Queso banned again, LOL!!!!

Well,

It looks like it has happened again. First MP3.com, now Indielaunch.com biuckles. Just like before, it happens long after everyone who wants to hear has already listned, so I can't say I'm too suprised. To me - it's like I was in a room with a couple of people and I told a joke - everyone sniggered a bit, then some sourpuss came into the room and said - no joking! Okie dokey - we had our joke already, so no biggie. I posted my original query to indielaunch, and the follow up and it's response below.

If you'd like to comment, you can send a letter to feedback@stationMP3.com - the reasons for canning the band are pretty stupid, and are not being applied to other bands doing the same stuff. Heavens, they complain about me using the F word - how many bands on that site are guilty of that?

The good news is the CD is done and as soon as we dupe them - the music will live on forever. I encourage anyone who obtains a copy of the CD "$cientology sucks!" to distribute it on peer to peer networks. The CD will sell for 5 bux plus postage or SASE if I do it myself. A few weeks after I start selling the CD - I'll start adding it to P2P groups where it will appear when someone searches for Scientology. Also, anyone who wants to host the music is real likely to get my ok. Banned comedy. LOL!!!! How delicious. Cheers, Queso

Dear Indielaunch,

I will happily replace any of the images you already approved, but now find inappropriate. Please remember that you ok'd this material originally.

As for the language, there are many bands on your site who use colloquial English - are they all being dismissed from Indielaunch? You have an adult section that several of the songs are in - this is where there songs are supposed to be, yes? There are several songs that had no questionable language, what about them?

Honestly, have your criteria for acceptance and approval changed without notice? Are you being pressured by outside groups to take this action or does this originate completely from within your company?

Months ago, when you eliminated one song you found questionable - there was no problem. Why now eliminate all of these songs, regardless of content?

If you look at the all time most listened to songs in the comedy genre - you will see that they were all ours - nobody else got close in the genre. Every single song got MANY listens from all over the world. I have sent bands and people your way and you have benefitted. I have not paid you, or been paid by you. It seemed to me like a win/ win situation.

When MP3.com knuckled under to the demands of lawyers from the Church of Scientology, it was you who provided a haven for my free speech as I express it in music.

Now, months later, you suddenly find the images and songs you previously approved - and which proved fairly popular - somehow offensive, or out of place in a comedy band context.

Is this really how you feel or are you simply leery of litigation? I think it these are questions that merit a thoughtful response. I hope you will respond.

Is it really what we are saying, or is this just a convenient excuse to brush us off without admitting that you are in fear of litigation from Scientology? Sincerely, Queso

--- "IndieLaunch.com Artist Services" <artistservices@indielaunch.com> wrote: > Due to the graphic material (song images) you posted > to your page along > with explicit words (example "fuck") we have > disabled your page. We > find pictures such as anal lube explicit enough that > we cannot allow > this on our site. IndieLaunch.com is here to help > Independent Artists > and when someone posts certain material, graphical > content that is > explicit in nature we are forced to deactivate that > page. > > We thank you for wanting to support IndieLaunch.com, > however we > graciously ask that you find another platform to > post your material. > > IndieLaunch Support > artistservices@indielaunch.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Queso [mailto:the_cheese_23@yahoo.com] > Subject: Need help with my artist page > > > What is up with my page. It has been > suspended, and I have not been notified > about it????? > Please tell me what is up. > Queso >

From: FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice)
Subject: Re: Queso banned again, LOL!!!!
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 02:17:54 GMT
Organization: The Skeptic Tank
Message-ID: <uqurua9125poe9@corp.supernews.com>

Greetings!

Free speech activists are starting to talk about the ejection of the El Queso Allstars from your systems due to what everyone suspects is the traditional racketeering activities of the notorious Scientology cult which most certainly hate this alternative rock band with a passion. The concensus is that you guys caved in to the cult's threats of lawsuits or maybe even violence since that's been the cult's standard of operation for decades.

The rest of us are out here putting our mouths -- and our lives -- on the line to defend free speech against this Scientology nightmare. The least you guys could do is show a little backbone and tell these crooks you'll not be intimidated by their criminal history and their body of lawyers -- some of which worked for the Gambino Mafia Family, I know.

How about getting a statement from you guys explaining why you were forced to remove the band's alternative music so that free speech activists can hold up this latest tyranny as one more reason why the world needs to oppose these crooks?

-- George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil. Read about our Fascist American mock "President" http://www.gwbush.com/ http://www.bushwatch.net/ Get _activated_! Oppose the Bush War

Message-ID: <3DAE1F8F.9090103@yahoo.com>
From: El Queso <the_cheese_23@yahoo.com>
Subject: Round two of the banned banter.
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 02:12:46 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

Here is the response I just got from Indielaunch. It seems thir reasons for banning me are changing as time goes on. Lets see how much info I can milk out of them before they stop answering my questions. Cheers, Queso

--- "IndieLaunch.com Artist Services" <artistservices@indielaunch.com> wrote: > To address your questions I don't believe you > previously had a picture > of anal lube on your page. If you did, we missed it > when approving. > After further review of your page this weekend we > find what you have > published on your page to not represent what > IndieLaunch is. We have > received many complaints regarding your page over > the last couple of > months. None of these complaints have come from the > Church of > Scientology. We have spent years and a great deal > of our own money to > create a site to help artists get their music out. > We do not have a > "Adult" section on our site as you may be referring > to our Comedy > section. Yes we do have songs with explicit lyrics > on the site but we > draw the line when it comes to images.

The picture is neither graphic or obscene. It is not pornographic, nor does it depict any act. Please tell me what the proble whith an Anal lube joke is? That is incredibly uptight for a site that purports to support indie bands.

As I said, I am happy to remove any such images. So what is the problem with reinstating my page? I have said I would fix the reason you are disallowing the page - why not let me continue?

Also, if many bands have profanity in their songs - why did you mention it as a reason you were terminating my page? This strikes me as odd. First it was the picture and the language - now it is the picture and the complaints. Certainly the language is not an issue, and the picture is far from obscene, so we are left with the complaints.

Please tell me as much as you can about these complaints. As this is the first I have ever heard of them - I think it important to know the gist of what caused problems, don't you? Also - as Scientology is the only group parodied on my page - I don't understand who else would be offended. "Many" complaints? How many? - I'm not being fascetious - I'm actually really curious. When MP3 canned my band - they forwarded the text of the complaints that caused the problem. Are you able to do anything similar for me?

So, I have to know, which was it - the picture of Anal lube - which can hardly be seen as obscene - or the complaints? Do you guys really sweat these kind of complaints? If so - do you really have what it takes to support and promote indie bands?

> > Again, we graciously suggest that you find another > platform to host your > music.

But I liked indielaunch. I'd like to stay. Cheers, Queso

> > IndieLaunch Support > artistservices@indielaunch.com >

Message-ID: <3DAE36D5.5060705@yahoo.com>
From: El Queso <the_cheese_23@yahoo.com>
Subject: Round three of the banned band banter.
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 03:52:13 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

Here is the latest backpedalling session by the scardeycats at Indielaunch.com. The reasons I was banned just keep a changin'. Cheers, Queso

--- "IndieLaunch.com Artist Services" <artistservices@indielaunch.com> wrote: > Hello, > > The page was banned due to the fact that their were > explicit graphics > combined with explicit words on the page.

The image in question was not graphic in nature. It was a picture with two words on it. No human was portrayed. Please describe how this image is obscene.

> > If you wish to forward pages on our site that > contain explicit words > listed on the artist pages, we will take the > appropriate action.

Please explain. Which words and which songs? You have been very evasive in terms of what the problems were. How can I possibly take any corrective measure if you are unwilling to clarify?

> > "do you really have what it takes to support and > promote indie bands?" > > We have been around for 3 years and have 12,000 > artists so I think we > know what it takes to support indie bands.

Yet, after all this time, you are offended by the words "anal lube" on a picture? Is that the entirety of the problem? This is the critical moment where you decide whether to support free speech or cave to complaints that you will not even describe to me. You have not given even the barest descriptions of these complaints. Why is this? Your reasoning would be more easily understood if you would just tell me the points of contention. First you said it was the language, and the image. Second you said it was the complaints and the image. Now you say it is a combination of the picture and the language (and no mention about the complaints)... Do you see why I might be confused?

> > We wish you the best of luck with your music and > hope you reach your > goals.

My goal is to keep my music at indielaunch by removing the image that caused problems, annd therefore negating the need to ban me. Will you help me reach this goal? Queso

> > IndieLaunch Support > artistservices@indielaunch.com

Message-ID: <3DAE3D1F.7020603@yahoo.com>
From: El Queso <the_cheese_23@yahoo.com>
Subject: Enturbulator 009 is back... man, that was quick...
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 04:19:03 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

Hi there,

www.soundclick.com/enturbulator009 is the new home of Enturbulator 009. Bwahahahaha!!!! Push down/ pop up. It is such an old move, but still comes as a suprise if you have an old playbook. The net allows for an unprecedented level of push down/ pop up. We just popped up to a better site that has MUCH better streaming, a message board for you fine folks to chat with myself, Touchmonkey, and the whole Allstar clench, and a super fast upload time for me! What a nice suprise. Bungled tactics fail again. Tee hee.

Cheers, El Queso

Message-ID: <3DAF668D.7090203@yahoo.com>
From: El Queso <the_cheese_23@yahoo.com>
Subject: Enturbulator 009's new home - Time to update those links
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 01:27:17 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

Enturbulator 009 has been banned from Indielaunch.com for complaints by people who were "not Scientologists". So, rather than have some balls - they knuckled under and banned the Enturbulator 009 project, just like MP3.com banned El Queso Allstars after getting an Avagram. The new home of E009 is http://www.soundclick.com/enturbulator009 - so anyone who has links to either El Queso Allstars or E 009, please update the info. I have put up some older songs, and some remastered new cuts from the forthcoming CD "$cientology $uck$". There is a message board (drop us a line) and a better feedback mechanism - so maybe this time, I'll get at least one, single complaint - instead of me getting none and the provider getting "many". There are currently 7 songs up, and more (old and new) on the way. If this site gets banned - I'll make three more. Cheers, Queso

Message-ID: <3DAF7E1C.B290B7A4@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 20:21:00 -0700
From: barb <bwarr1@cox.net>
Subject: Indie.com comm

This is so stupid!

"IndieLaunch.com Artist Services" wrote: >
> We appreciate your comments.
>
> It is our against our policies to have explicit graphics on our pages.
> We gave warning in the past to the mentioned band you are referring to
> however after further review months later we have decided it is in our
> best interest to remove the mentioned bands page.

El Queso has publicly stated a willingness to alter the page to your satisfaction. Apparently, you initially had to approve the content. Suddenly, it's not acceptable. Makes me go 'hmmmm.' >
> We are sorry you feel the way you do. This has nothing to do with the
> Church of Scientology. It has everything to do with what we have built
> our site into over the last 3 years.

No, of course the "Church" of Scientology had nothing to do with it. As if they're going to call up and tell you they're the "Church" of Scientology! Duh! They get individual members to pose as outraged parents and make complaints. This isn't the first time it's happened. It's called an All Hands, and cult members, willing to "strike a blow to the enemy" as Hubbard said, will comply with orders and send out dozens of emails. Do you have any bands which are offensive to some people? Is the El Queso Allstars the only band with undue attention to the content of the site? >
> Let me ask you this. Do you have kids? Do you show them pictures of
> anal lube and characters giving the middle finger? Is this what you
> want your children or teenagers looking at?

Well...I showed them, just to get their feedback. The anal lube made them all break out in unseemly fits of immature giggling. Worse, they came up with a new nickname for poor little Albert across the street. Al...get it?

Apparently they are all quite familiar with the stiff middle finger, having learned it at the school bus stop early in life. Of the three, the oldest and middle kid can execute it properly, the little one still has to hold his other fingers down with his thumb. It was pretty cute.

Later, after watching the tube for a while, the middle one said, "Hey...So far tonight, we've seen ads for hemhorroid cream, feminine hygiene products, stiffy pills, and absorbent pads with wings. What's the deal with butt lube being offensive? If I wanted to get offended, I'd go to rotten.com!"

Well, there you have it. Three unbiased opinions on ass lube and the stiff middle finger. Doesn't sound like much to me. But, if you want to pretend to be the Barney Music Channel while Scientology plays you like a puppet, I guess you'll go with that thing.

Know what? I suspect that every single complaint came directly from an actual member of the "Church" of Scientology! Perhaps you're not aware of the fact that El Queso has been targetted by Scientology. You should ask him about the FBI contact he made when threatening emails were forged in his name. The emails mentioned the "Church" of Scientology. Do you think that a group which would do that is beneath ordering its members to call in complaints against one of their "enemies?"

>
> After you build a site, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of your
> own money to support Indie Music, and host thousands of artists, let me
> come to your site and post explicit material. We have to draw a line
> somewhere.

Oh, please! You approved the site in the first place. Following a number of complaints which were "NOT" from the "Church" of Scientology, you change your standards to somehow exclude the El Queso Allstars. It used to be about the music, man. Remember? Indie, my well lubed ass! You're being another tool wielded by the "Church" of Scientology. We see this a lot.

> Thank you for taking the time to express your opinions to us.
>
> IndieLaunch Support
> Artistservices@indielaunch.com
>
>
> --
Barb Chaplain, ARSCC http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm

"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign: terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business opportunity.

$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide." -Chris Leithiser

-- Barb Chaplain, ARSCC http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm

"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign: terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business opportunity.

$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide." -Chris Leithiser

From: FRice@SkepticTank.ORG (Rev. Fredric L. Rice)
Subject: IndieLaunch.com fears Scientology lawsuit
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:01:30 GMT
Organization: The Skeptic Tank
Message-ID: <uqv91n3o6b4164@corp.supernews.com>

Ah, interesting. I'm not going to post all of the e-mails just yet until I hear from El Queso -- or maybe I won't post them in their entirety anyway. I should send them to El Q. first to see if he cares.

I sent a not-too-nasty note to IndieLaunch.com telling them they should stand up like men and defend freedom of speech against the Scientology crooks -- among other things. I asked for a public statement from them so that it could be posted widely but I guess they're not interested in trying to defend their reputation.

Here's a start of the first reply. My reply to this was just a bit more nasty than my first which prompted another reply from this guy asking if I would like to send him money so he can defend against Scientology lawsuits.

"And you didn't answer our question about contributing money for any future lawsuits we may get. We take Credit Cards, Money Orders, and PayPal. How much can we count on from you?"

is what IndieLaunch asked to which I replied that I have spent more money defending abortion rights, civil rights, and freedom of speech rights than he'll spend of a lifetime on gasoline -- and I have, starting in 1978.

Any way, we see what looks to me to be the primary motivation for removing the band's music. He goes on about "the message very degrogatory and a message of hatred towards a group of people" so once again, so much for their claims that they removed the band due to a photo of a jar of lubricant.

El Queso, if you want me to post these e-mails, let me know here, would you please? My system doesn't accept e-mail from yahoo.com.

-=-

From: "IndieLaunch.com Artist Services" <artistservices@indielaunch.com>
To: "'Fredric L. Rice'" <frice@skeptictank.org> Subject: RE: El Queso Allstars and freedom of speech
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:38:43 -0400
Organization: IndieLaunch.com
Importance: Normal

You can preech Free Speech to us all you want. We are a private site and can and will decide what is posted on our site and what is not.

We have not yet been contacted by the Church of Scientology as I am sure we probably will be contacted by them sometime in the future. We cannot afford lawsuits and that is not the business we are in. Are you going to be the first person to step up and pay all of the legal fees if it comes to that?

-- George W. Bush threatens to kill us all -- for oil. Read about our Fascist American mock "President" http://www.gwbush.com/ http://www.bushwatch.net/ Get _activated_! Oppose the Bush War

Message-ID: <3DAFACBD.7010800@yahoo.com>
From: El Queso <the_cheese_23@yahoo.com>
Subject: Indielaunch unbans Enturbulator 009... huh?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:26:38 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

Well suprise, They unbanned us. It looks like maybe a few well placed comments sank in. They removed all the pics, and the songs Ron Got Penetrated, Bigotwatch this, and one other (I don't even know which one...). This is really funny. Now the pushdown effort has yeilded 2 pop ups. Hydra strategy in effect - the head grew back and another grew from the same stump. I'd still prefer everyone who links to us to change their links to http://www.soundclick.com/enturbulator009 - I like that site better. So there you have it - another silly ineffective strategy fails against Enturbulator 009. A failed FBI frameup, wanky PI's, silly lawyer letters - Nyahahahaha!!!! What's next, a guy with a shirt on that says "I'm not a Scientologist" comes and tries to beat me up? Gee, this is fun. Cheers, Queso

Message-ID: <3DAFAFE4.8080205@yahoo.com>
From: El Queso <the_cheese_23@yahoo.com>
Subject: Indielaunch unbans me and my response.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:40:03 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications

Dear sirs, Thank you for applying your judgement to the situation, as opposed to simply banishing me when things got odd for you.

--- "IndieLaunch.com Artist Services" <artistservices@indielaunch.com> wrote: > We have reactivated your IndieLaunch page however we > have removed your > song image files and deleted a few songs which we > felt are defamming > towards certain people.

Please tell me which songs and your reasons if it is possible.

If you feel that these > changes are not > acceptable to you, we will be happy to close your > account.

I have said that changes were acceptable - there is no need to be like this.

> > You have to understand this...We are here to help > Indie Artists. We are > not here to host derogatory music aimed towards > others.

I call it parody. It has a long musical history. It is good that record companies didn't feel this way about punk, rap, and people like Frank Zappa.

We could care > less about the Church of Scientology whatever their > mission maybe. We > did not create our site for people to voice their > opinions in such a > manner as you have done to groups of people.

I am merely making funny songs. If people seek them out, only to be offended - why should this bother anyone? They should just not listen, right?

I am > sorry but that is not > our definition of music. Take it how you want to > take it.

I make music that contains lyrics, harmonies, and rhythm - that is music. You have "songs" on your site that are just teens shouting into a mic without music or any kind of production.

> > Also, I will state again. We have not been > contacted by the Church of > Scientology yet.

Of course nobody has said they were in Scn, but who else would care? Why else would anyone care enough to report some little band on a little site?

However, unless you are willing to > pay ALL of our > legal fees if it came to that, we will remove your > music if we do > receive lawsuit threats.

Does this mean that if one person has a grudge against one of your artists, that all he need do is threaten legal action to get that artist silenced?

We don't have the money to > stand by someone in > legal defense just because they posted something on > our site.

I can't see how you'd be held accountable if you just pull the questionable material when it becomes a legal issue.

We are > luckly to be able to provide a platform for music > and keep the site > running. To have artists who voice their opinions > in a derogatory > manner causes what we worked many years for to be > trashed.

Nonsense. Do people issuing political or antiwar messages degrade your system?

We are not > going to let a couple of artists take us down > because of lawsuits (again > we have not been presented with a lawsuit due to > your music to this > point).

We would never try to take you down. We would not be upset if you pulled the site due to legal concerns, as long as you kept us informed.

This has happened in many cases before with > other artists and > other issues. The final result is we have removed > their pages. Our > site is privately owned so we decide what gets > placed on our site and > what doesn't. You can preach to us all day about > free speech and how > the Church of Scientology is brainwashing us but it > won't affect us > removing you from our site if we have to.

I haven't preached to you. I have told you how I feel. I am sorry that free speech is not one of your concerns, but I understand the reality of legalities.

> > You can have a million anti Church of Scientology > people email us, it > won't affect us removing you from our site.

I didn't have anyone mail you anything. How come my fans are working under my orders, but the complainers are given the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they are in Scn?

> > If you don't agree with what this email explains, > just let us know and > we can go ahead and deactivate your account again.

You seem very upset. It was never my intention to make things this way. In the future - we can probably avoid such circumstances with better communication. I implore you to forward at least the gist of any complaints you receive about us. I have a very clear contact link on my page, but never got even 1 complaint. Doesn't that seem strange? Also - the comedy genre is now gone from selection box on your home page. Is this permanent? Have you eliminated the comedy charts, and if not - will you return the stats to like they were before you removed my page? Please let me know, Queso

Message-ID: <3DB011A5.A320C572@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 06:50:29 -0700
From: barb <bwarr1@cox.net>
Subject: queso banned, response from indielaunch.com

I posted my initial complaint to indielaunch here. What follows is a comm exchange. Isn't it amusing, they're pretense at the horror of a picture of a tube of anal lube "Won't somebody think of the children!" while the very real damage the cult does to young lives seems to faze them not a bit. Ignorance is bliss, no?

> Thank you for taking the time to express your opinions to us.
>
> IndieLaunch Support
> Artistservices@indielaunch.com

This was round one. In round two, they quit denying that Scientology had no influence on their decision to ban Queso. Now they admit, they're shivering over the possibility of lawsuits from our favorite litigious cult:

"IndieLaunch.com Artist Services" wrote: >
> And if and when we get a lawsuit (which we haven't yet) you are going to
> be the first person to step up and pay our legal fees?
>
> El Queso is not the first account we have deactivated because of certain
> issues and it won't be the last.

You're saying the fear of a lawsuit has you whipped. What possible grounds would they have to sue over an image of anal lube? I wonder what your other artists would think of this cult-whipped stance you're taking?

Have you not heard the quote, "The only way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing?" I hope it makes you proud to gutlessly support a destructive cult. Ironic, in a way, since many indie musicians are passionate about social issues and reform, which is why they're relegated to the fringes of the music world.

It's of no import. You've shown your lack of spine, and El Queso has found another home with your competition. You can continue to invoke "the children" as your defense in banning an artist targetted by Scientology, but it will reflect badly on you in the future, as you and the Scientology cult have unwittingly provided him with some excellent and intriguing promotional material.

However, if any of your kids get sucked into the cult, you'll gain a better perspective on issues of importance. Anal lube vs. a totalitarian cult...they actively troll college campusses, preying on naive youngsters. Many of them wind up wasting years inside, quitting school, suffering abuse and deprivation. Anal lube just makes them snicker. Having a friend or family member fall for this fraud that walks like a church will put things into a better perspective for you. I hope that never happens to you. If it ever does, people like El Queso and I will still be willing to help you understand the dynamics and ways to deal with it. Critics of Scientology are often called upon to clean up the damage the cult inflicts upon innocent victims.

While it's true that Scientology is litigious as hell, responses like yours merely enable them to continue in their quest to crush freedom of speech. If you have a week, I suggest you have a look at http://www.xenu.net to gain a better understanding of this group and its history. There, you'll find an on-line copy of Time Magazine's excellent article exposing Scientology's actions. The cult sued Time for libel, but the well-researched and documented information was irrefutably true, and the cult lost the case. As more people become aware of the true nature of Scientology, it becomes more difficult for them to continue preying on society unopposed.

And guess what...they're starting to lose court cases these days. We are slowly winning the information war. Should you ever decide to turn your back on the Dark Side and stand up, you'll be welcomed. Although the position you've currently chosen disgusts me, I very much understand why you've taken it.

Message-ID: <3DB03F15.7B88E387@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:04:21 -0700
From: barb <bwarr1@cox.net>
Subject: Re: queso banned, response from indielaunch.com

barb wrote: <snip>

THE FINAL WORD FROM INDIELAUNCH!

Subject:
RE: more comments: El Queso Allstars Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:10:03 -0400 From: "IndieLaunch.com Artist Services" <artistservices@indielaunch.com> Organization: IndieLaunch.com To: <bwarr1@cox.net>

You speak nonsense rather than truth. This is not about the Church of Scientology. This is about running a business, supporting Indie Music, and being able to put food on my table.

Again I don't see you contributing anything to us except rude and obnoxious acquisations. We would much rather you take your message and false acquisations elsewhere as they are not welcomed here.

You have preached your Church of Scientology crap over and over to us and can't get through your head that we could care less about the Church of Scientology. We are a friggin music site. You continue to preach to me Scientology this and Scientology that but it goes into one ear and out the other.

This is the last email we will write to you. -- Barb Chaplain, ARSCC http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm

"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign: terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business opportunity.

$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide." -Chris Leithiser

Go Back