On Sat, 30 May 1998 21:52:48 -0600, , Wolf <wolft...@micron.net>
wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 May 1998 01:21:30 -0600, , Wolf <wolft
...@micron.net> wrote:
>> >I noticed that a long time ago. Now if I just just figure out how the
>> >hell to flatter Dave Bird......
>> Tell him he is a "poet", that he is *not* nuts, that he is very effective
>> in countering Scn, that he has a nice doggy, and that he looks absolutely
>> gorgeous in his suit of ping pong balls. That should do the trick. Of
>> course, none of the above is true, but that isn't the point of flattery, is
>> it?
>I dunno Bernie, I already told Dave he has a great beard and a cute
>doggie. He still yells at me and uses curse words.
A perfect candidate for twitfiling, quietly and without sorrow
;-)
>You think it's
>something I did or is he just angry at his mother?
I think Dave deeply feels for the "cause" he is defending and
views any critic who doesn't share his obfuscation for what he
*thinks* Scientology is (a "bunch of extortionate killers"), but who
uses a reasonable, more realist and compassionate approach, as "trying
to obscure the reality of manslaughter". In other word, he is a
cultist, an extremist for whom the means justify the end, and for whom
any critic successfully pointing out to failings on the critic side
(yourself, Diane Richardson, Judy Stein, my humble self) are dangerous
(and/or insane):
===============================================
Message-ID: <USdBaHAfOXj0EwDm@xemu.demon.co.uk>
I have rather less respect for Diane Richardson and Bernie (Gabor
Barna) as apologists for that cause. [...] These, too (sic), could do
real damage and deserve to be met with hostility and derision.
===============================================
(I leave my supposedly real name in to show one of the tactics he uses
in common with the CoS).
He is dead frighten of open and free communication with those who
don't toe the invisible party line, and both he and his side-kick
Rashleigh-double-barrel have openly advised disconnection with them:
===============================================
<33EF9DA8.7...@netcomuk.co.uk>
It is my belief that Bernie is mentally ill. In a sense he is worse
than Koos. [...] It would be better not to communicate with this
person.
<33EC3BD4.5...@netcomuk.co.uk>
Be aware of the dangers of communication with someone like Diane
Richardson. [...] Better still, *plonk* the bitch.
===============================================
Between the two of them, they managed to display many of the
qualities for which they excoriate the scientologists, this includes
using private information against dissidents and trying to drown their
voice in noise:
===============================================
<$ytLSLBE2Hl0E...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
Paper Tiger:
> You know what? I've really little idea of what Diane DID have to
> say, because whatever it was got drowned out in flame wars
Dave Bird:
Then you fell for my (openly stated) strategy. Tell people it's a load
of crap and they should killfile her, all you get is arguments who are
you to say that. Pile in and oppose her hard generating a lot of
noise, people killfile the noise. Obviously it worked.
===============================================
You get the picture...
Nobody else better fulfil the definition of a bigot:
===============================================
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as
unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or
differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a
person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as
in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own
church, party, belief, or opinion.
===============================================
Finally, I always found that the following excerpt, dug out by
Diane, gave the best explanation for the behavior of this type of
"critic":
===============================================
Message-ID: <51lagh$...@clark.zippo.com>
The book is _Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend_, by
Jeffrey S. Victor (Open Court, 1993). He writes:
People who are activists in moral crusades tend to be
impatient with skeptics and often intolerant toward outright critics.
They often regard the expression of skepticism by critics as
equivalent to giving aid and comfort to the evil they are fighting.
When moral crusaders and their opponents hold very different ways of
framing the problem, discourse between them is likely to be nearly
impossible. Because they don't share the same frame of reference,
their discourse easily degenerates into a kind of dialogue of the
deaf. Miscommunication and misunderstanding can be expected as
skeptics and believers attribute ulterior motives to each other.
===============================================
Bernie
--
If you really mean to reform Scn and it's mngmnt
you won't accomplish it with charges of brainwashing,
fools and a dead man's ego (Wolf)
