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

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 20:32:18 -0600
From: referen@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 02:24:37 GMT
Message-ID: <3fa5b7af.29906643@news.bway.net>
References: <hIEmb.95150$sp2.44283@lakeread04>
<bnfnvr0khh@drn.newsguy.com> <XCB0GL9N37920.1189699074@anonymous.poster>
<3f9c736e@news2.lightlink.com> <bni0rh01n4s@drn.newsguy.com>
<bnjhgh0f7m@drn.newsguy.com> <3F9D864B.3050307@rochester.rr.com>
<3FA40071.4090007@rochester.rr.com> <Xns94269224CDA4Dkadywwwaifnet@>
<3FA4453F.1060607@rochester.rr.com> <bo1vmc0247k@drn.newsguy.com>
"<3fa507a9.2195386@news.bway.net> <bo47bl0i3v@drn.newsguy.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Lines: 85
X-Trace: sv3-xqfyFUMulm2o8eMCJBMrfhMUoY82tlx3AdZ
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!pri
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654316

On 2 Nov 2003 16:26:29 -0800, Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote:

>>On 1 Nov 2003 22:27:17 -0800, Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote:
>>>Yes, in fact I have been a non-Scientologist for about 6 years more
>>>than the total number of years [Kady's] lived in [her] whole life.
>>In article <3fa507a9.2195386@news.bway.net>, the dissembling
>>Diane Richardson asks:
>>Is that supposed to mean something?
>I didn't know you were so clueless, Diane.

Another Hubbard redefinition of a standard English word? What's
Hubbard's take on the word "clueless," Gerrior?

>>The only thing that it suggests to me is that even though you've
>>been out of the cult for a hell of a long time, you're still firmly stuck
>>in Hubbardthink.
>I know it's one of your pet peeves that I am here discussing

Far from it, Gerrior. You play the straight man so well for some of
the best of the a.r.s. wits. Without you, a.r.s. wouldn't be half as
entertaining as it is.

>In fact, in the seven years I've been on ars there
>is only one time I can recall you've ever had anything to say to
>me that wasn't nasty. This suggests to me that you'd rather
>engage in ad hominem attacks on me than discuss Scientology.

Actually, I'm more than willing to discuss why you persist in using
Hubbardbabble here, Gerrior. You've offered the lame excuse that you
do so to "educate" people, but your use of Hubbard's gibberish belies
your claim.

>So I logically conclude that you are here to engage in ad hominems
>rather than address the subject of Scientology. In fact, you've
>said many times that you have no interest in trying to understand
>the subject. I'm thankful that you've pointed this out to me.

Hubbard was a fraud, a liar, and a con-man, Gerrior. His "applied
religious philosophy" is nothing but pseudo-intellectual crap. Why
*anyone* want to understand Hubbard's idiocy is beyond me.

Reading 20 pages of Dianetics was enough to convince me that
Hubbard was an egotistical, pompous blowhard. I can understand why it
took you so much longer to realize that you'd been conned, but I
cannot for the life of me understand why you're still so firmly
attached to that garbage. It's meaningless babble, Gerrior. It means
nothing. There's no more reason to "educate" others in the meaning of
Hubbardbabble than it is to translate and interpret babytalk.

>>Why in the world would any non-Scientologist want to know what the
>>megalomaniac Hubbard meant when he penned a specific phrase?
>You already know my answer to this since I've answered long ago.

Your answer was dishonest, Gerrior, and you know it. The only
possible reason you have for defining your world in Hubbard's terms is
if you continue believing that Hubbard was right.

He wasn't right, Gerrior. He was very, very wrong.

>>You may still define your world in Hubbardian terms,
>I don't.

You most certainly do. Your reliance on Hubbardbabble to explain
kady's attitude is a dead giveaway that you still view the world
through the eyes of a Scientologist.

><snip rest of ad hominem crap which has already been discussed>

The major ad hominem crap here is your continued use of Hubbardbabble
to define those you wish to belittle, Gerrior. You rely on
Scientology to make sense of the world now every bit as much as you
did when you first started posting here. You're still a

Diane Richardson





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