Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tom Padgett revisited
From: "kady@wwwaif.net" <kady@wwwaif.net>
References: <92f243a5fb292ff53c3a53828ca4b656@paranoici.org> <Xns942378A256874kadywwwaifnet@205.232.34.12>
<vq11i5kvesjj21@corp.supernews.com> <Xns9423E642BE4F7kadywwwaifnet@205.232.34.12>
<vq76vhoeha4494@corp.supernews.com> <Xns942661EB26434kadywwwaifnet@205.232.34.12>
<vqbjvso6v7ecca@corp.supernews.com> <3FA65993.6050208@rochester.rr.com>
Message-ID: <Xns942862355856Bkadywwwaifnet@205.232.34.12>
User-Agent: Xnews/05.08.12
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.25.162
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.25.162
Date: 3 Nov 2003 09:39:18 -0500
X-Trace: 3 Nov 2003 09:39:18 -0500, 64.230.25.162
X-Original-Trace: 3 Nov 2003 09:39:18 -0500, 64.230.25.162
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 120
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1654467
Tanya Durni <tdurni@rochester.rr.com> wrote in
news:3FA65993.6050208@rochester.rr.com:
>
> She responds to publicly vocal critics of scientology, much the same way
> as a family member did for years. Character assassination. Works and
> works to find a fault, if one can't be found, creates one, then harps on
> it over and over and over again. Probably depends on the premise that
> nobody will bother to read through the crap to get to the bottom of the
> argument, but the words will ring in ones ears and they might start to
> agree. Sort of like how cofs keeps saying it is a religion, unless
> given a reason, most people would just accept that it is, and not look
> any further. It is almost as if the whole process was practiced. I
> know with scientology it is.
>
Did your family member also co-create a myriad of websites to examine and
publicize Scientology fraud?
Did he talk to reporters about the connection between Scientology and the
Slatkin ponzi scheme?
Did he or she spend hundreds of dollars of his own money to monitor ongoing
civil actions, and then web those documents on his or her webpage?
Was he or she mentioned in a thwarted discovery action by Helena Kobrin?
How about flyering Big Blue and the LRH Life Exhibit? Did your family
member do that?
Did he or she cooperate on research initiatives to explore the intricate
corporate structure? What about the Guardian's Office Snow White Program?
Has he or she read thousands of pages of evidence obtained through raids on
CoS buildings? Has he or she devoted a website to tracking the
perpetrators?
Was he or she scheduled to be a witness in a copyright-related court case?
Did he or she have a page on religiousfreedomwatch.org? Were his or her
employers targeted for Dead Agent material by Scientology? What about
pickets? Was he or she ever picketed at an airport? Was he or she followed
through the streets of Los Angeles after visiting a well-known ex-
Scientologist?
How about his or her critical thinking skills - did he or she make every
effort to provide evidence to his or her claims?
Did he or she stand up against "allies" when he or she disagreed
with their
tactics or actions?
I'm always interested to learn more about your family and its experiences
with Scientology!
If you're too stupid to see that Padgett is a fraud, there's nothing more I
can do to convince you. The evidence is out there; all you have to do is
read it. But I'll be damned if I have to sit back and take indirect cheap
shots from a mushheaded dilettente whose only apparent is in finding the
most simplistic, lowest common denominator popular opinion, and clinging to
it like a barnacle for as long as it represents the safe, risk-free
majority view.
I know it's very unattractive to tout one's own actions, and believe me,
I'm uncomfortable doing so, but it isn't out of a desire for ego-stroking.
I just want to make sure that those who read these questionable
observations about my behaviour, or see my posts on Gerry Armstrong's loony
hatepage, or actually start to believe that I'm some sort of OSA program to
know that despite efforts to suggest otherwise, I *am* a critic of
Scientology.
I am not an "indoctrinated Scientologist" or "practiced character
assassin". For years, I've not even bothered to address these allegations,
since I had enough faith in the general intelligence of a.r.s. readers to
be sure that they would see such hollow accusations for the diversionary
tactic that they are, but frankly, given the little critical response I've
seen to posts that would have generated dozens of rebuttals and
repudiations in past years, I'm no longer so sure.
I mean, in a recent diatribe, Gerry Armstrong posted that violence directed
at Scientology by 'wogs' would be "entirely justified", although he
played
a coy game of not *really* endorsing it himself, wink wink, nudge nudge.
Tom Klemesrud put forward the ludicrous suggestion that Scientology
operatives redefined the term "phat", reinvigorating its use in the
'urban
culture', solely to counter a mild in-joke on the Internet that referred to
Hubbard as "the Phattard". Which is a conspiracy theory of a level of
ridiculous that has been properly lampooned in the past when the purveyor
is an over-imaginative Scientologist, yet not ONE other person on a.r.s.
spoke up to say, uh Tom, that's completely nuts. Not one. As for the Gerry
Jihad, well, we did a little better there: two whole people criticized his
demented ramblings. Jeff Jacobesn and Zinj.
Where the hell were the rest of the supposed critics? Oh, they were off in
another thread, arguing with the Truthseeker troll, because that,
apparently, is *real* criticism on a.r.s. these days. Or baiting gun nuts -
I know I find a.r.s. a much more interesting read when one Rice brother or
another has managed to drag a frothing horde of Republicans over from
another newsgroup in order to demonstrate his total inability to present a
cogent point of view before all his a.r.s friends. It's almost as good as
the pre-election Arnold threads. (I'm embarrassed to say that I actually
*agree* with the Ricen, politically, in the sense that I'm probably on the
same 'side', but I find the fact that they share these views to be
mortifying.)
For some idiotic reason, though, I still believe there are actual lurkers
out there with criticial thinking skills intact, and I'd like to make sure
that they have the full context, as it were. Also, I'm a cranky bitch, and
I'm very frustrated with what a.r.s. has become, but rather than do the
smart thing and depart, like so many intelligent critics before me, I'm
going to stick around and criticize both Scientology, and so-called
"critics", at least for the moment. I'm sure you'll all breathe a sigh
of
relief when I at last give up, and retire to sullen lurkingness, but until
then, killfile me, ignore me, flame me or read me, I'm past caring whether
you like me, or how I say what I have to say.
And you can shove *that* up your "Scientologists do that too, not that
I'm
saying you're a Scientologist" gullet, Ms. Durni.
K