Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
From: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
References: <hIEmb.95150$sp2.44283@lakeread04> <email@example.com>
<firstname.lastname@example.org> <3F9D864B.email@example.com> <Xns9421ABE6DAFC4kadywwwaifnet@188.8.131.52>
Date: 2 Nov 2003 20:15:35 -0500
X-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 20:15:35 -0500, 184.108.40.206
X-Original-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 20:15:35 -0500, 220.127.116.11
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654302
Tom Klemesrud <tomklem@netscape.DELETE.net> wrote in
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Tom Klemesrud <tomklem@netscape.DELETE.net> wrote in
>> Yes, Tom, you've got me. I'm the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard.
>> Curses, foiled in my secret plan to start my very own cult right here
>> on a.r.s., which you can see is working *spectacularly*, given how I'm
>> next to Diane Richardson in the Pariah Hall of Fame.
> I actually am fond of both you gals. Starting a good ol'd
> fathion flame war makes me yearn for the old days. I think it's
> accually good for ARS and the anti-fop$ cause because it delivers
> the 18-27 demographics that the networks love!
>> As for your allegations that I bully and exploit my members, it
>> behooves me to point out that I DON'T HAVE ANY MEMBERS.
> You have members of this group of which you are a member.
I think you've mistaken me for someone else.
>> I'm not a corporation. I'm not
>> a club. I'm not a quasi-religious organization. I'm just one girl who
>> posts to a.r.s., and says what she thinks. It's no more complicated
>> than that, and I have no idea why you see such sinister possibilities
>> in such an innocuous activity.
> A noble activity. I just wanted to point out that with human
> nature we are lured to those things that have like meaning to
> ourselves. Seeing you easily trash people here--especially with
> the stature of Gerry Armstrong--supports my notion that you may
> be working our subconcious personal issues.
Huh? Not to sound like Tanya, but I don't think I understand what you mean.
Gerry is a kook. Kooks get ridiculed if they persist in kooking out.
Stature has nothing to do with it, nor do "subconcious personal issues."
distate for egomaniacal kooks is not the least but subconcious, I can
>> If it's "bullying" to try to get you to admit that you were
>> staggeringly wrong on your theorizing vis a vis Amanda Keller and
>> Mohammed Atta, well, I guess that's a label I'm going to have to wear,
>> but I think if you went back over this thread, you'd see that both
>> Warrior and Tanya were very eager to "bully" right back, and,
>> "attacking" me, to use your definition of the term, they were,
>> "attacking" a critic, as per your indictment of my alleged
> I knew you'd state a rebutal, and launch an attack! You're such
> a good flame-warrior!
I'm tired of dealing with idiots. Present company excluded, since I
consider you more of a kook than an idiot. I'm tired of having weird
conspiratorial motives ascribed to me for the crime of criticizing Gerry
Armstrong. It's probably showing in my posting style at this point, but
isn't stating a rebuttal more than what 90% of the mushheads in this thread
>> Do I bleat and whine and concoct weird psychobabblage to explain why
>> Warrior persists in using Hubbard's crackpot theology to try to shut
> Yes. You do it with your inconsiderate prose.
No; I use my 'inconsiderate prose' to *demonstrate* why Hubbard's crackpot
theology is irrelevant to the issue. I actually address the argument,
although I'm beginning to wonder why, because I feel as though I might as
well be speaking ancient Greek for all the good it does. I may as well just
post "Clams suck! Xenu! Scientology is bad! Go Padgett!" but till that
day, I will be, to paraphrase Lorn from _Angel_, one of the last feisty
wives in Stepford.
>> No, I argue back, and I think I do so in as civil a manner as is
>> possible, given the subject matter. Anyone who finds my tone unbearable
>> can simply killfile me, and/or killfile the thread itself, and the
>> problem will be solved.
> You're an angry young woman. And I enjoy your posts.
Yes, I'm frustrated tonight, but no, I wouldn't characterize myself as
"angry" , except when provoked, of course.
>> Oh, and by the way, I wasn't going to call you on this, since I figured
>> you'd just accuse me of being OSA (yet again), but since you brought
>> up, the term "phat" has been used in the African American community
>> since 1962, according to the OED. So you might want to consider your
>> hilarious conspiracy theory about Scientology "redefining"
the word to
>> spoil your wordplay.
> Interesting. Can you provide a reference, and speculation why it
> can back months after Jerry Ladd?
# Quotations. For each definition, you will need to include quotations:
year, author, title of work, and a brief quotation. The OED comes up with
many sources for "phat," including: "1963 Time 2 Aug. 14 Negro
Mellow, phat, stone, boss. General adjectives of approval. 1974 H. L.
FOSTER Ribbin', Jivin', & Playin' Dozens ii. 52 This teacher, however, was
a 'phat tip'..[....]. 1992 Face Dec. 68 They're just really distinctivea
London crew with a really phat funk sound. 1995 Guardian 8 May II. 8/4 The
Criminal Justice Act put the rave under House arrest. But it's out and it's
phat in Oxfordshire. 1998 Newsday (Electronic ed.) 17 Mar., Phat? With a
fearless, exciting, aggressive playing style, El-Amin fits the recent
youth-culture term that suggests, loosely translated: cool. 2000 Herald
(Glasgow) (Electronic ed.) 18 Nov., Every Giants player emerges from the
dug-out to his own personal anthem. For coach Dusty Baker there's James
Brown and Dr Dre. Cool or what?.. For..Barry Bonds it's Song 2 by Blur.
Phat! (Pretty Hot and Tempting.)"
Also, note the company "Phat Fashions LLC," founded in 1992 to take
advantage of the growing craze for 'urban' fashion:
Here's their corporate data:
Selected Entity Name: PHAT FASHIONS, INC.
Current Entity Name: PHAT FASHIONS, INC.
Initial DOS Filing Date: 05/29/1992
County: NEW YORK
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: ACTIVE
DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf
of the entity)
% LARRY H SCHATZ ESQ
50 1/2 EAST 64TH STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021
Chairman or Chief Executive Officer
% RUSH COMMUNICATIONS
375 GREENWICH STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10013
Principal Executive Office
% PADELL NADELL ET AL
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019
I don't think "phat" ever went out of common parlance; it's possible
it just wasn't recognized in the mainstream until the mid-90s, but I very
much doubt that had anything to with sneaky Hubbardian word redefinition.