From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen)
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Comments: This message probably did not originate at the above address.
X-Remailer-Contact: Anonymous Mailer <DingoAdmin@DingoRemailer.com>
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we
will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:45:29 GMT
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654218
On 2 Nov 2003, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com> wrote:
>Warrior <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in news:email@example.com:
><snipping because life's too short, and because like sarcasm, snipping
>the sign of a suppressi-er, OSA personality>
>> Your argument (that I used Hubbard jargon "solely because [you don't]
>> humor a similarly Hubbardian lunatic" is a strawman. It's a strawman
>> argumemt because your stated reason why I used the concept is false.
>> Factually, you don't know why I used the concept. But I'll now tell
>> you. I used it because I was pretty sure you'd come up with a knee-jerk
>> response about the lingo or concept, rather than address the concept.
>> You've once again shown me I was correct in my estimation of your
>> response. Besides, the jargon doesn't describe a *person*, as you
>> also erroneously assert.
>No, I commented on it because I think it's very strange that someone who
>purports to have ditched Hubbard's bunkum would tell another person that
>"the bank follows the attack." Why should I address a Hubbardian
>like "the bank"? I'm not a Scientologist. I think Hubbard's theories
>human motivation and behaviour are total bunk, and I really don't think it
>is terribly useful to continue to employ such terms when one is no longer
>Scientologist. If you explain what you meant in normal English, I'd be
>pleased to respond.
This is an amazing thread.
Let me tell you how I see this. Kady is trying to explain to Tanya why being
critical of other critics is a good thing. Tanya, who is probaby a really nice
is also one of the dumbest chicks that has ever posted here. Of course I exclude
the really nasty OSA babes who are definitely a lot dumber.
Now Tanya, just can't get her wits wrapped around this concept of it being
thing that critics should be open to criticism. Nope, she just doesn't see that
she patiently tries to explain to Kady, who Tanya sees as a dunce but is too nice
to say so, that criticizing critics is a very bad thing and only someone really
like OSA would ever do such a thing.
In steps Warrior, who is always willing to stir up some shit and we have this
In article <3FA4453F.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Tanya Durni says...
>I can see where Gerry gets the idea that you act
It is expressed by the concept
"The bank follows the line of attack."
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
Wow! The bank follows the line of attack!. I haven't hear that "Law"
in a long time!
When Kady is appalled that Warrior chooses to use Scn concepts to explain
her behavior, Warrior backpedals with an, *I was only testing you* kind of
I tell you the place never ceases to amaze me. If it's not some great news
like the Amsterdam org is falling apart, then it's a fabulous story about Dave
Touretzky getting more of those crazy Scn release forms. Ars is really a wild
We even have out own Troll convention going on right here with Tory, Warrior
and Arnie feeding the hell out of them.
And now, what do we have here in this thread? We have Warrior, EX- Scio
extraordinaire, telling Tanya that Kady is acting like OSA because
"The Bank follows the line of attack".
Let me explain to those that never thought in Hubbard think what that actually
I'll try to keep it simple.
Per Hubbard, everyone has a bank, and all banks think in identities. The bank
thinks in A=A. For example the the word "mother" could eqaul a pain
in the temple.
Per Hubbard banks are always below 2.0 < Antagonism >on the tone scale.
if someone was being "attacky" or antagonistic about something they
acting very "banky".
Because banks don't actually "think", they only "react",
banks are pretty much
the same from person to person.
If someone is attacking, they are therefore being banky and since everyone
else has a bank, they will "follow the line" of the attack and also
So Kady, you are just being a banky bitch!!! ;->
That, per Warrior, is why you are attacking the prophet of Gawd
But no! Not really, Warrior didn't really think that, he just wrote that because
he was testing you! Because Warrior thinks you are nothing but a knee jerk
never been wannabe! ;->
>> The fact is, you and others (e.g., Diane Richardson) have often reacted
>> in the same vein, criticizing the lingo or jargon. But you've never
>> shown an understanding of the concept. Naturally, I can explain the
>> concept in normal English. If you can do so, please show me your
>> understanding of what it means.
I've just explained it up above, I doubt you fully understood what it
meant Warrior, afterall you were a paper pusher, not a techie.
>> I ask that you consider the context in which it was used by Tanya Durni,
>> when she said, "I can see where Gerry gets the idea that you act
>> OSA." I think Tanya made a very astute observation when she said,
>> don't have to be a scientologist to act like one." In fact, if you
>> Gerry is a lunatic because he believes in God, you'd be acting like a
Good grief, she'd also be acting like a lot of other people who don't believe
in God. Scio's don't have the copyrights on that one.
>Well, no, since you don't have to be a Scientologist to think that Gerry is
>a lunatic for any number of reasons. I think you're having trouble with
>that basic concept, just like Scientologists have trouble believing that
>someone could dislike L. Ron Hubbard without being an agent of the
>Marcab/psychiatry conspiracy to destroy mankind's best friend. Sometimes a
>cigar is just a cigar.
>> Perhaps it bothers you that someone who has never been a Scieno
>> (Tanya, in this case) can see where Gerry gets the idea that you act
>> like a Scieno.
>Not really; Tanya is dumb as a post, and ludicrously suggestible. Right
>now, she's mindlessly echoing Warrior and ladya, even though ladya herself
>denies that she meant what she originally said about ex-Scientologists
>being harder to manipulate than non-ex-Scientologists. I don't imagine it's
>too difficult to put such a thought in her head; there's ample room, and
>little to crowd it.
She would have made a good Scientologist. ;->
"Critical thinking demands we question the unproven, not that
we meekly accept it." Diane Richardson
For Stats on Scn go to: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/
For News on Scientology go to: http://www.scientologywatch.org