Deana -- Big, Big Supporter of Attacks on Fair Game Targets

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 5:34:24 AM11/4/02
to
Why does Deana support Garry Scarff in his attacks on Scientology's
fair game targets? Why does Deana not support the fair game targets?
Why did Deana try to undermine a potentially very valuable witness in
the Lisa McPherson case?

Remember this post?

[Quote]

From: Garry <Garry_...@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
Date: 9 Apr 2002 23:54:56 -0700
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <a90nk...@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <c907buk3elp26ltjp...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-441.newsdawg.com
X-Newsreader: Direct Read News 2.91


In article <c907buk3elp26ltjp...@4ax.com>, Gerry says...
>
>Scientology knows all about this, so there's no sense to withhold the
>fact from our group of friends and supporters.
>
>I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
>litigation.
>
>I understand that Caroline was named by Ken Dandar in court on March
>28 as a witness in the Lisa McPherson case.
>
>This is of course very scary to us both, because Caroline is already
>fair game, already a target for her famous essay, for her studied
>website http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/, her well reasoned, well
>researched and gentle essays and comments on a.r.s., her nagging
>demand for a refund of all the money Scientology ripped off, her utter
>defiance of David Miscavige personally in all this fair game, her
>steadfast goal to be reunited with her daughter,and her unshakeable
>connection to me.

Oh, there's a thought. "Unshakeable" until such time Caroline exhibits
a mind of her own and doesn't accept all the the Gerrycrap hook, line
& sinker. Once Gerry has had his fill using Caroline, he'll
unceremoniously dump her like he's done with the other women he's
wooed and manipulated.

>I hope the Tampa Bay opposition will connect up with her, because she
>really is vulnerable in this part of the world doing what she's doing,
>and because for obvious security reasons I have to be here.

Security reasons..horseshit. You have to be there because you're a
loathsome coward and can't face up to your own responsibilities.
>
>We thought our friends and supporters would want to know.
>
>She sure is in my prayers in all this.

Oh, joy. :-(

[End Quote]

Now Deana supports Scarff who tried to undermine Caroline and me, when
Caroline was about to fly to Tampa to participate in the McPherson
litigation *for* Ken Dandar.

Following my April 9, 2002 post to a.r.s., the intention of which was
to try to enhance Caroline's security in Tampa/Clearwater while she
was there, I received a snotty, pretended thoughtless e-mail from
Deana on this subject, which I took as an attack, and an effort to
also undermine Caroline's participation as a witness. I replied,
politely asking Deana to support her comments, and she sent me back an
even more snotty e-mail, refusing to explain her earlier snottiness or
her "reasoning."

Since Deana was presenting herself at that time as the voice for the
family of Lisa McPherson and the McPherson litigation on a.r.s. and
the Internet, her attack on Caroline and me and her refusal to
communicate decently was a significant factor in Caroline's eventual
decision to not testify.

There were other factors involving other participants in the McPherson
litigation, which I won't go into in this message. But Deana's
undermining of Caroline and me, and consequently the Lisa McPherson
litigation, should be known about by anyone who supports that
litigation.

Now Deana openly, and with absolutely no logical provocation, joins
Scarff in the effort to undermine and destroy Caroline's and my
relationship.

[Quote]

So, is this part of your duties in being the only member of Gerry
Armstrong's Cult of One [TM]?

Really, Caroline, you could spend your time better doing other things,
starting with taking Gerry off the pedestal that you put him on.

[End Quote]

Message-ID: <Xns92BBBE1AB691...@208.201.224.154>

[Quote]

Of course, I just see Caroline as the only member of Gerry's "cult of
one."

It's rather pathetic.

[End Quote]

Message-ID: <Xns92BBBC5CEDFE...@208.201.224.154>

I should add that my post of April 9 to a.r.s. alerting people to
Caroline's participation in the litigation, which Scientology already
knew about, did enhance her security, and did result in her hooking up
with Mike Krotz, who was a great help and support to her.


© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Deana Holmes

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 7:35:28 PM11/4/02
to
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
news:t6gcsu03l6mu56i0d...@4ax.com:

Gerry,

All of this would be of great concern to me if I knew that this was true. I
really do think, that I should call Ken Dandar and ask him if what you say
here is truly the case.

There have been so many wild allegations thrown around a.r.s in recent
times about various people and situations. Many of these allegations could
have been cleared up with one phone call. In fairness to the newsgroup, I
will go to the effort of verifying your remarks by going to Mr. Dandar, who
would certainly know the truth of the matter, since he was there.

If it's true that I am the reason that Caroline decided not to be a witness
for a case that I care so much about, I will apologize to you and Caroline.
But if I find out that your allegations are not true after I talk to Ken
Dandar, will you apologize to me for not telling the truth about my alleged
involvement with Caroline being a witness to the case?

Regards,

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

Rebecca Hartong

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 7:59:35 PM11/4/02
to
On 11/4/02 7:35 PM, in article
Xns92BCB315BBE3...@208.201.224.154, "Deana Holmes"
<mir...@sonic.net> wrote:

(snips)

>> Now Deana supports Scarff who tried to undermine Caroline and me, when
>> Caroline was about to fly to Tampa to participate in the McPherson
>> litigation *for* Ken Dandar.
>>
>> Following my April 9, 2002 post to a.r.s., the intention of which was
>> to try to enhance Caroline's security in Tampa/Clearwater while she
>> was there, I received a snotty, pretended thoughtless e-mail from
>> Deana on this subject, which I took as an attack, and an effort to
>> also undermine Caroline's participation as a witness. I replied,
>> politely asking Deana to support her comments, and she sent me back an
>> even more snotty e-mail, refusing to explain her earlier snottiness or
>> her "reasoning."
>>
>> Since Deana was presenting herself at that time as the voice for the
>> family of Lisa McPherson and the McPherson litigation on a.r.s. and
>> the Internet, her attack on Caroline and me and her refusal to
>> communicate decently was a significant factor in Caroline's eventual
>> decision to not testify.
>>
>> There were other factors involving other participants in the McPherson
>> litigation, which I won't go into in this message. But Deana's
>> undermining of Caroline and me, and consequently the Lisa McPherson
>> litigation, should be known about by anyone who supports that
>> litigation.

> All of this would be of great concern to me if I knew that this was true. I


> really do think, that I should call Ken Dandar and ask him if what you say
> here is truly the case.
>
> There have been so many wild allegations thrown around a.r.s in recent
> times about various people and situations. Many of these allegations could
> have been cleared up with one phone call. In fairness to the newsgroup, I
> will go to the effort of verifying your remarks by going to Mr. Dandar, who
> would certainly know the truth of the matter, since he was there.

I admit to being a bit confused by this, Deana. Why would Ken Dandar
necessarily know what factors influenced Caroline's decision? It's certainly
possible that she told him her reasons, but isn't it also possible that she
didn't?

> If it's true that I am the reason that Caroline decided not to be a witness
> for a case that I care so much about, I will apologize to you and Caroline.
> But if I find out that your allegations are not true after I talk to Ken
> Dandar, will you apologize to me for not telling the truth about my alleged
> involvement with Caroline being a witness to the case?

What if Dandar doesn't know one way or another? Then what?

Deana Holmes

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 8:03:27 PM11/4/02
to
Rebecca Hartong <rhar...@cox.net> wrote in
news:B9EC8225.D510%rhar...@cox.net:

> What if Dandar doesn't know one way or another? Then what?

Then it's my word versus Gerry's. But I do think I'll be able to find out
what happened.

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

Zinj

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 8:11:44 PM11/4/02
to
In article <B9EC8225.D510%rhar...@cox.net>, rhar...@cox.net says...

What if Ken, in full control of his faculties, refuses to even
recognize that 'Deana' exists? Oh... he knows? Yes, he does. His take
was that Deana Holmes is a woman who made a webpage about Lisa.

Nothing more. Nothing less.
What if he hangs up on her?

I suspect Deana will explode like a Diniro duct in Brazil.
But, let's wait and see.

Zinj
--
Scientology hoarded documents almost invariably criminalize
Scientology
Critic hoarded documents almost invariably criminalize Scientology
We Agree Finally!
Documents are Good!!!!

George

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 8:33:21 PM11/4/02
to
Deana Holmes" <mir...@sonic.net> wrote


She's about to put your balls in a vice grip. I'd apologize now.


George Xenu

Zinj

unread,
Nov 4, 2002, 8:57:03 PM11/4/02
to
In article <ALUGO0IN37564.8148263889@anonymous.poster>, Anonymous-
Rema...@See.Comment.Header says...

I'd suspect that the closest Deana gets to *anyone's* balls is what
the germans call 'Donnerkugeln'

Garry

unread,
Nov 5, 2002, 2:40:05 AM11/5/02
to
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<t6gcsu03l6mu56i0d...@4ax.com>...

> Why does Deana support Garry Scarff in his attacks on Scientology's
> fair game targets? Why does Deana not support the fair game targets?

Christ, the infamous whiner and blamer has his panties all knotted up
again. Just because Deana has an opinion about Caroline's relationship
with Gerry, he wants to bastardize it into a non-existent conspiracy.

It says alot about an unemployed 56-year old man who has existed
living off the generosity of others, but hasn't done a damn thing to
help himself.

> Why did Deana try to undermine a potentially very valuable witness in
> the Lisa McPherson case?

Let's see - $800,000 from Scientology, $100,000+ from Bob Minton,
money from Brian Haney....and now poor Gerry lives in Germany fleeing
a criminal arrest warrant.
>
> Remember this post?

Who cares, except you and your cult of one?

Garry

unread,
Nov 5, 2002, 3:00:12 AM11/5/02
to
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<t6gcsu03l6mu56i0d...@4ax.com>...

> Why does Deana support Garry Scarff in his attacks on Scientology's


> fair game targets? Why does Deana not support the fair game targets?
> Why did Deana try to undermine a potentially very valuable witness in
> the Lisa McPherson case?

This moronic post by Gerry Armstrong is yet another fine example of
idiocy at its greatest. Armstrong is a very negative individual.

Negative people like Gerry are toxic; they destroy, they do not build.
They are vampires that can live only by draining the life from others.
The odds are greater that they will pull you down faster than you can
lift them up.

Gerry Armstrong is the consummate whiner, complainer, blamer and
thumbsucker.

Zinj

unread,
Nov 5, 2002, 4:12:53 AM11/5/02
to
In article <f6058cf6.02110...@posting.google.com>,
ffr...@hotmail.com says...

Oh for christ sake... deana would use *anyone* she could to attack her
perceived enemies, much like you.

Gerry is a recurrently arrogant human who for the most part manages to
justify his existence.

Whether you, or I or Deana does? Time will only tell.

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Nov 5, 2002, 4:23:39 AM11/5/02
to
On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:35:28 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

How cheap!

I write:

[Quote]

Since Deana was presenting herself at that time as the voice for the
family of Lisa McPherson and the McPherson litigation on a.r.s. and
the Internet, her attack on Caroline and me and her refusal to
communicate decently was a significant factor in Caroline's eventual
decision to not testify.

There were other factors involving other participants in the McPherson
litigation, which I won't go into in this message.

[End Quote]

So Deana offers to apologize if she is *******the******* reason.

Well, Deana, how about a little truth? Will you also apologize to me
and Caroline if your actions were as I say (and not as you lyingly
state) a significant factor in Caroline's eventual decision to not
testify?

The whole point is that Caroline was putting her identity, reputation,
heart, mind, time and life on the line for Lisa McPherson and for
justice. One would think that you of all people would be
understanding, supportive and encouraging. But you were not. You were
not understanding, You were unsupportive. And you were discouraging.

That is expected of Garry Scarff, because there is no doubt that he
does the cult's work in attacking its fair game victims. But you do
the same thing to the cult's fair game victims, while pretending to be
something else. You even support Garry in his attacks on the cult's
fair game victims.

And you undermined Caroline as a witness in the Lisa McPherson case. I
think your attacks on Scientology's fair game victims should be told
to Dandar, and I think that any potential witnesses in that case
should be warned about the kind of support they can expect from the
"friend of Lisa's family." It is clear after years of watching you on
a.r.s that you will not change, you will not stop your attacks *for*
Scientology on its fair game victims.

So, Deana, let's just say that you did in fact undermine Caroline's
agreeing to be a witness and put her life on the line --- for no
remuneration whatsoever --- to do what she could, as a Class IX
auditor, and a person who had first hand knowledge of baby watches
like Lisa's?

You say you'd apologize to me and Caroline. But that's hardly the
point. We should probably thank you for what you did in helping
Caroline decide to not participate, and not be subjected to that
particular bit of Scientology litigation fair game.

But the real losers by your actions are Lisa McPherson, her estate,
Ken Dandar and the case you say you care so much about. So will you
apologize to them?

Will you apologize to a.r.s. participants?

Will you apologize to everyone who ever supported the Lisa McPherson
case?

Will you apologize to Bob and Stacy? (Or will you say that all this
has nothing to do with Bob and Stacy?)

Will you apologize to any other Scientology fair game victim whom
you've trashed over the years?

>But if I find out that your allegations are not true after I talk to Ken
>Dandar, will you apologize to me for not telling the truth about my alleged
>involvement with Caroline being a witness to the case?

What a load!

Ken may know, and in fact he *should* know. But he probably won't know
what your actions are. But nice of you to dump the responsibility for
knowing what *your* actions are on Dandar.

Why not show Dandar all your recent attacks on me, and ask him if he
knows about them?

And ask him if he knows about your support of Garry Scarff in
attacking Scientology's fair game victims.

Yes, definitely talk to Ken.

>
>Regards,
>
>Deana M. Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Deana Holmes

unread,
Nov 6, 2002, 12:01:16 AM11/6/02
to
The following is the entire correspondence between Gerry Armstrong and
myself. It does not prove Gerry's argument, that my email to him somehow
caused Caroline Letkeman to withdraw herself as a witness from the case. It
also shows that I was speaking only for myself when I wrote to Gerry. I am
posting it here because Gerry publicly accused me of things that are not
true. Gerry should not have the ability to hide behind his email when he is
telling bald-faced lies.

In the future, Gerry, if you're offended about something I wrote, don't
make up lies and post them to endear yourself to others. It will come back
on you.

[Gerry Armstrong's original post]

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:13:13 -0700
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <c907buk3elp26ltjp...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
X-Original-Trace: 9 Apr 2002 21:16:33 -0400, 216.232.125.58


Scientology knows all about this, so there's no sense to withhold the
fact from our group of friends and supporters.

I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
litigation.

I understand that Caroline was named by Ken Dandar in court on March
28 as a witness in the Lisa McPherson case.

This is of course very scary to us both, because Caroline is already
fair game, already a target for her famous essay, for her studied
website http://www.entheta.ca/caroline/, her well reasoned, well
researched and gentle essays and comments on a.r.s., her nagging
demand for a refund of all the money Scientology ripped off, her utter
defiance of David Miscavige personally in all this fair game, her

steadfast goal to be reunited with her daughter, and her unshakeable
connection to me.

And it is also scary because the Lisa McPherson litigation involves
powers and players far beyond whatever the pleadings say. Others whose
task she is being asked to do have been fair gamed from the case.

She is, as God would have it, the best possible expert on Scientology
that no money could buy. She has a mind to die for. She's also very
new to all this, and will be for various periods of time a long way
from where she now calls home.

I hope the Tampa Bay opposition will connect up with her, because she
really is vulnerable in this part of the world doing what she's doing,
and because for obvious security reasons I have to be here.

We thought our friends and supporters would want to know.

She sure is in my prayers in all this.

(c) Gerry Armstrong


[My email to Gerry]

Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman

Newsgroups: sonic:alt.religion.scientology
To: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>
References: <c907buk3elp26ltjp...@4ax.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:44:32 -0700
Lines: 12
X-ID: <Default> Deana M.
Holmes mir...@sonic.net mir...@sonic.net Knights of Xenu,
Valley of the Sun Chapter mirelesonicnet C:\XNEWS\sig.txt
X-Status: 27

On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:

> I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
> litigation.

Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to
try this on the Internet. I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce
this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
opinion.)

Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

[Gerry's first email response to me]

Received: by ultra.sonic.net (mbox mirele)
(with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Tue Apr 9 19:11:09 2002)
X-From_: gerryar...@telus.net Tue Apr 9 19:10:19 2002
Return-Path: gerryar...@telus.net
Received: from priv-edtnes04-hme0.telusplanet.net (fepout2.telus.net
[199.185.220.237])
by turbo.sonic.net (8.11.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id g3A2AJZ07652
for <mir...@sonic.net>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:10:19 -0700
X-envelope-info: <gerryar...@telus.net>
Received: from user.telus.net ([216.232.125.58])
by priv-edtnes04-hme0.telusplanet.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.04.01 201-253-122-122-101-20011014) with ESMTP
id <20020410021013.UCVH20279.priv-edtnes04-
hme0.telus...@user.telus.net>
for <mir...@sonic.net>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 20:10:13 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.20020409...@pop.telus.net>
X-Sender: a6b7...@pop.telus.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:09:50 -0700
To: "Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@sonic.net>
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>


Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman

In-Reply-To: <200204100142...@turbo.sonic.net>
References: <c907buk3elp26ltjp...@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-PMFLAGS: 36176000 0 1 P79D50.CNM

At 06:42 PM 4/9/02 -0700, you wrote:


>On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:
>
> > I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
> > litigation.
>

>Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to
>try this on the Internet.

What does this have to do with trying the case on the Internet?

You report, or somebody reports, things.

Has a case ever been tried on the Internet? What do you mean?

> I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce
>this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
>opinion.)

How could it possibly be indiscreet? Scientology knows.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think it's a bad philosophy.

Why do you say I felt possessed when I most clearly wasn't?

The question is, why, if Scientology knows, would you feel possessed in
this circumstance to withhold the information from the world?

But surely you understand that Caroline's security is more important than
her testimony in the Lisa McPherson case, even if to it is added the
advantage you gain by your almost certainly inadvisable discretion.

Do you think I have no right to be involved in Caroline's security?

Gerry


>Deana Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net

[Gerry's second email response to me]

Received: by buzz.sonic.net (mbox mirele)
(with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Wed Apr 17 07:01:05 2002)
X-From_: gerryar...@telus.net Wed Apr 17 06:57:55 2002
Return-Path: gerryar...@telus.net
Received: from priv-edtnes16-hme0.telusplanet.net (defout.telus.net
[199.185.220.240])
by turbo.sonic.net (8.11.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id g3HDvt119045
for <mir...@sonic.net>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:57:55 -0700
X-envelope-info: <gerryar...@telus.net>
Received: from user.telus.net ([216.232.120.199])
by priv-edtnes16-hme0.telusplanet.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.04.02 201-253-122-122-102-20011128) with ESMTP
id <20020417135753.KJUU23644.priv-edtnes16-
hme0.telus...@user.telus.net>
for <mir...@sonic.net>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:57:53 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.20020413...@pop.telus.net>
X-Sender: a6b7...@pop.telus.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:56:07 -0700
To: mir...@sonic.net
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>
Subject: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-PMFLAGS: 35127424 0 1 P19700.CNM

Hi Deana:

You haven't answered my e-mail and questions to you.

[Quote]

To: "Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@sonic.net> Subject: Re: Lisa
McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
At 06:42 PM 4/9/02 -0700, you wrote:


On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:

> I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
> litigation.

Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to
try this on the Internet.

What does this have to do with trying the case on the Internet?

You report, or somebody reports, things.

Has a case ever been tried on the Internet? What do you mean?

I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce
this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
opinion.)

How could it possibly be indiscreet? Scientology knows.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think it's a bad philosophy.

Why do you say I felt possessed when I most clearly wasn't?

The question is, why, if Scientology knows, would you feel possessed in
this circumstance to withhold the information from the world?

But surely you understand that Caroline's security is more important than
her testimony in the Lisa McPherson case, even if to it is added the
advantage you gain by your almost certainly inadvisable discretion.

Do you think I have no right to be involved in Caroline's security?

Gerry


Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

[End Quote]

I understand that you were on chat after this, again asserting that I was
indiscreet. How much more indiscreet could you be?

Since this is a subject which is important and since you've been making
this ridiculous charge of "indiscretion" about me, do you mind if I post
your communication and my response to a.r.s. to clear the air?

I do want to thank you for your complete lack of support for Caroline and
me, and your efforts to undermine us, because it all helped show us the
sort of support she and we would get if she had proceeded to participate in
the case.

In any event, now that Caroline will not be testifying and Bill Franks
will, would you mind answering my response to your "indiscretion" charge?

Gerry


[My response to Gerry]

X-cs: R
From: Mirele <mir...@sonic.net>
X-RS-ID: <Default>
X-RS-Flags: 0,0,1,1,0,0,0
X-RS-Header: In-reply-to: <4.3.2.20020413...@pop.telus.net>
X-RS-Sigset: 0
To: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>


Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:05:57 -0700

On 17 Apr 2002 at 6:56, Gerry Armstrong wrote:

> Hi Deana:
>
> You haven't answered my e-mail and questions to you.

Gerry, I see no reason to answer your questions. I don't think you're
interested in answers.

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

[End]

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Nov 6, 2002, 4:12:29 AM11/6/02
to
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 05:01:16 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>The following is the entire correspondence between Gerry Armstrong and

>myself. It does not prove Gerry's argument, that my email to him somehow
>caused Caroline Letkeman to withdraw herself as a witness from the case.

What you've stated here proves part of my allegation. You now admit
you sent these e-mails, and I also accept that you are also admitting
that, as I state in one of the e-mails, you did indeed attack me on
this subject on the chat channel.

The other part of the proof of my allegation is the effect you caused
in Caroline and me with your actions. I have told you what that effect
was. You have no evidence whatsoever that it was anything but what
I've stated it was.

Hence I have proven my allegation. And it is you therefore who is the
liar.

But worse, you are now acting to compound what you did originally by
newly attacking the targets of your undermining.

> It
>also shows that I was speaking only for myself when I wrote to Gerry. I am
>posting it here because Gerry publicly accused me of things that are not
>true.

Now you're lying Deana.

In connection with Caroline's testifying in the Lisa McPherson case,
here is what I accused you of doing:

[Quote]

Following my April 9, 2002 post to a.r.s., the intention of which was
to try to enhance Caroline's security in Tampa/Clearwater while she
was there, I received a snotty, pretended thoughtless e-mail from
Deana on this subject, which I took as an attack, and an effort to
also undermine Caroline's participation as a witness. I replied,
politely asking Deana to support her comments, and she sent me back an
even more snotty e-mail, refusing to explain her earlier snottiness or
her "reasoning."

Since Deana was presenting herself at that time as the voice for the
family of Lisa McPherson and the McPherson litigation on a.r.s. and
the Internet, her attack on Caroline and me and her refusal to
communicate decently was a significant factor in Caroline's eventual
decision to not testify.

[End Quote]

> Gerry should not have the ability to hide behind his email when he is
>telling bald-faced lies.

I have not been hiding behind any e-mail. As you can read below, I
asked you, because of your attacks on chat, if I could post our e-mail
exchanges to a.r.s.

[Quote]

Since this is a subject which is important and since you've been
making this ridiculous charge of "indiscretion" about me, do you mind
if I post your communication and my response to a.r.s. to clear the
air?

[End Quote]

You did not give me permission, but now that you've been caught lying
you post the e-mail exchange *without* asking permission. This is
responsible behavior, right?

The e-mail exchanges are as I recall them, and they show that Deana
Holmes indeed acted to undermine Caroline's participation as a witness


in the Lisa McPherson case.

As shown, Deana, you did the same on chat. You tried to undermine
Caroline and me. You had no concern whatsoever for Caroline's
security. You were yourself indiscreet. You were at a minimum
thoughtless, and I tend to believe deliberately acting to attack
Caroline and me.

This is supported by your set of obvious deliberate, undermining
attacks in the past few days.

The effect your actions had in April this year was exactly as I have
stated. Maybe you are so naturally hostile that you think your
nastiness is actually support for people, but I don't believe that
common, average people think that at all.

Caroline was going into a dangerous situation. She was giving a great
deal of herself, putting herself at risk, wanting only to help Lisa,
the estate and justice, for no remuneration whatsoever. I was her
support and her confidant, and I was looking out for her security.
You, Deana, acted to undermine me, Caroline, Dandar and the Lisa
McPherson litigation.

Now, worse, you refuse to acknowledge that you did anything wrong,
even when you yourself possess the evidence.

>
>In the future, Gerry, if you're offended about something I wrote, don't
>make up lies and post them to endear yourself to others. It will come back
>on you.

Deana, you are lying, you are acting irresponsibly, and your lying and
irresponsibility is still underming Caroline and me, and worse, the


case you say you care so much about.

>

But, Deana, you're were as wrong about me in April as you are now. I
was and I am still interested in your answers. Now you can publicly
answer all the questions I asked of you, which, after your undermining
in April, you refused to answer. I am very interested in your answers.

You said you see no reason to answer. But that too had to be a lie.
The reasons were and are right before you. Now here's another reason
that you say you couldn't see. I am interested. You were wrong about
me not being interested in your answers. I most certainly am.

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Tigger

unread,
Nov 6, 2002, 7:12:56 AM11/6/02
to
Gerry says:

(snip of GAUD/GABS)

Boy you will go all the way to prove you're an idiot, won't you? You
were indiscreet by posting on the internet that your galpal would not be
a witness for the Lisa McP Estate. What better way to give OSA the
news that their "tactics" of intimidation work even when OSA doesn't
pull out the sledge hammer.

IMCO, it's probably a good thing your galpal didn't testify.....she
might have FUBAR the truth just as Minton and Brooks did and what you
are doing now.

YAFIYGI.........Deana provided proof (your very own words) that you lied
and tried to make Mount Everest out of a pea.

IUUD.....No doubt it will be even more asinine, ridiculous and untrue
than all your previous ones.

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.
**************************************************************

Garry

unread,
Nov 6, 2002, 11:31:59 AM11/6/02
to
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<8lmhsuc0791eqv1bc...@4ax.com>...

© GerryArmstrong Certified Liar

Boudewijn van Ingen

unread,
Nov 6, 2002, 8:16:28 PM11/6/02
to
On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:28:54 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
>news:8lmhsuc0791eqv1bc...@4ax.com:
>
><snip drivel>
>
>Gerry,
>
>Get this through your lying head.

Point me to one single lie. Better yet, show us where you actually
cared.

>I am not going to be your whipping boy.

Seems to me you do have such desires, considering the manner you go
out of your way to invite critisism of yourself.

>I am not going to take your blame for something that is simply not true.

To me it seems like you not only declined to show care about
Caroline's security in Clearwater (which I already noted at the time)
but you aparently felt it necessary do discourage anyone that felt
worried about that.

I too, wonder what constructive purpose you could have had in mind
doing that? Especially because I have observed that you were never
very much inclined to participate in any discussion of your purposes.

>You
>made certain allegations and the documents I posted do not prove what you
>are claiming.

In what you have now posted, I can find nothing more than evidence of
you taking a hostile stance to Gerry for worrying about Caroline's
safety, and you not willing to respond to his questions why you would
take such a stance.

>What they do show is that you have been in some sort of
>fantasy world for some time now.

What particular "fantasy world" is that, according to yours, Deana??

>I have been told that you are delusional

You have been told?? Which "Org" do you visit regularly? ;-)

>and that I should excuse your lying on that basis.

Did the person who "told you" also explain what the "lies" were???

>I have chosen not to take that "advice", but to expose
>you for the liar that you are.

Ah, so you yourself will be able to tell me what the "lies" are!!

Please do.

>You can continue to post your paranoid
>delusionary posts, but I won't be answering them.

Why do I feel that 'tactic' will work 'miracles' for you, Deana? NOT.

>My emails show clearly
>what was going on,

In fact, all that they show is that you critisize Gerry for telling
the world about something that $cientology obviously already knew, and
when questioned about your reasons for such critisism, you have given
no apparent reply.

And apparently you still refuse to explain yourself, judging from the
above statement..

>and just because you are in some quasi-Scientological
>state of mind doesn't mean that I have to indulge your fantasies at my
>expense.

Even if I try my utmost to interpret Gerry's e-mails to you (why did
you *not* ask for his permission to post them, BTW?) along with
everything he posted about this issue in a very "quasi-$cientological"
way, I cannot possibly see where he is expressing much more than his
genuine concern about Caroline's safety.

It is your very own persistent refusal to comment on your own
reasoning that comes across to me as being most in line with a
"quasi-$cientological" "fantasy".

>Deana M. Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net


--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.

Deana Holmes

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 12:45:29 AM11/7/02
to
Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:j2ejsu8ght07grss7...@4ax.com:

<snip>

I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
*you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.nete

Garry

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 9:07:42 AM11/7/02
to
Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<Xns92BEE7ABA862...@208.201.224.154>...

> Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in
> news:j2ejsu8ght07grss7...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
> *you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
> his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.

If intelligence was chocolate, Boudewijee wouldn't have enough to fill an M&M.

Ignore him. He's just another Gerry Armstrong suck-up.

Rebecca Hartong

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 10:26:02 AM11/7/02
to
On 11/7/02 12:45 AM, in article
Xns92BEE7ABA862...@208.201.224.154, "Deana Holmes"
<mir...@sonic.net> wrote:

> I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
> *you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
> his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.

I'm curious about what you would consider proof. Since, as far as I can see,
this whole debate hinges on what Caroline's state of mind was when she
decided not to be involved in the McPherson case, it seems like the most
compelling proof would be for Caroline herself to explain it. Better yet
would be something *from Caroline* from around the time of her decision--
stating something to the effect of, "I'm not going to do it because of
Deana." Frankly, this whole thing is goofy. You and Gerry arguing about what
a third person *felt* at a certain point in time. It's ridiculous.
Particularly since Caroline herself hasn't commented one way or another
(that I've noticed...not that I've been paying all that much attention.) I
understand that you're annoyed with Gerry's claiming that it's all your
fault but, jeez, consider the source!

Boudewijn van Ingen

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 9:17:35 PM11/7/02
to
On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 05:45:29 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in


>news:j2ejsu8ght07grss7...@4ax.com:
>
><snip>
>
>I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
>*you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
>his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.

Your refusal or inability to explain your stance, not only to me, but
to the newsgroup will be noted.

Thank you.


--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.

Boudewijn van Ingen

unread,
Nov 7, 2002, 9:29:43 PM11/7/02
to
On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:26:02 GMT, Rebecca Hartong <rhar...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On 11/7/02 12:45 AM, in article
>Xns92BEE7ABA862...@208.201.224.154, "Deana Holmes"
><mir...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
>> *you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
>> his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.
>
>I'm curious about what you would consider proof. Since, as far as I can see,
>this whole debate hinges on what Caroline's state of mind was when she
>decided not to be involved in the McPherson case, it seems like the most
>compelling proof would be for Caroline herself to explain it. Better yet
>would be something *from Caroline* from around the time of her decision--
>stating something to the effect of, "I'm not going to do it because of
>Deana." Frankly, this whole thing is goofy. You and Gerry arguing about what
>a third person *felt* at a certain point in time. It's ridiculous.

Indeed it is. That is why some people -like me- whould like to know
more about Deana's stance in this "issue".

>Particularly since Caroline herself hasn't commented one way or another
>(that I've noticed...not that I've been paying all that much attention.) I
>understand that you're annoyed with Gerry's claiming that it's all your
>fault but, jeez, consider the source!

Indeed, I believe that both Caroline and Gerry did not need the
"advice" they were given by Deana. And I believe that at the time they
had no means to assert where that "advice" came from, exactly.

I think this has all been an unfortunate misunderstanding.

The only difficulty I have remaining with this is, that Deana still
seems unable to actually think about what might have happened.

Still, I'm not very surprised about that...


--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.

James R. Ford

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 8:25:21 AM11/8/02
to
On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 05:45:29 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in


>news:j2ejsu8ght07grss7...@4ax.com:
>
><snip>
>
>I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
>*you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
>his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.

In other words, you have no proof. You never show proof when backed
into a corner yet you accuse others of lying.


>
>Deana M. Holmes
>mir...@sonic.nete

Deana Holmes

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 7:02:08 PM11/8/02
to
Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in
news:5h7msuo8kasakqep6...@4ax.com:

> Your refusal or inability to explain your stance, not only to me, but
> to the newsgroup will be noted.
>

Don't waste my time, Boudewijn.

Basically, you're taking the word of a paranoid, scientologically-oriented
man living in his own fantasy world over my word, AND over the ENTIRE
correspondence as posted here.

Your idiocy is noted, as well.

I really have nothing more to say to you.

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

Deana Holmes

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 7:04:56 PM11/8/02
to
James R. Ford <jr-...@insightbb.com> wrote in
news:b0insuc84cesqtt1n...@4ax.com:

> In other words, you have no proof. You never show proof when backed
> into a corner yet you accuse others of lying.

Go read the *correspondence between Gerry and myself* I posted. Or, is this
also going to be like the transcripts, where you won't read them because
you "know better"? If you believe Gerry's paranoid mindset when faced with
the *evidence*, well then, God have mercy on you, because you're an idiot.

P.S. I'm not going to take responsibility for the ravings of a deluded
mind, whether it's Gerry's, OR yours.

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

Fluffygirl

unread,
Nov 8, 2002, 11:19:19 PM11/8/02
to

"Deana Holmes" <mir...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92BE42190E62...@208.201.224.154...

> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
> news:8lmhsuc0791eqv1bc...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip drivel>
>
> Gerry,
>
> Get this through your lying head. I am not going to be your whipping boy.
I
> am not going to take your blame for something that is simply not true. You

> made certain allegations and the documents I posted do not prove what you
> are claiming. What they do show is that you have been in some sort of

> fantasy world for some time now.
>
> I have been told that you are delusional and that I should excuse your
> lying on that basis. I have chosen not to take that "advice", but to
expose
> you for the liar that you are. You can continue to post your paranoid
> delusionary posts, but I won't be answering them. My emails show clearly
> what was going on, and just because you are in some quasi-Scientological

> state of mind doesn't mean that I have to indulge your fantasies at my
> expense.
>

My Scn friends do not act one whit like Gerry, actually. Even the strangest
of Scn'ists whom I've met over the years did not.

I wouldn't, therefore characterize it as a Scientological or
quasi-Scientological state of mind.

C


James R. Ford

unread,
Nov 9, 2002, 8:57:46 AM11/9/02
to
As usual, you snipped the part of your screed I was commenting on.
The part where you said you were not going to waste your time proving
anything.


On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:04:56 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>James R. Ford <jr-...@insightbb.com> wrote in

Gerry Armstrong

unread,
Nov 9, 2002, 10:30:32 AM11/9/02
to
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:19:19 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Deana Holmes" <mir...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns92BE42190E62...@208.201.224.154...
>> Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
>> news:8lmhsuc0791eqv1bc...@4ax.com:
>>
>> <snip drivel>
>>
>> Gerry,
>>
>> Get this through your lying head. I am not going to be your whipping boy.
>I
>> am not going to take your blame for something that is simply not true. You
>> made certain allegations and the documents I posted do not prove what you
>> are claiming. What they do show is that you have been in some sort of
>> fantasy world for some time now.
>>
>> I have been told that you are delusional and that I should excuse your
>> lying on that basis. I have chosen not to take that "advice", but to
>expose
>> you for the liar that you are. You can continue to post your paranoid
>> delusionary posts, but I won't be answering them. My emails show clearly
>> what was going on, and just because you are in some quasi-Scientological
>> state of mind doesn't mean that I have to indulge your fantasies at my
>> expense.
>>
>
>My Scn friends do not act one whit like Gerry, actually.

I bow to your obviously superior powers of differentiation. They're so
extant.

But why on earth do you black PR your Scientologist "friends" like
this?

I have never said anything about Scientologists, even though 8 million
of them may want me disposed of quietly and without sorrow , which is
anywhere near as hateful as what you've written about them here.

I always say that the only possible difference between me and
Scientologists is that I know we're all the same. But what you're
saying is such an attack on Scientologists it gives me the creeps.

Please stop your attacks. Scientologists are just like wogs (R).

Oops, I forgot. You've got me killfiled. You killfiled me just so you
could carry out your attacks on your Scientologist "friends?" How
terribly sad.

> Even the strangest
>of Scn'ists whom I've met over the years did not.
>
>I wouldn't, therefore characterize it as a Scientological or
>quasi-Scientological state of mind.
>
>C
>

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

Garry

unread,
Nov 9, 2002, 11:25:11 AM11/9/02
to
Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:<5h7msuo8kasakqep6...@4ax.com>...

> On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 05:45:29 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in
> >news:j2ejsu8ght07grss7...@4ax.com:
> >

> >I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
> >*you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
> >his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.
>
> Your refusal or inability to explain your stance, not only to me, but
> to the newsgroup will be noted.

Why is it that the people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths?

Garry

unread,
Nov 9, 2002, 3:29:55 PM11/9/02
to
Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<bfaqsu82avhtg8b76...@4ax.com>...

> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:19:19 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
> <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >My Scn friends do not act one whit like Gerry, actually.
>
> I bow to your obviously superior powers of differentiation. They're so
> extant.
>
> But why on earth do you black PR your Scientologist "friends" like
> this?
>
> I have never said anything about Scientologists, even though 8 million
> of them may want me disposed of quietly and without sorrow , which is
> anywhere near as hateful as what you've written about them here.
>
> I always say that the only possible difference between me and
> Scientologists is that I know we're all the same. But what you're
> saying is such an attack on Scientologists it gives me the creeps.
>
> Please stop your attacks. Scientologists are just like wogs (R).
>
> Oops, I forgot. You've got me killfiled. You killfiled me just so you
> could carry out your attacks on your Scientologist "friends?" How
> terribly sad.
>

> © Gerry Armstrong
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

The sad, tormented narcissist rants again. To Gerry,losing control of
ARS and the critics movement means going insane. Because other people
are mere elements in Gerry's mind - being unable to manipulate them
literally means losing it (his mind). Imagine, like Gerry, if you
suddenly were to find out that you cannot manipulate your memories or
control your thoughts...

It is often only through manipulation and extortion that Gerry the
Narcissist can secure his narcissistic supply. Controlling his sources
of narcissistic supply is a (mental) life or death question for Gerry.
He is a drug addict (his drug being the NS) and he would go to any
length to obtain the next dose.

Boudewijn van Ingen

unread,
Nov 9, 2002, 9:01:15 PM11/9/02
to
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 00:02:08 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Boudewijn van Ingen <bo...@xs4all.nl> wrote in

I can understand that.

You do not want to have to explain why you hate.

It would not look good, now would it?


--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.

Elizabeth Ann Cox

unread,
Nov 5, 2002, 3:56:44 PM11/5/02
to
Have you and UMike formed a friendship? It appears so, with chigger thrown
in for good measure. The three of you sound alike, poisoned with your own
toxins. Like several others on this NG, you just continue to DA those who
oppose the cult. Why is that, I wonder? But, we all know the answer to
that.
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!

"Garry" <ffr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6058cf6.02110...@posting.google.com...

PTSC

unread,
Nov 10, 2002, 6:07:10 PM11/10/02
to
On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:35:28 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net> wrote:

>There have been so many wild allegations thrown around a.r.s in recent
>times about various people and situations.

Deana gets a clue.

Garry

unread,
Nov 11, 2002, 2:53:34 AM11/11/02
to
Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.18312b5bb...@news.101freeway.com>...

> > Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<t6gcsu03l6mu56i0d...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > Why does Deana support Garry Scarff in his attacks on Scientology's
> > > fair game targets? Why does Deana not support the fair game targets?
> > > Why did Deana try to undermine a potentially very valuable witness in
> > > the Lisa McPherson case?
> >
> > This moronic post by Gerry Armstrong is yet another fine example of
> > idiocy at its greatest. Armstrong is a very negative individual.
> >
> > Negative people like Gerry are toxic; they destroy, they do not build.
> > They are vampires that can live only by draining the life from others.
> > The odds are greater that they will pull you down faster than you can
> > lift them up.
> >
> > Gerry Armstrong is the consummate whiner, complainer, blamer and
> > thumbsucker.
>
> Oh for christ sake... deana would use *anyone* she could to attack her
> perceived enemies, much like you.

So..Zinj...how's your child molestation business going?

Garry

unread,
Nov 11, 2002, 2:59:37 AM11/11/02
to
"Elizabeth Ann Cox" <eliza...@chesapeake.net> wrote in message news:<3dcd...@news2.lightlink.com>...

> Have you and UMike formed a friendship? It appears so, with chigger thrown
> in for good measure. The three of you sound alike, poisoned with your own
> toxins. Like several others on this NG, you just continue to DA those who
> oppose the cult.

Ahh..yes, another moronic titilation from BuggyAnn who rallies behind
those who, angered that others disagree with thier ill-mannered
tactics, writes them off as pro-cult.

Why is that, I wonder? But, we all know the answer to
> that.

Right. Uh-huh. If the government ever declared war on stupidity, you'd
get nuked.

zobicus

unread,
Nov 11, 2002, 12:03:56 PM11/11/02
to
ffr...@hotmail.com (Garry) wrote in message
>...how's your child molestation business going?

Thanks for making it obvious that I should killfile you....

...PLONK!

Garry

unread,
Nov 12, 2002, 12:31:24 AM11/12/02
to
zo...@yahoo.com (zobicus) wrote in message news:<5df5bafc.02111...@posting.google.com>...

Good riddance. You're a nobody, anyways.

Keith

unread,
Nov 12, 2002, 1:22:32 AM11/12/02
to

Warrior

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 2:55:15 AM12/6/02
to
In article <Xns92BDE0285EF7...@208.201.224.154>, Deana Holmes
wrote:

>
>I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce this to the world but
>it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own opinion.)
>
>Deana Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net

In what way was it lacking in discretion? Please do tell. I am asking
because, as many are well aware, Gerry's post regarding Caroline was
made _after_ Scientology already knew. So I ask the same question Gerry
and Bogie have asked. And I am sincerely interested in your answer, even
if you choose to reply by email only.


>Deana wrote:
>
>Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't
>want to try this on the Internet.


To which Gerry responded by asking:

"What does this have to do with trying the case on the Internet? ... The


question is, why, if Scientology knows, would you feel possessed in this
circumstance to withhold the information from the world?"

Deana's email response to Gerry, which she posted to a.r.s.:

>From: Mirele <mir...@sonic.net>
>To: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>
>Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:05:57 -0700
>

>Gerry, I see no reason to answer your questions. I don't think you're
>interested in answers.
>
>Deana M. Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net


I can assure you, Deana, that Gerry is still interested in the answers
to his questions which you received by email and posted to a.r.s.


Then, almost six months later on November 6, 2002, in message-ID
(Xns92BE42190E62...@208.201.224.154), Deana Holmes
(mir...@sonic.net) uttered the following black PR:

>
>I have been told that you are delusional and that I should excuse
>your lying on that basis.


Who told you Gerry is "delusional"?

Who told you that you "should excuse [his] lying on that basis"?

If you do not feel comfortable answering on a.r.s., an answer by
email would be fine.

Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca

Warrior

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 4:17:58 AM12/6/02
to
I'll not again email Deana Holmes since she has demonstrated that she
will post private email to a.r.s., as is shown below in her post with
message-ID <Xns92BDE0285EF7...@208.201.224.154>.

I also wish to comment publicly that I feel much of the current hate
being directed at Gerry could have been avoided if a few individuals
(and I'm talking about critics) could have communicated through email,
*and* kept their profanity and insults out of the exchange.

Note in the exchange below, and in subsequent postings, Gerry asked
Deana questions via email. She didn't bother to reply, saying, quite
irrationally to Gerry, "Gerry, I see no reason to answer your questions.
I don't think you're interested in answers" *after*, and in response
to, Gerry's very courteous and *sincere* questions. Instead, she not
only posted his very private email to a.r.s. (!), but stated in a
related posting, "I have been told that you are delusional and that

I should excuse your lying on that basis."

I think Deana is hiding an unknown source of black PR.

Her treatment of Gerry Armstrong is vile and despicable, as far as
I am concerned.

She's willing to pump out her black PR rumors, but not honest enough
to name the source, _even to Gerry, privately_.

Nope. She'd rather *pretend* that Gerry isn't interested in answers.

Who knows? Maybe she's really convinced herself of her own lie.

Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca


In article <Xns92BDE0285EF7...@208.201.224.154>, Deana says...


>
>The following is the entire correspondence between Gerry Armstrong and
>myself. It does not prove Gerry's argument, that my email to him somehow

>caused Caroline Letkeman to withdraw herself as a witness from the case. It

>also shows that I was speaking only for myself when I wrote to Gerry. I am
>posting it here because Gerry publicly accused me of things that are not

>true. Gerry should not have the ability to hide behind his email when he is
>telling bald-faced lies.
>


>In the future, Gerry, if you're offended about something I wrote, don't
>make up lies and post them to endear yourself to others. It will come back
>on you.
>

>Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman

>Newsgroups: sonic:alt.religion.scientology
>To: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>
>References: <c907buk3elp26ltjp...@4ax.com>
>Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:44:32 -0700
>Lines: 12
>X-ID: <Default> Deana M.
>Holmes mir...@sonic.net mir...@sonic.net Knights of Xenu,
>Valley of the Sun Chapter mirelesonicnet C:\XNEWS\sig.txt
>X-Status: 27
>
>On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:
>
>> I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
>> litigation.
>

>Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to

>try this on the Internet. I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce

>this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
>opinion.)
>
>Deana Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net
>

>[Gerry's first email response to me]
>
>Received: by ultra.sonic.net (mbox mirele)
> (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Tue Apr 9 19:11:09 2002)
>X-From_: gerryar...@telus.net Tue Apr 9 19:10:19 2002
>Return-Path: gerryar...@telus.net
>Received: from priv-edtnes04-hme0.telusplanet.net (fepout2.telus.net
>[199.185.220.237])
> by turbo.sonic.net (8.11.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id g3A2AJZ07652
> for <mir...@sonic.net>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 19:10:19 -0700
>X-envelope-info: <gerryar...@telus.net>
>Received: from user.telus.net ([216.232.125.58])
> by priv-edtnes04-hme0.telusplanet.net
> (InterMail vM.5.01.04.01 201-253-122-122-101-20011014) with ESMTP
> id <20020410021013.UCVH20279.priv-edtnes04-
>hme0.telus...@user.telus.net>
> for <mir...@sonic.net>; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 20:10:13 -0600
>Message-Id: <4.3.2.20020409...@pop.telus.net>
>X-Sender: a6b7...@pop.telus.net
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3
>Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:09:50 -0700
>To: "Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@sonic.net>

>From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>


>Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman

>In-Reply-To: <200204100142...@turbo.sonic.net>
>References: <c907buk3elp26ltjp...@4ax.com>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>X-PMFLAGS: 36176000 0 1 P79D50.CNM
>
>At 06:42 PM 4/9/02 -0700, you wrote:
>>On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:
>>
>> > I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
>> > litigation.
>>

>>Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to
>>try this on the Internet.
>

>What does this have to do with trying the case on the Internet?
>

>You report, or somebody reports, things.
>
>Has a case ever been tried on the Internet? What do you mean?
>

>> I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce
>>this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
>>opinion.)
>

>How could it possibly be indiscreet? Scientology knows.
>
>If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think it's a bad philosophy.
>
>Why do you say I felt possessed when I most clearly wasn't?
>

>The question is, why, if Scientology knows, would you feel possessed in
>this circumstance to withhold the information from the world?
>

>To: "Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@sonic.net> Subject: Re: Lisa
>McPherson/Caroline Letkeman


>At 06:42 PM 4/9/02 -0700, you wrote:
>On 09 Apr 2002, you wrote in alt.religion.scientology:
>
> > I have no idea why this wasn't posted by the people covering the
> > litigation.
>

>Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't want to
>try this on the Internet.
>

>What does this have to do with trying the case on the Internet?
>

>You report, or somebody reports, things.
>
>Has a case ever been tried on the Internet? What do you mean?
>

>I'm not sure why you felt possessed to announce
>this to the world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own
>opinion.)
>

>How could it possibly be indiscreet? Scientology knows.
>
>If you're saying what I think you're saying, I think it's a bad philosophy.
>
>Why do you say I felt possessed when I most clearly wasn't?
>

>The question is, why, if Scientology knows, would you feel possessed in
>this circumstance to withhold the information from the world?
>

>To: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>
>Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman

>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT

>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:05:57 -0700
>

>On 17 Apr 2002 at 6:56, Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>
>> Hi Deana:
>>
>> You haven't answered my e-mail and questions to you.
>

>Gerry, I see no reason to answer your questions. I don't think you're
>interested in answers.
>
>Deana M. Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net
>

Diane Richardson

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 8:46:11 AM12/6/02
to
On 6 Dec 2002 01:17:58 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:

>I'll not again email Deana Holmes since she has demonstrated that she
>will post private email to a.r.s., as is shown below in her post with
>message-ID <Xns92BDE0285EF7...@208.201.224.154>.
>
>I also wish to comment publicly that I feel much of the current hate
>being directed at Gerry could have been avoided if a few individuals
>(and I'm talking about critics) could have communicated through email,
>*and* kept their profanity and insults out of the exchange.
>
>Note in the exchange below, and in subsequent postings, Gerry asked
>Deana questions via email. She didn't bother to reply, saying, quite
>irrationally to Gerry, "Gerry, I see no reason to answer your questions.
>I don't think you're interested in answers" *after*, and in response
>to, Gerry's very courteous and *sincere* questions. Instead, she not
>only posted his very private email to a.r.s. (!), but stated in a
>related posting, "I have been told that you are delusional and that
>I should excuse your lying on that basis."
>
>I think Deana is hiding an unknown source of black PR.

Hunh? What makes you believe that saying "I have been told that


you are delusional and that I should excuse your lying on that basis"

is "black PR"?

>Her treatment of Gerry Armstrong is vile and despicable, as far as
>I am concerned.

The Gerroline Unit's treatment of other critics is vile and


despicable, as far as I am concerned.

See that? We both have personal opinons. We are both able
to express those opinions on this forum. Ain't free speech grand?

>She's willing to pump out her black PR rumors, but not honest enough
>to name the source, _even to Gerry, privately_.

Here's your answer, Warrior. *I* have stated repeatedly that the
Gerroline Unit is delusional. Deana doesn't have to name her
source -- I'll tell you myself. I have told Deana and many others
that the Gerroline Unit is delusional.

>Nope. She'd rather *pretend* that Gerry isn't interested in answers.

If you are correct, I'm sure the Gerroline Unit will be grateful that
I have answered its question.

>Who knows? Maybe she's really convinced herself of her own lie.

It looks to me that you are the one who has convinced himself of the
truth of the Gerroline Unit's lies, deceit and deception, Warrior.
Why am I not surprised?

Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

arnie lerma - www.lermanet.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 8:56:22 AM12/6/02
to
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 13:46:11 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:

>On 6 Dec 2002 01:17:58 -0800, Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote:
>
>>I'll not again email Deana Holmes since she has demonstrated that she
>>will post private email to a.r.s., as is shown below in her post with
>>message-ID <Xns92BDE0285EF7...@208.201.224.154>.
>>
>>I also wish to comment publicly that I feel much of the current hate
>>being directed at Gerry could have been avoided if a few individuals
>>(and I'm talking about critics) could have communicated through email,
>>*and* kept their profanity and insults out of the exchange.
>>
>>Note in the exchange below, and in subsequent postings, Gerry asked
>>Deana questions via email. She didn't bother to reply, saying, quite
>>irrationally to Gerry, "Gerry, I see no reason to answer your questions.
>>I don't think you're interested in answers" *after*, and in response
>>to, Gerry's very courteous and *sincere* questions. Instead, she not
>>only posted his very private email to a.r.s. (!), but stated in a
>>related posting, "I have been told that you are delusional and that
>>I should excuse your lying on that basis."
>>
>>I think Deana is hiding an unknown source of black PR.
>

snip, cut to the chase


>
>It looks to me that you are the one who has convinced himself of the
>truth of the Gerroline Unit's lies, deceit and deception, Warrior.

!

>Why am I not surprised?

because it is the pose of the straw man

>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net

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"

Diane Richardson

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 9:43:28 AM12/6/02
to

Why waste your time on something you do so poorly, Lerma? Go
lick some more stamps. You're much better at that than you are
at writing.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

pierre®

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 4:46:34 PM12/6/02
to


So who the hell are you Diana ? some kinda rocket scientist ? noooo,
some poor osa shmuck staffer assigned to handling the theta on a.r.s.,
what a drag (!)..

Have a nice day sucker,

Pierre® from Amsterdam

Jack

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 4:54:18 PM12/6/02
to
"pierre®" <emai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3DF11ABB...@yahoo.com

Someone should keep a count on "stupid OSA accusations". I believe we're
nearing a record.

best of luck

jack


> Pierre® from Amsterdam

ExScn

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 5:05:49 PM12/6/02
to
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:46:34 GMT, pierre® <emai...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>So who the hell are you Diana ? some kinda rocket scientist ? noooo,
>some poor osa shmuck staffer assigned to handling the theta on a.r.s.,
>what a drag (!)..
>
>Have a nice day sucker,
>
>Pierre® from Amsterdam

Moron.

Diane Richardson

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 5:19:49 PM12/6/02
to

Why are you addressing an unknown person named Diana?
If you're referring to me, I'd suggest you learn my name before
you start making false accusations.

>some kinda rocket scientist ? noooo,
>some poor osa shmuck staffer assigned to handling the theta on a.r.s.,
>what a drag (!)..

I have never been a scientologist in my life and I have no intention
of becoming one. That eliminates the chances of your being
correct about my being "some poor osa schmuck."

There are plenty of people on this newsgroup who have known me
for years. I don't know that I've ever seen you post here before --
at least under the name Pierre from Amsterdam.

>Have a nice day sucker,

I know I'm having a much better day than you are.

Have a nice life, Pierre.

>Pierre® from Amsterdam


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net


Deana Holmes

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 7:14:41 PM12/6/02
to
Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in news:aspl5...@drn.newsguy.com:

<snip>

If you think after all the CRAP I got from Gerry I'm going to answer
questions from you, Warrior, think again. As far as I can see, you're
operating on a.r.s as a very interested friend for Gerry. Since you have
such a close connection, I see no reason to indulge you *or* Gerry.

HAND

P.S. You might suggest to Gerry that he could possibly improve his
reputation on a.r.s (from "wacky loon who sees every disagreement with him
as emanating from OSA" to mere "wacky loon") by getting him to remove his
spurious OSA page. There's no reason for most of the people on that page to
be on his stupid list (with the exception of Keith Wyatt). But I doubt you
have the *guts* to do that.

Deana
mir...@sonic.net

(c) Deana M. Holmes, 2002. All Rights Reserved, worldwide. No reprint
without permission of Deana M. Holmes. If Reverend Gandow (aka Grabdough)
lets you put this on your website, Gerry, I'll make more than a token
effort to find out who Grabdough's superiors are, because you are violating
my copyright. There.

Deana Holmes

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 7:25:02 PM12/6/02
to
Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in news:aspq0...@drn.newsguy.com:

> I'll not again email Deana Holmes since she has demonstrated that she
> will post private email to a.r.s., as is shown below in her post with
> message-ID <Xns92BDE0285EF7...@208.201.224.154>.

Go to hell, Warrior.

You let Gerry get away with lying about me about the content of the emails
that we exchanged. I deemed his lies to be a threat to my reputation, so I
posted them. Gerry didn't tell the truth *at all* about me, or did you read
his first post in that thread.

So, go to hell, Warrior. If you're going to defend a crazy man who will
make up lies to defend his non-existent facts, then you deserve to be
there.

And don't send me any email.

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

(c) Deana M. Holmes, all rights reserved worldwide. Permission required to
repost this article on a website. This means you, Gerry Armstrong. If you
repost it, I will definitely make finding Rev. Gandow's (aka Grabdough's)
superiors and bring this to their attention. So don't force me. You are on
notice, you first class liar.

Warrior

unread,
Dec 7, 2002, 1:39:51 AM12/7/02
to
>Deana Holmes wrote:
>
>I'm not sure why you [Gerry] felt possessed to announce this to the
>world but it certainly wasn't very discreet (again, in my own opinion.)
>Deana Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net
[Ref: article <Xns92BDE0285EF7...@208.201.224.154>]

In what way was it lacking in discretion? Please do tell. I am asking


because, as many are well aware, Gerry's post regarding Caroline was
made _after_ Scientology already knew. So I ask the same question Gerry
and Bogie have asked. And I am sincerely interested in your answer, even
if you choose to reply by email only.

>Deana wrote:
>
>Speaking only for myself, it is my belief, Gerry, that Ken doesn't
>want to try this on the Internet.


To which Gerry responded by asking:

"What does this have to do with trying the case on the Internet? ... The
question is, why, if Scientology knows, would you feel possessed in this
circumstance to withhold the information from the world?"

Of course, Deana couldn't explain her irrationality, so she resorted to
insulting Gerry.

Deana's email response to Gerry, which she posted to a.r.s.:
>
>From: Mirele <mir...@sonic.net>
>To: Gerry Armstrong <gerryar...@telus.net>
>Subject: Re: Lisa McPherson/Caroline Letkeman
>Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:05:57 -0700
>
>Gerry, I see no reason to answer your questions. I don't think you're
>interested in answers.
>
>Deana M. Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net

I can assure you, Deana, that Gerry is still interested in the answers
to his questions which you received by email and posted to a.r.s.

Then, almost six months later on November 6, 2002, in message-ID
(Xns92BE42190E62...@208.201.224.154), Deana Holmes
(mir...@sonic.net) uttered the following black PR:

>I have been told that you are delusional and that I should excuse
>your lying on that basis.

Who told you Gerry is "delusional"? Who told you that you "should excuse
[his] lying on that basis"?

If you do not feel comfortable answering on a.r.s., an answer by
email would be fine.


In article <Xns92DCAFA69403...@208.201.224.154>, Deana slithered


up from her hole long enough to write:
>
><snip>
>
>If you think after all the CRAP I got from Gerry I'm going to answer
>questions from you, Warrior, think again.

I was pretty sure you wouldn't answer my questions, but I was open
minded enough not to assume that you wouldn't continue to hide.

>As far as I can see, you're operating on a.r.s as a very interested
>friend for Gerry.

Ah... So you think I'm operating for Gerry?

I post as I see fit. I have my own opinions. And Gerry has never
once asked me to post anything to a.r.s. for him. There's one big
thing that Gerry and I have in common which may explain how we both
"operate", as you put it. We both have a strong belief and faith in
God.

>Since you have such a close connection, I see no reason to indulge
>you *or* Gerry.
>
>HAND

Thanks. I had a chance to visit with Graham Nash today, and I had a
fabulous time.

>P.S. You might suggest to Gerry that he could possibly improve his
>reputation on a.r.s (from "wacky loon who sees every disagreement

I will leave it to you to make your own suggestions.

>with him as emanating from OSA" to mere "wacky loon") by getting him
>to remove his spurious OSA page. There's no reason for most of the
>people on that page to be on his stupid list (with the exception of
>Keith Wyatt).

Certainly I understand that you *think* you know enough to think there's
no reason.

>But I doubt you have the *guts* to do that.

It's not a matter of guts. It's a matter of the fact that I don't tell
people what they must do, unlike you, who once said to me, "Shut the fuck
up!" because *you* didn't want to see what I was communicating, when I was
communicating to someone else.

>Deana
>mir...@sonic.net
>
>(c) Deana M. Holmes, 2002. All Rights Reserved, worldwide. No reprint
>without permission of Deana M. Holmes. If Reverend Gandow (aka Grabdough)
>lets you put this on your website, Gerry, I'll make more than a token
>effort to find out who Grabdough's superiors are, because you are violating
>my copyright. There.

Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca

Deana Holmes

unread,
Dec 7, 2002, 10:41:24 AM12/7/02
to
Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in news:ass53...@drn.newsguy.com:

<snip>

You know, I don't see any reason to respond to your cut'n'pastes. I guess
it's just what happened the last time I did, with your friend Gerry. He
trotted them out months later and made wacko assertions about me. So of
course I posted the emails that showed Gerry was just flat-out lying. You
seem to have a problem with that. Let me tell you something, Warrior. When
your friend tells lies about me, and I have the truth in my outbox, I sure
as hell am not going to sit on it. Your friend cannot misrepresent me with
impunity and then expect that email etiquette is going to protect him from
the consequences of his lies. Too bad you have a problem with that.

And that's all the answer you're going to get until you stop being Gerry's
trained seal.

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Dec 7, 2002, 5:55:52 PM12/7/02
to
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 00:14:41 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net> wrote
in <Xns92DCAFA69403...@208.201.224.154>:

Go ahead and complain. Finding the name and the e-mail of his superior
took me less than a minute. However I wouldn't even help you save one
single minute of your life.

Tilman

--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de

Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.

Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html

Boudewijn van Ingen

unread,
Dec 7, 2002, 8:22:33 PM12/7/02
to
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:41:24 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in news:ass53...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
><snip>
>
>You know, I don't see any reason to respond to your cut'n'pastes.

It seems to me that you never see any "reason" when it comes to
answering critisism of your point of view.

> I guess
>it's just what happened the last time I did, with your friend Gerry.

You keep "responding", but you fail to say anything substantial, as
far as I can see, and I certainly never saw you post any substantial
"response" to any of Gerry's postings.

>He
>trotted them out months later and made wacko assertions about me. So of
>course I posted the emails that showed Gerry was just flat-out lying.

What you posted didn't "show" anything like that. In fact it was proof
that Gerry had been sincere all along, and that it was you who failed
time and time again to explain your behaviour.

>You
>seem to have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with you. And I also believe that neither
Warrior or Gerry really have a problem with you. I think you have a
problem, though.

You are the one that seems to think that people posing questions
towards you automatically "have a problem" with you. You are the one
behaving in a very defensive manner, for no reason that I can see.

>Let me tell you something, Warrior. When
>your friend tells lies about me, and I have the truth in my outbox, I sure
>as hell am not going to sit on it. Your friend cannot misrepresent me with
>impunity and then expect that email etiquette is going to protect him from
>the consequences of his lies. Too bad you have a problem with that.

As I said, I don't have a problem. And I think that goes for most
people here. It is you who has a problem. (No, we shouldn't have a
vote here on ARS on that subject, too many lunatics.)

It is sad that you still think that anything you posted from that
"outbox" (shouldn't that have read "inbox"?) of yours is somehow
evidence that Gerry "told lies". It is not, AFAICS.

Even if I try very hard to play "advocate of the devil", where Gerry's
intentions are concerned, I cannot find any fact that possibly could
justify your anger with him, in any posting here, or in the e-mails
you posted.

In fact you have been given many opportunities to clarify the
particular "problem" you seem to have with Gerry, and you were even
encouraged to do so by many here, but you never did. In stead you seem
to get angry with everyone who encourages you to do so...

I can see reasons why your feelings may be hurt. It looks like you
misjudged a situation. And it is understandibly hard -if not
impossible for some- to admit to things like that.

In fact, recently a Dutch $cientologist on nls went quite far,
threatening me with lawsuits over his hurt feelings when I called him
a liar and a thief. Pointing him to the facts didn't help, so in the
end I decided to back off on the issue, simply to allow the man to
calm down a bit. The poor chap could clearly not find a lawyer that
would be willing to represent him anyway, so I felt I should do
something to help him calm down.

I can understand that sort of unreasonable anger very well. I consider
it not a very becoming trait.

>And that's all the answer you're going to get until you stop being Gerry's
>trained seal.

It is precisely this kind of smug and obviously hate-induced language
that provides a very clear pointer to the "answers" people might be
looking for.

Obviously, wisdom has to be found elsewhere.

>Deana M. Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net


--
Groeten,
Boudewijn.

Mark Bunker

unread,
Dec 8, 2002, 3:41:10 AM12/8/02
to
On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:41:24 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in news:ass53...@drn.newsguy.com:

In other words, all will make sense on the next level.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"You have got to have my permission to reproduce my post *anywhere*.
Failure to get that permission will cause me to go to Rev. Grabdough's
superiors in Germany. Trust me, you don't want that to happen."

---- Deana M. Holmes stomps her feet and threatens a minister

-----------------------------------------------------------

Starshadow

unread,
Dec 8, 2002, 8:56:52 AM12/8/02
to
Mark Bunker wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Dec 2002 15:41:24 GMT, Deana Holmes <mir...@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Warrior <war...@xenu.ca> wrote in news:ass53...@drn.newsguy.com:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>You know, I don't see any reason to respond to your cut'n'pastes. I guess
>>it's just what happened the last time I did, with your friend Gerry. He
>>trotted them out months later and made wacko assertions about me. So of
>>course I posted the emails that showed Gerry was just flat-out lying. You
>>seem to have a problem with that. Let me tell you something, Warrior. When
>>your friend tells lies about me, and I have the truth in my outbox, I sure
>>as hell am not going to sit on it. Your friend cannot misrepresent me with
>>impunity and then expect that email etiquette is going to protect him from
>>the consequences of his lies. Too bad you have a problem with that.
>>
>>And that's all the answer you're going to get until you stop being Gerry's
>>trained seal.
>>
>>Deana M. Holmes
>>mir...@sonic.net
>
>
> In other words, all will make sense on the next level.
>

Only if one gets off one's belly.


---
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

Deana Holmes

unread,
Dec 8, 2002, 7:20:50 PM12/8/02
to
Mark Bunker <mbunk...@charter.net> wrote in
news:nb16vuso3fg20l767...@4ax.com:

> In other words, all will make sense on the next level.

I see you've lost none of your sense of humor.

Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net

pierre®

unread,
Dec 9, 2002, 11:47:26 AM12/9/02
to


Caught you out on a lie there Diana, you have no way of "knowing" that.

In view of the fact that you are in the habit of lying it even futher
decreases the likelyhood that what you are saying it based on "knowing".


> Have a nice life, Pierre.


Ever sinds leaving the CofS, having a nice life has become business as
usual for me. I'd say, try it sometime.


Pierre® from Amsterdam


Warrior

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 2:23:41 AM12/10/02