 |
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>
Date: 1998/10/13
Subject: Re: none
tallu...@storm.ca (tallu...@storm.ca) wrote: Yes - so? >In article <199810112220.AAA17...@replay.com>, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote: >So by using this broader definition of 'violence', could it not just as easily >be argued that *many* scientologists harbour 'violent' feelings towards >psychiatrists, Germans, tax collectors and any number of other identifiable >groups? >It seems to me that *whoever* redefined the word, whether you or Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with >someone else in the thread, is playing a semantic game that belittles the real >issue, which is the propensity for violence in individual critics *and* scns. >We have enough words for 'things that hurt my feelings' to avoid using >'violent' as a catch-all description, I believe. YMMV. words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought ;-) Trying to hurt another is a violent act - whether it is just a snide >And, if you're being objective and fair-minded, the same type of behaviour Sure. >most official scientologist spokespeople engage in, as well as the more >vociferous of publics. >Rhetoric is not action. Impassioned -- even over the top -- Yes - of course. I am not arguing that. >posts to a.r.s. No, but violent posting to ars a violent person make. I read Erlich, >do not a violent person make. then I read what's on Russ web site about him: yes it fits... Of course what's a "violent person"? People are not absolutes, >They may well be ill-advised, and they may Yes - they just are all humans. But you will never know - given the >serve to do the opposite of what the writers intend, and I will freely admit >that they quite often frustrate me a great deal. But do I think the posters >are likely to go out and commit an actual act of violence against someone? In >all but the most extreme cases - no. (And those extreme cases fall on both the >scientologist and critic side of the equation.) circumstances. Remember the (what's his name again) experiment? The one who set up a machine where people could punish others with impunity? I think that what comes out through the present kind of electronic >You live in a strange and not very pleasant world - hoho - you are quite wrong about that. I live in a very pleasant world (just thought I let you know :-) >and a world where I Hmm, no. I don't think so. At least I didn't find anything to >believe much of the most unpleasant aspects thereof are but figments of your >imagination. Critics are not, for the most part, violent. I think that has >been well demonstrated by the complete lack of violent incidents that have >arisen at pickets - both of orgs and of critics' homes, as well as by the >condemnation that is so quick to flow whenever *anyone* -- usually a >hit-and-run poster who runs a 50% chance of being an OSA instigator, or some >teenaged lout -- suggests the employment of anything but peaceful tactics. >Is Jeff Jacobsen violent? criticize on him - yet (apart for his cluelessness regarding "cults", but that's a general symptome around here and hopefully gets straighten up with time). >Rod Keller? Hmm.. Yes, sometimes. He is violent when he makes personal attacks against Diane to cover his irc lies, for example. He is violent when he reminds everyone of Keith Wyatt's alcoholism as Keith enters a chat forum. I remember his remark when Keith Wyatt said he leaves ars (one of those times): "don't let the door slam on you" (or something) - that's violent. IRL, he may even do it, and Keith may react to it, then you have a mess. That's inner violence actualized on the outside - and for no other reasons than Keith taking a stand against critics - that's violence too, even fascism and bigotry. >Deana Marie Holmes? Most of the time no - but sometimes yes. [Eh - that's fun.] >Ron Newman? No. >Lady Ada? Wazza? >Charlotte Kates? Don't know her well enough, but apparently no. >Warrior? Yes - he was pretty disgusting in his behavior with Claire Swazey, and on some other occasion too. Most of the time he behaves, though. [People, you can send me your check and I'll deliver a good review of >Indigio? That would be Inducto. The answer is no. >Old Timer? No. But she doesn't post much either + she is a freezoner (i.e. a Scientologist. Hehe...) >Stephen Jones? No. Stephen is in my protected tiny minority :-) >Efish? Yes. >Any of dozens more posters/picketers/lurkers? Sure - Roland, Dave Bird, Erlich, Zane Thomas, Martin Hunt, Rob Clark, Arnie Lerma, William Barwell, Bruce Beppy, Dominion, Ex-mudder, Tilman Haussherr, Alex (jeaux), Anti-Cult, Freiman, Gary Scarff, Graham Berry, Gregg Hagglung, Roger Gonnet, Steve Fishman, Steve Withlash, bc, sandy, Ralh Hilton, Jana Moreillon, Jim DBB, John Dorsay, Tom Klemersrud, ... These are some of the people I consider violent - and out of charity I >Am *I* violent? No :-) >>>In fact, you have done nothing more than a) arbitrarily determine that what Hmm.. >>>critics post is 'hate propaganda, >>That's my opinion. Of course it's arbitrary, like every opinion. >What makes it arbitrary, though -- or perhaps the term is 'selective' - is the Wgert, Justin, Rod Fletcher, Enzo (and I probably forget a couple) - I RonsAmigo, MikeSmith, MiKe, Wonderflur, Whippersnapper (although he Well, YMMV, of course - and sure it will. This all is very subjective. >>Hehe - isn't it? But it's all in your mind, Kady. What I say is more No :-) >>simple and straightforward than that :-) >You're saying that critics are violent, because they write 'hate propaganda' They are violent when they try to hurt others, either out of meanness, You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||