Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
From: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
References: <hIEmb.95150$sp2.44283@lakeread04> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
<email@example.com> <3F9D864B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Xns9421ABE6DAFC4kadywwwaifnet@22.214.171.124>
Date: 1 Nov 2003 18:56:07 -0500
X-Trace: 1 Nov 2003 18:56:07 -0500, 126.96.36.199
X-Original-Trace: 1 Nov 2003 18:56:07 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1653868
Tanya Durni <email@example.com> wrote in
However, I do not understand why you care so
>>>much about this newsgroup or scientology to devote the time that you
>> Well, if you had paid attention to any of the posts I've made over the
>> last seven (is it really that long?) years that I have been an a.r.s.
>> denizen, or read my website, or, indeed, knew anything at all about me,
>> you would realize that I *am* part of that tiny fringe that cares about
>> Scientology enough to criticize its actions and behaviour. That doesn't
>> mean, however, that I don't also criticize similarly hostile and kooky
>> actions and behaviour when the originator is someone who is also part
>> of the aforemtioned tiny fringe.
> I am not sure why you insist on being sarcastic? Not everyone has been
> here seven years. Still why do you care?
I wasn't being sarcastic; I was pointing out that if you had ever bothered
to read any of the thousands of words I've written about Scientology, you
would *know* why I'm here. Apparently, that's too much trouble for you, so
I'll summarize. I don't like bullies, and I don't like creepy organizations
that lash out at critics, prey on the vulnerable and abuse their own
members. I'm also fascinated by the dynamics of groups, and I've found it
fascinating to research aspects of the social history of Scientology. Some
people go to civil war reenactments, some people chain themselves to old
growth trees, some people collect Hummel figurines, and some people
criticize Scientology. I am one of the latter.
>>>I think I understand that you are offended by Gerry.
> Again the sarcasim. I can see where Gerry gets the idea that you act
> like OSA.
<snip the rest of my post, to which Tanya did not respond>
So ... you and Gerry recognize OSA by their trademark sarcasm? That's a
fabulous methodolgy. Be sure to let us all know how it works out.
I've already wasted far more time than your contributions have been worth
to painstakingly answer your questions and attempt to explain why I think
Gerry's hatepage is a bad idea, and at this point, if you don't at least
understand why I feel that way, there's nothing more to be said. (Note: I'm
not saying you have to agree, obviously, but I can't help feeling like you
don't even *understand* why the page might garner this kind of response.)