Why does anyone believe Gerry Armstrong about anything any more? Susan B

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>Here's more of what you must have inadvertently snipped, Warrior.
>
>There was nothing inadvertent about it. If you are interested in
>reading what you wrote, read your previous article.

Yet you shriek to the high heavens when I snip lines of your
irrelevant maunderings. So much for your objectivity.

><snip>
>
>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>The "tech" was bogus when you used it as a Scientologist. It's
>>just as bogus when you use it as an ex-Scientologist.
>
>I don't use Scientology "tech", idiot. What I say is:
>
>Now that I no longer use the "tech" it is just as bogus.

Then why do you insist on using Scienobabble to smear those whom
you wish to belittle? That doesn't educate anyone, it's merely a tool
you employ to bash those who disagree with you about your Prophet
of God [R]

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>I'm sure you can come up with another way to smear those you perceive
>>as enemies if you just try a little harder, Warrior.
>
>I don't perceive any enemies.

Your words belie your claim, Warrior.

>Apparently *you* are the one who thinks
>like that.

I'm not the person who consistently resorts to describing those with
whom I disagree using Hubbard's terminology. You're the one who
does that ... again and again and again.

>In article <3dff108c.1010573@news.bway.net>, referen@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>You've never explained how individuals' personal opinions (those which
>>disagree with your own opinion, that is) constitute "Black Propaganda."
>
>Where have I ever stated that individuals' personal opinions constitute
>"black propaganda"?
___________________________________________

Message-ID: <asj9ou0clv@drn.newsguy.com>
It's not simply a matter of their webbing of posts because of
disagreement. I think (and Gerry and/or Caroline can correct me if I
am wrong) that the webbed posts demonstrate quite clearly the black
propaganda being waged against them.
___________________________________________

If one incident isn't enough evidence for you, I'll be glad to go dig
up a handful more. You equate ANY criticism of Armstrong and his
current girlfriend as "black propaganda being waged against them" even
when the comments are nothing more than personal opinions made by a
variety of individuals. You've clumped together totally disparate
people who share nothing in common *except* for criticizing Armstrong.
Whether you like it or not, that's NOT "black propaganda" -- it is
nothing more than the personal opinions of a number of individuals.

And that is what you have called "black propaganda."

>>That's all right; I can understand why you've run away from answering
>>that one.
>
>No, you don't understand, except perhaps your own dishonesty.

The person being dishonest about this is you, Warrior, and you know
it. Now scurry away back under those bushes so you won't have to
address why you consider Cerridwen, Tigger, Deana Holmes, Gandalf,
ptsc, Rebecca Hartong, Starshadow, and Exscn "forwarding OSA's
agenda."

Because I KNOW you don't want to deal with that bogus claim of
yours. That's even harder to squirm out of than your continued use
of Scienobabble after all these years.

If you'd stop viewing the world through Scientology lenses, you just
might find it to be a much less frightening place, Warrior.

Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net