-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>refe
...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
bc:
>>Well, blessed be my illustrious newsfeed, I haven't seen Diane's
>>post yet, but I'll respond to this. The point I was making (which
>>you conveniently snipped, Diane)
diane:
>I did not snip it, bc. Since you haven't seen my post, I guess
you're
>just assuming the worst of me.
Mea culpa, and sincere apologies. Concentric's newsfeed (our motto:
"computing in ever-decreasing circles!") is creating an enormous
vacuum these days. I saw only what Peter included in his response.
If your original doesn't show up soon, I'll go over to Deja News and
find it.
>>was that I never said I didn't
>>believe Bernie listened to me. I just don't believe it mattered
one
>>damn bit what I said. I fully well expect my assertions to be
>>questioned and discussed if they are worthy of such treatment (or
>>any treatment at all, for that matter)--but I don't expect to be
>>told repeatedly that I basically did not experience what I know
damn
>>good and well I experienced.
>In my reply which you have not seen, I asked you to describe what
it
>is you experienced that Bernie insisted you hadn't experienced.
>If you see this reply, would you please address this?
I have addressed this in a different post on the thread "Diane-Mind
Control", but in essence, the experience was cult mind control.
>>That's a completely different
>>ballgame. The "semantic pummeling" I referred to was that of
>>telling me, in essence, that I did not experience what I
>>experienced. That I didn't know what I was talking about. Excuse
>>me, but I tend to take offense when someone who doesn't know me
from
>>Adam tells me what I do and don't know.
>What did Bernie claim you didn't know? That's my question to you.
What Bernie claimed was that I didn't experience mind control. I
claimed that I did. Bernie then informs me that I am a "member" of
the "anti-cult cult". In beautiful Midwest America, we have a word
for this. We call it "bullshit."
>>Once again, I have obviously failed to make my point clear. Looks
>>like I'm gonna have to go back to monosyllables again. Let's
>>see..._I_don't_like_being_lied_to_. How's that? (Sorry, one word
>>in there had two syllables. Best I could do.)
>What did Bernie lie about to you?
See above.
>>>>The opportunity to analyze long-held opinions, defend those
>>opinions
>>>>in debate, and ultimately alter those opinions, reassess those
>>>>opinions, or reaffirm them, is a great learning experience for
me.
>>>>It's one of the things that has kept me from wallowing in the
same
>>rut
>>>>for a lifetime. It's my opportunity to learn and grow wiser.
>>Absolutely! I firmly believe that that is one of the prime
>>functions of Usenet (not to mention language in general). But do
>>you analyze your opinions when you are flat-out told that they are
>>non-existent? Or do you respond in a somewhat different fashion?
>>- From what I've seen recently, Diane, I'd really be hard-pressed
to
>>cite any evidence of calm, cool, rational analysis of opinions on
>>your part.
>Well, you haven't seen my last reply to you. :-)
*bc bashes his head against the keyboard and apologizes profusely to
the world
<bc>n,opkl;jqfwgv4
<bc>ouch...
[editor's note: the preceding is NOT a log of an actual IRC
session. it's just this asshole bc screwing around again. dress
him up, we can't take him anywhere...]
>I think I've engaged in plenty of cool, rational analysis. I also
>admit that I get irritated enough to flame those who attack me
>personally. Does the fact that I've reacted like a normal human
being
>on occasion somehow erase the more even-toned messages I've
written?
Hell, no! I personally find cool, rational analysis, while
immensely important, to get rather boring after a while. That's why
I like to throw the occasional joke in a post--to lighten things up
a bit. We don't always have to be so goddamn sepulchral around
here. IMHO, a little Joking and Degrading is a good thing (tm)!
We're all "normal" human beings (I think that the term "normal"
almost always belongs in quotes--sorry, nasty habit of mine).
"Prick us, do we not bleed?"
>I find this odd since one of the ongoing complaints about me is
that
>I write like an unemotional robot, don't express emotions on the
>newsgroup, etc. When I *do* express emotions, I'm criticized; when
I
>*don't* express emotions I'm criticized. Isn't that odd?
Diane, when did I ever accuse you of writing like "an unemotional
robot"? We're not doing the Comm Course now. Nobody's gonna say
"FLUNK for having a good time. Begin!" in their best tone 40. At
least I'm not going to.
Expressing emotions is one of the main reasons language was
developed. (At least it seems logical to me.) And it seems to me
that just about everyone around here gets criticized for one thing
or another. This is usenet.
>>If someone were to present you here and now with hard scientific
>>proof that mind control exists and is used by $cientology, would
you
>>alter your opinion on it? [editor's note: this is a PURELY
>>HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. godz forbid that this idiot should imply
>>the existence of the dreaded, maligned *mind*control*] I find
that
>>rather hard to imagine. But that's just my opinion. That and 50
>>cents will get you a cup of coffee (if you're not too picky about
>>your coffee, that is).
>Sure I would. Why wouldn't I? I'm a little perplexed at your
>assumption that I wouldn't. The issue of "cult mind control" isn't
>any sort of deeply held, religiously observed matter of faith to
me.
>I just posted what I had read about the subject.
I'm not going to trot out statistics--but there was a SHITLOAD of
posts from you for something that is such a minor concern of yours.
I've read on the subject, too. I've experienced the subject. I
believe it exists. Several other folks do, too. We have jointly
and severally been accused of being "anti-cult cultists", attempting
to "cop-out" because mind control is "an excuse to not take
responsibility for our actions", and of believing anything Margaret
Singer has to say, just because she and that damn Lofton (or
whatever TF his name is) said it. Among other various and sundry
nasty things. (This is not all directed at you, Diane--the subject
is a wide one.) And hey, that's what happens on Usenet. Like I
said before, I'm used to people disagreeing with me--I'm a bass
player.
It's just that in all the time I have been posting here, and in all
the time I lurked before I started posting, I have never seen such a
level of pure malice as I've seen recently. I firmly believe that
this serves the purposes of the cult of $cientology--the purpose of
preventing effective criticism of the cult.
*bc jumps off the soapbox, spraining his ankle on the way down
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNBCGo6n8flYc1m/ZAQFFcgf7BJVdTdUPbpDTXSWgV7ujdqMvXRnWnr84
kBYQifilTV1DBPyUKKq8pYTY2Uteobe4/1qOIRufq7W/LJ9mneeQRR6916kCIDky
Kj2cA+0Z7cu2tnAlCQAXAkxip1Fsf6x15qOiGiTXAHuwVrHs8eQKF/XN/K6qTRjR
CiQNBWpEP42hS+9/c9B+cPebGQ6lHh5ObP+O9jzXVXa3YUEEKua1Ei7W52WxdZMx
o1Dby53yO8zLHvIkxJhcZDYqlOTed3h0ZyYvXkVtfaDOe+V6fgkgLe8eAE73MLX0
sJ8ay4lwQ8Dk8vOj9LjAc5+ur+3HpW0hPa8pBeX1QXdYujvpDsi/1Q==
=nSZ2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------
"There's a lone soldier on the course, smoke pouring out of a boxcar door
You didn't know it, you didn't think it could be done, in the final end he won the war
After losing every battle..."
-Bob Dylan
the above e-mail address remains fictional...the real one remains
bc9...@concentric.net
*SP2*
...bc...
