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




NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 20:54:11 -0600
From: referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: An open letter to Gerry Armstrong
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 02:54:07 GMT
Message-ID: <3e012d01.4655173@news.bway.net>
References: <f758becc.0212121530.66ce49c7@posting.google.com>
<atih4u015vm@drn.newsguy.com> <3dfe79f2.5383491@news.bway.net>
<atmdmt01rd9@drn.newsguy.com> <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>
<atp3l30un6@drn.newsguy.com> <3e001f80.15727424@news.bway.net>
<atpgus027v7@drn.newsguy.com> <3E009D25.5060506@starshadowlovesxenu.net>
<3e00e26e.27943500@news.bway.net> <3E00F47B.6050408@starshadowlovesxenu.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 165
X-Trace: sv3-u4NxQkCB45VsL0DbYEA6tdmOLY8ynflVfZ3MG6WWFzalTBpLbx
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 18 Dec 2002 15:21:18 -0800, Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote:

>>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>> Don't be too hard on him, Starshadow. The poor devil's been through a
>>> lot trying to defend his use of Hubbard terminology to bash people he
>>> doesn't like.
>With regards to Hubbard's terminology, the only things I defend against
>are your erroneous opinions/statements as to why I use it.

Actually, you haven't done that at all. The only claim you've made is
that you mention Hubbard's babble so often to "educate" others. I
have pointed out that you also use it to put other critics down, which
certainly isn't educational -- except to educate others about the
lengths to which you're willing to go to smear others.

>After all,
>this is alt.religion.scientology, so discussions about the terminology
>are entirely on topic here.

Ah, but you weren't discussing anything when you blasted Tigger
by claiming she was "dubbing-in." You yourself make similar
comments on this newsgroup, but I have yet to see you observe
that what you are doing is "dubbing-in."

>That you equate my use of the terminology
>to mean that I practice the "tech" is wrong. Clearly you can see that.

Actually, I do not see that. Your regular use of Scienobabble to
describe the actions of others is an indication that you still
continue viewing the world around you through Hubbard's eyes.

>I am not practicing medical technology when I use medical terms, nor am
>I practicing Hubbard's technology when I use his terminology, especially
>when I note the use of such with quotation marks around the words.

That's utter bullcrap, Warrior. You use the terminology when you wish
to belittle another person. You don't refer to yourself by using
Scienobabble, but you use it liberally when you are attacking those
who criticize Gerry Armstrong, the Prophet of God (R).

>I were using the terminology as a stealth weapon, I certainly wouldn't
>give definitions or try to explain Scientologists' use of the lingo.

If you weren't using it as a stealth weapon, you wouldn't continue
using it to smear those who you wish to put down. You aren't
fooling anyone, Warrior.

>>> Without that stealth weapon, he's forced to jump down in the gutter
>>> with the likes of Elizabeth Ann Cox, Arnie Lerma, and the like.
>It's not a stealth weapon.

In my opinion, you've demonstrated your penchant for using it
thus so many times it is impossible not to draw such a conclusion.
You may disagree with my opinion, but it's still my opnion.

>And my friends are not in the gutter.

If you consider Lerma and Cox your friends, you're down there
wallowing around in the same filth they are.

>all very human, and I'd rather have them as my friends than you.

I'm glad you've found your level of comfort with Lerma and
Cox. It's much easier to understand your reaction as Defender
of the Prophet of God (R) when you class those two as your

>are one of the most vicious, mean-spirited people I have ever come across
>on the Internet.

And you are one of the most self-centered, pompous prigs I have ever
come across on the Internet.

>Many others feel much the same, as may be seen here:

How endearing that a liar like you chooses to base your argument on
Lerma's lies! Thanks for revealing just how deep into the mire you've

>In article <3E00F47B.6050408@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow says...
>> It's just that aside from this obvious really blind spot, I think
>>Warrior is a valuable player--and in fact the docs he posts are much
>>more valuable than anything I say on ars. All I do is ask the hard
>>questions and refuse to accept "because I say so" as an answer to the
>>hard questions.
>Thanks. :)
>I support everyone's right to express his or her opinion, even though I
>may disagree.
>The reason I became involved in this discussion is I happen to think that
>while posting one's opinion is fine, I have to question the motives of
>some invididuals who repeatedly sling mud in the form of terms like "kook",
>"insane", "lunatic", "profit", etc.

Yet you yourself find nothing wrong in namecalling when it suits your
purposes. There's that pesky double standard of yours again!

>What I have perceived (correctly or incorrectly) as "black propaganda"
>has been what appears to me to be intentional character assassination
>of Gerry.

Why how coy of you, Warrior! Let's see ... last time you referred to
this you barked:

>Where have I ever stated that individuals' personal opinions constitute
>"black propaganda"?

I replied with:

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.

And never an acknowledgment from you that you had indeed
accused me, Cerridwen, Tigger, Deana Holmes, Gandalf,
ptsc, Rebecca Hartong, Starshadow, and Exscn "forwarding OSA's

You may not have the courage to admit to me that you accused
as of such, but at least you've acknowledged publicly that you
have. That's good enough for me.

>If someone posts an adverse opinion about him I have no par-
>ticular problem with it, but when someone repeatedly slings mud to the
>exclusion of making any positive statements, I have to question the mo-
>tives of such a person.

I take it, then, that you believe Starshadow is still "forwarding
OSA's agenda." How endearing!

>If you want to understand my position better,
>I urge you to read the chapter on propaganda in Aldous Huxley's _Brave
>New World Revisited_. He explains it far better than I can. And he
>supports my position that propaganda can be the work of one man.

I stopped reading Huxley after high school. but I don't recall Brave
New World addressing anything but totalitarian regimes and
government use of propaganda to control the citizenry. Perhaps
you read a different book than I did.

You may not like personal opinions critical of your Prophet of God
[R]. but that sure as hell doesn't make it "black propaganda" or
make those criticizing Armstrong as "forwarding OSA's agenda."

Not, that is, unless you're still mired deep in the mental mud of
Hubbard tech.

Diane Richardson




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