From: Zinj <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 23:46:04 -0800
References: <hIEmb.95150$sp2.44283@lakeread04> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
<email@example.com> <3F9D864B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
X-Trace: 30 Oct 2003 02:40:23 -0500, 126.96.36.199
X-Original-Trace: 30 Oct 2003 02:40:23 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1653258
In article <e75eb34adc52c16e303da00c2872c245
@news.meganetnews.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org says...
> On 29 Oct 2003 22:06:18 -0500, email@example.com (sure) wrote:
> >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> >email@example.com wrote...
> >>On 27 Oct 2003 23:23:20 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org (sure) wrote:
> >>>In article <3F9D864B.email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
> >>>>Gerry is only webbing posts made by these individuals. If
they have a
> >>>>problem with their posts, maybe they should post retractions
> >>>>explanations for their reasoning?
> >>>What makes you think these individuals have, "a problem
with their posts" ?
> >>Perhaps, because they are bitching about them? Just a thought.
> >"their" meant the authors, have not seen the authors having,
"a problem with
> >their posts" much less them bithing about their own posts.
> Actually, if you re-read everything above you will see what I meant.
> The first paragraph implies that the people who made the posts are
> complaining that their posts are webbed.
> The next sentence/paragraph questions why someone could get the
> impression that the posters of said webbed posts might have a problem
> with them being webbed.
> So....based on the context of the first paragraph against the context
> of the second paragraph, I surmised (perhaps, incorrectly) that Gerry
> is getting complaints from the people who made those posts which have
> been webbed. Futher, due to the context of the first paragraph, I
> also gathered that the people who made those posts did not take the
> chance to change the information contained therin but chose, instead,
> to complain about their being webbed.
> Then comes the second poster who questions why someone might get the
> impression that the posters of the aforementioned posts might be
> upset. All the while the answer was in the first post.
> What am I missing here. I didn't think the post or my reply was all
> that difficult.
> Would you like to try again?
I'd like to point out that I haven't complained about Gerry
webbing my posts. Beyond the purely puerile nature of the OSA
Goon page itself, the obvious and *stated* goal has been to
'googleize' the people posting, as if that were a horrible
threat. Since it's a threat made by ptsc and others before, it's
gone a bit pale.
Gerry hasn't been very good about webbing complete context
though. Nor very good about replying to his replies. I think he
owes me a couple, and I'd hope that what he *does* choose to web
will include the complete context of the threads.
WhooooOOohhh... it's holloween!
Purty scary Gerry
Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953