Where did the Proud ex Trekker go? The one who does not wan

[Carey]

Well, it looks as if Spots can now join the guilt by association club. Lee and Co have been members a long time. I include myself in Co.

I have no association with PURE at all.
I am however a proud ex Trekker.

Carey brought my name up in her deposition with frequency. What she had to say was degrading and slanderous; and while much of it was just her warped opinion, based on her extreme levels of hate; other statements were known by her to be false

If you are a proud ex Trekker, as you claim to be, then stand up and be counted...give your name.

SHOW US HOW PROUD YOU ARE!!!!

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-03 18:56 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-03 18:57 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Carey on 2004-01-03 18:58 ]

[Anonymous]

Carey, I can appreciate your frustation with these folks.  Why they can't (or won't) identify themselves in spite of insisting they have nothing to hide and in fact, are proud of WHO they are, is rather frustrating.  I guess credibility is something they strictly demand from others, not ever themselves.  Well, don't sweat it. Like Ginger and others have said, this is S.O.P. (Standard Operating Procedure). Divide and Conquer.  Diss and Dismiss.  A Temptress in a Teapot.  You get the picture, here.  What interests me is whether these people understand the implications of what amounts to supreme hypocrisy?

As for Free Speech ... HAH!  Why take a chance when no one knows if they will be the next one sued by someone who ain't too happy with the topic of discussion/debate?  And to think men and women have sacrificed their own freedom and very lives to uphold the rights of people like this person.  Makes me damn mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Antigen]

I'm pretty sure it's just paranoia, folks. I think most of the adults who find themselves entwined w/ this industry are the type go through life believing that they're not allowed to do a lot of things that they really are allowed to do.

There is not a "fragment" in all nature, for every relative fragment of one thing is a full harmonious unit in itself.
-- John Muir

[Carey]

I don't think its paranoia.  I think the poster is not "proud to be an ex Trekker" and I think they want to call me a liar without having to prove it.  How many times have I been accused of that on this board and asked those accusing me of lying to tell me what I have lied about?  They can't, I have not lied, its plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

Carey, my "friend", you know exactly who I am.

You know damn well why I now perfer to keep my name off the forums; as its a direct result of your actions.

So back off in your own jack yard and leave me alone.

[Carey]

You are wrong.  I don't know who you are.  But what I do know, is that you are not a "proud" ex Trekker other wise you would say who you are.

And, I do know that you have called me a liar and are afraid to admit to that, other wise, once again you would say who you are.

You are not "proud" you are ashamed and you make an accusation (calling me a liar) you can't even stand behind.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-01-04 07:32:00, Carey wrote:

"I don't think its paranoia.  I think the poster is not "proud to be an ex Trekker" and I think they want to call me a liar without having to prove it.  How many times have I been accused of that on this board and asked those accusing me of lying to tell me what I have lied about?  They can't, I have not lied, its plain and simple.



"

I agree this is not paranoia. The proof is in the pudding.  Carey has consistently provided documentation to support her allegations where as these folks have brought nothing to the table but personal attacks and threats of retaliation.  Not just directed at Ms. Bock, but virtually anyone who does not support their personal agenda.  When and if these people care to produce documentation to boost the credibility of their own allegations, I will listen.  Until then, I see no reason to cut these people any slack, much less enable them to do what apparently they do best: Blow smoke up everybody's ***.

 :wave:

[Anonymous]

Bump

[scottT]

"Why don't you come out of the henhouse?" says the fox; "Is it because you're just CHICKEN?"

    In today's forum we have a person who has admittedly accepted substantial compensation from the loathesome ones ( for providing information which they deemed  useful in their litigation onslaught) demanding that people reveal their identities, and impugning their honor if they fail to comply.    

    I guess once you start taking money for "naming names,"  you realize there may be an untapped career opportunity.  However,  by any definition -- dictionary, vernacular, or legal --accepting money for services makes you an affiliate of their organization.  Obviously, if you can encourage more disclosures, and get more identities,  your paymaster will likely be more than willing to show his gratitude in the traditional way.  Once you're bought and paid for,  its fair to presume that you stay bought.

    The desire for confidentiality is in no way inconsistent with being justifiably proud of participating in a worthwhile cause.

    Before the civil war, helping runaway slaves could subject a person to criminal prosecution. (recall the Dred Scott decision). Yet there were a few brave folks on the underground railroad who helped slaves escape the South and flee to Canada.  Today's inquisitor would have you believe that their efforts were not honorable and decent, simply on the ground that they didn't advertise their identity.

    In my opinion,  the conditions to which people are subjected in extra-judicial seizure and incarceration programs  are a fair topic for public debate -- even if the program is run by a for-profit, commercial entity.  Revelations of treatment conditions which led to reform of mental health hospitals in the 19th and early 20th century are an analagous example. (Less litigious times, thankfully).   Even if unpleasant and messy,  such discourse (including the discourse on this very forum) is vital,  and should NOT be limited to those who are willing to bear the expense of defending SLAPP suits from our inquisitor's employer.

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:17 ]

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 11:26 ]

[Carey]

Before the civil war, helping runaway slaves could subject a person to criminal prosecution. (recall the Dred Scott decision). Yet there were a few brave folks on the underground railroad who helped slaves escape the South and flee to Canada.

Scott, do you not see the irony in your argument.

Slaves/ kids....WWASP programs / Sue's programs

What you condone freeing slaves/kids in order for someone else to have the opportunity to exploit and prosper off of them?  I don't.  When you stand behind Sue you are not standing for protecting the rights of children. You are swapping one set of unregulated programs for another.

[scottT]

The topic of my discussion was your demand for names and impugning the honor of those who wish to remain anonymous -- not your individual obsession with certain programs and individuals.  

    Nothing I said could remotely be construed as favoring certain programs.  Again,  I believe you serve the interests of certain organizations by interpreting any post that doesn't share your particular world view into a supposed endorsement of PURE.    

     People fighting abusive behavior mod (REGARDLESS of referral agency) have as much reason to fear SLAPP suits as the underground railway transporters had to fear criminal prosecution.

    As such,  your characterization of my example as "irony" is not particularly apt.  Both sets of programs can be judged by the same criteria --Similar facts warrant similar conclusions. I have no dog in this fight. Other people might.
 

    Nonetheless,  a person who who wished to remain anonymous while opposing the programs which are foremost in your mind is entitled to equal dignity with the persons who oppose the programs which the trekkers oppose. Similar facts, similar conclusions. I don't serve the interests of either program.  Other people might.

    Lamentably,  these are times of persecution (ask Ginger).  If the program is abusive, lets oppose it.  I see nothing constructive in drumming up more business for the loathesome ones'  attorneys by insisting people reveal their identities as a condition of participating in this forum.  Other people might.

 

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:09 ]

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:10 ]

[ This Message was edited by: scottT on 2004-01-04 12:19 ]

[Anonymous]

Scott whats your affiliation with PUREST?

Are you the anonomous proud EX-Trekker?

[Anonymous]

Help, I just read this on another forum, and am wondering what in the world is going on here.  Scott T., you seem to be a stand-up guy, can you answer the questions posed at the bottom of Ms. Bock's post?  Honestly, I am NOT trying to stir the pot, just looking for straight answers.  This has got me really troubled, darn near sick to my stomach.  

http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... m=9&Sort=D

[Anonymous]

Then tell me Scott, why do you object so adamantly to my exposure of Sue and PURE?


And:

the honor of those who wish to remain anonymous -- not your individual obsession with certain programs and individuals.

I didn't link this person to "certain programs and individuals",  he/she did with what they said.  "I proud ex Trekker."

The "honor" of an anonymous poster?  The honor of one who has called me a liar and hides behind a bag?  Where is the honor in that?   I take someone calling me a liar personal.  If you think it is ok for someone to call another indvidual a liar and not say who you are and not back it up with any kind of proof...then I say your definition of who and what is honorable is questionable.

[Carey]

That was me.  Ginger could you delete this post and add my name to the one above addressed to Scott.