Understandably, some CoS members are unhappy with the documentation on this Web site. I will meet their objections below.
Many of the objections against the CoS Files seem to not be objections at all, but excuses for not taking the documentation seriously. For example, I have heard a complaint that the documents are "hard to read," when in fact they have all been formatted for easy reading on most HTML browsers, such as Internet Explorer and Netscape. The use of indentation, the use of italics and boldface fonts, and clearly making of who said what has been applied consistently to all documents. Such a complaint is rather an excuse for not reading, for desiring to not read and understand. It is telling that those who make this type of objections against the documentation are also the ones who have the strongest biases against anyone critical of the CoS.
It is advisable to always be sceptical, but to deny clear documentation is not scepticism. It is stupidity.
I'm inclined to believe you. The CoS leaders have thus far been successful in lying to some and intimidating others, and in asking members to perform the dirty work so that their behavior has remained hidden.
Although you may not have personally witnessed the behavior of the CoS leaders and are wise in being sceptical, the CoS files are from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Many of them are direct quotations from the CoS leaders.
The evidence may therefore be new to you, but now the documentation exists.
The CoS finally managed to abuse people that have no fear and who share all the information they have with each other. That is how the systemized fraud was unraveled. Several of the people involved in the creation of these files were the "storm troopers" who did the dirty work for the CoS leaders.
Unfortunately, no. As is explained above, many of the CoS files are direct quotations from the CoS leaders. This is not hearsay, but actual emails.
Slander is defined as (oral) communication of false statements that injure a person's reputation. These files are direct quotations from the CoS leaders, and can thus by definition not be slander.
It is the quoted persons who are responsible if they make statements that strikes the reader as offensive. If the reader considers the statements slanderous, the "slanderous" remarks are self-slanderous remarks by the original author.
Again, I'm inclined to believe you. It is a basic manipulation technique (see, for example, Dale Carnegie's book, How to Win Friends and Gain Influence, which is recommended reading in the CoS' Grotto Master Handbook) to pay lip service to a prospective "customer." It is therefore only to be expected that some of the officials have told you that they appreciate you.
As is documented in these files, form letters are issued to prospective CoS members or people that the CoS can otherwise benefit from. Typical form letters serve to incite people to join the CoS, and to instill loyalty toward the person that gave the praise so that the praised person is instigated to perform a requested duty. Put simply, if you are praised by CoS officials, there's a good chance they either want your money or want you to harass someone.
This objection is typically qualified with the remark that these few people typically are little fish in the organization, and that their behavior does not reflect the CoS policies.
However, these files document that the Council of Nine uses other members of the CoS to do the dirty work of harassing other people or organizations. When someone complains about that person, his or her "bosses" simply reply that it is just that one person, and that his or her behavior in no way reflects CoS policies. The objection above is an echo of this explanation.
However, now it is documented that they are acting on orders or requests by the very people that later explain that these people are acting on their own. Hence, while the few people that behave as documented may be little fish, they are asked to do so by the people that happen to be in charge of the organization. In other words, it goes to the top. It is the policy of the CoS to have its members behave like that.
The original authors would probably like to make you believe that their emails are completely unconnected. This is how the CoS has managed to deceive its members for years.
For example, Peter Gilmore says one thing to one person, and another thing to another person. Quoting the two messages from Peter Gilmore would be "out of context" in the sense that I'm quite sure Peter Gilmore would have preferred that they never be juxtaposed. However, when he makes one statement about a particular topic to one person and a contradicting statement to another person about the same topic (for example, the CoS' stance on the dark doctrines), then the two statements combined is not taken out of context. The statements and the situations in which they were made are unambiguous. If a person says "I like ice cream" to one person and "I hate ice cream" to another person, juxtaposing the two statements to show that the person lies is not taking anything out of context.
Similarly, when Jeff Nagy poses as Liz Dictator, the messages written by Liz Dictator are not someone else's messages that are irrelevant to Jeff Nagy.
The contents of all documents are unmodified, but often with clearly marked comments inside. The formulation and spelling peculiarities are those of the original authors. If their texts are difficult to read, it is a general characteristic of documentation, which is not always handed on a silver platter.
In cases where notes have been inserted in the text, the notes are italicized. It cannot possibly be a problem to skip past the notes if one wants to read the original text.
When the messages were written, the authors did not intend them to be published. They were typically messages written in private email. Most people who wrote the messages had disagreements, and the messages were written while the people involved were emotionally affected by them. In many cases, people are responding to intimidations or lies from the CoS leaders. It is only to be expected that people will react with justified anger or frustration, and their reactions are reflected in the tone of their messages.
The CoS often dismisses any criticism or objection as "whining." If someone is kicked out of a chat room with no reason and the person then asks why, the reply is more often than not: "quit whining." This blanket response is given to the CoS files, too, of course.
Let us assume for a moment I am really just dismayed that I "couldn't cut it," by some definition of what was required of me. That would disprove nothing. The documentation is here, and my motives are quite irrelevant to that fact. Such an objection, like possibly some of the other above objections, is a straw man.