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 08:58:41 -0500
X-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 08:58:41 -0500, 184.108.40.206
X-Original-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 08:58:41 -0500, 220.127.116.11
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654100
Warrior <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in news:email@example.com:
<snipping because life's too short, and because like sarcasm, snipping is
the sign of a suppressi-er, OSA personality>
> Your argument (that I used Hubbard jargon "solely because [you don't]
> humor a similarly Hubbardian lunatic" is a strawman. It's a strawman
> argumemt because your stated reason why I used the concept is false.
> Factually, you don't know why I used the concept. But I'll now tell
> you. I used it because I was pretty sure you'd come up with a knee-jerk
> response about the lingo or concept, rather than address the concept.
> You've once again shown me I was correct in my estimation of your
> response. Besides, the jargon doesn't describe a *person*, as you
> also erroneously assert.
No, I commented on it because I think it's very strange that someone who
purports to have ditched Hubbard's bunkum would tell another person that
"the bank follows the attack." Why should I address a Hubbardian concept
like "the bank"? I'm not a Scientologist. I think Hubbard's theories
human motivation and behaviour are total bunk, and I really don't think it
is terribly useful to continue to employ such terms when one is no longer a
Scientologist. If you explain what you meant in normal English, I'd be
pleased to respond.
> The fact is, you and others (e.g., Diane Richardson) have often reacted
> in the same vein, criticizing the lingo or jargon. But you've never
> shown an understanding of the concept. Naturally, I can explain the
> concept in normal English. If you can do so, please show me your
> understanding of what it means.
Again, I'm not a former Scientologist. I'm very happy not to be a former
Scientologist, and I have very little interest in learning the minutaeia of
Scientology theory, particularly the "tech", since it is, not to belabour
the point, manipulative hokum put forward by a con artist of legendary
Policies related to "admin", on the other hand, can be useful in
understanding the corporate structure, as well as predict strategies and
tactics. I quite like learning about admin, as well as, of course, the
cultural and social aspects of Scientology. But I'm not going to humour you
by pretending that "the bank follows the attack" is anything other than
> I ask that you consider the context in which it was used by Tanya Durni,
> when she said, "I can see where Gerry gets the idea that you act like
> OSA." I think Tanya made a very astute observation when she said, "You
> don't have to be a scientologist to act like one." In fact, if you said
> Gerry is a lunatic because he believes in God, you'd be acting like a
Well, no, since you don't have to be a Scientologist to think that Gerry is
a lunatic for any number of reasons. I think you're having trouble with
that basic concept, just like Scientologists have trouble believing that
someone could dislike L. Ron Hubbard without being an agent of the
Marcab/psychiatry conspiracy to destroy mankind's best friend. Sometimes a
cigar is just a cigar.
> Perhaps it bothers you that someone who has never been a Scieno
> (Tanya, in this case) can see where Gerry gets the idea that you act
> like a Scieno.
Not really; Tanya is dumb as a post, and ludicrously suggestible. Right
now, she's mindlessly echoing Warrior and ladya, even though ladya herself
denies that she meant what she originally said about ex-Scientologists
being harder to manipulate than non-ex-Scientologists. I don't imagine it's
too difficult to put such a thought in her head; there's ample room, and
little to crowd it.