<d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <3402783c.6123...@snews.zippo.com>, >"Rev. Dennis Erlich" <inF...@super.zippo.com> writes: >>>I doubt that I said I was never coming back. That appears to be yet >>>another of Dennis's inventions.
>> Lie. In her FOAD e-mail to me she said (and I paraphrase):
>> "I won't be posting to ars any more. [...] I don't want to turn >>into an insulting, foul, closed-minded, intolerant bigot
>Well, you were right Diane: >if you came back you would become that. >Now you have come back, you are that.
>Won't you please go away again? Please?? Pretty Please???
>>>> OK. I told some people on IRC that I was going to toss my papers in >>>> the dumpster. I've done that for the great bulk of what I collected. >>>> I did so because I have moved from a rather large residence to a very >>>> small Manhattan apartment. I simply do not have the space I once had.
>>>oh goodie. now could you tell the general audience the reason you gave for >>>doing that?
>>Sorry, Elizabeth, I can no more tolerate your mindless babbling on >>a.r.s. than I can on IRC. If you are capable of expressing yourself >>directly without playing these foolish games (do you really think what >>you write is funny?), I'll discuss it with you
>Why don't you answer the fucking question, Diane.
I did answer the question, Dave, long before Elizabeth Fischer posted this message.
>You are just getting >yourself all of a twitter so you can refuse to answer things >inconvenient to you, and it is totally transparent you are doing so.
I haven't refused to answer the question. I already answered it.
>Last time, i recall, <guffaw> it was because there were some >capital letters in the question. So, Diane, did you answer it >when I reposted it for you in lowercase?
I don't recall the message, Dave. Would you care to repost it?
>It won't take long to build up an unanswered questions file >at this rate, will it.....
Keep at it, Dave. Unfortunately for you, I answered Elizabeth's question already. It will be easy enough for me to build up an answers to questions file, Dave. Then we can automatically post the two files on a regular basis and make the newsgroup even more useless.
Won't that be fun?
Sooner or later you're going to realize that your efforts to force me off this newsgroup are futile. As much as you don't like what I write, you are not going to prevent me from posting when and where I see fit.
Learn to live with it, Dave. That's the way the civilized world works.
In article <B01F356E966848...@0.0.0.0>, n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
McDermott) wrote: > In article <ef-1808970945280...@news.portal.ca>, > e...@address.at.bottom (ef) wrote: > But if you are still talking about your socializing on IRC, > as opposed to something significant here, then do me a favour > and take your face for a shit instead.
mr. mcdermott... mr. mcdermott... you sure do remind me of an irate chihuahua... running around, yip yip yipping, nipping at issues' heels as they pass by...
down, boy! down!
ya pesky little thing... and don't pee in yr waterbowl again!
>>see, many of us are a tad upset at some of them there ahm... fibs that you >>keep amusing yourself with.
>So document them. If Diane's a liar, cite the posts and show us >your refutation.
>But if you are still talking about your socializing on IRC, >as opposed to something significant here, then do me a favour >and take your face for a shit instead.
Thought it was Diane that brought up "socializing on IRC"? And why should anyone "do you a favour"? Are you the one that decides what is and is not significant; by the content of your posts one would hope not.
jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com> writes: >Another point that I find really stubborn about you is how you are always >on the side of the cult and the anticultists are "worse" than the cults. > You know, you and others have opened my eyes up to the faults and >failings of some of the anticultists. I've learned that nothing is truly >black or white. But you won't budge from this stance even in the wake of >overwhelming requests of you to answer how many anti cultists have
>1. Killed their followers >2. Killed their critics >3. Planned to overthrow the government >4. Planned mass destruction
Drowned people's dogs......
>etc, etc, etc,
>You are comparing apples and oranges, but won't admit that. I think the >Jonestown/Can threads were the final straw.
Yes, but my reaction was not he was "hardheaded". I felt that, as an apologist for murderers (not manslaughter in this case), he revolted me to the depths of my being and I wanted to vomit over him to show my total disgust. But then perhaps I'm seeing things too much in black & white.
-oOo-
By the way, Spoons, what is it that Dennis PREVIOUSLY DID which was calculated -- had it succeeded -- to silence you?
Diane Richardson <refe...@bway.net> writes: >I grew exasperated with his increasingly hostile tone towards those >who did not share his views. Rather than being willing to discuss >differences of opinion, Dennis becomes very aggressive and takes any >disagreement as a personal affront.
And you don't?
>I was tired of watching him >insult and belittle people who were doing nothing more than offering >an opinion that did not agree 100 percent with his own.
And you don't? In psychiatric terms this is called "projection"; in everyday talk, P-K-B.
BTW, Diane, why i it you come up with lame objections to people's messages when it is inconvenient for you to answer the substance? You objected to the capitalisation of one of Pam's articles (but I notice you didn't answer it when I rewrote it in lower case for you). And you more or less told efish she was "acting like a silly woman."
Hmm. Talking of gender bias, is it always or more often other women you feel you can put down and ignore in this way?
/; ;\ -- Regards, __ \\____// XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner <d...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <u...@sunyit.edu>) _____________________________/ :--' ____________________ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ] \___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___] `====' "So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Diane Richardson <refe...@bway.net> writes: >>Mind you, I also recollect >>that you were one of those who actually supported Dennis in his action....
>Yep. It was rather half-hearted support, but it was support. I >remember posting "While I do not support Dennis's actions. . . ." and >then proceeding to find excuses for his behavior.
sorta like his for you until recently....?
>Rob Clark and others stood fully behind Dennis -- "I do not condemn >Dennis; I condemn Margaret," that sort of bullshit. Moderates, such >as Kevin, were not quite so willing to defend Dennis's actions.
I don't recall exactly what I said, but I usually regard outing by anyone as a very aggressive act which takes a lot of justifying and wasn't justified in this case.
seaorg <sea...@super.zippo.com> writes: >I also remember you and a few others objecting to this; in spite of the >fact that we might not have agreed with Margaret's posts. It always seems that >in these flamewars, the usual people line up on the usual sides and, usually, >deny it is due to any personal bias.
With some exceptions. Remember it was Dennis and a whole bunch of Diane groupies in the "FishHunt" (Fishman is OSA and anyone who denies it is OSA too...); now Dennis is on the opposite side to Diane. The "mutts" -practical people -- have largely stayed out of it, but are getting dragged in now. Etc.
|~/ |~/ ~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~ P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:35:11 +0100, n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
McDermott) wrote: >Witness Zane's recent example. He takes a shot at her, but as he >finds nothing he can beat her up over in her argument, he starts >whining about her remarks - despite the fact that she'd passed over >remarks of a similar tone that he'd made several times in the >course of the thread.
What complete and utter crap!
I didn't "take a shot at her", but when I found her argument weak I pressed her on it and she admitted her mistake. At that momement I sez to myself "Hmmm, hope someone else is reading this thread. I just disproved one of the myths about Diane, she can admit making a mistake."
But shortly thereafter she went nutz, accused me of trolling, lack of sincerity, etc. And then there's yesterday (gawd Peter do you read the threads you talk about or do you just make things up?). She made a peace-overture which I immediately took her up on. I posted the "Faith And Belief" thread in response, left what I thought was a pretty good rebuttal of her view that faith exists without belief, and bing, bing, bing, all of a sudden she's pissed and not talking to me again.
Go read the fucking threads Peter before you start talking about me again, ok?
zane@die_spammers.mabry.com
Obey little, resist much.
And for you automated email spammers out there, here's the email addresses of the current board of the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov Commissioner James Quello: jque...@fcc.gov Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:
jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote: >As someone who does find you, well not so obnoxious as hard-headed, I >find your views unyielding to the point of absurdity in how far you will >go to defend your stance. Your mind is never, never swayed by >intelligent debate. It's the same story, day in, day out. I sit here >and read studied, thoughtful, comprehensive and intelligent rebuttals to >your posts, yet you never, never, never say - "Hey - you're right, I >never looked at it like that," or even something like "You could be >right, but I just can't get over my prejudice."
For what it's worth, I hate Scientology with a vengeance. I think it's a corrupt and totalitarian organization that preys on the weak and innocent.
However, I have to say that I've not seen many 'thoughtful, comprehensive or intelligent' rebuttals of Bernie's posts yet. I've seen people putting different viewpoints forward, but that doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
>Another point that I find really stubborn about you is how you are always >on the side of the cult and the anticultists are "worse" than the cults.
I'm not sure that Bernie *is* on the side of the cult or not, as yet. My readings of his posts so far, suggest that he's attempting to be even-handed. It seems to me that he's one of what must be thousands of Scientologists who left the cult and who *don't* feel damaged by the experience, and while that's not a point of view that's represented very often here, it's certainly one that I find of interest.
My feeling is that many people dislike Bernie because he highlights contradictions and hypocracy that people would prefer to ignore.
Diane Richardson (refe...@bway.net) wrote: > You're welcome. Do you now acknowledge that the CoS never sent a bomb > threat to Henry Kissinger in Paulette Cooper's name?
But the CoS forged a bomb threat on paper with Paulette Cooper's fingerprints on it and sent it to themselves.
And yes, this event was *not* part of "Operation Freakout". It occured in 1972, and Cooper was indicted in 1973.
> From my own research, it is quite apparent that Paulette Cooper was > the subject of a vicious coordinated campaign of harrassment, > orchestrated by CoS leadership. That campaign, however, did not > extend for decades without end, as is commonly asserted here on a.r.s.
I don't believe that it "is commonly asserted" that Cooper was harassed "for decades". I believe that most a.r.s. readers believe that Cooper was harassed for quite a long time without extending this "for decades". And, in fact, according to Keith Spurgeon's timeline Paulette was first sued by the CoS in 1970. In 1971, "The Scandal of Scientology" was published. In 1972, Cooper sued the CoS for damages, and it would be interesting to see what the CoS was then accused for. (Maybe someone can have a look? It's Paulette Cooper vs. Church of Scientology of New York, et al., Supreme Court of State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 6732/72.) The settlement came at the end of 1976. Therefore, we have seven years of harassment by the CoS, which, IMO, is "quite a long time".
From Keith Spurgeon's timeline it is not exactly clear why the CoS began to sue Paulette again in 1978, following a report by the Washington Post that the 1972 lawsuit was still pending. In 1980, Cooper made the contract with Bast which lead to the infamous tapes. The 1972 lawsuit is decided in 1982, against Cooper and after appeal dismissed. In 1985, Cooper settles with the CoS a second time and later files the affidavit against Michael Flynn (http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/aff/aff_pc85.html).
While Keith's timeline doesn't mention harassment of Paulette by the CoS during this second period, it appears that she was again harassed from an affidavit she swore in 1981 (http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/aff/aff_pc81a.html). This time, the CoS didn't try to indict her with forged bomb threats, that's true. However, IMO the Bast incident is an example of harassment - if I look for an investigator, I am not expecting it to be working for the opposing party.
--Cornelius.
-- /* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */ /* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: phak...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */ /* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
