§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

     
 
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:07:29 -0600
From: referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:11:08 GMT
Message-ID: <3f9cdc9d.657695@news.bway.net>
References: <kkvepv4at5ukj5qd9lpudg5nt5ts4hg9er@4ax.com>
<3f97fd3b@news2.lightlink.com> <Xns941D817EEE165kadywwwaifnet@205.232.34.12>
<3f9aaf91$1@news2.lightlink.com> <1gdlpvg2t8u5mb818r789bi7rm184uk3rk@4ax.com>
<BBC06194.14C2F%rhartong_deletethis@cox.net> <rqvmpvodre7s19ls4aagm9ahv5kfp4qd91@4ax.com>
<BBC17BCD.14D61%rhartong_deletethis@cox.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 95
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.84.200.234
X-Trace: sv3-eUcFcJO1KK14YgUfkYLI7qiJxrH76GHbeRc4twhhkeEIG31y3JRmZ5p3B22Z0
WUb5sFYukwhgDDZ1lo!l+4OrcEtJdBUp9H4U9NS6ZZP6Joe36yieDaHBfVDlJKRQAi
pkAjPIoSjUAEys54DLibFr99plw==
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
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!skynet.be!skynet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.d
e!t-online.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news-xfer.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganew
s.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.bway.net!news.bway.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1652125

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:25:33 -0500, Rebecca Hartong
<rhartong_deletethis@cox.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Opinions aren't above or beyond discussion. You, however, don't appear able
>to distinguish between opinions and facts.

I think he blurs the difference between fact and opinion on purpose,
Rebecca. To use Armstrong's own words, he's "pretending stupidity"
when he acts as if he doesn't understand the distinction between
fact and opinion.

[snip]

>> but even if it was, so what? Let's just say that I
>> say that you're a chain saw murderer. And you say that that's a lie.j
>
>Again, you give an example that perfectly illustrates your inability to
>discern between statements of fact and statements of opinion.

It's not an inability to discern -- he's deliberately playing stupid.
It's pretty obvious to me he knows he cannot defend his position if
he's honest, so he "pretends stupidity."

[snip]

>>> As for "black propaganda"... What is that? I think in your mind, Gerry,
>>> criticism alone qualifies.
>>
>> You have a false thought.

Stop and read Armstrong's sentence once again. To me, his statement
about others having "false thoughts" is indicative that he's still
firmly stuck in cult thinking. Armstrong definitely left Hubbard's
cult, but he did so only to enter another cult of his own invention --
a cult in which only The Prophet has the right to tell others which
of their thoughts are "true" and which are "false."

>>If you dealt with it honestly, you would
>> support your thought, or conclusion, or projection with evidence.

>You provide the evidence yourself--almost every time you post on this
>subject. I'd dissect it and provide a complete diagram of my thinking on the
>matter if I had even the slightest hope that you'd see the error of your
>ways. But, I don't have even the slightest hope of that. I'm completely
>persuaded that you are intractably stuck in your current mode of thought and
>you don't matter enough for me to give it more of an effort that I've
>already put forth.
>
>> I
>> can show you dozens upon dozens of criticisms that I do not think
>> constitute black propaganda.
>
>Am I correct in thinking that it's only when the criticism happens to
>coincide with some of the of things Scientology has said about you that you
>call the criticism "black propaganda"?
>
>> But I am not the person making the assertion, you are.
>
>There's that tricky facts vs opinions thing again...
>
>> Nevertheless,
>> to demonstrate to you that I can support the assertion I have now
>> made,
>
>Which assertion was that?
>
>> I will state this: This criticism of your claim that you think
>> that in my mind criticism alone qualifies as black propaganda does not
>> qualify as black propaganda. Thus I have disproven your assertion.
>
>Actually, that was an assertion of *what I thought*--not an assertion of
>some fact about you.

He knows that, Rebecca. Armstrong is deliberately blurring the
difference between fact and opinion because he knows his argument
falls apart if he acknowledges any difference. That's part of his
"pretended stupidity," like the insufferably tendentious and
repetitious briefs he files in court.

The only way Armstrong can call you (or I or any of the many others
he's attacked with his illogic) a "liar" is by turning our statements
of opinion into statements of fact. As long as Armstrong is allowed
to make this incorrect assumption, he's able to call any opinion he
disagrees with a "lie." That's why he engages in this cute little
demonstration of what he calls "pretended stupidity."

It's not that Armstrong is too stupid to see the distinction between
facts and opinions -- it's much worse than that. He's not stupid and
he's not insane; rather, he's cynical and dishonest.


Diane Richardson

 

 
 

Thread

 

 

§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §