From: Zinj <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Tom Padgett squeals like a stuck pig
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:34:47 -0700
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
X-Trace: 21 Oct 2003 23:30:58 -0400, 188.8.131.52
X-Original-Trace: 21 Oct 2003 23:30:58 -0400, 184.108.40.206
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1651107
In article <MPG.email@example.com>,
> A person with a single, and consistent nick/handle can become as
> 'reputable' and 'credible' as anyone with a name, over time.
Let me expand on this concept a bit.
A person like Cerridwen or 'Safe' can achieve a level of
credibility *despite* anonymity, because of the checkable and
confirmable data offered.
Their *opinions* are not equally valid, and, if Cerridwen posts
'opinions' about other ARS posters, or 'Safe' began posting
'opinions' that George Bush was a fascist, the 'credibility'
would be misapplied.
But, it's not because of 'anonymity'.
If Martin Ottman, who is not 'anon' posts documents, even if
they are posted by his own admission to 'get Bob', it doesn't
denigrate the validity of the documents, although, it does raise
the issue of *which* documents he chooses to post, considering
If he however pontificates on global political questions, the
fact that he has access to, and has posted court documents from
Scientology related cases does *not* grant him any credibility
Credible in apples does *not* imply credibility in 'oranges'.
Scnthink (sometimes called 'stupidthink') implies that good in
one thing means good in another.
Tilman's arrogance in some issues does not mean he is an expert
in legaleze... after all... he doesn't even know what a
'continuance' is :)
That Gerry Armstrong or Warrior (sometimes known as XXXXXXXXXX)
believe that failure to 'support' them is evidence of OSA
influence doesn't make it true.
That Kady and ptsc and and and and believe that the 'critical
community' would be best served if we all just kissed their
boots and thanked them voluably for their efforts, does *not*
make them 'leaders' (gag)
Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953