§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §




NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:43:18 -0600
From: referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Consider this
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 05:43:18 GMT
Message-ID: <3df428a5.52927095@news.bway.net>
References: <astrgd01g42@drn.newsguy.com> <3df28451.3868642@news.bway.net>
<asul6701str@drn.newsguy.com> <3df365c5.3039350@news.bway.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 123
X-Trace: sv3-OLXvy5lnls8nFV9EvdhX8rWkZGEBzfoG44PH//ie3LrTC4z5hPetU4YZ5W4c2
X-Complaints-To: abuse@bway.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@bway.net
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
X-Postfilter: 1.1

On 8 Dec 2002 19:44:22 -0800, Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote:

>>Warrior wrote:
>>>I've been busy off a.r.s. most of the day today. I'm trying to catch
>>>up. And yes, I most certainly do disagree with your interpretation.
>>>In fact, it shows again that in the absence of any real awareness of
>>>the reasons for my inability to answer your questions quickly enough
>>>to suit you, you interpret events irrationally. In Scientology they
>>>call this "dubbing in". Caroline was quite correct when she opined
>>>that a certain critic had done this. Whether anyone likes Scienospeak
>>>or not, the fact remains that what you did is what Scientologists call
>>>"dub in".
>What you did, Diane, is indicative of your irrationality and a lack
>of critical thinking skills.

It is nothing of the sort, Warrior, which is why you are reduced to
using Hubbard tech to criticize my behavior.

>Diane Richardson, <referen@bway.net> says...
>>Hubbard's "tech" has been thoroughly discredited, Warrior. I fail
>>to see why such a busy man such as you wastes so much of his valuable
>>time explaining what he sees as if he were still following Hubbard's
>My time is not spent explaining things as if I was still following
>Hubbard's teachings. I think you know better.

You have posted some very detailed, long-winded explanations
describing in detail how people who criticize Gerry Armstrong are
acting in ways defined by Hubbard as part of his tech. The fact
is that none (or nearly none) of these people have ever been
Scientologists. You have been a Scientologist. You are the
person describing people who criticize Gerry Armstrong as
following Hubbard's tech.

That is what I know and it is easily proven by citing your own posts.

>>>What you did -- Scienospeak and the definition of "dub in" aside -- is
>>>indicative of your irrationality and a lack of critical thinking skills.
>What you did is indicative of your irrationality and a lack of critical
>thinking skills.

No it isn't. You did not like my comments and you launched into an
extended, overblown analysis of why I was "dubbing in." I was not
being irratonal, I was not lacking critical thinking skills, and I
certainly was not "dubbing in" anything. Scientologists (as well
as some ex-scientologists "dub in," not wogs like me.

>>That would be the case only for those who accept Hubbard's "tech"
>>as valid and useful.
>Wrong. Hubbard "tech" has nothing to do with why you act irrationally
>or your critical thinking skills.

Then why did you devote line-after-line of your message to the
Hubbardian concept of "dubbing in," Warrior?

>You just pretend to misunderstand
>what I wrote.

I know very well what you wrote, Warrior, and I am not pretending
to misunderstand it. You described my behavior as "dubbing in."
You then proceeded into a long-winded explanation of Hubbard's
concept of "dubbing in."

>>I certainly do not and I would presume you no longer do. Or do you?
>You dodged my actual statement and pretended to answer it, when in
>fact all you did was pretend to misunderstand.

You are beginning to sound more and more like Gerry Armstrong.
When will you begin to accuse me of "pretending stupidly to be
really, really stupid" the way Armstrong does?

>Were you blinded by
>your oh-so-eager desire to see everything through your phony belief
>that I rely on Hubbard "tech"? Or was it your dishonesty that made
>you pretend to not understand my question?

I am not being dishonest and I can prove it by reposting your original
message. If you continue to insist you were not accusing me of
"dubbing in," I will repost your message for you so others may judge
for themselves who is most accurately describing your message.
>>>Alternately, you were being dishonest in your stated interpretation.
>>>When you wrote, "The only way I can interpret this is cowardice..."
>>>are you really so lacking in being able to consider the existence of
>>>other possibilities that you only see *one* possible way to interpret
>>>my lack of having answered?
>Could you answer the question please?

I'll be glad to once you've answered those questions you've been
avoiding answering for so long now.

Oh ... that's right. You've announced that you will no longer be
answering my messages, but rather picking and choosing from what
I write and responding only as you see fit.

>>And your continued reliance on Hubbard's tech to define the world
>>around you doesn't seem very logical or believable to me.
>I think you know I don't do this,

Anyone who has read your recent posts knows quite well that you DO
do this, Warrior.

>but you post your irrational responses
>so people can see you for what you are.

The irrational person around here is you, Warrior. If you keep
relying on Hubbard's foolishness to define your world, you will
continue responding irrationally.

Diane Richardson




§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §