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

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
From: "kady@wwwaif.net" <kady@wwwaif.net>
References: <hIEmb.95150$sp2.44283@lakeread04> <bnfnvr0khh@drn.newsguy.com> <XCB0GL9N37920.1189699074@anonymous.poster> <3f9c736e@news2.lightlink.com> <bni0rh01n4s@drn.newsguy.com> <Xns9420EA179C185kadywwwaifnet@> <bnjhgh0f7m@drn.newsguy.com> <3F9D864B.3050307@rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Xns9421ABE6DAFC4kadywwwaifnet@>
User-Agent: Xnews/05.08.12
Date: 27 Oct 2003 16:53:58 -0500
X-Trace: 27 Oct 2003 16:53:58 -0500,
X-Original-Trace: 27 Oct 2003 16:53:58 -0500,
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 98
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1652473

Tanya Durni <tdurni@rochester.rr.com> wrote in

> ladayla wrote:
>> In article <Xns9420EA179C185kadywwwaifnet@>,
>> kady@wwwaif.net says...
>>>Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote in news:bni0rh01n4s@drn.newsguy.com:
>>>>The page, I believe, is intended to be educative on the subject
>>>>of OSA's black PR on Gerry and how goons unwittingly (and
>>>>stupidly) forward OSA's black PR.
>> This is how I see the page as well. I dunno why some guys just don't
>> get it. I can understand why a person who has never been in scn won't
>> see the Black PR and character assassination. I think that one had to
>> have seen how it worked before you would 'see' it. That's why
>> scientologists had rather deal with people who have never been in the
>> church, rather than ex-scientologists; non-scn'ists are totally easy to
>> manipulate. Exes aren't. It is next to impossible to manipulate a
>> person who has been trained in scn PR tactics.
>> la
> La I would have to agree. I have never been a scientologist, however I
> have had over 20 years of experience in dealing directly with a
> scientologist who was using these methods to manipulate and influence
> people around him.
> I think the non-scientology world as well as scientologists use similar
> tactics sometimes, but may not really be conscience of it being used for
> a purpose, like upper management or OSA would.
> Gerry is only webbing posts made by these individuals. If they have a
> problem with their posts, maybe they should post retractions or further
> explanations for their reasoning?

Just to clarify, for the logic-challenged among us that seem to gravitate
to this thread like particularly thick-headed moths to a shiny flame, I'll
note that at no point have *any* of the people whose posts are immortalized
on Gerry's hate site have indicated that they have any problem with their
initial posts, or the opinions contained within. In fact, speaking
personally, I can attest that Gerry's subsequent reaction to any criticism
of his conspiracy theorizing as to the reason behind the posts entirely
demonstrates my initial criticism of his apparent inability to handle even
mild dissent.

To summarize, my problem is not with my posts, or my opinion of Gerry's
megalomaniac thin-skinnedness, it is with his general reaction to any
criticism that he feels somehow "unmerited" (a curiously ephemeral and
free-floating criterion that he has yet to coherently explain).

If you, Tanya, are unclear on my reasoning, I will break out the hand
puppets and do my best to dumb it down so that it can be more easily
digested by the intellectually challenged, but I really think that in this
case, the posts speak for themselves. Agree with them, disagree with them,
but I think it should be fairly clear to what the posters were objecting at
the time that they found themselves unwittingly added to the "goon squad"
that is no more than a product of Gerry's fertile paranoia.

And that brings me to la's simplistic reasoning, to which I was going to
respond earlier, but was unable to devote the necessary time and energy.
First of all, the idea of "negative publicity" or, indeed, the practice of
"dead agenting" did not originate with Hubbard. He was not the first, he
will not be the last, and frankly, neither he nor his legacy organization
are anywhere close to 'best', at least when viewed in relation to public
relations campaigns, both positive and negative, that occured in the
mainstream, as opposed to the tiny fringe of the population that gives a
tinker's damn about Scientology or its critics.

Secondly, I challenge both of you - in fact, anyone here on a.r.s, - to
post one example of any criticism I have made of Gerry's words or actions
that is derived, in whole or in part, from Scientology-based propaganda, as
was the case in the Doug Franz affair with regards to Dr. Kent. My opinion
of Gerry, like those of others so deemed "goons" by Gerry's thicket of
apologists here on a.r.s., is based purely on what GERRY has written, and
what GERRY has done. Not OSA. Not Scientology. Gerry Armstrong. Why is this
so impossible for y'all to understand?

Finally, I'll close by noting that la seems to be labouring under the
illusion that somehow, ex-Scientologists are better at spotting the Hubbard
negative publicity tactics that Scientology incorporates in its attacks on
critics. I'd suggest that a good counterargument to that would be that
relatively few non-Scientologists fall victim to the fanatical anti-
psychiatry propaganda that is a perennial feature in the Scientology public
relations strategy. Ex-Scientologists, however, by their very history, were
clearly unable to spot the ruse at one point, at least, which does little
to demonstrate a higher level of critical thinking skills or ability to
recognize spin. Let's just not go there, shall we, kiddies?







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