From: "Ball of Fluff" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:16:50 -0700
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Trace: 25 Oct 2003 13:14:57 -0400, 22.214.171.124
X-Original-Trace: 25 Oct 2003 13:14:57 -0400, 126.96.36.199
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1651865
<email@example.com> wrote in message
> "Magoo" <Magoo44@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> > "ptsc" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> > news:email@example.com...
> >> Additionally, and another reason it is just as well to blow off
> >> sick, diseased scene has arisen.
> > ahhhh....a poor excuse to leave. OSA has been working on you and others
> > since ARS began. Each one who leaves is a huge "Win" for them.
> > say you don't care.
> > I do. Why? Because it IS a win, because and only because you are
> > effective.
> If you cared about why ptsc has left the building, as it were, perhaps you
> should look beyond your own preconceived assumption that anyone who does
> is acting solely because "OSA has been working on [them]", and
take a good
> look at what ptsc himself has been very clear is the *real* reason why he
> is disgusted with what a.r.s has come. It's really frustrating to see
> people like you, and Kim, act as though somehow, it's unthinkable that the
> guy might just have gotten tired of, say, Warrior reposting OSA DA
> under insulting subject lines, or Gerry collecting every post that
> disagrees with him in even the most minute fashion, and posting it on a
> page of "goOn squAd follieS". That's "OSA", if you didn't
notice the giant
> blinking letters on the page.
Yes, it is. And the backpedaling Gerrior is doing on this is amusing albeit
a bit appalling.
> Do you think OSA is working through Gerry and Warrior, and has convinced
> them to launch these attacks? If so, why don't you suggest to Warrior and
> Gerry, specifically and explicitly, that they knock it off, so that people
> like ptsc don't get the impression that for most a.r.s. critics, it's
> totally appropriate to behave like an OSA thug if your name happens to be
> "Gerry Armstrong"?
Gerry is the person who posted something I'd posted in response to him about
2 years prior to that, represented it was a post from a couple *months*
prior which then prompted some idiot to jump on hee and demand that I
This was dishonest. So is his OSA follies page and his constant backpedaling
> > Sure you have your disagreements, and things that piss people off.
> > However, if you take the ptsc posts.....the majority are kick ass,
> > information filled, excellent posts.
> > These are things that help people wake up, as well as others who are
> > looking into joining see the full,
> > 3-D picture.
> I don't think ptsc is under any delusion that his posts aren't kick-ass,
> excellent and filled with information. I'm fairly sure he knows that. What
> you seem to be missing is that he is tired of being expected to play
> punching bag to people like Warrior,
When someone does not toe Warrior's line he tends to post repetitively and
relentlessly, naming threads after the person, screaming "liar", etc.
What a number of people here do here, on occasion, is the friend of my
friend, enemy of my enemy thing. There are people who take a dislike to
another contributor solely because THAT person and their friend do not see
eye to eye. This Gerrior thing is one such example.
> including having bullshit
> religiousfreedomwatch.org material posted to a.r.s. *by* Warrior, while
> people like you say NOT ONE WORD to object to such behaviour. I feel
> much the same way. It's not that I don't think my contributions here are
> worthless; it is that I don't think a dwindling cadre of slavishly devoted
> sycophants, not one of whom will dare speak up against Fearless Leader
> Gerry or his loyal minion Warrior, to use the most recent example, is
> the bother of posting the aforementioned material. I'm sorry if that
> harsh, but honestly, you really seem to be missing the point to a
> spectacular degree.
For some people, it's more about who's posting than what's in the post. Thus
cliques are formed, sides are taken. Not by everybody but it's pretty
common. A number of contributors who did not do this have left a.r.s. A
number of those who are left are the sycophants of whom you speak. Thus has
the demographic here changed a bit.
> > And this is news? I take this to mean you are saying some "Critics"
> > really OSA? So what's the big deal there? Don't tell me for a second
> > you've begun believing Toothsucker? Please tell me you mean something
> > else, ptsc.
> No, I believe that his use of the quotation marks indicates that he
> think some "critics" are worthy of the name, since they appear
to be about
> as inept as Scientologists at thinking critically.
I think that's what he means as well.