Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Truth action accused of libel and defamation of character
This entire dispute traces back to the Kennebunkport Warning. Notice that those people specifically named by Tarpley as possible COINTELPRO were Arabesque, Cosmos (AKA YT), Col. Jenny Sparks and Michael Wolsey. The only one not participating in this thread is Wolsely.
Victronix01 (Victoria Ashley) is the moderator of the stj911 forum, and the maintainer of the stj911.com website.
Your forum contains messages about me which are criminally actionable. I
demand these defamatory and libelous posts be formally retracted. It is
not sufficient for you to remove the posts. The are a matter of public
record, and have already resulted in palpable adverse consequences in my
life. You are therefore guilty of facilitating legally actionable
behavior. I have already informed the author, Victoria Ashley, who posts
as victronix01 that I am aware of her legally actionable behavior.
You claim that I created accounts which I simply could not have created,
and mocked me for having allegedly created them. This is also libelous
behavior on your part, and will be dealt with to the fullest extent that I
can bring the law to bear on you.
It does conjure up the notion of Cos-Mossad.
Would anybody care to register on the truthaction.org forum and ask for clarification regarding victronix01's accusation that "Hetware / Hatton was a good example of this complexity, mixing what appear to be good and well-thought out posts with racist nonsense. "?
I know for a fact that the author of the following was not Hatton. I know who she is, and that she was banned shortly after posting that message. I also note that her legitimate questions remain unaddressed.
Quote:
Gloria Sterling wrote:
Hello Everone,
I've spent some time going over some of the messages here in
this forum. While I think there are some very interesting and
informative messages, I am concerned about this continuing
denounciation of a certain Steven Hatton.
When I logged on and clicked on "News and Discussions", the
first thing I see is a vigorous lambasting of this fellow.
Seeing that sort of attack, and being that newbie, I felt a bit
uneasy about whether or not I should actually join this happy
little group of "truth" sayers.
Well, in any case, I tried to find out what the hoopla was all about.
What messages in this forum did this Steven Hatton write that were
so offensive? Can someone provide a few quotations of what this guy
wrote which generated such a heated reaction from some of the members here?
I understand this fellow uses assorted
different names. I don't know what they are.
It just seems a bit worrisome to me to see all these posts critizising this
guy with no clear references to what it was he had written to cause such
an uproar.
Does this happen often in this forum? That someone just out of the blue
makes a criticism without backing it up and then
having the rest of the group jump on the same bandwagon?
It is this sort of activity in this forum which leaves me hesitating as to
whether or not I should contribute my thought to the various other
threads in this forum.
Peace,
Gloria
Is it not strange that these moderators are conducting themselves in exactly the way the 9/11 perpetrators conduct themselves?
"He is guilty. Trust us."
That's what they told Afghanistan just before they bombed the hell out of them. The Afghan government had offered to hand bin Laden over if the US could provide evidence of wrongdoing. That is standard and honorable procedure in any extradition case.
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:28 am Post subject:
Why are people so bloody f*cking stupid? Why don't you understand that this is a serious problem? Check out what else I have posted to this site. That is what people are trying to block.
Last edited by Alulim on Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Truth action accused of libel and defamation of characte
[quote="Alulim"]This entire dispute traces back to
Victronix01 (Victoria Ashley) is the moderator of the stj911 forum, and the maintainer of the stj911.com website.
quote]
Truth is ugly. Did you expect 911truth to be something better? If its organized it sucks by nature. If it claims truth without merit that is for you to finally figure out. No one will be there when you see it. They rather be part of the show. Stand alone or suck it up.
stj is the standard slag of science that offers jokers to the crackpots of MSM to keep the sales moving. Ashidiot is also keeper of the control alt reality spam site and been shilling with Hoffbreath forever. Historic tripe at its best. Always nice to see fish rising to the chum.
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:34 am Post subject:
Quite honestly, Rick, I am not sure what you're about. I thought your original work was pretty good, but you subsequently seem to have drifted into "alternative reality" territory with "nuclear winter in Manhattan" stuff.
I happen to agree with Jim Hoffman on most points in his physical analysis of what happened on 9/11. His Pentagon work was especially helpful in steering me clear of a pitfall.
Now, regarding Victoria Ashley, at least part of this is true:
Quote:
http://www.911blogger.com/user/1932 I advocate for high standards of evidence in the movement. Most won't like what I have to say, but it often needs to be said. I don't like it either when someone calls me on doing shoddy, speculative or easily refuted stuff, but eventually I realize it was for the best to hear it.
Where would I get the idea that the British government might be involved in the drug trade? Or that there might be a connection between CIA drug running and 9/11?
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:32 am Post subject:
Strange how there is no way of directly challenging "Arabesque" regarding his characterizations of others. Any attempt to do so on the forums where he regularly posts results in being banned.
Note also that Victory Ashley has explicitly issued the accusation "Hetware / Hatton was a good example of this complexity, mixing what appear to be good and well-thought out posts with racist nonsense." in a context where the accused is banned from facing his accuser and banned from defending himself against the accusations. That is quite typically illiberal of her.
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject:
Alulim wrote:
Quite honestly, Rick, I am not sure what you're about. I thought your original work was pretty good, but you subsequently seem to have drifted into "alternative reality" territory with "nuclear winter in Manhattan" stuff.
I happen to agree with Jim Hoffman on most points in his physical analysis of what happened on 9/11. His Pentagon work was especially helpful in steering me clear of a pitfall.
Now, regarding Victoria Ashley, at least part of this is true:
Quote:
http://www.911blogger.com/user/1932 I advocate for high standards of evidence in the movement. Most won't like what I have to say, but it often needs to be said. I don't like it either when someone calls me on doing shoddy, speculative or easily refuted stuff, but eventually I realize it was for the best to hear it.
Where would I get the idea that the British government might be involved in the drug trade? Or that there might be a connection between CIA drug running and 9/11?
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The new doctrines arose partly because of the accumulation of historical knowledge, and the growth of the historical sense, which had hardly existed before the nineteenth century. The cyclical movement of history was now intelligible, or appeared to be so; and if it was intelligible, then it was alterable. But the principal, underlying cause was that, as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, human equality had become technically possible. It was still true that men were not equal in their native talents and that functions had to be specialized in ways that favoured some individuals against others; but there was no longer any real need for class distinctions or for large differences of wealth. In earlier ages, class distinctions had been not only inevitable but desirable. Inequality was the price of civilization. With the development of machine production, however, the case was altered. Even if it was still necessary for human beings to do different kinds of work, it was no longer necessary for them to live at different social or economic levels. Therefore, from the point of view of the new groups who were on the point of seizing power, human equality was no longer an ideal to be striven after, but a danger to be averted. In more primitive ages, when a just and peaceful society was in fact not possible, it had been fairly easy to believe it. The idea of an earthly paradise in which men should live together in a state of brotherhood, without laws and without brute labour, had haunted the human imagination for thousands of years. And this vision had had a certain hold even on the groups who actually profited by each historical change. The heirs of the French, English, and American revolutions had partly believed in their own phrases about the rights of man, freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the like, and have even allowed their conduct to be influenced by them to some extent. But by the fourth decade of the twentieth century all the main currents of political thought were authoritarian. The earthly paradise had been discredited at exactly the moment when it became realizable. Every new political theory, by whatever name it called itself, led back to hierarchy and regimentation. And in the general hardening of outlook that set in round about 1930, practices which had been long abandoned, in some cases for hundreds of years -- imprisonment without trial, the use of war prisoners as slaves, public executions, torture to extract confessions, the use of hostages, and the deportation of whole populations-not only became common again, but were tolerated and even defended by people who considered themselves enlightened and progressive.
It was only after a decade of national wars, civil wars, revolutions, and counter-revolutions in all parts of the world that Ingsoc and its rivals emerged as fully worked-out political theories. But they had been foreshadowed by the various systems, generally called totalitarian, which had appeared earlier in the century, and the main outlines of the world which would emerge from the prevailing chaos had long been obvious. What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were less avaricious, less tempted by luxury, hungrier for pure power, and, above all, more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal. By comparison with that existing today, all the tyrannies of the past were half-hearted and inefficient. The ruling groups were always infected to some extent by liberal ideas, and were content to leave loose ends everywhere, to regard only the overt act and to be uninterested in what their subjects were thinking. Even the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was tolerant by modern standards. Part of the reason for this was that in the past no government had the power to keep its citizens under constant surveillance. The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. Every citizen, or at least every citizen important enough to be worth watching, could be kept for twenty-four hours a day under the eyes of the police and in the sound of official propaganda, with all other channels of communication closed. The possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.
_________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
