From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry @gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: off-topic postings
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:43:04 +0100
Message-ID: <tum5qvg1bahvoll48ho3r5m0v24bjjj04s@4ax.com>
References: <vpg2ou3v7c8l58@corp.supernews.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.88.225.211
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.88.225.211
X-Trace: 31 Oct 2003 17:43:19 -0500, 217.88.225.211
X-Original-Trace: 31 Oct 2003 17:43:19 -0500, 217.88.225.211
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 173
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1653536

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:08:46 -0000, "Jeff Jacobsen" <cultxpt @ev1.net>
wrote:

>
>Of all the off-topic posts on a.r.s. I see, the infighting posts are the worst
>to me.

Do you believe that the infighting, as you call it, *can* serve
Scientology's purposes toward its opponents?

> I even think the random-word posts were more on-topic than the endless
>sniping threads here.

In this I think you're not altogether right. Both are absolutely on
topic, although they are so only after the fact. The sporgeries were a
Scientology op to destroy communication and the medium in which the
communication flows. They exist as evidence of the cult's malevolent
purposes and activities. The "infighting," which is not really
infighting, is also an effort to destroy communication and the medium
in which it flows. If you really dissect it you will find that it is
not infighting, as "infighting" is usually understood.

> Most of these threads, it seems to me, could be better
>handled on email or in a chat group than on a.r.s. I see the point of making
>a declaration like 'Gerry Armstrong, even though he's a critic, is still
>a nut." Well, yeah. I'll bet Gerry himself would say he's an unusual guy.

I say I'm just average, common too, I'm just like him and the same as
you. I'm everybody's brother and son. I ain't different from anyone. I
don't recall ever saying that I'm unusual, unless by being average and
common that makes me unusual. I know of no difference of any
consequence whatsoever between me and any other of the six billion
plus of God's kids.

> But why does there need to be an endless thread about such a topic?

Because of the dramatization of the Hubbard/$cientology datum, "the
bank follows the line of attack." The theory is that if you attack
long enough and hard enough other minds will be restimulated and
induced to follow the line of attack, go into agreement with it, and
themselves attack the designated target. Hubbard didn't invent it; he
just gave that name to his observation about the efficacy of that
single response to any perceived threat -- attack!

Someone, even knowing it to be untrue, could, when perceiving such a
directed onslaught, be restimulated into participating in the attack.
An otherwise thinking, honest person, in the presence of seemingly
relentless, vicious attacks might say, for example, "I see the point
of making a declaration like "'Joe Jones, even though he's a critic,
is still a nut.'"

> I just don't see the point of sniping at each other here on a.r.s. where
>the supposed subject is Scientology. Start alt.flame.gerry-armstrong if
>you want.

The point you're actually making is important. The supposed subject of
Scientology is indeed only the supposed subject. Yes,
alt-flame.gerry-armstrong would certainly make it easier for me to
just be average and common too.

> Make a web site on how horrible Gerry is.

Yes, perhaps the GERRY oRMsTRaNG FOLLIES would be a good title.
Innocent readers would think I'm On StAff at CSI, and be really
impressed.

> Start #gerrysucks.

Yes, another excellent project for someone. Everyone can discuss how
prophets can't possibly be average and common too, and that because
Gerry claims that he's just average and common too and just like you
it proves he's insane, a lunatic, a kook, a despicable liar and should
be shot and dumped in a sewer. This would be an extraordinarily
valuable irc channel.

> THIS is alt.religion.*scientology*
> There are 2 main things that tick me off about these flame wars:
>1) Scientology wants this newsgroup to be unappetizing to readers who are
>looking for information about Scientology.

That's right. So you *are* saying that attacks on people *can* serve
Scientology's malevolent purposes?

And that's why, rather than respond to most of the directed lies and
unmerited attacks, I simply web them. I have a particular need to do
this because of my legal situation with the cult, but anyone could do
the same so that the sniping as you call it can be removed from a.r.s.

But I also believe that a number of the attackers who grace my GOoN
sQUaD FOLLIES page are working to get what they postulate is the
a.r.s. group bank to follow the line of attack, so that I will have no
support against the cult in the legal arena, or any other arena.

Remember Hubbard's HCO Policy Letter of 16 February, 1969, "Targets,
Defense."

[Quote]

The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:

T1. Depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration.

[End Quote]
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/nl/english/targets.html

So do we see a lot of time spent depopularizing the enemy here on
a.r.s. to the point of total obliteration? And this is right on
target serving the cult's purposes, right?

>We already have truthseeker, the
>random-word poster, and all the other OSA attempts to turn a.r.s. into an
>unreadable goo.

So you're saying that without being able to prove that someone is OSA,
he or she *can* serve the cult's malevolent purposes toward its
opponents?

> These sniping wars just add to the goo and are even worse,
>imho, because the sniping is actual hate spewed onto a newsgroup.

Yes it is. And it serves Scientology's purposes. I am convinced that a
number of the people who carry out these attacks know very well that
they are serving the cult's purposes.

>
>2) They deteriorate into personal attacks that are of no interest or use
>to most a.r.s. readers, yet the posters believe they are of paramount importance.

I believe that they should be exposed as serving the cult's malevolent
purposes. Don't you agree that that serves a useful purpose? If you
don't support anyone who is being attacked, but lump the target in
with the attackers, everyone will get the idea that there's no one
worth supporting. That's not a particularly positive message. And of
course, again, it is a message that serves the cult's purposes.

>
> I know flame wars are a part of newsgroups and always will be, but they
>don't HAVE to be here.

That's correct. If they were identified, with logic and the necessary
perserverance, I believe they would, over time, disappear. But who on
Teegeeac would risk being violently attacked to call the attackers on
their attacks?

> Can't at least the CRITICS of SCientology stay on-topic?

I believe that "critics" may be an unhelpful misnomer. It may detract
from what is really going on. One can become a critic of critics and
still be a critic. Opponent is a better word, and better positioning.
Critics can sit by and criticize both Scientology and the opposition.
Opponents do much more than criticize.

> Don't you WANT a.r.s. to be a useful place for those Scientologist lurkers,
>curious newbies, and such?

Perhaps the actions you've observed answer your question?

> Can't you see that there may be better places
>for your sniping and flame wars?

Sure there are. But in other places there's not this set of
opportunities to depopularize Scientology's enemies to the point of
total obliteration. That's what's going on. And that's what needs to
be opposed, just as strenuously as we oppose the cult's other T1 - T7
targets.

>
>
>* * * * *
>www.lisamcpherson.org

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Thread