Saturday, August 20, 2005

"All that is required for Evil to Triumph is...." (*No Treason* Scientology Skirmish) part 3

Lynette chimes in in response to Ernest asking people with an authentic comitment to liberty to recognize what is happening in this situation.

"It appears to be a restraining order to end Diana Hsieh's public and personal harassment of Ignatius Piazza.

http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us:8490/DistrictCourt/asp/CaseActivity.asp

I'll agree that Piazza has no moral grounds to wield state power in order to silence Hsieh. However, like 99% of poeple in this country, Piazza is a statist so his use of the state to protect his business comes as no great shock or surprise.

Lynette


John Kennedy also responds with

And this has what do with Front Sight?

"As a final note, let me make clear that I do not believe that Front Sight itself is involved with Scientology. Piazza has been very clear on that point throughout this brouhaha. The testimony of multiple Range Masters, Instructors, and students belies any such association. My own personal experience at Front Sight and in the Ambassador Program also supports this conclusion." - Diana Mertz Hsieh http://www.dianahsieh.com/scientology/index.html

To which Ernest answers:

It has everything to do with Piazza's -personal- tactics and my general freedom of association. Hsieh has written stupider and less well-founded things about -my- religious beliefs than Piazza's* but I'm not blubbering "Iwannasue" over it or trying to hide what I profess. This "suit" proves her point exactly.

*see http://www.dianahsieh.com/lectures/wbaa.html

Kennedy asks:

You know the substance of the suit? Enlighten us.


Ernest responds:

Of all the hypocritical nerve! You aren't lacking in an "opinion" about the merits of Hsieh's activity despite your professed (and apparently incurably willful) ignorance of the situation. Why don't you trundle over to www.xenu.net and educate yourself about these kinds of lawsuits, and then get back to us?



Kennedy responds

What do you assume is the substance of the suit, and why do you assume it?


Ernest Replies:


Well, Sparky, here's a giant, economy-sized clue:

http://www.casp.net/survival.html

Do you have more idiotic questions to ask in your highly successful efforts to be an anti-Socrates, or am I going to have to keep busting your snotty snout with -facts- all night long?

and later also says:

"From Arthur Silber's blog:
Not surprisingly, people on various discussion threads are very upset at what they perceive to be Front Sight's high-handed, strong-arming tactics. For example, at The Firing Line, people said:

"How can you be a proponent of the second amendment, when you try to
strongarm people out of their first amendment rights?"

"I agree ... this is classic Scientology material. They use the legal system to intimidate people with the threat of a lawsuit. Unfortunately, it often works because most people prize their money above their autonomy and sovereignty. In this case, we have a business that operates within a specific subculture here in the US. I would think that FSI Would need to watch their step at this point. Coverage and publicity of the lawsuit would make FSI look like major whiny baby but losers."

"Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to point out a classic example of the 'shotgun' school of problem-solving, versus the 'rifle' school. The 'shotgun' school fires projectiles in vast numbers all over the landscape, in the hope that some of them will connect. The 'rifle' school takes careful aim at a predetermined target, and fires a precisely-directed round that will have the desired effect, without spraying lead all over the place. In the light of Scientology's long-demonstrated technique of suing everybody and anybody whom they consider a threat, and the apparent
similarity of Front Sight's response to those involved in the recent fuss, would anybody care to venture a suggestion as to which 'problem-solving school' both of these entities fall into???"

At Glock Talk, there are many similar comments:

"Due to events described by the administrator of this website, I intend to permanently boycott a particular training facility located near Las Vegas, NV, and will encourage all others that I know in the training community, to do the same."

"Nothing has been refuted, critics have been threatened, retractions have been made not to promote truth but to escape predatory lawyers. People who resort to such disgusting tactics do not deserve respect. I prefer to deal with honest people who have no fear of the truth, who do not run to shyster lawyers to threaten lawsuits in order to clamp down on free speech. If someone has something to hide, it shows."

"I think the fact that the guy is suing Diane Hseih (spelling?) one of his own 'family' members for just ASKING QUESTIONS is appaling. In case some of you don't know, the law suit is public record and the link can be found on her web-site. The owner of this board getting threatened with a law suit for members expressing opinions and having general conversation? COME ON!! If one of this guy's investors can't even question what is going on without getting sued what does that tell you? The person is so self conscious about the truth, he doesn't want anyone talking about the truth."

And, remarkably, Glock Talk itself was threatened by Front Sight:

"Hi folks. I recently received a certified letter, from Front Sight Firearms Training Institute's lawyer, concerning negative posts made on Glock Talk. In addition to wanting me to ban an individual that made allegations against them, the message threatened legal action against this site if I didn't 'Carefully check posts in the future concerning Front Site'."

Subsequently, the administrator of Glock Talk said this:

"Hi folks. I just wanted to take a moment to post a clarification of my message concerning Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. It was not my intention to capitulate, by disallowing discussion of Front Sight here. My action was intended to deny them any exposure here at all, if they thought they could strong-arm me into removing negative content, while they benefited from the positive content that was left. I don’t like bullies and have no intention of backing down. I sent a letter to them yesterday outlining my position, along with a refund check for their banner ad spot.

"Perhaps my actions yesterday weren't very well thought out, or maybe I should have made my intentions clearer, but I have no intention of bowing to such heavy-handed tactics. Front Sight and this site have had a relationship for more than two years and they have been a sponsor most of that time. For them to contact me via a lawyer, instead of calling or emailing me personally, was a supremely arrogant and singularly short-sighted act. It was also quite insulting. I do not need the money of a company that conducts business that way. Front Sight does, on the other hand, need the exposure sites like this can provide. They need the potential customer base sites like this can give them a chance to pitch to and yet they are trying their best to alienate that very audience. I don’t understand their actions."

http://www.light-of-reason.blogspot.com/2002_11_03_light-of-reason_archive.html#84128115


It's clear that open and honest discussion is the target, and it's time for genuine freedom-lovers to take a stand. "


Kennedy responds with:

Open and honest discussion? Hsieh admits that this flap began with accusations against Front Sight which were "libelous in their wild speculations and claims." You know, like Glen Yeadon sayingKingsr King's in the south have separate lines for blacks? The question of whether or not libel is morally actionable is highly debatable, but an attack on libel is hardly identical to an attack on open and honest discussion.

I have no good evidence that this has gone beyond an action against libel, do you?

Ernest remarks

False analogy fallacy. A better analogy would be using the hijacking of Waco by anti-Semitic creeps as an excuse to avoid any investigation into that particular event. As it happened, the question of *Piazza's* (and not Front Sight's) involvement with COS is a seperate question from the specious charges you mention -precisely because- (as even -you- admit) there is possible evidence there, and it is a relevant public policy issue.



0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home