Subject: Re: Some people just don't get it
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:12:08 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <24160-3DF39630email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
X-Original-Trace: 10 Dec 2002 09:12:18 -0500, 220.127.116.11
>>>>>On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:57:52 -0600 (CST), "Tigger"
>>>>>>No matter how you, Lerma, Armstrong and his girlfriend
try to spin
>>>>>>it......most of the people were put on Armstrong's
>>>>>>they disagreed with his doing such a webpage.
>>>>>You seem to think you know better than Gerry why he
does what he does.
>>>In article <3DF51BBE.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>>>>Well, when Armstrong titles a page "Scientology's Usenet
Black PR and
>>>>Ops", what Armstrong seems to be saying is that the
posters whose posts
>>>>are (illegally) webbed therein are what he believes to be
>>>>Usenet Black PR and Ops". When he places the letters
OSA in sharp relief
>>>>in the title of the banner, that would seem to be saying
that he believes
>>>>they are either OSA or acting like OSA. When the post (illegally)
>>>>thereon in fact contain NO BLACK PR OR OPS (my emphasis)
but in fact
>>>>politely worded disagreements, then it would indicate that
>>>>Letkeman think that disagreeing with either of them equals
OSA Black Pr
>>>>and Ops, wouldn't you say?
>>>This has been previously asked and answered. Please re-read
>>>previous posts. Obviously you do not understand or agree with
> In article <3DF56549.email@example.com>, Starshadow
>> That's correct, but I think you are deliberately misstating certain
>>things about Armstrong and Letkeman's webpage. You've stated before
>>the title did not change; you've been shown repeatedly that it did,
> I never stated that the title did not change. If you think I did,
> kindly provide the message ID.
>> This indicates to me that you are unwilling to accept that Armstrong
>>and Letkeman simply put a page together with those people who in
>>simply disagreed with him.
> Correct. I have stated this over and over. It's an honest opinion.
> I am unlikely to change my opinion already expressed repeatedly.
>>>Now, here's the explanation of the point I made earlier to Tigger:
>>>_What_ it indicates is different from _why_ he does what he
>> What he indicates is that he believes that disagreeing with him
>>tantamount to Scn'y Ops and Black PR. You seem to disagree with
> Yes. I do.
>>Why he does what he does seems to be that he has gone round the
>>and is bugfuck crazy. You disagree with that.
> Yes. I do. I am not one so quick to judge others as "crazy".
>>>The _thing_ he did is the "what". His reason(s) is/are
>> What he did was put up a bugfuck crazy page with peoples' posts
>>simply disagreed with him. His reasons seem to be that he thinks
>>disagreeing with him is tantamount to Scn'y Black PR and Ops.
> I understood what you said the first time.
>> At least that is what he and Letkeman stated once or twice,
> I'm unclear on what you allege they stated. Am I to understand that
> think he thinks that simply disagreeing with him is equivalent to Scn
> black PR and ops? In other words, do you think he webbed posts simply
> because people disagreed with him, and that by simply expressing disagree-
> ment with Gerry he equates that to Scientology's use of black PR and
>>when they weren't stating that they actually THOUGHT that the people
>>those pages were applying Hubbard's policy of Black PR and Ops,
> I can see why Gerry might feel that certain individuals were acting
> Scientologists applying Hubbard's "tech" on black PR.
Then your credibility
has just gone down another notch with me.
Sorry to say.
>>when in FACT
what they were doing was disagreeing with him, and then
>>stating the obvious, that putting up that page was a lunatic action
>>did a disservice to all he had claimed to stand for.
> I hope you will write to Gerry directly. You know, it's not my place
> to tell him what he must or should do. I don't control Gerry Armstrong.
> I have no desire to, either. I love Gerry, and I think I understand
> to a great degree, but I would never deny him the right to speaking
> webbing his own opinions.
I'm not asking you
to tell him what to do. I addressed Armstrong and
Letkeman directly several times on this ng. The first post was worded
pretty politely, no name calling, simply a disagreement with Letkeman,
point by point, her declaration that Claire was participating in
"fraud". For that I got a rambling response that I was somehow
in Hubbard tech with no addressing of point by point. No one is ASKING
you to deny him any right to speak nor to web his opinions--as if anyone
could hold you accountable for controlling or not controlling him anyway
(which, btw, is a "straw man", since no one has asked you to do
thing. But when he puts up a kooky hate page filled with people who
simply and solely disagree with him, and you state over and over that it
is not a kooky hate page filled with people who simply and solely
disagree with him, and state that you think that putting up that page is
a rational thing to do, and that he is entitled to do and say whatever
he wants because by golly, he was the prime target of the CofS, and his
dick, so to speak, is bigger than anyone else's, ( a paraphrase you
won't like, but I call them as I see them--since it's a paraphrase of
"the rest of you haven't done as much nor been as big a target as
Armstrong, therefore he's entitled to do or say whatever he wants to
whomever he wants" to boil down what part of your argument seems to
be)--well, when you state those things, and act astonished that anyone
would actually think he and Letkeman mean exactly what they say when
they say that they believe this is "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and
Ops" then you shouldn't act surprised that it makes people angry to
called that, and that those people--and others not named on that kooky
web page see it as exactly that, instead of coming up with yet another
kooky conspiracy theory whereby we all got together back channel and
decided to condemn Armstrong and Letkeman's kooky hate page, rather than
simply being a number of people apparently capable of reading better
than you can.
>>>I'll say this again (this way) for Shirley's benefit:
>>>Shirley, you seem to think you know better than Gerry _why_
>>>what he does.
>>>"...people were put on Armstrong's webpage because..."
>>>Use of the word "because" indicates a _reason_ (in
this case, the reason
>>>_why_ Gerry did what he did).
>>Which reason was stated more than once by Letkeman and Armstrong.
>>Of course they wiggled around and quoted Hubbard policy and changed
>>those reasons and statements once or twice, but they did make them.
> What you've said does not help me to understand the specifics, as I
> do not know what you are referring to, exactly.
>>>A _why_ is the reason/reasoning/motivation.
>>Which appears to be a meltdown of reason.
> Hey - convince _him_ of your argument, and I'm sure he'll agree with
> My feeling is that you are more able to accurately state your position
> than I would be able to represent your position. Besides, I am not
> to become an intermediary in this/these matter(s). Not for you, and
> for anyone else.
No one asked you
to, Warrior. Quit putting up straw men. One does not
have to act as an intermediary to simply say "I'm sorry, I can't agree
because I am a friend to Armstrong" or to say, "Yes, I'm Armstrong's
friend, but even I think he's gone a bit around the bend", either one.
was done is the action which followed as a result of reasoning.
>>The action being a lunatic hate page with peoples' posts webbed
>>(illegally) SIMPLY AND SOLELY because they disagreed with Armstrong
>>All your attempts to defend Armstrong and Letkeman boil down to
>>wanting to admit to yourself or others that what they did, and why
>>did it are indefensible, cult-like, and just plain lunatic.
> My attempts boil down to much, much more than that. I don't see matters
> so simply as you. I obviously do not agree with your characterization
> of my attempts or my reasons for doing as I do.
Of course you don't.
To agree, you'd have to agree that you are simply
wrong, and I don't think you're going to do that. But sorry, your
attempts to spin aside, and throw up straw men, you are just plain wrong.
> In my life, I've already had more than enough of others trying to enforce
> their "reality" (viewpoint/their truth/opinions/whatever)
> I appreciate you civility, Starshadow. For what it's worth, I personally
> have never though you are or were OSA.
> I'm about talked out on this issue. There isn't anything else I care
> to say about it for now. Maybe later on. Who knows? I never had a
> crystal ball. For all I know, this might be my last day on Earth.
> All the best
to you. I don't wish to harm anyone; I wish no one ill
> will. Honest.
I believe that, Warrior.
Simply because my opinion of your lack of
judgement has gone down a notch doesn't mean I quit liking you. It
simply means that I no longer trust your opinion to be rational, at
least where your loyalty lies. You don't seem to understand that webbing
someone's posts without their permission and portraying them as either
"OSA" or engaging in "OSA-like posts" is far different
opinions, however strongly worded, on a newsgroup, however.
But I seem to be
done too, unless I see another such
mischaracterization, in which case I will probably speak out again. See,
that's what a newsgroup is for.
Starshadow KoX, Sp4,
and now on a "cult critic's" hate page
for the High Crime of Disagreeing with self-made cult victim Gerry
Armstrong and Caroline Letkeman.
For the real truth about cults go to www.xenu.net
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
>>Starshadow KoX, Sp4, and now on a "cult critic's" hate
>>for the High Crime of Disagreeing with self-made cult victim Gerry
>>Armstrong and Caroline Letkeman.
>>For the real truth about cults go to www.xenu.net