From: ptsc <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Kady O'Malley and her "style" -
was Re: kids
Organization: The Buttersquash Conspiracy
References: <FFJF3HOG37914.firstname.lastname@example.org> <GCI03P7637914.email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:19:51 GMT
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1066724391 18.104.22.168 (Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:19:51
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 04:19:51 EDT
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1650947
On 21 Oct 2003 00:40:42 -0700, Warrior <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <Xns941AF118B6D89kadywwwaifnet@22.214.171.124>, email@example.com
>Your words are meant to inflame and insult. It's an ad
>hominem attack. Not that I mind being called 'gerrior',
>but rather that it shows me you are unable to grant that
>I have my own opinions. The fact that you call me 'gerrior'
>shows me that you can't differentiate me from him. That's
>one of the reasons I say you are small-minded. The fact
>that I agree with Gerry over you (or Rob or Zinj or other
>hateful bigots) is due to the rational manner in which they
>express themselves and their ideas.
"Hateful bigots." Do I even have to address this blatant example
Scientology-think? Warrior is so irrational on the subject of Gerry Armstrong
that he completely loses his mind and resorts to blatant OSA-isms like "hateful
You sound like any number of Scientologists that have been here before,
but unfortunately you're a "critic."
Disagreeing with Gerry Armstrong, or even viewing him as a kook, does not make
someone a "hateful bigot," "OSA" or any other of your and
Gerry's false, lying
Disagreeing with Gerry Armstrong is not "advocating hate crimes"
or any of the
other crazy shit Gerry says.
What are people who criticize Gerry Armstrong bigoted against, anyway? Kooks?
Nutcases? Vengeful egomaniacs who put up hate pages listing everyone who ever
criticized them? I suppose I can admit to being bigoted against that, because
dislike it when Scientology does it, and I also dislike it when other people do
What I would like to know is what ground do you stand on to criticize
Scientology when you slavishly imitate their language and lame debate tactics.
Dismissing all criticism as "natter," dismissing all critics as "hateful
and even having a page of your critics accusing them of being "OSA"
excuse me, a "goonsquad" with the letters "OSA" flashing.
You honestly think
you don't look like a complete tool defending this nonsense with such debased
Now rant insanely about how I'm insane, and gibber idiotically about how I'm
idiot. Make sure not to address a single point I raised, pure insults without
any content whatsoever are all you can manage in the berserk, hate-filled frenzy
you work yourself into to defend your nutty deity Gerry Armstrong, who your
empty rhetoric shows is indefensible by means of logic.
Home of the Buttersquash Conspiracy http://buttersquash.net
Save America. Vote Dean. http://www.deanforamerica.com