From: xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.unification,talk.religion.misc,soc.culture.russian Subject: Re: fwd: FORMER KGB MILITARY PROCECUTOR TEACHES US CONGRESS ABOUT FREEDOM OF RELIGION Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:45:05 GMT Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Lines: 82 Message-ID: <341f3497.17524645@news.mindspring.com> References: <3430607f.36240158@news.snafu.de> <341f094f.6442744@news.mindspring.com> <34242b64.9763742@news.accesscom.com> Reply-To: xenu@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ip72.state-college3.pa.pub-ip.psi.net X-Server-Date: 17 Sep 1997 01:57:22 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 bstone@kudonet.com (Brent Stone) wrote: >On Tue, 16 Sep 1997 22:35:40 GMT, xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote: >>tomklem@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud) wrote: >>>This is fitting. The chair of the even is Senator Alfonse "witchhunt" >>>De'Mato. He's the closest guy we have to a KGB agent/prosecutor in >>>the United States. >>senator alfonse d'amato is perhaps the vilest and most corrupt of >>current senators, and yet has this annoying habit of appearing in >>the forefront of any inquisition du jour. >>or [what a laugh!] "ethics" hearings. >>hey, i just realized why congress is so soft on scientology-- >>their definition of "ethics" and scientology's is pretty close. >>> Tom Klemesrud SP6 >>> KoX >>rob >shhhhhhhhhsssshhh Rob! Us "constituents" aren't supposed to know that! >Do you think for one minute that our duly elected representatives are just >power hungry like LRong? I 'spose it could be true, but I don't guess they >want it spread around. can't imagine why not. after all, if they're ethical, surely that will come out in any investigation of the situation, eh? [suppresses bwahahaha chortles] >Maybe, when we're done with the cult, we can use the same tech to fight >some other abuses, but face it, if we can't even dismantle an abusing cult, >we're dead trying to dismantle an abusing government. actually, that's untrue. the net largely responds to attacks based on a pure principle of reciprocity. ie, piss off _x_ number of people, you will get _x_ number of complaints. except depending on how big x is, you get a certain proportion of the net population which is not so easily calculated. because you have pissed off the one guy who is expert in trade secret law, and will rape your trade secrets to the legal limit. not only that, but you will also have ten clowns who will spit your trade secrets out on the net and will not be locatable. you will also have pissed off the guy you hired last year to install your network, and that guy will piss all your confidential email to the four winds. you will also have pissed off the guy who is *currently* your network administrator, and *that* of course will have some profound effects come next thursday. you're also going to piss off any number of random lunatics. who knows what *they'll* do. in fact, come to think of it, what strategic advantage is gained, at all, by attacking the net? none. none at all. the costs outweigh any possible advantage. >Let's practice on a cult first! indeed. however, the cult can always have the sense to hightail it off to the hills. the governments. . . well, oh well. . . the governments have this annoying tendency to continue believing they control everything long after it's been demonstrated that they can barely even control their own sphincters, much less the known universe. > - Brent rob