Sunday, January 6, 2013

AOL Practices Religious Discrimination

AOL used to be special, back in the old days, the days of Harry Met Sally and "You Got Mail!"

I think their crimes and the guilt complex the corporate headquarters has, has finished them.

Who goes to AOL for real news? Seriously.

I look at Toshiba news, as it just happens to come up on this PC, Google, and Microsoft now and then, and FOX, and it's really nothing compared to the crap AOL spews out on a daily basis.

The first time I noticed a major problem with AOL, after I had been a highly loyal customer, was in 1997.

In 1997, AOL ceased to be "special", just like the "dashcam" they refer to as "no longer special" in their latest 40 shots for a slideshow.

They are a garbage business.

I signed up for my first wi-fi with AOL, when they were still very special. I started paying for internet services through them in 1996. By 1997, they were violating privacy rules and allowing their employees to read my "You Got Mail!" By 1997, someone hacked into my desktop computer and did something to the digital capacity and it wasn't a virus. I had a desktop and dial-up, and it's hard to get a virus or download when your dial-up speed is extremely slow. It gives the computer user time to see what's happening, and intercept it and shut it down.

I couldn't prove anything was wrong AOL, and in general, the service seemed to be fine. So I stayed with them, loyal, and recommended them to others. I recommended AOL to my family, to my friends, and actually, around 20 or more people signed up, that I know of, just through my word of mouth reference. I paid my bills on time, and never had a late bill go out for any service, and not for AOL. So I had AOL in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and that's at least 5 years.

I worked at a computer company for one year as well, and told people I was happy with AOL and more people signed up.

Then, all of a sudden, AOL showed me how "not special" they are. And as a matter of fact, I am surprised to this day, that they are still in business.

What AOL did, with regard to freedom of speech, was shocking. They were taking down my blog posts to forums, that had no objectionable or offensive material (such as, swearing, violence, or porn). At first I thought it was private persons doing this. For example, a private person makes a "red flag" report and it gets taken down, even if there is nothing wrong with it, but through the help of a "Moderator".

All of AOL's Moderators were anti-free speech. I take that back--the ones that were anti-free speech specifically targeted my blog posts. It was mainly religious people. My blog posts at that time were about honest things that happened to me, which were documented in public record, and which I later verified on public record in public courts. My posts were about police and law enforcement being used by Catholic priests and monks to their private advantage. When I asked why my blog posts were taken down repeatedly, I was told it was because I offended Catholics who didn't believe what I wrote. I also wrote blog posts that had nothing to do with specific people I knew (monks, priests, and police) and instead, they were posts about purely academic and religious studies.

For example, I wrote several posts about Catholic dogmas. Dogma is religious doctrine for the Catholic church. In these posts, I didn't use names of monks or priests living today, I wrote about what I had studied and discovered with these dogmas.

Those blog posts were being removed. The ones I wrote about Catholic dogma. So I thought, again, it's just some private group doing this and I would post something again. And it was removed. So I posted again. It was removed.

Finally, after so many AOL-funded "Moderators" were obstructing my right to free speech, I asked again, why are my blog posts being removed, when anyone else can write whatever they want?

In fact, I checked. There were blog posts with explicit sexuality, violence, and swearing. None of those posts were removed. There were blog posts about religious doctrines, and opinions, and none of them appeared to have a problem staying online. It was MY blog posts about Catholic dogma. What I was told, again, was ...well, either nothing, or someone would write back and say "Your posts are offensive to Catholics".

So my blog posts were "offensive" to some Catholics, because they scrutinized dogma.

I thought, "This is America?"

No, it was America On-Line.

I couldn't believe all of these people were contributing to obstruction of free speech. Simply because they disagreed and felt hatred over what I wrote, because they disagreed. I was pointing out, for example, that there was a "typo" or mistranslation of some kind in a church document and it screwed up the understanding of dogma. For this, I was hated.

Basically, what I was being told, is that I didn't have the right to disagree publicly with the Roman Catholic Church. Or a couple of their dogmas, specifically.

After months of this, of having my blog posts removed, even when some were responding to what I wrote, I contacted AOL by telephone. Same thing. And then one day, someone accidentally (I guess, or maybe they were trying to be helpful) told me AOL had my name assigned to their Corporate Legal Board. The customer service person told me, "Have you been talking to their lawyers?" and I said, "No, why?" And the customer service person for AOL, said, "I don't know..." and there was this pause and then they said, "They have the legal department involved over you."

I said, "What?!" I said, "What do you mean, like one of their Moderators or something?" and I was told, no, the main headquarters legal department was making notes about me.

So finally I talked to either that same person or a different rep, maybe the same one bc not all of them shared important information with me like that. They said a "Richard Whittemore" for Bullivant Houser Bailey had written a letter to the AOL Legal Department.

I was given the name of the laywer and it was Dick Whittemore. This is before I ever filed my lawsuits. So Dick Whittemore was asking AOL Lawyers to shut me down or block me from making blog posts, not just about monks he represented, who I had a right to write about, but he was telling them to block my posts about Catholic dogma.

I know, because I was read the content of the letter over the phone.

So then I contacted the AOL Legal Department and told them I hadn't violated any AOL rules and didn't intend to, and to please instruct the Moderators not to remove my blog posts.

I looked up who was running AOL and it was almost all Roman Catholics. Then I started having email problems. It was the first time in my life I had email problems and they were being sent to me double or delayed by hours. I was getting copies of the same email that someone sent to me. And they were within seconds of the transmission. When I called family, whose email this happened to, they would check their sent box and confirm, "No, it says in my sent box I sent it to you once." I was getting 2-3 copies for every email sent one time from a sender.

That was in 2000, I believe, whenever Richard Whittemore contacted AOL.

I tried another blog site and I was blocked from signing in. I checked the company and again, it was run by Roman Catholics. I tried 2-3 different blogs and then tried Blogger. It was the first time I had normal freedom of speech rights respected.

I cancelled my AOL because after I tried to work with them for several months, and was polite and when I had broken no rules or policies agreed to, their corporate headquarters chose to be the web service that discriminates and practices religious persecution and unequal treatment. It was fine for Catholics to write about how Protestants were wrong and were not in "full communion" with the Catholic church. But I was discriminated against, on basis of religion.

I was paying for my service with them, for 5 years, and never had a late bill. I brought tons of new customers to their company, including my own parents and relatives. And then they chose to practice religious discrimination, unequal treatment, and were subversive to civil laws of freedom of speech.

That's what happened with AOL.

So I go to their "news" now, today, and I read the garbage they churn out, and they are still using their business and company to disparage someone they ended up really hating. Me.

They have a byline about "Tax issue finished, over!" and next to "dashcam is not special anymore" and "The plug is pulled for liberty jeep" and "amazing things to do with old wine bottles" (with a bunch of corks there, i.e., cork it). So right next to eachother, one after the other..let's see, in the last couple of days I've written about filing taxes on assholes; and about "rethink popular" as "not popular anymore" when I've been blogging about wanting to run competitively again and how my knee has been lasered; and I've posted a photo of myself with a planner that says "my favorite color is wine" and then a photo after this of myself in a wine red sweater, holding up all this hair I lost from torture; and then oh yes, they have a byline for "time for a new hairdo?" with a woman that has her hair up on her head, the way I wear mine, except I braid mine around my head. So then of course, "liberty jeep gets plug pulled" is next.

I mean, one inuendo after the other. And AOL is one of the most worthless companies that is running web service today.

If they choose, on a corporate level, to violate principles of free speech, and discriminate based on religion, they are the Assholes Online company, not America Online.

When I left for Canada, CPS was lying, along with police, claiming "She's on the run". They said, "She's running from an investigation" and this was retaliation for my telling people Josh Gatov ran from a police investigation of rape. It was spite and retaliatory.

I've said The Department of State withheld my passport by mocking me and saying "We don't know what your identity is." I said, on my blog, it was over FBI Raul Bujanda and Armando Garza, because I checked with FBI in 2004 saying, "I am not sure if they're really FBI." However, the Department of State may have been retaliating against me over FBI's Alvaro Pardo, because before I tried to get my passport, I had last called the FBI Headquarters in D.C. saying I wanted to check on a name of Alvaro Pardo, because I was not sure that was his true identity. The FBI freaked out over it. Next thing I knew, they were throwing me into a psych ward to assault me and tried to kill me. I almost died because of drug overdose and that place didn't document accurately. Then I had my hand broken for Kate Middleton and they took a handprint of me and sent it to England. What the Department of State said, in trying to deny me the passport, was "We don't know who you are really and we need to ID you."

They were lying, and did this out of retaliation and as an attempt to force me to stay in the U.S.

So NOW, after several years with Microsoft hotmail, which is also run by a Roman Catholic, I have my primary account blocked. Right before a college term starts, which they would know would cause distress.

Every term, that I've had so far, some excuse for throwing a problem into my life, to interfere with college and my legal files, has been done.

No comments: