Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:43:18 -0600
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Diane Richardson)
Subject: Re: Consider this
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 05:43:18 GMT
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
On 8 Dec 2002 19:44:22 -0800, Warrior <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>I've been busy off a.r.s. most of the day today. I'm trying
>>>up. And yes, I most certainly do disagree with your interpretation.
>>>In fact, it shows again that in the absence of any real awareness
>>>the reasons for my inability to answer your questions quickly
>>>to suit you, you interpret events irrationally. In Scientology
>>>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
>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.
>>Hubbard's "tech" has been thoroughly discredited, Warrior.
>>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.
you did -- Scienospeak and the definition of "dub in" aside --
>>>indicative of your irrationality and a lack of critical thinking
>What you did is indicative of your irrationality and a lack of critical
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
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.
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
>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."
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
>your oh-so-eager desire to see everything through your phony belief
>that I rely on Hubbard "tech"? Or was it your dishonesty that
>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
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
>>>other possibilities that you only see *one* possible way to
>>>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.
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.