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: 2 Nov 2003 11:54:39 -0500
X-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 11:54:39 -0500, 126.96.36.199
X-Original-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 11:54:39 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654137
On 02 Nov 2003, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:
[whoops - responded by email by mistake, sorry about that, Tanya - article
> email@example.com wrote:
>> Tanya Durni <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in
>>>Character attacks seems to be the best defense you can come up with.
>> Well, try actually presenting a coherent argument, and responding to
>> the arguments that I make. You've yet to do that, nor have you
>> demonstrated your idiotic premise that sarcasm is an OSA trait, let
>> alone one exclusive to indoctrinated Scientologists. If I were Gerry
>> Armstrong, I'd accuse you of "pretended stupidity", but since
>> I'm forced to assume that any such stupidity or obtuseness is entirely
>> genuine. Why not prove me wrong by putting forward an argument that can
>> at least serve as the basis for a debate?
> Sarcasm is a tool to discredit. You use it all the time. Lots of
> people use it, but the difference is the indoctrinated scientologist
> uses it to discredit the individual critising scientology to keep the
> topic away from the real issues that she/he cannot answer regarding
Well, I'm not an indoctrinated Scientologist, nor have I witnessed any
indoctrinated Scientologists using sarcasm to discredit the individual
criticizing Scientology. I gather you are suggesting that I am using
sarcasm to discredit someone, either yourself, or Gerry, because I want to
keep the topic away from the "real issues" that I "cannot answer".
exactly, would those "real issues" be? If you'll recall, when you first
wandered into this thread, it was to question why I criticize Gerry's loony
hatepage, which I think is eerily Scientological in nature. What, to your
mind, is the "real issue" that I am unable to adress?
> I am not here to beat you at a game, Kady. I made one simple
> observation, based on my first hand experience in dealing with
> scientology and its teachings (programming) for many years. You can't
> seem to accept that without being triggered into an attack mode.
Actually, I've explained why I felt that way, and why I believed that your
initial statement was incorrect. You have not responded in any way to my
argument, but instead, have just repeated yourself, and accused me of being
mean for becoming increasingly frustrated by your apparent inability to
understand your point.
> Why do you even bother responding to me if what you write about me you
> really believe?
I really don't know, to be honest. I'll probably give up soon, since it is
clearly futile, but I find that sometimes it is a useful exercise to ensure
that your arguments are sound, and that you can present them in a concise,
balanced way even if there is little chance that you will persuade the
person with whom you are debating the issue.