From: Zinj <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Yo Gerry ! Re Hate pages, unmerited lies
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:39:30 -0800
References: <Xns942AE1F758856notemailthnx@22.214.171.124> <GYEM1O0D37930.email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
X-Trace: 7 Nov 2003 20:38:21 -0500, 126.96.36.199
X-Original-Trace: 7 Nov 2003 20:38:21 -0500, 188.8.131.52
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1655744
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, me@manual-
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:55:16 +0100, Gerry Armstrong
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >It really is no wonder that the Miscavige regime -- RTC, OSA, and all
> >their lawyers, agents, assigns, and goons -- so totally hate the GOoN
> >sQUaD FOLLIES Page. It patiently parries the cult's malevolent purpose
> >of depopularizing its enemies to the point of total obliteration.
> If the Miscavige regime still cares to harass you in court, they
> *love* your __O_ S__A_ _______ Page. It hurts your credibility and
> makes you look like a kook.
> >No, I have webbed the entirety of the messages. It's really quite
> If you had webbed the messages without the blinking __O_ S__A_
> _______ marquee, which implies work in conjunction with
> Scientology[tm]'s dirty tricks operation whether you care to admit it
> or not, there would have been either no outcry or a much smaller one.
> >As I've said many times, I need the page as it exists for my legal
> >defenses and for the prosecution of offensive actions.
> I'm amazed at how little you know about the law. There is no
> evidentiary value gained from webbing those posts and your doing so
> opens you up to questions that attack your own credibility.
> >You're right that you don't have to go to the page. And really to
> >grasp the whole picture you'd have to read the totality of the posts
> >because together they form the picture of what's going on. It truly is
> >a massive effort, in no conceivable way just some random flames made
> >in the heat of the moment as has been suggested.
> Ok, you *clearly* don't understand how flaming on USENET works.
> Alt.religion.scientology is amazingly *light* on flaming for an
> unmoderated newsgroup of its size. The amount of effort that has gone
> into some random flames on more vitriolic newsgroups dwarfs the
> relatively mild criticism you've received here.
> >But when closely examined, what is happening is simply an effort to
> >stop my free speech.
> You also don't seem to understand free speech. Being criticized for
> your web pages in a forum where you can reply uncensored at in any
> manner you choose (or ignore the criticism entirely and without
> consequence) does not in any way abridge your ability to speak.
> >There is no doubt, however, that someone who says, "Take down that
> >page," wants to stop my free speech, and wants to reduce my ability
> >defend my reputation and person by reducing my free speech options.
> I say, "Take down that page, it makes you look like a kook and you're
> better off without it."
> (and I do say that.)
> How, exactly, have I reduced your free speech options?
As far as I can comprehend the 'theory' behind this, you have
reduced his free speech options by 'depopularizing' him, hense
robbing him of the adoring audience he deserves by merit of
being a (self) certified 'Certain Enemy of Scientology' as
opposed to all the 'fake' critics.
It's some kind of weird evolution from 'effective critic' over
'totally effective critic' to 'legitimate activist' for the
species of 'Taboo Critics' who may not be questioned, criticized
or god help us, ridiculed.
Keep your eyes open for the 'Annointed and Federally Certified
Scientology Critics' coming soon to a straight-jacket near you.
Personally, I couldn't care less about his silly OSA Follies
page, and I said so when he first put it up, and had the
pleasure of receiving my first dose of Gerryite amonishment cum
rhetorical pick up stick logic.
What *I* would wish is that not only Gerry, but all those
suffering from the delusion that 'untouchability' is a
perquisite deserved by those who have demonstrated 'value' as a
critic would realize that demonstrated 'value' as a critic is
not equivalent to a 'get out of jail free' card for any other
pile of steaming blithering nonsense they care to grace us with.
This goes not only for Gerry, but also for some of the loudest
whiners about his stupid page, who also seem to suffer from the
same kind of narcissistic and self-congratulatory delusions.
Fact: A valuable contributor in one arena can be a horrible
embarassment in another, and no amount of solidarity can turn a
sow's ear into a silk purse. Period.
If Gerry comprehended *that* truth, then he himself would take
down his stupid page, while blushing. Those supporting him are
*not* helping him (beyond helping him dig himself in deeper in
the crap, while they come along for the ride)
Criticism is a good thing.
Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953