Question:
It amazes me how far the Judaica Press, JPS, and Stone English editions vary from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures. How can you let them do that?
The Masoretic text is by definition Hebrew only. You can’t say that any translation is the same, or different. I suppose you could say that one is a more literal translation than another, but more literal translations are not always better. I’m not especially familiar with the specifics of translations, but I know other books from the publishers of the Stone translation and they like giving exegetical explanations. That’s what they’re selling. If you identify any specific issues I’ll be glad to examine them individually, but I don’t have time to even look at lists of 104. I’ve redirected followups to alt.messianic only. jds
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because of David’s sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the consequences of what he did. You guys aren’t even thinking clearly. Atonement is a reconciling of "this" for "that". If you do "this", you then get "that"… there is a payment to reconcile it. NO! This is what atonement means. 1 Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation. Your definition of atonement is totally wrong.
Just use the word "Karma" and you will be spot on.
Response:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted. the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn’t die for it. What did they die for then? Make up your mind. Here are your choices: * They died because… just random reasons.
There are no such things as "random reasons" * They dided because of David’s sins.
Yes in one sense, no in the sense that you mean when you say that "y’shu died for people’s sins". Which is it? In your sentence above, you claim both, make up your mind. You said: * The troubles came because of David’s sin. * The people (troubles) didn’t die (happen) because of David’s sin.
[cut to save bandwidth] David SINNNED… God reconciled the SIN, with DEATH of David’s son. Take away David ever having sinned, and what would have happened to David’s kid? eh??? Any ideas? Let’s compare the two results: * SIN = DEATH… the kid died. * NO SIN = LIFE… the kid would have lived on.
No sin, the child would never have been conceived. Why isn’t this OBVIOUS to you?
If someone steps over a cliff, he falls "because" of the "law of gravity". Actions cause consequences. Dovid’s sin had consequences which included the death of the child. The death of the child did not "atone" for the sin. The atonement was the true and sincere repentance and recognition that he had done wrong. The child’s death was a consequence, like the death of someone who falls off a cliff during an earthquake. Perhaps the child would have lived if King David had had the extra merit to "use" to save it. Perhaps it was "destined" to die anyway. Perhaps G-d sent a child who was not destined to live as a punishment for King David (as we are saying). Note that had King David not sinned, the child would never have been conceived. Perhaps had King David not sinned, Uriah would have died in the war anyway and he would have married Batsheva then. Note the commentators state that even though the King gave orders to withdraw from around Uriah, exposing him to death, he actually died *before* those orders were carried out (as shown by the grammar and word order in the original Hebrew). Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did. Mohammed completely blew it… he said NO MAN could die for another’s sins and said point blank that Jesus never died, that all men are responsible for their own sins… yet he forgot about King David’s son dying for King David’s sins… and King David’s men dying for King David’s sins.
No. In that respect he was correct in that there is a difference between responsible and consequences. For example, the fact that many people have died as a result of the sins of the corrupt leaders of various nations (as in the famines in Africa) does not mean that those deaths were "atonements". They were consequences. Each man is punished for his own sins and is subject to the laws G-d has set forth for ruling the world. If a man is murdered, it it the sin of the murderer and the murderer is punished. The fact that being a victim *MAY* have been the result of some (unknown) sin of the victim is not relevant and does not enter the discussion. If Mohammed had told them the truth, they would have known what to do, and it never would have happened. You guys need to bother to look up the word "atonement" and understand what it means. Claimig TWO things in conflict at the same time, does NOT do much for your argument, other than make it look silly. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
Part one is correct, spart two is false (in the sense that you appear to mean it). — Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
Response:
In order for God to be content with it being OVER, King David’s sins had to be paid for with King David’s son dying. That payment left God content that it was over.
And also the previous statements before that, those things that God decided and told David through Nathan, all equalized the sin of killing Uriah and taking his wife. Now if that equalization of sins, or reconciling the injustice done to Uriah, a man who loved God and did nothing wrong, yet had his life and wife taken from him while trusting his King… if that atonement wasn’t enough, then God would have piled on all the more punishment on King David… but he didn’t… it was over, the decisions were made by God as to what would pay for the damage the sin caused… and it was then over… that’s why King David immediately got up and got himself all cleaned up, ate, and went to the temple to praise God… he knew then that God’s decisions on the matter, were final, done, complete, it was over. Yet King David himself… he never directly paid for those sins… OTHERS did. Mohammed was clearly wrong, and his being wrong left a billion or more unable to know what to do to end it. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, you’re wrong… and so was Mohammed. Read the verses: I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted. the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn’t die for it. Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did. I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because of David’s sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the consequences of what he did. I agree with you Stephen. The reference cited is in no way an example of atonement. However, I am compelled to point out (regarding Jan’s comments) that the ability or inability to read Hebrew has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. The English is just as clear as the Hebrew in that they died as a result of David’s sin, and not as an atonement for David’s sin. There is a subtle degree of spin going on here, as if Jan were trying to say, "if you were able to read Hebrew, you wouldn’t believe in the atonement Christ provided." That notion is, of course, patently rediculous. Is it? the confusion arises from the fact that ‘for’ may be synonimous with ‘because’ in English this is not so in the Hebrew so it is clearer.
[irrelevent guff on word order snipped] Hebrew is a fine language, and the original languages present us with a more sharply defined, shaded, and contrasted exculpation of the biblical text. However, in no way, shape, or form is there to be found any differentiation in basic meaning between the (reliable versions in) English, and the originals. there are heaps.
[snip for brevity] There are, of course, other far less reliable English translations; and one can always be found which perverts the meaning and intent of the original language.
Why bother with English translations at all? There are innumerable Christian scholars who are fluent in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Arabic, and more who with full intellectual integrity have continued to believe in the atonement provided by Christ, linguistic skills notwithstanding. I must admit I find this perplexing but there are indicators that the translations are not honest. Do you believe that every Christian which reads Hebrew is dishonest?
Yes! They wouldn’t be Christians otherwise. [snip] So how is it that you read justification for vicarious antonement in the Tanakh. The Torah speaks against this specifically and plainly in all languages. Certainly. This will come in three parts. First I’ll discuss the role of Messiah as High Priest in affecting the atonement of the congregation.
Pointless Messiah will be king not high priest. Second, I’ll discuss the role of the blood in the atonement,
Also pointless blood is not necessary for atonement the Torah is quite clear on this. and third (the part you seem to object to) I’ll discuss the role of Messiah as the sacrificial lamb in the covering atonement.
Since the above two are pointless this is meaningless. [snip red herring] Of course, the Torah which was recorded by Moses describes the duties, obligations, teachings, and regulations pertaining to the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods, rather than the Melchisedekian priesthood discussed above.
The regulations for the priesthood after the order of Melchitzedek is given in Deuteronomy 17:14-20 This is a red herring too but an interesting one. Nevertheless, it is my believe that the whole Torah is not only in Moses, but the whole of scripture is God’s Torah. Everything that God has told us is His Torah. The following is from the Naviim. Daniel relates clearly and without equivocation that Messiah will be cut off, but not for himself:
here is another example of the abovementioned dishonesty. "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off,
It says a messiah there is no definite article (which you have left out but you use messiah as a name – disengenuous it is). It also says will be cut off (yikareth) It is interesting first of all that does not mean that he will be killed (unless referring to something vital being cut off like a head). Secondly when it refers to a person it means separated from his position (or social group) and always in this case refers to someone who is separated because of wrongdoing. Feel free to apply this to Jesus if you want. Still is was an annointed one and who was an anointed one at that time when the Temple fell but the High Priest who had made a deal for a daily sacrifice on behalf of the Emperor with the Roman Authorites for seven years. It is how he became High Priest after 3.5 years when Florus raided the Temple treasury the sacrifice was suspended. 3.5 years later the Temple was destroyed. but not for himself: since when does "v’ein lo" mean "but not for himself"? It means there will be nothing for him. Without the Temple this is so. The existing Priesthood had usurped the position there is was nothing left for the Saducees whose power base was the Temple. and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined." Daniel 9:26, KJV. And Isaiah clearly lays out how that the atonement will be made by the sacrifice of a man, and explains why, and for whom Messiah would be cut off:
This text is not related but highlights the dishonesty some more. "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:5-6, KJV. FOR our transgressions. /mipshaenu/. FOR our iniquities. /meavonotheynu/. Not on account of, or because of; but FOR in the meaning of ‘for’ which you objected to earlier. Which, if that wasn’t clear enough is made even clearer to say that "the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
The prepostional prefix ‘mem..’ does not mean mean for it never has ‘lamed’ serves for this. ‘mem..’ abreviated from ‘min’ means ‘from’, ‘of’, ‘because of, ‘rather than’, ’since’ all coneptually related in Hebrew. Translating it as ‘for’ is blatantly dishonest. "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." Isaiah 53:7, KJV. HE (remember, this is a human being Isaiah is speaking of here)
Isaiah is predicting what the gentiles will be saying. is brought as a lamb to the slaughter. Clearly this means a man is being killed; again FOR our iniquities, which were laid on him by God.
No because of the iniquities of the gentiles. Who was sinning when we were marched into the ovens? "He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." Isaiah 53:8, KJV. Again, FOR the transgression /mipesha/ of the people he was stricken.
again because of the transgression that ‘mem’ is there yet again deliberately mistranslated yet again. [snip dealt with elswhere in this thread]
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "psalmsmith" wrote : It is undeniable both in the English and in the Hebrew, that Isaiah : 53:10 predicts that the soul of a man would be offered up for sin. *Not according to the translations that I study: Yeshayahu 53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand. (The Judaica Press Complete Tanach) Yisheyah 53:10 Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand (Jewish Publication Society Bible) Isaiah 53:10 HaShem desired to oppress him* and He afflicted him; if his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days and the desire of HaShem would succeed in his hand. (The Stone Edition Tanach) *That is, Israel. God replies to the nations that Israel’s suffering was punishment for its own sins; and when the people realize this and repent, they will be redeemed and rewarded. (The Stone Edition Tanach)
Much as I dislike Stone edition in this case it is the closest that still makes sense in English. All of them hearken back into Torah, which is the test of the true prophet see Leviticus 26 it is the same story. What we have is "v” chafetz dakko hecheli" = "but God desired to oppress him with disease" *This is leviticus 26 up to verse 39 im-tasym (3rd person feminine hiphil of sam to set/appoint place if she has appointed )asham naphsho if/when she appoints his soul to be guilty *This is Leviticus 26:40,41 yireh zera he will see his seed. *This is the rest of Leviticus 26. It’s plain in the Hebrew even if the direct translation is clumsy it is also clear how it maps back into Torah or supports Torah which is something prophecy must do according to Deuteronomy 13 to be valid.
Response:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted. the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn’t die for it. What did they die for then? Make up your mind.
I have made up my mind don’t be so idiotic as to suggest I haven’t. They died for nothing they died because of Davids sin. It was a waste of life. Kapiche.
Response:
I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because of David’s sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the consequences of what he did. You guys aren’t even thinking clearly. Atonement is a reconciling of "this" for "that". If you do "this", you then get "that"… there is a payment to reconcile it.
NO! This is what atonement means. 1 Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation. Your definition of atonement is totally wrong.
Response:
I hate to say this, but I agree with Jan on this one. They died because of David’s sin, not to atone for his sin. Their deaths were the consequences of what he did.
You guys aren’t even thinking clearly. Atonement is a reconciling of "this" for "that". If you do "this", you then get "that"… there is a payment to reconcile it. In order for God to be content with it being OVER, King David’s sins had to be paid for with King David’s son dying. That payment left God content that it was over. Why do you think King David got up immediately after hearing about it and got washed off, cleaned up, annointed himself, ate, and then went to the temple to praise God? ??? Any ideas? King David KNEW it was over. The sins were paid off, God was content that it was over… it had been equalized… all generations reading about it, they’d know that King David had sinned and God was then content to leave it once King David’s son had died. You do "this"… here is the "payment" to end it. That’s atonement… reconciling the matter. The same thing happens with Jesus dying, his death pays for the sins of those who believe him. Their profession of faith in Jesus’s dying for their sins, leaves God content that it’s over, the sins are gone, they are not judged for the sins. King David if he was still left with said sin, he’d have been killed… right? King David was not killed… his son was. King David messing up also caused THOUSANDS of his own men to die… they didn’t die for "random reasons", they died because of King David’s sin. Why didn’t Mohammed know it? Why did Mohammed reject what Jesus died for? Why does Daniel 9 say specifically that the messiah would die, but not for himself? Why does Isaiah 53 say specifically that the ARM OF GOD would show up as a man and would die for OTHERS sins? Mohammed told them what left them unable to solve it, unable to forgive, unable to know when they should flee, and when it would be said that the moon shines as the light of the sun, and the sun shines as the light of seven days… when there is a great slaugher, in the hills filled with water, in the day the towers collaps. Over a billion people right now, don’t know what they need to know. And like God said in the New Testament through the prophets, the veil is in front of the Jews eyes… and they won’t see it until God enables them to know it. Until they do, just watch… tell ‘em what they need to know… and watch. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Response:
I read them in the original language so your pointless diatribe is deleted. the troubles came because of Davids sin. These people didn’t die for it.
What did they die for then? Make up your mind. Here are your choices: * They died because… just random reasons. * They dided because of David’s sins. Which is it? In your sentence above, you claim both, make up your mind. You said: * The troubles came because of David’s sin. * The people (troubles) didn’t die (happen) because of David’s sin. Which is it? Unlike your ability to say TWO things at once, both in conflict, I will agree with God: 2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have SINNED against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy SIN; thou shalt not die. 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. See? David SINNNED… God reconciled the SIN, with DEATH of David’s son. Take away David ever having sinned, and what would have happened to David’s kid? eh??? Any ideas? Let’s compare the two results: * SIN = DEATH… the kid died. * NO SIN = LIFE… the kid would have lived on. Why isn’t this OBVIOUS to you? Mohammed spoke a cognate language to Hebrew he is not likely therefore to make the same linguistic errors your Greek and Roman forunners did.
Mohammed completely blew it… he said NO MAN could die for another’s sins and said point blank that Jesus never died, that all men are responsible for their own sins… yet he forgot about King David’s son dying for King David’s sins… and King David’s men dying for King David’s sins. If Mohammed had told them the truth, they would have known what to do, and it never would have happened. You guys need to bother to look up the word "atonement" and understand what it means. Claimig TWO things in conflict at the same time, does NOT do much for your argument, other than make it look silly. God made it all, Jesus died for our sins. Proof God described the planet density profile BEFORE science did: http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm (see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis) Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Response:
"psalmsmith" wrote : It amazes me how far the Judaica Press, JPS, and Stone English editions vary from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures. *If you believe that to be so, why did you not provide any evidence to support your claim? : How can you let them do that? *Why do I only see what you claim and no evidence to support it? —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
Response:
"psalmsmith" wrote : It amazes me how far the Judaica Press, JPS, and Stone English editions vary from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures. *If you believe that to be so, why did you not provide any evidence to support your claim? : How can you let them do that? *Why do I only see what you claim and no evidence to support it?
erm, I posted 104 lines of evidence, with plenty of Hebrew source.
Response:
It amazes me how far the Judaica Press, JPS, and Stone English editions vary from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew scriptures. How can you let them do that? "psalmsmith" wrote : It is undeniable both in the English and in the Hebrew, that Isaiah : 53:10 predicts that the soul of a man would be offered up for sin. *Not according to the translations that I study: Yeshayahu 53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand. (The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)
I agree that "wished to crush" is acceptable from the Hebrew, and while "made him ill" is possible, the form of the participle /hecheliy/ leands itself more towards ‘being made weak’ rather than ‘being made ill.’ But here is where we go WAY off the map. "if" is certainly plausable, but /tasiym/ is a trespass offering as found in Vayyiqera ch 5; 6:10; ch 7, ch 14, 19:21-22; Bemidbar ch 5, 6:12, 18:9; and several other pssages. The only place the context supports "restitution" is in Bemidbar 5:7-8 where the word takes a totally different form: /ashmah/ and /ashamu/ But even this version recognizes that the soul in question is *itself* made the /tasiym/ in question. And again, the "if" is certainly plausable — even likely — as that is the basic meaning of /im/. But that does not change the meaning. You see, IF his soul is made a tresspass-offering, THEN he will see his seed prosper, proling his days, etc etc. Yisheyah 53:10 Yet it pleased HaShem to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of HaShem might prosper by his hand (Jewish Publication Society Bible)
Again, "disease" is not supported by that form of the word /chalah/. It is written as /hecheliy/, and is leant towards weakness or grief. Given the Hebrew, I would tend more towards ‘weakness’ than ‘grief’ myself. And again, ‘restitution’ is way off the mark. Even so, we still see the soul offering ITSELF. Even if restitution did fit the bill, one can make restitution for the nations sin. It certainly cannot be offering "restitution" (for the sake of argument) for itself, or it would violate the context of:
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:
I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product. Sorry again for the "Guest" heading. I haven’t seen the guys in the Computer Center to figure out how to put *my* name and e-mail on this damnedable "improved" Netscape software. Anyhow:I don’t know the chronological order of things, but regardless, Gary Loomis has been in the business of graphite fabrication for many years. He (his company) does graphite, not just fly rods. In fact, for all I know, our revered fly rods may be just a side-line, pet project of G. Loomis corp. It doesn’t mean they are bad or good, it’s just the corportate situation. I wouldn’t buy one becasue it doesn’t have the Lifetime Guarantee.
Seeing as how we now have Jack Nicklaus designed golf course with 5 million dollar houses and a guarded entry where we used to have one of the most pristine riverine floats in the country, I think that my bias is rational. I’ll offer no apology. — TimW Halfordian Golfer
Response:
Seeing as how we now have Jack Nicklaus designed golf course with 5 million dollar houses and a guarded entry where we used to have one of the most pristine riverine floats in the country, I think that my bias is rational. I’ll offer no apology.
Does Colorado allow people to ‘own’ the rivers? Georgia does as long as they are not deemed ‘naviagble’ which I expect means that you can pilot an oil tanker up or down it. Lots of the best trout fishing waters I have encountered in N GA have been posted (most have barbed wire strung across the water in case you can’t read<g). I always thought CO allowed access to the water as long as you didn’t cross private property and stayed within the high water marks? — Charlie…
Response:
Seeing as how we now have Jack Nicklaus designed golf course with 5 million dollar houses and a guarded entry where we used to have one of the most pristine riverine floats in the country, I think that my bias is rational. I’ll offer no apology. Does Colorado allow people to ‘own’ the rivers? Georgia does as long as they are not deemed ‘naviagble’ which I expect means that you can pilot an oil tanker up or down it. Lots of the best trout fishing waters I have encountered in N GA have been posted (most have barbed wire strung across the water in case you can’t read<g). I always thought CO allowed access to the water as long as you didn’t cross private property and stayed within the high water marks?
Nope. In Colorado the land owner owns the river bottom. You can float through the stretch but you’d better not anchor. The golf course developers promised (when they *wanted* something, i.e. permits) to provide access. Now, I am told that they have not. I am seriously considering getting myself arrested on this point. I need to muster the cajones and do it at a time when I have a few bucks to defend myself. At the very least I am thinking of driving to the guard shack and asking "where can I go fishing"….It should prove interesting and if I do it, I will post the results. My daughter went on a school field trip to Asspen Glen and I told her to ask the guy "where her daddy could fish". The guy said that "daddy could not fish here". They have this cheesy policy for the Eagles that have nested there. The 4th is closed when the Eagles are on the nest….RIGHT ! These people only care about the eagles inasmuch as they affect their property value. — TimW Halfordian Golfer
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Seeing as how we now have Jack Nicklaus designed golf course with 5 million dollar houses and a guarded entry where we used to have one of the most pristine riverine floats in the country, I think that my bias is rational. I’ll offer no apology. Does Colorado allow people to ‘own’ the rivers? Georgia does as long as they are not deemed ‘naviagble’ which I expect means that you can pilot an oil tanker up or down it. Lots of the best trout fishing waters I have encountered in N GA have been posted (most have barbed wire strung across the water in case you can’t read<g). I always thought CO allowed access to the water as long as you didn’t cross private property and stayed within the high water marks? Nope. In Colorado the land owner owns the river bottom. You can float through the stretch but you’d better not anchor. The golf course developers promised (when they *wanted* something, i.e. permits) to provide access. Now, I am told that they have not. I am seriously considering getting myself arrested on this point. I need to muster the cajones and do it at a time when I have a few bucks to defend myself. At the very least I am thinking of driving to the guard shack and asking "where can I go fishing"….It should prove interesting and if I do it, I will post the results. My daughter went on a school field trip to Asspen Glen and I told her to ask the guy "where her daddy could fish". The guy said that "daddy could not fish here". They have this cheesy policy for the Eagles that have nested there. The 4th is closed when the Eagles are on the nest….RIGHT ! These people only care about the eagles inasmuch as they affect their property value.
This is crazy stuff for sure (not calling you crazy, just the other folks). Ever watched the movie "Little Big Man"? I like to rent it every year or so just so I can keep my sense of prespective. I can recall in my youth (too many years ago) that many people refered to Custer’s horse as the sole survivor of Little Big Horn (it was stuffed at Kansas University). I was in high school with a few guys who found that offensive since some or their ancestors survived with no problem. Not that this has a lot to do with fly fishing but… — Charlie…
Response:
Hi, Just to clear the air here, the G. Loomis golf club shafts are made by Candela Corporation, not G. Loomis…. In addition to being a lifelong fly fisherman, I am a securities analyst and I follow Candela Corp (NASDAQ:CLZR), so I am aware of their product lines. Bob Davis
Response:
I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product.
Uhh, I thought the rod-maker was GEORGE Loomis!?! Am I mistaken, or just from the wrong generation? — Tight Threads, Charley Renn Corvallis, OR
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Nope. In Colorado the land owner owns the river bottom. You can float through the stretch but you’d better not anchor. The golf course developers promised (when they *wanted* something, i.e. permits) to provide access. Now, I am told that they have not. I am seriously considering getting myself arrested on this point. I need to muster the cajones and do it at a time when I have a few bucks to defend myself. At the very least I am thinking of driving to the guard shack and asking "where can I go fishing"….It should prove interesting and if I do it, I will post the results. [Snip] — TimW Halfordian Golfer
Tim If you bought an PM-trident rod from Orvis as well as Orvis waders and vest the guards would think you belonged there. It might even be cheaper that the lawyer. — /Paul Paul Goodwin Digital Equipment Corp. Server Platform Development Maynard, Massachusetts NOTE: Use correct punctuaton in email address Disclaimer: Opinion and content is mine alone, and unlikely to be shared by my employer, etc…
Response:
[deleted] If you bought an PM-trident rod from Orvis as well as Orvis waders and vest the guards would think you belonged there. It might even be cheaper that the lawyer.
particularly when my butler hands me my cocabola rod case and helps me get my shoes off…. — TimW Halfordian Golfer
Response:
: Just to clear the air here, the G. Loomis golf club shafts are made by : Candela Corporation, not G. Loomis…. : In addition to being a lifelong fly fisherman, I am a securities analyst : and I follow Candela Corp (NASDAQ:CLZR), so I am aware of their product : lines. Hmmm… very interesting. I’ve been aware of Candela for a number of years because they make lasers which have never really been embraced by the research community. Now, I thought they made lasers for medical purposes and you tell me they make graphite shafts. Graphite rods can be used to stabilize optical cavities on lasers, so it’s possible this is a product line that developed. (Sounds a bit like a company selling anything they have to keep things afloat.) I have no idea why a laser company would waste their time making rods when they could buy them. But… IMO, Candela has a spotty track record with really only one good year (‘95) where they made their push into medical applications (hype?)… but if you notice, things are not going that well these days. Perhaps the same problems with their medical lasers as with their research lasers? Could it all stem from bad graphite rods??? It’s all a conspiracy, and many of the world’s problems can probably be blamed on one of two things: Graphite rods or Orvis. OBROFF: It’s a beautiful day, 65F and sunny. I’m going fishing on the Lochsa. Washington State University is ranked in the top 25 in both football and volleyball, and the Mariners are foing to win their division. Neener, neener, neener. Life is good, even with Orvis world domination. — Rick T. Rick Fletcher – http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Associate professor of chemistry | That’s Idaho, not Iowa. | ad hominem University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | ad hominem Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don’t grow potatoes. | ad hominem
Response:
I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product.
I own two Loomis GLX rods and they are wonderful, great performing tools. They even repaired one of them for free when I fell and broke after having it for only four weeks. However, I wouldn’t want my golf clubs to flex like those rods. — Jon Porter
Response:
I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product. Uhh, I thought the rod-maker was GEORGE Loomis!?! Am I mistaken, or just from the wrong generation?
It is in fact GARY Loomis… But you may *still* be from the wrong generation ;^)
[snip] Gary Loomis has been in the business of graphite fabrication for many years. He (his company) does graphite, not just fly rods. In fact, for all I know, our revered fly rods may be just a side-line, pet project of G. Loomis corp. It doesn’t mean they are bad or good, it’s just the corportate situation. I wouldn’t buy one becasue it doesn’t have the Lifetime Guarantee.
I don’t know if you can call G.Loomis’s fishing rod production a "side-line" or not, but I do know that the corporation makes a heck of a lot of graphite (cloth and finished product) for use outside of the sporting goods business. Much high-tech stuff for aerospace, etc, where the payoff makes the cost of a flyrod look like pin money… btw: G.Loomis does provide a Limited Lifetime Guarantee – at least for their GLX blanks and rods (and perhaps their other lines as well). This isn’t an Unconditional Guarantee, but it’s reasonable: if a GLX rod (or blank) breaks due to material or workmanship defects, etc, they’ll replace it at no cost to you. If it breaks due to misuse, negligence, or accident (car door, etc), they’ll replace it for a "nominal fee" (whatever that might mean). I recently had cause to test their warranty as I broke an older IMX 9.5′/9W blank (FR1149IMX). This rod was a cannon and I was disconsolate when I broke it. To compound the situation, this blank had been discontinued some time ago. However, G.Loomis agreed to replace it straight-up with a 9′/9W GL4 – or I could upgrade to a 10′/9W GLX for a small charge. I went with the GLX as I really wanted the extra length for use on the salt (that extra foot is handy when you’re chucking & ducking big soggy saltwater flies on a windy day ;^) So, as you might guess, I’m quite happy with G.Loomis and their warranty policy… Cheers! /dave <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< < Digital Equipment Corp. Alpha Server Engineering < < Parker Street Campus Maynard, Massachusetts < < !!NOTE: Please replace "xxx" with "dec" to respond by email!! < <<<<<<<<<<<<<< AMA 548313 <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Disclaimer: Opinion and content is mine alone, and unlikely to be shared by my employer, etc…
Response:
Incidentally, I talked with a local who got ahold of some untrimmed 5′ Loomis golf shafts, and turned them into DANDY sturgeon rods… :-) No Foolin’. Just Emptying My Brain, James No Spam, please. I will find you, and I will give you a wedgie. "Spam is ham that didn’t pass the physical." -Hawkeye Pierce
Response:
: Just to clear the air here, the G. Loomis golf club shafts are made by : Candela Corporation, not G. Loomis…. : In addition to being a lifelong fly fisherman, I am a securities analyst : and I follow Candela Corp (NASDAQ:CLZR), so I am aware of their product : lines.
Hey, remember this silly thread? I just received email from a VP at Candela assuring me they do not make golf club shafts for G. Loomis or anyone else. So Bob, if you are reading, I hope you know more about fly fishing than you know about Candela’s product line. In case any of you are just itching to jump into the stock market, I suggest you point your browser to your favorite search engine and key in "The Motley Fool" before you call Bob and give him your earnings. — Rick T. Rick Fletcher - http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Associate professor of chemistry | That’s Idaho, not Iowa. | ad hominem University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | ad hominem Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don’t grow potatoes. | ad hominem
Response:
I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product. — — TimW Halfordian Golfer
Dear Tim et. al.; Sorry again for the "Guest" heading. I haven’t seen the guys in the Computer Center to figure out how to put *my* name and e-mail on this damnedable "improved" Netscape software. Anyhow:I don’t know the chronological order of things, but regardless, Gary Loomis has been in the business of graphite fabrication for many years. He (his company) does graphite, not just fly rods. In fact, for all I know, our revered fly rods may be just a side-line, pet project of G. Loomis corp. It doesn’t mean they are bad or good, it’s just the corportate situation. I wouldn’t buy one becasue it doesn’t have the Lifetime Guarantee. Jason Beary
Response:
That you guys can even relate to and support this massive, massive industry built on greed around our gentle sport amazes me. Of course we have to make money. I don’t pimp momma or sell drugs either. We should not pimp the sport. — TimW Halfordian Golfer – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product. — — TimW Halfordian Golfer You got the stinkbait out or what?? If your company (or the company you program for) made a great accounting software package then created a product that was better than Microsoft Office and did remarkably well, would all your accounting product users dump you and go to Peachtree or what?
Response:
Seeing as how we now have Jack Nicklaus designed golf course with 5 million dollar houses and a guarded entry where we used to have one of the most pristine riverine floats in the country, I think that my bias is rational. I’ll offer no apology. Does Colorado allow people to ‘own’ the rivers? Georgia does as long as they are not deemed ‘naviagble’ which I expect means that you can pilot an oil tanker up or down it. Lots of the best trout fishing waters I have encountered in N GA have been posted (most have barbed wire strung across the water in case you can’t read<g). I always thought CO allowed access to the water as long as you didn’t cross private property and stayed within the high water marks? — Charlie…
BC’s waters (with one or two exceptions) are all public; as long as you can get to them if the surrounding land is private that is Ralph H remove "(take_this_out)" for email reply.
Response:
I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product. — — TimW Halfordian Golfer
You got the stinkbait out or what?? If your company (or the company you program for) made a great accounting software package then created a product that was better than Microsoft Office and did remarkably well, would all your accounting product users dump you and go to Peachtree or what?
Response:
I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product. — — TimW Halfordian Golfer
Response:
I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product. TimW Halfordian Golfer
tim, you seem to have problems with companies that are trying to make a profit (orvis, loomis). so what if loomis builds graphite shafts for golf clubs. they saw an opportunity to make money (the goal of business) and took it. they have experience in manufacturing graphite, so why shouldn’t they broaden their market in an area of their expertise? has it affected the quality of their fly-rods? i hope they succeed in making lots of money. the extra revenue they bring into my state can only help (might even decrease my taxes… ahhh, not likely but i can dream). chris
Response:
TimW I heard that Gary Loomis makes graphite shaft golf clubs. TimW TimW Reason enough right there to not buy the Loomis product. chris tim, you seem to have problems with companies that are chris trying to make a profit (orvis, loomis). so what if chris loomis builds graphite shafts for golf clubs. <snip Tim, I see the trolling is pretty good today. Cheers, — Dave Guertin
Response:
