For Gerry Armstrong
JimDBB
You are being seriously stalked by a vicious psychopath, Diane Richardson. As
you know she is prying into your very private business. You may be cognizant of
her actions against Paulette Cooper and her array of nasty postings on this
newsgroup.
Diane Richardson works at the Weisenthal Institute of Psychiatric History in
the Cornell University Medical Center. Someone suggested that a phone call
followed by documentation to her employers might sort this out. I don't think
that this is advisable as it may make things worse. If she gets canned...she
would have more time then to harass you...or whoever stikes her fancy at the
moment. What I suggest, Gerry is to take this malevolent attack on you quite
seriously.
A friend on the ARS
Starshadow
*Who* is stalking *whom*?
This kind of post--detailing personal information in open, about
someone posting their *opinion*, no matter what you think about that
opinion, is despicable, no matter who does it.
This sickens me.
---
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow KoX, Sp4, and now on a "cult critic's" hate page
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html
for the High Crime of Disagreeing with self-made cult victim Gerry
Armstrong and Caroline Letkeman.
For the real truth about cults go to www.xenu.net
Garry
> JimDBB wrote:
> > Gerry Armstong:
> >
> > You are being seriously stalked by a vicious psychopath, Diane Richardson. As
> > you know she is prying into your very private business. You may be cognizant of
> > her actions against Paulette Cooper and her array of nasty postings on this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > Diane Richardson works at the Weisenthal Institute of Psychiatric History in
> > the Cornell University Medical Center. Someone suggested that a phone call
> > followed by documentation to her employers might sort this out. I don't think
> > that this is advisable as it may make things worse. If she gets canned...she
> > would have more time then to harass you...or whoever stikes her fancy at the
> > moment. What I suggest, Gerry is to take this malevolent attack on you quite
> > seriously.
> >
> > A friend on the ARS
>
> *Who* is stalking *whom*?
>
> This kind of post--detailing personal information in open, about
> someone posting their *opinion*, no matter what you think about that
> opinion, is despicable, no matter who does it.
>
> This sickens me.
I agree. This is truly sad, Jim.
And before you accuse Diane of *stalking*, you need to do some
research on specifically what "stalking" means. Using the same logic
you use, your many posts about Diane could qualify as your *stalking*
Diane.
How about this? Agree to disagree with her. And leave all the
shameful hate to those kooks like Gerry Armstrong who malign and
create hate pages against those that don't toot his horn.
Tigger
(snip)
What a bunch of crap, Jim.....I am ashamed of you.
Tigger
**************************************************************
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the
people... Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing
with the utmost freedom...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of
your liberty by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names for
hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice." -- John Adams
**************************************************************
JimDBB
>From: ffr...@hotmail.com (Garry)
>Date: 12/20/02 1:12 AM Central Standard Time
I have to agree to disagree with you, Garry.
At least you have not accessed and posted Gerry's private and personal legal
information but Diane Richardson has.
If you will notice the ease and facility which which she accesses and posts
private and personal legal information on Gerry ( and others). She is doing
this from her workplace at the psychiatric history library. This library has,
of course, the computer setup wherein she can access and easily move around
institutional files. Diane, however, wants you to think that she is not doing
this from her workplace. But it is quite obvious that she is.
Gerry Armstrong would certainly have cause to sue Diane Richardson's employer
for the harassment emanating from an employee while at work in the employer's
facility.
ka...@wwwaif.net
news:20021220131921...@mb-ma.aol.com:
>
> I have to agree to disagree with you, Garry.
> At least you have not accessed and posted Gerry's private and personal
> legal information but Diane Richardson has.
What on earth are you talking about? She's posted excerpts of legal filings
*from his website*. As in, out there, explicitly placed on public view by
Gerry Armstrong himself, on his eponymous website. In fact, Gerry also
posted his kookery-laden "response" to the Marin county complaint *right
here* on a.r.s., before enshrining it for the ages on gerryarmstrong.org.
By what possible contortion of logic could this possibly represent posting
"private and personal legal information"?
> If you will notice the ease and facility which which she accesses and
> posts private and personal legal information on Gerry ( and others).
Um, it's ON HIS WEBSITE. Helpfully laid out, with an index page and
everything. How does that imply some sort of sinister power on the part of
Diane?
> She is doing this from her workplace at the psychiatric history library.
> This library has, of course, the computer setup wherein she can access
> and easily move around institutional files. Diane, however, wants you to
> think that she is not doing this from her workplace. But it is quite
> obvious that she is.
Jim, I hate to have to tell you this, but *you* have "the computer setup"
to access and move around exactly the same files as Diane has posted here.
It's called a computer, with internet access. Heck, you could probably even
do it with a WebTV "internet appliance". You're not only barking up the
wrong tree with this latest obsessive outburst of paranoia, but you're not
even in the right forest.
> Gerry Armstrong would certainly have cause to sue Diane Richardson's
> employer for the harassment emanating from an employee while at work in
> the employer's facility.
How is it 'harassment' to post excerpts from the filings *HE WEBBED
HIMSELF*, if the contents are under discussion here on a.r.s.?
Time to take a Valium, methinks. (For you, not Diane, or, for that matter,
me.)
K
Diane Richardson
[snip]
>I have to agree to disagree with you, Garry.
>At least you have not accessed and posted Gerry's private and personal legal
>information but Diane Richardson has.
What? The information I posted comes from Gerry Armstrong's own
website, for crying out loud! Look at the URL at the top of the post!
>If you will notice the ease and facility which which she accesses and posts
>private and personal legal information on Gerry ( and others).
Because Gerry Armstrong created a website and placed that information
on it. That makes it quite easy for anyone to access, including you,
Jim Beebe, if you had enough functioning brain cells left to do so.
>She is doing
>this from her workplace at the psychiatric history library.
No I'm not. I am posting from home, just as you are.
>This library has,
>of course, the computer setup wherein she can access and easily move around
>institutional files.
"Institutional files"? You're hallucinating, Jim.
>Diane, however, wants you to think that she is not doing
>this from her workplace. But it is quite obvious that she is.
I am doing it from home. I am posting from my personal internet
account. You've continued making false accusations like this
for years, Jim.
>Gerry Armstrong would certainly have cause to sue Diane Richardson's employer
>for the harassment emanating from an employee while at work in the employer's
>facility.
You are downright delusional, Jim. Check and make sure your canisters
are marked "oxygen" and not "nitrous oxide."
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Fluffygirl
<ka...@wwwaif.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92EA8A502BE...@205.232.34.12...
<snip>
>
> > If you will notice the ease and facility which which she accesses and
> > posts private and personal legal information on Gerry ( and others).
>
> Um, it's ON HIS WEBSITE. Helpfully laid out, with an index page and
> everything. How does that imply some sort of sinister power on the part of
> Diane?
>
>
> > She is doing this from her workplace at the psychiatric history library.
> > This library has, of course, the computer setup wherein she can access
> > and easily move around institutional files. Diane, however, wants you to
> > think that she is not doing this from her workplace. But it is quite
> > obvious that she is.
>
> Jim, I hate to have to tell you this, but *you* have "the computer setup"
> to access and move around exactly the same files as Diane has posted here.
> It's called a computer, with internet access. Heck, you could probably
even
> do it with a WebTV "internet appliance". You're not only barking up the
> wrong tree with this latest obsessive outburst of paranoia, but you're not
> even in the right forest.
>
>
> > Gerry Armstrong would certainly have cause to sue Diane Richardson's
> > employer for the harassment emanating from an employee while at work in
> > the employer's facility.
>
> How is it 'harassment' to post excerpts from the filings *HE WEBBED
> HIMSELF*, if the contents are under discussion here on a.r.s.?
>
> Time to take a Valium, methinks. (For you, not Diane, or, for that matter,
> me.)
>
It's not unlike Caroline's plaint where she implied I was harassing her and
further implied she might have to take legal action. (LOL)
All I'd done was to converse with her on usenet and in so doing, had never
said I'd go over and do something to her or that this or that would or could
or should happen, or anything like that. I'd discussed Scn. And some of her
claptrap regarding my alleged cruelty.
Discussing things in usenet isn't harassment, generally, IMO.
Now, if the person threatens, on usenet, to enact violence toward that
person, then maybe it's different.
But posting something from someone's own website, or posting some opinions,
does not constitute harassment or anything of the sort.
Really, if Gerrylin--oops, I mean Gerry and Caroline, can't handle
dissenting opinions then what the hell are they doing HERE?
Why on earth should they be the only people who are allowed to discuss
specific people on the ng with much "HE &R" as we Scn'ists would say...
I think that there's a real double standard here re the Gerryli- oops, Gerry
and Caroline individuals. I saw it a couple months ago, and I've been seeing
it ever since.
C
JimDBB
>Date: 12/20/02 1:35 PM Central
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
It pains me to do this but I must do what is right and issue an apology to
Diane Richardson. I seems that I did, indeed, stop off into the abyss and
leveled false allegations against Diane Richardson when I accused her of
posting personal attacks from her workplace. I believe, now that I was wrong
about this and I wish to post a retraction. I hereby apologize to Diane
Richardson for making false statements and accusations about her. I further
apologize for making false allegations and for leveling personal attacks on
this newsgroup against her in the past. I have no excuses for this behavior
and so I can offer none.
I also thank Starshadow, Garry, Diane and others for bringing this very
directly to my attention.
Jim Beebe
Tigger
am proud of you.
Diane Richardson
[snip]
>It pains me to do this but I must do what is right and issue an apology to
>Diane Richardson. I seems that I did, indeed, stop off into the abyss and
>leveled false allegations against Diane Richardson when I accused her of
>posting personal attacks from her workplace. I believe, now that I was wrong
>about this and I wish to post a retraction. I hereby apologize to Diane
>Richardson for making false statements and accusations about her. I further
>apologize for making false allegations and for leveling personal attacks on
>this newsgroup against her in the past. I have no excuses for this behavior
>and so I can offer none.
I accept your apology, Jim, and appreciate the courage it took for you
to write this. Thank you.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Starshadow
Thanks for the retraction. I appreciate this.