Ray -
Chris' information is pertinent. I object to your attempt (IMO) to
discredit his efforts to share relevant and important information. To
use your rhetorical device: Surely you're not attempting to silence
criticism of the Scientologists?
You state that, in your opinion, one should not expose one exploitative
group without criticizing the whole lot. What about those individuals
who've had the courage to make public the abuse in other institutions
(including, but not limited to, the ones to which you make reference)?
I suppose that, in your opinion, they should have maintained their
silence, unless they were in a position to bring out information about
all exploitative or abusive institutions.
The pertinent information in Chris' e-mail is political. There is
concern that digital information is being used for purposes other than
those intended by the originators of the information (i.e. us). I'm
sure no one is opposed to hearing from you if any other cults or
institutions are doing the same thing. In the interim, I for one am
grateful that Chris - and the original writers of the article - had the
presence of mind to share very disturbing information with us.
Susan De Rosa, Toronto
Ray E. Harrell wrote:
Chris,
Are you serious about this? There are a lot of Scientologists in
the arts and I don't find them anymore of a problem than the regular
church groups with calls for public support in sending the poor to
parochial schools. Can Scientology be any worse than church abused
orphans of a generation ago in Quebec? Abuse where technology
meant for the insane was used on sane orphans to keep them in line?
If you want to complain about any one group with an agenda then you
have to, IMO, do the same about the rest as well. It is good to point
it out but I'm sure the NSA knows already and is in the business of
making everyone more paranoid about each other. So the point here is to
tell the story and remember that each group is busy trying to do the
other under. The trick is to get out of the way of both elephants and
hyenas.
REH
Christoph Reuss wrote:
Microsoft cooperates with Scientology
Experts suspect Trojan Horse in Windows 2000
(Summary of an article in the renowned German computer magazine "c't",
full article at http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/25/058/)
An integrated operating system component of Microsoft Windows 2000, the
defragmentation program "Diskeeper", is made by a Scientology company.
German data protection and security officials have expressed concerns
that once Windows 2000 will be shipped, "Diskeeper" will have access to
all data on the harddisks of government agencies, companies and citizens
worldwide. The psycho cult Scientology is known for attempts to
infiltrate key positions in industry and government, and has been
involved in espionage cases.
Replying to concerns, Microsoft wrote that it is not a
Microsoft-specific
problem if somebody can obtain access to the system [yeah, all virus
programmers know this], and that customers could remove Diskeeper at
any time by manually deleting its files and registry entries. However,
computer experts found out that when a user tries to delete Diskeeper,
another component of Windows 2000 immediately restores Diskeeper by
using
a cached copy. In other words, the Scientology component cannot be
removed from Windows 2000.
Since they don't intend to financially support Scientology and have
their
data snooped, German churches and government agencies now consider to
boycott Windows 2000.
______________________________________________________________________
Scared of M$ Lighten up at
http://www.dumbentia.com/pdflib/exploder.pdf
