Is Roadrunner participating in a conspiracy to attac Gerry Armstrong?
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
Posted on13 okt 2008 10:02. SVT( Swedish Television ) Forum:
http://tinyurl.com/5pr72p
Quote: Jag har sammanstält en förhandling om Gerry Armstrong och hans
Affirmations som jag kommer att publicera inom kort.End quote.
My translation: I have compiled a negotiation about Gerry Armstrong
and his Affirmations, which I will publish soon.
Evidence that he is in cahoot with others in this:
Quote:We have a lot more indicators that Gerry Armstrong would be the
author
than that L. Ron Hubbard would be that.End quote. Posted 18 Nov,
18:55: http://tinyurl.com/6gy3kd
and quote from same url: The indications that we have and the facts we
have at hand is that Gerry
Armstrong wrote the damn things himself. End quote. Again this "We"!
Excluding the possibility that "We" refers to RR and his Body Thetans,
one can not rule out the possibility that RR is compiling an attac on
Gerry Armstrong on behalf of the Cult of $cientology.
Considering the time spent by RR on this board alone, it is unlikely
that he has a daytime work earning some income. If he is not on social
wellfare, and not being a very rich person, than he just might being
paid by the cult to do its dirty work once again smearing and defaming
Gerry. I do not know anything about RR:s income, but speculating is
allowed, isn´t it?
Also RR obviously is grasping for much needed support (other than from
BS ) in his postings, trying to redress himself ( as El Ron tried in
Affirmations) in his pinned down position.
So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
coming your way!
Take care buddy, and be assured that many of us is thinking of you,
admiring your bravery,endurance and integrity!
Ulf Brettstam. M.D.
peters...@gmail.com
Ulf, Michel, also known as "RR", is an obsessed person. I doubt it is
a conspiracy. It is just Michel: NEVER EVER trust anybody. ONLY
believe what you have "researched and evaluated" yourself, omitting
that the result can only be the opinion of ONE person: Michel. IMHO(!)
he lives in a box, all sides plastered with his dogma's.
He feels he has a mission, like Hubbard thought he had a mission.
One is trying to ridicule me. Another trying to ridicule you. Like he
tries to ridicule almost everybody. Except Miss Schwarz.
(I am not suggesting anything here, just fact.)
I no longer can take him serious. Mostly he is a waste of time.
Peter
"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to
win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment
on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that
he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his
professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
- L. Ron Hubbard, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, 1955
Roger Larsson
Lets hope he has taken his vaccin shots against rabies when
scientologists trained to follow the leader of the packs orders to go
to attack without any questioning of their leaders self-declared
verity as an authoritarian character goes after him.
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
Then the "we" thing would be RR writing about himself in third person
like the former Queen Victoria of Britain once did. Quite possible
come to think about it. RR has a very high opinion about himself,
maybe to such a degree that he is thinking about himself in third
person.
Ulf Brettstam. M.D.
peters...@gmail.com
In a quarrel about authorities I assumed Michel had only one
authority: Himself.
I still think I am right.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
<orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well according to several of his postings he is!
>
> Posted on13 okt 2008 10:02. SVT( Swedish Television ) Forum:http://tinyurl.com/5pr72p
>
> Quote: Jag har sammanstält en förhandling om Gerry Armstrong och hans
> Affirmations som jag kommer att publicera inom kort.End quote.
> My translation: I have compiled a negotiation about Gerry Armstrong
> and his Affirmations, which I will publish soon.
It will include Ulf Brettstam himself. See, he made a slip while doing
an analysis on these Affirmations, without for a moment questioning
the claimed authorship as forwarded by Gerry Armstrong in 2000.
>
> Evidence that he is in cahoot with others in this:
> Quote:We have a lot more indicators that Gerry Armstrong would be the
> author
> than that L. Ron Hubbard would be that.End quote. Posted 18 Nov,
> 18:55:http://tinyurl.com/6gy3kd
And that's evidence for that 'others' are involved and that I do not
all by myself? Learn English, it does not have to implicate that.
>
> and quote from same url: The indications that we have and the facts we
> have at hand is that Gerry
> Armstrong wrote the damn things himself. End quote. Again this "We"!
Sorry, just me. It is the way I express myself.
>
> Excluding the possibility that "We" refers to RR and his Body Thetans,
> one can not rule out the possibility that RR is compiling an attac on
> Gerry Armstrong on behalf of the Cult of $cientology.
Sorry, I do not operate for some organization or on behalf of someone
else.
> Considering the time spent by RR on this board alone, it is unlikely
> that he has a daytime work earning some income. If he is not on social
> wellfare, and not being a very rich person, than he just might being
> paid by the cult to do its dirty work once again smearing and defaming
> Gerry. I do not know anything about RR:s income, but speculating is
> allowed, isn´t it?
Irrelevant. Further it is just speculation. You have not a clue how
very fast I write my messages. Indeed very little time is spent on
that.
>
> Also RR obviously is grasping for much needed support (other than from
> BS ) in his postings, trying to redress himself ( as El Ron tried in
> Affirmations) in his pinned down position.
Error, I do not seek support of any sorts.
What is your evidence for that L. Ron Hubbard would have written these
Affirmations from 2000 other then the claim made by Gerry Armstrong?
You ain't got nothing!
>
> So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
> coming your way!
He should face his manipulations and propaganda. Factual information
and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may
look ugly for friend Gerry.
> Take care buddy, and be assured that many of us is thinking of you,
> admiring your bravery,endurance and integrity!
Yeah, unable to enter the US as there is a warrant out for his arrest.
He was found in contempt of the court as amny as 131 times in a court
ruling.
RR
>
> Ulf Brettstam. M.D.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
False and slander. No obsession present of any kind.
>I doubt it is
> a conspiracy. It is just Michel: NEVER EVER trust anybody. ONLY
> believe what you have "researched and evaluated" yourself, omitting
> that the result can only be the opinion of ONE person: Michel. IMHO(!)
> he lives in a box, all sides plastered with his dogma's.
False and slander. Dogma's are composed of unevaluated information. It
is you that does not evaluate anything. On your site you just copy
from others.
> He feels he has a mission, like Hubbard thought he had a mission.
No mission.
> One is trying to ridicule me. Another trying to ridicule you.
Incorrect. I return the glove thrown at me. And you my friend have a
problem with how to handle opposition.
>Like he
> tries to ridicule almost everybody.
False.
>Except Miss Schwarz.
> (I am not suggesting anything here, just fact.)
> I no longer can take him serious. Mostly he is a waste of time.
I am uncomfortable to you and so you wish to play the game how to
ignore me. Too late...
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Incorrect. I just research and follow that what I find. Got NOTHING to
do with self esteem.
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
You offer nothing to the contrary. See, it is logic evaluation.
RR
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
> On 23 Nov, 07:58, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Well according to several of his postings he is!
>
> > Posted on13 okt 2008 10:02. SVT( Swedish Television ) Forum:http://tinyurl.com/5pr72p
>
> > Quote: Jag har sammanstält en förhandling om Gerry Armstrong och hans
> > Affirmations som jag kommer att publicera inom kort.End quote.
> > My translation: I have compiled a negotiation about Gerry Armstrong
> > and his Affirmations, which I will publish soon.
>
> It will include Ulf Brettstam himself. See, he made a slip while doing
> an analysis on these Affirmations, without for a moment questioning
> the claimed authorship as forwarded by Gerry Armstrong in 2000.
>
word against your word.
And then of course there are the multitude of circumstantial evidence
backing Gerrys word.
> > Evidence that he is in cahoot with others in this:
> > Quote:We have a lot more indicators that Gerry Armstrong would be the
> > author
> > than that L. Ron Hubbard would be that.End quote. Posted 18 Nov,
> > 18:55:http://tinyurl.com/6gy3kd
>
> And that's evidence for that 'others' are involved and that I do not
> all by myself? Learn English, it does not have to implicate that.
If you would have bother to read a bit further before you lash out...
>
> > and quote from same url: The indications that we have and the facts we
> > have at hand is that Gerry
> > Armstrong wrote the damn things himself. End quote. Again this "We"!
>
> Sorry, just me. It is the way I express myself.
>
>
>
> > Excluding the possibility that "We" refers to RR and his Body Thetans,
> > one can not rule out the possibility that RR is compiling an attac on
> > Gerry Armstrong on behalf of the Cult of $cientology.
>
> Sorry, I do not operate for some organization or on behalf of someone
> else.
You shouldn´t be sorry not to take part in a conspiracy poor Michel!
> > Considering the time spent by RR on this board alone, it is unlikely
> > that he has a daytime work earning some income. If he is not on social
> > wellfare, and not being a very rich person, than he just might being
> > paid by the cult to do its dirty work once again smearing and defaming
> > Gerry. I do not know anything about RR:s income, but speculating is
> > allowed, isn´t it?
>
> Irrelevant. Further it is just speculation. You have not a clue how
> very fast I write my messages. Indeed very little time is spent on
> that.
You being a fast writer might be true but adding up the exact time or
moments you do your posts there are still no time over for a normal
work.Judging from your reply on this post , you are also a very fast
reader, to fast perhaps?
>
>
> > Also RR obviously is grasping for much needed support (other than from
> > BS ) in his postings, trying to redress himself ( as El Ron tried in
> > Affirmations) in his pinned down position.
>
> Error, I do not seek support of any sorts.
You have certainly fooled me and others on this question.LOL
> What is your evidence for that L. Ron Hubbard would have written these
> Affirmations from 2000 other then the claim made by Gerry Armstrong?
> You ain't got nothing!
>
What is yours he didn´t?
>
> > So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
> > coming your way!
>
> He should face his manipulations and propaganda. Factual information
> and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may
> look ugly for friend Gerry.
Somehow I don´t think you are able to do him any more harm than your
cult buddies already have.
> > Take care buddy, and be assured that many of us is thinking of you,
> > admiring your bravery,endurance and integrity!
>
> Yeah, unable to enter the US as there is a warrant out for his arrest.
> He was found in contempt of the court as amny as 131 times in a court
> ruling.
Nah you don´t say?
> RR
>
>
>
Ulf Brettstam. M.D.
DickHead
the USA. Tell us oh great Road Runner what it is PLEASE TELL US WHAT
CONTEMPT OF COURT IS IN THE USA ???
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
<orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Nov, 15:33, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 23 Nov, 07:58, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well according to several of his postings he is!
>
> > > Posted on13 okt 2008 10:02. SVT( Swedish Television ) Forum:http://tinyurl.com/5pr72p
>
> > > Quote: Jag har sammanstält en förhandling om Gerry Armstrong och hans
> > > Affirmations som jag kommer att publicera inom kort.End quote.
> > > My translation: I have compiled a negotiation about Gerry Armstrong
> > > and his Affirmations, which I will publish soon.
>
> > It will include Ulf Brettstam himself. See, he made a slip while doing
> > an analysis on these Affirmations, without for a moment questioning
> > the claimed authorship as forwarded by Gerry Armstrong in 2000.
>
> So says you but without any evidence as usual.It comes down to Gerrys
> word against your word.
Manipulative. You seem to want to put Gerry and me on the same level.
Irrelevant. Gerry Armstrong made claims and has no secondary source of
evidence to back him up. Then considering that his 'deal' with the
Church of Scientology in fact made him rich (for returning materials
which were not his to start with). And then him violating his
agreement 131 times as confirmed in court. All this deems Gerry not
being a person with a lot of integrity.
> And then of course there are the multitude of circumstantial evidence
> backing Gerrys word.
Actually you have none.
>
> > > Evidence that he is in cahoot with others in this:
> > > Quote:We have a lot more indicators that Gerry Armstrong would be the
> > > author
> > > than that L. Ron Hubbard would be that.End quote. Posted 18 Nov,
> > > 18:55:http://tinyurl.com/6gy3kd
>
> > And that's evidence for that 'others' are involved and that I do not
> > all by myself? Learn English, it does not have to implicate that.
>
> If you would have bother to read a bit further before you lash out...
>
>
>
> > > and quote from same url: The indications that we have and the facts we
> > > have at hand is that Gerry
> > > Armstrong wrote the damn things himself. End quote. Again this "We"!
>
> > Sorry, just me. It is the way I express myself.
>
> > > Excluding the possibility that "We" refers to RR and his Body Thetans,
> > > one can not rule out the possibility that RR is compiling an attac on
> > > Gerry Armstrong on behalf of the Cult of $cientology.
>
> > Sorry, I do not operate for some organization or on behalf of someone
> > else.
>
> You shouldn´t be sorry not to take part in a conspiracy poor Michel!
Offensive. It is poor you as you are actively involved with putting
children on drugs. Then the claim as if my research would be
conspiracy is slander. You on the other hand actively deend
individuals such as your fellow Swedish psychiatrist that allowed his
'research' to be shredded as soon as independent verification was
forthcoming. This all in violation of a court order.
>
> > > Considering the time spent by RR on this board alone, it is unlikely
> > > that he has a daytime work earning some income. If he is not on social
> > > wellfare, and not being a very rich person, than he just might being
> > > paid by the cult to do its dirty work once again smearing and defaming
> > > Gerry. I do not know anything about RR:s income, but speculating is
> > > allowed, isn´t it?
>
> > Irrelevant. Further it is just speculation. You have not a clue how
> > very fast I write my messages. Indeed very little time is spent on
> > that.
>
> You being a fast writer might be true but adding up the exact time or
> moments you do your posts there are still no time over for a normal
> work.Judging from your reply on this post , you are also a very fast
> reader, to fast perhaps?
Again, you have no idea... Very little time is spent with this.
Also you attempt here again to defame me with an assumption. Indeed, I
am a pretty accurate reader.
>
>
>
> > > Also RR obviously is grasping for much needed support (other than from
> > > BS ) in his postings, trying to redress himself ( as El Ron tried in
> > > Affirmations) in his pinned down position.
>
> > Error, I do not seek support of any sorts.
>
> You have certainly fooled me and others on this question.LOL
Indeed LOL, you may have your delusion and attempt to overthrow with
sole opinion and claim...
>
> > What is your evidence for that L. Ron Hubbard would have written these
> > Affirmations from 2000 other then the claim made by Gerry Armstrong?
> > You ain't got nothing!
>
> What is yours he didn´t?
Sorry, manipulative respons. The burden of proof is on Gerry
Armstrong. It is utterly stupid to reason like this when some person
(that is wanted by the law in US) comes with some writings, claims
them being written by L. Ron Hubbard. And then saying that there is no
evidence that he did NOT write them.
The indications however are that the Affirmation are not written in
the writing style of L. Ron Hubbard. Further, seeing the posting track
of Gerry Armstrong on for example on the ARS, a simple comparison can
be made with his writing style and delusional behaviour (all are after
to get him, etc..). There are clear similiarities with the
Affirmations that he forwarded in 2000.
>
>
>
> > > So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
> > > coming your way!
>
> > He should face his manipulations and propaganda. Factual information
> > and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may
> > look ugly for friend Gerry.
>
> Somehow I don´t think you are able to do him any more harm than your
> cult buddies already have.
Offensive. I am part of no cult. Also I have no intent to harm him. He
does a grand job all by himself. However people have the rigth to get
the complete story. Not the edited version that is propagated by anti-
Scientologists and Gerry himself.
>
> > > Take care buddy, and be assured that many of us is thinking of you,
> > > admiring your bravery,endurance and integrity!
>
> > Yeah, unable to enter the US as there is a warrant out for his arrest.
> > He was found in contempt of the court as amny as 131 times in a court
> > ruling.
>
> Nah you don´t say?
Didn't you say that you trust court statements more than mine??
Hmmm....
RR
>
> > RR
>
> Ulf Brettstam. M.D.
Ball of Fluff
Hi, Orkie,
There are a number of critics who don't see eye to eye with Gerry Armstrong.
Doesn't make it an OSA op everytime someone disagrees or says they don't
like him.
C
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
> On 23 Nov, 16:21, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
>
>
> <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 23 Nov, 15:33, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 23 Nov, 07:58, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > > <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Well according to several of his postings he is!
>
> > > > Posted on13 okt 2008 10:02. SVT( Swedish Television ) Forum:http://tinyurl.com/5pr72p
>
> > > > Quote: Jag har sammanstält en förhandling om Gerry Armstrong och hans
> > > > Affirmations som jag kommer att publicera inom kort.End quote.
> > > > My translation: I have compiled a negotiation about Gerry Armstrong
> > > > and his Affirmations, which I will publish soon.
>
> > > It will include Ulf Brettstam himself. See, he made a slip while doing
> > > an analysis on these Affirmations, without for a moment questioning
> > > the claimed authorship as forwarded by Gerry Armstrong in 2000.
>
> > So says you but without any evidence as usual.It comes down to Gerrys
> > word against your word.
>
> Manipulative. You seem to want to put Gerry and me on the same level.
I don´t think you worthy of licking his boots. You at the same level
as Gerry-don´t make me laugh.
> Irrelevant. Gerry Armstrong made claims and has no secondary source of
> evidence to back him up. Then considering that his 'deal' with the
> Church of Scientology in fact made him rich (for returning materials
> which were not his to start with). And then him violating his
> agreement 131 times as confirmed in court. All this deems Gerry not
> being a person with a lot of integrity.
>
> > And then of course there are the multitude of circumstantial evidence
> > backing Gerrys word.
>
> Actually you have none.
>
Has been posted by me and others on other toipcs.
>
>
>
> > > > Evidence that he is in cahoot with others in this:
> > > > Quote:We have a lot more indicators that Gerry Armstrong would be the
> > > > author
> > > > than that L. Ron Hubbard would be that.End quote. Posted 18 Nov,
> > > > 18:55:http://tinyurl.com/6gy3kd
>
> > > And that's evidence for that 'others' are involved and that I do not
> > > all by myself? Learn English, it does not have to implicate that.
>
> > If you would have bother to read a bit further before you lash out...
>
> > > > and quote from same url: The indications that we have and the facts we
> > > > have at hand is that Gerry
> > > > Armstrong wrote the damn things himself. End quote. Again this "We"!
>
> > > Sorry, just me. It is the way I express myself.
>
> > > > Excluding the possibility that "We" refers to RR and his Body Thetans,
> > > > one can not rule out the possibility that RR is compiling an attac on
> > > > Gerry Armstrong on behalf of the Cult of $cientology.
>
> > > Sorry, I do not operate for some organization or on behalf of someone
> > > else.
>
> > You shouldn´t be sorry not to take part in a conspiracy poor Michel!
>
> Offensive. It is poor you as you are actively involved with putting
> children on drugs. Then the claim as if my research would be
> conspiracy is slander. You on the other hand actively deend
> individuals such as your fellow Swedish psychiatrist that allowed his
> 'research' to be shredded as soon as independent verification was
> forthcoming. This all in violation of a court order.
>
Again you squirms like a maggot having nothing as usual.
>
>
>
> > > > Considering the time spent by RR on this board alone, it is unlikely
> > > > that he has a daytime work earning some income. If he is not on social
> > > > wellfare, and not being a very rich person, than he just might being
> > > > paid by the cult to do its dirty work once again smearing and defaming
> > > > Gerry. I do not know anything about RR:s income, but speculating is
> > > > allowed, isn´t it?
>
> > > Irrelevant. Further it is just speculation. You have not a clue how
> > > very fast I write my messages. Indeed very little time is spent on
> > > that.
>
> > You being a fast writer might be true but adding up the exact time or
> > moments you do your posts there are still no time over for a normal
> > work.Judging from your reply on this post , you are also a very fast
> > reader, to fast perhaps?
>
> Again, you have no idea... Very little time is spent with this.
>
> Also you attempt here again to defame me with an assumption. Indeed, I
> am a pretty accurate reader.
You are the greatest defamer of your self, haven´t you noticed?
>
>
> > > > Also RR obviously is grasping for much needed support (other than from
> > > > BS ) in his postings, trying to redress himself ( as El Ron tried in
> > > > Affirmations) in his pinned down position.
>
> > > Error, I do not seek support of any sorts.
>
> > You have certainly fooled me and others on this question.LOL
>
> Indeed LOL, you may have your delusion and attempt to overthrow with
> sole opinion and claim...
>
>
>
> > > What is your evidence for that L. Ron Hubbard would have written these
> > > Affirmations from 2000 other then the claim made by Gerry Armstrong?
> > > You ain't got nothing!
>
> > What is yours he didn´t?
>
> Sorry, manipulative respons. The burden of proof is on Gerry
> Armstrong. It is utterly stupid to reason like this when some person
> (that is wanted by the law in US) comes with some writings, claims
> them being written by L. Ron Hubbard. And then saying that there is no
> evidence that he did NOT write them.
To your claims, the burdon is upon you.
> The indications however are that the Affirmation are not written in
> the writing style of L. Ron Hubbard. Further, seeing the posting track
> of Gerry Armstrong on for example on the ARS, a simple comparison can
> be made with his writing style and delusional behaviour (all are after
> to get him, etc..). There are clear similiarities with the
> Affirmations that he forwarded in 2000.
>
You are deluding your self and has been for so long that you now
believe your own crap.
>
> > > > So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
> > > > coming your way!
>
> > > He should face his manipulations and propaganda. Factual information
> > > and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may
> > > look ugly for friend Gerry.
>
> > Somehow I don´t think you are able to do him any more harm than your
> > cult buddies already have.
>
> Offensive. I am part of no cult. Also I have no intent to harm him. He
> does a grand job all by himself. However people have the rigth to get
> the complete story. Not the edited version that is propagated by anti-
> Scientologists and Gerry himself.
>
And you,the great storyteller shall give us the truth? You who has
been absolutely incapable of answering even the most simple questions.
You really are pathethic.
>
> > > > Take care buddy, and be assured that many of us is thinking of you,
> > > > admiring your bravery,endurance and integrity!
>
> > > Yeah, unable to enter the US as there is a warrant out for his arrest.
> > > He was found in contempt of the court as amny as 131 times in a court
> > > ruling.
>
> > Nah you don´t say?
>
> Didn't you say that you trust court statements more than mine??
> Hmmm....
Why don´t yiu answer DickHeads question,huh?
xenufrance
<Roadrunn...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
71b48ffe-8c0d-4630...@t2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Nov, 10:41, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 23 nov, 10:31, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
>
>
> <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 23 Nov, 09:39, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 23 nov, 07:58, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > > <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> In a quarrel about authorities I assumed Michel had only one
> authority: Himself.
> I still think I am right.
You offer nothing to the contrary. See, it is logic evaluation.
yes, what about thinking all by oneself when copying the ron's ideas?
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
wrote:
You can´t be loved by all.
I do also believe that I´m not totally alone in at least emotionally
and moraly supporting Gerry.
Long time since communicating with you, hope everything is allright
with you.
Ulf Brettstam. M.D.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
I don't ever make any unsupported claims. It is not defaming. Check
out what it means.
>
>
> > > > > Also RR obviously is grasping for much needed support (other than from
> > > > > BS ) in his postings, trying to redress himself ( as El Ron tried in
> > > > > Affirmations) in his pinned down position.
>
> > > > Error, I do not seek support of any sorts.
>
> > > You have certainly fooled me and others on this question.LOL
>
> > Indeed LOL, you may have your delusion and attempt to overthrow with
> > sole opinion and claim...
>
> > > > What is your evidence for that L. Ron Hubbard would have written these
> > > > Affirmations from 2000 other then the claim made by Gerry Armstrong?
> > > > You ain't got nothing!
>
> > > What is yours he didn´t?
>
> > Sorry, manipulative respons. The burden of proof is on Gerry
> > Armstrong. It is utterly stupid to reason like this when some person
> > (that is wanted by the law in US) comes with some writings, claims
> > them being written by L. Ron Hubbard. And then saying that there is no
> > evidence that he did NOT write them.
>
> To your claims, the burdon is upon you.
You are trying to draw the attention to something that is
insignificant. This is about the Admissions that Gerry Armstrong
forwarded. They are nothing till Gerry comes with verifiable evidence
for its acclaimed authenticity. Science Ulf, you really don't know
much about it. Science is not about misdirecting the attention to win
an argument.
>
> > The indications however are that the Affirmation are not written in
> > the writing style of L. Ron Hubbard. Further, seeing the posting track
> > of Gerry Armstrong on for example on the ARS, a simple comparison can
> > be made with his writing style and delusional behaviour (all are after
> > to get him, etc..). There are clear similiarities with the
> > Affirmations that he forwarded in 2000.
>
> You are deluding your self and has been for so long that you now
> believe your own crap.
I think we know very well what the deal is here and how you go about
matters... The bottomline is that I support my arguments, where you
fail to do so.
>
>
>
> > > > > So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
> > > > > coming your way!
>
> > > > He should face his manipulations and propaganda. Factual information
> > > > and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may
> > > > look ugly for friend Gerry.
>
> > > Somehow I don´t think you are able to do him any more harm than your
> > > cult buddies already have.
>
> > Offensive. I am part of no cult. Also I have no intent to harm him. He
> > does a grand job all by himself. However people have the rigth to get
> > the complete story. Not the edited version that is propagated by anti-
> > Scientologists and Gerry himself.
>
> And you,the great storyteller shall give us the truth?
I never claimed to do that.
>You who has
> been absolutely incapable of answering even the most simple questions.
?? Offensive and unsupported accusation.
> You really are pathethic.
>
> > > > > Take care buddy, and be assured that many of us is thinking of you,
> > > > > admiring your bravery,endurance and integrity!
>
> > > > Yeah, unable to enter the US as there is a warrant out for his arrest.
> > > > He was found in contempt of the court as amny as 131 times in a court
> > > > ruling.
>
> > > Nah you don´t say?
>
> > Didn't you say that you trust court statements more than mine??
> > Hmmm....
>
> Why don´t yiu answer DickHeads question,huh?
Since when has he something worthwhile to say? He hasn't so far.
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Your 'belief' is not interesting. I have no idea what you try to imply
here?
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
<orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Nov, 19:50, "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Orkie,
>
> > There are a number of critics who don't see eye to eye with Gerry Armstrong.
> > Doesn't make it an OSA op everytime someone disagrees or says they don't
> > like him.
>
> > C
>
> >www.claireswazey.com
>
> You can´t be loved by all.
> I do also believe that I´m not totally alone in at least emotionally
> and moraly supporting Gerry.
I don't think you get what she is saying! She made a very accurate
observation though.
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
> <Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 71b48ffe-8c0d-4630-835f-e84ae37c9...@t2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Nov, 10:41, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 23 nov, 10:31, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 23 Nov, 09:39, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 23 nov, 07:58, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > > > <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In a quarrel about authorities I assumed Michel had only one
> > authority: Himself.
> > I still think I am right.
>
> You offer nothing to the contrary. See, it is logic evaluation.
>
> yes, what about thinking all by oneself when copying the ron's ideas?
Stupid and unsupported comment. I don't copy. Never did and never
will... Where is your evaluation??
RR
Alert
Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 23 Nov, 20:21, "xenufrance" <xenufra...@free.fr> wrote:
> > <Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news:
> > 71b48ffe-8c0d-4630-835f-e84ae37c9...@t2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > On 23 Nov, 10:41, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On 23 nov, 10:31, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
> >
> > > <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 23 Nov, 09:39, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 23 nov, 07:58, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
> >
> > > > > <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In a quarrel about authorities I assumed Michel had only one
> > > authority: Himself.
> > > I still think I am right.
> >
> > You offer nothing to the contrary. See, it is logic evaluation.
> >
> > yes, what about thinking all by oneself when copying the ron's ideas?
> Stupid and unsupported comment. I don't copy.
Main Entry:
1copy
Pronunciation:
\ˈkä-pē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural cop·ies
Etymology:
Middle English copie, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin copia,
from Latin, abundance — more at copious
Date:
14th century
1: an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work (as a
letter, a painting, a table, or a dress)
2: one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an
original impression ; also : an individual example of such a
reproduction
3archaic : something to be imitated : model
4 a: matter to be set especially for printing b: something considered
printable or newsworthy —used without an article <remarks that make
good copy — Norman Cousins> c: text especially of an advertisement
> Never did and never
> will...
5: duplicate 1a <a copy of a computer file> <a copy of a gene>
synonyms see reproduction
Main Entry:
1du·pli·cate
Pronunciation:
\ˈdü-pli-kət also ˈdyü-\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin duplicatus, past participle of duplicare to
double, from duplic-, duplex
Date:
15th century
1 : consisting of or existing in two corresponding or identical parts
or examples <duplicate invoices>
2 : being the same as another <duplicate copies>
> Where is your evaluation??
AXIOM 26. REALITY IS THE AGREED-UPON APPARENCY OF EXISTENCE.
AXIOM 27. AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY BUT WHEN
IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A REALITY.
The anatomy of Reality is contained in Is-ness, which is composed of
As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness Is an apparency, it is not an
Actuality. The Actuality is As-is-ness altered so as to obtain a
persistency. Unreality is the consequence and apparency of the
practice of Not-is-ness.
AXIOM 28. COMMUNlCATION IS THE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF IMPELLING
AN IMPULSE OR PARTICLE FROM SOURCE- POINT ACROSS A DISTANCE TO
RECEIPT- POINT, WITH THE INTENTION OF BRINGING INTO BEING AT THE
RECEIPT-POINT A DUPLICATION OF THAT WHICH EMANATED FROM THE SOURCE -
POINT.
The formula of Communication is: Cause, Distance, Effect, with
Attention and Duplication.
The component parts of Communication are Consideration. Intention,
Attention, Cause, Source-point, Distance, Effect, Receipt-point
Duplication, the Velocity of the impulse or particle, Nothingness or
Somethingness. A non-Communication consists of Barriers.
Barriers consist of Space, Interpositions (such as walls and screens
of fast-moving particles), and Time. A communication, by definition
does not need to be two-way. When a communication is returned, the
formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-
point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt point.
AXIOM 29. IN ORDER TO CAUSE AN AS-IS-NESS TO PERSIST, 0NE MUST ASSIGN
OTHER AUTHORSHLP TO THE CREATION THAN HIS OWN.OTHERWISE, HIS VIEW OF
IT WOULD CAUSE ITS VANISH-MENT.
Any space, energy, form, object, individual, or physical universe
condition can exist only when an alteration has occurred of the
original As-is-ness so as to prevent a casual view from vanishing it.
In other words, anything which is persisting must contain a “lie” so
that the original consideration is not completely duplicated..
AXIOM 38.
1: STUPIDITY IS THE UNKNOWNESS OF CONSIDERATION.
2: MECHANICAL DEFINITION: STUPIDITY IS THE UN -KNOWNESS OF TIME,
PLACE, FORM AND EVENT.
Thus we see that failure to discover Truth brings about stupidity.
Thus we see that the discovery of Truth would bring about an As-is-
ness by actual experiment..Thus we see that an ultimate truth would
have no time, place form or event.
Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we
mask a truth.
Lying is an alteration of time, place, event, or form.
Lying becomes Alter-is-ness, becomes Stupidity.
(The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case’s own or
another’s lies.)
Anything which persists must avoid As-is-ness.
Thus anything, to persist,must contain a lie.
>
> RR
Meep Meep!!
BarbaraSc...@excite.com
> On 23 nov, 07:58, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
I was defamed by Brettstam and Armstrong.
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/gerald-armstrong/
Ulf Brett$tam quotes the Veda scriptures and has no clue about
religion. He is nothing but a creepy p$ych.
Barbara Schwarz
--
"I thought I was an alien myself. So I am in fact a space alien
invader
disguised as psychiatrist plotting and conspiring all day long."
-- Senior psychiatrist Ulf Brettstam
"ECT (Electro Convulsive Therapy), one of the best validated medical
treatment in the history of medicine."
-- Senior psychiatrist Ulf
Brettstam
And now dig this: http://www.ect.org/effects.shtm
Gerald Armstrong
Gerald Armstrong is a former clerk in a Scientology church.In former
days, Armstrong hatched a plot to seize the Church’s assets in
collaboration with the Los Angeles IRS Criminal Investigation
Division.
When the Church discovered this, its attorneys obtained permission
from a Los Angeles police officer to conduct an investigation into
Armstrong’s plans. The investigation caught Armstrong on videotape
stating that he intended to forge and then plant incriminating
documents on Church premises, to be discovered in a subsequent raid.
When challenged on how he would obtain proof of the allegations he
intended to make, he responded that:
“We don’t have to prove a goddam thing. We don’t have to prove
shit. We just have to allege it.”
As part of the same scheme, Armstrong planned to subvert a senior
Scientology executive using sexual enticement in a scheme he titled
“Operation Long Prong.” This is documented both in his own handwriting
and on video.
Since fleeing California, Armstrong, a native Canadian, has lived in
British Columbia, Canada, and appears to have no gainful employment.
Yet he has somehow managed to travel all over the world in pursuit of
his hate agenda.
In 2000, Armstrong traveled to Europe to attend an anti-religious
conference in Leipzig, Germany.
In 2001, Armstrong traveled extensively in Europe, joining in a hate
march in France with extremist Roger Gonnet and visiting anti-
religious groups in Russia and Denmark. At a meeting of hate groups in
Russia, Armstrong met with deprogramming proponent Alexander Dvorkin.
In addition to his unlawful activities, Armstrong’s mental stability
is questionable. Armstrong once posted a message on the Internet
concerning a letter he sent to Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. In
the letter, he offered himself to Hussein as a hostage in the Iraqi
war. “If either side failed to perform any part of the agreement, the
other side could execute me,” he concluded. Armstrong makes clear in
his posting that he did not think the letter to Hussein was a joke,
but was deadly serious. He quite proudly republishes it and other
similar writings from time to time. To further demonstrate how out of
touch he is with reality, Armstrong had himself photographed by a
newspaper naked while holding a globe to promote his theories of
destroying all money.
Alert
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Sorry, but are you quite sane? Your message doesn't make any sense.
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
> BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMH94cJHXL4
Ah, so this is your business. Actually Gerry himself confirms various
of the things that are quoted in her message. He does that on his own
website.
And you respond with what? Slander? The intent is obvious...
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On Nov 23, 2:39 am, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 23 nov, 07:58, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> I was defamed by Brettstam and Armstrong.
>
>
> Ulf Brett$tam quotes the Veda scriptures and has no clue about
> religion. He is nothing but a creepy p$ych.
>
> Barbara Schwarz
>
> --
> "I thought I was an alien myself. So I am in fact a space alien
> invader
> disguised as psychiatrist plotting and conspiring all day long."
> -- Senior psychiatrist Ulf Brettstam
> "ECT (Electro Convulsive Therapy), one of the best validated medical
> treatment in the history of medicine."
> -- Senior psychiatrist Ulf
> Brettstam
> And now dig this:http://www.ect.org/effects.shtm
Correction of above link:
http://www.ect.org/effects.shtml
Nonetheless Ulf himself claims: "ECT (Electro Convulsive Therapy), one
of the best validated medical treatment in the history of medicine."
This may speak for itself.
RR
Alert
Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Sorry,
Yah, I'd be sorry if I was you also.
Dont apologize, its ron's fault youre FUBU
> but are you quite sane?
Coming from a ground cuckoo, that's rather elronic of you to say
>Your message doesn't make any sense.
Hey, scientology isnt meant to "make any sense"
_You_ duplicate scientology beautifully
>
> > BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMH94cJHXL4
Gee, if only a nutjob like _you_ or the Schwartz would drag me into
court. <g>
The onus of proving both you _and_ her as being FUBAR, courtesy of
your "applied religious philosophy" would be an easy earn for any
silk.
>
> RR
Meep meep!! You cuckoo
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
This new message from you makes it quite clear for all now... Thank
you kindly. .-)
RR
Ball of Fluff
"Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c847572-ec4b-40ce...@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Nov, 19:50, "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
wrote:
> Hi, Orkie,
>
> There are a number of critics who don't see eye to eye with Gerry
> Armstrong.
> Doesn't make it an OSA op everytime someone disagrees or says they don't
> like him.
>
> C
>
> www.claireswazey.com
> You can“t be loved by all.
> I do also believe that I“m not totally alone in at least emotionally
> and moraly supporting Gerry.
Hi!!
I think he's done a lot of good work. There are things- such as the OSA
follies page in which a number of ARS regulars are mentioned- of which I
don't approve but, hey, we all have our points of agreement and
disagreement.
> Long time since communicating with you, hope everything is allright
> with you.
Things are fine. A bit worried about the US economy but our jobs seem ok.
Other than that, nothing new.We embarked on some home improvement projects,
been reading up a tiny bit on Buddhism, socializing a bit here and there.
I hope you're doing well. It really is nice to "talk" with you again.
Warmly,
Claire
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
> On 23 Nov, 20:19, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > > > You being a fast writer might be true but adding up the exact time or
> > > > moments you do your posts there are still no time over for a normal
> > > > work.Judging from your reply on this post , you are also a very fast
> > > > reader, to fast perhaps?
>
> > > Again, you have no idea... Very little time is spent with this.
>
> > > Also you attempt here again to defame me with an assumption. Indeed, I
> > > am a pretty accurate reader.
>
> > You are the greatest defamer of your self, haven´t you noticed?
>
> I don't ever make any unsupported claims. It is not defaming. Check
> out what it means.
>
I´ve never seen or read any support from you backing your claims or
statements. Never. So if you please, point to some url backing this
last claim of yours, you never making any unsopprted claims. Prove me
wrong-please!
>
>
>
> > > > > > Also RR obviously is grasping for much needed support (other than from
> > > > > > BS ) in his postings, trying to redress himself ( as El Ron tried in
> > > > > > Affirmations) in his pinned down position.
>
> > > > > Error, I do not seek support of any sorts.
>
> > > > You have certainly fooled me and others on this question.LOL
>
> > > Indeed LOL, you may have your delusion and attempt to overthrow with
> > > sole opinion and claim...
>
> > > > > What is your evidence for that L. Ron Hubbard would have written these
> > > > > Affirmations from 2000 other then the claim made by Gerry Armstrong?
> > > > > You ain't got nothing!
>
> > > > What is yours he didn´t?
>
> > > Sorry, manipulative respons. The burden of proof is on Gerry
> > > Armstrong. It is utterly stupid to reason like this when some person
> > > (that is wanted by the law in US) comes with some writings, claims
> > > them being written by L. Ron Hubbard. And then saying that there is no
> > > evidence that he did NOT write them.
>
> > To your claims, the burdon is upon you.
>
> You are trying to draw the attention to something that is
> insignificant. This is about the Admissions that Gerry Armstrong
> forwarded. They are nothing till Gerry comes with verifiable evidence
> for its acclaimed authenticity. Science Ulf, you really don't know
> much about it. Science is not about misdirecting the attention to win
> an argument.
>
For once I agree with you!! None of your claims or postings can be
classified as signifiquant. Most normal people of at least average
intelligence find it obvious to either disclose their sorces of
information or facts when asked for evidence behind a certain
statement, or they shut up. When you are asked for evidence, you
either behaves like an ostrich ( runs or sticks your head in the sand)
or lash out against others with downgrading and/or defamatory
comments.
>
> > > The indications however are that the Affirmation are not written in
> > > the writing style of L. Ron Hubbard. Further, seeing the posting track
> > > of Gerry Armstrong on for example on the ARS, a simple comparison can
> > > be made with his writing style and delusional behaviour (all are after
> > > to get him, etc..). There are clear similiarities with the
> > > Affirmations that he forwarded in 2000.
>
> > You are deluding your self and has been for so long that you now
> > believe your own crap.
>
> I think we know very well what the deal is here and how you go about
> matters... The bottomline is that I support my arguments, where you
> fail to do so.
>
And "we" refers to your way of express yourself?
Have you even once asked your self why nobody ( except BS ) on this
board ) agrees with you ( well I did above,true!) on anything, huh?
>
>
> > > > > > So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
> > > > > > coming your way!
>
> > > > > He should face his manipulations and propaganda. Factual information
> > > > > and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may
> > > > > look ugly for friend Gerry.
>
> > > > Somehow I don´t think you are able to do him any more harm than your
> > > > cult buddies already have.
>
> > > Offensive. I am part of no cult. Also I have no intent to harm him. He
> > > does a grand job all by himself. However people have the rigth to get
> > > the complete story. Not the edited version that is propagated by anti-
> > > Scientologists and Gerry himself.
>
> > And you,the great storyteller shall give us the truth?
>
> I never claimed to do that.
Well you hints above that you will disclose "the complete story" to
people, don´t you? Is that not a great story?
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
<orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 Nov, 20:30, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 23 Nov, 20:19, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > > > > You being a fast writer might be true but adding up the exact time or
> > > > > moments you do your posts there are still no time over for a normal
> > > > > work.Judging from your reply on this post , you are also a very fast
> > > > > reader, to fast perhaps?
>
> > > > Again, you have no idea... Very little time is spent with this.
>
> > > > Also you attempt here again to defame me with an assumption. Indeed, I
> > > > am a pretty accurate reader.
>
> > > You are the greatest defamer of your self, haven´t you noticed?
>
> > I don't ever make any unsupported claims. It is not defaming. Check
> > out what it means.
>
> I´ve never seen or read any support from you backing your claims or
> statements. Never.
Its funny how you think that you can overthrow with just such
statements.
>So if you please, point to some url backing this
> last claim of yours, you never making any unsopprted claims. Prove me
> wrong-please!
Well, why not keep at topic. Do you have any other source than Gerry
Armstrong himself that the Affirmations he forwarded in 2000 would be
written by anyone other than himself?
You abide by authoritiy worship. You have no interest in science
itself., let's stand alone that you would understand anything of it.
Some of your chosen authorities are Sjöqvist and Gerry Armstrong.
>
> > > > The indications however are that the Affirmation are not written in
> > > > the writing style of L. Ron Hubbard. Further, seeing the posting track
> > > > of Gerry Armstrong on for example on the ARS, a simple comparison can
> > > > be made with his writing style and delusional behaviour (all are after
> > > > to get him, etc..). There are clear similiarities with the
> > > > Affirmations that he forwarded in 2000.
>
> > > You are deluding your self and has been for so long that you now
> > > believe your own crap.
>
> > I think we know very well what the deal is here and how you go about
> > matters... The bottomline is that I support my arguments, where you
> > fail to do so.
>
> And "we" refers to your way of express yourself?
> Have you even once asked your self why nobody ( except BS ) on this
> board ) agrees with you ( well I did above,true!) on anything, huh?
Evidence please that L. Ron Hubbard wrote the Affirmations. What do
you got? After you compiled a whole evaluation on L. Ron Hubbard
solely based on these papers.
>
> > > > > > > So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
> > > > > > > coming your way!
>
> > > > > > He should face his manipulations and propaganda. Factual information
> > > > > > and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may
> > > > > > look ugly for friend Gerry.
>
> > > > > Somehow I don´t think you are able to do him any more harm than your
> > > > > cult buddies already have.
>
> > > > Offensive. I am part of no cult. Also I have no intent to harm him. He
> > > > does a grand job all by himself. However people have the rigth to get
> > > > the complete story. Not the edited version that is propagated by anti-
> > > > Scientologists and Gerry himself.
>
> > > And you,the great storyteller shall give us the truth?
>
> > I never claimed to do that.
>
> Well you hints above that you will disclose "the complete story" to
> people, don´t you? Is that not a great story?
Sure it's a grand story, however it is not a story as in fairytale as
you seem to suggest. See, I am not like you that just 'believes' Gerry
Armstrong (whom you call your 'buddy') when he literally out of
nowhere offers the Affirmations in 2000, and refuses to disclose his
supposed sources. Very scientific of you.
RR
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
wrote:
> "Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam" <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5c847572-ec4b-40ce...@y18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Nov, 19:50, "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Orkie,
>
> > There are a number of critics who don't see eye to eye with Gerry
> > Armstrong.
> > Doesn't make it an OSA op everytime someone disagrees or says they don't
> > like him.
>
> > C
>
> >www.claireswazey.com
> > You can´t be loved by all.
> > I do also believe that I´m not totally alone in at least emotionally
> > and moraly supporting Gerry.
>
> Hi!!
>
> I think he's done a lot of good work. There are things- such as the OSA
> follies page in which a number of ARS regulars are mentioned- of which I
> don't approve but, hey, we all have our points of agreement and
> disagreement.
>
> > Long time since communicating with you, hope everything is allright
> > with you.
>
> Things are fine. A bit worried about the US economy but our jobs seem ok.
> Other than that, nothing new.We embarked on some home improvement projects,
> been reading up a tiny bit on Buddhism, socializing a bit here and there.
It´s satisfying to read that everything is well with you.
Home improvement projects - does this mean you are in the construction
and building business? ; -)
Well who isn´t worried about the US economy these days, considering
the effects on the global economy? On the other hand - now it´s the
byers market, and those who can afford it of course cease the
opportunity to get even richer.
When it comes to religion or beliefs i find Taoism or Daoism most
interesting and "mind blowing". At least in China taoism to some
extent has common roots with buddism, if I remember it right.
> I hope you're doing well. It really is nice to "talk" with you again.
Yes everything is well with me, my wife and kids.
Thanks for your warming words and live happy!
>
> Warmly,
> Claire
>
> www.claireswazey.com
Ulf "Orkie" Brettstam
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
> On 25 Nov, 10:21, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
>
>
> <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 23 Nov, 20:30, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 23 Nov, 20:19, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > > > > > You being a fast writer might be true but adding up the exact time or
> > > > > > moments you do your posts there are still no time over for a normal
> > > > > > work.Judging from your reply on this post , you are also a very fast
> > > > > > reader, to fast perhaps?
>
> > > > > Again, you have no idea... Very little time is spent with this.
>
> > > > > Also you attempt here again to defame me with an assumption. Indeed, I
> > > > > am a pretty accurate reader.
>
> > > > You are the greatest defamer of your self, haven´t you noticed?
>
> > > I don't ever make any unsupported claims. It is not defaming. Check
> > > out what it means.
>
> > I´ve never seen or read any support from you backing your claims or
> > statements. Never.
>
> Its funny how you think that you can overthrow with just such
> statements.
All you have to do is prove me wrong. But you can´t,can you?
> >So if you please, point to some url backing this
> > last claim of yours, you never making any unsopprted claims. Prove me
> > wrong-please!
>
> Well, why not keep at topic. Do you have any other source than Gerry
> Armstrong himself that the Affirmations he forwarded in 2000 would be
> written by anyone other than himself?
>
What do you think of the objection from the scn lawer to have
affirmations read in court in the case scn v Armstrong, arguing that
Affirmations was to personal! So the cult of $cientology itself
defends and argues that affirmations was written by El Ron!
Your opinions has no siqnifiquance.
>
>
>
> > > > > The indications however are that the Affirmation are not written in
> > > > > the writing style of L. Ron Hubbard. Further, seeing the posting track
> > > > > of Gerry Armstrong on for example on the ARS, a simple comparison can
> > > > > be made with his writing style and delusional behaviour (all are after
> > > > > to get him, etc..). There are clear similiarities with the
> > > > > Affirmations that he forwarded in 2000.
>
> > > > You are deluding your self and has been for so long that you now
> > > > believe your own crap.
>
> > > I think we know very well what the deal is here and how you go about
> > > matters... The bottomline is that I support my arguments, where you
> > > fail to do so.
>
> > And "we" refers to your way of express yourself?
> > Have you even once asked your self why nobody ( except BS ) on this
> > board ) agrees with you ( well I did above,true!) on anything, huh?
>
> Evidence please that L. Ron Hubbard wrote the Affirmations. What do
> you got? After you compiled a whole evaluation on L. Ron Hubbard
> solely based on these papers.
>
What do you think of the objection from the scn lawer to have
affirmations read in court in the case scn v Armstrong, arguing that
Affirmations was to personal! So the cult of $cientology itself
defends and argues that affirmations was written by El Ron!
> > > > > > > > So Gerry, if you are reading this, there might be something ugly
> > > > > > > > coming your way!
>
> > > > > > > He should face his manipulations and propaganda. Factual information
> > > > > > > and properly performed studies in itself are never ugly, but it may
> > > > > > > look ugly for friend Gerry.
>
> > > > > > Somehow I don´t think you are able to do him any more harm than your
> > > > > > cult buddies already have.
>
> > > > > Offensive. I am part of no cult. Also I have no intent to harm him. He
> > > > > does a grand job all by himself. However people have the rigth to get
> > > > > the complete story. Not the edited version that is propagated by anti-
> > > > > Scientologists and Gerry himself.
>
> > > > And you,the great storyteller shall give us the truth?
>
> > > I never claimed to do that.
>
> > Well you hints above that you will disclose "the complete story" to
> > people, don´t you? Is that not a great story?
>
> Sure it's a grand story, however it is not a story as in fairytale as
> you seem to suggest. See, I am not like you that just 'believes' Gerry
> Armstrong (whom you call your 'buddy') when he literally out of
> nowhere offers the Affirmations in 2000, and refuses to disclose his
> supposed sources. Very scientific of you.
>
> RR
>
>
>
>
>
Ulf Brettstam. M.D.
BarbaraSc...@excite.com
> On 24 Nov, 01:46, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMH94cJHXL4
>
> Ah, so this is your business.
What a retarded video and posting.
>Actually Gerry himself confirms various
> of the things that are quoted in her message. He does that on his own
> website.
But he sure lies about that I am DM's "program". Never had anything to
do with him.
>
> And you respond with what? Slander? The intent is obvious...
It is libel for sure.
>
> RR
Barbara Schwarz
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
<orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Nov, 11:39, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Nov, 10:21, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > <orkelta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 23 Nov, 20:30, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On 23 Nov, 20:19, Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > > > > > > You being a fast writer might be true but adding up the exact time or
> > > > > > > moments you do your posts there are still no time over for a normal
> > > > > > > work.Judging from your reply on this post , you are also a very fast
> > > > > > > reader, to fast perhaps?
>
> > > > > > Again, you have no idea... Very little time is spent with this.
>
> > > > > > Also you attempt here again to defame me with an assumption. Indeed, I
> > > > > > am a pretty accurate reader.
>
> > > > > You are the greatest defamer of your self, haven´t you noticed?
>
> > > > I don't ever make any unsupported claims. It is not defaming. Check
> > > > out what it means.
>
> > > I´ve never seen or read any support from you backing your claims or
> > > statements. Never.
>
> > Its funny how you think that you can overthrow with just such
> > statements.
>
> All you have to do is prove me wrong. But you can´t,can you?
Another attempt to overthrow. Your approach towards Gerry's
Affirmations is quite revealing thank you.
>
> > >So if you please, point to some url backing this
> > > last claim of yours, you never making any unsopprted claims. Prove me
> > > wrong-please!
>
> > Well, why not keep at topic. Do you have any other source than Gerry
> > Armstrong himself that the Affirmations he forwarded in 2000 would be
> > written by anyone other than himself?
>
> What do you think of the objection from the scn lawer to have
> affirmations read in court in the case scn v Armstrong, arguing that
> Affirmations was to personal! So the cult of $cientology itself
> defends and argues that affirmations was written by El Ron!
No, it doesn't prove it at all. They just wanted to have ALL the
materials back, whatever they were. I don't think they even had a clue
if authentic or not. In addition we even have the option if this was
not all staged to exactly create such a response. Use your brains,
Ulf. But this appears hard to do. You don't research, and so you don't
know what else was going on during that time and the very suspicious
circumstances we are facing.
.-) sorry, I am not like you... FACT: Sjöqvist AND Armstrong
function as your authorities. You don't question either one of them,
and still neither offered their verification process.
>
> > > > > > The indications however are that the Affirmation are not written in
> > > > > > the writing style of L. Ron Hubbard. Further, seeing the posting track
> > > > > > of Gerry Armstrong on for example on the ARS, a simple comparison can
> > > > > > be made with his writing style and delusional behaviour (all are after
> > > > > > to get him, etc..). There are clear similiarities with the
> > > > > > Affirmations that he forwarded in 2000.
>
> > > > > You are deluding your self and has been for so long that you now
> > > > > believe your own crap.
>
> > > > I think we know very well what the deal is here and how you go about
> > > > matters... The bottomline is that I support my arguments, where you
> > > > fail to do so.
>
> > > And "we" refers to your way of express yourself?
> > > Have you even once asked your self why nobody ( except BS ) on this
> > > board ) agrees with you ( well I did above,true!) on anything, huh?
>
> > Evidence please that L. Ron Hubbard wrote the Affirmations. What do
> > you got? After you compiled a whole evaluation on L. Ron Hubbard
> > solely based on these papers.
>
> What do you think of the objection from the scn lawer to have
> affirmations read in court in the case scn v Armstrong, arguing that
> Affirmations was to personal! So the cult of $cientology itself
> defends and argues that affirmations was written by El Ron!
I addressed this already in my response. Doesn't prove a thing.
Is this all you got?? A bit thin don't you think??
RR
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
>
> > > >So if you please, point to some url backing this
> > > > last claim of yours, you never making any unsopprted claims. Prove me
> > > > wrong-please!
>
> > > Well, why not keep at topic. Do you have any other source than Gerry
> > > Armstrong himself that the Affirmations he forwarded in 2000 would be
> > > written by anyone other than himself?
>
> > What do you think of the objection from the scn lawer to have
> > affirmations read in court in the case scn v Armstrong, arguing that
> > Affirmations was to personal! So the cult of $cientology itself
> > defends and argues that affirmations was written by El Ron!
>
> No, it doesn't prove it at all. They just wanted to have ALL the
> materials back, whatever they were. I don't think they even had a clue
> if authentic or not. In addition we even have the option if this was
> know what else was going on during that time and the very suspicious
> circumstances we are facing.
>
´t a clue when it comes to El Rons writings but you do?
And when the cult lawyer tries to stop a read in court of El Rons
writings, it was staged by Armstrong?
You really are a piece of work! LOL
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > Also RR obviously is grasping for much needed support (other than from
> > > > > > > > > > BS ) in his postings, trying to redress himself ( as El Ron tried in
> > > > > > > > > > Affirmations) in his pinned down position.
>
> > > > > > > > > Error, I do not seek support of any sorts.
>
> > > > > > > > You have certainly fooled me and others on this question.LOL
>
> > > > > > > Indeed LOL, you may have your delusion and attempt to overthrow with
> > > > > > > sole opinion and claim...
>
> > > > > > > > > What is your evidence for that L. Ron Hubbard would have written these
> > > > > > > > > Affirmations from 2000 other then the claim made by Gerry Armstrong?
> > > > > > > > > You ain't got nothing!
>
> > > > > > > > What is yours he didn´t?
>
> > > > > > > Sorry, manipulative respons. The burden of proof is on Gerry
> > > > > > > Armstrong. It is utterly stupid to reason like this when some person
> > > > > > > (that is wanted by the law in US) comes with some writings, claims
> > > > > > > them being written by L. Ron Hubbard. And then saying that there is no
> > > > > > > evidence that he did NOT write them.
>
> > > > > > To your claims, the burdon is upon you.
>
> > > > > You are trying to draw the attention to something that is
> > > > > insignificant. This is about the Admissions that Gerry Armstrong
> > > > > forwarded. They are nothing till Gerry comes with verifiable evidence
UlfBrettstam. M.D.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
There is nothing actually you can say to safe face. You lost it, and
miserably.
>
>
>
> > > > >So if you please, point to some url backing this
> > > > > last claim of yours, you never making any unsopprted claims. Prove me
> > > > > wrong-please!
>
> > > > Well, why not keep at topic. Do you have any other source than Gerry
> > > > Armstrong himself that the Affirmations he forwarded in 2000 would be
> > > > written by anyone other than himself?
>
> > > What do you think of the objection from the scn lawer to have
> > > affirmations read in court in the case scn v Armstrong, arguing that
> > > Affirmations was to personal! So the cult of $cientology itself
> > > defends and argues that affirmations was written by El Ron!
>
> > No, it doesn't prove it at all. They just wanted to have ALL the
> > materials back, whatever they were. I don't think they even had a clue
> > if authentic or not. In addition we even have the option if this was
> > not all staged to exactly create such a response. Use your brains,Ulf. But this appears hard to do. You don't research, and so you don't
> > know what else was going on during that time and the very suspicious
> > circumstances we are facing.
>
> Let me get this right. According to you the cult of $cientology hasn
> ´t a clue when it comes to El Rons writings but you do?
Yeah, you could say that. Purely however based on the logical sequence
of matters.
> And when the cult lawyer tries to stop a read in court of El Rons
> writings, it was staged by Armstrong?
?? And that is your logic? Childish and clearly showing that you have
not studied the events. That's called ignorance.
I am not interested in opinions. You are. You simple resort to
twisting.
Rackety pumpty dum, more nonsense to tell. I don't have to prove you
wrong. You call Gerry your buddy, that says quite a lot. Now you can
go back to your favourite business, i.e. prescribing drugs to
children. I still find that you are a disgrace to mankind and in
addition a nutcase.
Mind that I have included you in my wirte up. Nothing you can do about
it.
RR
>
> UlfBrettstam. M.D.
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
exclusively held by you (maybe except BS).
All alone you poor kid.
>
>
>
> > > > > >So if you please, point to some url backing this
> > > > > > last claim of yours, you never making any unsopprted claims. Prove me
> > > > > > wrong-please!
>
> > > > > Well, why not keep at topic. Do you have any other source than Gerry
> > > > > Armstrong himself that the Affirmations he forwarded in 2000 would be
> > > > > written by anyone other than himself?
>
> > > > What do you think of the objection from the scn lawer to have
> > > > affirmations read in court in the case scn v Armstrong, arguing that
> > > > Affirmations was to personal! So the cult of $cientology itself
> > > > defends and argues that affirmations was written by El Ron!
>
> > > No, it doesn't prove it at all. They just wanted to have ALL the
> > > materials back, whatever they were. I don't think they even had a clue
> > > if authentic or not. In addition we even have the option if this was
> > > not all staged to exactly create such a response. Use your brains,Ulf. But this appears hard to do. You don't research, and so you don't
> > > know what else was going on during that time and the very suspicious
> > > circumstances we are facing.
>
> > Let me get this right. According to you the cult of $cientology hasn
> > ´t a clue when it comes to El Rons writings but you do?
>
> Yeah, you could say that. Purely however based on the logical sequence
> of matters.
RR the numero uno Prophet of El Ron´s writings!
Obviously not. It´s a free world and anyone can state whatever
nonsense on a usenet board whithout having to produce evidence and
facts behind. On the other hand readers aren´t that stupid... it´s a
small matter of credibility see, of which you have none.
> You call Gerry your buddy, that says quite a lot.
Well I´ve never met the guy, but I strongly sympathezise with his
struggle in defending himself against the number one litigatious
organisation known to mankind thus far. He was a personal secretary to
El Ron wasn´t he? As such he had direct access to El Rons secrets, didn
´t he? What secrets can be that dark and potentially damaging to the
cult and the overall picture of El Ron if publicised, that would
explain the cults actions against Armstrong?
> Now you can
> go back to your favourite business, i.e. prescribing drugs to
> children. I still find that you are a disgrace to mankind and in
> addition a nutcase.
You have the right to your opinion.
> Mind that I have included you in my wirte up. Nothing you can do about
> it.
Well I am honored. I must have made some kind of impression on you.
> RR
>
>
>
Ulf Brettstam. M.D.
Reciever of the Nobel Peace Prize 1985 ( as member of the org.
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War )
Former Co-Investigator in project "Genes, Environment and Maternal
Adjustment", Center for Family Research George Washington University,
The Karolinska Institute, Lund University.
Appointed Expert in Psychiatry of the Swedish National Board of Health
and Wellfare
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
The poor kids are those that get trapped in YOUR hands... Do I have to
say more?
>
>
> > > > > > >So if you please, point to some url backing this
> > > > > > > last claim of yours, you never making any unsopprted claims. Prove me
> > > > > > > wrong-please!
>
> > > > > > Well, why not keep at topic. Do you have any other source than Gerry
> > > > > > Armstrong himself that the Affirmations he forwarded in 2000 would be
> > > > > > written by anyone other than himself?
>
> > > > > What do you think of the objection from the scn lawer to have
> > > > > affirmations read in court in the case scn v Armstrong, arguing that
> > > > > Affirmations was to personal! So the cult of $cientology itself
> > > > > defends and argues that affirmations was written by El Ron!
>
> > > > No, it doesn't prove it at all. They just wanted to have ALL the
> > > > materials back, whatever they were. I don't think they even had a clue
> > > > if authentic or not. In addition we even have the option if this was
> > > > not all staged to exactly create such a response. Use your brains,Ulf. But this appears hard to do. You don't research, and so you don't
> > > > know what else was going on during that time and the very suspicious
> > > > circumstances we are facing.
>
> > > Let me get this right. According to you the cult of $cientology hasn
> > > ´t a clue when it comes to El Rons writings but you do?
>
> > Yeah, you could say that. Purely however based on the logical sequence
> > of matters.
>
> RR the numero uno Prophet of El Ron´s writings!
Incorrect use of the word prophecy... Ain't got nothing to do with
it.
Indeed, so where, oh where is your research?????
>On the other hand readers aren´t that stupid... it´s a
> small matter of credibility see, of which you have none.
Says the guy that puts children on drugs...
>
> > You call Gerry your buddy, that says quite a lot.
>
> Well I´ve never met the guy, but I strongly sympathezise with his
> struggle
Struggle? He made a deal that made him a very rich man. And then he
resorted to breaching his agreement 131 times as confirmed in court.
>in defending himself against the number one litigatious
> organisation known to mankind thus far. He was a personal secretary to
> El Ron wasn´t he?
Unconfirmed, that's what Gerry claims. But you never verify and only
take his word for things, so...
>As such he had direct access to El Rons secrets, didn
> ´t he?
Nonsense.
>What secrets can be that dark and potentially damaging to the
> cult and the overall picture of El Ron if publicised, that would
> explain the cults actions against Armstrong?
Try something having been staged. Either by himself or some people
that 'used' him. But you have not studied the happenings, so you are
unable to relate matters and evaluate that.
>
> > Now you can
> > go back to your favourite business, i.e. prescribing drugs to
> > children. I still find that you are a disgrace to mankind and in
> > addition a nutcase.
>
> You have the right to your opinion.
>
> > Mind that I have included you in my wirte up. Nothing you can do about
> > it.
>
> Well I am honored. I must have made some kind of impression on you.
Whahaaaha, sorry. Impression, are you kidding me? See, it exposes
people like you, of course I include you. It is a matter of how
prejudiced, ignorant and unscientific can a person actually get... But
you will not be honoured though with your name, just as a 'Swedish
psychiatrist'.
RR
Ball of Fluff
> It´s satisfying to read that everything is well with you.
> Home improvement projects - does this mean you are in the construction
> and building business? ; -)
Can seem that way sometimes!! We have an older home (or at least, older by
US standards) that had been sadly neglected til we bought it. From time to
time we do some things to it or hire some of it out, as needed. Plus upkeep
on another property we have.
> Well who isn´t worried about the US economy these days, considering
> the effects on the global economy? On the other hand - now it´s the
> byers market, and those who can afford it of course cease the
> opportunity to get even richer.
True. Real estate is much cheaper in some areas now.
> When it comes to religion or beliefs i find Taoism or Daoism most
> interesting and "mind blowing". At least in China taoism to some
> extent has common roots with buddism, if I remember it right.
Interesting. Something else for me to do some reading on.
> I hope you're doing well. It really is nice to "talk" with you again.
> Yes everything is well with me, my wife and kids.
> Thanks for your warming words and live happy!
Happy Holidays to you and your family.
C
peters...@gmail.com
RR, so far you have showed ZERO evidence, ZERO support and ZERO
arguments for your accusations against Gerry Armstrong. Just
invalidations and opinions.
Having followed this thread, it is in fact ALL you had to offer. And
above you even added a conspiracy theory. And you expect us to take
you serious?
You can't support your claims, as you would have if you could.
Just show ONE piece of evidence supporting your claims Gerry, or
someone else, did write the "Affirmations" and Hubbard didn't. Present
ONE piece of evidence and you'd be the hero of the day! But you
can't.
So far you failed big time.
I don't know who wrote them as I wasn't there at the time, but Gerry
has the best cards, the better arguments. You have NOTHING but your
opinions and invalidations.
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
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Gerry Armstrong is a hero. Nothing you do will be able to erase that
mark on the history of the cult of scientology.
Ulf Brettstam is a hero in his own right, in that he, as a
professional, saw what scientology was doing and stood up to call it
for what it is : A CULT.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 29 nov, 13:55, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> RR, so far you have showed ZERO evidence, ZERO support and ZERO
> arguments for your accusations against Gerry Armstrong. Just
> invalidations and opinions.
Man, man, you are so incredibly ignorant. If someone would kidnap your
child right in front of you, you are likely to say: "Oh, but my child
is just playing 'Catch me'.
> Having followed this thread, it is in fact ALL you had to offer. And
> above you even added a conspiracy theory. And you expect us to take
> you serious?
I am not into conspiracies for one single bit. I follow leads. Yeah,
Gerry is wanted by the law, that's nothing. But a judge deemed in 1984
that L. Ron Hubbard is a criminal (something), yeah but that we
use... transparent ain't it.
>
> You can't support your claims, as you would have if you could.
> Just show ONE piece of evidence supporting your claims Gerry, or
> someone else, did write the "Affirmations" and Hubbard didn't. Present
> ONE piece of evidence and you'd be the hero of the day! But you
> can't.
>
> So far you failed big time.
> I don't know who wrote them as I wasn't there at the time, but Gerry
> has the best cards, the better arguments. You have NOTHING but your
> opinions and invalidations.
It is you SOLE intent to overthrow with opinion. A drowning person
probably is only swimming according to you, ACCEPT if it falls in your
preconfigured mind that it is something else.
RR
peters...@gmail.com
> On 29 Nov, 18:47, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:> On 29 nov, 13:55, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > RR, so far you have showed ZERO evidence, ZERO support and ZERO
> > arguments for your accusations against Gerry Armstrong. Just
> > invalidations and opinions.
>
> Man, man, you are so incredibly ignorant. If someone would kidnap your
> child right in front of you, you are likely to say: "Oh, but my child
> is just playing 'Catch me'.
>
Then show us your evidence, show us that it wasn't Hubbard himself.
Invalidating persons won't be of any help, it won't support your
claim. All you have is some idiotic conspiracy theory.
> > Having followed this thread, it is in fact ALL you had to offer. And
> > above you even added a conspiracy theory. And you expect us to take
> > you serious?
>
> I am not into conspiracies for one single bit. I follow leads. Yeah,
> Gerry is wanted by the law, that's nothing. But a judge deemed in 1984
> that L. Ron Hubbard is a criminal (something), yeah but that we
> use... transparent ain't it.
>
Your conspiracy theory, as you stated, is perfectly clear when you
say: "Try something having been staged. Either by himself or some
people that 'used' him."
You drag in everything to this discussion, even things that have
nothing to do with the issue.
Sorry, Michel, you loose. No arguments, no evidence, dragging n things
that have nothing to do with the issue, invalidating persons.
Great way of discussing for a self proclaimed intelligent and smart
person. Especially when you try to sell your opinions as being of any
importance.
>
>
> > You can't support your claims, as you would have if you could.
> > Just show ONE piece of evidence supporting your claims Gerry, or
> > someone else, did write the "Affirmations" and Hubbard didn't. Present
> > ONE piece of evidence and you'd be the hero of the day! But you
> > can't.
>
> > So far you failed big time.
> > I don't know who wrote them as I wasn't there at the time, but Gerry
> > has the best cards, the better arguments. You have NOTHING but your
> > opinions and invalidations.
>
> It is you SOLE intent to overthrow with opinion. A drowning person
> probably is only swimming according to you, ACCEPT if it falls in your
> preconfigured mind that it is something else.
>
Well, in this case the drowning person is YOU, Michel, and be sure it
is clear you are NOT swimming at all. Sad enough you seem to be the
only person thinking you're swimming.
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
GET HELP! Seriously!
Give me your adress and I will point you to a professional near you.
Ulf Brettstam M.D.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 29 nov, 20:59, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 29 Nov, 18:47, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:> On 29 nov, 13:55, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > RR, so far you have showed ZERO evidence, ZERO support and ZERO
> > > arguments for your accusations against Gerry Armstrong. Just
> > > invalidations and opinions.
>
> > Man, man, you are so incredibly ignorant. If someone would kidnap your
> > child right in front of you, you are likely to say: "Oh, but my child
> > is just playing 'Catch me'.
>
> Then show us your evidence, show us that it wasn't Hubbard himself.
See, this sums it up. And you CONFIRM that what I said about you and
how you sort matters. It's Gerry that has to provide the proof that L.
Ron Hubbard wrote the Affirmations.
And Gerry is not an honest person. He is wanted by the US law for
breaching his agreement 131 times, and hiding in Canada. Are we going
to take HIS words for these matters? Are you kidding me? He is the
SOLE source of the Affirmations he published in 2000. The >>SOLE<<
source!!!
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Like the children that you put on drugs, no? You're a fraud.
RR
>
> Ulf Brettstam M.D.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
snip
>
> Gerry Armstrong is a hero. Nothing you do will be able to erase that
> mark on the history of the cult of scientology.
Oh yes, I can. A hero? He is wanted by US law. He took a very large
sum of money as a pay off (made him very wealthy), after which he
violated that agreement 131 times. In my book such a person is not a
hero.
>
> Ulf Brettstam is a hero in his own right, in that he, as a
> professional, saw what scientology was doing and stood up to call it
> for what it is : A CULT.
Scientology is a subject. He actively advocates AGAINST people that
inform school children about the hazards of drugs. Then he HIMSELF
puts children on drugs. That is a hero too?
That says a whole lot about you, doesn't it? You SORT per your
prejudices...
RR
peters...@gmail.com
> On 29 Nov, 21:18, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 29 nov, 20:59, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Nov, 18:47, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:> On 29 nov, 13:55, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > > RR, so far you have showed ZERO evidence, ZERO support and ZERO
> > > > arguments for your accusations against Gerry Armstrong. Just
> > > > invalidations and opinions.
>
> > > Man, man, you are so incredibly ignorant. If someone would kidnap your
> > > child right in front of you, you are likely to say: "Oh, but my child
> > > is just playing 'Catch me'.
>
> > Then show us your evidence, show us that it wasn't Hubbard himself.
>
> See, this sums it up. And you CONFIRM that what I said about you and
> how you sort matters. It's Gerry that has to provide the proof that L.
> Ron Hubbard wrote the Affirmations.
>
Oh, and all you have to do is stating Hubbard didn't, and that's it?
Well, all you have added so far is your opinions and your usual
invalidating remarks. Not a single argument that support your
accusations, just nothing.
And Gerry gave a very plausible reason why he can't prove it.
But does it mean that Gerry is lying about it? Well, the court report
said something about the CULT's lawyers. It may not be proof, but it
is, as an argument confirming Gerry's clam, a hell of a lot better
than your empty opinions and invalidatings. You have NOTHING
substantial, Michel. And you know it. So all you have left is
invalidating.
> And Gerry is not an honest person. He is wanted by the US law for
> breaching his agreement 131 times, and hiding in Canada. Are we going
> to take HIS words for these matters? Are you kidding me? He is the
> SOLE source of the Affirmations he published in 2000. The >>SOLE<<
> source!!!
>
> RR
That isn't the issue here. You drag it in to invalidate, as it's ALL
you have.
And so he is the only source. But it is supported by the behavior of
the CULT's lawyers during the court case.
And what do you have? Nothing but the usual.
Peter
"So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a
push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people
involved and weed them out. Push vanishes."
peters...@gmail.com
I'd like to add something here. I think Gerry is a courageous man. He
got his money. Rightfully, I would think. But the CULT insisted in a
gag order.
Why?
So Gerry takes the money and all the risks when he ignores the gag
order.
He had to move to Canada to keep out of the clutches of the CULT's
lawyers. To gain back his right of free speech. Some justice done
here, right? I know, this is my opinion, JUST an opinion.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
I am sorry, but you certainly show that you are nothing but a anti-
Scientology shill. You logic is stupid and ignorant. You can not be
reasoned with as you do not respond to sanity.
In fact the behaviour of some lawyer in this issue say nothing. Gerry
is your HERO, simple as that, he is your GOD if you wish. He is right,
no matter what.
RR
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>On 29 Nov, 21:18, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 29 nov, 20:59, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On 29 Nov, 18:47, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:> On 29 nov, 13:55, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > snip
>>
>> > > RR, so far you have showed ZERO evidence, ZERO support and ZERO
>> > > arguments for your accusations against Gerry Armstrong. Just
>> > > invalidations and opinions.
>>
>> > Man, man, you are so incredibly ignorant. If someone would kidnap your
>> > child right in front of you, you are likely to say: "Oh, but my child
>> > is just playing 'Catch me'.
>>
>> Then show us your evidence, show us that it wasn't Hubbard himself.
>
>See, this sums it up. And you CONFIRM that what I said about you and
>how you sort matters. It's Gerry that has to provide the proof that L.
>Ron Hubbard wrote the Affirmations.
No, I have done this in many ways, including in sworn testimony, and
attestations from multiple people.
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.
I also realize that the purpose for your lying, for David Miscavige's
lying, and for virtually every Scientologist's lying about their
victims or targets is to facilitate these people's obliteration, or
murder. This is the purpose that Hubbard stated in Scientology
scripture for installation into all Scientologists. There is no other
purpose provided in Scientologists' scripture for Scientologists'
black PRing of anyone they consider an "enemy," or "in a condition of
enemy." Scientologists' "enemies," who comprise the cultists' victims,
are almost universally good, honest, creative wogs. Hubbard states in
scripture, which all Scientologists acknowledge is their scripture,
that they are to degrade their victims to beast level, whip the public
into a frenzy of hatred against them, wage a war of attrition on them.
and then just go all the way in and obliterate them. Miscavige has,
obviously, made this "ev purps" syndrome command intention. Roadrump
executes that command intention toward the good people who comprise
DM's designated victims.
Thank God, the Scientology cultists have been deplorably unsuccessful
in their black PR campaigns. The good wogs Hubbard, Miscavige and the
cult's Roadrumps have sought to degrade to beast level are still known
to be good wogs, and consequently have not been obliterated.
Miscavige, and Roadrump here, carry on, of course, and very well may
dramatize the sociopathy it takes to embrace and act on this set of
evil purposes until they die. And the Scientologists very well may
never be able to degrade their victims to beast level, may never get
the public into a frenzy of hatred against the cultists' victims, and
may never be able to just go all the way in and obliterate these good
wogs, at least not quietly and without sorrow.
Scientology, of course, doesn't work because degrading good people to
beast level, inciting the public into a frenzy of hatred against these
people, and just going all the way in and obliterating them (scripture
specifies "quietly and without sorrow") is what at its heartless heart
Scientology is.
The Scientologists, in fact, actually risk the public turning its
hatred on them for all the evil the cultists have done in execution of
their evil purpose toward the good people they've victimized. These
good people, after all, are members of the same public that the
Scientologists are trying to inflame into hating their fellow wogs so
much they can be obliterated sorrowlessly. Self-immolation may very
well be the way the core cultists' obliteration drive manifests,
unless they repudiate this evil purpose syndrome and take
responsibility for all the evil done to execute Hubbard's and now
Miscavige ev purps.
Ironically for the Scientologists, their cult is kept from any real
power because of their evil purposes that underlie their relationship
with their victims. How on earth could God allow the triumph of such
evil over His children?
I realize too, Roadrump, that you have backpedalled, as a dramatizing
sociopath can clearly glibly do, and are now claiming that it *might*
have been me who wrote Hubbard's Admissions, or *probably* was me, or
some such thing. But you *have* stated as a fact that I wrote
Hubbard's Admissions, which Hubbard wrote, and it is on this factual
assertion that I'm asking you to provide your evidence.
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.
>
>And Gerry is not an honest person. He is wanted by the US law for
>breaching his agreement 131 times, and hiding in Canada.
Note that Roadrump has produced no evidence to support this factual
assertion, and in fact he's lying.
Again, I ask for any evidence you have, Roadrump, for each of these
factual assertions, despite your dramatizing sociopathy in these
matters. What evidence do you have that I am wanted by US law? What
evidence do you have that I am wanted for breaching the cult's
contract 131 times? What evidence do you have that I'm hiding in
Canada? What evidence do you have that I'm hiding anywhere?
>Are we going
>to take HIS words for these matters? Are you kidding me? He is the
>SOLE source of the Affirmations he published in 2000. The >>SOLE<<
>source!!!
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. Miscavige knows that Hubbard wrote Hubbard's
Admissions, which have been accurately reproduced on the Internet.
Miscavige even had these documents identified in the cult's settlement
contract, the same contract Roadrump claims I am wanted by US Law for
breaching 131 times:
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-1986.html
If Miscavige or Roadrump or anyone knows of any error in the
reproduction of Hubbard's Admissions, I welcome that information. I
wrote in my introductory note for the Admissions that I posted in
2000:
[Quote]
I am also posting the Admissions openly to confirm their authenticity.
The copy I received was not clear in places, and it is now gone. All
words, spellings, punctuation and notations are Hubbard's, except for
brackets [] which are mine. I pray that DM makes the complete
original of the Admissions available for $cientologists around the
world. Indeed I pray that he reveals every hidden piece of Hubbard's
writings, and yes, even his own secret documents, to all
$cientologists and interested wogs Ž. Robert Vaughn Young and Stacy
Brooks at least have read the Admissions and will be able to confirm
that what follows here is, within reasonable parameters, authentic. I
was very careful, but if there are any errors at all in what I have
posted of the Hubbard Admissions, I urge DM to have them corrected.
[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2000-03-11.html
Oh, and by the way, it's an intel op for DM, plus a marketing action.
Miscavige apparently postulates that he and his ops, agents and
collaborators won't have to deal with Hubbard's Admissions, as can be
seen with Roadrump, if some doubt can be mocked up about Hubbard's
being their source. As long as people continue to see that Hubbard is
the source of his Admissions, however, and DM and Scientology continue
to not confront and deal with the Admissions' content and revelations,
good, unsociopathic Scientologists and ex-Scientologists will continue
to use Hubbard's Admissions to help them escape Hubbard's and now
Miscavige's slaverology.
It's the fear of good, thinking people reading Hubbard's Admissions
and getting free from Scientology and from Miscavige's control that
motivates the effort to deny Hubbard as source, even though his
Admissions are part of Scientology scripture. DM and his cultists
would destroy their own scripture to keep their slaves, and to keep
them degrading good people to beast level to make their obliteration a
reality.
Š Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
Good for Peter then.
I do happen to be an authority on the Scientology cult and cultists,
and particularly Scientology's "Suppressive Person" doctrine and its
execution as "fair game" in the cult's war on wogs.
But my relationship, as an authority in these subjects, with Peter is
not of worship.
> You don't question either one of them,
>and still neither offered their verification process.
Roadrump of course is lying. His op is to dramatize sociopathy.
The reason that Scientologists and sociopaths in the service of the
cult lie about their cult's victims is to facilitate these people
obliteration, or murder. Hubbard installed that ev purp in virtually
every Scientologist.
Hubbard ordered in Scientology scripture that Scientologists are to
degrade the good people who comprise the cult's victims, whom the
cultists call "the enemy," to the level of beasts, whip wog, and
Scientologist, publics into a frenzy of hatred toward these people,
harass them, and then just go all the way in and oliterate them.
That's why Roadrump lies about the good people he lies about.
Oh, by the way, L. Ron Hubbard wrote his "Affirmations" or his
"Admissions." They've been helpful to many people to understand
Hubbard the Liar and Hubbard the Sociopath a bit better, and to get
free of Hubbard's and Scientology's lies and sociopathic clutches.
It's no wonder then that Roadrump has resorted to such patently
dishonest and sociopathic communication "tech" to cast some doubt, no
matter how delusional, on Hubbard's authorship of these important
writings. Not one word of the Admissions is mine, and, contrary to
Roadrump's taradiddling about them being in my writing style, not a
word is my style. Hubbard is source -- at least of his Admissions.
Hubbard wrote his Admissions, and every Scientologist, DM included, is
going to have to live with every Scientologist knowing, and
potentially every wog too knowing, that Hubbard wrote them. Everyone
will also potentially know about what the cult did, including what
Roadrump is doing, to try to prevent everyone from knowing.
I think that DM has been seeing the freeing effect of Hubbard's
Admissions on good people now for 27 years. And he's been seeing the
freeing effect on the Internet since I posted them almost 9 years ago.
The introduction of good people, both Scientologists and wogs, to
Hubbard's Admissions, when clearly Scientology withholds these key
pieces of scripture from everyone possible, helps people escape, and
even oppose, Miscavige's slave cult.
It doesn't help Scientology's sociopaths to read the Admissions, as DM
and Roadrump demonstrate. DM's a slaver like Hubbard, and clearly
wants to be a slave master, and Roadrump executes DM's command
intention.
I believe that DM's, and Roadrump's, handling of Hubbard's Admissions
has failed utterly, and worse, backfired. Interest in the Admissions
has not waned but increased. I'm re-interested, and have started
assembling a book on the subject I've given the working title
Admissions Into Evidence.
Obviously I'll have to deal with the Roadrump op as it related to
Hubbard's Admissions, and will possibly devote even more space to his
op if he posts his promised scientological analysis of me in the next
short while.
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 14:17:41 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com
>
> läs mer »
Go Gerry Go!
Ulf Brettstam
peters...@gmail.com
And you have nothing but your insinuations, invalidations, distrust
and paranoia to offer. Now that's some logic and reasoning, uh,
Michel?
> In fact the behaviour of some lawyer in this issue say nothing. Gerry
> is your HERO, simple as that, he is your GOD if you wish. He is right,
> no matter what.
>
> RR
Hero's I don't have. I looked at both sides, Gerry's and your's, and
you failed. You have nothing to support your claims except your
insinuations, invalidations, distrust and paranoia. You fail, Michel.
Peter
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can
control anybody is to lie to them."
- L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952,
excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL
VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Again an attempt to overthrow with opinion...
>
> > In fact the behaviour of some lawyer in this issue say nothing. Gerry
> > is your HERO, simple as that, he is your GOD if you wish. He is right,
> > no matter what.
>
> > RR
>
> Hero's I don't have. I looked at both sides, Gerry's and your's,
Obviously you don't. Gerry is wanted by the US law, and YOU can't COPE
WITH THAT!!!
>and
> you failed. You have nothing to support your claims except your
> insinuations, invalidations, distrust and paranoia. You fail, Michel.
Tsk, tsk, may we have a laugh about your ignorance here, please? .-)
RR
peters...@gmail.com
You still have nothing to support your claims, Michel. That's not
opinion, that's fact.
>
>
> > > In fact the behaviour of some lawyer in this issue say nothing. Gerry
> > > is your HERO, simple as that, he is your GOD if you wish. He is right,
> > > no matter what.
>
> > > RR
>
> > Hero's I don't have. I looked at both sides, Gerry's and your's,
>
> Obviously you don't. Gerry is wanted by the US law, and YOU can't COPE
> WITH THAT!!!
>
As Gerry wrote, you even don't have evidnece for this, apparently
false, accusation.
Can you spell "FAIL"?
> >and
> > you failed. You have nothing to support your claims except your
> > insinuations, invalidations, distrust and paranoia. You fail, Michel.
>
> Tsk, tsk, may we have a laugh about your ignorance here, please? .-)
>
> RR
>
"Tsk, tsk", that is what you always come with when you have nothing.
This time too.
Laugh, Michel, because it's the only thing you can at the moment. Your
attempts to invalidate or discredit have failed big time. AGAIN!
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:03:58 -0800 (PST), Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> >On 29 Nov, 21:18, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 29 nov, 20:59, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > On 29 Nov, 18:47, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:> On 29 nov, 13:55, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > snip
>
> >> > > RR, so far you have showed ZERO evidence, ZERO support and ZERO
> >> > > arguments for your accusations against Gerry Armstrong. Just
> >> > > invalidations and opinions.
>
> >> > Man, man, you are so incredibly ignorant. If someone would kidnap your
> >> > child right in front of you, you are likely to say: "Oh, but my child
> >> > is just playing 'Catch me'.
>
> >> Then show us your evidence, show us that it wasn't Hubbard himself.
>
> >See, this sums it up. And you CONFIRM that what I said about you and
> >how you sort matters. It's Gerry that has to provide the proof that L.
> >Ron Hubbard wrote the Affirmations.
>
> No, I have done this in many ways, including in sworn testimony, and
> attestations from multiple people.
'many' ways? You are the SOLE source of the Affirmations you offered
in 2000. Simple plain FACT. There are NO sworn testimonies of these
2000 version of them. In addition your 1984 and prior to 2000
testimonies are questionable because of your lack of integrity shown
when you accepted a pay off amounting $800,000.
>
> 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..
Again you are the sole source of the Affirmation you introduced in
2000. And we only have your word about matters. I have done a pretty
extensive evaluation study of the matter, but not yet released. This
will be forthcoming though fairly soon.
>
> 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.
Sorry, but in my modest opinion it is YOU that is the sociopath and
the pathological liar. Your deal with the Church made you rich, and
then you make claims that the Church atempts to bankrupt you? Give me
a break, you are hiding in Canada. Try to enter the US... .-)
The remainder of your posting also tells a lot about you.
But Gerry, didn't you tell you were the *expert* on Fair Game and all
that? Now why then do you purposely IGNORE HCO PL 21 July 1968 on your
Fair Game page on your very site? Isn't that a bit dishonest???
You can not be trusted. The Affirmations in fact are written in your
style of writing, not that one of L. Ron Hubbard.
RR
> $cientologists and interested wogs ®. Robert Vaughn Young and Stacy
> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
> On 30 nov, 10:35, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29 Nov, 18:50, Out_Of_The_Dark <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > Gerry Armstrong is a hero. Nothing you do will be able to erase that
> > > mark on the history of the cult of scientology.
>
> > Oh yes, I can. A hero? He is wanted by US law. He took a very large
> > sum of money as a pay off (made him very wealthy), after which he
> > violated that agreement 131 times. In my book such a person is not a
> > hero.
>
> > > Ulf Brettstam is a hero in his own right, in that he, as a
> > > professional, saw what scientology was doing and stood up to call it
> > > for what it is : A CULT.
>
> > Scientology is a subject. He actively advocates AGAINST people that
> > inform school children about the hazards of drugs. Then he HIMSELF
> > puts children on drugs. That is a hero too?
>
> > That says a whole lot about you, doesn't it? You SORT per your
> > prejudices...
>
> > RR
>
> I'd like to add something here. I think Gerry is a courageous man. He
> got his money. Rightfully, I would think.
For materials he did not own??? You haven't actually went through the
court case, did you? Rightfully? You don't think, you only adopt and
sort per your prejudices. You are nothing more than an anti-
Scientology shill...
>But the CULT insisted in a
> gag order.
> Why?
> So Gerry takes the money and all the risks when he ignores the gag
> order.
> He had to move to Canada to keep out of the clutches of the CULT's
> lawyers. To gain back his right of free speech. Some justice done
> here, right? I know, this is my opinion, JUST an opinion.
Indeed it is, a prejudiced opinion. As I said, if the court says
something bad about L. Ron Hubbard you readily and instantly ADOPT it,
but if it is said something bad about Gerry you query it.... Sorry,
but you really are very transparent...
Gerry your *HERO*...
RR
peters...@gmail.com
For a person who is obsessed with written rules, and rulings, your
answer is rather odd. It was a judge who ruled that Gerry had to be
payed.
Double standards again?
> >But the CULT insisted in a
> > gag order.
> > Why?
> > So Gerry takes the money and all the risks when he ignores the gag
> > order.
> > He had to move to Canada to keep out of the clutches of the CULT's
> > lawyers. To gain back his right of free speech. Some justice done
> > here, right? I know, this is my opinion, JUST an opinion.
>
> Indeed it is, a prejudiced opinion. As I said, if the court says
> something bad about L. Ron Hubbard you readily and instantly ADOPT it,
> but if it is said something bad about Gerry you query it.... Sorry,
> but you really are very transparent...
>
> Gerry your *HERO*...
>
> RR
>
And which court said something bad about Gerry?
Several courts did however about your hero and authority Hubbard.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 11 years!
> On 30 nov, 10:35, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29 Nov, 18:50, Out_Of_The_Dark <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > Gerry Armstrong is a hero. Nothing you do will be able to erase that
> > > mark on the history of the cult of scientology.
Yes, Gerry Armstrong is a hero. FACT..
Everything scientology does towards those who see through hubbard's
spew, is in pursuit of silence.
Gerry Armstrong has been deemed GUILTY by Scientology of living by
the same opinions held by some US Federal Chief Judges - to wit:
"South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements
Read the NY Times article: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret
Settlements By ADAM LIPTAK. Adam Liptak's article in the New York
Times quoting Chief Judge Joseph Anderson of the South Carolina
Federal Judicial District saying about civil gag agreements that:
"It meant that secrecy was something bought and sold right under a
judge's nose."
Amen...
You see, there is a global scam of truly epic proportions which seeks
to sell the public "A Piece of Blue Sky". The incredible profits of
selling such a 'commodity' under tax-exempt corporate structures make
the purchase of gag-agreements merely a cost of doing business."
http://www.lermanet.com/silence.htm
All scientology is, is words. There NOTHING there, no OTs, no
CLEARS, nothing, just hypnotized folks who think exactly what their
hypnotist tells them they must think.
Everything a hypnotist tells you is true for you
L Ron (He's dead Jim) Hubbard had the audacity to claim that "What is
true for you is true"
Read these links to recover from scientology's grip on your mind
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosis-index.htm
>
> > Oh yes, I can. A hero? He is wanted by US law. He took a very large
> > sum of money as a pay off (made him very wealthy), after which he
> > violated that agreement 131 times. In my book such a person is not a
> > hero.
>
> > > Ulf Brettstam is a hero in his own right, in that he, as a
> > > professional, saw what scientology was doing and stood up to call it
> > > for what it is : A CULT.
Yes Ulf Brettstam is a hero, practicing the the maxim of
"We must have the courage to speak plainly"
- Cornel West - Prof. of Religion, Princeton University
>
> > Scientology is a subject.
No, scientology is NOT even a subject, Scientology is but an
elaborate FRAUD,
Scientology is a synonym for ELABORATE AND EXTRAORDINARY FRAUD
Proof here:
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/graphicindex.htm
He actively advocates AGAINST people that
> > inform school children about the hazards of drugs. Then he HIMSELF
> > puts children on drugs. That is a hero too?
Study Logical Fallacy
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
And RR needs to Wake up from his TRANCE.
>
> > That says a whole lot about you, doesn't it? You SORT per your
> > prejudices...
Eu de hypocrite
>
> > RR
>
> I'd like to add something here. I think Gerry is a courageous man. He
> got his money. Rightfully, I would think. But the CULT insisted in a
> gag order.
> Why?
> So Gerry takes the money and all the risks when he ignores the gag
> order.
> He had to move to Canada to keep out of the clutches of the CULT's
> lawyers. To gain back his right of free speech. Some justice done
> here, right? I know, this is my opinion, JUST an opinion.
>
> Peter
>
> "So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a
> push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people
> involved and weed them out. Push vanishes."
> - L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959
>
> http://www.scamofscientology.nl
I would be HONORED to be associated with anyone who practiced one of
my first internet sig lines:
"I would prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speake"
Who is Arnie Lerma?
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
Thank you for reading these words.
Regards
arnie lerma
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
WE COME BACK
for our friends and family
to get them out
before they end up here
whyaretheydead.net
PS: Thank you Peter, Ulf, Gerry, Maureen, Anonymous and all those who
refuse to be intimidated into silence by the worlds largest FRAUD and
for keeping on keepin' on!
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Your logic is 'amazing'! Leaves us all to wonder if you have been born
stupid or if you came to be that after some hardships... Doesn't
matter really...
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Thre is actually some stuff posted on Wikipedia. The Gerry Armstong
article links to some other pages that is pretty detailed about recent
court rulings. How come you don't know about them???
> Several courts did however about your hero and authority Hubbard.
Offensive. No hero and no authority. Actually how dare you! See, I
think for myself, I only regard information, which you are unable
to...
The matter is not the courts about L. Ron Hubbard. The matter is that
you can not cope, nor want to hear about court rulings unfavourable to
your buddy Gerry.
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
snip
> I do happen to be an authority on the Scientology cult and cultists,
> and particularly Scientology's "Suppressive Person" doctrine and its
> execution as "fair game" in the cult's war on wogs.
Yeah, and you have various time been informed about HCO PL 21 July
1968, Nonetheless you still IGNORE it.
You still have on your site the below quoted text. It shows you
dishonest and propagandistic intent.
"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."
>
> But my relationship, as an authority in these subjects, with Peter is
> not of worship.
>
> > You don't question either one of them,
> >and still neither offered their verification process.
>
> Roadrump of course is lying. His op is to dramatize sociopathy.
HCO PL 21 July 1968, Gerry. You can't cope with that. Instead you
fabricate a lie in where you delilberately find fault with L. Ron
Hubbard. That, in my modest opinion, deems you falling into
sociopathic behaviour. You see, such people can't correct themselves
or accept any criticism of their person...
Actually the remainder of your message is your usual irrational
rambling...
Be assured you will be given the opportunity to respond and I may even
post your response. I will place a message and link on ARS at time of
publication, then it is up to you.
You liked my Primary Rundown analysis I saw. Well, the Affirmations
article will be as detailed and scrutinous in its approach.
Kind regards,
RR
peters...@gmail.com
Yep! Just invalidating and degrading, nothing substantial, nothing of
any importance.
"Leaves us all": Who is "us all"? Or are you trying to sound
impressive? Do you live in a group? Do you suffer from a multi
personality syndrome?
Because "us all" implies at least a few people, if not all people.
"We", "us all" is just you, trying, and failing, to impress.
Peter
"Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation (atomic bomb)
burns."
- L. Ron Hubbard, ALL ABOUT RADIATION, p. 109
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
peters...@gmail.com
Well, there is nothing that equals what has been said by judges about
Hubbard.
> > Several courts did however about your hero and authority Hubbard.
>
> Offensive. No hero and no authority. Actually how dare you! See, I
> think for myself, I only regard information, which you are unable
> to...
>
Yeah, right. If you say so.
How do I dare? ROFLMAO!
You think for yourself and you only regard information? That is
exactly what I do. Probably not the same sources, but that is of no
importance.
> The matter is not the courts about L. Ron Hubbard. The matter is that
> you can not cope, nor want to hear about court rulings unfavourable to
> your buddy Gerry.
>
> RR
That certainly explains why you invalidate and degrade anyone opposing
Hubbard and his CULT. Projecting again, Michel?
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
There are no drugs that can help you. What you need is to be
deprogrammed-"detoxyfied" to get out of your "altered state of mind".
You are the lead character in your very own "Truman Show". But
contrary to the movie you try to drag everybody in, instead of trying
to get out yourself!
Ulf Brettstam M.D
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
wrote:
Drugs don't help anyone. It is treating symptoms at the most.
>What you need is to be
> deprogrammed-"detoxyfied" to get out of your "altered state of mind".
> You are the lead character in your very own "Truman Show". But
> contrary to the movie you try to drag everybody in, instead of trying
> to get out yourself!
And you flaw in logic concerning research and Gerry's Affirmations?
Tsk, tsk, you have no arguments left and so you resort to this... See,
you ARE transparent...
RR
>
> Ulf Brettstam M.D
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Irrelevant really, Your Gerry is wanted by US law.
>
> > > Several courts did however about your hero and authority Hubbard.
>
> > Offensive. No hero and no authority. Actually how dare you! See, I
> > think for myself, I only regard information, which you are unable
> > to...
>
> Yeah, right. If you say so.
> How do I dare? ROFLMAO!
> You think for yourself and you only regard information? That is
> exactly what I do. Probably not the same sources, but that is of no
> importance.
>
> > The matter is not the courts about L. Ron Hubbard. The matter is that
> > you can not cope, nor want to hear about court rulings unfavourable to
> > your buddy Gerry.
>
> > RR
>
> That certainly explains why you invalidate and degrade anyone opposing
> Hubbard and his CULT. Projecting again, Michel?
"The matter is that you can not cope, nor want to hear about court
rulings unfavourable to your buddy Gerry." Gerry is wanted by US
law... It was ruled that he was to return the monies he readily
accepted in 1984 because he violated his agreement 131 times.
You really are entirely unable to cope with this...
RR
peters...@gmail.com
So what? Does being wanted means that Hubbard didn't write the
"Affirmations"?
>
>
>
>
> > > > Several courts did however about your hero and authority Hubbard.
>
> > > Offensive. No hero and no authority. Actually how dare you! See, I
> > > think for myself, I only regard information, which you are unable
> > > to...
>
> > Yeah, right. If you say so.
> > How do I dare? ROFLMAO!
> > You think for yourself and you only regard information? That is
> > exactly what I do. Probably not the same sources, but that is of no
> > importance.
>
> > > The matter is not the courts about L. Ron Hubbard. The matter is that
> > > you can not cope, nor want to hear about court rulings unfavourable to
> > > your buddy Gerry.
>
> > > RR
>
> > That certainly explains why you invalidate and degrade anyone opposing
> > Hubbard and his CULT. Projecting again, Michel?
>
> "The matter is that you can not cope, nor want to hear about court
> rulings unfavourable to your buddy Gerry." Gerry is wanted by US
> law... It was ruled that he was to return the monies he readily
> accepted in 1984 because he violated his agreement 131 times.
>
And does it mean that therefor Hubbard didn't write the
"Affirmations"?
> You really are entirely unable to cope with this...
>
> RR
>
Easier than you can cope with the claim that Hubbard himself wrote the
"Affirmations".
Peter
"The alleviation of the condition of insanity has also been
accomplished now!"
- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, November
1970, "Psychosis"
Barbara Schwarz
> On 2 dec, 19:01, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter's case officer does not allow him to admit it.
Barbara Schwarz
peters...@gmail.com
Orkeltatte aka Ulf Brettstam
(antibiotics) to the diabetics who need insulin to survive, to all
those with diseases treated with drugs. Maybe you can fix them with
your standard tin cans?
> >What you need is to be
> > deprogrammed-"detoxyfied" to get out of your "altered state of mind".
> > You are the lead character in your very own "Truman Show". But
> > contrary to the movie you try to drag everybody in, instead of trying
> > to get out yourself!
>
> And you flaw in logic concerning research and Gerry's Affirmations?
> Tsk, tsk, you have no arguments left and so you resort to this... See,
> you ARE transparent...
Only your very personal "Truman Show" logic.
> RR
>
>
>
Ulf Brettstam M.D
formerlyfooled
> On 29 Nov, 18:50, Out_Of_The_Dark <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > Gerry Armstrong is a hero. Nothing you do will be able to erase that
> > mark on the history of the cult of scientology.
>
> Oh yes, I can. A hero? He is wanted by US law. He took a very large
> sum of money as a pay off (made him very wealthy), after which he
> violated that agreement 131 times. In my book such a person is not a
> hero.
>
>
>
> > Ulf Brettstam is a hero in his own right, in that he, as a
> > professional, saw what scientology was doing and stood up to call it
> > for what it is : A CULT.
>
> Scientology is a subject. He actively advocates AGAINST people that
> inform school children about the hazards of drugs. Then he HIMSELF
> puts children on drugs. That is a hero too?
>
> That says a whole lot about you, doesn't it? You SORT per your
> prejudices...
>
> RR
I used to be a raving scientologist just like you, lol!!
Then I woke up out of the trance and ran for the exit.
The door is always open, even if just a crack, for you to peak out
into the real world and actually look before you rattl;e off the
propaganda you have been spoonfed for way too long.
Someday you will understand that you are so programmed with pat
answers that you are not even thinking for yourself when you post such
baloney. I welcome that day for all scientologists, even one so
obnoxious as you.
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
<ale...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 7:53 am, peterschi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 30 nov, 10:35, Roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 29 Nov, 18:50, Out_Of_The_Dark <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > > Gerry Armstrong is a hero. Nothing you do will be able to erase that
> > > > mark on the history of the cult of scientology.
>
> Yes, Gerry Armstrong is a hero. FACT..
He took money (a pay off in fact) for property he did not own. Very
heroic yes...
>
> Everything scientology does towards those who see through hubbard's
> spew, is in pursuit of silence.
>
> Gerry Armstrong has been deemed GUILTY by Scientology of living by
> the same opinions held by some US Federal Chief Judges - to wit:
>
> "South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret Settlements
>
> Read the NY Times article: South Carolina Judges Seek to Ban Secret
> Settlements By ADAM LIPTAK. Adam Liptak's article in the New York
> Times quoting Chief Judge Joseph Anderson of the South Carolina
> Federal Judicial District saying about civil gag agreements that:
>
> "It meant that secrecy was something bought and sold right under a
> judge's nose."
>
> Amen...
>
> You see, there is a global scam of truly epic proportions which seeks
> to sell the public "A Piece of Blue Sky". The incredible profits of
> selling such a 'commodity' under tax-exempt corporate structures make
> the purchase of gag-agreements merely a cost of doing business."
>
> http://www.lermanet.com/silence.htm
>
> All scientology is, is words. There NOTHING there, no OTs, no
> CLEARS, nothing, just hypnotized folks who think exactly what their
> hypnotist tells them they must think.
>
> Everything a hypnotist tells you is true for you
>
> L Ron (He's dead Jim) Hubbard had the audacity to claim that "What is
> true for you is true"
>
> Read these links to recover from scientology's grip on your mindhttp://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosis-index.htm
>
>
>
> > > Oh yes, I can. A hero? He is wanted by US law. He took a very large
> > > sum of money as a pay off (made him very wealthy), after which he
> > > violated that agreement 131 times. In my book such a person is not a
> > > hero.
>
> > > > Ulf Brettstam is a hero in his own right, in that he, as a
> > > > professional, saw what scientology was doing and stood up to call it
> > > > for what it is : A CULT.
>
> Yes Ulf Brettstam is a hero, practicing the the maxim of
> "We must have the courage to speak plainly"
> - Cornel West - Prof. of Religion, Princeton University
>
>
>
> > > Scientology is a subject.
>
> No, scientology is NOT even a subject, Scientology is but an
> elaborate FRAUD,
> Scientology is a synonym for ELABORATE AND EXTRAORDINARY FRAUD
Sorry, it is most defitnitely a subject... so, what they did to you?
>
> Proof here:http://www.lermanet.com/reference/graphicindex.htm
>
> He actively advocates AGAINST people that
>
> > > inform school children about the hazards of drugs. Then he HIMSELF
> > > puts children on drugs. That is a hero too?
>
> Study Logical Fallacyhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
>
> And RR needs to Wake up from his TRANCE.
You just a propagandist...
To me a person that puts children on drugs is no here. Then this same
person is advocating against people that lecture at schools that warn
and educate about the hazards of drugs. The Ulf individual seems
nothing but a drugpusher.
>
>
>
> > > That says a whole lot about you, doesn't it? You SORT per your
> > > prejudices...
>
> Eu de hypocrite
>
>
>
>
>
> > > RR
>
> > I'd like to add something here. I think Gerry is a courageous man. He
> > got his money. Rightfully, I would think. But the CULT insisted in a
> > gag order.
> > Why?
> > So Gerry takes the money and all the risks when he ignores the gag
> > order.
> > He had to move to Canada to keep out of the clutches of the CULT's
> > lawyers. To gain back his right of free speech. Some justice done
> > here, right? I know, this is my opinion, JUST an opinion.
>
> > Peter
>
> > "So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a
> > push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people
> > involved and weed them out. Push vanishes."
> > - L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959
>
> >http://www.scamofscientology.nl
>
> I would be HONORED to be associated with anyone who practiced one of
> my first internet sig lines:
>
> "I would prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speake"
>
> Who is Arnie Lerma?http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=381
>
> Thank you for reading these words.
>
> Regards
> arnie lerma
> Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
> WE COME BACK
> for our friends and family
> to get them out
> before they end up here
> whyaretheydead.net
>
> PS: Thank you Peter, Ulf, Gerry, Maureen, Anonymous and all those who
> refuse to be intimidated into silence by the worlds largest FRAUD and
> for keeping on keepin' on!
OT VII in 1973 or so, is it not. You're in the mag 'Clear News'. So,
what happened.
Your agenda today is all about telling people that L. Ron Hubbard
stole everything from others. A bit ridiculous approach though.
RR
Roadrunn...@gmail.com
Street drugs, you silly... Still the oridinary drugs for the most
only treat symptoms. You knew what I meant, and you play around like
this.
>
> > >What you need is to be
> > > deprogrammed-"detoxyfied" to get out of your "altered state of mind".
> > > You are the lead character in your very own "Truman Show". But
> > > contrary to the movie you try to drag everybody in, instead of trying
> > > to get out yourself!
>
> > And you flaw in logic concerning research and Gerry's Affirmations?
> > Tsk, tsk, you have no arguments left and so you resort to this... See,
> > you ARE transparent...
>
> Only your very personal "Truman Show" logic.
You have no response and so run your propaganda.
RR
>
> > RR
>
> Ulf Brettstam M.D