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

 

    

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e001f80.15727424%40news.bway.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:34:06 -0600
From: referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: An open letter to Gerry Armstrong
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 08:34:02 GMT
Message-ID: <3e001f80.15727424@news.bway.net>
References: <f758becc.0212121530.66ce49c7@posting.google.com>
<e7810fd2519fadd8432f522d541cf097@ecn.org>
<Pine.LNX.3.96.1021215064745.108A-100000@darkstar.zippy>
<atih4u015vm@drn.newsguy.com> <3dfe79f2.5383491@news.bway.net>
<atmdmt01rd9@drn.newsguy.com> <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>
<atp3l30un6@drn.newsguy.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 311
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.222.148
X-Trace: sv3-69BOl3gRUYNgIEaB03NXMPlXBFdEt4MSEMQSJVceO2it6mZZIfaE9354ZGQ
f/B1gqkxNaJuIkfdPdJp!e+kzkJGQarKYnNcgb6qKqE+NFQGhjB8I/j3KwahJ0Z04X2Md
6cRraZEc4ynUcMauOqIYTNZNpfIi
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 17 Dec 2002 22:12:51 -0800, Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote:


>>>In article <3dfe79f2.5383491@news.bway.net>, Diane "tampan" Richardson

It's so nice to see you resort to namecalling, Warrior. Never let it
be said that the Defender of the Prophet of God [R] doesn't stoop to
such tactics. And yes, I remember years ago when you educated
the newsgroup on just what a "tampan" is. Where would we be
without you?

>>><referen@bway.net> managed to type the following:
>>>>
>>>>Why do you describe Tigger's actions as "dubbing-in" when, unlike you,
>>>>she has never been a Scientologist? You've stated before that you use
>>>>Hubbardspeak to "educate" people.

On 16 Dec 2002 21:46:05 -0800, Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>I've given this as one of my reasons.
>
>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net says...
>>
>>I see that once again you haven't answered my question. I'm not
>>surprised. You've become quite adept at hiding from questions
>>you don't want to answer.
>
>I've already explained many times why I use Hubbardspeak on this
>newsgroup. The truth is, you don't like my answers.

The truth is, I haven't seen your answers. A message ID or two might
do the trick.

>And I don't hide; I do, however, assign your articles the lowest
>priority for answering on a.r.s.

Just as I seldom read anything you write anymore. Your current
role as Defender of the Prophet of God [R] grows stale fast.

>>>Diane asked:
>>>>
>>>>Do you honestly believe you are educating anyone by describing
>>>>Tigger's actions in the terms of a completely discredited, phoney
>>>>"tech"?

>>On 16 Dec 2002 Warrior wrote:
>>
>>>Well, you understand what "dub-in" means.
>
>So apparently you have been educated as to what Scientologists call
>"dubbing-in".

I have an old Volunteer Ministers Handbook I picked up at a second-
hand store with a glossary at the back. Although you might think
yourself the only Source for information on Scienobabble, you aren't.
Us wogs aren't quite as stooopid as you think we are, Warrior.

>Besides, the fact that Scientologists call it "dub-in" does not negate
>the fact as to what she did. Call it "making things up in the absence
>of information", and it is still true.

Just as what you did is called "making things up in the absence of
information" about her. I might have missed the part where
you described your own statement as "dubbing-in," but I think
it far more likely you only apply Hubbard tech to the words of
others you wish to discredit.

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>Although you whine and moan when others snip your posts, you don't
>>hesitate to do so yourself, without even noting that you've done so.
>
>Correct. Much of your blather is not worth responding to.

Yet you shrieked to high heaven when I noted I had snipped the
introductory paragraphs (a long-winded explanation of why you had not
answered my post because you were so very, very, very busy with
more important things). I snipped entirely irrelevant verbiage from
you post and it was as if the heavens opened and the wrath of Warrior
descended.

I object to you editing my post without noting that you've done so,
and you laugh it off. Yet more of your double standard.

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>Here's the section you "forgot," Warrior.
>
>I didn't forget anything.

You deliberately removed it without noting the fact. That's the sort
of "truth" the Defender of the Prophet of God [R] relies on. Like
Prophet [R], like Defender.

>It's tiring responding to your idiotic
>"questions". Besides, I'm under no obligation to answer your drivel.

You aren't under any obligation yet you continue replying to it. How
odd! I'm sure Hubbard has a very special word for your behavior. Why
not educate us all about it?

>>>Diane wrote:
>>>>
>>>>And why, pray tell, wouldn't Hubbard's idiotic terminology about
>>>>"dubbing in" apply just as much to your statement as it does to
>>>>Tigger's?
>
>Which statement are you referring to? I made more than one.

You'll find it in the message I replied to, Warrior. Surely your
memory isn't that faulty.
______________________________

Message-ID: <atih4u015vm@drn.newsguy.com>
People like Tigger would rather go on making up ("dubbing-in") things
about Gerry. Her bigotry continues to reinforce her "perceptions"; in
turn, her irrational conclusion as to the reason(s) why Gerry has not
responded become her "reality".
______________________________

>Fact is, I heard the phrases "dub-in" and "dubbing-in" years before
>I ever had anything to do with Scientology.

Certainly not in the same context you use it in -- that's pure Hubbard
blather. Check out dictionary.com if you don't believe me.

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>It occurs to me that you are willing to apply the pseudo-scientific
>>tech your learned at Hubbard's knee to others, but never to yourself.
>
>Again, you're quite wrong again on this.

No I'm not. My opinion stands as stated above.

>Your argument fails because
>using (and explaining, as I did) the Scieno lingo is not the same thing
>as applying the "tech". "Tech" refers to "auditing processes", "cramming",
>etc.

"Tech" only refers to "auditing processes", "cramming", etc. if you're
a Scientologist, Warrior. I've never been a Scientologist, so as much
as it might bother you that I use the "Scieno lingo" sloppily, I still
can call your use of Scienobabble "applying the tech" if I so choose.
There's not a hell of a lot you can do about it, since I've never been
a Scientologist and you claim you're no longer a Scientologist.

>"Warrior spent years as a Scientologist studying the tech, I defer
>to his knowledge of Scientology." --Diane Richardson, 2/27/2002

Indeed. You grasp and understanding of applying Hubbard's
pseudo-scientific bullcrap when bashing other people is unsurpassed
on this newsgroup, Warrior. You even outshine practicing
Scientologists at using Hubbard's blithering pronouncements to
belittle what others have to say.

You must be *so* proud of yourself!

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>In my opinion that indicates you toss in the Scienobabble as an
>>attempt to discredit others.
>
>I use Scieno terminology in quotes to educate others about Scientology,
>as I did when I said: "People like Tigger would rather go on making up
>("dubbing-in") things about Gerry. Her bigotry continues to reinforce
>her "perceptions"; in turn, her irrational conclusion as to the reason(s)
>why Gerry has not responded become her "reality"."

That sentence doesn't educate anyone about anything except your
use of Hubbard's terminology to smear others, Warrior. The fact that
you apply the terminology to those whose arguments you wish to
diminish or discredit is evidence enough.

>I think Tigger's own words speak quite well as to her frame of mind
>regarding Gerry.

And I think Tigger's words give a colorful description of the Prophet
of God's recent efforts to smear those who criticize him.

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>At least Armstrong *almost* has the courage to say what he thinks, even
>>though he squrims and wiggles when he's called on it. You can't even
>>bring yourself to do that. Smear by association seems to be your favorite
>>modus operandi.
>
>I am sure you see what you want to see.

Just as I am sure you see what you want to see. Your point?

>Besides, I've already stated what I think.
>
>But *you* apparently think I have something else to say but can't.

I do???? Hmmm ... let's see ... educate me a little more and tell me
how what you've just written qualifies as "dubbing-in."

Oh! That's right! The Defender of the Prophet of God [R] doesn't
"dub-in." Only those the Defender of the Prophet of God [R] chooses
to condemn can be accused of such behavior.

>Again, you are wrong.

Again, you are confusing what you *think* I think with what I'm
actually thinking. YOU are the person thinking you must have
something else to say but can't. I think no such thing.

>Whenever I want to say what I think, I do so.

You would do well to think harder before you start using Scienobabble
as a weapon of choice, Warrior. It ends up making you look nearly as
foolish as your Prophet of God [R].

>>>>...you're going to have to post hundreds of lines of explanatory babble
>>>>to talk your way out of such a conclusion.
>
>Poor Diane. Wrong again.
>
>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>Here's more of what you must have inadvertently snipped, Warrior.
>
>There was nothing inadvertent about it. If you are interested in
>reading what you wrote, read your previous article.

Yet you shriek to the high heavens when I snip lines of your
irrelevant maunderings. So much for your objectivity.

><snip>
>
>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>The "tech" was bogus when you used it as a Scientologist. It's
>>just as bogus when you use it as an ex-Scientologist.
>
>I don't use Scientology "tech", idiot. What I say is:
>
>Now that I no longer use the "tech" it is just as bogus.

Then why do you insist on using Scienobabble to smear those whom
you wish to belittle? That doesn't educate anyone, it's merely a tool
you employ to bash those who disagree with you about your Prophet
of God [R]

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>I'm sure you can come up with another way to smear those you perceive
>>as enemies if you just try a little harder, Warrior.
>
>I don't perceive any enemies.

Your words belie your claim, Warrior.

>Apparently *you* are the one who thinks
>like that.

I'm not the person who consistently resorts to describing those with
whom I disagree using Hubbard's terminology. You're the one who
does that ... again and again and again.

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>You've never explained how individuals' personal opinions (those which
>>disagree with your own opinion, that is) constitute "Black Propaganda."
>
>Where have I ever stated that individuals' personal opinions constitute
>"black propaganda"?
___________________________________________

Message-ID: <asj9ou0clv@drn.newsguy.com>
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.
___________________________________________

If one incident isn't enough evidence for you, I'll be glad to go dig
up a handful more. You equate ANY criticism of Armstrong and his
current girlfriend as "black propaganda being waged against them" even
when the comments are nothing more than personal opinions made by a
variety of individuals. You've clumped together totally disparate
people who share nothing in common *except* for criticizing Armstrong.
Whether you like it or not, that's NOT "black propaganda" -- it is
nothing more than the personal opinions of a number of individuals.

And that is what you have called "black propaganda."

>>That's all right; I can understand why you've run away from answering
>>that one.
>
>No, you don't understand, except perhaps your own dishonesty.

The person being dishonest about this is you, Warrior, and you know
it. Now scurry away back under those bushes so you won't have to
address why you consider Cerridwen, Tigger, Deana Holmes, Gandalf,
ptsc, Rebecca Hartong, Starshadow, and Exscn "forwarding OSA's
agenda."

Because I KNOW you don't want to deal with that bogus claim of
yours. That's even harder to squirm out of than your continued use
of Scienobabble after all these years.

If you'd stop viewing the world through Scientology lenses, you just
might find it to be a much less frightening place, Warrior.


Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net


 

Thread

 

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