will show up on Google. Betwenn Usenet Newsgroup servers, Netscape, and Outlook Express the whole system of Usenet newsgroups sucks.   It is like they are having a contest to see who can crash their servers more, who can write the suckiest software, etc. Has anyone tried using Opera for accessing newsgroups?  Any better than Netscape or OE? "It’s God’s job to sort out what to do with terrorists.    It’s our job to deliver them to God. " I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Occasionally nealy all articles here are marked "unavailable". Is someone playing havoc with our newsgroup? Can we do something about it?

Must be your newsreader, as I can always get the posts unless they are really old ones. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens,  Georgia http://www.pat-cpa.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Occasionally nealy all articles here are marked "unavailable". Is someone playing havoc with our newsgroup? Can we do something about it? It is you server and/or software.  The only time I get articles unavailable is if the newsgroup server is down and a connection can’t be made. Sometimes I will get messages marked as "Repost" some of which have already appeared on my server. Also occasionally I’ll get messages that are many months old showing up out of the blue. Here is a trick you can try: if you don’t see a message showing up in this newsgroup go to http://www.google.com and try viewing the message there.    Occasioanally a mesage won’t show up in this newsgroup through the regular server but will show up on Google.

Does anyone here know how newsgroups actually work.   Are they stored on some central server somewhere or are they hosted by interested parties? I use ATT as an ISP and I generally get excellent newsgroup service.   I also use google, usually to look something up.  Google has phenomenal search capacity. Betwenn Usenet Newsgroup servers, Netscape, and Outlook Express the whole system of Usenet newsgroups sucks.   It is like they are having a contest to see who can crash their servers more, who can write the suckiest software, etc. Has anyone tried using Opera for accessing newsgroups?  Any better than Netscape or OE?

I’m using Opera right now.  It is a bit different.  Better? I don’t know. I like it because it is fast, easy to manage and security compatible.   I usually use Mozilla (Linux).  The Linux machine happens to be shut down at the moment, so I’m using an NT 4.0 box.   I have OE and Netscape.  I sometimes one or the other for some special reason, however that is increasingly rare. Jim Hudspeth

Response:

Question:

True, My newsletter from Woodcraft indicates they will try to convert most company stores to franchises, gets that personal commitment from the Owner/Manager….. Bob S.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone have any scoop on something I heard yesterday.  It appears that Woodcraft is offering franchise opportunities.  Does anyone know if this is a trend?  Are they going to conver their company owned stores?  Where are the new stores?  I’ve heard that one of them will be in Tulsa…. — Chuck Rush Pond Rushes, http://members.home.net/crush11 Anti-spam note – to reply, remove the _nospam from the address. Nonne scis sibilare?  Labris compositis, perfla. You know how to whistle, don’t you?  Just put your lips together and blow.

Response:

How about Schlotzsky’s Deli ("Funny Name, Serious Sandwich")? They even advertise it on their napkins! Chuck – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, I think the franchise thing started only about 5-6 years ago.  I checked into it.  $200,000 fluid, minimum investment required.  I couldn’t raise that much (comfortably) so passed.  I still think with the right location and crew, a lot of money is to be made. Anyone have any scoop on something I heard yesterday.  It appears that Woodcraft is offering franchise opportunities.  Does anyone know if this is a trend?  Are they going to conver their company owned stores?  Where are the new stores?  I’ve heard that one of them will be in Tulsa….

Response:

Well, I think the franchise thing started only about 5-6 years ago.  I checked into it.  $200,000 fluid, minimum investment required.  I couldn’t raise that much (comfortably) so passed.  I still think with the right location and crew, a lot of money is to be made.

Unfortunately, often that money is made by the franchisor, not the individual franchisees. For someone who has the know how to run a successful business, there are excellent franchise operations but it is a very risky endeavour and anyone thinking about it needs lots of excellent legal, accounting and business management advice BEFORE making any commitments. If someone is going to invest several hundred thousand dollars and risk losing their life’s savings, it’s worth a few thousand dollars to get the best possible advice. — Regards, Benoit Evans

Response:

As far as I know, all Woodcraft stores are franchises. Their web site, and the cover of their catalogs always say as much. Kevin – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone have any scoop on something I heard yesterday.  It appears that Woodcraft is offering franchise opportunities.  Does anyone know if this is a trend?  Are they going to conver their company owned stores?  Where are the new stores?  I’ve heard that one of them will be in Tulsa…. — Chuck Rush Pond Rushes, http://members.home.net/crush11 Anti-spam note – to reply, remove the _nospam from the address. Nonne scis sibilare?  Labris compositis, perfla. You know how to whistle, don’t you?  Just put your lips together and blow.

Response:

Well, I think the franchise thing started only about 5-6 years ago.  I checked into it.  $200,000 fluid, minimum investment required.  I couldn’t raise that much (comfortably) so passed.  I still think with the right location and crew, a lot of money is to be made. Phil — Living In The Woods of Beautiful Bonney Lake Washington Visit My Web Site www.madrona.bizhosting.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone have any scoop on something I heard yesterday.  It appears that Woodcraft is offering franchise opportunities.  Does anyone know if this is a trend?  Are they going to conver their company owned stores?  Where are the new stores?  I’ve heard that one of them will be in Tulsa…. — Chuck Rush Pond Rushes, http://members.home.net/crush11 Anti-spam note – to reply, remove the _nospam from the address. Nonne scis sibilare?  Labris compositis, perfla. You know how to whistle, don’t you?  Just put your lips together and blow.

Response:

I know the owner of our local Woodcraft store.  He didn’t elaborate on the investment, but said it’s a 5 year commitment before you’re "comfortable". Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well, I think the franchise thing started only about 5-6 years ago.  I checked into it.  $200,000 fluid, minimum investment required.  I couldn’t raise that much (comfortably) so passed.  I still think with the right location and crew, a lot of money is to be made. Phil — Living In The Woods of Beautiful Bonney Lake Washington Visit My Web Site www.madrona.bizhosting.com Anyone have any scoop on something I heard yesterday.  It appears that Woodcraft is offering franchise opportunities.  Does anyone know if this is a trend?  Are they going to conver their company owned stores?  Where are the new stores?  I’ve heard that one of them will be in Tulsa…. — Chuck Rush Pond Rushes, http://members.home.net/crush11 Anti-spam note – to reply, remove the _nospam from the address. Nonne scis sibilare?  Labris compositis, perfla. You know how to whistle, don’t you?  Just put your lips together and blow.

Response:

Anyone have any scoop on something I heard yesterday.  It appears that Woodcraft is offering franchise opportunities.  Does anyone know if this is a trend?  Are they going to conver their company owned stores?  Where are the new stores?  I’ve heard that one of them will be in Tulsa…. — Chuck Rush Pond Rushes, http://members.home.net/crush11 Anti-spam note – to reply, remove the _nospam from the address. Nonne scis sibilare?  Labris compositis, perfla. You know how to whistle, don’t you?  Just put your lips together and blow.

Response:

Anyone have any scoop on something I heard yesterday.  It appears that Woodcraft is offering franchise opportunities.  Does anyone know if this is a trend?  Are they going to conver their company owned stores?  Where are the new stores?  I’ve heard that one of them will be in Tulsa….

They have always done franchising, or at least have been at it for quite a while.  Check their home page and click on "Franchise Information".  They give a name to call or e-mail for information.  http://www.woodcraft.com/Woodcraft/assets/html/homepage.asp

Response:

Question:

identify your gender, please. i just figured out it was inappropriate for me to have a crush on Black Cloud cause she’s a she. bear?  you’re still a he, right? %?  male? glennT is male, thank god.  i’m appropriate there.

I am so much a male, denise, that it scares the fuck out of me sometimes. It scares me when I look at a woman and feel everything crumble into sexual desire… there are so many reasons why. But yeah… you’re appropriate… and while i have a crush on Mary Beth, that’s appropriate and totally ok. there’s nothing immoral about loving Mary Beth. no matter WHAT that New York court said… denise

going off for a cold shower… — "I do not know" – GlennT Learning to let go… http://people.A2000.nl/gthomas/GlennHome.htm

Response:

and while i have a crush on Mary Beth, that’s appropriate and totally ok.   there’s nothing immoral about loving Mary Beth. no matter WHAT that New York court said…

Don’t even get me started on New York and some of their laws, especially some of their new ones…ARGH. I LOVE YOU TOO, and I think that it is completely appropriate. Mary Beth DON’T VOTE FOR PATAKI, he may be running for vice president (for you oldies, he was the one I was freaking out over when I was in the psych ward…he discriminates against the mentally ill )

Response:

What??  No crush on Dogbert?  Sheesh.  There’s no accounting for taste. Dan

I was wondering why Siddhartha Vicious would be left out. Hmph! Ya don’t know what you’re missing. 8^P James "Vision is both revelation and revolution. It is the call AND the response." — James Benjamin (2000) http://www.geocities.com/the_bokononist/

Response:

I am so much a male, denise, that it scares the fuck out of me sometimes. It scares me when I look at a woman and feel everything crumble into sexual desire… there are so many reasons why. But yeah… you’re appropriate… going off for a cold shower..

Is it appropriate to ask if we can watch?

Response:

I am so much a male, denise, that it scares the fuck out of me sometimes. It scares me when I look at a woman and feel everything crumble into sexual desire… there are so many reasons why. But yeah… you’re appropriate… going off for a cold shower.. Is it appropriate to ask if we can watch?

Mary Beth you can watch anything that gives you pleasure… I just don’t imagine that would be me under a cold shower… even *I* can’t imagine that. — "I do not know" – GlennT Learning to let go… http://people.A2000.nl/gthomas/GlennHome.htm

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am so much a male, denise, that it scares the fuck out of me sometimes. Nah!…you’re a bundle of cuddly flumphyness, a snugglywuggly little rough tough cream puff with rosy cheeks a cheeky grin and limpid pool eyes that ooze gorgeousness. It scares me when I look at a woman and feel everything crumble into sexual desire… there are so many reasons why. That’s because you’re a concupiscent kinkymonger, a studmuffin with a large bore Chevy engine where a groin should be, that and a pervert. Gruff manly type hugs. Michael

Michael Doubtfire I imagine… Equally gruffly manly type licking of your earlobe. — "I do not know" – GlennT Learning to let go… http://people.A2000.nl/gthomas/GlennHome.htm

Response:

going off for a cold shower..

<<Is it appropriate to ask if we can watch? IMO no it’s not.

Response:

****** Yup. Hi denise. —                     _    bear         _.-’ )                (_ . ‘ __                 ___^/` _)                (__.                            ’–.                    /_ /`-._/                   (__/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – identify your gender, please. i just figured out it was inappropriate for me to have a crush on Black Cloud cause she’s a she. bear?  you’re still a he, right? %?  male? glennT is male, thank god.  i’m appropriate there. and while i have a crush on Mary Beth, that’s appropriate and totally ok. there’s nothing immoral about loving Mary Beth. no matter WHAT that New York court said… denise

all female here… least.. the last time I checked…. and that HAS been awhile!!! Julia — Mis …If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear…                                 – Bruce Cockburn

Response:

bear?  you’re still a he, right? Oh.. I always thought Bear was femme..

***** Sheesh!  At least you could have said "female".  :o) Hi Adri! —                     _    bear         _.-’ ) <– writes under a "femme de plume".                (_ . ‘ __                 ___^/` _)                (__.                            ’–.                    /_ /`-._/                   (__/

Response:

bear?  you’re still a he, right?

Oh.. I always thought Bear was femme..

Response:

Hmmm.  How about "Testosterone Thundercock?"  Or "Jake Deltoid?" Dan — De profundus clamo nolte domine

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i have LOTS of taste, excuse me! but "dogbert" doesn’t incite my lust. work on that. denise bear?  you’re still a he, right? %?  male? glennT is male, thank god.  i’m appropriate there. and while i have a crush on Mary Beth, that’s appropriate and totally ok. What??  No crush on Dogbert?  Sheesh.  There’s no accounting for taste. Dan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – bear wrote Furry? Housebroken? Omnivorous?  Oh yeh, female? No. omg.. I feel so stupid now.. for as long as I’ve known you, I thought you were female.. Sorry    bear         _.-’ ) <- can’t you see the moustache? ) Hehe Hugs, Adri

***** Don’t feel bad, when I was a "newbie" here I thought Bev Thornton was a woman.  :o) *bear hugs* —                     _    bear         _.-’ )                (_ . ‘ __                 ___^/` _)                (__.                            ’–.                    /_ /`-._/                   (__/

Response:

bear wrote Furry? Housebroken? Omnivorous?  Oh yeh, female? No.

omg.. I feel so stupid now.. for as long as I’ve known you, I thought you were female.. Sorry    bear         _.-’ ) <- can’t you see the moustache? )

Hehe Hugs, Adri

Response:

Sheesh!  At least you could have said "female".  :o)

) But now I’m confused.. are you or aren’t you?

Response:

Sheesh!  At least you could have said "female".  :o) ) But now I’m confused.. are you or aren’t you?

***** Furry? Housebroken? Omnivorous?  Oh yeh, female? No.  –                     _    bear         _.-’ ) <- can’t you see the moustache? )                (_ . ‘ __                 ___^/` _)                (__.                            ’–.                    /_ /`-._/                   (__/

Response:

Well I think you should think things over in your mind. God bless you! Sincerely, Beverly Kindle Walker

Response:

Pie is female

Response:

identify your gender, please.

Yes. Leland — Leland E. Vandervort                       | Directeur, Operations http://www2.discpro.org/                   | http://www.multimania.fr/ CCNA, CCDA                                 |   +33 (0)1 53 35 02 55

Response:

Don’t feel bad, when I was a "newbie" here I thought Bev Thornton was a woman.  :o)

Me, too

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – identify your gender, please. i just figured out it was inappropriate for me to have a crush on Black Cloud cause she’s a she. bear?  you’re still a he, right? %?  male? glennT is male, thank god.  i’m appropriate there. and while i have a crush on Mary Beth, that’s appropriate and totally ok. there’s nothing immoral about loving Mary Beth. no matter WHAT that New York court said… denise all female here… least.. the last time I checked…. and that HAS been awhile!!! Julia

"Ok everybody get out your mirrors.." – Fried Green Tomatoes

Response:

Question:

On 16-Mar-99 I paid a Myrtle Beach, South Carolina certified public accountant firm $250.00 for services rendered on my deceased mother’s income taxes. On 31-Jan-00 they issued a new bill, which I received in the mail 26-Feb-00, for $250.00 I have the canceled check. They say they have no proof of payment. What’s going on here? It’s very upsetting. First, I’m still having to haggle about things on for my deceased mother. Second, this is an accounting firm, of all things! They can’t get or keep their records of payments received correct? The woman on the phone said she has found "several" checks, copies of them, that were not entered into their system, recently. I would like to know if this is the caliber of quality one should expect from this profession. PS – They weren’t any help. An estate attorney said I needed a CPA. The CPA said I needed an attorney. That’s a serious paraphrase of everything they said, but the only help I’ve received on this at all has been directly from the IRS! So much for consulting professionals, in my book.

Response:

I am not able to comment on the agency in question.  Sometimes handling mistakes occur.  Many firms have lock boxes that make deposits for them and they don’t have control over the deposits.  This is only one of many possible explanations for the error.  In any event you have remitted payment.  Send a copy of the front and back of the canceled check with a letter of explanation to the CPA firm.  Make sure to send both because the routing numbers for all the banks will be listed on the back of the check. With this information they can confirm your payment or at the very least to which account your payment was deposited.  This should resolve the problem for you. HTH Don   Regards,   Donald A Haney, MBA   Emergency Care Specialists, PC   "Learning occurs in the mind, independent of time and place." – Plato   On 16-Mar-99 I paid a Myrtle Beach, South Carolina certified public   accountant firm $250.00 for services rendered on my deceased mother’s income   taxes.   On 31-Jan-00 they issued a new bill, which I received in the mail 26-Feb-00,   for $250.00   I have the canceled check.   They say they have no proof of payment.   What’s going on here?   It’s very upsetting. First, I’m still having to haggle about things on for   my deceased mother. Second, this is an accounting firm, of all things! They   can’t get or keep their records of payments received correct?   The woman on the phone said she has found "several" checks, copies of them,   that were not entered into their system, recently.   I would like to know if this is the caliber of quality one should expect   from this profession.   PS – They weren’t any help. An estate attorney said I needed a CPA. The CPA   said I needed an attorney. That’s a serious paraphrase of everything they   said, but the only help I’ve received on this at all has been directly from   the IRS! So much for consulting professionals, in my book.

Response:

It’s very upsetting. First, I’m still having to haggle about things on for my deceased mother. Second, this is an accounting firm, of all things! They can’t get or keep their records of payments received correct?

While I understand not being happy with receiving yet another bill, it seems very clear that you have more than enough information to prove you paid the bill.  I would simply send the firm a copy of the check (front and back showing endorsements) with a note that you paid it on said date.  If that doesn’t solve the problem, then I’d say you have a real beef with them.

Response:

So much for consulting professionals, in my book.

Um–there is this little issue of consulting *COMPETENT* professionals as opposed to just anyone.

Response:

It’s just the old saying that "The plumber’s house always has the leaky taps."  I would report them to the local CPA governing body. You wouldn’t believe the trouble I have had with a major bank in trying to wind up an Estate.  Seems that these days, no one stays on a job long enough to properly learn it. Peter

Response:

It’s just the old saying that "The plumber’s house always has the leaky taps."  I would report them to the local CPA governing body.

I’m not sure there’s anything that happened here that would be a violation of most state’s accountancy statutes.  The only provision I can see that might apply would be "acts discreditable" and that would be a real stretch (that provision arguably could cover just about anything <grin). Reality is that if the problem didn’t get fixed, I’d think a call to the local press would likely get a lot more attention.  It appears this was a multi-office firm and what we had was a good old bureaucratic foul up.  Since nobody likely wanted to admit making a mistake or felt this was truly a priority, the issue never got cleared up.   The CPA didn’t follow up to see that the entry was gone from the billing system and those in billing just ignored the complaints from the billing CPA.  If either the CPA or the people in billing thought that they might get on television it might give them a lot more incentive to follow through <grin.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s just the old saying that "The plumber’s house always has the leaky taps."  I would report them to the local CPA governing body. I’m not sure there’s anything that happened here that would be a violation of most state’s accountancy statutes.  The only provision I can see that might apply would be "acts discreditable" and that would be a real stretch (that provision arguably could cover just about anything <grin). Reality is that if the problem didn’t get fixed, I’d think a call to the local press would likely get a lot more attention.  It appears this was a multi-office firm and what we had was a good old bureaucratic foul up.  Since nobody likely wanted to admit making a mistake or felt this was truly a priority, the issue never got cleared up. The CPA didn’t follow up to see that the entry was gone from the billing system and those in billing just ignored the complaints from the billing CPA.  If either the CPA or the people in billing thought that they might get on television it might give them a lot more incentive to follow through <grin.

Some of us (the undersigned included) don’t pay anywhere near as much attention to our own billing as we do to client matters.  My billing is handled by a very competent lady who usually gets it right.  That has not always been the case, and in times past mistakes have occurred. When that has happened, and it has come to my attention, it has been fixed promptly and courteously – very promptly and very courteously. I would suggest a personal call to the CPA involved, and if that doesn’t work, a call to the managing partner.  If that doesn’t work you can use more drastic measures. — Jim Hudspeth, CPA – http://jim.hudspeth.com – Washington, USA

Response:

Question:

Mr Henry’ What locations are you looking to cover? Robert Mason – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We are looking for an Insurance Continuing Education Instructor. This instructor position is an off-site /out-sourced position. The canidate should have basic computer skills with word processing and email. The course instructor must meet at least one of the following instructor criteria: (1) Instructor is and has been in the practice of teaching insurance courses for at least the last three years and has the knowledge and experience in the subject the instructor will teach; (2) Instructor is and has been properly licensed as a licensee subject to continuing education under this act for at least five years; (3) Instructor is the holder of a professional designation recognized by the department which relates directly to the subject the instructor will teach; or (4) Instructor is or has been engaged in a recognized profession that is pertinent to the subject areas to be taught, including, but not limited to: licensed or certified medical professionals, Certified Public Accountants, and members of a state bar. If you are interested in this position please reply to this message for addition information. Lee Henry

Response:

We are looking for an Insurance Continuing Education Instructor. This instructor position is an off-site /out-sourced position. The canidate should have basic computer skills with word processing and email. The course instructor must meet at least one of the following instructor criteria: (1) Instructor is and has been in the practice of teaching insurance courses for at least the last three years and has the knowledge and experience in the subject the instructor will teach; (2) Instructor is and has been properly licensed as a licensee subject to continuing education under this act for at least five years; (3) Instructor is the holder of a professional designation recognized by the department which relates directly to the subject the instructor will teach; or (4) Instructor is or has been engaged in a recognized profession that is pertinent to the subject areas to be taught, including, but not limited to: licensed or certified medical professionals, Certified Public Accountants, and members of a state bar. If you are interested in this position please reply to this message for addition information. Lee Henry

Response:

Question:

Any advice or cautions on cutting old vinyl lps on a scroll saw?  How about cutting up old CDs and plastic jewel boxes or computer disk casings?  I’m wondering if there are any health dangers from the sawdust.  I have a 2 speed Delta 16" scroll saw and I’m planning to cut using the lower speed to avoid melting the material.  What type of blades should I try? Also, I have noticed that if I have the tension on the saw set too high the saw will not reciprocate properly (duh!)If I back off of this to where the saw works properly again do I have it set at the proper tension?  How can you tell what proper tension is? David

Response:

Any advice or cautions on cutting old vinyl lps on a scroll saw?  

Yes.  It’s a low, criminal thing to do.  To do such a thing makes you _so_ low, in fact, that you could look up at a snake’s a**hole and think it’s the North Star.  Don’t do it.  If you want to part with them, fer cryin’ out loud, give ‘em to a thrift shop or Goodwill or something, where people will buy them up and give them happy new homes safe from record-mutilatin’ lowlifes and their fretsaws.  Think they can’t feel pain? Don’t believe for a second that no one would buy your old LP’s.  You’ve heard the saying, "There’s no accounting for the taste of the American public"?  Need proof?  Ever seen ads for those frightening "Precious Moments" type figurines in Parade Magazine? How about cutting up old CDs and plastic jewel boxes or computer disk casings?

Now you’re talking.  I’m wondering if there are any health dangers from the sawdust.  

Umm, it’s plastic, and it lasts forever.  Know what "silicosis", "asbestosis", and "black lung" are?  Expect similar. I have a 2 speed Delta 16" scroll saw and I’m planning to cut using the lower speed to avoid melting the material.  What type of blades should I try?

For CDs, measure the thickness.  Select a blade with enough teeth that two will always be inside the disc at any part of the stroke.  A little paraffin wax will help reduce heating and chipping. Also, I have noticed that if I have the tension on the saw set too high the saw will not reciprocate properly (duh!)If I back off of this to where the saw works properly again do I have it set at the proper tension?  How can you tell what proper tension is? David

When it seems to be cutting straight. BTW — A real neat trick you can do with old Vanilla Ice, Milli Vanilli, or Billy Ray Cyrus CDs is you can place them over a bowl and nuke them in a microwave oven for about 15 seconds.  They’ll create sparks, then quickly sag into the shape of the bowl.

Response:

Question:

) writes:

(professing his faith in "HIV", which, like God, there is only indirect evidence for) We’re far beyond that point. We now even have the three-dimensional structures defined:

Defining the 3D structure of a protein doesn’t tell you anything about where the protein came from or if it is indeed part of a viral particle (you know, that one that they cannot purify completely, the one that has about 30 or so human proteins associated with it after purification).  The source of their "p24" (aka, capsid) is not given, but rest assured it was not from any culture of "HIV" (the gold standard source of material).  They undoubtedly have used a cloned sequence that someone told them was from "HIV", mainly for practical reasons, since you could never get enough pure "HIV" from any culture to do structure studies of individual proteins. I wonder what 3D structures they would find if they used proteins produced from all the variant sequences of p24?  Now that would be an interesting study.  I would bet some of them don’t fold into any kind of recognizable structure, which would make you wonder how all these "p24’s" do whatever they’re supposed to do, in spite of the claims made about them. Also, a note on the uniqueness of p24–many "HIV-" pregnant women have a p24 antigen in their placenta around the time of birth. So much for p24 being synonymous with "infection" or belonging solely to the "HIV". Todd Miller, PhD

Response:

Also, a note on the uniqueness of p24–many "HIV-" pregnant women have a p24 antigen in their placenta around the time of birth. So much for p24 being synonymous with "infection" or belonging solely to the "HIV". Todd Miller, PhD

You are careful to call it *a* p24 antigen, not *the* p24 antigen. In as much as the designation p24 refers only to the size of a protein, perhaps you could provide some information on the degree or relatedness and cross reactivity of placental p24 from HIV uninfected (seronegative) mothers and assays for the p24 antigen of HIV.

Response:

 "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – All of which is a long-winded way of admitting that you can’t find a reference to isolation of "HIV" either. So now the customary question we ask people stuffed with pompous delusions about what they "know" (or think they know) about "HIV", is whether you appreciate why it is important to achieve a proper isolation of the "virus"? [...] Some retroviruses grow well in culture, some don’t.  However, molecular biology allows much to be done with small amounts of virus.  As I have said above, complete sequences of the RNA has been accomplished and sequences of individual genes have been used to demonstrate transmission. I don’t know what "proper isolation" refers to, but there is ample evidence that HIV exists, is associated with AIDS, and elimination of HIV improves the health of AIDS patients (which is why viral lode is a good prognostic indicator).  

All of which is a long-winded way of admitting you don’t understand why proper isolation matters. And if you won’t read, and aren’t prepared to educate yourself, what more can be done to help you?  John —   "In going back to the origins of HIV virology and telling the HIV  story, a view will be presented which will make clear that HIV itself,  the very object of this Manhattan Project of modern medicine, does not  exist."                                 Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist.

Response:

Duesberg doesn’t really have to say much, read jay Levy instead if these drugs do not assist CMI and boost CTLs then they are not much good since 1) most HIV RNA in plasma is non-infectious 2) HIV DNA cell to cell transmission is far more efficient (though only 1% cells replicating at any time) perhaps PIs have an antibiotic effect or make people feel "better" since they may reduce the CMI response, thereby reducing inflammation and unwell feelings that come from the immune system fighting multiple antigens perhaps the non-specific action on ALL aspartic protease is reducing other conditions which rely on this enzyme such as candida albicans and other fungal infections (antibiotic effect) however, if PIs affect the chemical messengers in such a way as to down regulate the CMI arm, or cause a reduction in CTLs much like AZT can potentially do (as can all nucleoside analogues), then this chemotherapy could be lowering immunity along with HIVs action on the IL2 and ultimately setting the user up for a big crash not to mention the potential liver toxicity in a population where 50% of HIV+ve people have alcohol or substance abuse problems stephen himself : [ ....mid-80's mantra: ] : : Attacking HIV makes people live longer. : Not so far. Haven’t you noticed? Duesgerg’s advice (below) is : still the best. :  John : — : "If somebody says you are antibody positive, just say, "Fine! That :  protects me against anything the virus can do to me." That would :  be my reaction." :          Prof. Duesberg to John Lauritsen, quoted in The AIDS War — STEPHEN |As it cracks apart in your faith|

Response:

"Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: John, The literature is full of complete HIV sequences.   All of which is a long-winded way of admitting that you can’t find a reference to isolation of "HIV" either. So now the customary question we ask people stuffed with pompous delusions about what they "know" (or think they know) about "HIV", is whether you appreciate why it is important to achieve a proper isolation of the "virus"?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: John, The literature is full of complete HIV sequences.  Genes from countless strains have been isolated and sequenced.  Antibodies have been made to HIV without even isolating it (by making antibodies to the synthetic peptides of the predicted sequence of the proteins). Protease inhibitors as well as integrase inhibitors have been made against other proteins.   All of which is a long-winded way of admitting that you can’t find a reference to isolation of "HIV" either. So now the customary question we ask people stuffed with pompous delusions about what they "know" (or think they know) about "HIV", is whether you appreciate why it is important to achieve a proper isolation of the "virus"?

Idiot. The following reference has been posted here many times: Unique Identifier   40100890 Data Source   INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AIDS Authors   Krust B.  Laurent AG.  Hellio R.  Montagnier L.  Hovanessian AG. Institution   Institut Pasteur, 25, rue du Dr. Roux 75724 Paris Cedex 15, France Title   Different forms of p25 are associated with infectious and non infectious   viral particles produced by HIV-1 infected cells. Source   Int Conf AIDS.  6(2):316 (abstract no. 1008), 1990 Jun 20-23. Abstract   OBJECTIVES: Four subspecies of p25, a, b, c and d, with related PI values,   are produced by HIV-1 infected cells. The two forms a and b are in part   incorporated into the HIV-1 virion, whereas species c and d along with a   proportion of species a and b are expressed at the cell surface and also   excreted. The characterization of these different forms is described here.   METHODS: Cell culture supernatants of HIV-1 infected cells were   fractionated by isopycnic centrifugation along a sucrose gradient, and the   different fractions containing viral proteins were analyzed. RESULTS:   Three major peaks containing the different subspecies of p25 were   recovered: peak A at a sucrose density of 1.150 containing p25a, p25b,   gp120, p68 and p55, peak B at a sucrose density of 1.080 containing the   same proteins as peak A; peak C at a sucrose density of 1.050 containing   p25 a, b, c, d and p40. Only peak A was infectious. Negative staining   electron microscopy of the different fractions indicated the presence of   particles of different sizes: 120 nm in peak A containing infectious   virus; 20-50 nm in peaks B and C. CONCLUSION: Infectious and non   infectious particles are produced by HIV-1 infected cells. The four   species of p25 can be used as convenient markers to identify these   particles. We’re far beyond that point. We now even have the three-dimensional structures defined: Structure of the Amino-Terminal Core Domain of the HIV-1 Capsid Protein Science, July 12th, 1996 Rossitza K. Gitti, * Brian M. Lee, * Jill Walker, Michael F. Summers, Sanghee Yoo, Wesley I. Sundquist   The three-dimensional structure of the amino-terminal core domain (residues 1 through 151) of the human immunodeficiency virus-type 1 (HIV-1) capsid protein has been solved by multidimensional heteronuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. The structure is unlike those of previously characterized viral coat proteins and is composed of seven  helices, two  hairpins, and an exposed partially ordered loop. The domain is shaped like an arrowhead, with the hairpins and loop exposed at the trailing edge and the carboxyl-terminal helix projecting from the tip. The proline residue Pro1 forms a salt bridge with a conserved, buried aspartate residue (Asp51), which suggests that the amino terminus of the protein rearranges upon proteolytic maturation. The binding site for cyclophilin A, a cellular rotamase that is packaged into the HIV-1 virion, is located on the exposed loop and encompasses the essential proline residue Pro90. In the free monomeric domain, Pro90 adopts kinetically trapped cis and trans conformations, raising the possibility that cyclophilin A catalyzes interconversion of the cis- and trans-Pro90 loop structures.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: John, The literature is full of complete HIV sequences.  Genes from countless strains have been isolated and sequenced.  Antibodies have been made to HIV without even isolating it (by making antibodies to the synthetic peptides of the predicted sequence of the proteins).  Protease inhibitors as well as integrase inhibitors have been made against other proteins.   All of which is a long-winded way of admitting that you can’t find a reference to isolation of "HIV" either. So now the customary question we ask people stuffed with pompous delusions about what they "know" (or think they know) about "HIV", is whether you appreciate why it is important to achieve a proper isolation of the "virus"? It is surprising how many people don’t. (Antibodies made to an unverified "virus"? How would you know? You need to read Dr Taylor’s radio broadcast transcript. This is very basic stuff.) I haven’t read the garbage that you cite, but I’m sure the authors have done well financially, peddling the trash to unfortunate people who are grasping at straws. I tell you frankly that unless you are prepared to read and learn you will make an even bigger fool of yourself than you have so far. You cannot acquire knowledge by osmosis. Dissident web-sites are free, so your complaints on that score are as hollow as your beliefs.

I tell you frankly, john, that so long as you put your confidence in people who are so far behind the scientific times as to be living in the past you will continue to delude your self.  Which is of course the goal of the exercise. HIV has been isolated, identified, purified, and characterized as well as it is possible to do for any microorganism.  Its identity is accepted by international organizations on systematics (the branch of biology related to naming and classifying) whose job it is to review claims of "isolation" and which are not creatures of "HIV science".  The standards of such groups have been met and they are the contemporary standards of the field, not some criteria proffered 20 years ago.  The logic that because one man or group claims that if some additional proof — specifically a photo taken under certain conditions and appearing in a published journal — is not put forward then all other proofs will collapse is badly flawed. Indeed, even the criteria you assert as the sine qua non did not require publication in a peer reviewed journal.  In as much as such photos have been taken, reported on and exhibited at an international meeting there the criteria you keep asserting are the only ones, those from the Institute Pasteur, have been met! It is time to give up the delusion that so long as the "Continuum prize" is unclaimed, HIV can be maintained not to exist.

Response:

[..peep..peep..peep...] In any event, whether you are HIV-infected or not, you are a sad, tiresome person. I don’t like you but I feel at least I should offer you this perspective (which, I predict, you will reject). Please take it in the spirit of the last shred of good will I feel toward you as another human being rather than my typical animosity (which you may rest assured has not evaporated).

Dear Little Miss Chicken, If you ever stopped posting reams of abusive claptrap I would have to start worrying. At least while you are busy occupying your time producing elaborate (yet so feeble) insults you cannot also be misdirecting vulnerable people towards poisonous medical intervention. Good for them. (But probably bad for you.)  John —   Prof Duesberg, when explaining how AZT kills elements of the immune system most needed by immunocompromised people, was asked about its side effects: "Side effects? Side effects! It has no *side* effects. It has only one effect: it’s killing cells every single day you take it. That’s its effect."                                   Interview on KEST AM radio, July 27 1995

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: John, The literature is full of complete HIV sequences.  Genes from countless strains have been isolated and sequenced.  Antibodies have been made to HIV without even isolating it (by making antibodies to the synthetic peptides of the predicted sequence of the proteins).  Protease inhibitors as well as integrase inhibitors have been made against other proteins.   All of which is a long-winded way of admitting that you can’t find a reference to isolation of "HIV" either. So now the customary question we ask people stuffed with pompous delusions about what they "know" (or think they know) about "HIV", is whether you appreciate why it is important to achieve a proper isolation of the "virus"? It is surprising how many people don’t. (Antibodies made to an unverified "virus"? How would you know? You need to read Dr Taylor’s radio broadcast transcript. This is very basic stuff.)

Some retroviruses grow well in culture, some don’t.  However, molecular biology allows much to be done with small amounts of virus.  As I have said above, complete sequences of the RNA has been accomplished and sequences of individual genes have been used to demonstrate transmission. I don’t know what "proper isolation" refers to, but there is ample evidence that HIV exists, is associated with AIDS, and elimination of HIV improves the health of AIDS patients (which is why viral lode is a good prognostic indicator).   Henry N Fox Chapel – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I haven’t read the garbage that you cite, but I’m sure the authors have done well financially, peddling the trash to unfortunate people who are grasping at straws. I tell you frankly that unless you are prepared to read and learn you will make an even bigger fool of yourself than you have so far. You cannot acquire knowledge by osmosis. Dissident web-sites are free, so your complaints on that score are as hollow as your beliefs. John —   "In going back to the origins of HIV virology and telling the HIV story, a view will be presented which will make clear that HIV itself, the very object of this Manhattan Project of modern medicine, does not exist."                                 Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist.

Response:

 "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: John, The literature is full of complete HIV sequences.  Genes from countless strains have been isolated and sequenced.  Antibodies have been made to HIV without even isolating it (by making antibodies to the synthetic peptides of the predicted sequence of the proteins).  Protease inhibitors as well as integrase inhibitors have been made against other proteins.  

All of which is a long-winded way of admitting that you can’t find a reference to isolation of "HIV" either. So now the customary question we ask people stuffed with pompous delusions about what they "know" (or think they know) about "HIV", is whether you appreciate why it is important to achieve a proper isolation of the "virus"? It is surprising how many people don’t. (Antibodies made to an unverified "virus"? How would you know? You need to read Dr Taylor’s radio broadcast transcript. This is very basic stuff.) I haven’t read the garbage that you cite, but I’m sure the authors have done well financially, peddling the trash to unfortunate people who are grasping at straws.

I tell you frankly that unless you are prepared to read and learn you will make an even bigger fool of yourself than you have so far. You cannot acquire knowledge by osmosis. Dissident web-sites are free, so your complaints on that score are as hollow as your beliefs.  John —   "In going back to the origins of HIV virology and telling the HIV  story, a view will be presented which will make clear that HIV itself,  the very object of this Manhattan Project of modern medicine, does not  exist."                                 Dr. Stefan Lanka, virologist.

Response:

Following is the text version of a letter that was sent to the Director of NIH concerning his agency’s role in offering dissident AIDS scientists bribes to Cover-up the AIDS debate. For those who would like to learn more about the AIDS Cover-up, please visit the CENSORSHIP BYPASS web site at: http://www.kaiwan.com/~bypass July 11 , 1996 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Joel A. Schwartz 3463 State Street, #135 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Dr. Harold E. Varmus Director, National Institutes of Health 1 Center Drive Bldg. #1, Room 126 Bethesda, MD 20892 (ph) 301-496-2433 Dear Dr. Varmus, As you know, for several years there has been a scientific debate over the cause of AIDS.  A growing body of researchers are disputing the claim that HIV causes the AIDS epidemic, suggesting that something else may be the real cause.  This debate has, of course, many far-reaching consequences. It throws into question the entire course of federal spending and policy in the War on AIDS, including the current treatments for AIDS. However, a new and larger issue is beginning to emerge from this controversy. A growing body of evidence indicates that governmental agencies, acting directly or through the Public Health lobby, have been attempting to hide the AIDS controversy from public knowledge.  According to this evidence, various Public Health officials have used influence, bribery, and intimidation to silence dissent among scientists, in the communications media, and in other public forums. As the scandal of a government cover-up becomes public knowledge, taxpayers and voters are demanding a full accounting of the secret measures being used to silence dissent.  I am writing on behalf of this growing movement. It has come to our attention that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been one of the participants in this cover-up.  Specifically, testimony of Dr. Peter H. Duesberg, a virologist at the University of California at Berkeley and one of the dissenting scientists in this AIDS debate, has revealed that officials of the NIH have offered him compensation in return for recanting his position on AIDS.  But Dr. Duesberg has so far refused to identify these officials or the exact terms of the offers.  As director of the NIH, you bear full responsibility for extra-legal actions taken by your agency, and therefore, you owe the American public a full disclosure of the facts. For the record, I now call on you to provide the answers to the following questions: 1)  On November 9, 1995, Dr. Duesberg gave sworn testimony [Deposition, case 95 Civ. 0157 (JES), Regnery and Duesberg v. Ellison, Federal District Court, Southern District of New York] that an official of the NIH visited him in late 1994 and made him an offer in exchange for his agreement to recant his views on AIDS.  Dr. Duesberg confirmed the existence of this meeting in the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus"  released this year (Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C.), which lists him as the sole author. What was the exact date and place of that meeting? 2)  What is the name of the NIH official with whom Dr. Duesberg met? 3)  Who else was present at that meeting? 4)  In Dr. Duesberg’s testimony, he stated that this NIH official handed him a letter declaring that HIV causes AIDS.  On this letter were three names:  Dr. Duesberg’s, and two others – one of whom he refers to as an "old friend." What were the names of these other signers? 5)  Who authorized these NIH officials to make Dr. Duesberg this offer? Who else, in the government or elsewhere, was aware of this offer? 6)  Dr. Duesberg has stated that, had he accepted the offer in full, the letter was to be published in "Nature" magazine.  Dr. Duesberg has also mentioned "Nature" editor John Maddox as having been involved. Did John Maddox know about the offer, and the meeting, before they took place?  Did Maddox agree to use his magazine as a forum to publish the letter?  Which NIH officials were in contact with Maddox regarding this offer?  Have you communicated with Maddox regarding this letter?  If so, what did you and Maddox say? 7)  Who actually wrote the letter?  Please provide a copy of the complete letter.  What, precisely, was Dr. Duesberg offered in return for signing the letter? 9)  Precisely how long did Dr. Duesberg take to think over the offer? 10)  What was Dr. Duesberg’s final answer to the offer? Did he accept any part of the offer? Did he make any counter-offers? 11)  According to testimony we have received, Dr. Duesberg has privately admitted the existence of previous offers made to him by NIH officials in return for changing his position on AIDS.  Written documents also suggest the existence of such offers. a)  What were the exact dates and places of those meetings? b)  What were the names of the persons who met with Dr. Duesberg at those times, or who helped arrange those meetings? c)  Was Dr. Duesberg given letters to sign at any of those meetings?  If so, please provide copies of each of those documents. d)  Who authorized each of those offers?  Who else was aware of those offers? e)  What were the terms of each of those offers (what was Dr. Duesberg asked to do, and what was he promised in return)? f)  How long did Dr. Duesberg take to make a decision on each of those offers? g)  What was Dr. Duesberg’s answer to each of those offers? 12)  Has the NIH offered Dr. Duesberg any such deals since 1994? 13) Has the NIH ever collaborated with Alfred Regnery (of Regnery Publishing), or any of his authors, agents or associates, on the AIDS issue?  If so, what were the circumstances surrounding any such collaboration and what were the names (from both sides) of those involved? Certainly you must agree that the federal government cannot be allowed to censor this AIDS debate, or any other controversy, from public view.  As a federal official overseeing much of the spending on AIDS research, you have a special responsibility to disclose all government attempts to suppress opposition.  The public has a right to know. I therefore assume you will provide the above answers in a timely manner. Thank you. Sincerely, Joel A. Schwartz

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: Professor Duesberg’s new book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" has been very well received and is right up to date. It gains considerably in stature and credibility from the obvious vindication of his early research and conclusions. Definitely worth reading. Very well received by whom? The growing "Aids" dissident movement. Check out the list of scientists and others who support the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV Hypothesis of Aids. A partial list is on the newest Rethinking AIDS WebSite: http://www.xs4all.nl/~raido and is also currently posted to this group. Did you miss it?

The list contains the names of people who are dead and the names of people who no longer support the GSR. THE GROUP FOR THE SCIENTIFIC REAPPRAISAL OF THE HIV-AIDS HYPOTHESIS PEOPLE ON THE LIST WHO DIED FROM AIDS:         Michael Callen (Author ‘Surviving AIDS’, Hollywood, CA)         Caspar Schmidt, M.D. (Psychiatrist, New York)                   Jody Wells (Continuum, London, UK) PEOPLE ON THE LIST WHO NO LONGER SUPPORT THE GSR:         James M. Scutero (New York, NY) There are probably more names that should not be on the list for the above cited reasons.         I’ve asked to have my name taken off of the list several times to no avail. In May of 1995, I came back to the realization that HIV causes AIDS. A trip to the hospital with OI’s will do that. I find that facing reality is much better than living in denial.         In 1989, when I was first diagnosed with HIV, I had a fighting spirit. When I allowed myself to be sucked into the "rethink" cottage industry of denial I felt miserable. I was ripped-off, threatened with violence and belittled by the members of the GSR. Free-thought is not encouraged by the nattering nabobs of nuttiness at the GSR. Their forums are censored and they espose hero worship. I feel great now that I have left them and will continue to live and think for myself. BTW, johnnydog, I didn’t see him on the list, but is Cass Mann still alive? Just curious.              james m. scutero, original proponent of misc.health.aids                      the newsgroup of acquired immune deficiency syndromes                                     o_) *                              ”    _/                                       /(        misc.health.aids homepage`- http://www.panix.com/~jscutero surfin’ with aids.                                    * (hot ascii surfer)

Response:

Not so far. Haven’t you noticed? Duesgerg’s advice (below) is still the best. "If somebody says you are antibody positive, just say, "Fine! That protects me against anything the virus can do to me." That would be my reaction."         Prof. Duesberg to John Lauritsen, quoted in The AIDS War

The fact that you persist in making a fool of Duesberg by quoting this piece of immunologically-bankrupt tripe is a testament to your profound ignorance. People often develop antibodies to viruses yet still become ill. Either due to the pathological consequences of an unchecked infection and/or the sequelae of an aberrent, overactive immune response to the pathogen. John, if you are HIV+, you need some serious help. It is certainly your choice whether to do any therapies or not. But to try to justify the choice not to in the lame, half-assed way of making "pronouncements" the way you do smacks more of fear and denial than an understanding of the literature. As Dr. Holzman noted, you are more than entitled to your opinion. But it is weak and so full of holes if it were Swiss cheese you’d be hard-pressed to find the cheese. I think you need to slow down, take a break and look at your life. This is not meant to say "find the truth about drugs and start taking them." But rather realize that if there is HIV inside you, it may be doing you a great deal of harm–and there are many gentler, safer alternatives you might want to consider doing (even if they aren’t nearly as effective as the combinations of drugs). In any event, whether you are HIV-infected or not, you are a sad, tiresome person. I don’t like you but I feel at least I should offer you this perspective (which, I predict, you will reject). Please take it in the spirit of the last shred of good will I feel toward you as another human being rather than my typical animosity (which you may rest assured has not evaporated).                 George M. Carter

Response:

[ ....mid-80's mantra: ] Attacking HIV makes people live longer. Not so far.

Then you haven’t learned a damn thing here, have you ! Why are you so bitter towards the medical profession ? Do you just hate life? Were you rejected for medical school? There’s something you’re not telling us, JohnDogma !

Response:

"Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: I’ve worked in the lab, seen the virus, and talked to Peter Duesberg (many years ago).   Again I suggest you need to familiarise yourself with the literature. All you are doing is demonstrating an obvious ignorance of the issues.

stupid…stupid…stupid…  You’ve basically alienated yourself from everyone on this newsgroup ! Drugs which attach HIV make people live longer. Ignorance is not an adequate description of your actions any more.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: [...] He and I have isolated many retroviruses in the lab (the quantity was so high that you could actually see the banded virus in surcrose gels without the aid of a microscope).  It was easy to visualize the proteins and enzymatic activities.  The RNA has been isolated, copied into cDNA, and sequenced on many strains.  Electron micrographs of the virus has been puclished countless time   Where, when, by whom? Where is an EM of "HIV" prepared to the standard required by virologists such as Stefan Lanka, and the scientific team in Perth? And Dr Todd Miller. The kind that would demonstrate isolation. There’s a cash reward for that information. I’ve worked in the lab, seen the virus, and talked to Peter Duesberg (many years ago).   James Scutero had a quote from "the virus" in his .sig for a while last year. Did it talk to you too? You would have been better off listening to Professor Duesberg. His AIDS theory is intellectually dishonest.  Its a joke. On the subject of dishonesty, just provide the reference to the full isolation of "HIV", the virus you claim to have seen. Anyone who doubts the existance of the virus is incredibly ignorant or stupid.  Retroviruses have been studied at various levels since the beginning if this century!  Wake up. Dr Turner is neither ignorant nor stupid, to judge by his work. And it is a particular virus we are interested in, not viruses in general. Again I suggest you need to familiarise yourself with the literature. All you are doing is demonstrating an obvious ignorance of the issues. John

John, The literature is full of complete HIV sequences.  Genes from countless strains have been isolated and sequenced.  Antibodies have been made to HIV without even isolating it (by making antibodies to the synthetic peptides of the predicted sequence of the proteins).  Protease inhibitors as well as integrase inhibitors have been made against other proteins.  The scientific literature is very clear.  I haven’t read the garbage that you cite, but I’m sure the authors have down well financially, peddling the trash to unfortunate people who are grasping at straws. Henry N Fox Chapel – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —   "They have not proven that they have actually detected a unique exogenous retrovirus. The critical data to support that idea have not been presented."                  Prof. J Papadimitriou, Univ of W.Australia

Response:

 "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: [...] He and I have isolated many retroviruses in the lab (the quantity was so high that you could actually see the banded virus in surcrose gels without the aid of a microscope).  It was easy to visualize the proteins and enzymatic activities.  The RNA has been isolated, copied into cDNA, and sequenced on many strains.  Electron micrographs of the virus has been puclished countless time  

Where, when, by whom? Where is an EM of "HIV" prepared to the standard required by virologists such as Stefan Lanka, and the scientific team in Perth? And Dr Todd Miller. The kind that would demonstrate isolation. There’s a cash reward for that information. I’ve worked in the lab, seen the virus, and talked to Peter Duesberg (many years ago).  

James Scutero had a quote from "the virus" in his .sig for a while last year. Did it talk to you too? You would have been better off listening to Professor Duesberg. His AIDS theory is intellectually dishonest.  Its a joke.

On the subject of dishonesty, just provide the reference to the full isolation of "HIV", the virus you claim to have seen. Anyone who doubts the existance of the virus is incredibly ignorant or stupid.  Retroviruses have been studied at various levels since the beginning if this century!  Wake up.

Dr Turner is neither ignorant nor stupid, to judge by his work. And it is a particular virus we are interested in, not viruses in general. Again I suggest you need to familiarise yourself with the literature. All you are doing is demonstrating an obvious ignorance of the issues.  John —   "They have not proven that they have actually detected a unique  exogenous retrovirus. The critical data to support that idea have  not been presented."                   Prof. J Papadimitriou, Univ of W.Australia

Response:

[ ....mid-80's mantra: ] Attacking HIV makes people live longer. Not so far. Haven’t you noticed? Duesgerg’s advice (below) is still the best. John —

John, I think you missed the protease data. Henry N Fox Chapel – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"If somebody says you are antibody positive, just say, "Fine! That protects me against anything the virus can do to me." That would be my reaction."         Prof. Duesberg to John Lauritsen, quoted in The AIDS War

Response:

[ ....mid-80's mantra: ] Attacking HIV makes people live longer.

Not so far. Haven’t you noticed? Duesgerg’s advice (below) is still the best.  John — "If somebody says you are antibody positive, just say, "Fine! That  protects me against anything the virus can do to me." That would  be my reaction."          Prof. Duesberg to John Lauritsen, quoted in The AIDS War

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: Professor Duesberg’s new book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" has been very well received and is right up to date. It gains considerably in stature and credibility from the obvious vindication of his early research and conclusions. Definitely worth reading. Very well received by whom? The growing "Aids" dissident movement. Check out the list of scientists and others who support the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV Hypothesis of Aids. A partial list is on the newest Rethinking AIDS WebSite: http://www.xs4all.nl/~raido and is also currently posted to this group. Did you miss it?

I saw the list a was not impressed. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The protease data should put an end to the circular arguments.   Without circular arguments, orthodox "Aids" is finished, so this is certainly an over-optimistic suggestion. Also as there is no way to measure levels of "HIV", or even to establish its existence, claims based around this assertion are patently misleading. What has Peter Duesberg done other than add some academic credentials to intellectually dishonest arguements? He has saved a lot of lives. He has exposed the dishonesty of the conventional model of "Aids", and drawn attention to the appalling level of fraud and deception involved in this murderous pogrom. His was the first and most important scientific work to show the "virus" theory to be mistaken. The accuracy of his conclusions are hardly in doubt, given the subsequent history of the phenomenon.

No one has shown the virus theory mistaken. You are clearly very ignorant of the history and science of the "Aids" phenomenon. You should spend some time reading Duesberg and also the later work done in Perth, Australia by the scientific team there. Start with the websites, if, like our doctors here, you are averse to reading books. Then you might at least sound less like a drug company shareholder and more like a PhD. John —

I am well aware of the history of HIV.  As a graduate student, post doc, and staff scientist I went to the same RNA Tumor Virus in Cold Spring Harbor every May (I actually spent my honeymoon there in 1977 – I was in NY and my wife was in NJ) that Peter Duesberg attended.  He was better off sticking to the structural proteins of retroviruses or integration into DNA.  He and I have isolated many retroviruses in the lab (the quantity was so high that you could actually see the banded virus in surcrose gels without the aid of a microscope).  It was easy to visualize the proteins and enzymatic activities.  The RNA has been isolated, copied into cDNA, and sequenced on many strains.  Electron micrographs of the virus has been puclished countless time  I’ve worked in the lab, seen the virus, and talked to Peter Duesberg (many years ago).  His AIDS theory is intellectually dishonest.  Its a joke. "HIV is a metaphor for a lot of quasi-related phenomena. No one has ever proved its existence as a virus. We don’t believe it exists."         Dr. V. F. Turner, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia

Anyone who doubts the existance of the virus is incredibly ignorant or stupid.  Retroviruses have been studied at various levels since the beginning if this century!  Wake up. Henry N Fox Chapel

Response:

 "Henry L. Niman, Ph.D." writes: Professor Duesberg’s new book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" has been very well received and is right up to date. It gains considerably in stature and credibility from the obvious vindication of his early research and conclusions. Definitely worth reading. Very well received by whom?

The growing "Aids" dissident movement. Check out the list of scientists and others who support the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV Hypothesis of Aids. A partial list is on the newest Rethinking AIDS WebSite: http://www.xs4all.nl/~raido and is also currently posted to this group. Did you miss it? The protease data should put an end to the circular arguments.  

Without circular arguments, orthodox "Aids" is finished, so this is certainly an over-optimistic suggestion. Also as there is no way to measure levels of "HIV", or even to establish its existence, claims based around this assertion are patently misleading. What has Peter Duesberg done other than add some academic credentials to intellectually dishonest arguements?

He has saved a lot of lives. He has exposed the dishonesty of the conventional model of "Aids", and drawn attention to the appalling level of fraud and deception involved in this murderous pogrom. His was the first and most important scientific work to show the "virus" theory to be mistaken. The accuracy of his conclusions are hardly in doubt, given the subsequent history of the phenomenon. You are clearly very ignorant of the history and science of the "Aids" phenomenon. You should spend some time reading Duesberg and also the later work done in Perth, Australia by the scientific team there. Start with the websites, if, like our doctors here, you are averse to reading books. Then you might at least sound less like a drug company shareholder and more like a PhD.  John —   "HIV is a metaphor for a lot of quasi-related phenomena. No one has ever proved its existence as a virus. We don’t believe it exists."          Dr. V. F. Turner, Royal Perth Hospital, Western Australia

Response:

There seem to be a flurry of developments of news concerning the AIDS front, including the conference in Vancouver.  Do we have an update and comments from Peter Duesberg ?  In one hand, some news seem to vindicate him and others seem to strengthen the HIV cause-proponents ? Yes. Notable silence.

Professor Duesberg’s new book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" has been very well received and is right up to date. It gains considerably in stature and credibility from the obvious vindication of his early research and conclusions. Definitely worth reading.  John — "If somebody says you are antibody positive, just say, "Fine! That  protects me against anything the virus can do to me." That would  be my reaction."         Prof. Duesberg to John Lauritsen, quoted in The AIDS War

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There seem to be a flurry of developments of news concerning the AIDS front, including the conference in Vancouver.  Do we have an update and comments from Peter Duesberg ?  In one hand, some news seem to vindicate him and others seem to strengthen the HIV cause-proponents ? Yes. Notable silence. Professor Duesberg’s new book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" has been very well received and is right up to date. It gains considerably in stature and credibility from the obvious vindication of his early research and conclusions. Definitely worth reading.

John, dearest dog…  Do-wrong Duesberg’s book is a regurgitation of his mid-80’s mantra with squeals of conspiracy thrown-in. Who are you trying to kid? You think the identification of major co-factors and the proven benefits of attacking HIV add to this moron’s credibility? We want to hear this guy either recant his erroneous position or defend it in a timely fashion – a professional response is required from Duesberg. People are fed-up seeing him ignore the info which defeats his case. Attacking HIV makes people live longer.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There seem to be a flurry of developments of news concerning the AIDS front, including the conference in Vancouver.  Do we have an update and comments from Peter Duesberg ?  In one hand, some news seem to vindicate him and others seem to strengthen the HIV cause-proponents ? Yes. Notable silence. Professor Duesberg’s new book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" has been very well received and is right up to date. It gains considerably in stature and credibility from the obvious vindication of his early research and conclusions. Definitely worth reading. John — "If somebody says you are antibody positive, just say, "Fine! That protects me against anything the virus can do to me." That would be my reaction."        Prof. Duesberg to John Lauritsen, quoted in The AIDS War

Very well received by whom? The protease data should put an end to the circular arguments.  If HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, it seems to be a great target to attack to improve the health of AIDS victims.  What has Peter Duesberg done other than add some academic credentials to intellectually dishonest arguements? Henry N Fox Chapel

Response:

There seem to be a flurry of developments of news concerning the AIDS front, including the conference in Vancouver.  Do we have an update and comments from Peter Duesberg ?  In one hand, some news seem to vindicate him and others seem to strengthen the HIV cause-proponents ? I would surely like to know the latest from both sides.

Response:

There seem to be a flurry of developments of news concerning the AIDS front, including the conference in Vancouver.  Do we have an update and comments from Peter Duesberg ?  In one hand, some news seem to vindicate him and others seem to strengthen the HIV cause-proponents ? I would surely like to know the latest from both sides.

Yes. Notable silence. Are there two sides any more? Duesberg must be feeling pretty stupid right now.

Response: