-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In Message-ID: <c3l09tcduus6u6lfp844mk7u92n3fvggfu@4ax.com>
Subject: Another court on Scientology's "lying and cheating"
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:04:32 -0500
Organization: OSA Perhaps The Most Malignant Group on Usenet
ptsc <ptsc@my-deja.com> wrote: >" [16] Any party whose tenets include lying and cheating in order to attack
>its 'enemies' deserves the results of the risk which such conduct entails."
Ptsc
Agreed. And thanks.
======================
Seeing through OSA Deception
Revised: February 19, 2001
All is not what it seems here. You can discover that very quickly, by learning from me. Or . . . if you prefer, you can find out the hard way, by taking the one or more of the many OSA operatives here at face value and ending up led around by the nose. Keep in mind that OSA is Scientology's Gestapo. Much, if not *most* of what you see on ARS are OSA operatives --- many posing as Scientology critics and ex-Scientologists --- having staged conversations with their fellow OSA operatives. The basic strategy and patter for such conversations is found in super-secret "OSA/RTC eyes only" policy letters and packs. It works like this. OSA has some kind of misinformation it wants to shove down people's throats. But it knows it can't do it overtly, because if it does, it will meet resistance. It's got to be sneaky. - - From L. Ron Hubbard, OSA inherited the master manual on sneakiness. Typically, one OSA operative will do a setup for a second operative so the second operative appears to be merely expressing agreement, elaborating on a theme, or answering an innocent request. Never does a single operative list all of what OSA wants you to agree with. One operative hints at it, another adds elaboration, then many more come in and agree. And you, the reader --- who doesn't know what's really going on --- are supposed to agree too. So . . . is that what you want? To be tricked into agreeing? If not, read on.
The disturbing fact is, OSA has been here on ARS, in significant numbers, for a long time. In a continuing effort to cover up or discredit certain facts, theories, or stories about Scientology, OSA operatives post hundreds of messages and replies per week. Only a few of them will openly acknowledge Scientology affiliation. As for the rest . . . it's unmitigated hypocrisy, covert and nasty all the way.
=== Scientologists say they offer truth. But what is truth, anyway? As far as motivation is concerned, truth is that which should produce rewards in exchange for belief. This is why people believe in "truth", and act on it. Scientologists are Scientologists because it has been sufficiently demonstrated to them that faith in LRH fiction produces rewards. And they will remain Scientologists as long as they agree those rewards will continue. This is what it is to become a Scientologist. Fostering, maintaining, restoring, and defending this agreement is the purpose of OSA, Scientology's Gestapo. OSA operatives, like other Scientologists, understand that agreement with something fosters an affinity for it and vice versa. People like what they agree with and they agree with that which they like. OSA's, like other Scientologists, also understand the concept of achieving goals "a little at a time". A little agreement is better than no agreement. A little affinity for Scientology is better than no affinity. A little hope in the possibility of rewards from Hubbard fiction is better than no hope at all. OSA's understand that a little can lead to more, and more can lead to more, and more, and more. They don't mind starting small, on a single point. Therefore, in any environment, OSA starts by searching for things its audience likes and dislikes. They search for points on which to mirror agreement. Such agreement need not be sincere. They mimic your ways and mirror your opinions strictly to _get_ something. That something is your obedience. The "C" in the Scientology A-R-C triangle is not about imparting information. For one person to communicate information to another person who receives it, there's no need for the receiver to either like or agree with what they've received. However, should the sender wish to control the receiver without the use of force, then "affinity" and a common "reality" are indispensable. Scientology A-R-C is about insincerely mirroring an audience's likes and dislikes and mimicking its ways. The "C" in "A-R-C" tacitly refers *not* to communication, but control. In a public forum, OSA encounters resistance. Not everyone has the faith that Hubbardian fiction will lead to rewards and some are sure it leads to just the opposite. The latter are Scientology critics. Silencing such people is OSA's specialty. Oddly enough, they start in their usual way, by finding likes and dislikes and points which offer agreement. For example, if a critic believes there is something wrong with Scientology, the OSA operative will find a general point of agreement. If what the critic dislikes is "fraud", what the OSA operative will dislike is "fraud". If the critic dislikes dishonesty, the OSA operative will dislike dishonesty too. Always the goal is to open the critic to Scientology commands, so that when the OSA operative says "so-and-so is a fraud!", the critic either agrees or falls silent. For the genuine Scientology critic, given such dubious OSA insincerity, detecting an operative in a public forum is not a simple task. Not at all. Their persuasion is persistent, their tactics subtle. If you overlook the details, if you consider just one or two posts rather than a large sampling, you'll miss them, or worse, you'll assume they're "like you". The difference between an insincere OSA operative and the Scientology critic is that the insincere OSA operative, underneath his or her put up facade, wants you to believe that exposure to L. Ron Hubbard fiction leads to rewards, while the Scientology critic believes such material is ultimately harmful. This difference may not be readily apparent. To differentiate an OSA operative from a genuine Scientology critic, a new, expanded definition is necessary. OSA operatives intend to foster, maintain, restore, and defend agreement that Hubbardian fiction leads to rewards. But they fulfill this intent, for the most part, by acting out confidential Scientology scripts. Given that confidential Scientology scripts call for deception and insincerity, this is where things get confusing.
=== To Each His Own - - From the OSA perspective, audiences are divided into "targets". These targets range from convinced Scientologists, through the unconvinced general public, to "wrongly" convinced critics. OSA performances are scripted to match the targets' tastes. We could say OSA's come in various "flavors" depending on the tastes of their target audience. OSA's are assigned to mirror and mimic each and every one.
=== Flavors For the most faithful of Scientologists, OSA provides official spokespersons who mirror their common likes and dislikes. For Scientologists in the "free zone" OSA provides critics who agree that "The Tech" is worthwhile, if applied "standardly" and "exactly" and that the only thing wrong with Scientology is current management. For the general, unconvinced, skeptical public, OSA provides operatives who are skeptical of Scientology alternatives . . . but not of Scientology. For wayward Scientologists, OSA provides critics who agree on general concepts --- fraud, dishonesty, theft etc. --- while disagreeing on exactly who or what deserves censure or punishment. For people that are against anything that smacks of "cult", or "Scientology" in general, OSA provides cult "critics" who make a show of professing Scientology to be "nonsense", or even "criminal". For effective Scientology critics (Scientologists call these "suppressive persons"), OSA provides it's own variety of "SP". The OSA SP is acting as a "suppressive person" is supposed to act but directs a portion of his hostility towards the people that sow doubts among Scientologists. The OSA SP's intentionally dramatize the supposed twelve characteristics of the anti-social personality, per policy "The Anti-Social Personality The Anti-Scientologist". For anyone who has caught wind of OSA mirroring and mimicry tactics and is attempting to subvert them, OSA provides its own version of the "clam sleuth" to help "expose" the Scientologist infiltrators.
=== Observed Traits OSA's undercover phonies euphemistically refer to each other as "the critics". OSA's mirror anyone who refers to them as what they are. In other words, accuse an operative of being what they are and they'll call you "OSA". Operatives will persistently defend one another against anyone who accuses them of being from OSA. So far, they've not been observed accusing one another. The "critic" and "freezoner" flavor will post pro-Scientology messages behind critical-of-Scientology subject lines. Or they will embed a pro-Scientology message within critical-of-Scientology content. OSA's agree with one another about upstat (effective), or prominent genuine critics. Typically, they'll strongly agree that a genuine Scientology critic is (typically) a "fraud", a "criminal", "crazy", "loony", "insane" and a "liar", his/her works a "hoax", and as such should be scorned and ignored. Only an OSA operative will attempt to label a genuine critic "insane", "criminal", "crazy", or "loony", or suggest the critic be confined to a mental institution. Only an OSA operative will attempt to label a genuine critic's works a "hoax". OSA's different flavors will display insincere disagreement with one another to the point of exchanging insults. The attempt, apparently, is to build loyalty with their target audiences. For example, "SP" and "critic" Sten "anti-cult" Zerpe might slander "psych skeptic" TravisSargent. Or "critic" Andreas Heldal-Lund might slander prominent Scientologist John Travolta. All OSA's of the "critic", "SP", or "clam sleuth" flavor are allowed to disparage Scientology and management level Scientologists. It's all in the interests of building and maintaining a basis for C_ontrol, apparently. OSA's of the "critic" flavor are allowed --- even encouraged --- to conceal their identities by using character names and terms from section OTIII of the Scientology story. It helps to keep beginning Scientologists away from ARS. OSA "SP's" or "critics" are allowed to post analyses of Scientology written by psychiatrists, psychologists, and other non-Scientologists. OSA's of any flavor will cannot write persuasive criticism of Scientology. They cannot write a convincing argument as to why an average Scientologist should get out of Scientology. They can post something from OSA's entheta file, but otherwise they stick to single sentences, symbols, and slogans. OSA "clam sleuths" readily offer up a poorly cloaked operative as a red herring to get the real sleuths off their trail. OSA "critics" will throw out a previously revealed "sensitive" Scientology document to misdirect attention from secret documents being alluded to or asked about. OSA's will put up a stonewall of denials, occasionally sarcastic, when accused of being OSA. Having no fear of OSA reprisals, OSA's will readily post their name and address.
=== What They Post What an operative posts seems to depend partly on the mood of his target audience: does it need additional mirroring and mimicry of its tastes and ways, or has it been sufficiently softened with "A_ffinity" and a common "R_eality" to yield to C_ontrol? An operative losing control will go to extremes to mirror and mimic. An operative in control will use that control. An operative makes a "cover" or "cloak" by acting out and expressing insincere opinions.
To help understand them, we can split an OSA operative's activities in two. They either: 1) establish and thicken their cover. Or . . . 2) deplete and use up their cover.
They're engaged in an activity of type #1 when they post something that makes them look like just another member of the operative's target audience. They're involved in type #2 activity as they make use of the credibility gained in type #1 activities for the purpose of defending Scientology. - - From the reaction they get from genuine Scientology critics, an operative instinctively knows how much cover he/she has remaining.
=== Control by Use of Revised Definitions. If A_ffinity and R_eality are "in", control may be assumed by using strongly positive- or negative-valued words to mean what the operative intends the listener/reader to do. For example: "Sane" is used as meaning "Unable to penetrate OSA/LRH deception" to imply: "If you want to be regarded as sane (not crazy, loony, insane), you will not attempt to see through OSA/LRH deception." "Honest" is used as meaning "Revealing one's vulnerabilities so OSA can take advantage of them" to imply: "If you want to be regarded as honest (not a fraud or liar), you will reveal your vulnerabilities." "Ethical" is used as meaning "Doing what OSA wants" to imply: "If you want to be regarded as ethical (not criminal), you will surrender to OSA/LRH intent." "Come clean" is used as meaning "Unable to withhold sensitive information" to imply: "If you want to be regarded as clean (not dirty), you will give OSA a big win and yourself a big loss." "Victim" is used as meaning "Recognizing OSA's enemies are rational, logical, and have a better argument" to imply: "If you don't want to be regarded as a pathetic, whining, victim you'd better ignore the good sense of OSA's enemies." "Fraud", "criminal", "crazy", "loony", "insane" and "liar" are all used as meaning "Able to penetrate OSA/LRH deception and willing to talk about it" to imply: "If you don't want to be regarded as [the common meaning of one or more of the aforementioned negative terms], you won't dare to talk about the workings and/or operatives behind OSA/LRH deception."
=== OSA Scientologists Follow Checklists Typically: 1) Feign affinity and agreement. Agree with entheta terminal's likes and dislikes. Run gentle 8-C as necessary. 2) If A-R-C per #1 not possible, attempt to repel entheta terminal by giving it lots of what it dislikes. 3) If terminal not responsive per #2, conscript allies. Announce entheta as originating from target audience opposition terminal or Org. E.g. "[Name of entheta terminal] is OSA." 4) If target audience doesn't swallow #3, alter entheta terminal's messages or create discreditable messages and post via a similar address. 5) If improper response per #4, confuse identities. Rumor that entheta terminal and his failed handlers are one and the same person. E.g. "Dorian is ptsc". 6) If first no win per #1-5, retire losing pseudonyms by blaming them on previously retired pseudonyms, which have themselves been blamed on entheta terminals.
By following this checksheet, OSA can never lose.
=== Why They are Here The ARS newsgroup along with the Cult Awareness Network, is where Scientology reclaims its own. Slave states and groups, political or religious, historical or modern, have always detested places where runaways may find safe asylum. In the interests of leaving their slaves no place to which to escape, slave states typically attempt to infiltrate or dominate such places with spies, informants, and provocateurs still loyal to the state. Bolshevik Russia sought to surround itself with non-asylum states and became, as a result, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union sought to deny runaways from border states asylum so up went the Iron Curtain. And of course Marxist-Leninist political philosophy called for a global workers revolution that would leave nowhere to go. Politically sanctioned slavery has also been recognized in North America. It may have been, in part, the presence of safe asylum in the North and West that helped to drive the Southern States of 1860 to start the American Civil War. The problem for isolated pockets of slavery is that no one wants to be a slave. If there appears some better alternative to slavery on the horizon, the slave is tempted to seek it out. And so goals of eventual planetary domination are proclaimed, walls of various sorts are built, safe asylums are infiltrated. Scientology closely follows the pattern of its predecessors. As part of its motivational constitution, Scientology has the goal of a "Clear" planet, a place where the one and only asylum is Scientology itself . . . and the entire human race has been pulled into a Hubbardian delusion. In the meantime, of course, Scientology does what it can to line itself with non-asylum "border states". Armed with false affinity and insincere agreement, it apprehends its runaways and brings them back in "chains". Are you planning an escape, Scientologist? Are you doubting the "truth" of L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology fictions? OSA's network of informants and dirty tricksters is here, I can assure you of that. Their job is to act like your "friend" . . . then betray you and close your way out. They've been expecting you :-)
=== Though the hidden goal of Scientology is to shift control of society to Hubbardian scripts, OSA operatives can also be discerned by looking for more common instinctual and early-learned control behaviors: Pointing (at that with which one must agree) Denial (pointing at that with which one must disagree) Distracting (E.g.: "DaNile is a river in Egypt" :-) ) Agreeing (amongst themselves, so you'll feel like the oddball) Laughing (disdainfully, at disagreement) Threats (first smug, then stern) Orders (shouted as necessary) Insults (shouted as necessary) Nagging (repetition of the above for as long as necessary) Whining (drop to lower tones if failure appears imminent)
=== Additional Logic To justify my presence and effects on ARS, "Ralph Dorian" need not be regarded as a real historical personage. Assuming Dorian to be fictitious, then what I, the writer, am creating here on ARS, is, for the most part, just mimicry and mirroring, same as OSA. One could say that my job is to hold a mirror up to the mirrors. Hubbard was a fiction writer. I'm a fiction writer. Hubbard designed a fictional "reactive mind" that explained palpable reality. I designed a fictional person whose story uncannily explains Hubbard and Scientology. Whether fictional or historical, Dorian is an elegantly effective solution to the problem of illustrating the nature of Scientology while at the same time defending against personal attacks. My assumption --- this all rests on an assumption --- is that the merits of the solution are obvious. Maybe not at first glance, but over time, they become apparent. I assume genuine critics would perceive these merits and like what I am doing. I assume OSA would not, not because they don't perceive the merits, but because they _do_ perceive them --- their own methods turned against them --- and don't like the implications for Scientology. The only other basis for objections is priggishness. And the only explanation I can fathom for being unable to perceive the merits of the solution . . . is extraordinary stupidity. Imagine a public situation. A bully throws first insults, then open hands and fists at a handsome and apparently well behaved pre-pubescent child. The child cringes and yells "No!" repeatedly before getting hit. People in the vicinity turn and look. The sight and sounds have their effect. With every slap, grab, punch, or plea to stop, people grimace, or wince. After some moments pass, as if a hidden timer were ticking and suddenly goes off, someone rushes into the scene. Now it's the bully who's in trouble. When he's down, his arms are pinned behind his back in a way that makes him hurt. The crowd spontaneously applauds. Now . . . this is what a normal crowd should do. A normal crowd of people should enjoy seeing justice being done. But what if it didn't work this way? What if the crowd got angry? What if they hurled insults? There'd be something wrong with that crowd. Very wrong, or at least with a few of its members. What's the matter with them?, one might ask. Are they in cahoots with the bully? Are they priggish about "interference"? Or are they just extraordinarily stupid?
=== As a rough guide on addresses that represent themselves as Scientologists (a.k.a. clambots), I offer the following list: Mark <relay@cotse.com> Mandible <Mandible_member@newsguy.com>
=== As to a rough guide on addresses being used by OSA bullies who insincerely post to ARS as "skeptics", "free zoners", "critics", "SP's", or "clam sleuths", I offer the following list: AJ <AJ_member@newsguy.com> {active} barb <bwarr1@home.com> {active "critic", "SP"} Baron <aserbic@aol.comleaveit> {active "psych skeptic" } Bob <bob@cotse.com> {active caricature of Bob Minton} Boudewijn van Ingen <bogie@xs4all.nl> {active} Bouncer <bouncer-no-spam@cotse.com> {active} Boxingnut <boxinnut@home.com> {active "critic"} Bremenium <bremenium@aol.comspamfree> {active} Caswell <caswell@cotse.com> {active "psych skeptic"} Cheradenine Zakalwe <zakalwe@nym.alias.net> {active "SP"} Chris Leithiser <cleithis@bc.cc.ca.us> {active "critic"} Concerned_Citizen@newsguy.com {active "skeptic", "critic"} Dave Bird <dave@xemu.demon.co.uk> {active "critic"} David "ptsc" Lebow <ptsc@my-deja.com> {active "SP", "critic"} Diane Richardson <referen@bway.net> {active "critic"} Dobe R Mann <dobe_r_mann@nospamsorclamshotmail.com> {active "critic"} Donna Melendez <donnamelendez@aol.comnospam> {active rumormonger, "skeptic"} dorian@nym.alias.net {dormant caricature} DorianAuthor@nym.alias.net {recently active caricature of Ralph Dorian} durian@nym.alias.net {dormant caricature of Ralph Dorian } El Roto <findme@google.com> {active "critic"} Feisty <not@inthislife> {active "critic"} Garry <garry@newsguy.com> {caricature of Gerry Armstrong; active "critic"} gs1100 <gs1100@my-deja.com> {active "critic"} Guillam <Guillam_member@newsguy.com> {active "psych skeptic"} I.S.Rennie <LIP00ISR@sheffield.ac.uk> {active "critic"} Jack Delad <jackde-no-spam@cotse.com> {active "psych skeptic"} James Wood <gorillagoals@home.com> {active "critic"} JLHartley <JLHartley_member@newsguy.com> {active "psych skeptic"} kymus <kymus2468@aol.comnospam> {active "critic"} lameduck@cotse.com {active} LaserClam laserclam@aol.com {active} lizabethdawn@aol.com (LizabethDawn) {active "psych skeptic"} lmt_watch@my-deja.com {active "Lisa McPherson Trust skeptic"} LRonsScam <lronsscam@aol.com> {active "critic"} M. C. DiPietra <mdipietra@earthlink.net> {active "critic"} Marc Taylor <Marc_member@newsguy.com> {active} Mike " unusual" Rinder <them@no-spam.org> {active "critic"} mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> {active nonspecific mimic & "critic"} mirele@xmission.com (Mirele) {active "critic"} Monica Pignotti <pignotti@my-deja.com> {active "critic"} Nelson <nelsonjr@powersurfr.com> {active} No User <no.user@anon.xg.nu> {active "freezoner" & mimic of doubting Scientologists} Patrick Light <plight@rocketmail.com> {active, rumormonger, "skeptic"} Podkayne1 <podkayne1@aol.com> {active "critic"} psychnews2000@aol.comStopSpam (Psych News) {active "psych skeptic"} Ralph Dorian <dorian@nym.xg.nu> {recently active caricature for Ralph Dorian} Rebecca Hartong <praetorian@mgfairfax.rr.com> {dormant} Roland <roland.rashleigh-berry@virgin.net> {active "critic"} Sam Carmean <sam55@primenet.com> {active} sleddog <sleddog@cotse.com> {active "skeptic"} Starshadow <starshadowis@home.com> {active "critic"} Sten-Arne "Anti-Cult" Zerpe <The.Galactic.Federation@ThePentagon.com> {active "critic", "SP"} Steve Zadarnowski <fanjet@iinet.com.au> {active "freezoner" & "critic"} stillwaters@freedom.net {active "critic"} Tampawog <Tampawog@aol.com> {active "critic"} the_light@my-deja.com {active} thinks4himself@my-deja.com {active "critic"} Tim Walker <Golfguitar@aol.com> {active critic of Ralph Dorian} Tommy <Tommy_Sp**gespam@Xs.net> {active "critic"} travissargent@aol.com (TravisSargent) {active "psych skeptic"} UnitSlayer <UnitSlayer@webtv.net> {active "critic"} xenu@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) {retired} xxxmisterearlxxx@aol.com (XxxMisterEarlxxx) {active "critic"} yertletheturtle <yertletheturtle@my-deja.com> {active "critic"} Zorrosblade..........Z <zorrosblade@earthlink.net> {active "critic"}
=== The Most Obvious Difference OSA's attack anyone who could prevent Scientologists from "going up the Bridge". This is what provokes them. The result is that OSA's attack genuine critics FIRST. You'll almost never see a genuine critic attacking a OSA operative posing as a "critic" unless the OSA operative has first attacked the genuine critic. OSA's primary concern is the behavior of genuine critics. And it shows. OSA's "critics" will criticize, denounce, and gripe about genuine critics who can hurt Scientology. OSA's secondary concern is defending themselves. This too, shows. OSA's "critics" will criticize, denounce, and gripe about genuine critics who have somehow hurt their fellow OSA operatives or impeded their operations. OSA's tertiary concern is keeping their cover intact by appearing to "attack" Scientology. This shows in how they "attack". Embedded in their own personal tirades about Scientology are tiny hints and suggestions as to the value of it . . . which to them of course is good.
=== Known OSA Operative = KOSAO, pronounced Koe-Say-Oh.
=== Traps It is not a well-known fact, but Internet sites are capable of identifying your "IP address" should you connect to that site. For newsgroups, there exist "JavaScript" programs that can be embedded in a plain-text news posting. Click on the post and the JavaScript will activate a browser window that quickly and automatically takes you to a site that identifies your IP address. With your IP address, OSA knows your Internet Service Provider and with a phone call and a phony story, they can easily find who you are. From there, they will inform on you, get you fired from your job, sue you, kill your dog, or whatever else they deem necessary to extract compliance. For this reason, I strongly advise that you set your newsreader's security setting to "high" or "restricted". And when visiting a website that may have Scientology content of any kind, please spend a bit of time and money to protect your identity with a service like that found at http://www.freedom.net/ or http://www.anonymizer.com/. For added security, pay for the service with a money order or cash. Several KOSAO's have strongly objected to my recommendations of anonymity when visiting these sites: http://www.xenu.net http://www.xenuTV.com http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/upper-levels/ot3.html . . . which suggests they are traps. Whether you visit them or not, know that the real secrets of Scientology are not the "OT" sections. Scientology's secrets are concentrated mainly in the super-confidential "OSA/RTC EYES ONLY" policy packs and in the Dorian Interview Segments (of which eight so far have been published). OSA's will die before surrendering a genuine facsimile copy of OSA/RTC EYES ONLY policy. And they are doing their underhanded nastiest to make sure what I have to say is "kill-filed" or ignored . . . which should confirm what I'm telling you. === Unanswered Questions After reading this, take a close look at OSA's alleged Scientology "critics". Do a search on, say David "ptsc" Lebow's posts for the last week. Count them up. Isn't it strange that someone would be so devoted to a cause that they'd spend 4-16 allegedly unpaid hours a day year in, year out? That's the kind of time it takes to do the reading and writing. In their continual "stat" chase, some of them post literally hundreds of messages and replies per week. One might justly wonder, where do they get all that time?? Are they independently wealthy? Are they on the dole? Or are they privately funded by a secret second party? And if Bob Minton isn't funding them, who is?
============================== My name: Ralph Dorian My Address: <r_dorian@nym.alias.net> My PGP fingerprint: 222E 252F C976 52F4 B575 CC27 4529 DCC0 1A7A 3ECA


- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: N/A iQA/AwUBOpBiAUUp3MAaej7KEQJObwCdHp9p7oKMOMplWOiq4Su0T6KxNekAnAhH 3MtFid8ptrAjXmA8pdZBfVU1 =K3nQ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ~~~ This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message. It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.alias.net. Date: Tue Feb 20 01:40:31 2001 GMT
From: centurion@nym.alias.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBOpHLE05NDhYLYPHNAQE/UQf+MpRcgOl6eUZyZl0rusEDdY9HMgsFIU7Z iiKEt7BhEpg1mI+kwLYDEKAZBY4Z0QMPw75fof91f7w9jOrYOKATJANACJ3wJ/Mn uIAa/daY/D5lVKJmIawwyPpuE3uwnfpitY8oNUMl0Az5yeSZYwmSVFLfMFY7RYpr iYsAl9qS5BZIsBa4/87DlYZHoAvUiaPSKZN76Gp2dgFb/7fRyW0YA4UaoGyV2yQO TjUFOwVY6fttJYs5omGndSL17lo+XALAkj9FqJfI/E+Iq08Fdv45u/r3gT+sRSZ1 4XyXmGklfrgZuqe1gkCg+ySrZJv+yuRFlewBQLlx7emvK/cTtioyQg== =Ukau -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Go Back