From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Fluffygirl)
Subject: Re: Hey Rob Clark...(thats PTSC the critic basher)
Date: 25 Mar 2004 10:27:49 -0800
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1080239270 18749 127.0.0.1 (25 Mar 2004 18:27:50 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:27:50 +0000 (UTC)
"Phil Scott" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:<firstname.lastname@example.org>...
> "Ball of Fluff" <spam not accepted> wrote in message
> > "Phil Scott" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> > news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> > > .
> > >
> > > Impressive.
> > I myself have always been impressed by ptsc.
> > C
> thats because you are still a bit fluffy in the head from all that
Nah. I recently attested to "always was fluffy" in the Fluff Rundown.
>you have been ignoring his heavy attacks on leading
I'm sure they probably deserved it.
There are some "leading" critics who don't make much sense. Like,
A case in point is when I k/f'ed Gerry Armstrong. This drew some flak.
More because of his status as a "leading critic" than about anything
he'd said to me or I to him.
This indicated that there is some idea that some people are beyond
reach, don't question them, don't diss them, don't touch them.
This is evidenced in your comment above, I think.
>especially when they get close to the issue of the US govt
> involved in using cults for fronts etc...as the Greek govt asserted court.
> PTSC's job apparently is to mask or smoke that issue over.
I doubt very much that he has a "job" here. I assume he's a
contributor posting according to his opinions.
Let me tell you something. I was on an FZ yahoo group list and I wrote
something vaguely criticizing LRH. It wasn't out and out condemnation,
since I am, after all a Happy Hubbardite (tm).
But it was what it was.
I got slammed by Nelson who went "rant rant rant this is not a.r.s.
yap yap yap" and he stirred several people against me, among whom was
a fellow in my area who was recommended to me and with whom I now will
~never~ ever work. No way. That dude and some others wrote that I was
"LRH bashing" but none of them would comment to me directly, even when
I explained myself.
Oh, no. It was LRH bashing.
It's the same thing. You can't bash LRH. Here you don't bash critics.
(supposedly. Except, actually, it happens all the time.)
It reminds me of when some idiot named Joni demanded that I apologize
to Bob Minton back when he was a critic and the church trespassed on
his land- because I was a church member then.
That made no sense.
Nor does the untouchable- you better not criticize them.
It's absolutism whether it's saying you can't "bash" LRH or you can't
bash a "leading critic".
Same sort of thought process.
Having completed the Fluff rundown
I can see right through that.