Gerry Armstrong continues to run.......
Spacetraveler
He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
His sole defense is: "You are lying, you are dishonest, and so on...."
& "Later I will expose your lies, when I have the time". But likely
they will not ever find this time. And this is how he avoids not to
respond to uncomfortable issues. However his cover is blown!
Someone's cover always gets blown by people who have actual knowledge
and are persistent.
Spacetraveler
roger gonnet
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
>
> He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
> uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
Scientology avoids all and every and each "conflicts" around its crimes.
Gerry is indeed an expert on the odious rather than "religious" dogma from
the crime cult.
Now, what do you think of the soooo many original docs I'm putting on the
web those times?
Are they "lies", or are they certified ?
r
Ball of Fluff
"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
>
> He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
> uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
Yet he fussed and wittered and wittered when I k/fed him a couple years
ago.
He's been unfailingly rude to me since I first started posting here then,
accused me of being "cruel".
He also took a post I'd written a couple years prior and then said it was a
couple months old, thus prompting one of the less bright anti- Scn lurkers
here to demand an apology from me.
C
ptsc
>
>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>>
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
>>
>> He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
>> uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
>Yet he fussed and wittered and wittered when I k/fed him a couple years
>ago.
Well, yes, but different rules apply. You see, you're not a Profit of Ghod.
Gerry is. So obviously different rules apply.
>He's been unfailingly rude to me since I first started posting here then,
>accused me of being "cruel".
It's only your pretend stupidity that causes you to see anything wrong
with this. You cruel, cruel, fluffball.
>He also took a post I'd written a couple years prior and then said it was a
>couple months old, thus prompting one of the less bright anti- Scn lurkers
>here to demand an apology from me.
Are you accusing the Profit of Ghod of a factual error? Surely this is just
more pretended stupidity from an OSA Goon.
Gerry Armstrong
>
>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>>
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
>>
>> He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
>> uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
>
>Yet he fussed and wittered and wittered when I k/fed him a couple years
>ago.
How on earth would you know? LF
Oh, you invented it. LFBD F/N
>
>He's been unfailingly rude to me since I first started posting here then,
Now you're lying, Claire. But you've made the charge. Now support it
with evidence.
>accused me of being "cruel".
You were and your are. Your pretended stupidity that manifests in
lying, as you manifest here, is cruel. Your support of the cult by
lying about its fair game targets is cruel.
>
>He also took a post I'd written a couple years prior and then said it was a
>couple months old,
I'm calling you a liar again. You've made a statement of fact here. It
is up to you to support it with documentation.
> thus prompting one of the less bright anti- Scn lurkers
>here to demand an apology from me.
Please also provide support for this bit of black PR.
A lurker posted something? That's OT.
If this person you claim exists had been a lurker until he or she
delurked to post this message in which you claim he or she demanded
and apology from you, how on earth can you know that this lurker is
anti-Scientology or that this lurker is one of the less bright
anti-Scientology lurkers.
How on earth can you know how bright all the anti-Scientology lurkers
are in order to evaluate that this person you claim is an
anti-Scientology lurker is one of the less bright in that set of
lurkers?
The answers are simply that you're making up lies in order to attack
me. In so doing, you serve Scientology's malevolent purposes. That is
why I put your posts attacking me in and with pretended stupidity on
this page:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html
>C
>
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
>On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:46:20 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
>>>
>>> He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
>>> uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
>
>>Yet he fussed and wittered and wittered when I k/fed him a couple years
>>ago.
>
>Well, yes, but different rules apply. You see, you're not a Profit of Ghod.
>Gerry is. So obviously different rules apply.
That's a lie. No different rules apply as you claim.
>
>>He's been unfailingly rude to me since I first started posting here then,
>>accused me of being "cruel".
>
>It's only your pretend stupidity that causes you to see anything wrong
>with this. You cruel, cruel, fluffball.
It's your pretended stupidity, Rob, that causes you to use Claire's
lies as a valid basis to attack me. VWD.
>
>>He also took a post I'd written a couple years prior and then said it was a
>>couple months old, thus prompting one of the less bright anti- Scn lurkers
>>here to demand an apology from me.
>
>Are you accusing the Profit of Ghod of a factual error? Surely this is just
>more pretended stupidity from an OSA Goon.
Let's lay the facts on the table and see what they are.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
(Spacetraveler) wrote:
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
>
>He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
>uncomfortable to him.
Well, aren't you not only just the little liar, but also the little
psychologist. What an excellent example you make of a Scientologist.
You know, Spacetrattler, Hubbard lied to all of us, even about lying.
He defined lying as "the lowest form of creativity." Fundamentals of
Thought, p. 25, Š 1973. Lying is not any form of creativity. Illusion
is not creativity. All of Hubbard's and Scientology's and
Scientologists' lies add up to nothing. You can lie about the effect
all that nothingness has created, but that lie is nothing too.
Scientologists are led by Hubbard, and of course by the equally
gargantuan liars in the Miscavige regime, to believe that when they're
lying they're being creative. Scientologists may hope that they could
do something more refined or elevated than lie, so that what they did
would be a higher form of creativity than lying; but Scientologists
continue to lie their heads off because, with Hubbard's definition,
they can justify that by lying, which as you demonstrate is easy for
anyone to do, they are still being creative.
And if you don't believe that lying is a form of creativity, why on
Teegeeack do you splurge on it?
>Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
Thanks for not pretending to be even stupider than you're pretending
to be and putting EXPERT in quotes. Yes, I am an expert in and on Fair
Game. I use the word "expert" in its usual legal sense, as in, e.g., I
am an expert witness in and on Scientology's basic philosophy, policy
and practice of fair game; and in the common English sense, as, e.g.,
I have acquired an expert level of experience and knowledge in the
field of fair game, and I can expertly communicate that experience and
knowledge.
You are *not* claiming to be an expert in Fair Game are you?
Are you an expert in anything?
>
>His sole defense is: "You are lying, you are dishonest, and so on...."
Sole defense to what? LF
Oh, yeah, nothing. LFBD F/N
I'm not saying you're lying for any other reason than you're lying.
You're the liar. You're responsible for your lies. I can point them
out if I decide to do so. And I can ask you, as I have, to please stop
lying. But I can't make you stop, and I have no intention of doing
what I can't do. You're the liar, and you'll have to be the one to
quit.
>& "Later I will expose your lies, when I have the time". But likely
>they will not ever find this time.
Oh? Well I've just found the time. My sole defense of anything is
*not* because you are lying and you are dishonest and so on. You lied
when you said it was.
>And this is how he avoids not to
>respond to uncomfortable issues.
What? By pointing out your lies and IDing you as a liar?
That's another lie you're telling. What is so important that you have
made yourself a liar? LF
Your life depends on it. LF
The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child
on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years
depend on you lying. LF
It's what DM wants. LFBD F/N.
> However his cover is blown!
Eek, the invisible cover! You Scientologists are so OT, making what
isn't there disappear. You're quite the little as-iser!
>Someone's cover always gets blown by people who have actual knowledge
>and are persistent.
Oh, so Spacetravesty, you really are claiming to be a sort of expert.
Well how about if you lay your expertise on the table and we'll see
what isn't there too.
You put on that table your actual knowledge about Hubbard's
"Suppressive Person" doctrine. Thank you.
>
>Spacetraveler
Š Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Thomas Gandow
When it comes to Gerry, Rob Clark shows his true face.
TG
Ball of Fluff
"ptsc" <pt...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:v32lg0tikgqtevdm1...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:46:20 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> >>
>
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.
283929c2%40posting.google.com
> >>
> >> He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
> >> uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
>
> >Yet he fussed and wittered and wittered when I k/fed him a couple years
> >ago.
>
> Well, yes, but different rules apply. You see, you're not a Profit of
Ghod.
> Gerry is. So obviously different rules apply.
>
> >He's been unfailingly rude to me since I first started posting here then,
> >accused me of being "cruel".
>
> It's only your pretend stupidity that causes you to see anything wrong
> with this. You cruel, cruel, fluffball.
Evil Fluffball. (for reference see illustrated tone scale with the
fluffballs- say, maybe the hate or 1.1 one.)
>
> >He also took a post I'd written a couple years prior and then said it was
a
> >couple months old, thus prompting one of the less bright anti- Scn
lurkers
> >here to demand an apology from me.
>
> Are you accusing the Profit of Ghod of a factual error?
Nah. Perish the thought. It was an out and out lie.
> Surely this is just
> more pretended stupidity from an OSA Goon.
Heh.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Gerry Armstrong" <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
news:o86lg09caui9ucnaj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:46:20 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> >>
>
>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.
283929c2%40posting.google.com
> >>
> >> He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
> >> uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
> >
> >Yet he fussed and wittered and wittered when I k/fed him a couple years
> >ago.
>
> How on earth would you know? LF
Because you forwarded posts to Carolyn who was not in my killfile who then
posted them to try to get me to read them.
Because a number of others quoted you.
> Oh, you invented it. LFBD F/N
Nope. Learned about k/fing here.
>
> >
> >He's been unfailingly rude to me since I first started posting here then,
>
> Now you're lying, Claire. But you've made the charge. Now support it
> with evidence.
Feel free to check your own posts on the google archive.
>
> >accused me of being "cruel".
>
> You were and your are. Your pretended stupidity
I neither pretend to be nor am stupid.
> that manifests in
> lying, as you manifest here, is cruel. Your support of the cult
I'm ex CofS.
> by
> lying about its fair game targets is cruel.
I've never lied about its fair game targets. In fact, I frequently comment
on its practice of harassing critics and ex members against whom it has a
grudge or grudges.
>
> >
> >He also took a post I'd written a couple years prior and then said it was
a
> >couple months old,
>
> I'm calling you a liar again. You've made a statement of fact here. It
> is up to you to support it with documentation.
It's in google. Go find it yourself, liar.
>
> > thus prompting one of the less bright anti- Scn lurkers
> >here to demand an apology from me.
>
> Please also provide support for this bit of black PR.
It's all in google, oddly enough.
>
> A lurker posted something? That's OT.
He delurked . Happens all the time here.
<Yawn>
Back in the bozo bin wid ye...
C
Spacetraveler
> On 30 Jul 2004 02:39:08 -0700, spacetra...@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> >http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
> >
> >He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
> >uncomfortable to him.
>
> Well, aren't you not only just the little liar, but also the little
> psychologist. What an excellent example you make of a Scientologist.
You avoide HCOPL 21 July 1968, simple fact. You even manipulate your
readers with ignoring that very issue.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
Your website I believe? You say there:
"Note: Hubbard's fair game doctrine, when he laid it out in his Policy
Letter of 18 October 1967, was quickly recognized by thinking
government officials, journalists and citizens as calling for violent,
illegal actions against the cult's "enemies." As a result, he issued
another Policy Letter dated 21 October 1968 entitled "Cancellation of
Fair Game," that the Miscavige regime insists cancelled this criminal
doctrine. But Hubbard was just fair gaming his "enemies" with his
"cancellation," just playing a trick on them. He "cancelled" the use
of the term "fair game" when declaring people "enemies" or "SPs," with
the cynical excuse that it caused bad PR, but he ordered that the same
"treatment" of those "enemies" continue as before. The Scientologists
in the Hubbard regime knew that the same violent, antisocial and
criminal actions were to be taken against these "enemies," the "SPs."
Fair game would continue, but it would not be called by that name. GA"
> You know, Spacetrattler, Hubbard lied to all of us, even about lying.
> He defined lying as "the lowest form of creativity." Fundamentals of
> Thought, p. 25, © 1973. Lying is not any form of creativity. Illusion
> is not creativity. All of Hubbard's and Scientology's and
> Scientologists' lies add up to nothing. You can lie about the effect
> all that nothingness has created, but that lie is nothing too.
>
> Scientologists are led by Hubbard, and of course by the equally
> gargantuan liars in the Miscavige regime, to believe that when they're
> lying they're being creative. Scientologists may hope that they could
> do something more refined or elevated than lie, so that what they did
> would be a higher form of creativity than lying; but Scientologists
> continue to lie their heads off because, with Hubbard's definition,
> they can justify that by lying, which as you demonstrate is easy for
> anyone to do, they are still being creative.
Are you using this:
"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCO PL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
Lines
Get you lies and assumptions stich through talking about it like it is
a proven fact? Tseetsee, Gerry! Naughty boy!
> And if you don't believe that lying is a form of creativity, why on
> Teegeeack do you splurge on it?
>
> >Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
>
> Thanks for not pretending to be even stupider than you're pretending
> to be and putting EXPERT in quotes.
It is not quotes ('), they are *. Not the same. But if you would say
that I was stressing them, alright.
> Yes, I am an expert in and on Fair
> Game. I use the word "expert" in its usual legal sense, as in, e.g., I
> am an expert witness in and on Scientology's basic philosophy, policy
> and practice of fair game; and in the common English sense, as, e.g.,
> I have acquired an expert level of experience and knowledge in the
> field of fair game, and I can expertly communicate that experience and
> knowledge.
Then why ignoring HCOPL 21 July 1968 which is cancelling the Fair Game
practice?
> You are *not* claiming to be an expert in Fair Game are you?
No, I only notice that you leave out some issues concerning. And I
confront you with that.
> Are you an expert in anything?
Yeah, exposing inconsistencies in your reasoning and reference back
up.
> >His sole defense is: "You are lying, you are dishonest, and so on...."
>
> Sole defense to what? LF
>
> Oh, yeah, nothing. LFBD F/N
Your cover up why you really don't want to respond to my
'incriminating' questions, for one your avoidance of HCO PL 21 July
1968.
> I'm not saying you're lying for any other reason than you're lying.
> You're the liar. You're responsible for your lies. I can point them
> out if I decide to do so. And I can ask you, as I have, to please stop
> lying. But I can't make you stop, and I have no intention of doing
> what I can't do. You're the liar, and you'll have to be the one to
> quit.
Ah, you use again:
"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCO PL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
Lines
And do you think that people fell for it already, hmm, well?
> >& "Later I will expose your lies, when I have the time". But likely
> >they will not ever find this time.
>
> Oh? Well I've just found the time.
You were moving you said, you are not moving anymore? did you
postpone that especially for me? Thank you kindly.
You can start with this one:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
> My sole defense of anything is
> *not* because you are lying and you are dishonest and so on. You lied
> when you said it was.
>
> >And this is how he avoids not to
> >respond to uncomfortable issues.
>
> What? By pointing out your lies and IDing you as a liar?
>
> That's another lie you're telling. What is so important that you have
> made yourself a liar? LF
>
> Your life depends on it. LF
>
> The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child
> on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years
> depend on you lying. LF
Marvelous use of:
"There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCO PL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
Lines
> It's what DM wants. LFBD F/N.
Manipulation tactics noted.
>
> > However his cover is blown!
>
> Eek, the invisible cover! You Scientologists are so OT, making what
> isn't there disappear. You're quite the little as-iser!
>
> >Someone's cover always gets blown by people who have actual knowledge
> >and are persistent.
>
> Oh, so Spacetravesty, you really are claiming to be a sort of expert.
I am only consulting your expertice, but you will not help me:
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.775cab17%40posting.google.com
> Well how about if you lay your expertise on the table and we'll see
> what isn't there too.
>
> You put on that table your actual knowledge about Hubbard's
> "Suppressive Person" doctrine. Thank you.
For one, an SP does not finish cycles of action. But then, that's only
one characteristic. It doesn't make you an SP yet.
Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> >
> http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.283929c2%40posting.google.com
> >
> > He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
> > uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
>
> Yet he fussed and wittered and wittered when I k/fed him a couple years
> ago.
Logical, he could not create an effect on you anymore. And that's what he wants.
>
> He's been unfailingly rude to me since I first started posting here then,
> accused me of being "cruel".
>
> He also took a post I'd written a couple years prior and then said it was a
> couple months old, thus prompting one of the less bright anti- Scn lurkers
> here to demand an apology from me.
Somehow it doesn't really surprise me.
Spacetraveler
nobody
Spacetraveler says...
>
>Then why ignoring HCOPL 21 July 1968 which is cancelling the
>Fair Game practice?
This policy does not cancel the practice of fair game. You are
a proven liar.
Ball of Fluff
"nobody" <nob...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:101286638.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
I think it's more that it cancels it on paper but not in practice since it's
quite evident that it's practiced and never ceased to have been practiced.
In fact, Space Traveler said that.
He said " Fair game would continue, but it would not be called by that
name." and "He "cancelled" the use
of the term "fair game" when declaring people "enemies" or "SPs," with the
cynical excuse that it caused bad PR, but he ordered that the
same"treatment" of those "enemies" continue as before."
Never ceases to amuse me that when a Scn'ist criticizes CofS, LRH, Scn, etc,
that certain other critics will just negate and ignore it as if it didn't
take place.
Well, well. Nice of you to snip that commentary Spacetraveler made admitting
that the organization and Hubbbard when he was alive still continued to
target people and still does with fair game.
C
Gerry Armstrong
>
>"Gerry Armstrong" <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message
>news:o86lg09caui9ucnaj...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:46:20 -0700, "Ball of Fluff" <None> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
>> >>
>>
>>http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407281328.
>283929c2%40posting.google.com
>> >>
>> >> He is around responding to other posts, but avoids that which is
>> >> uncomfortable to him. Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
>> >
>> >Yet he fussed and wittered and wittered when I k/fed him a couple years
>> >ago.
>>
>> How on earth would you know? LF
>
>Because you forwarded posts to Carolyn who was not in my killfile who then
>posted them to try to get me to read them.
>
>Because a number of others quoted you.
>
>
>> Oh, you invented it. LFBD F/N
>
>Nope. Learned about k/fing here.
>
>>
>> >
>> >He's been unfailingly rude to me since I first started posting here then,
>>
>> Now you're lying, Claire. But you've made the charge. Now support it
>> with evidence.
>
>Feel free to check your own posts on the google archive.
That's Claire's standard dishonest response when challenged on her
lies. She doesn't provide evidence, because she can't. She's just
lying.
>
>>
>> >accused me of being "cruel".
>>
>> You were and your are. Your pretended stupidity
>
>I neither pretend to be nor am stupid.
You're pretending to be stupid right here, Claire. When challenged on
your lies, you commonly pretend stupidity, or even kill-file the
person who challenges you on your lies, rather than correct your lies.
>
>> that manifests in
>> lying, as you manifest here, is cruel. Your support of the cult
>
>I'm ex CofS.
That may be. But that fact is unrelated to your support of the cult
with your pretended stupidity and lying about the cult's fair game
targets.
>
>> by
>> lying about its fair game targets is cruel.
>
>I've never lied about its fair game targets.
That's a lie right there.
> In fact, I frequently comment
>on its practice of harassing critics and ex members against whom it has a
>grudge or grudges.
That's an unrelated fact that in no way justifies your own lies about
these cult targets.
>
>>
>> >
>> >He also took a post I'd written a couple years prior and then said it was
>a
>> >couple months old,
>>
>> I'm calling you a liar again. You've made a statement of fact here. It
>> is up to you to support it with documentation.
>
>It's in google. Go find it yourself, liar.
That's Claire's level of responsibility. Here she has lied about me,
making false statements of fact. When challenged on her lies, she
refuses to provide any evidence, but again attacks her victim. Claire
is very dishonest.
>
>>
>> > thus prompting one of the less bright anti- Scn lurkers
>> >here to demand an apology from me.
>>
>> Please also provide support for this bit of black PR.
>
>It's all in google, oddly enough.
And, not oddly enough, what's in Google proves you to be the liar I am
saying you are here.
>
>>
>> A lurker posted something? That's OT.
>
>He delurked . Happens all the time here.
>
><Yawn>
>
>Back in the bozo bin wid ye...
And in this way, Claire can avoid providing any evidence to support
her lies. Scientologists call this abysmal level of responsibility
"keeping Scientology working," or "being OT." Claire won't support her
lies, but she sure supports the Scientology cult with her lies about
the cult's fair game targets.
Gerry Armstrong
But what Claire will not do is support her claim with any evidence.
That's because her claim is actually what she says about my averment.
Her claim is an out-and-out lie.
Here's what Claire wrote on February 22, 2003:
[Quote]
One thing he did was about a year and a half ago, maybe two, he quoted
some posts I'd written *2 years prior to that* and represented them as
having been written by me a couple months before, rather than a couple
years before.
[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/ars-fluffygirl-2003-02-22.html
Claire lied then too, and also produced no evidence whatsoever then
too to support her lie.
She has now changed her story. Back in February 2003 she lied and
claimed that there were "[*]some[*] posts [that Claire had] written *2
years prior to that* and [that I] represented them as having been
written by [her] a couple months before, rather than a couple years
before." Now she claims there was a single post I'd quoted and
claimed was a couple of months old, rather than Claire's preferred
date for her post of two years earlier.
Using Claire's "math," the date of this alleged post of mine that
Claire falsely claims quotes some posts she had written 2 years prior
and states they had been written a couple months before was between
February and August 2001. This would also date Claire's original post,
or posts, that she falsely avers I misdate to between February and
August 1999.
Between February 1 and August 31, 2001 my posting address for all
posts made to Usenet was arms...@dowco.com A Google Groups search
for that period with "author" "arms...@dowco.com" and the "exact
phrase" "Claire" produces no posts in which I quote Claire at all.
I expanded the period six months forward and back to August 1, 2000
through February 28, 2002, with the same search criteria, and found
two posts dated September 18, 2001, in which I quoted Claire. I am now
quoting these posts in their entirety.
[Quote]
From: Gerry Armstrong <arms...@dowco.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Hey Claire, about decrying Scientologists' treatment of wogs
(R) (was Another foot bullet comming)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:35:14 -0700
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 141
Message-ID: <rmafqtgshadiab8ko...@4ax.com>
References: <lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com>
<3ba629a7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
<1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk>
<3ba7879a$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
<1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk>
<DaNp7.4578$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
<408fqtko13cskgkt5...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>
<3ba7a2fd$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.244.173.111
X-Original-Trace: 18 Sep 2001 16:38:38 -0400, 204.244.173.111
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:40:57 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
wrote:
>
>"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
><Anti...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
>news:408fqtko13cskgkt5...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance...
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:23:15 GMT.
>> In Message-ID: <DaNp7.4578$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
>> From: "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com>.
>> Organization: All Your Ron Are Belong To Us.
>> Wrote on the subject: Re: Another foot bullet comming:
>>
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> >"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
>> >message news:1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >> "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3ba7879a$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote
>> >> > in message
>> >> > news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >> >
>> >> > <snip irrelevant text>
>> >> >
>> >> > What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
>> >> >
>> >> > You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such
>> >> > thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm a do-it-yourself'er.
>> >>
>> >> Really! This differs greatly from the things you've said pre-WTC.
>> >> But why should I be surprised?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > You must not have read much of what Claire has said. She's said
>> >quite clearly that she doesn't follow the "Church" of Scientology in
>> >all things, that Hubbard said many things, some of which she
>> >considers to be quite useful, and that she follows the things she
>> >thinks are useful.
>>
>> But she's never been able or willing to give any specifics. She's never
>> said wht it is she doesn't agree with, and what it is that she do agree
>> with. Time after time, people have asked her, but she refuse to give any
>> specifics.
>
>That's just not true. I've been quite specific. My "Compassion" post of
>several months ago is one. And MANY before and after that one, as well. I've
>decried the church's handling of critics, how Finn McMillan (Stress Centre)
>was treated, the treatment of the Woodcraft Children, treatment of SO
>members, enforced disconnection, prices, slamming of "psychs", treatment of
>"illegal pcs" and a bunch of other things. Those are specific statements.
How about your cult's treatment of Gerry Armstrong?
Or do you still maintain that the following statement of yours is true
and accurate?
[Quote]
And you must take yours as a robotic, vitriolic man who does the same
things out of Scn that he did when he was in, self serving as he ever
was, while purporting to stand for something else. When you were in
your self interest was disguised as doing what was right for the glory
of CofS, Hubbard and Scn. Now that you are not in Scn or in CofS
either, for that matter, your self interest is disguised (not very
well,either) as standing up for freedom of speech.
But since you, in each case, use this fake altruism in effort to make
yourself right and others wrong, it gives you away.
[End Quote]
How about this?
[Quote]
You were self serving as a church member and you are self serving now.
There are many critics with whom I disagree but whom I can see have
integrity. I do not number you as one of those.
[End Quote]
What exactly do you mean by self serving?
Are you self serving?
Do you know anyone who isn't self serving?
And what exactly do you know about my 12 1/2 years inside your cult
which leads you to the black PR conclusion that I was self serving all
those years? Were my 25 months on the RPF all spent self serving?
How about your black PR that I'm not for freedom of speech? When your
cult is flagrantly, illegally, stupidly, insanely trying and paying
millions of your Scientologists' dollars to suppress my freedom of
speech?
How can you be so two-faced and call for the same standard for
Scientologists? Should we wogs (R) have Scientologists' speech
suppressed as your cult suppresses ours?
Yes, Claire, do you still stand by your black PR attacks on me?
What exactly is the source of your black PR assertion that I'm doing
the same things out of the cult that I did when I was in?
What did $cientology or Scientologists ever tell you about me anyway?
Do you decry your treatment of me?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Your info is well over a year out of date.
>
>Why is that?
>
>>
>> >
>> >She hasn't changed this position a bit, except to acknowlege that
>> >there are abuses which she wasn't aware were so ubiquitous within the
>> >"Church", and that she did long before the WTC tragedy.
>
>And Norle Enturbulata knows that even if he's forgotten it now as he and I
>had discussion on that over a month ago or so.
>
>>
>> She wants to have one foot in each camp.
>
>I just wanna be me.
>
>C
>
>
[End Quote]
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rmafqtgshadiab8ko2ml39mls2501udo9i%404ax.com&output=gplain
Although there are quotes of Claire's black PRing me on a.r.s. in the
above September 18, 2001 post, there is no mention of the date when
she made these black PR attacks on me. The other relevant post of mine
of the same date, posted ten minutes later, states that Claire's posts
containing these black PR attacks were from February and April 2001,
and further states that "[a]ll of these [black PR attacks by Claire]
were within the last year."
[Quote]
From: Gerry Armstrong <arms...@dowco.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Claire's time track (was Another foot bullet comming)
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:45:23 -0700
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 124
Message-ID: <p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com>
References: <lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com>
<3ba629a7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
<1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk>
<3ba7879a$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
<1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk>
<DaNp7.4578$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
<408fqtko13cskgkt5...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>
<3ba7a2fd$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.244.173.111
X-Original-Trace: 18 Sep 2001 16:48:48 -0400, 204.244.173.111
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:40:57 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
wrote:
>
>"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
><Anti...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
>news:408fqtko13cskgkt5...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance...
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:23:15 GMT.
>> In Message-ID: <DaNp7.4578$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
>> From: "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com>.
>> Organization: All Your Ron Are Belong To Us.
>> Wrote on the subject: Re: Another foot bullet comming:
>>
>> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> >Hash: SHA1
>> >
>> >"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
>> >message news:1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >> "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3ba7879a$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote
>> >> > in message
>> >> > news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
>> >> >
>> >> > <snip irrelevant text>
>> >> >
>> >> > What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
>> >> >
>> >> > You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such
>> >> > thing.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm a do-it-yourself'er.
>> >>
>> >> Really! This differs greatly from the things you've said pre-WTC.
>> >> But why should I be surprised?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > You must not have read much of what Claire has said. She's said
>> >quite clearly that she doesn't follow the "Church" of Scientology in
>> >all things, that Hubbard said many things, some of which she
>> >considers to be quite useful, and that she follows the things she
>> >thinks are useful.
>>
>> But she's never been able or willing to give any specifics. She's never
>> said wht it is she doesn't agree with, and what it is that she do agree
>> with. Time after time, people have asked her, but she refuse to give any
>> specifics.
>
>That's just not true. I've been quite specific. My "Compassion" post of
>several months ago is one. And MANY before and after that one, as well. I've
>decried the church's handling of critics, how Finn McMillan (Stress Centre)
>was treated, the treatment of the Woodcraft Children, treatment of SO
>members, enforced disconnection, prices, slamming of "psychs", treatment of
>"illegal pcs" and a bunch of other things. Those are specific statements.
>
>Your info is well over a year out of date.
I don't know. You made these black PR attacks on me in February and
April this year:
[Quote]
And you must take yours as a robotic, vitriolic man who does the same
things out of Scn that he did when he was in, self serving as he ever
was, while purporting to stand for something else. When you were in
your self interest was disguised as doing what was right for the glory
of CofS, Hubbard and Scn. Now that you are not in Scn or in CofS
either, for that matter, your self interest is disguised (not very
well,either) as standing up for freedom of speech.
But since you, in each case, use this fake altruism in effort to make
yourself right and others wrong, it gives you away.
[End Quote]
[Quote]
You were self serving as a church member and you are self serving now.
There are many critics with whom I disagree but whom I can see have
integrity. I do not number you as one of those.
[End Quote]
Oh, and this statement?
[Quote]
Thus sayeth Gerry Armstrong, living proof of what happens when a
robotic, overt-y Scientologist leaves the Church.
You act just like the sorts of Scientologists you despise, only you do
it in a different venue, is all.
[End Quote]
All of these were within the last year. And I'm just one wog (R). You
treat all wogs (R) the same right?
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Why is that?
>
>>
>> >
>> >She hasn't changed this position a bit, except to acknowlege that
>> >there are abuses which she wasn't aware were so ubiquitous within the
>> >"Church", and that she did long before the WTC tragedy.
>
>And Norle Enturbulata knows that even if he's forgotten it now as he and I
>had discussion on that over a month ago or so.
>
>>
>> She wants to have one foot in each camp.
>
>I just wanna be me.
>
>C
>
>
[End Quote]
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s2rp0n6dnsnvurrok3%404ax.com&output=gplain
Here's the post of Claire's, dated February 25, 2001, that contains
two of the three quotes in my posts above dated September 18, 2001.
[Quote]
From: "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
References: <f89385665c8f3c9c...@anon.xg.nu>
<3a8b8...@news2.lightlink.com> <3A8BE1A4...@sympatico.ca>
<NrYj6.441888$U46.13...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
<3A906DE8...@home.com>
<n3ck6.444323$U46.13...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
<e3s29tok29lmnob6l...@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Claoire Swazey, beneficary of suppression and hypocrisy
(was Uplines: The Forbidden Pilgrimage)
Lines: 253
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <eHYl6.468695$U46.13...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:52:26 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.0.225.221
X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
X-Trace: news1.sttls1.wa.home.com 983062346 24.0.225.221 (Sat, 24 Feb
2001 16:52:26 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:52:26 PST
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband
http://home.com/faster
"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
news:e3s29tok29lmnob6l...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:44:03 GMT, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >>
> >> If they cult would use a higher quality of posters rather than the
> >> Delphi droolers and rondroids we usually get, perhaps people would have
> >> a better opinion of Scientologists in general, don't you think?
> >
> >Of course people will judge others by the quality of their communication.
> >You've oft-times stated to that effect, yourself.
> >
> >However, if people are so foolish as to generalize and to not judge
people
> >as individuals, making blanket statements and the like it affects their
> >credibility.
> >
> >How can you criticize or critique anything to any good result when you
> >generalize?
>
> That's stupid. Generalizations are appropriate where they're
> appropriate, and inappropriate where they're inappropriate.
Exactamundo.
>It is a
> common $cientology error to generalize inappropriately about
> generalizations.
Yes, and I see we're in damn good company there. <g>
> It stunts $cientologists' reasoning capability. But
> that's specifically what Hubbard generally wanted. He was a
> suppressive teacher.
>
> > Answer: you can't.
>
> Then why oh why do you accept Hubbard's generalities?
Answer: I do not.
(Cafeteria Scientologist)
> Because they're
> Hubbard's and accepting his generalities, and being stunted thereby,
> is what being a $cientologist all about, right. Not having to think
> for yourself is nice.
I really wouldn't know since that's a luxury I find I can no longer
indulge in and indeed have not in quite some time.
Reading your words, about this dubious individual named Claoire Swazey
(who is she? Can I meet her?) I am reminded of a statement a good
friend of mine made when we were discussing robotism.
Robotic Scientologists make robotic ex-Scientologists.
(in such cases when the Scientologists become ex-Scientologists)
>
> Are all critics of your organization's lies, abuses and criminality
> criminals? Hubbard said so.
>
> >
> >Just as not all critics of Scn are the same (and people would take great
> >offense if I or any other Scientologist implied that they were),
>
> Hubbard did, didn't he? And yes, we take offense at that insane,
> suppressive generalization by Hubbard, which has led to your insane
> War On Wogs (WOW!)(R).
Trying to figure out why you're telling me - or, pardon me- why you're
telling "Claoire" all this stuff, 'cuz it surely isn't sequitur.
>
> > then
> >neither are all Scientologists the same.
>
> Well, certainly you must agree that they're all hypocrites.
Now what reason have I ever given you or anyone else here to think
that I would think this?
Answer: None.
> Not one
> $cientologist protests your organization's daily, willful violations
> of your "creed."
That's incorrect, actually.
>You, yourself are a beneficiary of these "creed"
> violations.
Not really. Inactive members such as myself receive no benefits, not
that I'd consider creed violations to be benefits. More like overt
products, they'd be, if I were there to receive such which I'm not.
>Isn't it hypocrisy that makes a $cientologist a
> $cientologist? They may not have all other qualities in common, but
> they certainly have creedal hypocrisy in common.
So you say.
>
> >
> >When I meet someone who I consider to be someone I don't care for, I
don't
> >say, "hey, all these Fundamentalists/Animal Rights Activists/Gang
> >Members/Quilting Bee participants- man, they're all the same. I know they
> >are 'cuz Suzy's one and she's a drooling idiot and so's her friend Jane."
> >If I did that, someone would rip me a new one for sure, and justly, at
that.
>
> And that's why I don't let you get away with your classic
> $cientology-wide hypocrisy.
??
Oh, that's right. You write these strange not-too coherent posts and
imagine you've scored some kind of victory. Given the Scieno creep
what-for. Gotten your licks in.
Well, some people here are pretty good at it and I've had more than a
few holes poked in some of my posts over the past couple years, but
you're not one of those who are able to do that.
>
> >
> >They'd say: "Yes, and what about the rest of the Fundamentalists/Animal
> >Rights Activists/Gang Members/Quilting Bee participants? " "Do you even
> >*know* any others?" "If you have, are they JUST LIKE Suzy and Jane?"
> >"They're not?? Then where do you get off making bigoted statements like
> >that?"
>
> But in the $cientology example, not one of your 8 million members
Aw,gee, I didn't think we had *quite* that many! ;->
>says
> one word to object to your cult's willful suppression of my free
> speech and religious expression rights.
Again, not true.
To know this for a certainty you'd have to be in all Orgs and Missions
and Int Exec thingie buildings all the time,monitoring every word,
every call, every letter, every telex. And you're not.
I've seen people in the church speak out. I've been one of them and
still am one. However, since you were not there to see it, for you it
does not exist. I understand.
One has one's universe, after all.
> You yourself are a beneficiary
> of the suppression.
Nope.
>
> Surely you recognize that I have made a clear case against your
> suppression, and broadcast it to the world and every $cientologist.
> Yet not one $cientologist speaks out to protest the suppression. It is
> therefore perfectly appropriate to call every $cientologist a
> hypocrite, and to call hypocrisy an essential of $cientology.
>
> You have chosen to be a $cientologist and a hypocrite, rather than be
> be a wog (R) and a non-hypocrite.
In all the echoing corridors of time never has a non-Scientologist
been a hypocrite.
In all the echoing corridors of time never has a Scn'ologist been
anything but one.
Thus sayeth Gerry Armstrong, living proof of what happens when a
robotic, overt-y Scientologist leaves the Church.
You act just like the sorts of Scientologists you despise, only you do
it in a different venue, is all.
This is not something I'd say of all the exes, btw.
>
> >
> >When I first found this ng 3 years ago I lurked for 2 or 3 months. It
seemed
> >to me you were all the same. I found out differently because I took the
time
> >to figure some things out and because I cared to make the
differentiation.
>
> Then please differentiate your hypocrisy regarding your organization's
> suppression of my rights and your own support of that suppression from
> all other $cientologists' hypocrisy and suppression.
You may check that off as a "done".
>
> >
> >If anyone here does not care to make an equivalent differentiation then
that
> >speaks far more about that person or people than it does about those whom
> >they revile and, occasionally, purport to want to reach.
>
> The subject is hypocrisy regarding $cientologists' effort to have me
> jailed and fined for telling the truth about $cientology and my
> religious experiences in your cult. As I say, not one $cientologist
> opposes that suppression of my rights or the hypocritical violations
> of your own "creed."
>
> Show me any evidence that any $cientologists do not support this
> suppression and hypocrisy
Please show me evidence that you've been privy to every comm cycle
between every Scientologist and every other Scientologist and every
Scientologist and every non Scientologist. Oh, that's right. You
can't. Case closed.
>or take your lumps as a suppressive and
> hypocrite.
And you must take yours as a robotic, vitriolic man who does the same
things out of Scn that he did when he was in, self serving as he ever
was, while purporting to stand for something else. When you were in
your self interest was disguised as doing what was right for the glory
of CofS, Hubbard and Scn. Now that you are not in Scn or in CofS
either, for that matter, your self interest is disguised (not very
well,either) as standing up for freedom of speech.
But since you, in each case, use this fake altruism in effort to make
yourself right and others wrong, it gives you away.
This is certainly not true of all exScientologists. But then, Gerry
Armstrong is Gerry Armstrong. Other people are themselves, each unique
in their own purposes, decisions (postulates), intentions and methods.
Easy for me to differentiate.
C
Here's the post of Claire's, dated April 1, 2001, which is the source
of the third of the quotes in my posts above dated September 18, 2001.
[Quote]
From: "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: The Cruelty of ARS
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 14:44:53 -0700
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <3ac7a...@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <NoVw6.114410$Ch.15...@typhoon.we.rr.com>
<3ac43...@news2.lightlink.com>
<1sjdctco76jct6fja...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.0.225.221
"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
news:1sjdctco76jct6fja...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:33:12 -0800, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Poopsy Charmicheal" <poo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:NoVw6.114410$Ch.15...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> >> I've seen some critics posting malicious speculations about Stacy
Moxin's
> >> death. And I've seen autopsy photos of Lisa McPherson on ARS.
> >>
> >> While all critics seem to agree that the height of evil is an
unthinking,
> >> uncaring Scientologist who commits the most horrendous acts while
believing
> >> they are fighting for the good of mankind, few critics can agree that
there
> >> are those among your ranks who are just as bad, and probably even
worse.
> >>
> >> The enemy of both of us is a *too fixed* viewpoint. An unchanging,
rusted
> >> shut view that the rightness of your cause transcends all compassion
and
> >> human understanding. Both sides must never lose sight of the fact that
> >> either SIDE is just another face of the same coin.
> >
> >You are so right.
> >
> >>
> >> What we both must strive for is the Truth. The facts as they are,
without
> >> fear or favor. Without any sides.
> >
> >This means listening to one another with an open mind and open heart.
>
> And I charge that your organization, based on Hubbard mandates, fails
> utterly to do that.
>
> Are you charging that I will not listen to you with an open mind and
> heart? Or that I don't listen to other Scientologists?
I don't think you listen to church members with any kind of open mind
and heart and one has only to look at your posts to do that. How you
are with Independent and Free Zone Scn'ists, I have no idea.
>
> What would I do differently in your mind to acquire the open mind and
> open heart I presumably don't have?
Stop jumping all over people and telling them that they are wrong just
because of their affiliation. Go by their words rather than their
affiliation. But you won't do that. You never have.
You were self serving as a church member and you are self serving now.
There are many critics with whom I disagree but whom I can see have
integrity. I do not number you as one of those.
>
> It is clearly Scientology which has closed minds and hearts; or done
> all it legally and extralegally could to close them.
Er ummm....did you mean CofS or Scn? Not the same thing you know. The
latter is the body of ideas, tenets, etc. The former is the current
organization/church.
>
> So, get off this "without any sides" stuff.
As long as I see people coming from this sides crap, I will call 'em
as I see 'em.
I am on no side, myself. I differ and disagree with some things CofS
does and says, and I also feel free to agree with and disagree with
things critics and detractors say.
I take things as they come and evaluate.
> Until you and every
> Scientologist sues for peace there are those of us, ever-growing, who
> know you are at war.
There ya go. No open heart there. Not that this is a big surprise.
>Your side would like to go unidentified if it
> could, so it throws out cloaking phrases like "listening to one
> another."
You wouldn't know my viewpoint or position if it appeared written on
your forehead in big neon letters.
You simply do not know what you're talking about.
>
> No, Claire, it's the Miscavige regime which must listen.
No argument there.
But this does not excuse anyone else from any other "side" from also
having to listen.
>It's the
> truth about that malignancy that we must strive for. If you're not
> after that truth, you're on another side and not looking for the truth
> at all.
Yeah, yeah,I know. If yer not with us yer agin us.
Black and white think rules! Funny, that, in view of your history of
manipulating grey areas...
>
> The facts we're looking for as they are, without fear or favor, are
> the facts about the Miscavige regime, that is, Scientology.
*CofS*, you mean. (I know any number of Scn'ists who wouldn't touch
CofS w/ a 70 foot pole.)
>For us to
> be "without any sides" we would be without any sides on the issue of
> the Miscavige regime's facts and its failure to communicate, or as you
> say, listening to one another with an open mind and open heart.
That's how it seems to you.
Well, I don't need to buy into that line of thinking. I can see what
CofS does that's good and what they do that's bad. I know what's right
with the organization and what's very much wrong with it. I'm for the
good, against the bad.
When I was a teenager I thought it was all about sides, I thought that
about anything in life- all issues... I'm happy to report that I grew
out of that.
>
> You take the side of the Miscavige regime's unlistening,
> closed-hearted malignancy.
No, I've spoken out here against many things CofS has done.
Specifically.
> Why don't you join the open minded and open
> hearted?
I have. If I hadn't I'd never admit that CofS does anything wrong the
way I have here quite a few times on this very forum.
>Because you're a beneficary of the tech of unreason,
> unlistening, and unconscionability.
> >Evaluating and analyzing what's said,
>
> What do you mean by that? Is it good, or bad? What is it?
>
> > and cutting some slack as needed every
> >now and again.
>
> Cutting some slack on what issue, specifically? On a.r.s. you have
> infinite slack.
Not everybody grants it when they should-and I include some Scn'ists
in that comment. But, hey, I take it whether it's granted or not.
>But tell me what you mean by "cutting some slack" and
> "as needed." And for that matter "every now and again."
Depends on what's being said. Since in my world life isn't all black
or white.
>
> Do you think I cut you no slack?
Sure. It doesn't hurt or bother me, but yeah, I have only to look at
anything you say to me to know that.
C
[End Quote]
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3ac7a0d0.0%40news2.lightlink.com&output=gplain
Finally, here's a post from Claire dated September 19, 2001 responding
to my post of September 18, 2001 in which I state that she had made
the quoted black PR attacks on me in February and April of 2001. As
can be seen, Claire has not yet "created" her lie that I had "quoted
some posts [Claire had] written *2 years prior to that* and
represented them as having been written by [Claire] a couple months
before, rather than a couple years before."
[Quote]
From: "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Claire's time track (was Another foot bullet comming)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:30:00 -0700
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 132
Message-ID: <3ba8f1ed$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
References: <lf7cqt02qcbomashq...@4ax.com>
<3ba629a7$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
<1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk>
<3ba7879a$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
<1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk>
<DaNp7.4578$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
<408fqtko13cskgkt5...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance>
<3ba7a2fd$1...@news2.lightlink.com>
<p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.0.225.221
X-Original-Trace: 19 Sep 2001 15:28:45 -0400, 24.0.225.221
"Gerry Armstrong" <arms...@dowco.com> wrote in message
news:p1cfqt0kkb1p1598s...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:40:57 -0700, "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/"
> ><Anti...@galacticfederation.homeip.net> wrote in message
>
>news:408fqtko13cskgkt5...@ARSCC.Sweden.Dep.OSA.Surveillance..
.
> >> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:23:15 GMT.
> >> In Message-ID: <DaNp7.4578$JN.1...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>
> >> From: "Starshadow" <starsh...@home.com>.
> >> Organization: All Your Ron Are Belong To Us.
> >> Wrote on the subject: Re: Another foot bullet comming:
> >>
> >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >Hash: SHA1
> >> >
> >> >"Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >message news:1000839231.5620.3...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Fluffygirl" <csw...@home.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3ba7879a$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Rev. Norle Enturbulata" <earthlig...@nohotmail.com> wrote
> >> >> > in message
> >> >> > news:1000800269.16708....@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > <snip irrelevant text>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What is the "cult" of mine to which you refer?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You must have meant to direct this elsewhere since I have no such
> >> >> > thing.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm a do-it-yourself'er.
> >> >>
> >> >> Really! This differs greatly from the things you've said pre-WTC.
> >> >> But why should I be surprised?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > You must not have read much of what Claire has said. She's said
> >> >quite clearly that she doesn't follow the "Church" of Scientology in
> >> >all things, that Hubbard said many things, some of which she
> >> >considers to be quite useful, and that she follows the things she
> >> >thinks are useful.
> >>
> >> But she's never been able or willing to give any specifics. She's never
> >> said wht it is she doesn't agree with, and what it is that she do agree
> >> with. Time after time, people have asked her, but she refuse to give
any
> >> specifics.
> >
> >That's just not true. I've been quite specific. My "Compassion" post of
> >several months ago is one. And MANY before and after that one, as well.
I've
> >decried the church's handling of critics, how Finn McMillan (Stress
Centre)
> >was treated, the treatment of the Woodcraft Children, treatment of SO
> >members, enforced disconnection, prices, slamming of "psychs", treatment
of
> >"illegal pcs" and a bunch of other things. Those are specific statements.
> >
> >Your info is well over a year out of date.
>
> I don't know. You made these black PR attacks on me in February and
> April this year:
>
> [Quote]
>
> And you must take yours as a robotic, vitriolic man who does the same
> things out of Scn that he did when he was in, self serving as he ever
> was, while purporting to stand for something else. When you were in
> your self interest was disguised as doing what was right for the glory
> of CofS, Hubbard and Scn. Now that you are not in Scn or in CofS
> either, for that matter, your self interest is disguised (not very
> well,either) as standing up for freedom of speech.
>
> But since you, in each case, use this fake altruism in effort to make
> yourself right and others wrong, it gives you away.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> [Quote]
>
> You were self serving as a church member and you are self serving now.
>
> There are many critics with whom I disagree but whom I can see have
> integrity. I do not number you as one of those.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> Oh, and this statement?
>
> [Quote]
>
> Thus sayeth Gerry Armstrong, living proof of what happens when a
> robotic, overt-y Scientologist leaves the Church.
>
> You act just like the sorts of Scientologists you despise, only you do
> it in a different venue, is all.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> All of these were within the last year. And I'm just one wog (R). You
> treat all wogs (R) the same right?
No, I don't. And I don't treat all Scn'ists the same, either.
Anyone who is nasty to me does not fare well in return. Whether that
person be a Scn'ist or a non Scn'ist or whatever.
I already explained that to you weeks ago.
I am not nice to people who are nasty to me. Maybe I can be too
bitchy, too aggressive, whatever. Fine with me if that's how it
strikes people.
But everything I wrote was in response to your having slammed me. I'm
not nice when I'm being fucked with. Sorry, but that's how it is.
You don't like it? Then don't fuck with me.
Coming onto the forum with a rude rejoinder to a nasty post does not
constitute a black PR campaign. It only constititutes a rude rejoinder
to a nasty post. Period.
C
[End Quote]
>
>> Surely this is just
>> more pretended stupidity from an OSA Goon.
>
>Heh.
This last post by Claire quoted above is instructive. When a person
who is the target of her lies has the temerity to attempt to get her
to correct them, Claire's response is to, as she says, be too bitchy,
too aggressive, whatever, to give rude rejoinders, to fuck with him.
A person who tries to correct her lies, she boasts, does not fare well
in return. She's clearly proud too to be able to say that it's fine
with her if her being too bitchy, too aggressive, whatever, strikes
people as her being too bitchy, too aggressive, whatever.
To justify all that bitchiness, all that aggression, all that
pretended stupidity that it takes to make sure her victim doesn't fare
well, of course, in dramatization of her "overt-motivator sequence,"
Claire has to further lie about, vilify and denigrate the victim. One
of the most "effective" ways Claire uses on Usenet to further
denigrate a victim of her bitchiness, aggression and pretended
stupidity is to kill-file him. All that bitchiness, aggression and
pretended stupidity, and all those lies, are part and parcel of being
OT, and Claire is, she admits, OT.
Jim Glidewell
wrote:
> "Spacetraveler" <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I guess I must be that "less bright anti-Scn lurker" that you refer to.
And it was 6 months prior, not a couple years. (Gerry explicitly said:
"You made these black PR attacks on me in February and April this year:"
(which was true - see link below) so I don't know how he was attempting
to "fool" anyone)
You did get the apology part right.
Your _assumption_ that I was unaware of the date of your quoted material
was just that.
There was *nothing* in any of my postings on that thread that indicated
that I thought they were extremely recent:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jimglidewell-8B5D8C.07120720092001%
40news.sttln1.wa.home.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=jimglidewell-8BF199.06313420092001%
40news.sttln1.wa.home.com>
Note that those two posts are my *entire* contribution to that thread.
Where exactly did I state or imply how old the quotes were?
The "robotic, vitrolic man" post that Gerry quoted was only about 6
months previous to that thread:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=eHYl6.468695%24U46.13962486%40news1
.sttls1.wa.home.com>
(That is *your* posting, isn't it?)
It seems that in *your* world, anything you said six months ago no longer
applies and you can no longer be held accountable for it. Apparently,
if one can't cite something contemptible that you've written in the
past week, it isn't worth discussing. That was said by the "old" Claire.
Ancient history.
I am willing to stand behind my entire 10 year Usenet posting history.
Your conclusion that I am "less bright" is based on some pretty weak
premises. As was your shrieking post attacking me personally:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3bab8d45%40news2.lightlink.com>
I find it amazing that you are still dragging me up as an example about
how "stupid" some folks are, some _three years_ later. Based on *your*
faulty assumptions about how old I thought a post was.
I really don't think that whole thread puts you in a very good light,
and am somewhat mystified as to why you would bring it up yet again.
Do you still stand by your claim that a "less bright" lurker was
confused about the age of some postings?
I suppose it is *my* fault for not sticking around and "clarifying"
things to your satisfaction - this couldn't be a mistake on _your_
part.
Please find some other poster boy for deluded scn-critic. It's
utterly pathetic that you need to drag out the likes of me to "prove"
how Gerry misleads people. My opinion of you predated anything
I recall Gerry posting by a long time. (I think it was cemented
about the time I learned that your "not at my org" refrain was
referring to the _same org_ whose picket of RVY's home in West
Seattle made the front page of the Seattle Times.)
BTW, I've always wanted to ask - were _you_ at that picket?
It was a proud moment in the "Church's" Seattle history... I hope
you had the chance to be a part of it.
I may not be a genius, but I never was so foolish as to believe a book
that began: "The creation of Dianetics is a milestone for man comparable
to his discovery of fire, and superior to his invention of the wheel and
the arch."
If I had, I certainly wouldn't go casting aspersions on another person's
intelligence (which I tend not to do in any case...)
And I still find you to be the embodiment of scientological ethics...
without any particular help from Gerry.
Pardon me if I go back to lurking now. If you want to argue, note that
it's "all there in Google" so I really don't need to engage in an
extended "he said/she said" thing.
But thanks for the memories...
And please do keep on posting, as you do more to discredit Scientology
and scientologists in general than I could ever hope to. You are truly a
highly evolved spiritual being - a fine product of L. Ron Hubbard's
spirtual technology.
Virginia McClaughry
some great stuff so I felt that it was appropriate to enter the discussions
for a bit.
So, if you don't see me doing so many posts on these threads regularly -
don't worry, it's not that I am *incapable* of responding or whatever
someone may try to spin. It's because there are other things that I'm
probably doing that are more priority overall in the grand scheme of things.
Call *this* a mini-break from one kind of fun to another kind of fun. All of
which are on the route of Scientology 8-8008.
:-)
Now, on to talking to spacetraveler.
Spacetraveler <spacetra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f53d1e2.04073...@posting.google.com...
> > Thought, p. 25, Š 1973. Lying is not any form of creativity. Illusion
> > is not creativity. All of Hubbard's and Scientology's and
> > Scientologists' lies add up to nothing. You can lie about the effect
> > all that nothingness has created, but that lie is nothing too.
> >
> > Scientologists are led by Hubbard, and of course by the equally
> > gargantuan liars in the Miscavige regime, to believe that when they're
> > lying they're being creative. Scientologists may hope that they could
> > do something more refined or elevated than lie, so that what they did
> > would be a higher form of creativity than lying; but Scientologists
> > continue to lie their heads off because, with Hubbard's definition,
> > they can justify that by lying, which as you demonstrate is easy for
> > anyone to do, they are still being creative.
>
> Are you using this:
> "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
> OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCO PL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
> Lines
>
> Get you lies and assumptions stich through talking about it like it is
> a proven fact? Tseetsee, Gerry! Naughty boy!
Is that supposed to be like "Tsk Tsk" ? That sound people make when they see
something as having been a mistake or wrong? I'm not familiar with
"Tseetsee", is the point.
>
>
> > And if you don't believe that lying is a form of creativity, why on
> > Teegeeack do you splurge on it?
As Mike and I pointed out to I think "Les Rogers" posts about how Ron
couldn't possibly be auditing us, as we are not *important* or something
like Alan C. Walter and Ralph (wry expression), Lieing is the lowest form of
creativity - a concept expressed by LRH originally.
> >
> > >Gerry Armstrong the *expert* on Fair Game.
> >
> > Thanks for not pretending to be even stupider than you're pretending
> > to be and putting EXPERT in quotes.
>
> It is not quotes ('), they are *. Not the same. But if you would say
> that I was stressing them, alright.
>
> > Yes, I am an expert in and on Fair
> > Game. I use the word "expert" in its usual legal sense, as in, e.g., I
> > am an expert witness in and on Scientology's basic philosophy, policy
> > and practice of fair game; and in the common English sense, as, e.g.,
> > I have acquired an expert level of experience and knowledge in the
> > field of fair game, and I can expertly communicate that experience and
> > knowledge.
>
> Then why ignoring HCOPL 21 July 1968 which is cancelling the Fair Game
> practice?
>
>
> > You are *not* claiming to be an expert in Fair Game are you?
>
> No, I only notice that you leave out some issues concerning. And I
> confront you with that.
Yes, and Gerry is not willing when put to the test, to respond with "reason
"reason, truth and a higher
level communication" to a real live example of a Black Op on Mike
McClaughry, done just a couple weeks ago.
Blackening himself publically into the category of the same basic group of
people that do target Mike and I, on a regular basis.
Just like Tory did previously.
>
>
> > Are you an expert in anything?
>
> Yeah, exposing inconsistencies in your reasoning and reference back
> up.
LOL
>
>
> > >His sole defense is: "You are lying, you are dishonest, and so on...."
> >
> > Sole defense to what? LF
> >
> > Oh, yeah, nothing. LFBD F/N
>
> Your cover up why you really don't want to respond to my
> 'incriminating' questions, for one your avoidance of HCO PL 21 July
> 1968.
>
>
> > I'm not saying you're lying for any other reason than you're lying.
> > You're the liar. You're responsible for your lies. I can point them
> > out if I decide to do so. And I can ask you, as I have, to please stop
> > lying. But I can't make you stop, and I have no intention of doing
> > what I can't do. You're the liar, and you'll have to be the one to
> > quit.
>
> Ah, you use again:
> "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED
> OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC." HCO PL 9 Jun 1975 Enemy
> Lines
>
> And do you think that people fell for it already, hmm, well?
LOL Good one.
Definitely.
>
> >
> > > However his cover is blown!
That it is.
> >
> > Eek, the invisible cover! You Scientologists are so OT, making what
> > isn't there disappear. You're quite the little as-iser!
Apparently so, in Gerry's mind.
> >
> > >Someone's cover always gets blown by people who have actual knowledge
> > >and are persistent.
> >
> > Oh, so Spacetravesty, you really are claiming to be a sort of expert.
>
> I am only consulting your expertice, but you will not help me:
>
http://groups.google.se/groups?hl=sv&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=9f53d1e2.0407131802.7
75cab17%40posting.google.com
>
> > Well how about if you lay your expertise on the table and we'll see
> > what isn't there too.
> >
> > You put on that table your actual knowledge about Hubbard's
> > "Suppressive Person" doctrine. Thank you.
>
> For one, an SP does not finish cycles of action. But then, that's only
> one characteristic. It doesn't make you an SP yet.
Actually, remember, one of the key things is that ANYone can display those
characteristics a lot or a little or anything in between.
I believe Ron said in a Class VIII tape quote that I have in one of my Solo
Nots newsletters, that a true SP is that way ALL the time.
Which makes sense. I'm not saying at all that you are doing this, but I'd
like to make a point that it's way too holier than thou how most people
thrown around the He's Suppressive thing. Meaning it's not like the rest of
the thetans aren't (without auditing) all the way there in some areas of
their case. The main difference is the ones that aren't true Suppressive
Persons can still do *more* things that are constructive than the things
they do that are Suppressive.
Quite interesting when you really get what Ron's saying about all that -
from a larger perspective.
Virginia
>
> Spacetraveler
Spacetraveler
> On a general note to whoever's reading my responses I'm doing today, this is
> some great stuff so I felt that it was appropriate to enter the discussions
> for a bit.
>
> So, if you don't see me doing so many posts on these threads regularly -
> don't worry, it's not that I am *incapable* of responding or whatever
> someone may try to spin. It's because there are other things that I'm
> probably doing that are more priority overall in the grand scheme of things.
>
> Call *this* a mini-break from one kind of fun to another kind of fun. All of
> which are on the route of Scientology 8-8008.
Acknowledged.
>
> :-)
>
> Now, on to talking to spacetraveler.
snip
> > Get you lies and assumptions stich through talking about it like it is
> > a proven fact? Tseetsee, Gerry! Naughty boy!
>
> Is that supposed to be like "Tsk Tsk" ? That sound people make when they see
> something as having been a mistake or wrong? I'm not familiar with
> "Tseetsee", is the point.
I think I was going to write TseekTseek and got mixed up with Sheesh.
snip
> > > You are *not* claiming to be an expert in Fair Game are you?
> >
> > No, I only notice that you leave out some issues concerning. And I
> > confront you with that.
>
> Yes, and Gerry is not willing when put to the test, to respond with "reason
> "reason, truth and a higher
> level communication" to a real live example of a Black Op on Mike
> McClaughry, done just a couple weeks ago.
>
> Blackening himself publically into the category of the same basic group of
> people that do target Mike and I, on a regular basis.
>
> Just like Tory did previously.
I perceive her as being rather confused. She wanted something from
Scientology and she did not get it. And now she is upset.
snip
> > > You put on that table your actual knowledge about Hubbard's
> > > "Suppressive Person" doctrine. Thank you.
> >
> > For one, an SP does not finish cycles of action. But then, that's only
> > one characteristic. It doesn't make you an SP yet.
>
> Actually, remember, one of the key things is that ANYone can display those
> characteristics a lot or a little or anything in between.
>
> I believe Ron said in a Class VIII tape quote that I have in one of my Solo
> Nots newsletters, that a true SP is that way ALL the time.
>
> Which makes sense. I'm not saying at all that you are doing this, but I'd
> like to make a point that it's way too holier than thou how most people
> thrown around the He's Suppressive thing. Meaning it's not like the rest of
> the thetans aren't (without auditing) all the way there in some areas of
> their case. The main difference is the ones that aren't true Suppressive
> Persons can still do *more* things that are constructive than the things
> they do that are Suppressive.
>
> Quite interesting when you really get what Ron's saying about all that -
> from a larger perspective.
Interesting perspective.
Spacetraveler
Virginia McClaughry
That may be so, but that's not what's the main vector she's right in track
with in being *out* of the Church.
That same one she was in track with when she was IN the Church as well.
Intelligence and PR re: Scientology.
>
>
> snip
>
> > > > You put on that table your actual knowledge about Hubbard's
> > > > "Suppressive Person" doctrine. Thank you.
> > >
> > > For one, an SP does not finish cycles of action. But then, that's only
> > > one characteristic. It doesn't make you an SP yet.
> >
> > Actually, remember, one of the key things is that ANYone can display
those
> > characteristics a lot or a little or anything in between.
> >
> > I believe Ron said in a Class VIII tape quote that I have in one of my
Solo
> > Nots newsletters, that a true SP is that way ALL the time.
> >
> > Which makes sense. I'm not saying at all that you are doing this, but
I'd
> > like to make a point that it's way too holier than thou how most people
> > thrown around the He's Suppressive thing. Meaning it's not like the rest
of
> > the thetans aren't (without auditing) all the way there in some areas of
> > their case. The main difference is the ones that aren't true Suppressive
> > Persons can still do *more* things that are constructive than the things
> > they do that are Suppressive.
> >
> > Quite interesting when you really get what Ron's saying about all that -
> > from a larger perspective.
>
> Interesting perspective.
Glad to have provided it.
Virginia
>
> Spacetraveler