Subject: Re: Some people just don't get it
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 09:37:15 -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 12:37:19 -0500, 22.214.171.124
Have A Cow wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:12:08 -0800, Starshadow
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>I'm not asking you to tell him what to do. I addressed Armstrong
>>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
>>in Hubbard tech with no addressing of point by point.
> Starshadow knows what a rambling response is. See the absolute train
> wreck of a run-on sentence below. ;-)
>>No one is ASKING
>>in Hubbard tech with no addressing of point by point. No one is
>>you to deny him any right to speak nor to web his opinions--as if
>>could hold you accountable for controlling or not controlling him
>>(which, btw, is a "straw man", since no one has asked
you to do any such
> Here comes the 20+ line train wreck of a run-on sentence (possibly
> produced by too much exposure to Hubbard?):
No, anonymous coward,
I never subscribed to Scn'y.
Sometimes I type
the way I think. I admit it's rambling, but if you
don't like to deal with it, skip my posts.
he puts up a kooky hate page filled with people who
>>simply and solely disagree with him, and you state over and over
>>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
>>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,
>>dick, so to speak, is bigger than anyone else's, ( a paraphrase
>>won't like, but I call them as I see them--since it's a paraphrase
>>"the rest of you haven't done as much nor been as big a target
>>Armstrong, therefore he's entitled to do or say whatever he wants
>>whomever he wants" to boil down what part of your argument
>>be)--well, when you state those things, and act astonished that
>>would actually think he and Letkeman mean exactly what they say
>>they say that they believe this is "Scientology's Usenet Black
>>Ops" then you shouldn't act surprised that it makes people
angry to be
>>called that, and that those people--and others not named on that
>>web page see it as exactly that, instead of coming up with yet another
>>kooky conspiracy theory whereby we all got together back channel
>>decided to condemn Armstrong and Letkeman's kooky hate page, rather
>>simply being a number of people apparently capable of reading better
>>than you can.
> The only things hateful about the page are the content of the posts
> archived within it. Why does Starshadow want her own posts removed?
> Why is she incapable of providing even a single quote to bolster her
> baseless assertion that the page itself is a hate page?
Calling people you
disagree with "gOon SquAd follies" with caricatures
of those who have had the temerity to disagree with you qualifies as a
"kooky hate page" however inept it is.
Calling posts by
people one disagrees with and webbing them without
permission, and indeed over withdrawn permission, "Scientology Usenet
Black PR and Ops" is certainly a quote that bolsters the assertation
that the page itself is a hate page, when most of the people whose posts
are webbed are certainly not OSA nor engaged in "Scientology Usenet
Black PR and Ops".
> The only things
kooky about the page are the authors of the posts
> archived within in. I'm glad Starshadow finally realized what a kook
> she is. Why is she incapable of providing even a single quote to
> bolster her baseless assertion that the page itself is kooky?
I just did, anonymous
> Why does Starshadow
attack fellow critics and activists with baseless
> assertions, if not to further OSA's agenda? I suppose she could just
> be a kook with a lot of personal problems.
I suppose you could
be an anonymous coward who is also an insane
disagreement with people on Usenet is not "attacking".
It is expressing disagreement.
HTH. Feel free to
FOAD, anonymous coward.
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