04 Dec 2002 06:36:45 -0600
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Diane Richardson)
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:36:49 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
On 3 Dec 2002 14:04:14 -0800, Warrior <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> In article
<3DEBFF90.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Starshadow wrote:
>>>>Oh, and one more thing. I did not give you, Caroline, permission
>>>>archive my ng postings. I demand you remove them.
>>> In article <3DEBFF50.email@example.com>, Starshadow
>>>>I also don't put critics' disagreements with me up on DA webpages,
>>> When I asked, "Since 'DA' by definition consists of obtaining
>>> proof that what was said consisted of lies, what is in the content
>>> posts that you object to?", you responded to my question in
>>> <3DEC1912.firstname.lastname@example.org>, "In this case
I should probably
>>> have said Black Propaganda."
>>> You seem to have responded that the content of your posts are black
>>> propaganda, since I asked what is in the content of your posts that
>>> you object to. If that's the case, I can understand why you want
>>> them removed. Will you be asking Google to remove them?
>In article <3DECD5D9.email@example.com>, Starshadow says...
>>No, I think Caroline and Gerry's characterization of anyone on that
>>page as belonging to some kind of goon squad with the letters OSA
>>made large is "black propaganda".
>100 of the 138 posts (72%) webbed on the page are by six individuals:
>Garry Scarff - 57 posts
>Diane Richardson - 13 posts
>Starshadow - 7 posts
>Deana Holmes - 8 posts
>Keith Wyatt - 7 posts
>Rob Clark - 8 posts
>Perhaps you should put yourself in Gerry's and Caroline's position
>for a bit.
Perhaps you should put
yourself in Garry Scarff's, Diane Richardson's,
Starshadow's, Deana Holmes's, Keith Wyatt's and Rob Clark's position
for a bit, Warrior.
Can you do that?
>How would you feel
if certain critics were constantly and
>continuously calling you "insane", a "lunatic", "kooky",
>"delusional", a "hypocrite", "stupid", a "snake",
and similar insults?
I have years of both Scientologists
and certain critics calling me the
above, along with far worse. What is your point?
>I think you would feel that the individuals who were engaging in this
>type of behavior were acting like OSA goons.
I've often felt that way,
but I never set up a webpage about it.
Why do you suppose the Gerroline unit did?
>Does it mean that those
>who act like OSA, are actually OSA? Who really knows the answer to
>this, except for those who actually are OSA? But the fact remains,
>the propaganda being pushed out is much the same as OSA's black PR.
There's a difference between
expressing a personal opinion and
engaging in an organized smear campaign. I hope you can see the
difference. I think you can if you try.
>>Smiley aside, I
don't think that's funny at all.
>It wasn't meant to be funny, but rather friendly. After all, two
>people can disagree without hating each other or resorting to the
>use of emotionally charged contumelies.
Indeed. I think, however,
that intellectual dishonesty just might
come into play here.
>>And I don't think
your "humorous response" to me is very humorous since
>>you know damn well what they are doing with those pages.
>My response wasn't meant to be humorous. And yes, I know what they
>are doing with the pages. They are webbing posts by persons they
>feel are acting like OSA goons. I think their webbing of the posts
>is intended to document them.
What right does the Gerroline
unit have to appropriate others'
intellectual property to "document" whatever it is you believe they
>>I thought better
of you, Warrior. Chalk one more up for my disappointment
>>of regular "critics". Yes, you do valuable work. But I'm rather
>>by your pretend naivite [sic] as to what these two are doing.
>There's no pretense on my part. My questions asked in the posts to this
>thread are sincerely asked. I note that as of now, there are yet a few
>questions you have not answered. Instead, you mischaracterize my
>position or questions as pretend naivete.
I'll be glad to answer
any questions you might have about this
subject, Warrior. Ask away and I will answer to the best of my
ability. Are you ready to do the same?
>>I didn't give them
permission to archive my posts on such a page. Google
>>on the other hand has my permission to archive, otherwise I would have
>>typed a no archive header.
>>I am a bit hurt and angry by your support of the tactics of these two
>>against anyone who speaks out disagreeing with them.
>It's not simply a matter of their webbing of posts because of disagreement.
>I think (and Gerry and/or Caroline can correct me if I am wrong) that
>the webbed posts demonstrate quite clearly the black propaganda being
>waged against them.
Never having been a Scientologist,
I am unsure of just how
Scientologists and ex-Scientologists define the term "black
propaganda." Could you post an explicit Hubbard definition for
In general usage, "propaganda"
is much more than an individual's
personal opinion. Does the Scientology term "black propaganda"
include individuals' opinions, or is it reserved for an organized
effort to smear another person?
>I'm saddened by your
*lack* of support for Gerry and his efforts in
>documenting Scientology's ruthless and unending campaign of fair game
>against him and other Scientology victims.
I am saddened by your defense
of the Gerroline unit's use of CoS
>No, instead, when Gerry
asks an honest question, he gets answers like
>the following from Deana Holmes: "Gerry, I see no reason to answer your
>questions. I don't think you're interested in answers."
I don't understand why
you would think Starshadow should be held
responsible for what another person says to Gerry Armstrong. Can you
explain your reasoning here?
[snipped additional examples
of Warrior apparently holding Starshadow
responsible for other people's words]