Who is the "real" Clark on ARS?

Magoo <magoo44@Charter.net>
Who is the "real" Clark on ARS?
24 Jun 2001

"Clark" screams on about how I am a liar and what I say doesn't have a shred of Evidence. Really? Let's step into a courtroom and let a Jury decide.

Am I stupid enough to post anything more to you here re any evidence? Are you nuts? (Well, you DO sort of prove THAT everyday here, but...)

What...so you can go Slam the people, close their businesses, put them out of business,and then *prove* there is no evidence. You forget one thing: I know you conn men ....and as was said in a famous movie, " Don't Fuck with me, Fellas...you got the wrong gal". Same is true here. I know who you are, I know what you did, and I know (((( KNOW)))) where I went.

Say it...come on OSA INT...say it. Tell the gang you "never ever sent me out to open up phony accounts for you all". Say you never, ever had people change the wordings on ARS on thousands of posts. Say Gavino wasn't the I/C of this crew.

Say Yaude didn't ask me to help on this project and go open up the accounts, and run the OSA 'Volunteers' for this project. Go on "Clark", if you are telling the Truth, and I am not...you should be fine to blast these words out.

Knowing you all, you might even do that.

But I hate to tell you ALL, but that would be a VERY bad idea. Don't lie for these Mafia cats. Remember the GO? They will pitch you out the same way, when all the cards are down. Don't think so? Look how they (and sure you all are included, but let's face it, we know you have Programs you are operating off of) have turned on me in less than one year!. Stick to the truth, and what is it Hubbard said, "The truth shall set you free"? If you get honest and straight, this will be true for you, no matter what you have done. If you keep lying for OSA, and digging in deeper, you will reap what you are planting, and that is all I will say about that. Stick to the truth,

You may TRY to make me out to look and sound like someone too stupid to do anything...but all you do is confirm Fair Game, once again. Why would they let me on OT 7, "Clark" for 7 years if this were the case? Why DID the VP of C of S ask ME to be the ED of their "Scientology Parishioners League"? Why did they put me in one of their major promotions, “What is Scientology” and then in their most recent book, “Scientology and Successes”? Why did they ask me to work with them in their inner most secret OSA INT Internet Mafia.....cause I'm just some dork? NO….you have to be picked for these things, and you have to demonstrate ability, and competence among other qualities.

You can make up lies until the sun don't shine...but people know me. You may be "Mr. Perfect" but I haven't found ANYONE who's buying that yet.

Your feeble attempts at Fair Game are more obvious than a little kid yelling "she's really a creep!" about someone all the others know the kid secretly wants to be friends with.

Sure...you can spread your little lies all about how bad I am. Keep it up..your file is growing daily. It's kind of interesting (*and amazing) to be on THIS side and watch you reel.

As far as anyone hurting someone and me being responsible...oh yeah..That’s just really effective. Let me get this straight...you all go out and commit the overts (and get me to help you on some of this) ....then because I say who did it...I AM RESPONSIBLE For whatever crap you pull in? Hmmmm this doesn't sound like

Scientology now, does it "Clark"? You are screwing with your all-perfect "tech" once again, and EVERYTIME you do that....you lose once again. Why? Cause it just PROVES what liars you really are, and how your "tech" is only true when YOU want it to be. It PROVES there is no "standard tech"...and for people like me who are or were basically techies (into the Scientology tech vs. the admin, etc) ....that is key. No standard tech? BIG BIG HOLE< "Clark. Remember, people ARE reading this stuff...and the more you bitch about how bad I am, the more they go...

Hmmmmmm something is just not right. How do I know? Because they write to me, "Clark". They Tell me....you are proving that Fair Game exists here faster than any other person.

And while you are busy writing your sharp retort about all of this, add on why ANOTHER OT 7 just killed himself...and what the F happened there? WHY wouldn't your ALL wonderful and caring "church" help HIM>>?>>? You took his money...hell, you made him a PATRON. You put him on OT 7 for what? 10 years. 10 YEARS. Then you all decided he was an illegal Pc and pitched him out. That is one of the most inhumane things you all have done. When is this going to stop, Gavino? I just realized something....I think "Clark" IS Gavino.

Gavino is the only person in this crew I knew who seemed to carry such hatred within himself. Also, he really did not like me…and I could tell he would do *anything to get this job done. So his posts are very fitting to this person.l I used to wonder if Gavino was ever even a Scientologist...as he seemed like such a mafia kind of guy, and he showed up out of nowhere. Ok...so since you won't tell us who you *really* are, don't mind if I just call you Gavino, "clark", That seems more fitting.

And I hope you are having a very nice Sunday, Gavino. Don't grind your teeth as you type, it's not good for you.

I think you need some Cal Mag.

Tory/Magoo~dancin in the light!
In for 30 years
Out for 10 months
SP 6 (*and voted “Queen” by OSA)
Free at last!

To find out why Gavino (*aka; “Clark”) hates me so, please see the actual facts on why at www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm

"Say What?!" wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Clark_Bor@juno.com wrote . . .

in response to Dave.

"Clark" writes in response to just about everybody. I don't know why he keeps running away from me.

Here you go, "Clark." Maybe you just keep missing it for some strange reason.

On 13 Jun 2001, Clark_Bor@juno.com wrote:

>>Clark_Bor@juno.com is a Scientologist and works for the OSA (Office of
>>Special Affairs) of the Church of Scientology.  He/she posts anonymously,
>>as do other Scientologists who work for OSA and post to
>>alt.religion.scientology.
>
>What is it about the concept of  "providing evidence" that you don't get?
>You don't have to go to law school to figure out what evidence is and is
>not- you know?  Watch a couple of episodes of "The Practice" and you'll
>get the idea that just because the prosecutor stands up and says it's so,
>doesn't mean it is.  What loonies you people are.  I mean, what kind of
>nut would claim that anyone posting on Usenet using a remailer is a
>Scientologist? Are we supposed to believe that "Say What?!" is your real
>name?   No?  Gee, what a shock yet you make a stink out of anyone using a
>remailer of staying anonymous.
>
>>These are facts which are not disputed by the OSA.
>
>And I suppose that "the fact" that the U.S. government has not disputed
>that George W. Bush is really an alien invader makes the guys with tin
>foil antennae on their heads fountains of truth.   Come on, guys  - this
>is getting sad.
>
>>Intimidating and provocative messages to Sten are not new for "Clark."
>>"Clark" has the well earned reputation of being one of the most
>>despicable OSA Scientologists posting to alt.religion.scientology. And
>>that's saying something.
>
>What's the matter?  You guys can't control Sten anymore?  You're afraid
>he'll really blow his lid and spill the beans and you think this sad
>display will make me back off?  What a bunch of dreamers.
>
>Did Sten claim my postings are intimidating him?  If so, have him post
>each one of these "intimidations" so we'll know just how tender his
>feelings are. I'll be happy to reciprocate by posting all of the
>hate-mongering he's engaged in. Then we can compare them to see just who
>is the one who's doing the real intimidating.
>
>>"Clark," would you also like to share your thoughts with Sten and the
>>rest of us about the estimated 2,000,000 sporgery (spam + forgery)
>>messages posted by OSA to alt.religion.scientology a couple of years ago?
>
>Love to.  My thoughts are, "Good god, what a paranoid bunch of lunatics
>these are."   Now, can you explain this occurrence - with evidence to back
>up whatever wild accusation you are about to make?  No?  Tsk, tsk. All
>you can do is reiterate the inane ravings of one, Tory ex-Bezazian, who
>can't provide any evidence either in support of her allegations against
>Gavino Idda, Bill Yaude and a bunch of her former friends.  She claims to
>have personal knowledge that they did it (this from a woman who couldn't
>tell a mouse from a keyboard, let alone recognize the source of spam) but
>at the same time she also says that she had nothing to do with it. So the
>most she could have, by her own admission, is a knowledge of hearsay.  And
>if Tory's hearing is anything like her memory, god knows what she heard or
>if she heard anything at all.
>
>I might agree with you that the earlier one about the quotes from their
>books might have come from Scientologists but I don't believe the 1998 one
>came from them - for one simple reason - there is no, I repeat no,
>*evidence* -- just speculation and empty allegations.   Boy, you guys sure
>got suckered in by one woman's bid for attention.
>
>>After all, it is this, and things like it, which give anyone familiar
>>with OSA reason to ask themselves if the sporn might be coming from you.
>
>Really?  So then why did Caroline arrive at the conclusion that it came
>from SAZ? And how can I believe you aren't implicated when you seem so
>bent out of shape by her information?  I don't see the Scientologists
>raving about this like a bunch of loonies.
>
>>As has already been posted to Usenet, mikesmith3@aol.com is Bill Yaude.
>>Bill Yaude is a Scientologist.  Along with Gavino Idda, Jim Kalergis and
>>other Scientologists working for the Office of Special Affairs of the
>>Church of Scientology, Bill Yaude is responsible for posting an estimated
>>2,000,000 spam messages to alt.religion.scientology and other Usenet
>>newsgroups.  Lynn Farney, another Scientologist who also works for the
>>OSA, has also been implicated.
>
>Once again, post the evidence if you have any.  If I see *evidence* that
>they did it, I will agree with you and shut up.
>
>>Dozens of Internet accounts were used.  They were obtained in different
>>cities in the United States by Scientologists.  They were paid for in
>>cash and using false names so that they could not be traced to the
>>Scientologists buying them and to the Church of Scientology.
>
>That proves nothing.  I could use the same information you are giving me
>and say that the LMT people did it or some other groups. The fact that
>Tory is saying it, and you are repeating it, doesn't make you any more
>credible than the tin foil antennae brigade.   Sorry pal, but you're
>dealing with a skeptic here and, until you provide evidence, you're just a
>bag of hot air.
>
>>Addresses in the spam messages were also forged to make it look like they
>>came from actual newsgroup subscribers.  Tilman Hausherr, a critic of
>>Scientology, coined the word "sporgery" from "spam" and "forgery."
>>
>>The cost in damages to the Internet Service Providers who were abused has
>>not been estimated.
>>
>>The cost in damages to Internet users has not been estimated.  It
>>includes any possible damages to those whose names were forged, sometimes
>>onto racist messages.
>
>Oh, really? Tell me, what's the tort here because I might want to file
>suit since my real name got caught in other newsgroups when the spam was
>happening. I haven't  found any statutes that says spamming of Usenet is
>illegal. And by the way, what "damages?" You claim the accounts were paid
>for.  If that's the case, the ISP's have nothing to grumble about. And
>since the ISPs were probably shutting them down faster than they could buy
>new ones, I imagine the ISPs laughed all the way to the bank.
>
>>This covert operation performed by Bill Yaude, Gavino Idda, Jim Kalergis,
>>possibly Lynn Farney and also other Scientologists who work for the
>>Office of Special Affairs of the Church of Scientology was exposed on
>>this newsgroup by Tory Bezazian in March 2001.
>
>"Exposed by Tory ex-Bezazian" doesn't mean shit to me.   She hasn't
>provided one shred of documentation to back up her claims. But what she
>did is post names of individuals who will be retaliated against by
>lunatics like you and if something happens to them we know whose door the
>police will knock.
>
>>Neither the individuals named nor the OSA nor the Church of Scientology
>>have issued a denial.
>
>And George W. still hasn't come out of his office to beat back the tidal
>wave of tin-foilers at his door.  For shame, George.   I guess he knows
>that, like on ars, any denial would be considered an admission of guilt anyway.
>
>>mikesmith3@aol.com (Bill Yaude), Clark_Bor@juno.com and other
>>Scientologists working for the OSA continue to post to
>>alt.religion.scientology as though this never happened.
>>
>>Why is that, "Clark"?
>>
>>SW
>
>Why is that "Say What?!" I believe I've explained it to you sufficiently
>by now. If you don't get it then you are hopeless.
>
>Clark

It's about time the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs (OSA) reacted to these allegations. I'm sorry but not surprised that it's OSA's typical reaction.

You, "Clark," over-estimate your debating "skills." There isn't anything in your reply that discredits anything I wrote. Nothing.

You also over-estimate your "ability" to manipulate people. Your lame attempts to intimidate make me yawn.

In conclusion, "Clark," you are not only one of the most despicable OSA staff members, you are also one the most boring.

What's left to comment on is what's always worth commenting on, and that's the policies followed by the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs to discredit or silence anyone who criticizes it.

*Especially* anyone whose criticism is constructive, honest and only intended to make the Church of Scientology change the nasty policies that are behind some of its nasty ways.

"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." HCO PL of 15 August 1960, Dept Of Govt Affairs, by L. Ron Hubbard.

Any person and any organization has vulnerable points. Any person and any organization has the right to defend against attacks. The thing with the Church of Scientology is that some of its vulnerable points aren't just vulnerable points: they're things that should be changed by the Church of Scientology. But the Church of Scientology refuses to change them.

Try pointing out that these things should be changed in a nice way and you'll get forced smiles and then be forgotten. Try pointing this out nicely again and you'll be viewed as a possible menace. Try it again and you'll be catalogued as a definite menace, and at this point you had better start getting ready to be attacked.

Heaven help you if you try it a fourth time. And forget about it if you've gotten impatient and aren't being as nice as you were before.

"The purpose of the [law] suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass .... If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." The Scientologist, A Manual on The Dissemination Of Material, by L. Ron Hubbard. Published in Ability Major 1, The Magazine of Dianetics and Scientology, March, 1955.

"[R]uin him utterly" means what it says. It doesn't matter if you're a good guy or a bad guy. When you "attack" the Church of Scientology, you become, according to its policies, an SP, a "suppressive person." It's *automatic*.

There isn't someone who checks you out to see if you're a good guy or a bad guy, a good parent or a bad parent, a good citizen or a bad citizen or

anything else. You're "attacking" the Church of Scientology. That's all they need to know to label you an SP. It's *automatic*.

For more policies like this do a Web search for "OSA Network Order".

The bottom line is that the Church of Scientology has many nasty policies. They come under the heading of "fair game." If you don't know what that means, do a search for it too. It's so nasty that L. Ron Hubbard wrote a policy letter to forbid the term from being used publicly.

What's funny is that OSA tries to use this policy letter to convince people that fair game was cancelled. It's funny because the only other thing

Hubbard wrote in that policy letter is that it didn't cancel any of his other policies about fair game.

Wake up, OSA. Wake up, David Miscavige. Wake up, "Clark." When you apply these policies to people who have gotten to know them as well as you do, they're not going to work the way you want them to. Most of the time they're not going to work at all. They will often backfire. *Real people*, including your own, get *hurt*.

There's a word that's been coined for when these policies backfire: "footbullet." It's what happens when OSA "shoots" at someone but ends up shooting itself in the foot instead. OSA's footbullet stats have been on a rising trend for years.

A very good example is the disastrous situation OSA has created for Scientology in Germany. The difficulty that OSA has run into is that many Germans have been educated about its nasty policies. So, the more OSA has tried to deal with the situation by using these policies, the nastier they have looked and the worse things have gotten.

For a while it was only Germany but since then OSA has succeeded in spreading the disaster to France and Belgium. Because OSA refuses to learn from its mistakes, it keeps making them. The list of countries that won't put up with them keeps growing. Sooner or later it will be most European countries and that's when the Church of Scientology can start kissing its honeymoon with the U.S. good-bye.

What does OSA do better than anything else? It keeps earning the reputation it has. It earns it on Usenet, on the Web, in other media and with a growing number of people and governments all over the world. It's not a bad reputation. It's a very bad one.

Wherever OSA operates, sooner or later the very nasty side of its nature becomes known. It's not suppressive persons or badly informed persons that dream up and spread things about OSA which aren't true. That happens too. But if that's all that happened, OSA's very bad reputation wouldn't stick. It would be something that could be handled and OSA would handle it, even if it took some time and work. Instead the more time and work they put into handling it, the worse their reputation gets.

How much worse do you think it's going to get before the officials in charge of the Church of Scientology are finally forced to do something intelligent about all of this, "Clark"?

Before the Internet, most of the nasty things OSA did were not known or known only by small groups of people. Or something would flare up and get into the news but then burn out and be forgotten about by most people.

Have things ever changed since then.

SW