NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 17:25:15 -0600
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Diane Richardson)
Subject: Re: kids
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 23:17:34 GMT
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 properly
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654264
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 23:10:52 GMT, Tanya Durni
>Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 13:10:24 GMT, email@example.com (Diane Richardson)
>>>On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 18:29:30 +0100, Gerry Armstrong
>>>>You might recall that one of the people whose posts appear on
>>>>sQUaD FOLLIES page in an attack on me claimed that Scientology
>>>>at war. Scientology is, of course, very much at war. Hubbard says
>>>>they're at war, and they know they're at war.
>>>Here's a newsflash for you, Armstrong: Hubbard is DEAD. Hubbard
>>>doesn't say anything anymore.
>Hubbard is physically dead, but he is not dead in the eyes of an
Here's a newsflash for *you*, Tanya.
I am not an obedient member. Neither is Armstrong. I'm assuming from
your previous posts that you're not an obdient member either. I think
that means we all agree Hubbard is stone cold dead.
>Everything a good standing member does is because
>Hubbard says it should be that way. So in a good standing member's mind
>it doesn't matter that you declare Hubbard dead. I think Gerry is
>pointing out that the good standing member is still following Hubbard's
I don't think Gerry is pointing out anything of the sort.