From: Zinj <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:14:11 -0800
References: <hIEmb.95150$sp2.44283@lakeread04> <email@example.com>
<firstname.lastname@example.org> <3F9D864B.email@example.com> <Xns9421ABE6DAFC4kadywwwaifnet@22.214.171.124>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
X-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 13:07:44 -0500, 126.96.36.199
X-Original-Trace: 2 Nov 2003 13:07:44 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654162
In article <3FA532DC.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Sarcasm is a tool to discredit. You use it all the time. Lots of
> people use it, but the difference is the indoctrinated scientologist
> uses it to discredit the individual critising scientology to keep the
> topic away from the real issues that she/he cannot answer regarding
> I am not here to beat you at a game, Kady. I made one simple
> observation, based on my first hand experience in dealing with
> scientology and its teachings (programming) for many years. You can't
> seem to accept that without being triggered into an attack mode.
> Why do you even bother responding to me if what you write about me you
> really believe?
I think you're missing the point of what sarcasm *really* is,
while being distracted by what you consider it's goal.
Sarcasm is a form of short-cirtuited reply to an argument used
as rhetorical judo.
When faced with a spurious (or possibly only contrary) position
or argument, one *could* take the time to analyse it, and in
reply, deconstruct or refute it item by item.
Sometimes an argument is so spurious, confused or even
deliberately misleading, or the person refuting it is so mean
and nasty and sarcastic that sarcasm serves as a shortened form
Case in point; actually analysing Gerry's confabulated and
obfuscated 'justification' for his claims that he shouldn't be
criticized, while simultaneously claiming that he's not claiming
that reveals that all the bluster and sleight of type merely
serves to disguise a very simple argument, which I managed to
isolate, and dealt with in a different thread.
First I needed to extract the active ingredient of his
logorrhea, while stripping away the superfluous yet distracting
Gerry - 'Therefore, actions that "depopularize the enemy," among
whose numbers I do include myself, serve the cult's malevolent
purposes toward its "enemy," regardless of whether the
depopularizers doing the depopularizing are Scientologists in
good standing, whether they are doing their depopularizing as
"part of an OSA operation," or whether they are even aware that
in their depopularizing of the "enemy" they are serving the
My reply was only to this *actual* element of his position,
rather than taking the time to deal item by item with the
deliberately distracting elements:
Zinj - 'And here we have it kiddies; the 'core' of Gerry's
Not only 'criticizing' him is de facto 'OSA Action', making
anyone rash enough to 'criticize' him a de facto OSA Agent, OSA
Operator, or, to be generous, an OSA Dupe.
No, even *not liking* Gerry qualifies if you express it, since
'depopularizing' begins with *you*. You say you don't like
Gerry? OSA wants to 'depopularize' Gerry. No question about
that! You don't 'like' Gerry? You are at the very least an OSA
Dupe. Implicit in *saying* that you don't like Gerry publicly is
that it may 'depopularize' him with others.
This goes from being duped to becomming an active OSA Op. Actual
*criticism* beyond just 'not liking' is even worse of course.
You could even still *like* him, but if you 'criticize' him, it
might 'depopularize' him with others.
Now it all makes sense.'
This is sarcasm in the sense that I don't bother to *refute*
what I understand as Gerry's position, but just strip it of its
deliberately camoflaging elements, and present it naked, in the
sincere hope that seen bluntly its ludicrous nature will be
obvious to the point of making refuting it superfluous.
Reductio ad absurdam is *always* sarcasm.
Ironic on the other hand is that Kady and her own dogpile are
exactly as allergic to criticism as Gerry and his.
By the way though, I'll have to agree with Kady that sarcasm is
one rhetorical skill Scientologists and ex-Scientologists don't
show any particular competency with. Much more common, in fact
almost universal, is changing the subject, distraction, and
spurious logic/claims, especially when combined with 'talking
over' the person they're hoping to overwhelm, preventing any
answer, reply or even analysis. That particular bit of tech
doesn't work very well in 'written' forums like ARS, but it
doesn't mean they don't try.
Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953