On 24 Jul 1999 18:29:13 -0700, email@example.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>firstname.lastname@example.org (Bob Minton) wrote:
>>Please be assured that I am in no way looking for approval on ars for any of
>>my actions. I completely trust my own judgement.
>As do many fools.
Martin, please! Trusting one's own judgment has now become the stuff of fools? Honestly, your hatred of Bob Minton is clouding your own judgment. I'm sick of this Minton bashing. Enough is enough.
>>Those who I talk to on a
>>regular basis understand what it is to fight scientology and what methods may
>Ever considered that they might be giving you bad advice?
Have you ever considered that you might be getting bad advice yourself?
>>They are also seriously involved in this battle.
>Are they, now.
Yes, they are, actually. If you don't ming my asking, how seriously are you involved in this battle, and if you are indeed seriously involved, may I ask exactly what actions you are taking? Feel free to email me privately if you prefer not to let Scn know the particulars of your serious involvement.
>>The vast majority
>>of people on ars have not a clue what scientology really is and do not have
>>the intellectual energy to even bother to find out.
>Didn't you write once that your own understanding of Scientology was
If he ever wrote that, it is no longer the case.
>I really, really doubt that the "vast majority" of people on ars
>lack the intellect to learn about Scientology. I'd wager the majority
>of people here probably outclass you in their knowledge of Scientology
>as well as intellect, never mind knowing how to oppose the organization
>without making a fool of themselves and a mockery of the other activists.
Martin, you have no idea what you're talking about. You are the one who is making of fool of yourself by making such ridiculous statements.
>When it comes to intellect, perhaps you should look to your own
>glass house rather than casting general aspersions upon certain
>unnamed individuals. (which always appears a bit silly, to say the
Hmm, a piece of advice you might consider taking yourself, Martin.
>>If you don't have the
>>will to find out what scientology is about, please be assured I could give a
>>shit what you think.
>You could or you couldn't? That's really the problem with you, Bob;
>you don't give a shit about anything but yourself and your vendetta
>against the cult. The only reason you even fight them is because
>they pissed you off...not the best motivation in the world.
Martin, you are so far wrong on this that it is hardly worth responding to you. The only reason I am doing so tonight is that I'm sick of the gratuitous attacks on Bob by you and other "unnamed individuals," as you call them. What in the world are you doing going after someone who is willing to stand up to an outrageous level of harassment at the hands of Scientology and continue to fight them? What on earth has gotten into you?
>>A lot of people here violently dislike me--like scientology does.
>Does that make them Scientologists?
>>the Apple commercial said: "Here's to the crazy ones; the misfits, the
>>troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes, the ones who see things
>>differently and are not afraid to trust their own judgement.
>IOW, "here's to Bob" - by Bob. Given your ealier mention of your
>blind faith in your bad judgement.
That isn't what he was saying, Martin, and you know it. Don't you agree that anyone who seriously decides to take on Scientology has to be fairly crazy, a misfit, a troublemaker, a round peg in a square hole? Come on, Martin. Don't disagree with him just because it is Bob who is saying it.
>>They're not fond of rules and have no respect for the status quo. You
>>can disagree with them, glorify them or vilify them. About the only
>>thing you can't do is to ignore them because they change things...."
>For the better or the worse?
Martin, do you honestly think he is trying to change things for the worse? Don't be ridiculous.
>>And while some see them as the crazy ones, ..........the people who are crazy
>>enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do."
>That sounds like a quote from Hubbard, maybe from the documentary
>where he says he's a madman. You wouldn't quote Hubbard to back up
>your arguments, would you, Bob? :-)
OK, so obviously you're a PC person, not a Mac person. But, come on, do you really think the Apple commercial sounds like an L. Ron Hubbard quote? :) Don't be silly.
>>And, for those ars critics who are like eunuchs in a harem who know how it's
>>done, have seen it done every day, but are unable to do it themselves just
>>keep expressing your opinions but don't expect me to adopt the consesus view
>>on how to fight scientology.
>...or the consensus view on anything else, like what's right
>and what's wrong, what's smart and what's stupid, what works
>and what backfires. Far be it from the Bob to learn from Havel!
>Because that's been your whole history as a "critic"; one backfire
Martin, what on earth are you basing your opinion on? Do you really think Bob's actions have backfired? Why do you think Scientology continues to spend so much money on their worldwide project to neutralize him? Because his actions have backfired? Because he is stupid? I think you have been misinformed, Martin.
>Well, keep it up; just don't expect anyone with
>more than half a brain to trot along after you down your weird
>road to what you believe will be the end of Scientology.So far,
>all you've done is shoot down a few good critics and help to bring
>about the demise of FACTNet. I know several long-term Scn fighters
>who believe you to be far from an asset, and question why, exactly,
>you're fighting Scientology - or at least putting on a good show
>of doing that.
(I'll let the "half a brain" comment pass for the moment :) ... ) What good critics has Bob shot down, Martin, and how exactly has Bob helped to bring about the demise of FACTNet? I was a director of FACTNet myself, and I can assure you that Bob did nothing to bring about the demise of that corporation. Again, you are seriously misinformed. And would you care to specify which "long-term Scn fighters" you are referring to who believe Bob to be "far from an asset... etc., etc., etc...."? You sound like you've actually bought GunBunny's and other Scn agents' lines.
>I recall a discussion before you came on the scene which went like
>this: "what would Scientology do to destroy FACTNet?", and the
>answer was "just about anything". Ah, but that was probably one
>of those silly consensuses you dislike so much.
Whatever that means. Don't make a fool of yourself, Martin. Don't be so sure your point of view is correct.