http://www.google.com/groups?selm=g22r9uk42et4spsgs0os7b92v49446sajp%
404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: McPherson litigation.TR-3ing Claire (was:
Disgusted)
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:20:10 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <g22r9uk42et4spsgs0os7b92v49446sajp@4ax.com>
References: <prjl9usl7o91mgtjpb9htafe6ko0q5b9fr@4ax.com> <3c9b3b44
@news2.lightlink.com>
<t9Im8.4360$oi.240181@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<MPG.1704f17226431e859897e4@news2.lightlink.com>
<HEJm8.4690$oi.253536@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<MPG.170514e8eaae042a9897ec@news2.lightlink.com>
<upMm8.4992$oi.276588@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<MPG.17053955855ab6ad9897f7@news2.lightlink.com>
<a7g9ub01j5a@drn.newsguy.com> <3c9bdf43@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
X-Original-Trace: 24 Mar 2002 03:23:27 -0500, 216.232.125.58
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:38:29 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Warrior" <warrior@entheta.net> wrote in message
>news:a7g9ub01j5a@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >In article
<upMm8.4992$oi.276588@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> >poopsy_charmicheal@yahoo.com says...
>> >>
>> >> Regarding the "call to authority" - I said that I
had observed her do
that,
>> >> too. I have observed her deny reason by completely ignoring
the point
of my
>> >> posts and going off on sub-points and minutia and never
returning
to
the
>> >> point. I don't say that she does this because Gerry says she
does this.
I
>> >> say she does this because I have myself observed her do
this.
This
isn't a
>> >> call to authority.
>> >>
>> >> When one avoids the point completely, and goes off onto sub-
points
and
>> >> minutia - that is denying reason.
>> >>
>> >> Asking Claire why she does it is a very good question,
because
she does
do
>> >> it.
>>
>> I agree. She went on about "netiquette" to me, and she
called
Gerry
>> names and insulted him rather than answer questions regarding
statements
>> she made on her lack of perception of OSA's involvement in Lisa's
death.
>> She is, of course, free to do these things, just as I am free to
comment
>> as I see fit.
>
>I did not call Gerry any names.
>
>I did invite him to pull his head out of his ass, however.
>
>And I did discuss his response to what I wrote specifically about the
>possible OSA involvement in that same response.
>
>He was rude to me. I was rude back.
>
>This is how it's done.
No that's not how it's done. That's a sociopath's philosophy for how
it's done, but that is not really how it's done as you imply it's
being done.
>
>I was polite to you and you were at first polite, then you were rude.
No. Because you have this "if you're rude to me I'll get you back and
worse" philosophy, you go out looking for opportunities to practice
it. You misinterpret reason as rudeness just so you can assault the
reasoner with worse than rudeness, with unreason, with fair game, and
with cruelty. That's an inferior "tech."
>
>Personally, I think a few of you are employing different standards for
>Scn'ists than for non Scn'ists posting here.
Nuts. Your communication skills are inspected and dissected because
they're what's being flogged to wogs (R). This is not alt.religion.wog
(R). You're a product of Scientology, and the part of the product we
wogs (R) see here on a.r.s. is your communication "tech" and your
reason. Sure there's a different standard for Scientologists, but not
the nutty different standard you're postulating for us wogs (R) here.
Your group sells its "tech" for a thousand bucks an hour. No wogs
(R)
here are flogging such "tech. You bet you're observed and critiqued as
a product of Scientology, and your communication "tech" evaluated as
Scientology communication "tech," since you are obviously applying
Scientology "tech" when you communicate.
>
>I've seen this before. With you and with a few others.
Sure, but this "observation" is worthless for any reasoned
conclusion.
You consistently omit from your observations and "reason" the
overarching truth that Scientology and Scientologists are at war with
wogs and the war is unjustified and insane. When you acknowledge this
truth, you can't help but see that the wogs' (R) "different
standards"
you've been employing to occlude the truth of the war are not much of
a big deal after all.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>C
>
>
>