Another of Armstrong's lies
ptsc <ptsc nym <dot> alias <dot> net>
"Comments are welcome. Criticisms don't necessarily mean that
you're a criminal."
What a fucking lie. Criticize Armstrong and you end up on his page,
libeled as "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops." Burn in Hell,
Armstrong, you lying dirtbag.
The person helping OSA here is you, by lying about people. You've
fully adopted their tactics, then you have a pathetic lie like that on your
front page to trick people into thinking that criticism of you is actually
tolerated. It isn't. People who criticize you end up on your kooky hate
page, entitled "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops."
How you REALLY help OSA here is that anyone who has to take your
word on something related to Scientology now has to evaluate that word
in light of your willingness to lie about and defame your critics for
disagreeing with you.
ptsc
Gerry Armstrong
No, Rob, you're lying. People who like you who pretend to be so stupid
just to so viciously attack Scientology's fair game victims could end
up on the GOoNsQUaD FOLLIES page, which, as you know, but pretend not
to know in order to pretend to have a real basis to make your vicious
attacks, for the benefit of your pretended stupidity I've retitled in
the html page title "Gerry Armstrong--Posts by a.r.s. participants who
claim to not be formally employed OSA staff or formally operated OSA
agents but who, in and with pretended stupidity, forward OSA's
purposes by attacking the Scientology cult's fair game victims."
I note that you're continuing with the lie and the black PR line that
a.r.s. participants who claim to not be formally employed OSA staff or
formally operated OSA agents but who, in and with pretended stupidity,
forward OSA's purposes by attacking the Scientology cult's fair game
victims, and who, specifically, because they forward OSA's purposes by
attacking the Scientology cult's fair game victims, are on the
GOoNsQUaD FOLLIES page, are there because they disagree with me. This
is a complete lie.
I further note that you claim that your criticism or others' criticism
of me is not tolerated. That is a complete lie, made in pretended
stupidity. Even your vicious lies, like these here, and your obscene
forwarding of OSA's fair game purposes are tolerated, such as calling
me, on a completely fabricated or pretended basis, a "lying dirtbag"
and issuing your postulate that I "Burn in Hell." They are so
tolerated that I've tried to web your vicious attacks in the their
complete pretended stupidity here. Not only do I tolerate them, I give
them web space. I quote them in their entirety and provide links to
the complete thread in which they occur.
So will you withdraw your lies? Oops, you've killfiled me, so you
don't have to see my debunking of your lies. And speaking of
killfiling, isn't it you who have plonked me into silence. I welcome
rational debate. You on the other hand can't handle it.
Gerry
>
>ptsc
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Warrior
>
>From his front page:
>
>"Comments are welcome. Criticisms don't necessarily mean that
>you're a criminal."
>
>What a fucking lie.
At this point I think you're seeing what you *want* to see, not
what's real. I think you have become blinded by your irrational
rage and eagerness to see Gerry as a liar when he is not.
>Criticize Armstrong and you end up on his page,
Well, I've criticized Gerry, and I'm not on it. I know of others
who have criticized Gerry, and they are not on it either.
>libeled as "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops." Burn in Hell,
>Armstrong, you lying dirtbag.
>
>The person helping OSA here is you, by lying about people.
That's funny. Are you sure you are okay, Rob? Sincerely. Are you
okay?
[snip rest]
>
>ptsc
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Warrior
>>
>>From his front page:
>>
>>"Comments are welcome. Criticisms don't necessarily mean that
>>you're a criminal."
>>
>>What a fucking lie. Criticize Armstrong and you end up on his page,
>>libeled as "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops." Burn in Hell,
>>Armstrong, you lying dirtbag.
>>
>>The person helping OSA here is you, by lying about people. You've
>>fully adopted their tactics, then you have a pathetic lie like that on your
>>front page to trick people into thinking that criticism of you is actually
>>tolerated. It isn't. People who criticize you end up on your kooky hate
>>page, entitled "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops."
>>
>>How you REALLY help OSA here is that anyone who has to take your
>>word on something related to Scientology now has to evaluate that word
>>in light of your willingness to lie about and defame your critics for
>>disagreeing with you.
>>
In article <86i0vuok7ms3novbv...@4ax.com>, Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>© Gerry Armstrong
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Apparently he can't.
I for one am happy that his posts are webbed on your site because,
for reasons unknown to me, most of them do not propagate to Newsguy
lately. Also, I've recently (just yesterday) noticed that certain
posts that *were* made (e.g., some of Deana's) which I wanted to
reply to, are not archived by Google.
Consequently, I have begun to web certain posts, with their complete
headers, so I have a record of the voluminous hateful postings being
made these days.
It makes me wonder why certain individuals would post black PR about
you and flag these posts so as to *not* be archived.
Recent attacks on your character, credibility, sanity, etc. have me
wondering about the individuals who continue to pump out their hurtful
and irrational black propaganda.
I'm with Ford Greene who once said about you, "As usual, Armstrong's
data is solid."
I know you are a man of extremely high integrity, Gerry, and with so
much dirt being slung your way, I felt like speaking my heart.
God Bless You.
Garry
snip of Armstrong's "acceptable truth"
>
> So will you withdraw your lies? Oops, you've killfiled me, so you
> don't have to see my debunking of your lies. And speaking of
> killfiling, isn't it you who have plonked me into silence. I welcome
> rational debate. You on the other hand can't handle it.
>
>© Gerry Armstrong, Certified Liar & Kook
Gerry Jihad, the Narcisssistic Liar & Kook. Speaking of "rational
debate," Gerry Jihad, you have not said one peep about Beverly's
statements about you as a "liar." WHY IS THAT??
Scared that she might give us something else to further discredit you
as the lying scumbag that you are? You're such a chickenshit posting
paragraph after paragraph of self-absorbed horseshit intended to put
yourself on the pedestal.
And speaking of "rational debate" Gerry Jihad, why is is that you
cannot answer the simple questions that Tigger and others have asked
you...you continue to lie and spin and distort with paragraph after
paragraph of nothingness.
Beverly says it best about you, Fruitcake Gerry Jihad:
FLIP:
Person claims to be an ex-scientologist ~out~ of scientology . . .
FLOP:
Person then continues using scientological actions.
Beverly
Garry
> >On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:07:29 -0500, pt...@nym.alias.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>From his front page:
> >>
> >>"Comments are welcome. Criticisms don't necessarily mean that
> >>you're a criminal."
> >>
> >>What a fucking lie. Criticize Armstrong and you end up on his page,
> >>libeled as "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops." Burn in Hell,
> >>Armstrong, you lying dirtbag.
> >>
> >>The person helping OSA here is you, by lying about people. You've
> >>fully adopted their tactics, then you have a pathetic lie like that on your
> >>front page to trick people into thinking that criticism of you is actually
> >>tolerated. It isn't. People who criticize you end up on your kooky hate
> >>page, entitled "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops."
> >>
> >>How you REALLY help OSA here is that anyone who has to take your
> >>word on something related to Scientology now has to evaluate that word
> >>in light of your willingness to lie about and defame your critics for
> >>disagreeing with you.
> >
> >just to so viciously attack Scientology's fair game victims could end
> >up on the GOoNsQUaD FOLLIES page, which, as you know, but pretend not
> >to know in order to pretend to have a real basis to make your vicious
> >attacks, for the benefit of your pretended stupidity I've retitled in
> >the html page title "Gerry Armstrong--Posts by a.r.s. participants who
> >claim to not be formally employed OSA staff or formally operated OSA
> >agents but who, in and with pretended stupidity, forward OSA's
> >purposes by attacking the Scientology cult's fair game victims."
> >
> >don't have to see my debunking of your lies. And speaking of
> >killfiling, isn't it you who have plonked me into silence. I welcome
> >rational debate. You on the other hand can't handle it.
>
>
> I for one am happy that his posts are webbed on your site because,
> for reasons unknown to me, most of them do not propagate to Newsguy
> lately. Also, I've recently (just yesterday) noticed that certain
> posts that *were* made (e.g., some of Deana's) which I wanted to
> reply to, are not archived by Google.
>
> much dirt being slung your way, I felt like speaking my heart.
This coming from the heart of Mark Plummer aka Warrior, another
pathetic member of Gerry Jihad's small circle of ass-kissers and
suck-ups.
>
> God Bless You.
Doubtful since your hero here thinks he is a Prophet. <snicker>
Sheesh, what a loser you are.
Garry
> In article <qbqvuu8rnihq4agvj...@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
> >
> >From his front page:
> >
> >"Comments are welcome. Criticisms don't necessarily mean that
> >you're a criminal."
> >
> >What a fucking lie.
>
> At this point I think you're seeing what you *want* to see, not
> what's real. I think you have become blinded by your irrational
> rage and eagerness to see Gerry as a liar when he is not.
>
> >Criticize Armstrong and you end up on his page,
>
> Well, I've criticized Gerry, and I'm not on it. I know of others
> who have criticized Gerry, and they are not on it either.
You criticize Gerry Jihad, Mark, like a fellow Republican would
criticize George Bush, Jr. Honesty? No way! Mark Plummer's philosophy:
criticize with loads of admiration and sucking up to the ARS prophet.
So, Mark, since you're so inclined toward sucking up to and kissing
Gerry Jihad's ass, no matter how much he trips over himself, how does
Gerry Jihad taste??
Tom Klemesrud
ptsc nym alias wrote:
> From his front page:
>
> "Comments are welcome. Criticisms don't necessarily mean that
> you're a criminal."
>
> What a fucking lie. Criticize Armstrong and you end up on his page,
> libeled as "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops." Burn in Hell,
> Armstrong, you lying dirtbag.
It's disgusting PTCS Rob Clark what you and your cohorts have
turned ARS into.
You can report to your handlers that your bunch has managed to
hijack the ARS forum.
Do you really think that people can't see what your've done--and
for whom?
ptsc <ptsc nym <dot> alias <dot> net>
wrote:
>ptsc nym alias wrote:
>> From his front page:
>> "Comments are welcome. Criticisms don't necessarily mean that
>> you're a criminal."
>> What a fucking lie. Criticize Armstrong and you end up on his page,
>> libeled as "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops." Burn in Hell,
>> Armstrong, you lying dirtbag.
>It's disgusting PTCS Rob Clark what you and your cohorts have
>turned ARS into.
It's disgusting that there are still people willing to deify lunacy.
>You can report to your handlers that your bunch has managed to
>hijack the ARS forum.
You can report to a competent mental health professional that
you have gone completely around the bend.
>Do you really think that people can't see what your've done--and
>for whom?
Do you really think that your complete insanity is not nakedly
apparent when you post shrieking accusations like this?
ptsc
Starshadow
Another of the Lunatic Fringe weighs in.
---
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
Tigger
tom...@netscape.DELETE.net (Tom Klemesrud) wrote:
>ptsc nym alias wrote:
>From his front page:
>>"Comments are welcome. Criticisms
>> don't necessarily mean that you're a
>> criminal."
>>What a fucking lie. Criticize Armstrong
>> and you end up on his page, libeled as
>> "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and
>> Ops." Burn in Hell, Armstrong, you
>> lying dirtbag.
>It's disgusting PTCS Rob Clark what you
> and your cohorts have turned ARS into.
Perhaps you, Tom Klemesrud, came in during the middle of Gerry
Armstrong's dog & pony show?
Gerry Armstrong produced a hate webpage on Garry Scarff. Those who
objected to such an asinine, despicable thing and waste of time, were
also put on Armstrong's asinine goOn SquAd page with what he & his
girlfirend thought were "cute" references to the people there being OSA
or working for OSA.
So Gerry Armstrong and his cohorts have turned ARS into this
flamewarring with his asinine, false accusations put on one of his
webpages.
>You can report to your handlers that your
> bunch has managed to hijack the ARS
> forum.
Since it is Gerry Armstrong who has tried to hijack the ARS forum, to
whom do you suggest Gerry report?
>Do you really think that people can't see
> what your've done--and for whom?
Apparently YOU, Tom Klemesrud, can't "see" anything because YOU can't
see that this was all started by Gerry Armstrong and his female cohort,
who made a stupid webpage full of false accusations about numerous ars
posters from many different persuations being OSA or working for OSA.
HTH
Tigger
***************************************************************
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
"True peace is not merely the absence of tension but the presence of
justice and brotherhood."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
**************************************************************
Diane Richardson
<stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
>Tom Klemesrud wrote:
>>
>>
>> ptsc nym alias wrote:
>>
>>> From his front page:
>>>
>>> "Comments are welcome. Criticisms don't necessarily mean that you're a
>>> criminal."
>>>
>>> What a fucking lie. Criticize Armstrong and you end up on his page,
>>> libeled as "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and Ops." Burn in Hell,
>>> Armstrong, you lying dirtbag.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's disgusting PTCS Rob Clark what you and your cohorts have turned ARS
>> into.
>>
>> You can report to your handlers that your bunch has managed to hijack
>> the ARS forum.
>>
>> Do you really think that people can't see what your've done--and for whom?
>>
>
>Another of the Lunatic Fringe weighs in.
I'm surprised he looked up from his Victoria's Secret catalog long
enough to write a response. I think he's hunting for pictures of
Mohammed Atta ... no Amanda Keller ... no Daniel Hopsicker in
there. :-)
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Warrior
>
>Another of the Lunatic Fringe weighs in.
Well, there you go, Tom. For daring to speak about black propaganda
another victim of Scientology's fair game ops gets portrayed as a
"lunatic". Don't let it drag you down, Tom.
By the way, anyone who wishes to web my posts is welcome to do so.
In fact, I would be pleased to have them webbed at more sites.
Diane Richardson
>In article <3DF20C58...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow says...
>>
>>Another of the Lunatic Fringe weighs in.
>
>Well, there you go, Tom. For daring to speak about black propaganda
Please define what you mean by "black propaganda." You have
used this phrase many time to describe the posts of individuals
who disagree and/or criticize with Gerry Armstrong, Tom Padgett,
and perhaps others I haven't read.
I have asked you several times to explain what you mean when you
use this phrase, but to date you have ignored my questions. If you
are going to continue making the accusation that others are
using "black propaganda," I think it is only fair if you would
explain just what you mean.
Ignoring this question isn't going to make it go away, Warrior.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Starshadow
> In article <3DF20C58...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow says...
>
>>Another of the Lunatic Fringe weighs in.
>
>
> Well, there you go, Tom. For daring to speak about black propaganda
> another victim of Scientology's fair game ops gets portrayed as a
> "lunatic". Don't let it drag you down, Tom.
In the Real World, pointing out that a kooky hate page is a kooky
hate page is not "Black Propaganda". Putting up a kooky hate page,
however, is. Pointing out that supporting that kooky hate page makes one
a lunatic is not "black propaganda". Condemning those who criticize
someone, however, as using "black propaganda" is insane.
If you don't like being called a lunatic, quit acting like one.
If you don't like being called a hypocrite, again, quit acting like one.
> By the way, anyone who wishes to web my posts is welcome to do so.
> In fact, I would be pleased to have them webbed at more sites.
>
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> http://warrior.xenu.ca
>
I'm glad you have given permission. This indicates that you think
permission is necessary. Do you think that someone who does not get
permission is wrong for webbing material owned by other people, and that
those whose permission to do so is denied, and who then continue to
indicate that they will continue such theft is laudable?
Tigger
wrote:
>By the way, anyone who wishes to web
> my posts is welcome to do so. In fact, I
> would be pleased to have them webbed
> at more sites.
Everyone who thinks Warrior and his posts should be on Gerry's Goon List
and Arnie's OSA List, raise both hands and shout OSA, OSA, OSA.
I also vote for a rose in his teeth and for his tail to be exposed.
Tom Klemesrud
Tigger wrote:
> Apparently YOU, Tom Klemesrud, can't "see" anything because YOU can't
> see that this was all started by Gerry Armstrong and his female cohort,
> who made a stupid webpage full of false accusations about numerous ars
> posters from many different persuations being OSA or working for OSA.
I've know Gerry longer than anyone in this forum. He's probably
the most ethically stalwart person ever to get in this fight with
the cult. The thing is, I agree with him. I'd use the term that
the cult uses to describe Rob's contant use of banal works "kook"
and "nut"--"valence jmping" for what Gerry describes as
pretending to be stupid. Rob was drilled in valence jumping.
ptsc <ptsc nym <dot> alias <dot> net>
wrote:
>Tigger wrote:
The fuck I was.
You love to lie, don't you?
ptsc
Starshadow
You are a liar, Klemesrud. And if the Gerroline Unit is the most
"ethically stalwart person ever to get in this fight with the cult",
then your idea of ethics and the cult's idea of ethics are about equal.
Must make you proud.
Warrior
>>>
>>>Apparently YOU, Tom Klemesrud, can't "see" anything because YOU can't
>>>see that this was all started by Gerry Armstrong and his female cohort,
Nope. It actually started at least as far back as April (maybe earlier)
when Deana reacted in her usual hot-headed and irrational manner over
Gerry's posting about Caroline at the time she was in Tampa.
Deana pretends that people like Gerry don't really want answers to their
questions, when in fact Gerry sincerely wanted to know certain things.
I've observed Deana attack people because *she* did not understand.
She has verbally abused former Scientologists over their use of Scientology
terminology. She's attacked me, when I was having a discussion with someone
else, because *Deana* didn't want to hear it. That's NUTS. But rather than
ignore it, she assumed she had the right to CONTROL *my* conversation by
telling ME to "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" That's NUTS. Sane people do not do this
under the circumstances in which she did because the discussion did not
involve Deana.
It's a defense mechanism. People use it to make themselves right and
others wrong. It can also be a control mechanism. People who THINK
they know best demand that others shut up and listen to them because
they think they are of superior intelligence. Rather than do the kind,
decent, civil thing and respond honestly, a few find it FAR easier to
ATTACK Gerry. Or for Diane to attack Tory over her grammar. These are
the actions of individuals who later mischaracterize Gerry's actions
as one "who made a stupid webpage full of false accusations about numerous
ars posters from many different persuasions being OSA or working for OSA",
when in fact Gerry NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.
>>>who made a stupid webpage full of false accusations about numerous ars
>>>posters from many different persuations being OSA or working for OSA.
Nope. Gerry repeatedly said that some goons help forward OSA's black PR
campaign by spreading black PR.
If you don't think OSA gets positive "stats" for attacks on their enemies,
you really do NOT know much. It doesn't matter who is doing the attacking
on Gerry. OSA's "stats" in part measure the effectiveness and credibility
of their enemies. Their "stats" in part form the basis on which surveys
are done, evaluations are completed, programs are formulated, plans are
fine-tuned, and targets are executed during their covert operations against
critics. It's a positive "stat" for OSA whether wgert attacks Gerry or
Deana attacks Gerry or ptsc attacks Gerry or CL attacks Gerry. Like it or
not, OSA's "stats" are intended to measure the success of their activities.
You can mock and ridicule this stuff about "stats", but all this shows is
that you do not understand their application by Scientology. You do NOT
know how those silly little "stats" are being used to survey the general
tide of public opinion.
I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE RIGHT. I AM TRYING TO EDUCATE
THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT AND ITS APPLICATION.
Now the fact that you don't know these things does NOT mean you are
stupid. It simply means you don't know enough about the subject.
If Deana had been willing to answer Gerry's very decent and honestly
asked questions months ago (in April) things would be different now.
Shirley too has it all wrong. The web pages came about because of
the attacks on Gerry's credibility by persons like Deana. There are
others who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as a "loon" and a "kook"
and a "false profit" and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long before it was
~apparent~ (visible) ON a.r.s.
I know. I've seen the whole ugly thing go down. I would hazard a guess
that at least some people THINK they are above being able to be manipulated
by Scientology's button pushers employing Pavlovian methods.
>On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:38:12 -0700, Tom Klemesrud
><tom...@netscape.DELETE.net> wrote:
>>
>>I've know Gerry longer than anyone in this forum. He's probably
>>the most ethically stalwart person ever to get in this fight with
>>the cult.
I agree with you 100%.
Certain people are using their nasty little campaign against Gerry
as a cover for their own dirty little lies. Do I think they are the
dreaded OSA? I don't think so, but I am still questioning certain
people's motivations and actions. I have not come to any conclusion
yet. I'll say this much: I am often asked, Do you think so-and-so
is OSA?" and I read silly statements on a.r.s. that "So-and-so is
acting like OSA." Here's a couple of things I want to say about
that.
1) There are many different kinds of OSA agents. Some pretend to
be your friend/lover so they can gather information. Example: Paulette
Cooper's "boyfriend".
2) Some pretend to be a casual contact. Example: A guy who just
"happens" to be in a bar frequented by a critic. Their goal is to
frame you. Tom Klemesrud and Jesse are prime examples of this.
3) Some OSA agents are agent provocateurs. Example: Someone spreading
disinformation/rumors/lies about one critic to another, or amongst
one's neighborhood between neighbors.
4) Some OSA agents do covert data collection (CDC). You almost never
detect them. Example: OSA agents who are outside PIs who gather info
from public sources like credit agencies, birth records, real estate
records, tax returns, phone company records, etc.
5) Some OSA agents do overt data collection (ODC). They are easier to
detect since it does not matter. In fact, when the cult intimidates an
enemy with an overt threat, it's fine that the agent is known. It doesn't
matter since he has executed his targeted program order, e.g. intimidation
or harassment.
6) Some OSA sit in their office in LA and elsewhere run programs which
collect, categorize, cross-reference, copy, index, file and distribute
collected data.
7) Some OSA evaluate the data. One guy might write a black PR
campaing. Another acts as a paralegal.
8) Some OSA agents need to exist at various levels to oversee the various
operations.
There's no particular set of outward characteristics which typify an
OSA agent. That's because they "assume the beingness" necessary to
accomplish their goals, whatever they may be. There's a thing called the
"BE - DO - HAVE SCALE" in Scientology. It is used in intelligence [note*]
like this:
[Note* This tool is not only used by OSA staff]
The scale consists of
1) BEINGNESS
2) DOINGNESS
3) HAVINGNESS
and it is used in reverse (the plan is worked backwards) by Scientology.
They figure out 3 first, then 2, then 1. So 3 becomes 1; 2 reamins 2;
and 1 becomes 3 in the sequence. The scale's plans are worked up and
down until they are all "in alignment" with each other.
In order to
1) HAVE whatever it is that Scientology needs to OBTAIN (say e.g. a certain
piece of information that would be helpful in discrediting one of its
enemies), the OSA agent next determines the ingredients it is necessary to
2) DO or perform. And then they get someone who will
3) BE the person who is doing the projects in sequential order.
This part 3 -- the BEINGNESS -- consists of an individual "mocking up"
(which means assuming, or acting the part of) the "valence" or "identity"
necessary TO APPEAR TO BE whatever will accomplish their goals.
It essentially works like this: OSA asks the question "What sort of person
does our agent need to look like or act like in order to be convincing.
Okay, so this brings me back to reason I explained all of this. An OSA
agent will PRETEND to be anything necessary to accomplish its program orders
and targets. The OSA agent will adopt a "cover story" and/or a "suitable
guise" to be convincing.
If OSA screws up the program (someone bumbles their part), they will
scrap the program, write a new one, and start over.
And by the way, I don't consider myself to be an expert on the above
matters, at least not in comparison to the extensive training and
experience I know others possess.
>>The thing is, I agree with him. I'd use the term that the cult
>>uses to describe Rob's contant use of banal works "kook" and
>>"nut"--"valence jmping" for what Gerry describes as pretending
>>to be stupid.
Some people hone their skills by observing others -- like Diane
Richardson, for instance, whom Rob Clark recently described as
a "formidable opponent" or similar words. I think Diane is a
master at pretending to be stupid, when she isn't being flat-out
being insulting, dishonest and manipulative.
Could something like bipolarism have to do with switching valences?
Just curious, as I am only now recently beginning to become interested
in this subject/disorder.
>>Rob was drilled in valence jumping.
Maybe he has not learned to control, or is not able to control his
emotions or whatever. I'm not sure what your meaning is when you say Rob
was "drilled in valence jumping".
I think I know what you are saying. Care to clarify?
Rebecca Hartong
(snip)
> Shirley too has it all wrong. The web pages came about because of
> the attacks on Gerry's credibility by persons like Deana. There are
> others who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as a "loon" and a "kook"
> and a "false profit" and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long before it was
> ~apparent~ (visible) ON a.r.s.
You may think it's a mischaracterization to call Gerry a loon and a kook,
but that's just your personal opinion. It is MY personal opinion--and,
apparently, the opinion of at least a few other people--that Gerry either IS
a genuine loon and a kook OR he's doing an impressively good job of
"pretending to be" a loon and a kook. (I mention that as a possibility
because I suppose it's possible that he's going for some sort of "insanity
defense" for his problems with Scientology. If that's the case, then he's
probably just keeping the web page to show to the lawyers..."See? I *am*
crazy! Everyone says so!!") Either way, much of what he writes on a.r.s. and
on his web page is definitely (in my opinion only, of course!) loony and
kooky. I've thought this for years. I came to this opinion all by myself--no
one had to tell me that Gerry Armstrong is a kook. It was...obvious.
> I know. I've seen the whole ugly thing go down. I would hazard a guess
> that at least some people THINK they are above being able to be
manipulated
> by Scientology's button pushers employing Pavlovian methods.
Are you seriously suggesting that I (or anyone else) came to the conclusion
that Gerry Armstrong is nuts because of what Scientologists say about him??
Hmm... well, I suppose that may be true for some people, but...I've never
actually read anything the CoS has written about Gerry. You see--I don't
trust anything the CoS has to say about *anything*. It's well known that
they lie. And when they're not lying, they're usually just...wrong. No, I
base my opinion of Gerry Armstrong on his *own writings*. Nothing more.
I haven't bothered (until now) to get involved in these latest discussions
about Gerry's web page because, quite frankly, I think it's SO obvious
that's Gerry's a kook that it doesn't really bother me that he's webbed a
few of my posts. Maybe he'll put this one on his page, too. That's fine. He
has my permission to web anything I write on a.r.s.. I suppose I'm a little
concerned for Gerry by what his obsession with these posts reveals about his
state of mind. But...as long as he limits himself tojust webbing posts--and
doesn't start hunting down the people he thinks are victimizing him--I think
he'll be okay.
I'm curious whether you think I'm some kind of OSA person. Do you?
Snipped the rest...about beingness, doingness, havingness.
I wish more ex-Scientologists could come to the realization that all that
"beingness, doingness, havingness" stuff is pure nonsense. It really is, you
know. Total crap-ola! Doesn't mean a thing! Hubbard had a talent for taking
perfectly ordinary psychological and social processes and attaching all
kinds of mystical, complicated-sounding names to them, then passing the
whole overblown creation off as some sort of new "insight" into how people
think. Certain kinds of people just lap that junk up and, even after leaving
Scientology, they still hang onto Hubbard's goofy notions. It's sad and we
see it all the time here on a.r.s. Sigh.
Diane Richardson
are too important to remain buried in the middle of an old thread.
I hope you don't mind.
On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
>news:asuu5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>(snip)
>
>> Shirley too has it all wrong. The web pages came about because of
>> the attacks on Gerry's credibility by persons like Deana. There are
>> others who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as a "loon" and a "kook"
>> and a "false profit" and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long before it was
>> ~apparent~ (visible) ON a.r.s.
>
>You may think it's a mischaracterization to call Gerry a loon and a kook,
>but that's just your personal opinion. It is MY personal opinion--and,
>apparently, the opinion of at least a few other people--that Gerry either IS
>a genuine loon and a kook OR he's doing an impressively good job of
>"pretending to be" a loon and a kook. (I mention that as a possibility
>because I suppose it's possible that he's going for some sort of "insanity
>defense" for his problems with Scientology. If that's the case, then he's
>probably just keeping the web page to show to the lawyers..."See? I *am*
>crazy! Everyone says so!!") Either way, much of what he writes on a.r.s. and
>on his web page is definitely (in my opinion only, of course!) loony and
>kooky. I've thought this for years. I came to this opinion all by myself--no
>one had to tell me that Gerry Armstrong is a kook. It was...obvious.
It's been obvious to me, too, and I arrived at that conclusion solely
by reading Gerry Armstrong's posts. I've generally referred to him as
"delusional," although I have recently begun suspecting the whole
thing is an elaborate ruse.
>> I know. I've seen the whole ugly thing go down. I would hazard a guess
>> that at least some people THINK they are above being able to be
>manipulated
>> by Scientology's button pushers employing Pavlovian methods.
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that I (or anyone else) came to the conclusion
>that Gerry Armstrong is nuts because of what Scientologists say about him??
>Hmm... well, I suppose that may be true for some people, but...I've never
>actually read anything the CoS has written about Gerry. You see--I don't
>trust anything the CoS has to say about *anything*. It's well known that
>they lie. And when they're not lying, they're usually just...wrong. No, I
>base my opinion of Gerry Armstrong on his *own writings*. Nothing more.
I find it incredibly strange that Warrior assumes some deep, dark
conspiracy lies behind the fact that a number of individuals have
drawn the same conclusion about Armstrong after reading Armstrong's
own messages.
>I haven't bothered (until now) to get involved in these latest discussions
>about Gerry's web page because, quite frankly, I think it's SO obvious
>that's Gerry's a kook that it doesn't really bother me that he's webbed a
>few of my posts. Maybe he'll put this one on his page, too. That's fine. He
>has my permission to web anything I write on a.r.s.. I suppose I'm a little
>concerned for Gerry by what his obsession with these posts reveals about his
>state of mind. But...as long as he limits himself tojust webbing posts--and
>doesn't start hunting down the people he thinks are victimizing him--I think
>he'll be okay.
I feel pretty much the same way about it. I know others, such as
Starshadow and Deana, are bothered about Armstrong's appropriation
of their intellectual property, but I'm not. I actually prefer that
the webpage remain standing, since -- like CoS hate pages -- it
reflects much more on Armstrong than anyone else.
Armstrong's willingness to take whatever he wants to use however
he chooses, however, is a good indication he believes he is above
the law and not subject to the same rules as everyone else. That
fits in perfectly with his claim that he is the "Prophet of God (R)".
I guess he thinks "prophets" aren't subject to the same laws mere
"wogs" have to obey.
I've asked Warrior the same question. I'm still awaiting his answer.
>Snipped the rest...about beingness, doingness, havingness.
>
>I wish more ex-Scientologists could come to the realization that all that
>"beingness, doingness, havingness" stuff is pure nonsense. It really is, you
>know. Total crap-ola! Doesn't mean a thing! Hubbard had a talent for taking
>perfectly ordinary psychological and social processes and attaching all
>kinds of mystical, complicated-sounding names to them, then passing the
>whole overblown creation off as some sort of new "insight" into how people
>think. Certain kinds of people just lap that junk up and, even after leaving
>Scientology, they still hang onto Hubbard's goofy notions. It's sad and we
>see it all the time here on a.r.s. Sigh.
It's particularly strange when the person spouting this Hubbard-dreck
claims he is terribly busy and doesn't have time to devote to the
newsgroup. Yet he seems to have time enough to expound upon
"the tech" whenever it suits his purposes.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Starshadow
This is an outright lie, Warrior. Gerry Armstrong titled his page
"Scientology Usenet Black PR and Ops" until he was called on it, at
which time he changed the title yet again. He still has the banner in
flashing that has "OSA" enlarged, which in case you missed, says
precisely that.
>
>>>>who made a stupid webpage full of false accusations about numerous ars
>>>>posters from many different persuations being OSA or working for OSA.
>>>
>
> Nope. Gerry repeatedly said that some goons help forward OSA's black PR
> campaign by spreading black PR.
This is an outright lie, also. Armstrong titled the page "Scientology
Usenet Black PR and Ops" until he was called on it. He had the "OSA"
letters twice as high as the others until he was called on that, too.
Instead of answering directly questions about his motives, he wiggled,
squirmed, posted numerous quotes from Hubbard on "Black PR and Ops" and
then finally said that what he meant was that those he put on his page
were helping OSA whether they knew it or not--which is another outright lie.
> If you don't think OSA gets positive "stats" for attacks on their enemies,
> you really do NOT know much. It doesn't matter who is doing the attacking
> on Gerry. OSA's "stats" in part measure the effectiveness and credibility
> of their enemies. Their "stats" in part form the basis on which surveys
> are done, evaluations are completed, programs are formulated, plans are
> fine-tuned, and targets are executed during their covert operations against
> critics. It's a positive "stat" for OSA whether wgert attacks Gerry or
> Deana attacks Gerry or ptsc attacks Gerry or CL attacks Gerry. Like it or
> not, OSA's "stats" are intended to measure the success of their activities.
> You can mock and ridicule this stuff about "stats", but all this shows is
> that you do not understand their application by Scientology. You do NOT
> know how those silly little "stats" are being used to survey the general
> tide of public opinion.
>
The fact remains that the Gerroline Unit employs OSA methods to attack
people who simply disagree with them. I posted a long and rather
politely worded point by point response to Letkeman for her attack on
Claire, and that was used on his "Scientology Usenet Black PR and Ops"
page. The response I got for my polite , though emphatically point by
point response was more lunacy, quotes from Hubbard, and complete
meltdown. The next response was less polite, as Letkeman completely
ignored every point I'd responded to, and gone into lunatic mode, so
naturally, I called her the lunatic she was.
For that I got more insults. I did not web them, however, and say it was
evidence of "Scientology Usenet Black PR and Ops" even though Letkeman's
standard response to anything is lengthy Scn'y quotes which indicate she
and Armstrong are using Scn'y methods. I posted my comments in Usenet,
where they belong.
Not surprisingly, though, I got a little angry. I got more angry and
disappointed in your pretended naive questions. I assume they are
pretended; the alternative is that you are stupid, and I do not believe
you are stupid.
> I AM NOT ARGUING THAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE RIGHT. I AM TRYING TO EDUCATE
> THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT AND ITS APPLICATION.
>
However, your comments come across as you "arguing their actions are"
if not "right" at least perfectly understandable and perfectly rational,
when in fact they are lunatic and vicious.
> Now the fact that you don't know these things does NOT mean you are
> stupid. It simply means you don't know enough about the subject.
It also may mean that I don't give a rat's ass about whatever "Subject"
the Gerroline Unit is babbling incoherently about, but I do care about
those who pain themselves as critics mindlessly using the tactics they
claim to decry when the CofS uses them.
>
> If Deana had been willing to answer Gerry's very decent and honestly
> asked questions months ago (in April) things would be different now.
Deana has stated she did not think those questions were decent or
honest. I happen to agree with that opinion, given his responses to any
disagreement now.
I do not think things would be different.
> Shirley too has it all wrong. The web pages came about because of
> the attacks on Gerry's credibility by persons like Deana. There are
> others who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as a "loon" and a "kook"
> and a "false profit" and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long before it was
> ~apparent~ (visible) ON a.r.s.
And he has disproved this exactly how? The RATIONAL response to such
attacks is to act RATIONAL, not go into complete meltdown and employ
cult tactics by putting up web pages on people he disagrees with which
indicate they are OSA.
> I know. I've seen the whole ugly thing go down. I would hazard a guess
> that at least some people THINK they are above being able to be manipulated
> by Scientology's button pushers employing Pavlovian methods.
Apparently you also are still deeply in the Scn'y mindfuck, that you
seem to think that employing cult methods proves anything except that
the person employing them is less than rational.
(rest snipped as I'm rather sick of the pretense that those of us who
disagree with lunacy are telling "dirty little lies" and trying to smear
anyone. I see absolutely no web pages done by those people maligned by
Klemesrud calling anyone "OSA", and I disagree that expressing opinions
on Usenet is "Black PR" or "Scientology Ops". I'm rather sick of the
double standard here whereby certain people--including, apparently,
you--think that what is wrong for the cult is perfectly okay if one has
had a certain amount of abuse by that cult.)
Starshadow
> "Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
> news:asuu5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> (snip)
Oh, my apologies, Rebecca. I did not see the "dirty little lies"
thing in context, and as it showed up in Warrior's post ahead of yours
in my newsreader, I thought it was a Klemesrud post that was quoted.
It read unclear as it came up quoted in Warrior's post. My apologies
also to Klemesrud for assuming it was part of his post. I don't like it
when I'm misquoted, and I don't like to misquote others.
Tigger
wrote:
>Tigger wrote:
>>Apparently YOU, Tom Klemesrud, can't
>> "see" anything because YOU can't see
>> that this was all started by Gerry
>> Armstrong and his female cohort,
>Nope. It actually started at least as far
> back as April (maybe earlier) when
> Deana reacted in her usual hot-headed
> and irrational manner over Gerry's
> posting about Caroline at the time she
> was in Tampa.
Well the visable signs of Armstrong's intentions to do a hate page only
appeared after several of us posted that putting up a hate page on Garry
Scarff was stupid, etc.
Aha...... APRIL, the month of the TRAITOR....so Armstrong has been
"thinking" about doing a hate page on critics since "APRIL"????? One
wonders what the connection might be.
(snip)
>Shirley too has it all wrong.
Gee I haven't sseen any posts from "Shirley".....perhaps I missed
them?
Hey Mark P.........are you trying to imitate Mark B.? So....are you
connected with the OSA Puppet (Robert S. Minton, Jr. )?
Perhaps you are a candidate for the MINTON goOn SquAd Follies?
>The web pages came about because of
> the attacks on Gerry's credibility by
> persons like Deana. There are others
> who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as
> a "loon" and a "kook" and a "false profit"
> and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long
> before it was ~apparent~ (visible) ON
> a.r.s.
Hey I never "criticized" Gerry Armstrong until recently after he started
atttacking me for asking if he could/would tell us about the Minton
Swiss checks he received. Then I posted that his webpage on Garry
Scarff was stupid and a waste of time that could better be used on
information about COS. Most of the people on his goOn SquAd list only
said his "webpage" on Scarff was a bad idea before he started attacking
them.
No matter how you, Lerma, Armstrong and his girlfriend try to spin
it......most of the people were put on Armstrong's webpage because they
disagreed with his doing such a webpage.
Armstrong is like Minton.
Overblown Ego, thin skin, vindictive, and how dare anyone disagree with
him about ANYTHING.
Rebecca Hartong
"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
news:3df3716e...@news.bway.net...
> I've changed the subject line because I believe your remarks
> are too important to remain buried in the middle of an old thread.
> I hope you don't mind.
Not at all.
(snip)
> Armstrong's willingness to take whatever he wants to use however
> he chooses, however, is a good indication he believes he is above
> the law and not subject to the same rules as everyone else. That
> fits in perfectly with his claim that he is the "Prophet of God (R)".
> I guess he thinks "prophets" aren't subject to the same laws mere
> "wogs" have to obey.
Well...if I were to get into my "arm-chair diagnostician" mode, I'd say that
Gerry displays a classic sort of megalomania.
In his mind, it's ALL about Gerry Armstrong.
But, who know. Maybe it is all an act. If so, I must commend him for a job
very well done! He imitates a kook perfectly!
(snip again)
> >I wish more ex-Scientologists could come to the realization that all that
> >"beingness, doingness, havingness" stuff is pure nonsense. It really is,
you
> >know. Total crap-ola! Doesn't mean a thing! Hubbard had a talent for
taking
> >perfectly ordinary psychological and social processes and attaching all
> >kinds of mystical, complicated-sounding names to them, then passing the
> >whole overblown creation off as some sort of new "insight" into how
people
> >think. Certain kinds of people just lap that junk up and, even after
leaving
> >Scientology, they still hang onto Hubbard's goofy notions. It's sad and
we
> >see it all the time here on a.r.s. Sigh.
>
> It's particularly strange when the person spouting this Hubbard-dreck
> claims he is terribly busy and doesn't have time to devote to the
> newsgroup. Yet he seems to have time enough to expound upon
> "the tech" whenever it suits his purposes.
It seems he believes these explanations are important enough to warrant the
extra time. I certainly can't criticize Warrior for posting when he
wants--about what he wants. We all do that, after all. What interests me
most is that he (and some other ex-Scientologists) believe these
explanations actually have value. Sometimes it seems you can take the boy
out of Scientology, but you can't take the Scientology out of the boy. I
don't think this has so much to do with Scientology in particular--that is,
I don't think Scientology has any special powers over people--as it has to
do with the *kinds of people* who are drawn to Scientology in the first
place.
Rebecca Hartong
"Starshadow" <stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote in message
news:3DF37B5A...@starshadowlovesxenu.net...
> Rebecca Hartong wrote:
> > "Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:asuu5...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > (snip)
>
> Oh, my apologies, Rebecca. I did not see the "dirty little lies"
> thing in context, and as it showed up in Warrior's post ahead of yours
> in my newsreader, I thought it was a Klemesrud post that was quoted.
>
> It read unclear as it came up quoted in Warrior's post. My apologies
> also to Klemesrud for assuming it was part of his post. I don't like it
> when I'm misquoted, and I don't like to misquote others.
Huh??
Color me "confused".
Maybe your post before this one was in reply to something I haven't received
on my news server yet?
Heh...whatever. I'll keep reading and I'm sure all will become clear
eventually. :-)
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
wrote:
>
>"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
>news:3df3716e...@news.bway.net...
>> I've changed the subject line because I believe your remarks
>> are too important to remain buried in the middle of an old thread.
>> I hope you don't mind.
>
>Not at all.
>
>(snip)
>
>I don't think Scientology has any special powers over people--as it has to
>do with the *kinds of people* who are drawn to Scientology in the first
>place.
>
>
Or it could be the kinds of people that are drawn to the newsgroup.
Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
http://www.lermanet.com - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
Rebecca Hartong
"arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com" <ale...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in
message news:3df39ee3...@news.verizon.net...
> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:22:51 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
> >news:3df3716e...@news.bway.net...
> >> I've changed the subject line because I believe your remarks
> >> are too important to remain buried in the middle of an old thread.
> >> I hope you don't mind.
> >
> >Not at all.
> >
> >(snip)
> >
>
> >I don't think Scientology has any special powers over people--as it has
to
> >do with the *kinds of people* who are drawn to Scientology in the first
> >place.
> >
> >
> Or it could be the kinds of people that are drawn to the newsgroup.
You may have something there, Arnie...
Certainly there are many more ex-Scientologists than will ever post to
a.r.s. or become involved as critics in any way. I'm supposing that the
majority of former Scientologists simply go on about their lives, perhaps a
little wiser for the experience, without giving it much thought after a
while.
Starshadow
I love the way posts show up out of order. I just quoted something about
"dirty little lies" is all, thinking it was Klemusrud's post. It
wasn't, it was from your post.
Diane Richardson
wrote:
>
>"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
>news:3df3716e...@news.bway.net...
>> I've changed the subject line because I believe your remarks
>> are too important to remain buried in the middle of an old thread.
>> I hope you don't mind.
>
>Not at all.
>
>(snip)
>
>> Armstrong's willingness to take whatever he wants to use however
>> he chooses, however, is a good indication he believes he is above
>> the law and not subject to the same rules as everyone else. That
>> fits in perfectly with his claim that he is the "Prophet of God (R)".
>> I guess he thinks "prophets" aren't subject to the same laws mere
>> "wogs" have to obey.
>
>Well...if I were to get into my "arm-chair diagnostician" mode, I'd say that
>Gerry displays a classic sort of megalomania.
>In his mind, it's ALL about Gerry Armstrong.
>
>But, who know. Maybe it is all an act. If so, I must commend him for a job
>very well done! He imitates a kook perfectly!
He certainly does!
>(snip again)
>
>> >I wish more ex-Scientologists could come to the realization that all that
>> >"beingness, doingness, havingness" stuff is pure nonsense. It really is,
>you
>> >know. Total crap-ola! Doesn't mean a thing! Hubbard had a talent for
>taking
>> >perfectly ordinary psychological and social processes and attaching all
>> >kinds of mystical, complicated-sounding names to them, then passing the
>> >whole overblown creation off as some sort of new "insight" into how
>people
>> >think. Certain kinds of people just lap that junk up and, even after
>leaving
>> >Scientology, they still hang onto Hubbard's goofy notions. It's sad and
>we
>> >see it all the time here on a.r.s. Sigh.
>>
>> It's particularly strange when the person spouting this Hubbard-dreck
>> claims he is terribly busy and doesn't have time to devote to the
>> newsgroup. Yet he seems to have time enough to expound upon
>> "the tech" whenever it suits his purposes.
>
>It seems he believes these explanations are important enough to warrant the
>extra time.
He obviously must believe this.
>I certainly can't criticize Warrior for posting when he
>wants--about what he wants. We all do that, after all.
Yes.
>What interests me
>most is that he (and some other ex-Scientologists) believe these
>explanations actually have value. Sometimes it seems you can take the boy
>out of Scientology, but you can't take the Scientology out of the boy. I
>don't think this has so much to do with Scientology in particular--that is,
>I don't think Scientology has any special powers over people--as it has to
>do with the *kinds of people* who are drawn to Scientology in the first
>place.
That's a good point. It's been said many times that those drawn to
cults are people who feel a great need for certainty in their lives.
Margaret Singer once wrote the only common thread she could
find in cult members' family backgrounds was that many had parents
with unreasonable expectations for their children and that these
expectations were always fluid and shifting, leaving children
uncertain about insecure about a direction in life. At the same time,
the parents provided little guidance or direction to their children,
expecting them to "figure things out for themselves."
Obviously, cults attempt to provide certainty to their members'
lives -- they invest a lot in indoctrinating them to believe. But
even after they leave cults, the unmet need for certainty just
might keep ex-members looking back to the "tech" for the
assurance they once felt.
This is all speculation and not intended to apply to any particular
person. But when I start wondering "Why the heck is he/she acting
that way?" this is what comes to mind.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
wrote:
>
>"arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com" <ale...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in
>message news:3df39ee3...@news.verizon.net...
>> On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:22:51 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3df3716e...@news.bway.net...
>> >> I've changed the subject line because I believe your remarks
>> >> are too important to remain buried in the middle of an old thread.
>> >> I hope you don't mind.
>> >
>> >Not at all.
>> >
>> >(snip)
>> >
>>
>> >I don't think Scientology has any special powers over people--as it has
>to
>> >do with the *kinds of people* who are drawn to Scientology in the first
>> >place.
>> >
>> >
>> Or it could be the kinds of people that are drawn to the newsgroup.
>
>You may have something there, Arnie...
>
>Certainly there are many more ex-Scientologists than will ever post to
>a.r.s. or become involved as critics in any way. I'm supposing that the
>majority of former Scientologists simply go on about their lives, perhaps a
>little wiser for the experience, without giving it much thought after a
>while.
Exactly...
It is the very nature of the scientology money making enterprise
that makes pursuing recourse so very difficult, when even finding a
lawyer willing to deal with them on what's left in a scientologist's
pockets after being fully fleeced, is quite hard, if occassionaly
possible.
A staff member leaving scientology is lucky to still have a pocket,
even empty, after years at penal colony wages.
The stench from scientology makes that old saying so true, and helps
maintain the status quo of keeping the scientology scam working,
because
"who wants to lift the tail of a skunk?"
But I am convinced it must be done and can be done.
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them.
Hamlet (III.i.64-68)
Rebecca Hartong
The way I've phrased it in the past is that cult-members seem to have "an
intolerance for ambiguity." They need to believe that there are answers to
all of life's questions and--more important--that those answers are
*knowable*.
Warrior
a vicious response, an intentional mis-statement of my position as
expressed through my writings on the subject of Scientology's use of
Hubbard's "tech".
For the past six plus years I have participated in discussions of
Scientology on a.r.s., my messages have been one of trying, to the
best of my ability, to increase awareness of how Scientology uses
Hubbard's "tech" to destroy its perceived "enemies". By relating
my first-hand experiences with Scientology, by commenting on others'
experiences, I've tried to explain how Scientology uses its "tech"
to bring about complete submission, or compiance to Hubbard's evil
affirmation ("COMMAND INTENTION") that "All men shall be [his] slaves".
That some individuals like Diane have continued for years to twist
my statements and mischaracterize my position is incredibly insulting.
I think she knows she does this. I think she does it intentionally.
I do not think she really misunderstands my position. Rather, I believe
she is playing games, and that by doing so, she derives some measure
of sick pleasure at the expense of others.
So for her to say I rely on Hubbard's "tech" is nothing more than her
continuing effort to mischaracterize my position and my statements.
For these reasons stated above I will no longer attempt to respond to
each and every vicious lie she posts. Do not interpret my failure to
respond to each and every vicious lie as anything other than my inabil-
ity to devote the amount of time which would be necessary to respond
to all of her vicious lies. Besides, as she has already more than amply
demonstrated, trying to have a rational discussion with her is an exercise
in futility.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>I've changed the subject line because I believe your remarks are
>too important to remain buried in the middle of an old thread.
>I hope you don't mind.
No. I don't mind.
>>"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
>>news:asuu5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> Shirley too has it all wrong. The web pages came about because of
>>> the attacks on Gerry's credibility by persons like Deana. There are
>>> others who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as a "loon" and a "kook"
>>> and a "false profit" and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long before it
>>> was ~apparent~ (visible) ON a.r.s.
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>You may think it's a mischaracterization to call Gerry a loon and a kook,
>>but that's just your personal opinion. It is MY personal opinion--and,
>>apparently, the opinion of at least a few other people--that Gerry either
>>IS a genuine loon and a kook OR he's doing an impressively good job of
>>"pretending to be" a loon and a kook.
Certainly I have noted most of the individuals have expressed their
opinions of Gerry on this forum.
>>(I mention that as a possibility because I suppose it's possible that
>>he's going for some sort of "insanity defense" for his problems with
>>Scientology. If that's the case, then he's probably just keeping the
>>web page to show to the lawyers..."See? I *am* crazy! Everyone says so!!")
>>Either way, much of what he writes on a.r.s. and on his web page is
>>definitely (in my opinion only, of course!) loony and kooky. I've thought
>>this for years. I came to this opinion all by myself--no one had to tell
>>me that Gerry Armstrong is a kook. It was... obvious.
It's obvious that you don't understand Gerry, so it's easier for you to
call him a kook than to admit your ignorance and lack of understanding.
It's easier for you say "he's kooky" since it takes less effort than it
would take for you to see that he's not.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>It's been obvious to me, too, and I arrived at that conclusion solely
>by reading Gerry Armstrong's posts. I've generally referred to him as
>"delusional," although I have recently begun suspecting the whole
>thing is an elaborate ruse.
Apparently you think Gerry is guilty of an elaborate ruse because of your
own dishonesty.
>>> I know. I've seen the whole ugly thing go down. I would hazard a guess
>>> that at least some people THINK they are above being able to be
>>> manipulated by Scientology's button pushers employing Pavlovian methods.
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>Are you seriously suggesting that I (or anyone else) came to the conclusion
>>that Gerry Armstrong is nuts because of what Scientologists say about him??
No. And let me say this, I generally communicate in a straightforward
manner. I don't try to "suggest" or "imply". If I felt that way about you,
I would have said so. I have, however, not said any such thing.
>>Hmm... well, I suppose that may be true for some people,
This shows me you did understand what I said. At least you seem to
agree that _some_ people could form opinions based upon what another
or others have said. My opinion is that some people can be affected
by propaganda, especially when they haven't considered an opposing view
to the propaganda.
>>but...I've never actually read anything the CoS has written about Gerry.
Gerry has quoted MANY of Scientology's nasty little lies and has posted
to a.r.s. many of their nasty little lies, in articles he has written.
Unless you have not read these posts by Gerry, I don't know how you
could have not read anything Scientology has written about Gerry. Maybe
your understanding of Gerry is based upon a small portion of his posts.
Naturally, I don't think you have read them all.
>>You see--I don't trust anything the CoS has to say about *anything*. It's
>>well known that they lie. And when they're not lying, they're usually
>>just...wrong. No, I base my opinion of Gerry Armstrong on his *own writings*.
>>Nothing more.
Have you read *all* of his writings and supporting documents on his web
site? Probably not. So you base your opinion on a *select* portion of
Gerry's writings -- most likely the ones he's posted to a.r.s. in the face
of an onslaught of nasty attacks on his character, his frame of mind, his
motivations, etc.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>I find it incredibly strange that Warrior assumes
[this is one of Diane's LIES]
>some deep, dark conspiracy lies behind
[this is another LIE]
>the fact that a number of individuals have drawn the same conclusion
[this is a mis-statement of my previously expressed position]
>about Armstrong after reading [another mis-statement]
>Armstrong's own messages.
This is a mis-statement of my position. I don't *assume* there's a
deep dark conspiracy behind your unspecified and un-named "number of
individuals who have drawn the same conclusion". But rather than
respond honestly to what I did state as my position, it's far easier
to say it's strange that I have a position I never have had. That's
typical of you, Diane. It's dishonest to continue to mischaracterize
my statements.
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>I haven't bothered (until now) to get involved in these latest discussions
>>about Gerry's web page because, quite frankly, I think it's SO obvious
>>that's Gerry's a kook that it doesn't really bother me that he's webbed a
>>few of my posts. Maybe he'll put this one on his page, too. That's fine. He
>>has my permission to web anything I write on a.r.s.. I suppose I'm a little
>>concerned for Gerry by what his obsession with these posts reveals about his
>>state of mind. But...as long as he limits himself tojust webbing posts--and
>>doesn't start hunting down the people he thinks are victimizing him--I think
>>he'll be okay.
Yeah, and as long as Rebecca doesn't start hunting down people, she'll be
okay too. Right? Your gratuitousness is noted, Rebecca.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>I feel pretty much the same way about it. I know others, such as
>Starshadow and Deana, are bothered about Armstrong's appropriation
>of their intellectual property, but I'm not. I actually prefer that
>the webpage remain standing, since -- like CoS hate pages -- it
>reflects much more on Armstrong than anyone else.
I'm glad you prefer the web page to remain standing.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>Armstrong's willingness to take whatever he wants to use however
>he chooses, however, is a good indication he believes he is above
>the law and not subject to the same rules as everyone else. That
>fits in perfectly with his claim that he is the "Prophet of God (R)".
>I guess he thinks "prophets" aren't subject to the same laws mere
>"wogs" have to obey.
Gerry has the strength to remain willing to stand up to hateful, evil,
suppressive tactics used on him by those who use them. Would you prefer
that he shut up and stop trying to educate others about Scientology's and
Hubbard's evil?
>>> >On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:38:12 -0700, Tom Klemesrud
>>> ><tom...@netscape.DELETE.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>I've know Gerry longer than anyone in this forum. He's probably
>>> >>the most ethically stalwart person ever to get in this fight with
>>> >>the cult.
Rebecca Hartong asked:
>>
>>I'm curious whether you think I'm some kind of OSA person. Do you?
No. I've never thought that about you. My opinion of you is that you
mischaracterize my statements, and you twist my reasons for writing about
Scientology into something else because you've misunderstood what I have
said. Example is your stupid claim made a couple of years ago, that
Hubbard's "third party law" does not exist. It does exist in the sense
that it IS written down. Do I believe it is truth? No. I was trying
to explain Scientologists' and OSA's dark _applications_ of Hubbard's
"third party law" by explaining the definition in hopes that you might
see how Hubbard's "law" is used by Scientologists to cause trouble.
Example: Telling the FBI that someone made a bomb threat. This is a
very basty application of the "third party law".
OSA staffer Cathy Norman has applied Scientology's nasty "third party
tech" on me by making false suggestions to the Austin Police that I put
graffiti on their building. I have a copy of the police report, so I
know of what I am speaking. I know her intent was to "third party" me
to the police so as to cause me trouble. In fact, she had not one
shred of evidence that I had done the crime. But she dishonestly told
the police (according to their report and the words of the two officers
I spoke with) that I engaged in vandalism of their building.
Back to my reply to Diane and Rebecca...
Also, when I give definitions and use quotes, I am, at the same time as
I am speaking to you and any other non-Scientologist, hopefully getting
through and effectively explaining my position to former Scientologists
and current Scientologists as well. I've explained this before. Please
keep it in mind, since I am of the position that, although I am responding
to one particular person's article, I am attempting to effectively express
my message to anyone taking the time to read it.
As to my own position on the "third party law" I believe there is something
to be gained by understanding how Scientologists *use* or apply Hubbard's
"tech", and how in some cases the intentional spreading of false information
(such as those who intentionally spread black PR, or spread vicious rumors)
to another person can influence the perceptions or understanding of another
person. I've had this done to me by Scientology, and it's extremely NASTY
to be the target of such nastiness intentionally OR unintentionally done.
See? That's how I feel. I try really really hard, and I spend a LOT
of my precious time trying to EXPLAIN how Scientology and Scientologists
USE pieces of Hubbard's "tech" to harm people. The "third party law"
and "reverse processing" are two pieces of Scientology's nasty little
arsenal.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>I've asked Warrior the same question. I'm still awaiting his answer.
Just re-read what I've already written. Besides, Diane, I already
explained my position to you years ago. I said I don't think you
are OSA, but you might as well be since you do many of the same sort
of things OSA does.
Here's ONE example: When you say something like, "It's apparent that you..."
this is NO LESS dishonest than Scientology's black propaganda that Gerry
was "apparently naked" in the photo where he is embracing a globe (the
photo at http://gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/index.html ) since it
is anything BUT apparent. "Apparent" means "readily seen; visible;
obvious".
The difference is, if I were describing the photo, I would say, "Gerry is
smiling while sitting in a lotus position and embracing a globe". But then
I have no intention to IMPLY what Scientology so INTENTIONALLY and VICIOUSLY
INTENDS to imply in its black propaganda. I say what IS -- and NO MORE than
what IS. Scientology says what it WANTS people to see. Their implied
message is clear. And their black propaganda is BLACK because they know
damn well that Gerry wasn't naked. But their black propaganda is part of
their bigger, ongoing campaign to smear Gerry, drive him nuts, bankrupt him,
and fair game him until at last he is crushed and destroyed, OR alternately
he SUBMITS to Scientology's "COMMAND INTENTION" so that he will at last
become a SLAVE.
Surely you are not unable to understand this.
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>Snipped the rest...about beingness, doingness, havingness.
>>
>>I wish more ex-Scientologists could come to the realization that all that
>>"beingness, doingness, havingness" stuff is pure nonsense. It really is, you
>>know. Total crap-ola! Doesn't mean a thing! Hubbard had a talent for taking
>>perfectly ordinary psychological and social processes and attaching all
>>kinds of mystical, complicated-sounding names to them, then passing the
>>whole overblown creation off as some sort of new "insight" into how people
>>think. Certain kinds of people just lap that junk up and, even after leaving
>>Scientology, they still hang onto Hubbard's goofy notions. It's sad and we
>>see it all the time here on a.r.s. Sigh.
Well, I certainly do not hang onto Hubbard's junk in the sense that I use
it and practice it out of a belief in it. I hang on to Hubbard's junk
so I can refer to it when I cite the reference material or source of the
junk.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>It's particularly strange when the person spouting this Hubbard-dreck
>claims he is terribly busy and doesn't have time to devote to the
>newsgroup. Yet he seems to have time enough to expound upon "the tech"
>whenever it suits his purposes.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
I respond when I have the time and motivation. Right now I've been able
to respond.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.offlines.org
Warrior
>I've changed the subject line because I believe your remarks are
>too important to remain buried in the middle of an old thread.
>I hope you don't mind.
No. I don't mind.
>>"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
>>news:asuu5...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> Shirley too has it all wrong. The web pages came about because of
>>> the attacks on Gerry's credibility by persons like Deana. There are
>>> others who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as a "loon" and a "kook"
>>> and a "false profit" and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long before it
>>> was ~apparent~ (visible) ON a.r.s.
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>You may think it's a mischaracterization to call Gerry a loon and a kook,
>>but that's just your personal opinion. It is MY personal opinion--and,
>>apparently, the opinion of at least a few other people--that Gerry either
>>IS a genuine loon and a kook OR he's doing an impressively good job of
>>"pretending to be" a loon and a kook.
Certainly I have noted most of the individuals have expressed their
opinions of Gerry on this forum.
>>(I mention that as a possibility because I suppose it's possible that
>>he's going for some sort of "insanity defense" for his problems with
>>Scientology. If that's the case, then he's probably just keeping the
>>web page to show to the lawyers..."See? I *am* crazy! Everyone says so!!")
>>Either way, much of what he writes on a.r.s. and on his web page is
>>definitely (in my opinion only, of course!) loony and kooky. I've thought
>>this for years. I came to this opinion all by myself--no one had to tell
>>me that Gerry Armstrong is a kook. It was... obvious.
It's obvious that you don't understand Gerry, so it's easier for you to
call him a kook than to admit your ignorance and lack of understanding.
It's easier for you say "he's kooky" since it takes less effort than it
would take for you to see that he's not.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>It's been obvious to me, too, and I arrived at that conclusion solely
>by reading Gerry Armstrong's posts. I've generally referred to him as
>"delusional," although I have recently begun suspecting the whole
>thing is an elaborate ruse.
Apparently you think Gerry is guilty of an elaborate ruse because of your
own dishonesty.
>>> I know. I've seen the whole ugly thing go down. I would hazard a guess
>>> that at least some people THINK they are above being able to be
>>> manipulated by Scientology's button pushers employing Pavlovian methods.
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>Are you seriously suggesting that I (or anyone else) came to the conclusion
>>that Gerry Armstrong is nuts because of what Scientologists say about him??
No. And let me say this, I generally communicate in a straightforward
manner. I don't try to "suggest" or "imply". If I felt that way about you,
I would have said so. I have, however, not said any such thing.
>>Hmm... well, I suppose that may be true for some people,
This shows me you did understand what I said. At least you seem to
agree that _some_ people could form opinions based upon what another
or others have said. My opinion is that some people can be affected
by propaganda, especially when they haven't considered an opposing view
to the propaganda.
>>but...I've never actually read anything the CoS has written about Gerry.
Gerry has quoted MANY of Scientology's nasty little lies and has posted
to a.r.s. many of their nasty little lies, in articles he has written.
Unless you have not read these posts by Gerry, I don't know how you
could have not read anything Scientology has written about Gerry. Maybe
your understanding of Gerry is based upon a small portion of his posts.
Naturally, I don't think you have read them all.
>>You see--I don't trust anything the CoS has to say about *anything*. It's
>>well known that they lie. And when they're not lying, they're usually
>>just...wrong. No, I base my opinion of Gerry Armstrong on his *own writings*.
>>Nothing more.
Have you read *all* of his writings and supporting documents on his web
site? Probably not. So you base your opinion on a *select* portion of
Gerry's writings -- most likely the ones he's posted to a.r.s. in the face
of an onslaught of nasty attacks on his character, his frame of mind, his
motivations, etc.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>I find it incredibly strange that Warrior assumes
[this is one of Diane's LIES]
>some deep, dark conspiracy lies behind
[this is another LIE]
>the fact that a number of individuals have drawn the same conclusion
[this is a mis-statement of my previously expressed position]
>about Armstrong after reading [another mis-statement]
>Armstrong's own messages.
This is a mis-statement of my position. I don't *assume* there's a
deep dark conspiracy behind your unspecified and un-named "number of
individuals who have drawn the same conclusion". But rather than
respond honestly to what I did state as my position, it's far easier
to say it's strange that I have a position I never have had. That's
typical of you, Diane. It's dishonest to continue to mischaracterize
my statements.
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>I haven't bothered (until now) to get involved in these latest discussions
>>about Gerry's web page because, quite frankly, I think it's SO obvious
>>that's Gerry's a kook that it doesn't really bother me that he's webbed a
>>few of my posts. Maybe he'll put this one on his page, too. That's fine. He
>>has my permission to web anything I write on a.r.s.. I suppose I'm a little
>>concerned for Gerry by what his obsession with these posts reveals about his
>>state of mind. But...as long as he limits himself tojust webbing posts--and
>>doesn't start hunting down the people he thinks are victimizing him--I think
>>he'll be okay.
Yeah, and as long as Rebecca doesn't start hunting down people, she'll be
okay too. Right? Your gratuitousness is noted, Rebecca.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>I feel pretty much the same way about it. I know others, such as
>Starshadow and Deana, are bothered about Armstrong's appropriation
>of their intellectual property, but I'm not. I actually prefer that
>the webpage remain standing, since -- like CoS hate pages -- it
>reflects much more on Armstrong than anyone else.
I'm glad you prefer the web page to remain standing.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>Armstrong's willingness to take whatever he wants to use however
>he chooses, however, is a good indication he believes he is above
>the law and not subject to the same rules as everyone else. That
>fits in perfectly with his claim that he is the "Prophet of God (R)".
>I guess he thinks "prophets" aren't subject to the same laws mere
>"wogs" have to obey.
Gerry has the strength to remain willing to stand up to hateful, evil,
suppressive tactics used on him by those who use them. Would you prefer
that he shut up and stop trying to educate others about Scientology's and
Hubbard's evil?
>>> >On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:38:12 -0700, Tom Klemesrud
>>> ><tom...@netscape.DELETE.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>I've know Gerry longer than anyone in this forum. He's probably
>>> >>the most ethically stalwart person ever to get in this fight with
>>> >>the cult.
Rebecca Hartong asked:
>>
>>I'm curious whether you think I'm some kind of OSA person. Do you?
No. I've never thought that about you. My opinion of you is that you
>I've asked Warrior the same question. I'm still awaiting his answer.
Just re-read what I've already written. Besides, Diane, I already
explained my position to you years ago. I said I don't think you
are OSA, but you might as well be since you do many of the same sort
of things OSA does.
Here's ONE example: When you say something like, "It's apparent that you..."
this is NO LESS dishonest than Scientology's black propaganda that Gerry
was "apparently naked" in the photo where he is embracing a globe (the
photo at http://gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/index.html ) since it
is anything BUT apparent. "Apparent" means "readily seen; visible;
obvious".
The difference is, if I were describing the photo, I would say, "Gerry is
smiling while sitting in a lotus position and embracing a globe". But then
I have no intention to IMPLY what Scientology so INTENTIONALLY and VICIOUSLY
INTENDS to imply in its black propaganda. I say what IS -- and NO MORE than
what IS. Scientology says what it WANTS people to see. Their implied
message is clear. And their black propaganda is BLACK because they know
damn well that Gerry wasn't naked. But their black propaganda is part of
their bigger, ongoing campaign to smear Gerry, drive him nuts, bankrupt him,
and fair game him until at last he is crushed and destroyed, OR alternately
he SUBMITS to Scientology's "COMMAND INTENTION" so that he will at last
become a SLAVE.
Surely you are not unable to understand this.
>On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
>wrote:
>>
>>Snipped the rest...about beingness, doingness, havingness.
>>
>>I wish more ex-Scientologists could come to the realization that all that
>>"beingness, doingness, havingness" stuff is pure nonsense. It really is, you
>>know. Total crap-ola! Doesn't mean a thing! Hubbard had a talent for taking
>>perfectly ordinary psychological and social processes and attaching all
>>kinds of mystical, complicated-sounding names to them, then passing the
>>whole overblown creation off as some sort of new "insight" into how people
>>think. Certain kinds of people just lap that junk up and, even after leaving
>>Scientology, they still hang onto Hubbard's goofy notions. It's sad and we
>>see it all the time here on a.r.s. Sigh.
Well, I certainly do not hang onto Hubbard's junk in the sense that I use
it and practice it out of a belief in it. I hang on to Hubbard's junk
so I can refer to it when I cite the reference material or source of the
junk.
In article <3df3716e...@news.bway.net>, ref...@bway.net says...
>
>It's particularly strange when the person spouting this Hubbard-dreck
>claims he is terribly busy and doesn't have time to devote to the
>newsgroup. Yet he seems to have time enough to expound upon "the tech"
>whenever it suits his purposes.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
I respond when I have the time and motivation. Right now I've been able
to respond.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.offlines.org
arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com
The "tech" of scientology extends beyond the training and
auditing gobbledegoop for public.
There is some workable "TECH" there, that has worked well enough
to allow scientology to survive to this day.
That ex-staff-members where trained in this 'tech' gives them a
distinct advantage. Knowing what scenes are programmed to happen
by Hubbard at various times and in resposne to various situations
allows ex-members to know where to look...for the next 'happening',
for the next 'op'.
Even Hubbard claimed that "the incredulity of our actions" is our
best defense... because *IF* you KNOW what is porgrammed to occur and
how it will be done, when you get the scent of it you will know its
there cause you were already trained in how Hubbard directs his show
of deception.
I'm sure this appears 'kooky' to those to whom this paragraph seems
like news, or may pose that it makes no sense.
Scientology is NOT supposed to make sense, if it did, it would vanish.
However the stage direction cues programmed by hubbard do make sense,
especially to those who have at one time studied the techniques used
to keep Scientology's deception engines running.
But unlike 1938, there is now the internet, and some of those
ex-staffers are willing to talk and compare notes, and this is
essential because none of us remembers all of the program.
IMO ex-members should be encourged to speak out and compare notes.
It is scientology's express intent to label them as kooks, discredit
their testimony and to beat them down into apathy, into silence.
Those that engage in that conduct are doing scientology's work for
them.
Period.
Arnie Lerma
Warrior
>> claims he is terribly busy and doesn't have time to devote to the
>> newsgroup. Yet he seems to have time enough to expound upon "the
>> tech" whenever it suits his purposes.
In article <f_MI9.9008$y14.6...@news1.east.cox.net>, "Rebecca says...
>
>It seems he believes these explanations are important enough to warrant
>the extra time. I certainly can't criticize Warrior for posting when he
>wants--about what he wants. We all do that, after all.
This is correct. On average I probably post about 10-20 times a week.
I don't keep count as I don't keep or care about "stats".
>What interests me most is that he (and some other ex-Scientologists)
>believe [sic] these explanations actually have value.
It depends upon the circumstances of who's receiving the message.
Many former Scientologists have told me how much they appreciate
my posts. I've also received many appreciative emails from people
who almost got involved with Scientology, and in their process of
looking for information on the Internet, have written me after coming
across my site. I've received emails from reporters, government
officials, and friends/family/lovers of someone in Scientology. I've
*always* been willing to give my time every time I possibly can.
The thanks I get from people is the reward. I receive no money
for my efforts. It's a labor of love.
>Sometimes it seems you can take the boy out of Scientology, but
>you can't take the Scientology out of the boy.
True enough. But if you think that I am still in the Scientology
mindset, I very strongly disagree. Although I continued to be in
the mindset for about 5 years after leaving the Sea Org in 1983, I
have over the years since then read everything I can find about on
the subject of cults, mind control, indoctrination, etc. The fact
that I have a good memory and can talk about it pleases me because
I hope to come across as a person willing to take the time to help
others.
During the years between 1989 and 1995, I spent my time rebuilding
my life and trying to make up for my lost years of family contact
and interaction, etc. I had put the whole Scientology experience
behind me as best as I could. The raid on Arnie was the event that
sparked my interest in posting to a.r.s. But at that time the only
computer I had was an Apple IIe, which is hardly something of much
utility in trying to connect to the Internet. So I borrowed a used
Apple Powerbook 165. At least I was able to read a.r.s. and do email.
It's been fun and rewarding ever since.
>I don't think this has so much to do with Scientology in particular--
>that is, I don't think Scientology has any special powers over people--
>as it has to do with the *kinds of people* who are drawn to Scientology
>in the first place.
I would disagree. The power that Scientology has over people is its
ability to get all different kinds of people involved. Fortunately,
some are able to avoid getting suckered. I see their use what they
call the "Dissemination Drill" as a big factor in how the cult is able
to suck people in.
I've touched on the "Dissem Drill" and the other "tools" used by the cult
in my essay webbed on my site.
Fortunately many are able to extract themselves from the clutches of
Scientology, but looking back on it all, are still having a hard time
understanding how they got involved and/or remained involved for so
long.
I myself had these questions at one time. No longer.
Warrior
>> to cults are people who feel a great need for certainty in their
>> lives. Margaret Singer once wrote the only common thread she could
>> find in cult members' family backgrounds was that many had parents
>> with unreasonable expectations for their children and that these
>> expectations were always fluid and shifting, leaving children
>> uncertain about insecure about a direction in life. At the same
>> time, the parents provided little guidance or direction to their
>> children, expecting them to "figure things out for themselves."
>>
>> Obviously, cults attempt to provide certainty to their members'
>> lives -- they invest a lot in indoctrinating them to believe.
>> But even after they leave cults, the unmet need for certainty
>> just might keep ex-members looking back to the "tech" for the
>> assurance they once felt.
Well, I had no such need. What I did have a need for was examining
why I went along with the indoctrination to begin with. I've met
quite a few ex-Scientologists who discarded their allegiance with
Scientology as a result of events circa 1979 - 1983. This is the
time period of tremendous change in Scientology management and
structure. And although many, many lost their loyalty to Scientology
management or the Scientology organization, they continued to hold
on to the "tech". I did no such thing. I see Hubbard's "tech" as
the *one* biggest single factor responsible for all the despicable
aspects of Scientologists' behavior. In other words, Scientology
"tech" is a false path -- a path to delusion -- a path to ruin.
I denounce it all.
In article <kpPI9.9675$y14.7...@news1.east.cox.net>, "Rebecca says...
>
>The way I've phrased it in the past is that cult-members seem to have
>"an intolerance for ambiguity." They need to believe that there are
>answers to all of life's questions and--more important--that those
>answers are *knowable*.
That's the pile of crap Hubbard and his Scientology organization
promise. So, unfortunately, many looking for those answers have
been led to believe Scientology has the answers. Scientology "tech"
is a false path -- a path to delusion -- a path to ruin.
Zinj
tom...@netscape.DELETE.net says...
The thing is this; I'd disagree in seeing anything particularly 'OSA' in
ptsc's bullshit. It's just same old same old, high school, party line,
'I'm so clever you'll never see this coming' type bullshit.
Gerry himself is guilty of the same kind of 'Watch this!' rhetorical
footwork, while spilling the supposed 'fireworks of intelligentia'
guaranteed to leave everyone gasping 'what was *that* all about?'.
Bullshit all around.
Zinj
--
Scientology is the *Cure* for escalating Health Care Costs
'We didn't think it was a big deal'
'She died! People die! - David Miscavige
Warrior
>> the attacks on Gerry's credibility by persons like Deana. There are
>> others who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as a "loon" and a "kook"
>> and a "false profit" and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long before it was
>> ~apparent~ (visible) ON a.r.s.
In article <kEJI9.8445$y14.6...@news1.east.cox.net>, "Rebecca says...
>
>You may think it's a mischaracterization to call Gerry a loon and a kook,
>but that's just your personal opinion. It is MY personal opinion--and,
>apparently, the opinion of at least a few other people--that Gerry either IS
>a genuine loon and a kook OR he's doing an impressively good job of
>"pretending to be" a loon and a kook. (I mention that as a possibility
>because I suppose it's possible that he's going for some sort of "insanity
>defense" for his problems with Scientology. If that's the case, then he's
>probably just keeping the web page to show to the lawyers..."See? I *am*
>crazy! Everyone says so!!") Either way, much of what he writes on a.r.s. and
>on his web page is definitely (in my opinion only, of course!) loony and
>kooky. I've thought this for years. I came to this opinion all by myself--no
>one had to tell me that Gerry Armstrong is a kook. It was...obvious.
I don't think you know enough about Gerry to come to a logical conclusion.
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> I know. I've seen the whole ugly thing go down. I would hazard a
>> guess that at least some people THINK they are above being able to
>> be manipulated by Scientology's button pushers employing Pavlovian
>> methods.
Rebecca asked:
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that I (or anyone else) came to the conclusion
>that Gerry Armstrong is nuts because of what Scientologists say about him??
I answered this in a separate post, earlier this evening.
<snip>
>> >On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 17:38:12 -0700, Tom Klemesrud
>> ><tom...@netscape.DELETE.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>I've know Gerry longer than anyone in this forum. He's probably
>> >>the most ethically stalwart person ever to get in this fight with
>> >>the cult.
>> campaign. Another acts as a paralegal.
>> 8) Some OSA agents need to exist at various levels to oversee the various
>> operations.
Rebecca asked:
>
>I'm curious whether you think I'm some kind of OSA person. Do you?
Although I answered this elsewhere too, I'll answer again.
No. I have never thought you are OSA. I do think it would be great
for you to tell me exactly why you think I could possibly have even
for a moment believed or thought you might be. Seriously.
Personally, I don't see OSA everywhere. I don't give a damn about
OSA people. I've done nothing wrong, and I'm not a current target
as far as I can tell. I'm just a guy telling my experiences and
writing my opinions about Scientology, Hubbard, the "tech" and other
related issues.
<snip>
Again, for the record, I don't hang on to Hubbard's goofy notions.
Diane Richardson
>That Diane Richardson says I practice reliance on Hubbard "tech" is
>a vicious response,
No, it's an opinion I reached after reading your extended explanations
of others' behavior by relying upon Hubbard's teachings. In just the
past few days you have:
1) Described my behavior by explaining Hubbard's absurd theory of
"dub-ins" and applied Hubbard's theory to what you see as my own
behavior.
2) You've explained the behavior of what you call "certain people"
whom you believe are "waging a nasty little campaign against Gerry"
by providing a long explanation of the "BE - DO - HAVE SCALE"
and how it is employed "in intelligence" by Scientologists
>an intentional mis-statement of my position as
>expressed through my writings on the subject of Scientology's use of
>Hubbard's "tech".
It is my reasoned opinion after reading the messages you've posted
over the past week or so. You may not like my opinion, but it is
based solely on your own habit of describing others by resorting
to Hubbard's tech -- a tech you claim you have eschewed.
If you no longer accept Hubbard's tech as a good method of
understanding those around you, why do you continue resorting
to it when you describe those around you?
>For the past six plus years I have participated in discussions of
>Scientology on a.r.s., my messages have been one of trying, to the
>best of my ability, to increase awareness of how Scientology uses
>Hubbard's "tech" to destroy its perceived "enemies".
Lately you have been trying to the best of your ability to show how
people who have criticized Gerry Armstrong use Hubbard tech. I
will be more than happy to repost your messages to prove that is
what you have been doing.
>By relating
>my first-hand experiences with Scientology, by commenting on others'
>experiences, I've tried to explain how Scientology uses its "tech"
>to bring about complete submission, or compiance to Hubbard's evil
>affirmation ("COMMAND INTENTION") that "All men shall be [his] slaves".
That's not what you have been doing. You have been describing the
behavior of people who have criticized Gerry Armstrong by explaining
their behavior using Hubbard's teachings.
The fallacy in your argument is that the people you describe as
employing Hubbard tech have never been Scientologists and simply
can't be utilizing the tech you describe because they, unlike you,
have never studied it.
>That some individuals like Diane have continued for years to twist
>my statements and mischaracterize my position is incredibly insulting.
I am not mischaraterizing your position nor twisting your statements.
My opinion of your behavior is based solely on posts you have made
over the past few day.
>I think she knows she does this.
I am not mischaracterizing your position, Warrior.
>I think she does it intentionally.
>I do not think she really misunderstands my position. Rather, I believe
>she is playing games, and that by doing so, she derives some measure
>of sick pleasure at the expense of others.
I am not playing games with you or anyone else. You are angry with
people you believe have been unfairly attacking your friend Gerry
Armstrong. You describe their behavior by dragging out long-winded
descriptions of how their behavior fits Hubbard's teachings.
>So for her to say I rely on Hubbard's "tech" is nothing more than her
>continuing effort to mischaracterize my position and my statements.
You have relied on Hubbard's tech when you described my response
to you as "dubbing in." You then went through a prolonged explanation
of what "dubbing in" is in Hubbard tech and how my behavior fits that
description.
Guess what, Warrior? I've don't believe in Hubbard's dreck and I
don't give two shits whether you think I am "dubbing in" something
or not.
You decribe those who criticize Gerry Armstrong's behavior as "waging
a nasty little campaign" and you then proceed to describe thier
actions according to Hubbard's "BE-DO-HAVE" scale.
Guess what, Warrior? The majority of people who have been criticizing
Gerry Armstrong's behavior have never been Scientologists and wouldn't
know the difference between the BE-DO-HAVE" scale and the "DO-RE-MI"
scale. Both scales are equally inapplicable.
>For these reasons stated above I will no longer attempt to respond to
>each and every vicious lie she posts.
In other words, you've chickened out. That's okay; I figured that's
exactly what you would do. You've done it before and no doubt you
will do it again.
>Do not interpret my failure to
>respond to each and every vicious lie as anything other than my inabil-
>ity to devote the amount of time which would be necessary to respond
>to all of her vicious lies. Besides, as she has already more than amply
>demonstrated, trying to have a rational discussion with her is an exercise
>in futility.
It's only futile because you refuse to discuss the issues I present to
you, Warrior. But hey, if that's how you want it, that's fine with
me.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
ExScn
(Tigger) wrote:
>Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2002, 11:59pm (CST-2) From: war...@xenu.ca (Warrior)
>wrote:
>>The web pages came about because of
>> the attacks on Gerry's credibility by
>> persons like Deana. There are others
>> who routinely mischaracterized Gerry as
>> a "loon" and a "kook" and a "false profit"
>> and "delusional" OFF OF a.r.s. long
>> before it was ~apparent~ (visible) ON
>> a.r.s.
>
>Hey I never "criticized" Gerry Armstrong until recently after he started
>atttacking me for asking if he could/would tell us about the Minton
>Swiss checks he received. Then I posted that his webpage on Garry
>Scarff was stupid and a waste of time that could better be used on
>information about COS. Most of the people on his goOn SquAd list only
>said his "webpage" on Scarff was a bad idea before he started attacking
>them.
>
>No matter how you, Lerma, Armstrong and his girlfriend try to spin
>it......most of the people were put on Armstrong's webpage because they
>disagreed with his doing such a webpage.
This is 100% correct. I went back to the first post from Gerry re
Scarff and read ALL the follow-ups.
Everyone, including Tigger, was quite courteous and even respectful -
they were acting as friends would do when they see someone about to do
something silly.
Gerry's reaction has been quite insane, IMHO.
Rebecca Hartong
that were directed towards what *I* wrote:
"Warrior" <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in message
news:at0q9...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
> >>(I mention that as a possibility because I suppose it's possible that
> >>he's going for some sort of "insanity defense" for his problems with
> >>Scientology. If that's the case, then he's probably just keeping the
> >>web page to show to the lawyers..."See? I *am* crazy! Everyone says
so!!")
> >>Either way, much of what he writes on a.r.s. and on his web page is
> >>definitely (in my opinion only, of course!) loony and kooky. I've
thought
> >>this for years. I came to this opinion all by myself--no one had to tell
> >>me that Gerry Armstrong is a kook. It was... obvious.
>
> It's obvious that you don't understand Gerry, so it's easier for you to
> call him a kook than to admit your ignorance and lack of understanding.
> It's easier for you say "he's kooky" since it takes less effort than it
> would take for you to see that he's not.
That is your opinion. It's my belief that I understand Gerry as well as I
need to in order to characterize him as a kook. Since neither of us is
qualified to make a professional evaluation of Gerry's mental health, each
of us will just have to settle for our own subjective opinions.
> >On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>Are you seriously suggesting that I (or anyone else) came to the
conclusion
> >>that Gerry Armstrong is nuts because of what Scientologists say about
him??
>
> No. And let me say this, I generally communicate in a straightforward
> manner. I don't try to "suggest" or "imply". If I felt that way about
you,
> I would have said so. I have, however, not said any such thing.
>
> >>Hmm... well, I suppose that may be true for some people,
>
> This shows me you did understand what I said. At least you seem to
> agree that _some_ people could form opinions based upon what another
> or others have said.
I can't think of anyone on a.r.s. who seems to me to fit that description,
but I'm willing to grant that it's a possibility.
> My opinion is that some people can be affected
> by propaganda, especially when they haven't considered an opposing view
> to the propaganda.
I think a lot of people would agree with you on that.
> >>but...I've never actually read anything the CoS has written about Gerry.
>
> Gerry has quoted MANY of Scientology's nasty little lies and has posted
> to a.r.s. many of their nasty little lies, in articles he has written.
> Unless you have not read these posts by Gerry, I don't know how you
> could have not read anything Scientology has written about Gerry. Maybe
> your understanding of Gerry is based upon a small portion of his posts.
> Naturally, I don't think you have read them all.
No, I haven't read all of Gerry's posts. Neither have I read everything L.
Ron Hubbard ever wrote. What I have read of Armstrong and of Hubbard,
though, has been sufficient for me to form the opinion that both are kooks.
You disagree. Big deal.
You know...Gerry's not the first person on a.r.s. whom I've called a kook.
He certainly won't be the last. It's not that big a deal. I'm really not
much of an opinion leader here, in case you hadn't noticed. ;-)
> >>You see--I don't trust anything the CoS has to say about *anything*.
It's
> >>well known that they lie. And when they're not lying, they're usually
> >>just...wrong. No, I base my opinion of Gerry Armstrong on his *own
writings*.
> >>Nothing more.
>
> Have you read *all* of his writings and supporting documents on his web
> site? Probably not. So you base your opinion on a *select* portion of
> Gerry's writings -- most likely the ones he's posted to a.r.s. in the face
> of an onslaught of nasty attacks on his character, his frame of mind, his
> motivations, etc.
No. I formed my opinion of Gerry years and years ago-- actually, I think it
may have been with the first post I ever read of his! And, actually, most of
the criticism I've seen directed towards Gerry from non-Scientologists has
(until recently) been pretty mild. It's not really so much his response to
criticism that's formed my opinion, so much as his general world-view as
revealed by his posts.
> >On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>I haven't bothered (until now) to get involved in these latest
discussions
> >>about Gerry's web page because, quite frankly, I think it's SO obvious
> >>that's Gerry's a kook that it doesn't really bother me that he's webbed
a
> >>few of my posts. Maybe he'll put this one on his page, too. That's fine.
He
> >>has my permission to web anything I write on a.r.s.. I suppose I'm a
little
> >>concerned for Gerry by what his obsession with these posts reveals about
his
> >>state of mind. But...as long as he limits himself tojust webbing
posts--and
> >>doesn't start hunting down the people he thinks are victimizing him--I
think
> >>he'll be okay.
>
> Yeah, and as long as Rebecca doesn't start hunting down people, she'll be
> okay too. Right? Your gratuitousness is noted, Rebecca.
Hey, I'm not the one with a web page listing my perceived "enemies".
If you find yourself with a few empty minutes, take a look at the few posts
of MINE that Gerry has webbed. They're really pretty mild, I think.
> Rebecca Hartong asked:
> >>
> >>I'm curious whether you think I'm some kind of OSA person. Do you?
>
> No. I've never thought that about you. My opinion of you is that you
> mischaracterize my statements, and you twist my reasons for writing about
> Scientology into something else because you've misunderstood what I have
> said.
Perhaps you're not as good at conveying your ideas as you might like to be?
> Example is your stupid claim made a couple of years ago, that
> Hubbard's "third party law" does not exist. It does exist in the sense
> that it IS written down.
Oy veh. Because something is written down--that means it exists?!? Fairy
Tales and Science Fiction novels must really get you into a confused state!!
If I claimed that Hubbard's "third party law" doesn't exist (and I really
don't recall the discussion, but it sounds like something I'd say) it is
because the "third party law" has no objective reality. That's not
stupid--that's just factual. Hubbard's "third party law" is like most of his
other ideas-- goofy pop psychologizing that he just plain got wrong. It
doesn't work. People don't work the way Hubbard said they do. In that sense,
there is no objective reality to his "law". It doesn't exist because it's a
faulty conclusion about how the world works.
> Do I believe it is truth? No.
I'm glad to read that!!
> I was trying
> to explain Scientologists' and OSA's dark _applications_ of Hubbard's
> "third party law" by explaining the definition in hopes that you might
> see how Hubbard's "law" is used by Scientologists to cause trouble.
Warrior, Hubbard's "third party law" is WRONG. You know that yourself.
Scientologists might *think* they're applying some kind of workable "tech"
but they are WRONG. It doesn't work. It can't be used to cause trouble
because it doesn't work.
> Example: Telling the FBI that someone made a bomb threat. This is a
> very basty application of the "third party law".
That's just making a false report. A crime, by the way. Scientologists might
call it the "third party law" but that's just them using stupid Hubbard
terms for common behaviors (even if, in this case, it's a criminal
behavior).
> OSA staffer Cathy Norman has applied Scientology's nasty "third party
> tech" on me by making false suggestions to the Austin Police that I put
> graffiti on their building. I have a copy of the police report, so I
> know of what I am speaking. I know her intent was to "third party" me
> to the police so as to cause me trouble. In fact, she had not one
> shred of evidence that I had done the crime. But she dishonestly told
> the police (according to their report and the words of the two officers
> I spoke with) that I engaged in vandalism of their building.
Again. A false report. Cathy Norman might like calling such behavior "the
third party law" but I don't see any good reason for why we--who are not
Scientologists, and who have a much more sophisticated and *accurate*
understanding of human behavior--need to use Hubbard's goofy terminology.
Do you see what I mean by this at all?? So you see why your frequent use of
Hubbard's terminology and theories is really annoying to some people
(well...to me, at least)? Hubbard's ideas are faulty. They don't accurately
describe reality. You do the truth a disservice when you try to explain
reality using such a faulty tool.
> Back to my reply to Diane and Rebecca...
>
> Also, when I give definitions and use quotes, I am, at the same time as
> I am speaking to you and any other non-Scientologist, hopefully getting
> through and effectively explaining my position to former Scientologists
> and current Scientologists as well. I've explained this before. Please
> keep it in mind, since I am of the position that, although I am responding
> to one particular person's article, I am attempting to effectively express
> my message to anyone taking the time to read it.
Sure. Lots of us do that.
> As to my own position on the "third party law" I believe there is
something
> to be gained by understanding how Scientologists *use* or apply Hubbard's
> "tech", and how in some cases the intentional spreading of false
information
Are we talking about *lies* here--or just about opinions with which you
disagree??
> (such as those who intentionally spread black PR, or spread vicious
rumors)
> to another person can influence the perceptions or understanding of
another
> person. I've had this done to me by Scientology, and it's extremely NASTY
> to be the target of such nastiness intentionally OR unintentionally done.
This sort of thing happens outside of Scientology, too, you know. There's no
need to resort to Hubbard-ese to explain how or why these things happen.
People disagree. People have different opinions about stuff. For
example--difficult as it may be for me to understand (me being so charming
and wonderful and all)--there are people on a.r.s. who REALLY dislike me. It
happens. Other people seem to like me just fine. Certainly, it can be
upsetting when people dislike you for what seems to you to be no good
reason. But it happens all the time. All over the place. No Scientology
required.
> See? That's how I feel. I try really really hard, and I spend a LOT
> of my precious time trying to EXPLAIN how Scientology and Scientologists
> USE pieces of Hubbard's "tech" to harm people. The "third party law"
> and "reverse processing" are two pieces of Scientology's nasty little
> arsenal.
Earlier you said that you didn't think the "third party law" was truth. I'm
assuming that what you meant by that is that you don't think it's really
valid--it doesn't describe reality. That's what I think, too. I feel the
same way about "reverse processing"--and lot of other Hubbard ideas, too.
I guess... For me, when you describe Hubbard's tech in an attempt to explain
how and why people behave as they do, it's like watching a person trying to
use a broken shovel to uncover something. Why use a broken tool. Use
something that actually does the job. Scientologists don't behave the way
they do because Hubbard's tech works--they behave the way they do because
they...well...jerks! (To put it succinctly.)
> >On Sun, 08 Dec 2002 15:34:40 GMT, "Rebecca Hartong" <rhar...@cox.net>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>Snipped the rest...about beingness, doingness, havingness.
> >>
> >>I wish more ex-Scientologists could come to the realization that all
that
> >>"beingness, doingness, havingness" stuff is pure nonsense. It really is,
you
> >>know. Total crap-ola! Doesn't mean a thing! Hubbard had a talent for
taking
> >>perfectly ordinary psychological and social processes and attaching all
> >>kinds of mystical, complicated-sounding names to them, then passing the
> >>whole overblown creation off as some sort of new "insight" into how
people
> >>think. Certain kinds of people just lap that junk up and, even after
leaving
> >>Scientology, they still hang onto Hubbard's goofy notions. It's sad and
we
> >>see it all the time here on a.r.s. Sigh.
>
> Well, I certainly do not hang onto Hubbard's junk in the sense that I use
> it and practice it out of a belief in it. I hang on to Hubbard's junk
> so I can refer to it when I cite the reference material or source of the
> junk.
Nothing wrong with that. Just...please...don't rely on it to explain why
people act the way they do!
Whatever. I hope we understand one another a little better after all of
this. I think I've got a better grasp of why you write about the tech as
much as you do... So, that's something. Each of us does what he or she
thinks works best, eh?
Warrior
<booboo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>No matter how you, Lerma, Armstrong and his girlfriend try to spin
>it......
Shirley,
I don't have to "spin" anything. I express my opinions here on a.r.s.
just like anyone else.
>most of the people were put on Armstrong's webpage because they
>disagreed with his doing such a webpage.
So you say.
You seem to think you know better than Gerry why he does what he does.
Starshadow
> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:57:52 -0600 (CST), "Tigger"
> <booboo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>>No matter how you, Lerma, Armstrong and his girlfriend try to spin
>>it......
>
>
> Shirley,
>
> I don't have to "spin" anything. I express my opinions here on a.r.s.
> just like anyone else.
>
>
>>most of the people were put on Armstrong's webpage because they
>>disagreed with his doing such a webpage.
>
>
> So you say.
>
> You seem to think you know better than Gerry why he does what he does.
>
Well, when Armstrong titles a page "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and
Ops", what Armstrong seems to be saying is that the posters whose posts
are (illegally) webbed therein are what he believes to be "Scientology's
Usenet Black PR and Ops". When he places the letters OSA in sharp relief
in the title of the banner, that would seem to be saying that he
believes they are either OSA or acting like OSA. When the post
(illegally) webbed thereon in fact contain NO BLACK PR OR OPS (my
emphasis) but in fact politely worded disagreements, then it would
indicate that Armstrong and Letkeman think that disagreeing with either
of them equals OSA Black Pr and Ops, wouldn't you say?
Warrior
>> <booboo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>No matter how you, Lerma, Armstrong and his girlfriend try to spin
>Warrior wrote:
>>
>> You seem to think you know better than Gerry why he does what he does.
In article <3DF51BBE...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow says...
>
>Well, when Armstrong titles a page "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and
>Ops", what Armstrong seems to be saying is that the posters whose posts
>are (illegally) webbed therein are what he believes to be "Scientology's
>Usenet Black PR and Ops". When he places the letters OSA in sharp relief
>in the title of the banner, that would seem to be saying that he believes
>they are either OSA or acting like OSA. When the post (illegally) webbed
>thereon in fact contain NO BLACK PR OR OPS (my emphasis) but in fact
>politely worded disagreements, then it would indicate that Armstrong and
>Letkeman think that disagreeing with either of them equals OSA Black Pr
>and Ops, wouldn't you say?
This has been previously asked and answered. Please re-read my
previous posts. Obviously you do not understand or agree with
me.
Now, here's the explanation of the point I made earlier to Tigger:
_What_ it indicates is different from _why_ he does what he does.
The _thing_ he did is the "what". His reason(s) is/are his "why(s)".
I'll say this again (this way) for Shirley's benefit:
Shirley, you seem to think you know better than Gerry _why_ he does
what he does.
"...people were put on Armstrong's webpage because..."
Use of the word "because" indicates a _reason_ (in this case, the reason
_why_ Gerry did what he did).
A _why_ is the reason/reasoning/motivation.
_What_ was done is the action which followed as a result of reasoning.
Got it?
Starshadow
>>>On Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:57:52 -0600 (CST), "Tigger"
>>><booboo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>No matter how you, Lerma, Armstrong and his girlfriend try to spin
>>>>it......most of the people were put on Armstrong's webpage because
>>>>they disagreed with his doing such a webpage.
>>>
>
>>Warrior wrote:
>>
>>>You seem to think you know better than Gerry why he does what he does.
>>
>
> In article <3DF51BBE...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow says...
>
>>Well, when Armstrong titles a page "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and
>>Ops", what Armstrong seems to be saying is that the posters whose posts
>>are (illegally) webbed therein are what he believes to be "Scientology's
>>Usenet Black PR and Ops". When he places the letters OSA in sharp relief
>>in the title of the banner, that would seem to be saying that he believes
>>they are either OSA or acting like OSA. When the post (illegally) webbed
>>thereon in fact contain NO BLACK PR OR OPS (my emphasis) but in fact
>>politely worded disagreements, then it would indicate that Armstrong and
>>Letkeman think that disagreeing with either of them equals OSA Black Pr
>>and Ops, wouldn't you say?
>
>
> This has been previously asked and answered. Please re-read my
> previous posts. Obviously you do not understand or agree with
> me.
That's correct, but I think you are deliberately misstating certain
things about Armstrong and Letkeman's webpage. You've stated before that
the title did not change; you've been shown repeatedly that it did, in
fact change.
This indicates to me that you are unwilling to accept that Armstrong
and Letkeman simply put a page together with those people who in fact
simply disagreed with him.
> Now, here's the explanation of the point I made earlier to Tigger:
>
> _What_ it indicates is different from _why_ he does what he does.
>
What he indicates is that he believes that disagreeing with him is
tantamount to Scn'y Ops and Black PR. You seem to disagree with that.
Why he does what he does seems to be that he has gone round the bend and
is bugfuck crazy. You disagree with that.
> The _thing_ he did is the "what". His reason(s) is/are his "why(s)".
What he did was put up a bugfuck crazy page with peoples' posts who
simply disagreed with him. His reasons seem to be that he thinks that
disagreeing with him is tantamount to Scn'y Black PR and Ops.
At least that is what he and Letkeman stated once or twice, when they
weren't stating that they actually THOUGHT that the people on those
pages were applying Hubbard's policy of Black PR and Ops, when in FACT
what they were doing was disagreeing with him, and then stating the
obvious, that putting up that page was a lunatic action and did a
disservice to all he had claimed to stand for.
> I'll say this again (this way) for Shirley's benefit:
>
> Shirley, you seem to think you know better than Gerry _why_ he does
> what he does.
>
> "...people were put on Armstrong's webpage because..."
>
> Use of the word "because" indicates a _reason_ (in this case, the reason
> _why_ Gerry did what he did).
Which reason was stated more than once by Letkeman and Armstrong.
Of course they wiggled around and quoted Hubbard policy and changed
those reasons and statements once or twice, but they did make them.
> A _why_ is the reason/reasoning/motivation.
Which appears to be a meltdown of reason.
> _What_ was done is the action which followed as a result of reasoning.
>
> Got it?
The action being a lunatic hate page with peoples' posts webbed
(illegally) SIMPLY AND SOLELY because they disagreed with Armstrong and
Letkeman.
All your attempts to defend Armstrong and Letkeman boil down to you not
wanting to admit to yourself or others that what they did, and why they
did it are indefensible, cult-like, and just plain lunatic.
Warrior
>>>><booboo...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>No matter how you, Lerma, Armstrong and his girlfriend try to spin
>>>>>it......most of the people were put on Armstrong's webpage because
>>>>>they disagreed with his doing such a webpage.
>>>Warrior wrote:
>>>
>>>>You seem to think you know better than Gerry why he does what he does.
>> In article <3DF51BBE...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow says...
>>>
>>>Well, when Armstrong titles a page "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and
>>>Ops", what Armstrong seems to be saying is that the posters whose posts
>>>are (illegally) webbed therein are what he believes to be "Scientology's
>>>Usenet Black PR and Ops". When he places the letters OSA in sharp relief
>>>in the title of the banner, that would seem to be saying that he believes
>>>they are either OSA or acting like OSA. When the post (illegally) webbed
>>>thereon in fact contain NO BLACK PR OR OPS (my emphasis) but in fact
>>>politely worded disagreements, then it would indicate that Armstrong and
>>>Letkeman think that disagreeing with either of them equals OSA Black Pr
>>>and Ops, wouldn't you say?
>>
>> This has been previously asked and answered. Please re-read my
>> previous posts. Obviously you do not understand or agree with
>> me.
In article <3DF56549...@starshadowlovesxenu.net>, Starshadow wrote:
>
> That's correct, but I think you are deliberately misstating certain
>things about Armstrong and Letkeman's webpage. You've stated before that
>the title did not change; you've been shown repeatedly that it did, in
>fact change.
I never stated that the title did not change. If you think I did,
kindly provide the message ID.
> This indicates to me that you are unwilling to accept that Armstrong
>and Letkeman simply put a page together with those people who in fact
>simply disagreed with him.
Correct. I have stated this over and over. It's an honest opinion.
I am unlikely to change my opinion already expressed repeatedly.
>> Now, here's the explanation of the point I made earlier to Tigger:
>>
>> _What_ it indicates is different from _why_ he does what he does.
> What he indicates is that he believes that disagreeing with him is
>tantamount to Scn'y Ops and Black PR. You seem to disagree with that.
Yes. I do.
>Why he does what he does seems to be that he has gone round the bend
>and is bugfuck crazy. You disagree with that.
Yes. I do. I am not one so quick to judge others as "crazy".
>> The _thing_ he did is the "what". His reason(s) is/are his "why(s)".
> What he did was put up a bugfuck crazy page with peoples' posts who
>simply disagreed with him. His reasons seem to be that he thinks that
>disagreeing with him is tantamount to Scn'y Black PR and Ops.
I understood what you said the first time.
> At least that is what he and Letkeman stated once or twice,
I'm unclear on what you allege they stated. Am I to understand that you
think he thinks that simply disagreeing with him is equivalent to Scn
black PR and ops? In other words, do you think he webbed posts simply
because people disagreed with him, and that by simply expressing disagree-
ment with Gerry he equates that to Scientology's use of black PR and ops?
>when they weren't stating that they actually THOUGHT that the people on
>those pages were applying Hubbard's policy of Black PR and Ops,
I can see why Gerry might feel that certain individuals were acting like
Scientologists applying Hubbard's "tech" on black PR.
>when in FACT what they were doing was disagreeing with him, and then
>stating the obvious, that putting up that page was a lunatic action and
>did a disservice to all he had claimed to stand for.
I hope you will write to Gerry directly. You know, it's not my place
to tell him what he must or should do. I don't control Gerry Armstrong.
I have no desire to, either. I love Gerry, and I think I understand him
to a great degree, but I would never deny him the right to speaking or
webbing his own opinions.
>> I'll say this again (this way) for Shirley's benefit:
>>
>> Shirley, you seem to think you know better than Gerry _why_ he does
>> what he does.
>>
>> "...people were put on Armstrong's webpage because..."
>>
>> Use of the word "because" indicates a _reason_ (in this case, the reason
>> _why_ Gerry did what he did).
>Which reason was stated more than once by Letkeman and Armstrong.
>
>Of course they wiggled around and quoted Hubbard policy and changed
>those reasons and statements once or twice, but they did make them.
What you've said does not help me to understand the specifics, as I
do not know what you are referring to, exactly.
>> A _why_ is the reason/reasoning/motivation.
>Which appears to be a meltdown of reason.
Hey - convince _him_ of your argument, and I'm sure he'll agree with you.
My feeling is that you are more able to accurately state your position
than I would be able to represent your position. Besides, I am not going
to become an intermediary in this/these matter(s). Not for you, and not
for anyone else.
>> _What_ was done is the action which followed as a result of reasoning.
>>
>> Got it?
>The action being a lunatic hate page with peoples' posts webbed
>(illegally) SIMPLY AND SOLELY because they disagreed with Armstrong and
>Letkeman.
>
>All your attempts to defend Armstrong and Letkeman boil down to you not
>wanting to admit to yourself or others that what they did, and why they
>did it are indefensible, cult-like, and just plain lunatic.
My attempts boil down to much, much more than that. I don't see matters
so simply as you. I obviously do not agree with your characterization
of my attempts or my reasons for doing as I do.
In my life, I've already had more than enough of others trying to enforce
their "reality" (viewpoint/their truth/opinions/whatever) on me.
I appreciate you civility, Starshadow. For what it's worth, I personally
have never though you are or were OSA.
I'm about talked out on this issue. There isn't anything else I care
to say about it for now. Maybe later on. Who knows? I never had a
crystal ball. For all I know, this might be my last day on Earth.
All the best to you. I don't wish to harm anyone; I wish no one ill
will. Honest.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Starshadow
Yes.
>>when they weren't stating that they actually THOUGHT that the people on
>>those pages were applying Hubbard's policy of Black PR and Ops,
>
>
> I can see why Gerry might feel that certain individuals were acting like
> Scientologists applying Hubbard's "tech" on black PR.
>
Then your credibility has just gone down another notch with me.
Sorry to say.
>>when in FACT what they were doing was disagreeing with him, and then
>>stating the obvious, that putting up that page was a lunatic action and
>>did a disservice to all he had claimed to stand for.
>
>
> I hope you will write to Gerry directly. You know, it's not my place
> to tell him what he must or should do. I don't control Gerry Armstrong.
> I have no desire to, either. I love Gerry, and I think I understand him
> to a great degree, but I would never deny him the right to speaking or
> webbing his own opinions.
I'm not asking you to tell him what to do. I addressed Armstrong and
Letkeman directly several times on this ng. The first post was worded
pretty politely, no name calling, simply a disagreement with Letkeman,
point by point, her declaration that Claire was participating in
"fraud". For that I got a rambling response that I was somehow engaging
in Hubbard tech with no addressing of point by point. No one is ASKING
you to deny him any right to speak nor to web his opinions--as if anyone
could hold you accountable for controlling or not controlling him anyway
(which, btw, is a "straw man", since no one has asked you to do any such
thing. But when he puts up a kooky hate page filled with people who
simply and solely disagree with him, and you state over and over that it
is not a kooky hate page filled with people who simply and solely
disagree with him, and state that you think that putting up that page is
a rational thing to do, and that he is entitled to do and say whatever
he wants because by golly, he was the prime target of the CofS, and his
dick, so to speak, is bigger than anyone else's, ( a paraphrase you
won't like, but I call them as I see them--since it's a paraphrase of
"the rest of you haven't done as much nor been as big a target as
Armstrong, therefore he's entitled to do or say whatever he wants to
whomever he wants" to boil down what part of your argument seems to
be)--well, when you state those things, and act astonished that anyone
would actually think he and Letkeman mean exactly what they say when
they say that they believe this is "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and
Ops" then you shouldn't act surprised that it makes people angry to be
called that, and that those people--and others not named on that kooky
web page see it as exactly that, instead of coming up with yet another
kooky conspiracy theory whereby we all got together back channel and
decided to condemn Armstrong and Letkeman's kooky hate page, rather than
simply being a number of people apparently capable of reading better
than you can.
>
>>>I'll say this again (this way) for Shirley's benefit:
>>>
>>>Shirley, you seem to think you know better than Gerry _why_ he does
>>>what he does.
>>>
>>>"...people were put on Armstrong's webpage because..."
>>>
>>>Use of the word "because" indicates a _reason_ (in this case, the reason
>>>_why_ Gerry did what he did).
>>
>
>>Which reason was stated more than once by Letkeman and Armstrong.
>>
>>Of course they wiggled around and quoted Hubbard policy and changed
>>those reasons and statements once or twice, but they did make them.
>
>
> What you've said does not help me to understand the specifics, as I
> do not know what you are referring to, exactly.
>
>
>>>A _why_ is the reason/reasoning/motivation.
>>
>
>>Which appears to be a meltdown of reason.
>
>
> Hey - convince _him_ of your argument, and I'm sure he'll agree with you.
> My feeling is that you are more able to accurately state your position
> than I would be able to represent your position. Besides, I am not going
> to become an intermediary in this/these matter(s). Not for you, and not
> for anyone else.
>
No one asked you to, Warrior. Quit putting up straw men. One does not
have to act as an intermediary to simply say "I'm sorry, I can't agree
because I am a friend to Armstrong" or to say, "Yes, I'm Armstrong's
friend, but even I think he's gone a bit around the bend", either one.
>>>_What_ was done is the action which followed as a result of reasoning.
>>>
>>>Got it?
>>
>
>>The action being a lunatic hate page with peoples' posts webbed
>>(illegally) SIMPLY AND SOLELY because they disagreed with Armstrong and
>>Letkeman.
>>
>>All your attempts to defend Armstrong and Letkeman boil down to you not
>>wanting to admit to yourself or others that what they did, and why they
>>did it are indefensible, cult-like, and just plain lunatic.
>
>
> My attempts boil down to much, much more than that. I don't see matters
> so simply as you. I obviously do not agree with your characterization
> of my attempts or my reasons for doing as I do.
Of course you don't. To agree, you'd have to agree that you are simply
wrong, and I don't think you're going to do that. But sorry, your
attempts to spin aside, and throw up straw men, you are just plain wrong.
>
> In my life, I've already had more than enough of others trying to enforce
> their "reality" (viewpoint/their truth/opinions/whatever) on me.
>
> I appreciate you civility, Starshadow. For what it's worth, I personally
> have never though you are or were OSA.
>
> I'm about talked out on this issue. There isn't anything else I care
> to say about it for now. Maybe later on. Who knows? I never had a
> crystal ball. For all I know, this might be my last day on Earth.
Who knows.
> All the best to you. I don't wish to harm anyone; I wish no one ill
> will. Honest.
I believe that, Warrior. Simply because my opinion of your lack of
judgement has gone down a notch doesn't mean I quit liking you. It
simply means that I no longer trust your opinion to be rational, at
least where your loyalty lies. You don't seem to understand that webbing
someone's posts without their permission and portraying them as either
"OSA" or engaging in "OSA-like posts" is far different from expressing
opinions, however strongly worded, on a newsgroup, however.
But I seem to be done too, unless I see another such
mischaracterization, in which case I will probably speak out again. See,
that's what a newsgroup is for.
Have A Cow
<stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
>Warrior wrote:
<snip>
>
>I'm not asking you to tell him what to do. I addressed Armstrong and
>Letkeman directly several times on this ng. The first post was worded
>pretty politely, no name calling, simply a disagreement with Letkeman,
>point by point, her declaration that Claire was participating in
>"fraud". For that I got a rambling response that I was somehow engaging
>in Hubbard tech with no addressing of point by point.
Starshadow knows what a rambling response is. See the absolute train
wreck of a run-on sentence below. ;-)
>No one is ASKING
>in Hubbard tech with no addressing of point by point. No one is ASKING
>you to deny him any right to speak nor to web his opinions--as if anyone
>could hold you accountable for controlling or not controlling him anyway
>(which, btw, is a "straw man", since no one has asked you to do any such
>thing.
Here comes the 20+ line train wreck of a run-on sentence (possibly
produced by too much exposure to Hubbard?):
>But when he puts up a kooky hate page filled with people who
>simply and solely disagree with him, and you state over and over that it
>is not a kooky hate page filled with people who simply and solely
>disagree with him, and state that you think that putting up that page is
>a rational thing to do, and that he is entitled to do and say whatever
>he wants because by golly, he was the prime target of the CofS, and his
>dick, so to speak, is bigger than anyone else's, ( a paraphrase you
>won't like, but I call them as I see them--since it's a paraphrase of
>"the rest of you haven't done as much nor been as big a target as
>Armstrong, therefore he's entitled to do or say whatever he wants to
>whomever he wants" to boil down what part of your argument seems to
>be)--well, when you state those things, and act astonished that anyone
>would actually think he and Letkeman mean exactly what they say when
>they say that they believe this is "Scientology's Usenet Black PR and
>Ops" then you shouldn't act surprised that it makes people angry to be
>called that, and that those people--and others not named on that kooky
>web page see it as exactly that, instead of coming up with yet another
>kooky conspiracy theory whereby we all got together back channel and
>decided to condemn Armstrong and Letkeman's kooky hate page, rather than
>simply being a number of people apparently capable of reading better
>than you can.
The only things hateful about the page are the content of the posts
archived within it. Why does Starshadow want her own posts removed?
Why is she incapable of providing even a single quote to bolster her
baseless assertion that the page itself is a hate page?
The only things kooky about the page are the authors of the posts
archived within in. I'm glad Starshadow finally realized what a kook
she is. Why is she incapable of providing even a single quote to
bolster her baseless assertion that the page itself is kooky?
Why does Starshadow attack fellow critics and activists with baseless
assertions, if not to further OSA's agenda? I suppose she could just
be a kook with a lot of personal problems.
---
"You then lie by saying you don't lie, and you don't call others
names, when in fact, you may not say the WORD "liar" but saying that
someone lied is in fact calling them a liar."
---- Starshadow
Starshadow
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:12:08 -0800, Starshadow
> <stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Warrior wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>I'm not asking you to tell him what to do. I addressed Armstrong and
>>Letkeman directly several times on this ng. The first post was worded
>>pretty politely, no name calling, simply a disagreement with Letkeman,
>>point by point, her declaration that Claire was participating in
>>"fraud". For that I got a rambling response that I was somehow engaging
>>in Hubbard tech with no addressing of point by point.
>
>
> Starshadow knows what a rambling response is. See the absolute train
> wreck of a run-on sentence below. ;-)
>
>
>>No one is ASKING
>>in Hubbard tech with no addressing of point by point. No one is ASKING
>>you to deny him any right to speak nor to web his opinions--as if anyone
>>could hold you accountable for controlling or not controlling him anyway
>>(which, btw, is a "straw man", since no one has asked you to do any such
>>thing.
>
>
> Here comes the 20+ line train wreck of a run-on sentence (possibly
> produced by too much exposure to Hubbard?):
>
>
No, anonymous coward, I never subscribed to Scn'y.
Sometimes I type the way I think. I admit it's rambling, but if you
don't like to deal with it, skip my posts.
Calling people you disagree with "gOon SquAd follies" with caricatures
of those who have had the temerity to disagree with you qualifies as a
"kooky hate page" however inept it is.
Calling posts by people one disagrees with and webbing them without
permission, and indeed over withdrawn permission, "Scientology Usenet
Black PR and Ops" is certainly a quote that bolsters the assertation
that the page itself is a hate page, when most of the people whose posts
are webbed are certainly not OSA nor engaged in "Scientology Usenet
Black PR and Ops".
> The only things kooky about the page are the authors of the posts
> archived within in. I'm glad Starshadow finally realized what a kook
> she is. Why is she incapable of providing even a single quote to
> bolster her baseless assertion that the page itself is kooky?
I just did, anonymous coward.
> Why does Starshadow attack fellow critics and activists with baseless
> assertions, if not to further OSA's agenda? I suppose she could just
> be a kook with a lot of personal problems.
>
I suppose you could be an anonymous coward who is also an insane
nutter, too.
BTW, expressing disagreement with people on Usenet is not "attacking".
It is expressing disagreement.
HTH. Feel free to FOAD, anonymous coward.
Have A Cow
<stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
>Have A Cow wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 06:12:08 -0800, Starshadow
>> <stars...@starshadowlovesxenu.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Calling people you disagree with "gOon SquAd follies" with caricatures
>of those who have had the temerity to disagree with you qualifies as a
>"kooky hate page" however inept it is.
Claiming that Gerry is "calling people" anything is yet another
baseless assertion on Starshadow's part.
>
>Calling posts by people one disagrees with and webbing them without
>permission, and indeed over withdrawn permission, "Scientology Usenet
>Black PR and Ops" is certainly a quote that bolsters the assertation
>that the page itself is a hate page,
Nope. If the quote were "These people are Scientology Usenet Black PR
and Ops", Starshadow might be correct. But Starshadow's "quote" is
missing a verb, so it really doesn't "say" anything at all. It
certainly doesn't constitute Gerry "calling people" names as
Starshadow continues to baselessly assert. Just what is Starshadow's
personal problem? Why are so many of her assertions baseless?
>when most of the people whose posts
>are webbed are certainly not OSA nor engaged in "Scientology Usenet
>Black PR and Ops".
It has been pointed out many times that some ars posters including
Starshadow further OSA's agenda by attacking fellow activists. Andreas
was apparently driven from ars by the actions of such posters. It
doesn't seem a coincidence that some of these same ars posters
including Starshadow have posts webbed on Gerry's page.
>> The only things kooky about the page are the authors of the posts
>> archived within in. I'm glad Starshadow finally realized what a kook
>> she is. Why is she incapable of providing even a single quote to
>> bolster her baseless assertion that the page itself is kooky?
>
>I just did, anonymous coward.
As pointed out above, the verbless quote which Starshadow has provided
says nothing and proves nothing. Why are so many of Starshadow's
assertions baseless?
>
>> Why does Starshadow attack fellow critics and activists with baseless
>> assertions, if not to further OSA's agenda? I suppose she could just
>> be a kook with a lot of personal problems.
>>
>
> I suppose you could be an anonymous coward who is also an insane
>nutter, too.
>
> BTW, expressing disagreement with people on Usenet is not "attacking".
>It is expressing disagreement.
Using blatant lies and misrepresentation to "express disagreement"
does indeed represent a form of attack. Lies and hate would seem to be
Starshadow's stock in trade.
>
> HTH. Feel free to FOAD, anonymous coward.
Apparently hate speech is indeed Starshadow's stock in trade. Merry
Christmas!
>
>---
>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
----------------------------
"You then lie by saying you don't lie, and you don't call others
names, when in fact, you may not say the WORD "kook" but nominating
someone for kookdom is in fact calling them a kook."
---- Shadowkook
Tigger
HI, Mark,
Still "having a cow", are ye? If you can get the milk for free, why pay
the cow?
Tigger
***************************************************************
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
"True peace is not merely the absence of tension but the presence of
justice and brotherhood."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
**************************************************************