http://www.google.com/groups?selm=psvu9usekgbg811bunuuivk2pg7t373q3a%
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: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:54:43 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 138
Message-ID: <psvu9usekgbg811bunuuivk2pg7t373q3a@4ax.com>
References: <3c9ea1c0@news2.lightlink.com> <
288bddc25858b9c3d05e75566b1b9c6e@remailer.segfault.net>
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: 25 Mar 2002 14:58:01 -0500, 216.232.125.58
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 19:10:13 +0100 (CET), jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy
Cross) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:06:39 -0600, "Fluffygirl" <
amafluffygirl@yahoo.com>
>wrote in msg <3c9ea1c0@news2.lightlink.com>:
>
>>"Jommy Cross" <jommycross@[127.1]> wrote in message
>>news:ad042ff461c3f298994945519bffe43f@remailer.segfault.net...
>>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:27:32 -0600, "Fluffygirl" <
amafluffygirl@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote in msg <3c9e1a0a@news2.lightlink.com>:
<snip>
>>> >However, you also do not afflict your -ahem!- charms on the
other
non
CofS
>>> >Scientologists whose posts also grace this ng.
>>> >
>>> >People like Cerridwen, basicbasic, C of A, Ralph Hilton.
>>> >
>>> >Or, if you do, it's far more sparing and far less hysterical
than your
>>> >communications to/about me which affli- oops, I mean- grace -
the
bandwidth
>>> >of this ng.
>>>
>>> Yeah, we're getting somewhere. Why *is* that, Fluff?
>>
>>I really don't know.
>>
>>What I DO know is that I have asked this question at least 5 times in
the
>>past week and no one has answered.
>>
>>So much for giving people reason or whatever that was...
>
>See below.
>
>>
>>Heh!
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >This, too, is indicative of a double standard or at the very
least of
undue
>>> >emphasis.
>>>
>>> I can think of a simpler explanation.
>>>
>
>So *don't* ask what the simpler explanation is.
>
>I'll tell you anyway: you were the 9th most prolific poster on this ng
last
>week according to <arscc250302@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>.
basicbasic
>was 59th. Cerridwen was 69th. Ralph and CofA do not appear in the listing.
>
>I'm *not* saying you should post less, I'm pointing out that posting an
>order of magnitude more messages than some people then calling a double
>standard because they don't get the volume of replies you do is a bit
rich.
>
><snip>
>>> But he was doing so *well* in the other message. You could just
keep
>>> talking to him.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait, you did.
>>
>>No, I've plonked him. I've not written anything to him in any way, any
>>place, since I did that.
Hee, hee. You mean, Claire, you're only one who cannot read my posts.
Oh, what am I saying, Sten-Arne can't either. Presumably then everyone
else on a.r.s. most definitely wants to read my posts. You can't read
what everyone else is reading. Drives you nuts doesn't it.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>>
>>What part of that do you not understand?
>
>You're right: I take that back. I was fooled by threading (see below).
>
>I still think you'd be better off talking to him, even if he has some
crazy
>ideas (he thinks Dorian's kewl, frinstance). Ultimately, post-Hubbardists
>are going to have to deal with some of the criticisms he raises.
>
><snip>
>>Gee, how come some critics can't see that people are free to change
their
>>minds? And here I thought this rigidity was the sole province of
cultists.
>>Heh!
>>
>>(Does "Jommy" think that once I do or have something that it
stays that way
>>forever, in a sort of earth-bound limbo? Wow. That would be soooo
boring!
>>Ewwwwww!)
>
>Yeah, I agree that would be boring. How often people change their minds
and
>under what circumstances can be interesting, though.
>
>In <3c9ded2a@news2.lightlink.com> Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:13:24 -0600
you're
>>Well, Gerry, you are doing better. You were somewhat civil with this
one.
>>Very nice.
>
>and by <3c9e1a0a@news2.lightlink.com> Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:27:32 -
0600
>you're
>> **plonk**
>
>Guess he wasn't civil enough in that three hours, huh? I didn't detect any
>major change, but you probably read his messages in a different order.
>
><snip>
>>A DOUBLE STANDARD FOR SCN'ISTS THAN FOR CRITICS?
>>
>>No, couldn't be. Just never happen on this ng. Not in all a million
years.
>>
>>All those posts must just be my imagination.
>>
>>Like this one surely must be...
>>
>>Nobody could possibly write such a thing...
>
>I've disagreed with numerous other critics. As you pointed out in
><3c980c1d@news2.lightlink.com> 'Critics argue among themselves'.
>
>So *where* is this 'double standard'?
>
>>
>><snicker>
>>
>>Oh....and...
>>
>>*plonk*
>
>I hope that made you feel better. That I think this 'Hubbard communication
>tech' sucks doesn't mean I think everyone else in the world communicates
>perfectly. Even-handed enough?
>
>Ever yours in fandom,
>Jommy Cross
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
>before you hallucinate
>--------------------------------------------------