Gerry Armstrong and his Affirmations - An analysis
roadrunn...@gmail.com
[start quote]
"You made the factual assertion that I wrote Hubbard's Admissions, and
you have provided no proof whatsoever of that assertion. You have also
provided no analysis or evaluation..
I realize that you're a dramatizig sociopath for Scientology and that
your lies are willful, told by you when you know they're lies and that
you have no evidence whatsoever to support them. I'm asking for your
evidence, nevertheless, but asking despite my certainty of your
dramatizing sociopathy. ...
Again, I realize you're dramatizing being a sociopath, and for that
reason I won't be surprised if you don't provide any evidence to
support your lies, which, as I've said, you've told willfully in the
knowledge that you have no evidence, and that there is no evidence
anywhere to justify your telling your lies. ...
The Roadrump op, will, of course, produce no evidence that I'm the
source of Hubbard's Admissions. Hubbard is, and Roadrump knows Hubbard
is the source. "
[end quote]
In fact I made no assertion that you wrote the Affirmations per se,
but you are a rather likely suspect as there is no other source than
you for these that you released in 2000. No other person than you can
confirm them, as you are the sole source of them!
And in November 1984 you were caught saying:
"We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t.
We just have to allege it.”
– Gerald Armstrong"
The proper question may be: "Will the true sociopath and liar stand
up!"
http://tiny.cc/gerrys_affirmations
Gerry Armstrong herewith has been given the opportunity to respond.
Will he or will he not, that's the question!
Regards,
Roadrunner
peters...@gmail.com
OMG! Over 12,000 words, and only assumptions, theories, opinions and
no factual evidence. At best circumstantial evidence that wouldn't
stand in court.
The only really important words are in the opening statement:
"I can not confirm or deny who would be the author of the
Affirmations"
That says all there is to say at the bottom line, even after 12,000
words. And I read every goddamn word of them.
You needed all those words to say the same as I can in less than 5: I
don't know.
Peter
"The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been
accomplished now!"
- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, November
1970, "Psychosis"
roadrunn...@gmail.com
We already know that you don't know the meaning of the words research
and evaluation. Be assured, we DO know that! :-)
RR
peters...@gmail.com
In your case it equals speculation.
Alex Clark
news:ca3dbaf0-819d-45c7...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>We already know that you don't know the meaning of the words research
>and evaluation. Be assured, we DO know that! :-)
You don't even know the English language, let alone the meaning of those
words, you silly clam.
Shouldn't you have left by now, Michel? Or are you still "standing in the
doorway"?
Skipper
<ca3dbaf0-819d-45c7...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We already know that you don't know the meaning of the words research
> and evaluation. Be assured, we DO know that! :-)
>
> RR
You are a ground cuckoo.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
they can't attack the information... After this is ALL they got! :-)
RR
Skipper
<0aaadf3e-32f4-4d33...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
<roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
What "information"? Elwrong made it all up or stole it from somewhere
else. You are a ground cuckoo.
Black Mamba
news:260120091744206183%skipSP...@yahoo.not...
Skipper:
Road Runner is such a damn fool. That does not even make sense he says
"After this is ALL they got!"
For goodness sakes, no wonder Scientology is, oh, never mind.
Larry
{LaserClam Is Like A Pit Viper!}
peters...@gmail.com
No, Michel, my comment is about your 12,000+ words of speculating.
Barbara Schwarz
You are right, Roadrunner, Gerry Armstrong and others try to sell
these forgeries as facts. They know exactly that L. Ron Hubbard did
not write this crap.
Barbara Schwarz
Alex Clark
HOLY SHIT GUYS, ROYAL CLAMFLUSH!
Today we've had:
All the psych-spambots
LaserClam
Jonathon Barbera
Barbara Schwarz
Lily "epic failure" FireRed / Truthseeker
Alan Connor, posting as "Tom Newton"
RoadRunner
They're all here! Every last one of them has posted on ARS today. I can
not recall such an unprecedented event ever taking place before.
Rader to full sensitivity, everyone. Something's got that shit-eating cult
scared enough to bring out every schill they own to try and flood ARS with
crap. Something big is going on.
"Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaraSc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:8a4d71cd-b1d9-42b6...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
peters...@gmail.com
wrote:
Aren't you the one that sees conspiracies, forgeries and impostors
everywhere?
Go figure what it does to your credibility. Especially when you NEVER
support them with evidence.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> In article
> <0aaadf3e-32f4-4d33-96fe-7b393668c...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 3 responses. And all 3 focus on attacking the person! Why? Because
> > they can't attack the information... After this is ALL they got! :-)
>
> > RR
>
> What "information"? Elwrong made it all up or stole it from somewhere
> else. You are a ground cuckoo.
Your evidence? See, I only documented history, that's all, but you and
various arund here can't have that. And so we attack persons...
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> "Skipper" <skipSPAMpr...@yahoo.not> wrote in message
>
> news:260120091744206183%skipSP...@yahoo.not...
> | In article
> | <0aaadf3e-32f4-4d33-96fe-7b393668c...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,| <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> |
> | > 3 responses. And all 3 focus on attacking the person! Why? Because
> | > they can't attack the information... After this is ALL they got! :-)
> | >
> | > RR
> |
> | What "information"? Elwrong made it all up or stole it from somewhere
> | else. You are a ground cuckoo.
>
> Skipper:
>
> Road Runner is such a damn fool. That does not even make sense he says
> "After this is ALL they got!"
>
> For goodness sakes, no wonder Scientology is, oh, never mind.
You never mind, this is what anti-Scientologists do. They attack the
person. "After all this is ALL they got!"
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 26 jan, 22:36, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > 3 responses. And all 3 focus on attacking the person! Why? Because
> > they can't attack the information... After this is ALL they got! :-)
>
> > RR
>
> No, Michel, my comment is about your 12,000+ words of speculating.
I simply documented recorded history and collected it together in an
analysis. And you can't have that! Your hero Saint Gerry is an
admitted liar and cheat. It is on video!
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
The blind will not see, whatever you will put in front of him... It is
their illness.
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hmmm, I am not sure they actually know that. Some people simply will
not see, this is why you can't reason with these persons.
Or it must be that they are just blowing in the wind. They are not
quite sane in mind. Did you notice that no one addressed the
information that is forwarded, they are just attacking the person.
Nonetheless my analysis follows academic guidelines.
RR
>
> Barbara Schwarz
peters...@gmail.com
And what in case they see things in front of them that aren't there?
peters...@gmail.com
It's all in the eye of the beholder, Michel, you see what you want to
see. That you don't have a shred of evidence is just a little detail,
right?
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 27 jan, 07:44, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Jan, 05:22, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 26 jan, 22:36, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > 3 responses. And all 3 focus on attacking the person! Why? Because
> > > > they can't attack the information... After this is ALL they got! :-)
>
> > > > RR
>
> > > No, Michel, my comment is about your 12,000+ words of speculating.
>
> > I simply documented recorded history and collected it together in an
> > analysis. And you can't have that! Your hero Saint Gerry is an
> > admitted liar and cheat. It is on video!
>
> > RR
>
> > > Peter
>
> > > "The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been
> > > accomplished now!"
> > > - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, November
> > > 1970, "Psychosis"
>
> > >http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
> It's all in the eye of the beholder, Michel, you see what you want to
> see. That you don't have a shred of evidence is just a little detail,
> right?
It is evidenced, and proven without any shred of doubt on video that
Saint Gerry had no problem, I repeat no problem, to purposely plant
disinformation in matters concerning Scientology within the
organization. Be blind if you wish, and no doubt you will continue to
be that way...
roadrunn...@gmail.com
How would YOU know?
You don't even acknowledge:
"We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t.
We just have to allege it.”
– Gerald Armstrong (November 1984)
RR
peters...@gmail.com
That is not the point. Point is: Did he?
You didn't give any evidence he ever did.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
That which is interesting is that you continue to defend Saint Gerry
after all that we know about him. Oh well. let's suffice to say that
we have a lot more about your Saint than L. Ron Hubbbard to having had
things wrong.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>Gerry wrote 30 November 2008:
>[start quote]
>"You made the factual assertion that I wrote Hubbard's Admissions, and
>you have provided no proof whatsoever of that assertion. You have also
>provided no analysis or evaluation..
>
>I realize that you're a dramatizig sociopath for Scientology and that
>your lies are willful, told by you when you know they're lies and that
>you have no evidence whatsoever to support them. I'm asking for your
>evidence, nevertheless, but asking despite my certainty of your
>dramatizing sociopathy. ...
>
>Again, I realize you're dramatizing being a sociopath, and for that
>reason I won't be surprised if you don't provide any evidence to
>support your lies, which, as I've said, you've told willfully in the
>knowledge that you have no evidence, and that there is no evidence
>anywhere to justify your telling your lies. ...
>
>The Roadrump op, will, of course, produce no evidence that I'm the
>source of Hubbard's Admissions. Hubbard is, and Roadrump knows Hubbard
>is the source. "
>[end quote]
>
>In fact I made no assertion that you wrote the Affirmations per se,
You are lying.
On June 30, 2008, you stated here on a.r.s.:
[Quote]
You faked those socalled Admissions or Affirmations.
[End Quote]
You were referring to me.
>but you are a rather likely suspect
You're back pedalling.
You've also made the factual claim that Hubbard's admissions
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2000-03-11.html
are written in my "style," and similar claims repeatedly. You have, of
course, provided no evidence to support this claim.
On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that you are
faking your ignorance, that you are willfully lying to serve the
Scientology cult's purposes, and that you are acting like a sociopath.
>as there is no other source than
>you for these that you released in 2000. No other person than you can
>confirm them, as you are the sole source of them!
There you go again. L. Ron Hubbard is his admissions' sole source.
This is a fact which, by pretending an insane level of ignorance,
Scientololgists and their agents, ops and reps like Roadfrump here,
pretend to deny.
Hubbard's admissions have been read by many people. Many indeed have
read the handwritten originals or their photocopies.
Because Hubbard's admissions are a part of Scientology scripture, they
have helped many people to get free of Hubbard's and Miscavige's
psychic hold on them. And this success is despite the efforts of
Miscavige and the cult's Roadrump's to lessen the freeing effect of
Hubbard's admissions by, e.g., making the willfully false claim that I
faked them.
>
>And in November 1984 you were caught saying:
>"We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t.
>We just have to allege it.”
>– Gerald Armstrong"
>
>The proper question may be: "Will the true sociopath and liar stand
>up!"
>
>http://tiny.cc/gerrys_affirmations
>
>Gerry Armstrong herewith has been given the opportunity to respond.
>Will he or will he not, that's the question!
>
>Regards,
>Roadrunner
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
peters...@gmail.com
I am not defending Gerry: He is very well able to do that himself.
All I point out is that you spent 12,000+ words on speculations,
theories, assumptions and opinions without a single proof of your
suggestion that Gerry Armstrong wrote the Admissions/Affirmations.
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
It may be a suggestion now, because Roadrump is backpedalling like
crazy, but he made the factual assertion that I wrote Hubbard's
admissions. If he has now actually backpedalled all the way down to a
"suggestion," he should admit that he lied when he stated as fact that
I had written Hubbard's admissions, which, of course, Hubbard had
written.
A factual assertion is quite different from a suggestion.
>
>Peter
>
>"The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been
>accomplished now!"
>- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, November
>1970, "Psychosis"
>
>http://www.scamofscientology.nl
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
R. Hill
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:16:14 -0800 (PST), peters...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> On 27 jan, 15:21, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>>> That which is interesting is that you continue to defend Saint Gerry
>>> after all that we know about him. Oh well. let's suffice to say that
>>> we have a lot more about your Saint than L. Ron Hubbbard to having had
>>> things wrong.
>>>
>>> RR
>>>
>>>
>> I am not defending Gerry: He is very well able to do that himself.
>> All I point out is that you spent 12,000+ words on speculations,
>> theories, assumptions and opinions without a single proof of your
>> suggestion that Gerry Armstrong wrote the Admissions/Affirmations.
>
> It may be a suggestion now, because Roadrump is backpedalling like
> crazy, but he made the factual assertion that I wrote Hubbard's
> admissions. If he has now actually backpedalled all the way down to a
> "suggestion," he should admit that he lied when he stated as fact that
> I had written Hubbard's admissions, which, of course, Hubbard had
> written.
>
> A factual assertion is quite different from a suggestion.
>
>> Peter
>>
>> "The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been
>> accomplished now!"
>> - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, November
>> 1970, "Psychosis"
>>
>> http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
> Š Gerry Armstrong
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Is RR again referring to himself as "we"?
--
Ray.
Gerry Armstrong
>> © Gerry Armstrong
>> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>
>Is RR again referring to himself as "we"?
RR + BS = WE.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Out_Of_The_Dark
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:10:11 -0800 (PST), roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
:) Right to the point.
Mary
peters...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:16:14 -0800 (PST), peterschi...@gmail.com
And this guy accuses me of twisting and being dishonest. Oh well, if
someone needs 12,000+ words to prove nothing in a scientific
researched way..........
R. Hill
Ah ok, I have both kill-filed, I couldn't tell.
--
Ray.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:10:11 -0800 (PST), roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com
Yeah, I did. However 'faking' them' does not necessary imply you wrote
them.
> >but you are a rather likely suspect
>
> You're back pedalling.
No...
> You've also made the factual claim that Hubbard's admissionshttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2000-03-11.html
> are written in my "style," and similar claims repeatedly. You have, of
> course, provided no evidence to support this claim.
Actually dear Gerry, that is forthcoming. See, I just wanted your
response after I webbed my analysis.
> On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that you are
> faking your ignorance, that you are willfully lying to serve the
> Scientology cult's purposes, and that you are acting like a sociopath.
Your evidence for that??? (just a statement will not suffice by
far...)
> >as there is no other source than
> >you for these that you released in 2000. No other person than you can
> >confirm them, as you are the sole source of them!
>
> There you go again. L. Ron Hubbard is his admissions' sole source.
> This is a fact which, by pretending an insane level of ignorance,
> Scientololgists and their agents, ops and reps like Roadfrump here,
> pretend to deny.
By proven record you are the sole source of them, if you wrote them
yourself or not.
> Hubbard's admissions have been read by many people. Many indeed have
> read the handwritten originals or their photocopies.
Who?? There is NO record for that claim!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Because Hubbard's admissions are a part of Scientology scripture, they
> have helped many people to get free of Hubbard's and Miscavige's
> psychic hold on them.
Utter nonsense! They are NOT part of Scientology scripture as they are
NOT ANYWHERE taught at the Scientology organization, did you miss this
little detail??
>And this success is despite the efforts of
> Miscavige and the cult's Roadrump's to lessen the freeing effect of
> Hubbard's admissions by, e.g., making the willfully false claim that I
> faked them.
Your OWN documented words from November 1984:
"We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t.
We just have to allege it.”
> >And in November 1984 you were caught saying:
> >"We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t.
> >We just have to allege it.”
> >– Gerald Armstrong"
>
> >The proper question may be: "Will the true sociopath and liar stand
> >up!"
>
> >http://tiny.cc/gerrys_affirmations
>
> >Gerry Armstrong herewith has been given the opportunity to respond.
> >Will he or will he not, that's the question!
Alright now, friend Gerry. You DID respond, now WHERE is your counter
evaluation??
Regards,
Roadrunner
>
> >Regards,
> >Roadrunner
>
> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Maureen
<snip>
>
> Utter nonsense! They are NOT part of Scientology scripture as they are
> NOT ANYWHERE taught at the Scientology organization, did you miss this
> little detail??
Here's a $cientology "Scripture" that tells you how to handle Gerry
and anyone else...
Hubbard Saint Hill Manor
East Grinstead, Sussex
ENEMY FORMULA
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 23 OCTOBER 1967
(...)
The forumula for the Conditions of Enemy is just one step.
FIND OUT WHO YOU REALLY ARE
You are Gerry! OMG...
;-)
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:16:14 -0800 (PST), peterschi...@gmail.com
Which you can not prove, and you destroyed your own evidence (as per
you notes from 2000). Just grand, Gerry... Hmmm, backpedalling
Gerry?
> A factual assertion is quite different from a suggestion.
It was never my claim you wrote them. But you are the source of the
one's you came forward with in 2000. Please provide evidence for the
contrary. Not claims (alegings), evidence!!!
RR
>
>
>
> >Peter
>
> >"The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been
> >accomplished now!"
> >- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, November
> >1970, "Psychosis"
>
> >http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Black Mamba
news:7763d5a2-c091-4819...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 27, 2:12 pm, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> Utter nonsense! They are NOT part of Scientology scripture as they are
> NOT ANYWHERE taught at the Scientology organization, did you miss this
> little detail??
Road Runner:
Of course people know that. As if the Church of Scientology is going to
teach L. Ron Hubbard's personal diaries and bedroom notes to people. Of
course not.
And I imagine that if not L. Ron Hubbard then certainly his church must
have at least a little embarrassed if not left feeling slightly violated
that L. Ron Hubbard's diaries made it to the world wide web. In L. Ron
Hubbard's own life he was not even familiar with the internet.
And, regardless of what any laws anywhere say or what any L. Ron Hubbard
policy says anywhere, whatever does the greatest good for the greatest
number is always OK, whether it is written anywhere that it is OK or not,
right?
So, how could L. Ron Hubbard have been such an ethical guy when he wrote
Dianetics that he wrote these things in his diary at the same time?
I imagine Gerry Armstrong was very upset when he read these things
seeing as how L. Ron Hubbard gave him permission to read them, to the point
of running out of the door of the church with them and going home ONLY to
find that before he got to tell the church about his upset they already had
people banging down his DOOR!
roadrunn...@gmail.com
But Peter, you are talking with your guru Gerry Armstrong, feel
humble?? What an honour! Are you kneeling down now?
In fact you are a proven twister and manipulator, yeah, dishonest too.
As I said, the analysis will be out there...
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> "Maureen" <Lermanet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7763d5a2-c091-4819...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 2:12 pm, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Utter nonsense! They are NOT part of Scientology scripture as they are
> > NOT ANYWHERE taught at the Scientology organization, did you miss this
> > little detail??
>
> Road Runner:
>
> Of course people know that. As if the Church of Scientology is going to
> teach L. Ron Hubbard's personal diaries and bedroom notes to people. Of
> course not.
>
> And I imagine that if not L. Ron Hubbard then certainly his church must
> have at least a little embarrassed if not left feeling slightly violated
> that L. Ron Hubbard's diaries made it to the world wide web. In L. Ron
> Hubbard's own life he was not even familiar with the internet.
>
> And, regardless of what any laws anywhere say or what any L. Ron Hubbard
> policy says anywhere, whatever does the greatest good for the greatest
> number is always OK, whether it is written anywhere that it is OK or not,
> right?
>
> So, how could L. Ron Hubbard have been such an ethical guy when he wrote
> Dianetics that he wrote these things in his diary at the same time?
Actually, you don't know anything about that. It was Saint Gerry that
told you, and... you believed him.
>
> I imagine Gerry Armstrong was very upset when he read these things
> seeing as how L. Ron Hubbard gave him permission to read them, to the point
> of running out of the door of the church with them and going home ONLY to
> find that before he got to tell the church about his upset they already had
> people banging down his DOOR!
And then he too $800,000 for things he did not own. Your ethical hero
Saint Gerry, martyr of the anti-Scientology movement. Now, let's
worship him...
RR
peters...@gmail.com
That's what happens when you're all alone, Michel.
Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
Michel.
Sociopaths never do.
LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
Peter
"That which works in $cientology
is not unique to $cientology,
and that which is unique to $cientology
does not work."
- Prufrock
Black Mamba
news:78dc8208-ff53-4efe...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Jan, 21:40, "Black Mamba" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> "Maureen" <Lermanet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7763d5a2-c091-4819...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 2:12 pm, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Utter nonsense! They are NOT part of Scientology scripture as they are
> > NOT ANYWHERE taught at the Scientology organization, did you miss this
> > little detail??
>
> Road Runner:
>
> Of course people know that. As if the Church of Scientology is going to
> teach L. Ron Hubbard's personal diaries and bedroom notes to people. Of
> course not.
>
> And I imagine that if not L. Ron Hubbard then certainly his church must
> have at least a little embarrassed if not left feeling slightly violated
> that L. Ron Hubbard's diaries made it to the world wide web. In L. Ron
> Hubbard's own life he was not even familiar with the internet.
>
> And, regardless of what any laws anywhere say or what any L. Ron Hubbard
> policy says anywhere, whatever does the greatest good for the greatest
> number is always OK, whether it is written anywhere that it is OK or not,
> right?
>
> So, how could L. Ron Hubbard have been such an ethical guy when he wrote
> Dianetics that he wrote these things in his diary at the same time?
*Actually, you don't know anything about that. It was *Saint Gerry that
*told you, and... you believed him.
>
> I imagine Gerry Armstrong was very upset when he read these things
> seeing as how L. Ron Hubbard gave him permission to read them, to the
> point
> of running out of the door of the church with them and going home ONLY to
> find that before he got to tell the church about his upset they already
> had
> people banging down his DOOR!
*And then he too $800,000 for things he did not own. *Your ethical hero
*Saint Gerry, martyr of the anti-Scientology movement. *Now, let's worship
him...
Road Runner:
I am certainly one to respect anyone's beliefs, even a Scientologist *in
spite* of what I know to be true about them and their cult, much to my own
surprise mind you.
But as I have said before in the words of Detective Kinderman {a.k.a.
"The Exorcist" 1970}:
"If a certain French doctor had not ever asked "What is this bacteria?"
we would not today have penicillin!"
Gerry Armstrong, like a lot of people, like me, was in the Sea Org at
one time, regardless of for how long and regardless of in what capacity. Sea
Org members are generally the best refernce of what life is like behind the
closed doors of the church *IF* they are lucky enough to make it out alive.
And if you recall properly Vicky Aznaran told David Mayo {after he worked
for 22 years as L. Ron Hubbard's personal technical advisor and developed
the NOT's rundowns for him} that if he tried to escape from Gold Base he
would not make it out alive.
Well I made it out alive and it wasn't luck, and a lot of other people
did to, and I believe I can safely say no one I know is planning on going
back any time soon.
--
" Scientologists believe that most human
problems can be traced to lingering spirits
of an extraterrestrial people massacred by
their ruler, Xenu, over 75 million years ago.
These spirits attach themselves by "clusters"
to individuals in the contemporary world,
causing spiritual harm and negatively
influencing the lives of their hosts ".
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
A Scientolgist per the correct definition is not a believer.
> But as I have said before in the words of Detective Kinderman {a.k.a.
> "The Exorcist" 1970}:
>
> "If a certain French doctor had not ever asked "What is this bacteria?"
> we would not today have penicillin!"
>
> Gerry Armstrong, like a lot of people, like me, was in the Sea Org at
> one time, regardless of for how long and regardless of in what capacity. Sea
> Org members are generally the best refernce of what life is like behind the
> closed doors of the church *IF* they are lucky enough to make it out alive.
> And if you recall properly Vicky Aznaran told David Mayo {after he worked
> for 22 years as L. Ron Hubbard's personal technical advisor and developed
> the NOT's rundowns for him} that if he tried to escape from Gold Base he
> would not make it out alive.
Where do you get these 22 years from??
RR
Black Mamba
news:624642fe-ac98-47da...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
(SNIP)
> Vicky Aznaran told David Mayo {after he worked
> for 22 years as L. Ron Hubbard's personal technical advisor and developed
> the NOT's rundowns for him} that if he tried to escape from Gold Base he
> would not make it out alive.
*Where do you get these 22 years from??
*RR
Nor am I one to engage in long drawn out conversations with people
covering topics I am expert on.
Thanks for the little discussion.
Larry
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:624642fe-ac98-47da...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>
> (SNIP)
>
> > Vicky Aznaran told David Mayo {after he worked
> > for 22 years as L. Ron Hubbard's personal technical advisor and developed
> > the NOT's rundowns for him} that if he tried to escape from Gold Base he
> > would not make it out alive.
>
> *Where do you get these 22 years from??
>
> *RR
>
> Nor am I one to engage in long drawn out conversations with people
> covering topics I am expert on.
Ah, let me get this straight, you don't answer, because you are an
expert. Alright.
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 27 jan, 21:55, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
snip
> > But Peter, you are talking with your guru Gerry Armstrong, feel
> > humble?? What an honour! Are you kneeling down now?
>
> > In fact you are a proven twister and manipulator, yeah, dishonest too.
>
> > As I said, the analysis will be out there...
>
> > RR
>
> That's what happens when you're all alone, Michel.
In your ignorance you forget where we are here! Either way I am far
from alone.
> Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
You defend him no matter what, you can't reflect on anything that
harms his reputation or whatever. That is guru admiration behaviour.
Simple plain FACT!!!
> We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> Michel.
> Sociopaths never do.
You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
*repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
Well, happy jumping...
>
> LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
Does the elephant care about the fly?
Aleging is ALL Gerry can, and you follow right in HIS footsteps...
RR
Barbara Schwarz
> On 27 Jan, 05:54, Barbara Schwarz <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 12:10 pm, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Gerry wrote 30 November 2008:
> > > [start quote]
> > > "You made the factual assertion that I wrote Hubbard's Admissions, and
> > > you have provided no proof whatsoever of that assertion. You have also
> > > provided no analysis or evaluation..
>
> > > I realize that you're a dramatizig sociopath for Scientology and that
> > > your lies are willful, told by you when you know they're lies and that
> > > you have no evidence whatsoever to support them. I'm asking for your
> > > evidence, nevertheless, but asking despite my certainty of your
> > > dramatizing sociopathy. ...
>
> > > Again, I realize you're dramatizing being a sociopath, and for that
> > > reason I won't be surprised if you don't provide any evidence to
> > > support your lies, which, as I've said, you've told willfully in the
> > > knowledge that you have no evidence, and that there is no evidence
> > > anywhere to justify your telling your lies. ...
>
> > > The Roadrump op, will, of course, produce no evidence that I'm the
> > > source of Hubbard's Admissions. Hubbard is, and Roadrump knows Hubbard
> > > is the source. "
> > > [end quote]
>
> > > In fact I made no assertion that you wrote the Affirmations per se,
> > > you for these that you released in 2000. No other person than you can
> > > confirm them, as you are the sole source of them!
>
> > > "We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t.
> > > We just have to allege it.”
> > > – Gerald Armstrong"
>
> > > The proper question may be: "Will the true sociopath and liar stand
> > > up!"
>
> > >http://tiny.cc/gerrys_affirmations
>
> > > Gerry Armstrong herewith has been given the opportunity to respond.
> > > Will he or will he not, that's the question!
>
> > > Roadrunner
>
> > You are right, Roadrunner, Gerry Armstrong and others try to sell
> > these forgeries as facts. They know exactly that L. Ron Hubbard did
> > not write this crap.
>
> not see, this is why you can't reason with these persons.
>
> Or it must be that they are just blowing in the wind. They are not
> quite sane in mind. Did you notice that no one addressed the
> information that is forwarded, they are just attacking the person.
> Nonetheless my analysis follows academic guidelines.
>
> RR
They lie, RR. And they have no conscience.
And yes, I agree, they are dumb and in denial too.
Barbara Schwarz
>
>
>
>
> > Barbara Schwarz- Hide quoted text -
Barbara Schwarz
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:10:11 -0800 (PST), roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
You lied awfully about me, Gerry. I have the evidence that you are a
liar.
Stop lying, start eating.
Barbara Schwarz
peters...@gmail.com
> On 27 Jan, 22:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 27 jan, 21:55, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > But Peter, you are talking with your guru Gerry Armstrong, feel
> > > humble?? What an honour! Are you kneeling down now?
>
> > > In fact you are a proven twister and manipulator, yeah, dishonest too.
>
> > > As I said, the analysis will be out there...
>
> > > RR
>
> > That's what happens when you're all alone, Michel.
>
> In your ignorance you forget where we are here! Either way I am far
> from alone.
>
And "here" seems to be the only contacts you have that substitute for
real life contacts.
> > Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
>
> You defend him no matter what, you can't reflect on anything that
> harms his reputation or whatever. That is guru admiration behaviour.
> Simple plain FACT!!!
>
I pointed out that your web page about Gerry Armstrong is pretentious
and consists fully of speculations, theories, assumptions and
opinions. If you wish to see that as defending Gerry Armstrong: Fine.
But it shows your feeble attempts to distract from my criticism
towards your web page.
You tried to make a point of 12,000+ words, and you failed miserably.
> > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > Michel.
> > Sociopaths never do.
>
> You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> Well, happy jumping...
>
I called you a sociopath months ago.
>
>
> > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
> Aleging is ALL Gerry can, and you follow right in HIS footsteps...
>
> RR
>
Oh? And 12,000+ words alleging don't count and are conveniently
ignored?
Peter
"People attack Scientology, I never forget it, always even the score.
People attack auditors, or staff, or organisations, or me. I never
forget until the slate is clear."
- L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 28 jan, 00:02, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Jan, 22:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 27 jan, 21:55, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > But Peter, you are talking with your guru Gerry Armstrong, feel
> > > > humble?? What an honour! Are you kneeling down now?
>
> > > > In fact you are a proven twister and manipulator, yeah, dishonest too.
>
> > > > As I said, the analysis will be out there...
>
> > > > RR
>
> > > That's what happens when you're all alone, Michel.
>
> > In your ignorance you forget where we are here! Either way I am far
> > from alone.
>
> And "here" seems to be the only contacts you have that substitute for
> real life contacts.
Logic please, you talk nonsensical.
>
> > > Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
>
> > You defend him no matter what, you can't reflect on anything that
> > harms his reputation or whatever. That is guru admiration behaviour.
> > Simple plain FACT!!!
>
> I pointed out that your web page about Gerry Armstrong is pretentious
> and consists fully of speculations, theories, assumptions and
> opinions. If you wish to see that as defending Gerry Armstrong: Fine.
> But it shows your feeble attempts to distract from my criticism
> towards your web page.
> You tried to make a point of 12,000+ words, and you failed miserably.
Well, you attack L. Ron Hubbard when there is virtually nothing that
supports the attacks, but you defend Saint Gerry when it is thus far
proven FACT that he is the SOLE SOURCE for the 2000 release of the
Affirmations. Let him come up with a single name of the MANY that he
claims that have read the handwritten orginals, and provide evidence
for it. You know he is never going to respond to that.
>
> > > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > > Michel.
> > > Sociopaths never do.
>
> > You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> > *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> > Well, happy jumping...
>
> I called you a sociopath months ago.
Gerry was much earlier with that... silly person...
>
>
>
> > > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> > Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
> Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
You wish... silly self-indulgent person. Given yourslef 5 starts in
various threads and me one star as a rating for the posts. and then
deny that you can vote for yourself, silly person...
>
> > Aleging is ALL Gerry can, and you follow right in HIS footsteps...
>
> > RR
>
> Oh? And 12,000+ words alleging don't count and are conveniently
> ignored?
Fact is that he IS proven by fact the sole source of the Affirmations
he offered in 2000. He does NOT account for the $800,000 he received
ANYWHERE. And still he plays the penniless. He claims to fear for his
life from the very beginning. If he was correct then why is he alive
today after ALL he has done since 1982???
You can't DEAL WITH ALL THAT... silly person...
Gerry has every single characteristic of bein a very disturbed
sociopathic liar. He sees Martians. Every person that does not agree
with him, he calls instanly a liar. All verifiable on ARS. He even
offered himself as a replacement wittness to Saddam Hussein in an
offical letter (not even mentioned in my analysis, and there is even
more). He proudly tells these things on his own site. The guy is an
outspoken fruitcake.
But after all he is YOUR guru!!!!
RR
peters...@gmail.com
> On 28 Jan, 05:53, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 jan, 00:02, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Jan, 22:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 27 jan, 21:55, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > > > But Peter, you are talking with your guru Gerry Armstrong, feel
> > > > > humble?? What an honour! Are you kneeling down now?
>
> > > > > In fact you are a proven twister and manipulator, yeah, dishonest too.
>
> > > > > As I said, the analysis will be out there...
>
> > > > > RR
>
> > > > That's what happens when you're all alone, Michel.
>
> > > In your ignorance you forget where we are here! Either way I am far
> > > from alone.
>
> > And "here" seems to be the only contacts you have that substitute for
> > real life contacts.
>
> Logic please, you talk nonsensical.
>
The fact that you don't understand proves my point.
>
>
> > > > Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
>
> > > You defend him no matter what, you can't reflect on anything that
> > > harms his reputation or whatever. That is guru admiration behaviour.
> > > Simple plain FACT!!!
>
> > I pointed out that your web page about Gerry Armstrong is pretentious
> > and consists fully of speculations, theories, assumptions and
> > opinions. If you wish to see that as defending Gerry Armstrong: Fine.
> > But it shows your feeble attempts to distract from my criticism
> > towards your web page.
> > You tried to make a point of 12,000+ words, and you failed miserably.
>
> Well, you attack L. Ron Hubbard when there is virtually nothing that
> supports the attacks, but you defend Saint Gerry when it is thus far
> proven FACT that he is the SOLE SOURCE for the 2000 release of the
> Affirmations. Let him come up with a single name of the MANY that he
> claims that have read the handwritten orginals, and provide evidence
> for it. You know he is never going to respond to that.
>
I don't claim to use "scientific standards". I share information that
you or the CULT only attack with invalidation.
Being the only source for information doesn't mean it isn't true. Your
logic fails.
>
>
> > > > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > > > Michel.
> > > > Sociopaths never do.
>
> > > You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> > > *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> > > Well, happy jumping...
>
> > I called you a sociopath months ago.
>
> Gerry was much earlier with that... silly person...
>
Then we agree on at least this point. BTW: Rather infantile argument
you use. "He was earlier than you, so you copy words".
>
>
> > > > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > > > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> > > Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
> > Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
>
> You wish... silly self-indulgent person. Given yourslef 5 starts in
> various threads and me one star as a rating for the posts. and then
> deny that you can vote for yourself, silly person...
>
Assumptions, Michel, lame assumptions. BTW: I now know how to do the
trick.
My assumtion in return: You rate yourself 5*****. Can't imagine anyone
else does......
>
>
> > > Aleging is ALL Gerry can, and you follow right in HIS footsteps...
>
> > > RR
>
> > Oh? And 12,000+ words alleging don't count and are conveniently
> > ignored?
>
> Fact is that he IS proven by fact the sole source of the Affirmations
> he offered in 2000. He does NOT account for the $800,000 he received
> ANYWHERE. And still he plays the penniless. He claims to fear for his
> life from the very beginning. If he was correct then why is he alive
> today after ALL he has done since 1982???
>
> You can't DEAL WITH ALL THAT... silly person...
>
> Gerry has every single characteristic of bein a very disturbed
> sociopathic liar. He sees Martians. Every person that does not agree
> with him, he calls instanly a liar. All verifiable on ARS. He even
> offered himself as a replacement wittness to Saddam Hussein in an
> offical letter (not even mentioned in my analysis, and there is even
> more). He proudly tells these things on his own site. The guy is an
> outspoken fruitcake.
>
> But after all he is YOUR guru!!!!
>
> RR
>
Projecting much lately? You have this very childish habit to accuse
others for doing what you do yourself.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 28 jan, 07:39, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 Jan, 05:53, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 28 jan, 00:02, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 27 Jan, 22:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 27 jan, 21:55, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > snip
>
> > > > > > But Peter, you are talking with your guru Gerry Armstrong, feel
> > > > > > humble?? What an honour! Are you kneeling down now?
>
> > > > > > In fact you are a proven twister and manipulator, yeah, dishonest too.
>
> > > > > > As I said, the analysis will be out there...
>
> > > > > > RR
>
> > > > > That's what happens when you're all alone, Michel.
>
> > > > In your ignorance you forget where we are here! Either way I am far
> > > > from alone.
>
> > > And "here" seems to be the only contacts you have that substitute for
> > > real life contacts.
>
> > Logic please, you talk nonsensical.
>
> The fact that you don't understand proves my point.
More nonsense... Great logic...
>
> > > > > Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
>
> > > > You defend him no matter what, you can't reflect on anything that
> > > > harms his reputation or whatever. That is guru admiration behaviour.
> > > > Simple plain FACT!!!
>
> > > I pointed out that your web page about Gerry Armstrong is pretentious
> > > and consists fully of speculations, theories, assumptions and
> > > opinions. If you wish to see that as defending Gerry Armstrong: Fine.
> > > But it shows your feeble attempts to distract from my criticism
> > > towards your web page.
> > > You tried to make a point of 12,000+ words, and you failed miserably.
>
> > Well, you attack L. Ron Hubbard when there is virtually nothing that
> > supports the attacks, but you defend Saint Gerry when it is thus far
> > proven FACT that he is the SOLE SOURCE for the 2000 release of the
> > Affirmations. Let him come up with a single name of the MANY that he
> > claims that have read the handwritten orginals, and provide evidence
> > for it. You know he is never going to respond to that.
>
> I don't claim to use "scientific standards". I share information that
> you or the CULT only attack with invalidation.
Slander and lie. It's YOU that throws your personal attacks all over
the place...
> Being the only source for information doesn't mean it isn't true. Your
> logic fails.
Your evidence????? If you make a claim you put up or shut up. Saint
Gerry always shut up...
>
>
>
> > > > > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > > > > Michel.
> > > > > Sociopaths never do.
>
> > > > You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> > > > *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> > > > Well, happy jumping...
>
> > > I called you a sociopath months ago.
>
> > Gerry was much earlier with that... silly person...
>
> Then we agree on at least this point. BTW: Rather infantile argument
> you use. "He was earlier than you, so you copy words".
You have been copying more than that... even from me. Reflecting
tactics for one.
>
>
>
> > > > > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > > > > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> > > > Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
> > > Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
>
> > You wish... silly self-indulgent person. Given yourslef 5 starts in
> > various threads and me one star as a rating for the posts. and then
> > deny that you can vote for yourself, silly person...
>
> Assumptions, Michel, lame assumptions. BTW: I now know how to do the
> trick.
> My assumtion in return: You rate yourself 5*****. Can't imagine anyone
> else does......
And where do I get 5******?? It is not a trick, it NEVER has been a
trick...
>
> > > > Aleging is ALL Gerry can, and you follow right in HIS footsteps...
>
> > > > RR
>
> > > Oh? And 12,000+ words alleging don't count and are conveniently
> > > ignored?
>
> > Fact is that he IS proven by fact the sole source of the Affirmations
> > he offered in 2000. He does NOT account for the $800,000 he received
> > ANYWHERE. And still he plays the penniless. He claims to fear for his
> > life from the very beginning. If he was correct then why is he alive
> > today after ALL he has done since 1982???
>
> > You can't DEAL WITH ALL THAT... silly person...
>
> > Gerry has every single characteristic of bein a very disturbed
> > sociopathic liar. He sees Martians. Every person that does not agree
> > with him, he calls instanly a liar. All verifiable on ARS. He even
> > offered himself as a replacement wittness to Saddam Hussein in an
> > offical letter (not even mentioned in my analysis, and there is even
> > more). He proudly tells these things on his own site. The guy is an
> > outspoken fruitcake.
>
> > But after all he is YOUR guru!!!!
>
> > RR
>
> Projecting much lately? You have this very childish habit to accuse
> others for doing what you do yourself.
I haven't offered myself as replacement hostage to Saddam Hussein...
You can't face ANY of the treats of your guru Saint Gerry, yeah we DO
know that...
RR
Monica Pignotti
> On 27 Jan, 16:55,Gerry Armstrong<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
<snip>
> > Hubbard's admissions have been read by many people. Many indeed have
> > read the handwritten originals or their photocopies.
>
> Who?? There is NO record for that claim!!!!!!!!!!!
Is that true, Gerry, or is there any kind of record? Can you be more
specific and name the people who read them? If there are no records,
can they at least come forward and vouch for this?
It is predictable that anyone challenging this would be shouted down
by true believers -- par for the course on ars -- but I think some
legitimate questions are being raised here. If Gerry can answer them
then maybe this whole matter can be put to rest. I really hope so. The
reason I wonder about this is that I was doing exit counseling in the
late 80s/early 90s even though I had other dox that came from court
cases and raids that were part of public record, I didn't have
anything in Hubbard's handwriting for these affirmations to show
people. Some people here are trying to reverse the burden of proof,
but the fact is that if these were never documented as being Hubbard's
and if documents were never produced in Hubbard's own handwriting as
claimed, then the burden of proof was never met and rests with the
claimant, Gerry Armstrong. That is the bottom line.
Were these documents in Hubbard's writing ever produce in court or did
they only have your testimony that they were in Hubbard's writing?
Those would be very different levels of evidence. So do we have the
dox or Gerry's word that they existed?
<snip>
> Your OWN documented words from November 1984:
> "We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t.
> We just have to allege it.”
How was it documented? Did you say this, Gerry? Do you believe that
this is the case? I don't know if you did or if you believe that, but
it is certainly the attitude I have encountered here with some people
who make other unsupported allegations. That, in and of itself, would
not be proof that Gerry is lying about this particular thing but I
still have to wonder if this is what he believes.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> "Maureen" <Lermanet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7763d5a2-c091-4819...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 27, 2:12 pm, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Utter nonsense! They are NOT part of Scientology scripture as they are
> > NOT ANYWHERE taught at the Scientology organization, did you miss this
> > little detail??
>
> Road Runner:
>
> Of course people know that. As if the Church of Scientology is going to
> teach L. Ron Hubbard's personal diaries and bedroom notes to people. Of
> course not.
>
> And I imagine that if not L. Ron Hubbard then certainly his church must
> have at least a little embarrassed if not left feeling slightly violated
> that L. Ron Hubbard's diaries made it to the world wide web. In L. Ron
> Hubbard's own life he was not even familiar with the internet.
>
> And, regardless of what any laws anywhere say or what any L. Ron Hubbard
> policy says anywhere, whatever does the greatest good for the greatest
> number is always OK, whether it is written anywhere that it is OK or not,
> right?
>
> So, how could L. Ron Hubbard have been such an ethical guy when he wrote
> Dianetics that he wrote these things in his diary at the same time?
>
> seeing as how L. Ron Hubbard gave him permission to read them, to the point
> of running out of the door of the church with them and going home ONLY to
> find that before he got to tell the church about his upset they already had
> people banging down his DOOR!
>
> Larry
> {LaserClam Is Like A Pit Viper!}
I'm sure you can "imagine" many things, as can I, and these imaginings
may or may not be true. The real question is what is the actual
evidence?
Monica
peters...@gmail.com
> On 28 Jan, 08:06, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 28 jan, 07:39, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Jan, 05:53, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 jan, 00:02, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On 27 Jan, 22:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 27 jan, 21:55, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > > But Peter, you are talking with your guru Gerry Armstrong, feel
> > > > > > > humble?? What an honour! Are you kneeling down now?
>
> > > > > > > In fact you are a proven twister and manipulator, yeah, dishonest too.
>
> > > > > > > As I said, the analysis will be out there...
>
> > > > > > > RR
>
> > > > > > That's what happens when you're all alone, Michel.
>
> > > > > In your ignorance you forget where we are here! Either way I am far
> > > > > from alone.
>
> > > > And "here" seems to be the only contacts you have that substitute for
> > > > real life contacts.
>
> > > Logic please, you talk nonsensical.
>
> > The fact that you don't understand proves my point.
>
> More nonsense... Great logic...
>
Well, you think discussing on ars equals real life contacts. You don't
understand there is a big difference in ars contacts and real life
contacts, otherwise you wouldn't compare them. So the logical
conclusion can only be that you don't know the difference, so you
don't understand what real life contact means.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
>
> > > > > You defend him no matter what, you can't reflect on anything that
> > > > > harms his reputation or whatever. That is guru admiration behaviour.
> > > > > Simple plain FACT!!!
>
> > > > I pointed out that your web page about Gerry Armstrong is pretentious
> > > > and consists fully of speculations, theories, assumptions and
> > > > opinions. If you wish to see that as defending Gerry Armstrong: Fine.
> > > > But it shows your feeble attempts to distract from my criticism
> > > > towards your web page.
> > > > You tried to make a point of 12,000+ words, and you failed miserably.
>
> > > Well, you attack L. Ron Hubbard when there is virtually nothing that
> > > supports the attacks, but you defend Saint Gerry when it is thus far
> > > proven FACT that he is the SOLE SOURCE for the 2000 release of the
> > > Affirmations. Let him come up with a single name of the MANY that he
> > > claims that have read the handwritten orginals, and provide evidence
> > > for it. You know he is never going to respond to that.
>
> > I don't claim to use "scientific standards". I share information that
> > you or the CULT only attack with invalidation.
>
> Slander and lie. It's YOU that throws your personal attacks all over
> the place...
>
Oh? You didn't claim to have used "scientific standards"? I don't
share information that you or the CULT don't want to see? And you
don't attack posters with invalidation? (Mm, where did I read many
times in one post "silly person" again.....)
> > Being the only source for information doesn't mean it isn't true. Your
> > logic fails.
>
> Your evidence????? If you make a claim you put up or shut up. Saint
> Gerry always shut up...
>
Evidence? Evidence for what? That the only source of information means
it can not be true, or the opposite, is true?
You become more and more irrational, Michel.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > > > > > Michel.
> > > > > > Sociopaths never do.
>
> > > > > You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> > > > > *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> > > > > Well, happy jumping...
>
> > > > I called you a sociopath months ago.
>
> > > Gerry was much earlier with that... silly person...
>
> > Then we agree on at least this point. BTW: Rather infantile argument
> > you use. "He was earlier than you, so you copy words".
>
> You have been copying more than that... even from me. Reflecting
> tactics for one.
>
See!? You don't even know what you are talking about. It is not
reflecting but projecting, and I asked you many times before.
Or is this idiotic response meaning you have copyrights on words and
expressions? Even when used by others?
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > > > > > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> > > > > Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
> > > > Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
>
> > > You wish... silly self-indulgent person. Given yourslef 5 starts in
> > > various threads and me one star as a rating for the posts. and then
> > > deny that you can vote for yourself, silly person...
>
> > Assumptions, Michel, lame assumptions. BTW: I now know how to do the
> > trick.
> > My assumtion in return: You rate yourself 5*****. Can't imagine anyone
> > else does......
>
> And where do I get 5******?? It is not a trick, it NEVER has been a
> trick...
>
Not here, you don't. And for a reason. But I think it was Barbara
Schwarz that some time ago rated you 5*****.
Good for you!
Peter
"5. invalidation is force applied. You apply enough force to anybody
and you've invalidated him. How invalidated can he get? Dead!"
- Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary by L. Ron Hubbard
Black Mamba
news:ce844e7c-d711-41a5...@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
*I'm sure you can "imagine" many things, as can I, and *these imaginings
*may or may not be true. The real question is what is the *actual
*evidence?
Monica
I realize. Monica, my feeling on the matter is that I don't think there
is anything wrong with anybody walking off with L. Ron Hubbard's personal
autobiographical notes and putting them on the web, hence the reason why I
am no longer a Scientologist. The church disagrees and refers to Gerry
Armstrong as the biggest SP around! I cannot be thrown out of Scientology
for feeling this way.
But Monica, just like Scientologists STOLE my mail from L. Ron Hubbard
and lied to me saying he had never written. If you or I did this to a
Scientologist I know you can IMAGINE what would happen. But it is OK if they
do it to you or me and then boastfully lie to you about it while teaching
people the "Way To Mental Health".
roadrunn...@gmail.com
Thank you, these are exactly the questions I have been asking. My
write-up was simply an attempt to put the various data together and
draw a logical conclusion/possibilities as per the data that is
available. Gerry has a lot of explaining to do, but he boldly refuses
to do so.
RR
R. Hill
http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/images/thecompiler-newspaper_jan-jun-84b-2.pdf#page=3
"... Armstrong's attorney, Michael Flynn, was discussing the papers
under seal when he made mention of the documents called '*Admissions*,'
bringing sect attorney Barrett Litt to his feet. Litt was adamant in his
argument that those particular documents not be discussed in open court.
..."
There might be more references, I don't know:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library.php?mf=1&yf=1984&mt=12&yt=1984&t=armstrong+lawsuit+hubbard+credentials
<snip>
--
Ray.
peters...@gmail.com
> We just have to allege it.”
>
> The proper question may be: "Will the true sociopath and liar stand
> up!"
>
> http://tiny.cc/gerrys_affirmations
>
> Gerry Armstrong herewith has been given the opportunity to respond.
> Will he or will he not, that's the question!
>
> Regards,
> Roadrunner
For those who are interested in "The Admissions", here is a link to
it:
http://www.ronthenut.org/admissio.pdf
Peter
"Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation burns."
- L. Ron Hubbard, ALL ABOUT RADIATION, p. 109
roadrunn...@gmail.com
Thank you for some sanity on this matter. I've asked him to come
forward a variety of times thus far on this, but he refuses to
respond.
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
Whatever gave you that idea? ARS is the domain of the anti-Scientology
propagandists basically. Thus my combined one * rating for my messages
is in fact a compliment as I must be bothering the lot of you pretty
seriously!!! As opposed to your combined 4 * rating. do you really
think that gives you credibility??? You forget where you are...
> > > > > > > Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
>
> > > > > > You defend him no matter what, you can't reflect on anything that
> > > > > > harms his reputation or whatever. That is guru admiration behaviour.
> > > > > > Simple plain FACT!!!
>
> > > > > I pointed out that your web page about Gerry Armstrong is pretentious
> > > > > and consists fully of speculations, theories, assumptions and
> > > > > opinions. If you wish to see that as defending Gerry Armstrong: Fine.
> > > > > But it shows your feeble attempts to distract from my criticism
> > > > > towards your web page.
> > > > > You tried to make a point of 12,000+ words, and you failed miserably.
>
> > > > Well, you attack L. Ron Hubbard when there is virtually nothing that
> > > > supports the attacks, but you defend Saint Gerry when it is thus far
> > > > proven FACT that he is the SOLE SOURCE for the 2000 release of the
> > > > Affirmations. Let him come up with a single name of the MANY that he
> > > > claims that have read the handwritten orginals, and provide evidence
> > > > for it. You know he is never going to respond to that.
>
> > > I don't claim to use "scientific standards". I share information that
> > > you or the CULT only attack with invalidation.
>
> > Slander and lie. It's YOU that throws your personal attacks all over
> > the place...
>
> Oh? You didn't claim to have used "scientific standards"? I don't
> share information that you or the CULT don't want to see? And you
> don't attack posters with invalidation? (Mm, where did I read many
> times in one post "silly person" again.....)
As opposed to every single remark towards me from you is about a foul
personal attack and invalidation. The difference between you and me
though is that I live in reality. Be happy with your combined 4 *
message rate on ARS. Is that your world??? You behaviour is childish
and foolish.
>
> > > Being the only source for information doesn't mean it isn't true. Your
> > > logic fails.
>
> > Your evidence????? If you make a claim you put up or shut up. Saint
> > Gerry always shut up...
>
> Evidence? Evidence for what? That the only source of information means
> it can not be true, or the opposite, is true?
You are in denial. When are going to follow in your guru's footsteps,
and offer yourself as a replacement hostage to Saddam Hussein (or whom
ever).
> You become more and more irrational.
Face the reality that you admire a fruitcake. aleging is all what
Saint Gerry has been doing all these years. My write up makes this
quite clear...
>
> > > > > > > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > > > > > > Michel.
> > > > > > > Sociopaths never do.
>
> > > > > > You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> > > > > > *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> > > > > > Well, happy jumping...
>
> > > > > I called you a sociopath months ago.
>
> > > > Gerry was much earlier with that... silly person...
>
> > > Then we agree on at least this point. BTW: Rather infantile argument
> > > you use. "He was earlier than you, so you copy words".
>
> > You have been copying more than that... even from me. Reflecting
> > tactics for one.
>
> See!? You don't even know what you are talking about. It is not
> reflecting but projecting, and I asked you many times before.
> Or is this idiotic response meaning you have copyrights on words and
> expressions? Even when used by others?
In the way I used it reflecting is alright to use...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > > > > > > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> > > > > > Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
> > > > > Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
>
> > > > You wish... silly self-indulgent person. Given yourslef 5 starts in
> > > > various threads and me one star as a rating for the posts. and then
> > > > deny that you can vote for yourself, silly person...
>
> > > Assumptions, Michel, lame assumptions. BTW: I now know how to do the
> > > trick.
> > > My assumtion in return: You rate yourself 5*****. Can't imagine anyone
> > > else does......
>
> > And where do I get 5******?? It is not a trick, it NEVER has been a
> > trick...
>
> Not here, you don't. And for a reason. But I think it was Barbara
> Schwarz that some time ago rated you 5*****.
Ya think? Would surpirse, as Barbara has her senses together. She
knows where she is, and this is the anti-Scientologists domain, be
assured she knows that. Ratings given here carry NO value whatsoever.
Unless my combined 1* rating indicates that you people don't like the
things I write..., and thus this rating is very much in favour of me.
Get my point... Probably not...
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
>
> "... Armstrong's attorney, Michael Flynn, was discussing the papers
> under seal when he made mention of the documents called '*Admissions*,'
> bringing sect attorney Barrett Litt to his feet. Litt was adamant in his
> argument that those particular documents not be discussed in open court.
We have no indication that he even read them. Not in the court
records. He only quoted 2 or 3 short paraphrases and asked Gerry to
confirm them, and that's it!
> ..."
>
> There might be more references, I don't know:http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library.php?mf=1&yf=1984&mt=12&yt=...
Gerry makes the claim, but does not support with evidence. It appears
that ALL that Saint Gerry still is doing is ALEGING... and no more...
nonetheless he is indeed very good at it!!!! See, what he created!
RR
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Ray.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
There in fact is something VERY wrong with that if their authenticity
can not efficiently and positively be confirmed. And this hase NEVER
been done in any way. Their authenticity is ALLEGED, that's about
it...
RR
peters...@gmail.com
Your behavior here.
> ARS is the domain of the anti-Scientology
> propagandists basically.
Movement, not propagandists. Propaganda is your domain.
> Thus my combined one * rating for my messages
> is in fact a compliment as I must be bothering the lot of you pretty
> seriously!!! As opposed to your combined 4 * rating. do you really
> think that gives you credibility??? You forget where you are...
>
Why your obsession with the ratings? They really are important to you,
otherwise why knowingly make false accusations?
Believe me: Weeks pass that I don't even notice them.
In reaction to your constant invalidations and ad hominems, it's only
human one to reply to it.
But I admit, you are the master of suggestive remarks, invalidations,
degrading. None beats Michel Snoeck!
> The difference between you and me
> though is that I live in reality.
Yep. You really showed that! LOL!
> Be happy with your combined 4 *
> message rate on ARS. Is that your world??? You behaviour is childish
> and foolish.
>
Why your obsession with the ratings? They really are important to you,
otherwise why knowingly make false accusations?
Believe me: Weeks pass that I don't even notice them.
>
>
> > > > Being the only source for information doesn't mean it isn't true. Your
> > > > logic fails.
>
> > > Your evidence????? If you make a claim you put up or shut up. Saint
> > > Gerry always shut up...
>
> > Evidence? Evidence for what? That the only source of information means
> > it can not be true, or the opposite, is true?
>
> You are in denial. When are going to follow in your guru's footsteps,
> and offer yourself as a replacement hostage to Saddam Hussein (or whom
> ever).
>
A typical, empty, meaningless answer.
Again: Where is the evidence for your claim here on ars that Gerry
Armstrong wrote the Affirmations?/Admissions?
> > You become more and more irrational.
>
> Face the reality that you admire a fruitcake. aleging is all what
> Saint Gerry has been doing all these years. My write up makes this
> quite clear...
>
No. It alleges.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > > > > > > > Michel.
> > > > > > > > Sociopaths never do.
>
> > > > > > > You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> > > > > > > *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> > > > > > > Well, happy jumping...
>
> > > > > > I called you a sociopath months ago.
>
> > > > > Gerry was much earlier with that... silly person...
>
> > > > Then we agree on at least this point. BTW: Rather infantile argument
> > > > you use. "He was earlier than you, so you copy words".
>
> > > You have been copying more than that... even from me. Reflecting
> > > tactics for one.
>
> > See!? You don't even know what you are talking about. It is not
> > reflecting but projecting, and I asked you many times before.
> > Or is this idiotic response meaning you have copyrights on words and
> > expressions? Even when used by others?
>
> In the way I used it reflecting is alright to use...
>
If you say so.......
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > > > > > > > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> > > > > > > Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
> > > > > > Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
>
> > > > > You wish... silly self-indulgent person. Given yourslef 5 starts in
> > > > > various threads and me one star as a rating for the posts. and then
> > > > > deny that you can vote for yourself, silly person...
>
> > > > Assumptions, Michel, lame assumptions. BTW: I now know how to do the
> > > > trick.
> > > > My assumtion in return: You rate yourself 5*****. Can't imagine anyone
> > > > else does......
>
> > > And where do I get 5******?? It is not a trick, it NEVER has been a
> > > trick...
>
> > Not here, you don't. And for a reason. But I think it was Barbara
> > Schwarz that some time ago rated you 5*****.
>
> Ya think? Would surpirse, as Barbara has her senses together. She
> knows where she is, and this is the anti-Scientologists domain, be
> assured she knows that. Ratings given here carry NO value whatsoever.
> Unless my combined 1* rating indicates that you people don't like the
> things I write..., and thus this rating is very much in favour of me.
> Get my point... Probably not...
>
> RR
>
You might add that Barbara knows she is a woman?
For once I agree: Ratings have no value.
But why are you so obsessed with them?
roadrunn...@gmail.com
Non sequitur
>
> > ARS is the domain of the anti-Scientology
> > propagandists basically.
>
> Movement, not propagandists.
Same thing basically...
>Propaganda is your domain.
That is a foul twist... My data can be verified, your data is for the
most stories with a manipulated presentation... That is what
substitutes propaganda...
>
> > Thus my combined one * rating for my messages
> > is in fact a compliment as I must be bothering the lot of you pretty
> > seriously!!! As opposed to your combined 4 * rating. do you really
> > think that gives you credibility??? You forget where you are...
>
> Why your obsession with the ratings? They really are important to you,
> otherwise why knowingly make false accusations?
> Believe me: Weeks pass that I don't even notice them.
No, but just now they do... You claimed that you did not know how to
vote yourself a while back, I think you knew already then. Probably
you wee already voting on yourself. fact is that one can vote on any
person just like that. I believe this observation of you is not in
your favour.
Again, you are a foul twister...
>None beats Michel Snoeck!
>
> > The difference between you and me
> > though is that I live in reality.
>
> Yep. You really showed that! LOL!
The laugh of the ignorant, yeah...
>
> > Be happy with your combined 4 *
> > message rate on ARS. Is that your world??? You behaviour is childish
> > and foolish.
> > > > > Being the only source for information doesn't mean it isn't true. Your
> > > > > logic fails.
>
> > > > Your evidence????? If you make a claim you put up or shut up. Saint
> > > > Gerry always shut up...
>
> > > Evidence? Evidence for what? That the only source of information means
> > > it can not be true, or the opposite, is true?
>
> > You are in denial. When are going to follow in your guru's footsteps,
> > and offer yourself as a replacement hostage to Saddam Hussein (or whom
> > ever).
>
> A typical, empty, meaningless answer.
> Again: Where is the evidence for your claim here on ars that Gerry
> Armstrong wrote the Affirmations?/Admissions?
Tsk, tsk, you say he wrote them, I didn't... Fact: He posted them and
refuses to give his sources, he destroyed the originals (he claims, an
easy claim to make!). If you promote them, you support their actual
authenticity with proper verification. Gerry does the opposite. Gerry
refuses to clairify, even on this thread he did not do that. Instead
he comes with more claims (many have seen and read the handwritten
originals) and REFUSING to support his claim!!!
Sorry, it really does not look very good for the credibility of your
guru and Saint, Gerry.
>
> > > You become more and more irrational.
>
> > Face the reality that you admire a fruitcake. aleging is all what
> > Saint Gerry has been doing all these years. My write up makes this
> > quite clear...
>
> No. It alleges.
Hihi, well let the readers decide for themselves, will we... You see,
alleging is the business of your guru Gerry the Saint. It's ALL he
does!!!
And YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT!!!
RR
peters...@gmail.com
I can. You however seem to have difficulties with the issue: You wrote
a 12,000+ article, yet you don't present any evidence for your claim
here that Gerry Armstrong wrote the Affirmations/Admissions. You even
stated you saw resemblance with Gerry Armstrong's style of writing!
You conveniently avoided my question:
Why your obsession with the ratings?
Peter
roadrunn...@gmail.com
You don't behave in the manner that you can nor do.
>You however seem to have difficulties with the issue: You wrote
> a 12,000+ article, yet you don't present any evidence for your claim
> here that Gerry Armstrong wrote the Affirmations/Admissions. You even
> stated you saw resemblance with Gerry Armstrong's style of writing!
You can't duplicate still. I did not imply he wrote them, he is the
source of their existence basically. That is proven per available
evidence.
If Gerry has evidence ofr their authenticity he would provide it, but
he BOLDLY REFUSES. Hell, he even says he destroyes his own evidence
(so he claims). Grand!!! See here, YOUR guru!!
Coincidence? You forgot to rate your own post here?
RR
>
> Peter
Scientology Keeps Calling Me
lets people add to what you and others write here! Most of us got
over little yellow stars somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd grades of
our elementary educations. Since you care so much about them, I'll be
sure to keep handing them to you... One by one... Each time I am
subjected to your lies...
Speaking of YOUR LIES, YOUR LIES and failed attempts to trick people
into thinking you use "academic standards" or "academic guidelines" or
whatever LIES you are using today to try to disguise your FAIL
attempts at propaganda as "academic" or "scientific" are FAIL!
You only cite sources which agree with you, and even then YOU FAIL to
cite them properly. YOU FAIL to give credit to sources YOU QUOTE if
you don't like them PERSONALLY and this is called BAD SCHOLARSHIP and
PLAGIARISM in EVERY CLASSROOM IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD and will get you
kicked out of a university.
You are intellectually dishonest, academically inept (although this
perhaps deliberately), you are a false critic of the cult of
Scientology, and a LIAR and YOU FAIL miserably in all your attempts to
distract from the truth or squelch the critics!
peters...@gmail.com
No. You just can't except that I do.
> >You however seem to have difficulties with the issue: You wrote
> > a 12,000+ article, yet you don't present any evidence for your claim
> > here that Gerry Armstrong wrote the Affirmations/Admissions. You even
> > stated you saw resemblance with Gerry Armstrong's style of writing!
>
> You can't duplicate still. I did not imply he wrote them, he is the
> source of their existence basically. That is proven per available
> evidence.
>
You know very well that you have claimed on ars before that Gerry
Armstrong wrote the Admissions/Affirmations. You even referred to the
similarity between the writing style of the author of the Admissions/
Affirmations and Gerry Armstrong's writing style.
> If Gerry has evidence ofr their authenticity he would provide it, but
> he BOLDLY REFUSES. Hell, he even says he destroyes his own evidence
> (so he claims). Grand!!! See here, YOUR guru!!
>
Just read your own text again. So he claims he destroyed the original.
And you want to see it.
You are a real loon, Michel. You're the one obsessed with the ratings,
not me.
In your little world it is impossible that anyone might be rating my
posts 5*****.
So, with your limited social abilities you can only believe that the
only way my posts are rated 5*****: Peter MUST have rated himself
5*****!
That, or you are just an asshole, knowingly posting false accusations.
And you believe anyone would believe your accusations?
You not even succeeded to substantiate your claim that Gerry Armstrong
wrote the Admissions/Affirmations!
Peter
"You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you
mocked up your past lives.
Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology.
L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no
uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the
bridge.
He even told you he was selling you a bridge."
- Ladybird
banchukita
> Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:16:14 -0800 (PST), peterschi...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 27 jan, 15:21, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >>> That which is interesting is that you continue to defend Saint Gerry
> >>> after all that we know about him. Oh well. let's suffice to say that
> >>> we have a lot more about your Saint than L. Ron Hubbbard to having had
> >>> things wrong.
>
> >>> RR
>
> >> I am not defending Gerry: He is very well able to do that himself.
> >> All I point out is that you spent 12,000+ words on speculations,
> >> theories, assumptions and opinions without a single proof of your
> >> suggestion that Gerry Armstrong wrote the Admissions/Affirmations.
>
> > It may be a suggestion now, because Roadrump is backpedalling like
> > crazy, but he made the factual assertion that I wrote Hubbard's
> > admissions. If he has now actually backpedalled all the way down to a
> > "suggestion," he should admit that he lied when he stated as fact that
> > I had written Hubbard's admissions, which, of course, Hubbard had
> > written.
>
> > A factual assertion is quite different from a suggestion.
>
> >> Peter
>
> >> "The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been
> >> accomplished now!"
> >> - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, November
> >> 1970, "Psychosis"
>
> >>http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
> > © Gerry Armstrong
> >http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>
> Is RR again referring to himself as "we"?
>
> --
> Ray.
As Mark Twain points out, the use of the editorial 'we' should be
reserved for kings, editors and people with tapeworm.
-maggie human being
Jommy Cross
in msg <c5a0f751-069c-42c5...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Face the reality that you admire a fruitcake. aleging is all what
>Saint Gerry has been doing all these years.
Yeah, you gotta cut Gerry some slack, he used to be a $cientologist.
What you don't seem to grasp is that Gerry being a flake doesn't of itself
make you sound sane, or Hubbard right about anything.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Jommy Cross
in msg <7fa7b293-6ab9-48e5...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>There in fact is something VERY wrong with that if their authenticity
>can not efficiently and positively be confirmed.
No, it's not wrong, just uncertain.
>And this hase NEVER
>been done in any way. Their authenticity is ALLEGED, that's about
>it...
What's interesting about the Affirmations of L Ron Hubbard is how perfectly
they fit in with all the other things we know about L Ron Hubbard's
history.
So if they're *not* his own work, they ought as well be.
But even if the Affirmations *are* the work of another author, how do we
explain all the other batshit stuff it fits in with so well?
From the Navy to Parsons, Crowley, and the Enchantress. Discipline, magic,
goofing off, sailing away. It's all so very Ron.
realpch
I must agree. They have the ring of truth to them. Once upon a time,
like others in my age group, I practiced the writing of affirmations.
Coming across these later, I must say they do produce an eerily accurate
picture of the mind that wrote them. I very sensibly destroy them every
time I find them. I wonder if Hubbard was inclined to toss out any of
the pearls of wisdom that flowed from his pen. Probably not.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
roadrunn...@gmail.com
<scientologycall...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow RR, you really go cuckoo over those little yellow stars google
> lets people add to what you and others write here! Most of us got
> over little yellow stars somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd grades of
> our elementary educations. Since you care so much about them, I'll be
> sure to keep handing them to you... One by one... Each time I am
> subjected to your lies...
Yeah, you, your pal Peter, or one your comrates made sure you received
a 5* rating as well. Gratulations! Ain't that silly...
>
> Speaking of YOUR LIES, YOUR LIES and failed attempts to trick people
> into thinking you use "academic standards" or "academic guidelines" or
> whatever LIES you are using today to try to disguise your FAIL
> attempts at propaganda as "academic" or "scientific" are FAIL!
No, you only assert so... This is the line of gury Gerry, martyr of
the anti-Scienyology movement to throw the words lie, liar, you lie,
you are lying all over the place without significance.
>
> You only cite sources which agree with you, and even then YOU FAIL to
> cite them properly. YOU FAIL to give credit to sources YOU QUOTE if
> you don't like them PERSONALLY and this is called BAD SCHOLARSHIP and
> PLAGIARISM in EVERY CLASSROOM IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD and will get you
> kicked out of a university.
Please forward your study and evidecne of the above claim? What
exactly have I cited improperly? What sources have I missed? And so
on...
>
> You are intellectually dishonest, academically inept (although this
> perhaps deliberately), you are a false critic of the cult of
> Scientology, and a LIAR and YOU FAIL miserably in all your attempts to
> distract from the truth or squelch the critics!
Yeah, you sure follow the line of guru Gerry, he must be your master
too!
See, you only respond because of the effect my message create, and you
fear that people will consider them and start to ask questions. Thus
you attack, try to overthrow with opinion... Just you know, that's
the behaviour of the feebleminded one's amongst us, well just that you
can't say later on that no one has told you so...
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:08:39 -0800 (PST), roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote
> in msg <7fa7b293-6ab9-48e5-8fd1-09dc411aa...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>
>
> >There in fact is something VERY wrong with that if their authenticity
> >can not efficiently and positively be confirmed.
>
> No, it's not wrong, just uncertain.
It is wrong because Saint Gerry REFUSES to explain himself concerning
these matters!!!
>
> >And this hase NEVER
> >been done in any way. Their authenticity is ALLEGED, that's about
> >it...
>
> What's interesting about the Affirmations of L Ron Hubbard is how perfectly
> they fit in with all the other things we know about L Ron Hubbard's
> history.
Forward your EVIDENCE, as just now you too are in the alleging
business..
>
> So if they're *not* his own work, they ought as well be.
>
> But even if the Affirmations *are* the work of another author, how do we
> explain all the other batshit stuff it fits in with so well?
>
> From the Navy to Parsons, Crowley, and the Enchantress. Discipline, magic,
> goofing off, sailing away. It's all so very Ron.
No, it is all so 'anti-Scientology propaganda. See, THAT is what is so
strange, it is ALL in there ...You didn't evaluate properly, now did
you!
>
> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Well, someone trolled you, most likely propaganda...
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> > in msg <7fa7b293-6ab9-48e5-8fd1-09dc411aa...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
You too? Disappointing as at times you said wise things, here however
you also appear to have falling for a claim and not properly
criticizing it... See, that's the treat of Gerry Armstrong, this is
what he is BEST AT. He is a fruitcake, but far from unintelligent.
Think, Peach...
RR
peters...@gmail.com
That's the difference between you and Hubbard. Hubbard gathered
thousands of people behind him and his CULT. Because he was
intelligent.
You're not. Because all you have gathered so far are Barbara, Jonathon
and..... Oh. that's it.
You just act intelligent.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
He was not interested to have thouasand of people 'behind him'...
> and his CULT.
People and followers create a cult, he created NO such thing...
>Because he was
> intelligent.
> You're not.
Tsk, tsk, repeatedly confirmed amongst other on OCMB. Your pals say I
am...
>Because all you have gathered so far are Barbara, Jonathon
> and..... Oh. that's it.
You forget where you are, and it this your whole little world?
RR
peters...@gmail.com
No.
realpch
Every day I evaluate things without formal evidence. Everyday, I judge
character. The longer I live, the better I get at these things. When I
am wrong about something, I consider it, and learn.
I have considered those affirmations. There is some possibility that
Hubbard didn't write them, as there is no absolute proof. But I think he
probably did. And as Jommy said, he might as well have...they're just
like him!
I am not worried about those affirmations. I shall leave that to you.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 29 jan, 07:24, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> You are a real loon, Michel. You're the one obsessed with the ratings,
> not me.
This particular response makes you quite suspect. Within the last 40
hours or so I received about 140 ratings, presumably all 1*. See, it
is those responsible for that that appear rather obsessed with it. The
more because at the same time all your 'friends' on ARS received a 5*
rating for about each and every post. All I do is making the
observation.
> In your little world it is impossible that anyone might be rating my
> posts 5*****.
> So, with your limited social abilities you can only believe that the
> only way my posts are rated 5*****: Peter MUST have rated himself
> 5*****!
> That, or you are just an asshole, knowingly posting false accusations.
>
> And you believe anyone would believe your accusations?
> You not even succeeded to substantiate your claim that Gerry Armstrong
> wrote the Admissions/Affirmations!
You are a slanderous twister. That claim was not made. However it is
proven beyond a doubt that your guru Gerry is the SOLE source of the
one's he released in the year 2000. Simple plain fact, and you CAN'T
DEAL WITH THAT TRUTH...
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
Hihi, find my first post on OCMB, you find it directly followed by
various of your pals that confirm that I would be intelligent. Now, I
haven't seen ANY person at ANY time saying that YOU would be
intelligent. My opposers acknowledge me, you have NONE. Jealous?
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
On what grounds? What evidence? None is being offered... See, that is
the bottom line of it all. Sorry, but you blew this one. You and Jommy
also failed to adjudicate and evaluate the person Gerry Armstrong.
RR
peters...@gmail.com
> On 29 Jan, 08:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 29 jan, 07:24, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > You are a real loon, Michel. You're the one obsessed with the ratings,
> > not me.
>
> This particular response makes you quite suspect. Within the last 40
> hours or so I received about 140 ratings, presumably all 1*. See, it
> is those responsible for that that appear rather obsessed with it. The
> more because at the same time all your 'friends' on ARS received a 5*
> rating for about each and every post. All I do is making the
> observation.
>
You don't have to believe me. But I start to doubt your mental state.
You see, you start seeing conspiracies that don't exist. You can go on
with your observations, but it only will make you look more silly than
you already are.
> > In your little world it is impossible that anyone might be rating my
> > posts 5*****.
> > So, with your limited social abilities you can only believe that the
> > only way my posts are rated 5*****: Peter MUST have rated himself
> > 5*****!
> > That, or you are just an asshole, knowingly posting false accusations.
>
> > And you believe anyone would believe your accusations?
> > You not even succeeded to substantiate your claim that Gerry Armstrong
> > wrote the Admissions/Affirmations!
>
> You are a slanderous twister. That claim was not made. However it is
> proven beyond a doubt that your guru Gerry is the SOLE source of the
> one's he released in the year 2000. Simple plain fact, and you CAN'T
> DEAL WITH THAT TRUTH...
>
> RR
>
Sorry Michel, but you are the one twisting and lying.
You wrote about facts, remember?
Look:
"The indications that we have and the facts we have at hand is that
Gerry Armstrong wrote the damn things himself."
To emphasize:
"THE FACTS WE HAVE AT HAND IS THAT GERRY ARMSTRONG WROTE THE DAMN
THINGS HIMSELF."
No "ifs" or "buts", in plain English.
Peter
"Scientology...is not a religion."
- L. Ron Hubbard, CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251
peters...@gmail.com
Yes, Michel, you are looking VERY intelligent here and now.
ROFL!
roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 30 jan, 14:04, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29 Jan, 08:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 29 jan, 07:24, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > You are a real loon, Michel. You're the one obsessed with the ratings,
> > > not me.
>
> > This particular response makes you quite suspect. Within the last 40
> > hours or so I received about 140 ratings, presumably all 1*. See, it
> > is those responsible for that that appear rather obsessed with it. The
> > more because at the same time all your 'friends' on ARS received a 5*
> > rating for about each and every post. All I do is making the
> > observation.
>
> You don't have to believe me. But I start to doubt your mental state.
If some disturbed person starts doubting my mental state, then should
I worry? It would in fact rather be a compliment.
> You see, you start seeing conspiracies that don't exist. You can go on
> with your observations, but it only will make you look more silly than
> you already are.
The observation is a FACT... Your denial is very suspect. It would be
plausible to opt that you are involved with the rating game.
>
>
>
> > > In your little world it is impossible that anyone might be rating my
> > > posts 5*****.
> > > So, with your limited social abilities you can only believe that the
> > > only way my posts are rated 5*****: Peter MUST have rated himself
> > > 5*****!
> > > That, or you are just an asshole, knowingly posting false accusations.
>
> > > And you believe anyone would believe your accusations?
> > > You not even succeeded to substantiate your claim that Gerry Armstrong
> > > wrote the Admissions/Affirmations!
>
> > You are a slanderous twister. That claim was not made. However it is
> > proven beyond a doubt that your guru Gerry is the SOLE source of the
> > one's he released in the year 2000. Simple plain fact, and you CAN'T
> > DEAL WITH THAT TRUTH...
>
> > RR
>
> Sorry Michel, but you are the one twisting and lying.
> You wrote about facts, remember?
> Look:
> "The indications that we have and the facts we have at hand is that
> Gerry Armstrong wrote the damn things himself."
> To emphasize:
> "THE FACTS WE HAVE AT HAND IS THAT GERRY ARMSTRONG WROTE THE DAMN
> THINGS HIMSELF."
>
> No "ifs" or "buts", in plain English.
Did you not also quote me a variety times with: "I can not confirm or
deny who would be the author of the Affirmations, all I can do is
carefully track their history and share my observations."
So which is it? See, you can't have it both ways... :-)
RR
peters...@gmail.com
> On 30 Jan, 15:36, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 30 jan, 14:04, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Jan, 08:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 29 jan, 07:24, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > > You are a real loon, Michel. You're the one obsessed with the ratings,
> > > > not me.
>
> > > This particular response makes you quite suspect. Within the last 40
> > > hours or so I received about 140 ratings, presumably all 1*. See, it
> > > is those responsible for that that appear rather obsessed with it. The
> > > more because at the same time all your 'friends' on ARS received a 5*
> > > rating for about each and every post. All I do is making the
> > > observation.
>
> > You don't have to believe me. But I start to doubt your mental state.
>
> If some disturbed person starts doubting my mental state, then should
> I worry? It would in fact rather be a compliment.
>
IF that happens: Don't worry.
> > You see, you start seeing conspiracies that don't exist. You can go on
> > with your observations, but it only will make you look more silly than
> > you already are.
>
> The observation is a FACT... Your denial is very suspect. It would be
> plausible to opt that you are involved with the rating game.
>
Fact? Yes. Your evaluation? Bogus.
"Your denial is very suspect." ROFLMAO!
But if it makes you happy believing I rate my and your posts: Fine!
I'm not the one who's making himself look silly and obsessed.
Thanks for pointing out your own twisting!
First you say here on ars:
"The indications that we have and the facts we have at hand is that
Gerry Armstrong wrote the damn things himself."
On your web page you are backpeddling:
"I can not confirm or deny who would be the author of the
Affirmations, all I can do is carefully track their history and share
my observations."
However, you already stated Gerry Armstrong wrote the Admissions/
Affirmations. And what you wrote on your website cannot make your
earlier claim go away.
realpch
>
> On 30 Jan, 06:47, realpch <real...@aol.com> wrote:
> > roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > > You too? Disappointing as at times you said wise things, here however
> > > you also appear to have falling for a claim and not properly
> > > criticizing it... See, that's the treat of Gerry Armstrong, this is
> > > what he is BEST AT. He is a fruitcake, but far from unintelligent.
> > > Think, Peach...
> >
> > > RR
> >
> > Every day I evaluate things without formal evidence. Everyday, I judge
> > character. The longer I live, the better I get at these things. When I
> > am wrong about something, I consider it, and learn.
> >
> > I have considered those affirmations. There is some possibility that
> > Hubbard didn't write them, as there is no absolute proof. But I think he
> > probably did. And as Jommy said, he might as well have...they're just
> > like him!
>
> On what grounds? What evidence? None is being offered... See, that is
> the bottom line of it all. Sorry, but you blew this one. You and Jommy
> also failed to adjudicate and evaluate the person Gerry Armstrong.
>
> RR
>
> >
> > I am not worried about those affirmations. I shall leave that to you.
> >
> > Peach
You are incorrect. I have given thought to Gerry.
Jommy Cross
in msg <c214832f-3023-4eaf...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>:
>On 29 Jan, 10:36, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:08:39 -0800 (PST), roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote
>> in msg <7fa7b293-6ab9-48e5-8fd1-09dc411aa...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >There in fact is something VERY wrong with that if their authenticity
>> >can not efficiently and positively be confirmed.
>>
>> No, it's not wrong, just uncertain.
>
>It is wrong because Saint Gerry REFUSES to explain himself concerning
>these matters!!!
Gerry's got an explanation, it's just not one you like.
>
>>
>> >And this hase NEVER
>> >been done in any way. Their authenticity is ALLEGED, that's about
>> >it...
>>
>> What's interesting about the Affirmations of L Ron Hubbard is how perfectly
>> they fit in with all the other things we know about L Ron Hubbard's
>> history.
>
>Forward your EVIDENCE, as just now you too are in the alleging
>business..
No, that's my opinion about what's interesting.
>
>>
>> So if they're *not* his own work, they ought as well be.
>>
>> But even if the Affirmations *are* the work of another author, how do we
>> explain all the other batshit stuff it fits in with so well?
>>
>> From the Navy to Parsons, Crowley, and the Enchantress. Discipline, magic,
>> goofing off, sailing away. It's all so very Ron.
Oops, I meant the Harpoon, not the Enchantress (and it was the Enchanter,
anyway).
>
>No, it is all so 'anti-Scientology propaganda. See, THAT is what is so
>strange, it is ALL in there ...You didn't evaluate properly, now did
>you!
<snip>
Ahhhh, here we go again, I'm through to the roadrunner.engrenage call
center.
Hubbard wasn't in the Navy? Hubbard didn't hang out with Jack Parsons?
Hubbard didn't con the money to buy the Harpoon out of Parsons? What?
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
roadrunn...@gmail.com
I don't see you did, and you give no details nor explanation.
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
The fool always laughs out of ignorance... .-)
We both know the deal here.
RR
realpch
Of course you didn't see me do it, I did it in my head some time ago
when these affirmations surfaced. I'm not giving any detail or
explanation either.
: D
realpch
Of course you didn't see me do it, I did it in my head some time ago
when these affirmations surfaced. I'm not giving any detail or
explanation either. I've already told you where I stand about them. You
can look right up above and see it. What more do you need to know?
: D
peters...@gmail.com
Better: We know who the fool is!
You, Michel.
Because you have the delusion you can talk yourself out of the fact
you lied many times when you denied having written that Gerry
Armstrong wrote the Admissions/Affirmations. You even live in the
delusion that you could convince anybody you never said Gerry
Armstrong wrote them. You can't. You are exposed as a liar.
"The indications that we have and the facts we have at hand is that
Gerry Armstrong wrote the damn things himself."
- Michel Snoeck/Roadrunner
See?
And as a result you start behaving childish. No, infantile.
roadrunn...@gmail.com
They surfaced in 2000, which is more than some time ago.
> I'm not giving any detail or
> explanation either. I've already told you where I stand about them. You
> can look right up above and see it. What more do you need to know?
Rational and factual support for your 'ideas'.
RR
roadrunn...@gmail.com
I said it before and I say it again. You are a lowlife twister.
There are no subtleties in your disturbed mind. You attack, and
attack, and attack, and pray wity your master and guru Gerry the
Saint, martyr of the anti-Scientology movement. The guy is a liar and
a cheat, and never explains or provides prove for anything, and YOU
worship him.
RR
peters...@gmail.com
You mean attack, as in: "Michel, you are a liar and the evidence has
been presented"?
> The guy is a liar and
> a cheat, and never explains or provides prove for anything,
Which you are unable to substantiate with proof.
> and YOU
> worship him.
>
> RR
>
Which is just your prejudiced opinion.
Peter
"That which works in $cientology
is not unique to $cientology,
and that which is unique to $cientology
does not work."
- Prufrock
realpch
>
> On 30 Jan, 20:59, realpch <real...@aol.com> wrote:
> > roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Of course you didn't see me do it, I did it in my head some time ago
> > when these affirmations surfaced.
>
> They surfaced in 2000, which is more than some time ago.
>
> > I'm not giving any detail or
> > explanation either. I've already told you where I stand about them. You
> > can look right up above and see it. What more do you need to know?
>
> Rational and factual support for your 'ideas'.
>
> RR
That was the rational support. Is the story possible? Is it probable?
Consider the parties involved, do the calculations. End result - opinion
of likelihood. This is all that is possible.
I suspect that you are still discussing this because you cannot resist
the opportunity to air your opinions about Gerry!
: D
Peaches
barbaralov...@gmail.com
> On 27 jan, 05:54, Barbara Schwarz <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 12:10 pm, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Gerry wrote 30 November 2008:
> > > [start quote]
> > > "You made the factual assertion that I wrote Hubbard's Admissions, and
> > > you have provided no proof whatsoever of that assertion. You have also
> > > provided no analysis or evaluation..
>
> > > I realize that you're a dramatizig sociopath for Scientology and that
> > > your lies are willful, told by you when you know they're lies and that
> > > you have no evidence whatsoever to support them. I'm asking for your
> > > evidence, nevertheless, but asking despite my certainty of your
> > > dramatizing sociopathy. ...
>
> > > Again, I realize you're dramatizing being a sociopath, and for that
> > > reason I won't be surprised if you don't provide any evidence to
> > > support your lies, which, as I've said, you've told willfully in the
> > > knowledge that you have no evidence, and that there is no evidence
> > > anywhere to justify your telling your lies. ...
>
> > > The Roadrump op, will, of course, produce no evidence that I'm the
> > > source of Hubbard's Admissions. Hubbard is, and Roadrump knows Hubbard
> > > is the source. "
> > > [end quote]
>
> > > In fact I made no assertion that you wrote the Affirmations per se,
> > > but you are a rather likely suspect as there is no other source than
> > > you for these that you released in 2000. No other person than you can
> > > confirm them, as you are the sole source of them!
>
> > > And in November 1984 you were caught saying:
> > > "We don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have to prove sh-t.
> > > We just have to allege it.”
> > > – Gerald Armstrong"
>
> > > The proper question may be: "Will the true sociopath and liar stand
> > > up!"
>
> > >http://tiny.cc/gerrys_affirmations
>
> > > Gerry Armstrong herewith has been given the opportunity to respond.
> > > Will he or will he not, that's the question!
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Roadrunner
>
> > You are right, Roadrunner, Gerry Armstrong and others try to sell
> > these forgeries as facts. They know exactly that L. Ron Hubbard did
> > not write this crap.
>
> > Barbara Schwarz
>
> Aren't you the one that sees conspiracies, forgeries and impostors
> everywhere?
> Go figure what it does to your credibility. Especially when you NEVER
> support them with evidence.
>
> Peter
I am living in the real world. It is not my fault that it is so
secretive like you and your case officer, Peter.
Barbara Schwarz
barbaralov...@gmail.com
> On 28 Jan, 15:36, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 jan, 14:46, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Jan, 08:06, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 28 jan, 07:39, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On 28 Jan, 05:53, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 28 jan, 00:02, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 27 Jan, 22:05, peterschil...@gmail.com wrote:> On 27 jan, 21:55, roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > snip
>
> > > > > > > > > But Peter, you are talking with your guru Gerry Armstrong, feel
> > > > > > > > > humble?? What an honour! Are you kneeling down now?
>
> > > > > > > > > In fact you are a proven twister and manipulator, yeah, dishonest too.
>
> > > > > > > > > As I said, the analysis will be out there...
>
> > > > > > > > > RR
>
> > > > > > > > That's what happens when you're all alone, Michel.
>
> > > > > > > In your ignorance you forget where we are here! Either way I am far
> > > > > > > from alone.
>
> > > > > > And "here" seems to be the only contacts you have that substitute for
> > > > > > real life contacts.
>
> > > > > Logic please, you talk nonsensical.
>
> > > > The fact that you don't understand proves my point.
>
> > > More nonsense... Great logic...
>
> > Well, you think discussing on ars equals real life contacts. You don't
> > understand there is a big difference in ars contacts and real life
> > contacts, otherwise you wouldn't compare them. So the logical
> > conclusion can only be that you don't know the difference, so you
> > don't understand what real life contact means.
>
> Whatever gave you that idea? ARS is the domain of the anti-Scientology
> propagandists basically. Thus my combined one * rating for my messages
> is in fact a compliment as I must be bothering the lot of you pretty
> seriously!!! As opposed to your combined 4 * rating. do you really
> think that gives you credibility??? You forget where you are...
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > Gerry Armstrong isn't my guru, saint, authority or hero.
>
> > > > > > > You defend him no matter what, you can't reflect on anything that
> > > > > > > harms his reputation or whatever. That is guru admiration behaviour.
> > > > > > > Simple plain FACT!!!
>
> > > > > > I pointed out that your web page about Gerry Armstrong is pretentious
> > > > > > and consists fully of speculations, theories, assumptions and
> > > > > > opinions. If you wish to see that as defending Gerry Armstrong: Fine.
> > > > > > But it shows your feeble attempts to distract from my criticism
> > > > > > towards your web page.
> > > > > > You tried to make a point of 12,000+ words, and you failed miserably.
>
> > > > > Well, you attack L. Ron Hubbard when there is virtually nothing that
> > > > > supports the attacks, but you defend Saint Gerry when it is thus far
> > > > > proven FACT that he is the SOLE SOURCE for the 2000 release of the
> > > > > Affirmations. Let him come up with a single name of the MANY that he
> > > > > claims that have read the handwritten orginals, and provide evidence
> > > > > for it. You know he is never going to respond to that.
>
> > > > I don't claim to use "scientific standards". I share information that
> > > > you or the CULT only attack with invalidation.
>
> > > Slander and lie. It's YOU that throws your personal attacks all over
> > > the place...
>
> > Oh? You didn't claim to have used "scientific standards"? I don't
> > share information that you or the CULT don't want to see? And you
> > don't attack posters with invalidation? (Mm, where did I read many
> > times in one post "silly person" again.....)
>
> As opposed to every single remark towards me from you is about a foul
> personal attack and invalidation. The difference between you and me
> though is that I live in reality. Be happy with your combined 4 *
> message rate on ARS. Is that your world??? You behaviour is childish
> and foolish.
>
>
>
> > > > Being the only source for information doesn't mean it isn't true. Your
> > > > logic fails.
>
> > > Your evidence????? If you make a claim you put up or shut up. Saint
> > > Gerry always shut up...
>
> > Evidence? Evidence for what? That the only source of information means
> > it can not be true, or the opposite, is true?
>
> You are in denial. When are going to follow in your guru's footsteps,
> and offer yourself as a replacement hostage to Saddam Hussein (or whom
> ever).
>
> > You become more and more irrational.
>
> Face the reality that you admire a fruitcake. aleging is all what
> Saint Gerry has been doing all these years. My write up makes this
> quite clear...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > > > > > > > Michel.
> > > > > > > > Sociopaths never do.
>
> > > > > > > You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> > > > > > > *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> > > > > > > Well, happy jumping...
>
> > > > > > I called you a sociopath months ago.
>
> > > > > Gerry was much earlier with that... silly person...
>
> > > > Then we agree on at least this point. BTW: Rather infantile argument
> > > > you use. "He was earlier than you, so you copy words".
>
> > > You have been copying more than that... even from me. Reflecting
> > > tactics for one.
>
> > See!? You don't even know what you are talking about. It is not
> > reflecting but projecting, and I asked you many times before.
> > Or is this idiotic response meaning you have copyrights on words and
> > expressions? Even when used by others?
>
> In the way I used it reflecting is alright to use...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > > > > > > > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> > > > > > > Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
> > > > > > Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
>
> > > > > You wish... silly self-indulgent person. Given yourslef 5 starts in
> > > > > various threads and me one star as a rating for the posts. and then
> > > > > deny that you can vote for yourself, silly person...
>
> > > > Assumptions, Michel, lame assumptions. BTW: I now know how to do the
> > > > trick.
> > > > My assumtion in return: You rate yourself 5*****. Can't imagine anyone
> > > > else does......
>
> > > And where do I get 5******?? It is not a trick, it NEVER has been a
> > > trick...
>
> > Not here, you don't. And for a reason. But I think it was Barbara
> > Schwarz that some time ago rated you 5*****.
>
> Ya think? Would surpirse, as Barbara has her senses together. She
> knows where she is, and this is the anti-Scientologists domain, be
> assured she knows that. Ratings given here carry NO value whatsoever.
> Unless my combined 1* rating indicates that you people don't like the
> things I write..., and thus this rating is very much in favour of me.
> Get my point... Probably not...
>
> RR
Google groups are acessible to over 6 Billion people. But I am the
only person of all these 6 Billion people who would mark one of RRs
postings with 5 stars?
That is funny. And they tell me that I am not living in the real
world.
Peter's world is really small.
Barbara Schwarz
>
>
> > > > > > > Aleging is ALL Gerry can, and you follow right in HIS footsteps...
>
> > > > > > > RR
>
> > > > > > Oh? And 12,000+ words alleging don't count and are conveniently
> > > > > > ignored?
>
> > > > > Fact is that he IS proven by fact the sole source of the Affirmations
> > > > > he offered in 2000. He does NOT account for the $800,000 he received
> > > > > ANYWHERE. And still he plays the penniless. He claims to fear for his
> > > > > life from the very beginning. If he was correct then why is he alive
> > > > > today after ALL he has done since 1982???
>
> > > > > You can't DEAL WITH ALL THAT... silly person...
>
> > > > > Gerry has every single characteristic of bein a very disturbed
> > > > > sociopathic liar. He sees Martians. Every person that does not agree
> > > > > with him, he calls instanly a liar. All verifiable on ARS. He even
> > > > > offered himself as a replacement wittness to Saddam Hussein in an
> > > > > offical letter (not even mentioned in my analysis, and there is even
> > > > > more). He proudly tells these things on his own site. The guy is an
> > > > > outspoken fruitcake.
>
> > > > > But after all he is YOUR guru!!!!
>
> > > > > RR
>
> > > > Projecting much lately? You have this very childish habit to accuse
> > > > others for doing what you do yourself.
>
> > > I haven't offered myself as replacement hostage to Saddam Hussein...
> > > You can't face ANY of the treats of your guru Saint Gerry, yeah we DO
> > > know that...
>
> > > RR
>
> > Good for you!
>
> > Peter
>
> > "5. invalidation is force applied. You apply enough force to anybody
> > and you've invalidated him. How invalidated can he get? Dead!"
> > - Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary by L. Ron Hubbard
>
> >http://www.scamofscientology.nl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
barbaralov...@gmail.com
>
> > ARS is the domain of the anti-Scientology
> > propagandists basically.
>
>
> > Thus my combined one * rating for my messages
> > is in fact a compliment as I must be bothering the lot of you pretty
> > seriously!!! As opposed to your combined 4 * rating. do you really
> > think that gives you credibility??? You forget where you are...
>
> otherwise why knowingly make false accusations?
> Believe me: Weeks pass that I don't even notice them.
> human one to reply to it.
> But I admit, you are the master of suggestive remarks, invalidations,
> degrading. None beats Michel Snoeck!
>
> > The difference between you and me
> > though is that I live in reality.
>
>
> > Be happy with your combined 4 *
> > message rate on ARS. Is that your world??? You behaviour is childish
> > and foolish.
>
> otherwise why knowingly make false accusations?
> Believe me: Weeks pass that I don't even notice them.
>
>
>
> > > > > Being the only source for information doesn't mean it isn't true. Your
> > > > > logic fails.
>
> > > > Your evidence????? If you make a claim you put up or shut up. Saint
> > > > Gerry always shut up...
>
> > > Evidence? Evidence for what? That the only source of information means
> > > it can not be true, or the opposite, is true?
>
> > You are in denial. When are going to follow in your guru's footsteps,
> > and offer yourself as a replacement hostage to Saddam Hussein (or whom
> > ever).
>
> Again: Where is the evidence for your claim here on ars that Gerry
> Armstrong wrote the Affirmations?/Admissions?
>
> > > You become more and more irrational.
>
> > Face the reality that you admire a fruitcake. aleging is all what
> > Saint Gerry has been doing all these years. My write up makes this
> > quite clear...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > We're simply on the same side. But you wouldn't understand that,
> > > > > > > > > Michel.
> > > > > > > > > Sociopaths never do.
>
> > > > > > > > You just copy words, Saint Gerry says that, and all you can do is
> > > > > > > > *repeat after HIM*. If HE says jump, do you jump too? Hmm, must be...
> > > > > > > > Well, happy jumping...
>
> > > > > > > I called you a sociopath months ago.
>
> > > > > > Gerry was much earlier with that... silly person...
>
> > > > > Then we agree on at least this point. BTW: Rather infantile argument
> > > > > you use. "He was earlier than you, so you copy words".
>
> > > > You have been copying more than that... even from me. Reflecting
> > > > tactics for one.
>
> > > See!? You don't even know what you are talking about. It is not
> > > reflecting but projecting, and I asked you many times before.
> > > Or is this idiotic response meaning you have copyrights on words and
> > > expressions? Even when used by others?
>
> > In the way I used it reflecting is alright to use...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > LOL! If it is the same "scientific researched" analysis like you made
> > > > > > > > > of the Admissions/Affirmations we're in for a good laugh!
>
> > > > > > > > Does the elephant care about the fly?
>
> > > > > > > Me being the elephant and you the fly: What do you think?
>
> > > > > > You wish... silly self-indulgent person. Given yourslef 5 starts in
> > > > > > various threads and me one star as a rating for the posts. and then
> > > > > > deny that you can vote for yourself, silly person...
>
> > > > > Assumptions, Michel, lame assumptions. BTW: I now know how to do the
> > > > > trick.
> > > > > My assumtion in return: You rate yourself 5*****. Can't imagine anyone
> > > > > else does......
>
> > > > And where do I get 5******?? It is not a trick, it NEVER has been a
> > > > trick...
>
> > > Not here, you don't. And for a reason. But I think it was Barbara
> > > Schwarz that some time ago rated you 5*****.
>
> > Ya think? Would surpirse, as Barbara has her senses together. She
> > knows where she is, and this is the anti-Scientologists domain, be
> > assured she knows that. Ratings given here carry NO value whatsoever.
> > Unless my combined 1* rating indicates that you people don't like the
> > things I write..., and thus this rating is very much in favour of me.
> > Get my point... Probably not...
>
> > RR
>
What has this posting to do with me and being a woman? This is about
that Gerry's affirmations are Gerry's or his case officer's but not L.
Ron Hubbards.
Barbara Schwarz
>
> For once I agree: Ratings have no value.
> But why are you so obsessed with them?
>
> Peter
>
> "That which works in $cientology
> is not unique to $cientology,
> and that which is unique to $cientology
> does not work."
> - Prufrock
>
barbaralov...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:08:39 -0800 (PST), roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote
> in msg <7fa7b293-6ab9-48e5-8fd1-09dc411aa...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>
>
> >There in fact is something VERY wrong with that if their authenticity
> >can not efficiently and positively be confirmed.
>
> No, it's not wrong, just uncertain.
>
> >And this hase NEVER
> >been done in any way. Their authenticity is ALLEGED, that's about
> >it...
>
> What's interesting about the Affirmations of L Ron Hubbard is how perfectly
> they fit in with all the other things we know about L Ron Hubbard's
> history.
>
> So if they're *not* his own work, they ought as well be.
>
> But even if the Affirmations *are* the work of another author, how do we
> explain all the other batshit stuff it fits in with so well?
Let me explain it to you, "Mr. Einstein".
Psychiatry is a German invention. P$ychs (former butchers and barbers)
are upset that L. Ron Hubbard doesn't pray to them and doesn't fall
for them. They sent international infiltrators in the orgs to forge
and plant many records - not just those ridiculous affirmation.
> From the Navy to Parsons, Crowley, and the Enchantress. Discipline, magic,
> goofing off, sailing away. It's all so very Ron.
Not so.
Besides forgeries and alteration of his research, he was also
impostored by other individuals and what they did was blamed on the
real L. Ron Hubbard who had nothing to do with it.
Barbara Schwarz