Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!propagator!feed2.newsfeeds.com!newsfeeds.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail Lines: 123 X-Admin: news@aol.com From: xeper@aol.com (Dr. Michael A. Aquino) Newsgroups: alt.satanism Date: 24 Aug 2001 19:01:49 GMT References: <532c9afad324236ca0315ec41838c9e6@xganon.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Subject: Re: The NAMBLA Files Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <20010824150149.20772.00002996@nso-bh.aol.com> Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.satanism:184650 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Responding to Scott Locklin, xganon wrote: >>The animosity began only after Molestin'-Mikey >>posted Brother Lupo's personal information to >>Usenet, when he became frustrated that Brother >>Lupo didn't just dry up and blow away. > >>...and that's what really happened... > >Yet when the CoS and its members posted others' >private information, you were one of those in the >crowd that hailed it the work of a genius. In other >words as long as it aint you, you're fine with this >type of behaviour. How much more hypocritical >can you get?! If you actually think anyone has any >sympathy for your personal information issue after >the way you behaved to same issues of others you >are seriously mistaken. First let's review the context of Locklin's aversion to being accurately identified as the author of his alt.satanism FAQ: It advertised and provided contact information for: (1) The post-1975 "Church of Satan" ... without alerting readers that it was neither a church nor did it believe in Satan, but was - as Anton LaVey ultimately swore under oath in his bankruptcy filing, a personal business for his private profit in direct violation of the requirements of its original California corporate articles. (2) The "Order of Nine Angles" aka David Myatt aka Stephen Brown aka Christos Beest ... without alerting readers that the "ONA" advocated literal "Satanic" human sacrifice and published ritual texts containing it. (3) The "Ordo Templi Baphe-metis" aka James Martin ... without alerting readers that Martin is a self-stated pedophile and, as he put it, "user of controlled substances - one of our subsidiary organizations, the Cultus Cucurbitus, investigates the magickal uses of psychoactive drugs." (4) Kerry Bolton aka _The Watcher_ aka _The Heretic_ aka "Order of the Left-Hand Path" ... without alerting readers that Bolton advocated neo-Nazi racial violence [and also advertised Martin without any alerts]. Did I think it was unacceptable for a Setian I° in the Temple of Set to repeatedly publish such a FAQ on alt.satanism, where it might well be read and referenced by minors, or even by adults who might then ignorantly blunder into dangerous situations? Yes, I did; hence my insistence to Setian Locklin that he discontinue such advertising immediately. Did I/do I still consider the Temple of Set the only authentic, reputable, and responsible religious institution dedicated to and consecrated by the Prince of Darkness? Again yes, as I have maintained since its founding in 1975. So yes, I would without a moment's hesitation have expected that in a responsible alt.satanism FAQ at that time, only the Temple of Set would have been recommended as an organization - and that if the others-above had been mentioned at all, it would have been to caution uninformed persons against them for the reasons cited. Could Locklin's FAQ have contained Q&As about Setian, Satanic, or general LHP ideas not necessarily in accordance with Setian philosophy? Of course; that's where legitimate freedom-of-speech issues pertain. As to the exposure of Locklin's identity as author of his FAQ, may I quote from a post by "Raven" on 3/24/99: "Excuse me, has the alt.satanism newsgroup FAQ suddenly become classified material? It credits "Scott Locklin (Lupo the Butcher)" in postings from at least as far back as February 1996, down to this month (March 1999), and I'd be surprised to learn that he's been so credited without his consent: "8 Feb 1996: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=138486623.8 "3 Mar 1999: http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=450885117.9 "DejaNews lists 37 posts or segments from his ID in which his name appears: http://www.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?ST=PS&QRY= locklin&DBS=1&authors=ix@*io.com "He's made no secret of his name, and here it was relevant to observe that the post signed "IX Corp." was from the same person about whom Kevin Filan and I were disputing whether he had indeed been IX Corp.'s treasurer, as signed in public at http://www.corpcreations.com/raves.htm (again using his real name)." Q.E.D. Michael Aquino -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Security 7.0.3 iQA/AwUBO4akPGRWyNykJwrDEQIiawCfaG0mhVD+rkkrRsbtzRAlD5oUvuAAoK6i RuYT5qol5fSmMF/HP/SuX74q =Vx/M -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----