Monday, August 22, 2005


I'll continue to document the fuzzy contradictions of the No Treasonites on the issue of Scientology, and their defence of the Quack Piazza, who is suing Dianne Hsiah, a little later.

But in the interim, I've had some more suggestions from various people who have had the *pleasure* of "debating" with the "No Treasonites" in the past, about some of the more glaring ethical lapses and principle deficiencies of this pack of weezils.

Ernest Brown, suggested I blog a few rounds from Lynette's infamous "Ship Elian Back To Cuba" comments. (A debate that I think I completely missed)

And, a fellow refugee from ACECW has started to compile the various *debates* between John T Kennedy III, and Martin McPhillips.

And another usenet veteran whom I thought had been in hiding was amused to note Lynettes claim of never having posted under a pseudonym. They suggested that if people dug around to the alt.religion.scientology thread, they could find some old posts by Lynettte under the name of "Lisa". (Granted this particular poster is a bit of a nut... so take that with a grain of salt... but then one does have to wonder about Sean O'Kaenedi's posts at ACECW... a John T Kennedy Sock Puppet that he picked up and then discared)

I confess.. I really don't have the time to spend lurking around in alt.religion.scientology archives....But I did want to ask Lynette about her membership to the Front Sight gun school, the one that is suing Dianne Hsiah for asking questions about it's association with Scientology.

And then... of course, Jim March the "Concealed Carry" activist from American Liberty, is also curious about whether Kennedy ever gave a straight answer when he made a post claiming that "No Treason" used the L.Ron Hubbard Business Management Techniques...After the American Liberty posters went to town on him for this, he later tried to claim this was a joke of sorts.

And another longtime observer of the No Treason "Apple Dumpling Gang" wanted to know about this.

And lastly, one old-timer from HPO has said they have a few thoughts to share about Kennedy's freak out over "The Blank Out Times", in the context of a discussion regarding Verner Vinge's book "True Names.

Of course, this can all just stop, as soon as they take Billy Beck's material off their website, as per his request.

Or not.


At 6:23 PM, Blogger billy-jay said...

Where did Billy request that his material be removed from NT?

At 7:14 PM, Blogger Meaghan Champion said...

it's in the transcript of the chats that they posted Billy Jay.

At 7:16 PM, Blogger Meaghan Champion said...

Wm J Beck III: Let me tell you something: when I make up my mind that I want my name completely disassociated with you and your weblog, you'll be the first to know. That's what's as stake here.
Wm J Beck III: What you did was fucking outrageous.
Wm J Beck III: And you can *do* it. It's your place. But you
Wm J Beck III: 're going to do it without me.
jtk3isme: "when I make up my mind that I want my name completely disassociated with you and your weblog, you'll be the first to know"
Wm J Beck III: That's right.
Wm J Beck III: Oh. I see. You must've been quoting to Swann in another window.
jtk3isme: I'd duly note it, but I wouldn't be obliged to take down any of your contributions, I told you that from the start
jtk3isme: Swann? I have not been in contact with him at all
Wm J Beck III: *Hell* yes. Don't presume that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Wm J Beck III: Fine, then.
jtk3isme: all I've seen from him is in the comments
Wm J Beck III: Very little would surprise me at this point, John.
Wm J Beck III: Very little.
Wm J Beck III: And, thinking about it, as long as we're thinking about it: if I can't have my articles taken off your site, then what *does* that "copyright" mean, anyway?
jtk3isme: You can't have them taken off because you agreed to let me have them on the site as long as it's here
Wm J Beck III: You didn't answer the question.
jtk3isme: it acknowleges you have rights to what you've written, which you are free bargain away
jtk3isme: free to
Wm J Beck III: That's a logical piece of shit, John, and you know it. If that deal was as done as you say, then that copyright isn't even a pretense.
Wm J Beck III: I suggest you take it off and keep things honest.
jtk3isme: take the copyright off? If you like, as I get around to it. I simply left it intact as I found it.
Wm J Beck III: And I'm not going to dispute the agreement that you assert. I will say that I hope I never make a mistake like that again for which I have to bear the responsibility.
Wm J Beck III: And if it comes to it, that's exactly what I'll say out loud.

At 7:30 PM, Blogger billy-jay said...

I read that as Billy agreeing to abide by a deal he made with John, albeit unhappily.

At 7:46 PM, Blogger Meaghan Champion said...

"I suggest you take it off and keep things honest."

There is no proof that Kennedy ever had such an agreement with Billy. I would suggest that Kennedy just made that up. For instance, ask about the other contributors to No Treason and this alleged agreement. I don't think a single one of us got a request to contribute on the basis that he claims. In fact, I know that I did not. After the "rights of blastocytes" flap, I demanded that he remove my material from his blog, and he complied.

I read his response to John's second-hander parasitism as "Ok, John. If you say so. If that's how you want to be. If this is what you are reduced to. CYALATER"

And all of his actions since then have born that out.

Let me make this clear. Billy is not the one demanding that they take his stuff down at this point.

He already asked nicely. John refused and gave him a bunch of poppycock.

That's *not* how you deal honorable with a friend Jay. A friend respects the property of others, including the right of others to dispose of their property as they see fit.

Kennedy has sponged off of Billy for years in this capacity.. which you will see, if you go back to the American Liberty archives.

He and Lynette may think that they are fooling people by saying "oh.. he's not complaining"

But it's nonsense.

At 8:08 PM, Blogger billy-jay said...

"I suggest you take it off and keep things honest."

I believe Billy is referring to the copyright and John is saying that he will (when he gets around to it).

BTW, you can call me Bill.

At 8:22 PM, Blogger Meaghan Champion said...


as in "the friendly ghost?" ;)

At 8:29 PM, Blogger Ernest said...


Let me say that the best evidence for Kennedy's assertion that you need time away from the Internet is the fact that you are wasting your time on him.

However, after seeing that transcript, I have one final thing to say and this is it, in case you forgot it:

and your response:

At 8:30 PM, Blogger Ernest said...


Trying again:

and your response:

At 9:00 PM, Blogger Meaghan Champion said...

Agreed Ernie:

I really should just give it a rest. I know. And I will.

You know what Ernie... there are 2-3 occasions where I have been so shocked at what Kennedy or Lynette have said something that I was dumbfounded. I mean that. Rocked back on my heels... with a big Jon Stewart "Say Whaaaaaat?"

On each of those occasions, I went back to the archives or ACECW, or American Liberty or whatnot, and I tried to see what I missed.

In every instance... I remember talking to a few of the ACECW types about this... and saying "How the hell did they just come out with that? There's something seriously wrong here"

And the thing was... it was always chalked up to... "Oh well.. Kennedy's got his heart in the right place... he's on the right track... he just needs more time and more practice."

It also occured to me, that each time these bizarro statements were made, that various individuals would painstakingly lay out what was wrong with what they were saying... and John would just keep asking one question after another question...

What I also noticed was... he never seemed to actually pay attention to any of the answers. Or rather, he refused to integrate those answers into his heirarchy of knowledge to the extent that he would be able to contextualize what was being discussed.

After awhile... people just gave up continuing to go 20 rounds with him on it... because it was pointless. No matter how many times you lay out what's wrong... or how many examples of why it's wrong... he never seems capable of putting it together.

This is particularly true of the threads I have so far picked out for people's consideration.

If John is *honestly* asking these questions, my contention at this point is that he is too stupid to be taken seriously... about... well anything. That, in and of itself is not a moral failing.

But when he carries on in this stupid fashion... dropping context, left right and center... always trying to find an "out" for the question about why the rights of other human beings need to be respected... It really makes you wonder about what's going on in his head.

I think Billy is spot on, when he says... "It's terrifying" to John, to confront somebody who has made these conclusions, has chosen a moral code resultingly, and lives according to it.

Here's another thing-- When people *don't* chose a moral code, that in and of itself is a choice. And that *is* indeed, the choice that Kennedy seems to have made.

In that sense, he is very much like Erb, the mercury boy. You can't pin him down to a position. The few times that he has come out with some pronouncement... it's hit or miss. I mean that. It's 50/50. He can be right on some topics and deadly wrong on the others...

Another stupid failing is this...

When I first was introduced to Objectivism, the guy who spent considerable time, helping me sort through some of these beginning steps, said "Never play devils advocate, unless you are very clear in advance, this is what you are doing"

I can see more and more, why this is an important thing to emphasize. John does this constantly. It's one of his favourite little Socratic bag of tricks.

In any event. I am going to build this little archive over a period of time. And that way, when I ever find myself wanting to take the guy seriously again, or value him in way.. I will have this reminder about all the times John has just blanked out and *what* he has blanked out on.

It might also help other people who may be inclined to just let things slide...

As in... I think other people should be aware, that when push comes to shove... in terms of their relationship with this guy, what happened to Billy here... is exactly the kind of treatment they can expect in the future, if they push John just a little too far in explaining what's what.

This blog is a Caveat Emptor.

But you are right...
Probably nuff said on that.

At 9:29 PM, Blogger Ernest said...

Well, everybody needs a hobby. (g)

Look, I'm about like Woody Allen at the end of SLEEPER in that I have no faith in ANY political solution. I wish you well in your efforts to shake free of the "Shiny Happy Gulag"

but I fear that the boyos up there will eventually take even more lessons from us in dealing with "secessionists."

At 1:34 PM, Blogger John T. Kennedy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 5:43 PM, Blogger Meaghan Champion said...

See John...

I am going to say.. you question is "off topic".

Isn't that fun?

At 4:16 PM, Blogger Weedlet said...

I really enjoyed the content on your blog about Business Management will be back very frequently! I actually have my own Business Management Exposed blog with all kinds of stuff in it. You�re welcome to com by


Post a Comment

<< Home