Gerry's problem (Was Graham's Plan (Was Graham's  Problem))

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul

unread,
Nov 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/11/97
to

askrix wrote:
> You *really* love the 3rd party 'tek' don't you, RonsEcho ?
>
> You never answer any questions or deign to respond to lowly wogs who
> don't share your delusions as regards El Wrong and his mongrel
> creation, but you never miss a chance for a bit of malicious sniping.
>
> Gerry will be remembered by many as a courageous man; you will be
> remembered (by very few) merely as an arrogant fool.

Nah, I don't see any arrogance; I just see the foolishness.

-Paul

RonsAmigo

unread,
Nov 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/11/97
to

gerry armstrong wrote in message <3468171d...@news.dowco.com>...
>On 9 Nov 1997 00:52:08 GMT, "Garry Scarff" <Sca...@iag.net> wrote:
>
>>gerry armstrong <arms...@ntonline.com> wrote in article
>><3464c4c7...@news.dowco.com>...
>>> On 8 Nov 1997 07:22:15 GMT, grah...@aol.com (GrahamEB) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>  my CV
>>>
>
>>Oh, please, Graham, don't set up a good lawsuit for failure by using a
>>celebrity-seeking ex-Scientologist, particularly one that breaks the law
>>and flees to Canada to evade responsibility.  Use Gerry from the past
>>experience he has had in Scientology; don't let him use your litigation as
>>a conduit to bring media attention to feed his own self-inflated ego.
>>
>>Your Client & Armstrong-Alleged Scientology Squirrel,
>>
>>Garry Scarff
>>
>>
>>
>Garry:
>
>I have found it advisable to not give legal advice to lawyers, and the
>very few times I did violate that convention I still knew that it was
>foolish. Knowing its certain foolishness, I did so only because it was
>really important to really important issues.  So, putting the facts
>aside, I will assume the subject of my offered assistance to Graham
>Berry is for you really important to really important issues. I
>understand that you ANAL.
>
>Your advice to Graham that using me as an expert in my areas of
>expertise would "set up [his] good lawsuit for failure" is false,
>defamatory and tortious interference with a potential business
>relationship. You have no facts whatsoever on which to base such an
>assertion.

Gerry, you are as transparent as a well washed
window. Unless you were lucky enough to get a really degraded
jury or judge I'm sure your game would be seen quickly by all.

>
>You did this even after I listed 15 lawsuits in which my expert
>testimony was part of a successful outcome against Scientology.
>Therefore you manifest malice. But, IABAPPANAPP.

You know what I think, Gerry?
I think that your primary background is that of an an anti-Scientology legal-
whore working for shyster lawyers and that's all that gives your miserable
life any meaning. That is why you further prove yourself an idiot by
threatening Scarff's right to free speech on this newsgroup. He threatened
the very core of what you are and you reacted. He in essence said that
you are a very bad legal-whore and you took offense. (believing yourself to be
very good legal-whore)
>
>Having the facts again brought to your attention, and having your
>libel protested and refuted, will you please, as a first action to
>mitigate the damage done, post to this newsgroup a full correction of
>the falsehoods contained in your above statement.

"mitigate the damage done"? IMHO you are of such questionable
character it would be impossible to further damage you.

>
>I would think that your handlers
> would realize that my public offering
>of my expert assistance to Graham Berry eliminates the threat of a
>cult lawsuit against him for inducing me to breach its "settlement
>agreement." Since their agent responded to my public offer, their
>agent's handlers have notice.

How about the handlers of the handler's agents?

>
>Gerry Armstrong

And to Gary,

Gosh, Gary, I'm scared (wink, wink) aren't you? This guy is
probably going to sue us both now to protect his "reputation"
(such as it is) Maybe Graham will defend us on a two for one special,
huh?

LOL ...Only on ARS

Amigo


gerry armstrong

unread,
Nov 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/11/97
to

Thank you.

>Unless you were lucky enough to get a really degraded
>jury or judge I'm sure your game would be seen quickly by all.
>

I know you have something degraded in mind in this image of judge and
jury; but I have found that getting Scientology in front of any jury
is the battle, and for the cult the end of the war.

When you say "your game would be quickly seen by all" what do you
mean? And why are you, as you say, sure?

>>
>>You did this even after I listed 15 lawsuits in which my expert
>>testimony was part of a successful outcome against Scientology.
>>Therefore you manifest malice. But, IABAPPANAPP.
>
>You know what I think, Gerry?
>I think that your primary background is that of an an anti-Scientology legal-
>whore working for shyster lawyers and that's all that gives your miserable
>life any meaning.

No, I have no primary background.
No, I don't work for shyster lawyers.
No. I have never participated in legal whoredom.
No, my life is not miserable.
And my Creator gave my life meaning.


>That is why you further prove yourself an idiot by
>threatening Scarff's right to free speech on this newsgroup.

No, whatever I wrote did not prove me an idiot.
No, I didn't threaten Scarff's right to free speech in any way.
One of the balances to free speech, when speech enters the field of
personal attacks, is the recourse provided by libel law. Garry's
speech was a personal attack containing and based on falsehood and
intending to cause damage. Unlike your cult, I do not threaten
anyone's right to free speech in any way.

Since you've broached the subject, why don't you urge your cult to
stop suppressing free speech? It is only your cult on this newsgroup
which threatens free speech and uses the courts to suppress free
speech.

Another of the balances to speech used as Garry uses it, for personal
attacks based on falsehood, is free speech itself. Garry attacked,
Garry lied, and I exercised my right to speak freely to respond. Your
cult maintains that it can say whatever it wants about me, no matter
how false and no matter how hurtful, and that I cannot respond, or be
jailed and fined it I do respond. Why don't you speak out against that
insult to sanity?

> He threatened
>the very core of what you are and you reacted. He in essence said that
>you are a very bad legal-whore and you took offense. (believing yourself to be
>very good legal-whore)

No, Garry didn't threaten the core of what I am.
No, I didn't react, as you understand react.
No, I didn't respond because of Garry's threats.
I am grateful for your interpretation of his statements, because that
is something essential to maintaining a defamation cause of action.


>>
>>Having the facts again brought to your attention, and having your
>>libel protested and refuted, will you please, as a first action to
>>mitigate the damage done, post to this newsgroup a full correction of
>>the falsehoods contained in your above statement.
>
>"mitigate the damage done"? IMHO you are of such questionable
>character it would be impossible to further damage you.

This is a good example to elucidate the distinction I was trying to
make above. I am not threatening your right to free speech. In fact I
and many people here welcome the day when Scientologists can and do
speak freely. Your statement "you are of such questionable
character it would be impossible to further damage you," being false
and intending indeed to further damage me, is libelous.

>
>>
>>I would think that your handlers
>> would realize that my public offering
>>of my expert assistance to Graham Berry eliminates the threat of a
>>cult lawsuit against him for inducing me to breach its "settlement
>>agreement." Since their agent responded to my public offer, their
>>agent's handlers have notice.
>
>How about the handlers of the handler's agents?
>

How about them?

>>
>>Gerry Armstrong
>

>Amigo
>

Gerry


askrix

unread,
Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97
to

rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>gerry armstrong wrote in message <3468171d...@news.dowco.com>...
>>On 9 Nov 1997 00:52:08 GMT, "Garry Scarff" <Sca...@iag.net> wrote:
>>>gerry armstrong <arms...@ntonline.com> wrote in article
>>>> On 8 Nov 1997 07:22:15 GMT, grah...@aol.com (GrahamEB) wrote:

...snipt the dribbling...

>And to Gary,
>
>Gosh, Gary, I'm scared (wink, wink) aren't you? This guy is
>probably going to sue us both now to protect his "reputation"
>(such as it is) Maybe Graham will defend us on a two for one special,
>huh?
>
>LOL ...Only on ARS
>
>Amigo
>

You *really* love the 3rd party 'tek' don't you, RonsEcho ?

You never answer any questions or deign to respond to lowly wogs who
don't share your delusions as regards El Wrong and his mongrel
creation, but you never miss a chance for a bit of malicious sniping.

Gerry will be remembered by many as a courageous man; you will be
remembered (by very few) merely as an arrogant fool.

Askrix

Garry Scarff

unread,
Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97
to

> >gerry armstrong wrote in message <3468171d...@news.dowco.com>.

..
> >>On 9 Nov 1997 00:52:08 GMT, "Garry Scarff" <Sca...@iag.net> wrote:

> >>>Oh, please, Graham, don't set up a good lawsuit for failure by using a
> >>>celebrity-seeking ex-Scientologist, particularly one that breaks the
law
> >>>and flees to Canada to evade responsibility.  Use Gerry from the past
> >>>experience he has had in Scientology; don't let him use your
litigation as
> >>>a conduit to bring media attention to feed his own self-inflated ego.
> >>>
> >>>Your Client & Armstrong-Alleged Scientology Squirrel,
> >>>
> >>>Garry Scarff
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Garry:
> >>
> >>I have found it advisable to not give legal advice to lawyers, and the
> >>very few times I did violate that convention I still knew that it was
> >>foolish.

Nah! In addition to my Graham being my attorney, he is a friend who knows
me well enough of my sense of humor.

Knowing its certain foolishness, I did so only because it was
> >>really important to really important issues.  So, putting the facts
> >>aside, I will assume the subject of my offered assistance to Graham
> >>Berry is for you really important to really important issues.

Nope. Your relationship with Graham is your business. It's not place to
tell Graham what to do.


I
> >>understand that you ANAL.

Correction, Gerry: I like anal, I'm not anal, but of course, I don't dump
on my adversaries & flee the country either, but you are entitled to your
cowardice. Nothing personal.

> >>Your advice to Graham that using me as an expert in my areas of
> >>expertise would "set up [his] good lawsuit for failure" is false,
> >>defamatory and tortious interference with a potential business
> >>relationship.

Ouch! Big words for a small person.

You have no facts whatsoever on which to base such an
> >>assertion.

Your own comments give me the basis for making such assertions, Gerry. Not
to mention your slander, false accusations & ridicule. What's good for the
goose, is good for the gander. You want respect? Then demonstrate it.

> No, I have no primary background.
> No, I don't work for shyster lawyers.
> No. I have never participated in legal whoredom.
> No, my life is not miserable.
> And my Creator gave my life meaning.
>
>
> >That is why you further prove yourself an idiot by
> >threatening Scarff's right to free speech on this newsgroup.

Gerry does little to threaten my free speech on this newsgroup. Besides,
the majority of morons on this newsgroup who condemn free speech have
killfiled me anyway. I speak my mind and I care less if it offends the
Church of Scientology, or those whom condemn it, but I do care about civil
rights, religious freedom and treating people as human beings which escapes
the lot on ARS when it comes to Scientologists, and if by my speaking up
for the rights of Scientologists to enoy the same rights that we all enjoy
offends anyone here, tough shitsky!!


>
> No, whatever I wrote did not prove me an idiot.
> No, I didn't threaten Scarff's right to free speech in any way.
> One of the balances to free speech, when speech enters the field of
> personal attacks, is the recourse provided by libel law.

Yeah, so ahead & sue me Gerry. You violate a court order, flee to your
home country to avoid responsibility and you talk "libel law". You've
always been good at talking big words and making threats, with nothing to
back it up. So, are you going to sue me in Canada which has no
jurisdiction over an American citizen, or are going to exercise some guts
and return to the U.S. and do it?

Garry's
> speech was a personal attack containing and based on falsehood and
> intending to cause damage.

Oh, yeah. My personal opinion damaged your incredibly inflated sense of
ego, which by the way, no one really notices but you.

Unlike your cult, I do not threaten
> anyone's right to free speech in any way.

<yawn>


>
> Since you've broached the subject, why don't you urge your cult to
> stop suppressing free speech? It is only your cult on this newsgroup
> which threatens free speech and uses the courts to suppress free
> speech.

I wish Scientology would do something to shutdown this eccentric loudmouth
for good, or at least give him a good haircut (although I have to admit
when I met him & Julie Christofferson at Ron Wade's friends house in
Portland back in the 80's, he was kind of cute with his short hair)...


>
> Another of the balances to speech used as Garry uses it, for personal
> attacks based on falsehood, is free speech itself. Garry attacked,
> Garry lied, and I exercised my right to speak freely to respond.

Expressing my personal opinion based on my personal judgements of you &
your actions doesn't make me a liar Gerry, anymore than your stated
opinions of me in prior posts make you a liar. Personal opinion is just
that but if you choose to believe that you are the Ultimate Purveyor of
what is truth & what is not, knock yourself out, buddy..
.


Your
> cult maintains that it can say whatever it wants about me, no matter
> how false and no matter how hurtful, and that I cannot respond, or be
> jailed and fined it I do respond. Why don't you speak out against that
> insult to sanity?

Garry Scarff cares not how Gerry Armstrong responds. Respond freely if that
makes you happy. It's called freedom of speech man, and you are entitled
to it, even if you are a Canadian. (Speaking of course of my ignorance of
the Canadian Constitution).

>
> > He threatened
> >the very core of what you are and you reacted. He in essence said that
> >you are a very bad legal-whore and you took offense. (believing yourself
to be
> >very good legal-whore)

Legal ho', not whore...


>
> No, Garry didn't threaten the core of what I am.

Boy, for someone not threatened, you sure babble & sermonize enough about
it.

> No, I didn't react, as you understand react.

I would say 472 lines in this response is a little bit of an overreaction.

> No, I didn't respond because of Garry's threats.

Garry threatened you? May I ask how?

> I am grateful for your interpretation of his statements, because that
> is something essential to maintaining a defamation cause of action.

Go ahead, Gerry. Sue me. I dare you..

> >>Having the facts again brought to your attention, and having your
> >>libel protested and refuted, will you please, as a first action to
> >>mitigate the damage done, post to this newsgroup a full correction of
> >>the falsehoods contained in your above statement.

BRAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


> >
> >"mitigate the damage done"? IMHO you are of such questionable
> >character it would be impossible to further damage you.
>
> This is a good example to elucidate the distinction I was trying to
> make above. I am not threatening your right to free speech. In fact I
> and many people here welcome the day when Scientologists can and do
> speak freely. Your statement "you are of such questionable
> character it would be impossible to further damage you," being false
> and intending indeed to further damage me, is libelous.

Gerry, you need to cut back on the weed, man. You're slipping more & more
into Loonsville.

> >>I would think that your handlers
> >> would realize that my public offering
> >>of my expert assistance to Graham Berry eliminates the threat of a
> >>cult lawsuit against him for inducing me to breach its "settlement
> >>agreement."

I think Graham Berry is asking for trouble using you as a witness.

> >>Gerry Armstrong

Gregg Hagglund

unread,
Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97
to

TOS violations continue: rons...@aol.com

I have reported this subscriber to you before and here is yet another
example of him defaming with impunity of his anonymity granted
and maintained by aol.

This subscriber has made actionable statements about myself
and others, now including Mr. Gerry Armstrong another
Canadian citizen.

This subscriber is likely in the employ or under the guidance of
the Office of Special Affairs, the Gestapo of the Church of
Scientology, which is a Criminally Convicted Organisation
in Canada, banned in Greece, and Israel and under investigation
in France, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Luxemborg,
South Africa, Russia, Britain , Ireland and other nations.

This subscriber continues to slur the character of many ars
posters in an actionable fashion, which I recognise aol is
not legally respoonsible for. Yet this *is* a violation,
and as it is repeated, an egregious one, of your TOS.

I strongly suggest that aol enforce its TOS and ask this
subsriber to move on to another ISP.

Your reputation is beginning to suffer as a long list of
off topic and 'trollers' have historically and currently
utilised aol accounts to 'spam' the alt.religion.scientology NG.

In article <19971111085...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:

>gerry armstrong wrote in message <3468171d...@news.dowco.com>...
>>On 9 Nov 1997 00:52:08 GMT, "Garry Scarff" <Sca...@iag.net> wrote:
>>

>>>gerry armstrong <arms...@ntonline.com> wrote in article

>>><3464c4c7...@news.dowco.com>...


>>>> On 8 Nov 1997 07:22:15 GMT, grah...@aol.com (GrahamEB) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>

>>>>  my CV


>>>>
>>
>>>Oh, please, Graham, don't set up a good lawsuit for failure by using a
>>>celebrity-seeking ex-Scientologist, particularly one that breaks the law
>>>and flees to Canada to evade responsibility.  Use Gerry from the past
>>>experience he has had in Scientology; don't let him use your litigation as
>>>a conduit to bring media attention to feed his own self-inflated ego.
>>>
>>>Your Client & Armstrong-Alleged Scientology Squirrel,
>>>
>>>Garry Scarff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Garry:
>>
>>I have found it advisable to not give legal advice to lawyers, and the
>>very few times I did violate that convention I still knew that it was

>>foolish. Knowing its certain foolishness, I did so only because it was


>>really important to really important issues.  So, putting the facts
>>aside, I will assume the subject of my offered assistance to Graham

>>Berry is for you really important to really important issues. I
>>understand that you ANAL.
>>


>>Your advice to Graham that using me as an expert in my areas of
>>expertise would "set up [his] good lawsuit for failure" is false,
>>defamatory and tortious interference with a potential business

>>relationship. You have no facts whatsoever on which to base such an
>>assertion.
>


>Gerry, you are as transparent as a well washed

>window. Unless you were lucky enough to get a really degraded

>jury or judge I'm sure your game would be seen quickly by all.
>
>>

>>You did this even after I listed 15 lawsuits in which my expert
>>testimony was part of a successful outcome against Scientology.
>>Therefore you manifest malice. But, IABAPPANAPP.
>
>You know what I think, Gerry?
>I think that your primary background is that of an an anti-Scientology legal-
>whore working for shyster lawyers and that's all that gives your miserable

>life any meaning. That is why you further prove yourself an idiot by
>threatening Scarff's right to free speech on this newsgroup. He threatened


>the very core of what you are and you reacted. He in essence said that
>you are a very bad legal-whore and you took offense. (believing yourself to be
>very good legal-whore)
>>

>>Having the facts again brought to your attention, and having your
>>libel protested and refuted, will you please, as a first action to
>>mitigate the damage done, post to this newsgroup a full correction of
>>the falsehoods contained in your above statement.
>

>"mitigate the damage done"? IMHO you are of such questionable
>character it would be impossible to further damage you.
>
>>

>>I would think that your handlers
>> would realize that my public offering
>>of my expert assistance to Graham Berry eliminates the threat of a
>>cult lawsuit against him for inducing me to breach its "settlement

>>agreement." Since their agent responded to my public offer, their
>>agent's handlers have notice.
>
>How about the handlers of the handler's agents?
>
>>

>>Gerry Armstrong


>
>And to Gary,
>
>Gosh, Gary, I'm scared (wink, wink) aren't you? This guy is
>probably going to sue us both now to protect his "reputation"
>(such as it is) Maybe Graham will defend us on a two for one special,
>huh?
>
>LOL ...Only on ARS
>
>Amigo


<<<oo{ At Constant Cause Over the toronto org.}oo>>>
oo>>>{ And sentenced to Death for this SP Act. }<<<oo

["You know, people die if they criticize scientology -
I should take care if I were you."
-Marcus Nyman, OSA (former GO), $cio-org, Stockholm, Sweden.]

Gregg Hagglund SP4
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond
--
" I'm sure it's obvious to all who read my stuff, that I have
serious problems when it comes to being able to communicate."
- -RonsAmigo, Official OSA Shill on ARS


Download the latest Xemu Flyer:
http://www.cgocable.net/~elrond/2-1ZipArch.html

MikeSmith3

unread,
Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97
to

On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:53:45 GMT, ask...@hotmail.com (askrix) wrote:

--del


>
>You *really* love the 3rd party 'tek' don't you, RonsEcho ?
>
>You never answer any questions or deign to respond to lowly
>wogs who don't share your delusions as regards El Wrong
>and his mongrel creation, but you never miss a chance for
>a bit of malicious sniping.

This response comes from ARSCC's new complaint generator.
There are several versions available. This one is the, "You never answer
questions", format. It even adds the insults so you don't have to overuse
"clueless" and "moron".


Zane

unread,
Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97
to

On 12 Nov 1997 06:06:27 GMT, grah...@aol.com (GrahamEB) wrote:

>Well, I do know his sense of humor and it can be pretty wierd but usually,even
> at his most outrageous he has his tongue in his cheek

Uh, don't you mean between cheeks?

Zane


Hud Nordin

unread,
Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97
to

What? When was it released? Nobody told me, dammit!

I like to complain; can't you tell?

PS: You seem to be stuck. Have you some complaint with complaining?
Can't Scientology, Inc. help you with that, or did you run out of
money?
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley / The City of Sunnyvale / California

Mike O'Connor

unread,
Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97
to

In article <19971112060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
grah...@aol.com (GrahamEB) wrote:

[...]


> Well, I do know his sense of humor and it can be pretty wierd but usually,even

> at his most outrageous he has his tongue in his cheek -I hope some of
you can
> learn that and get less upset with his humor and pranks and either
respond in
> like spirirt or remain focused on the debate,disclosures and the general
> "enturbulation" that keeps DM the asmatic dwarf-who the tech cannot cure-
> cotinually "spinning"-so much so that one has to think about missed withholds
> and rock slams.

So you feel he is doing something here in a.r.s other than the cult's
work: Trying to disrupt the group, lower its tone, and threaten organizers
of pickets? -Mike

sca...@iag.net

unread,
Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97
to

In article <3469232d...@snews.zippo.com>,

ask...@hotmail.com (askrix) wrote:
>
> rons...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote:
> >gerry armstrong wrote in message <3468171d...@news.dowco.com>...
> >>On 9 Nov 1997 00:52:08 GMT, "Garry Scarff" <Sca...@iag.net> wrote:
> >>>gerry armstrong <arms...@ntonline.com> wrote in article

> >Gosh, Gary, I'm scared (wink, wink) aren't you? This guy is


> >probably going to sue us both now to protect his "reputation"
> >(such as it is) Maybe Graham will defend us on a two for one special,
> >huh?

> >Amigo

> You *really* love the 3rd party 'tek' don't you, RonsEcho ?
>

> You never answer any questions or deign to respond to lowly wogs who
> don't share your delusions as regards El Wrong and his mongrel
> creation, but you never miss a chance for a bit of malicious sniping.
>

> Gerry will be remembered by many as a courageous man; you will be
> remembered (by very few) merely as an arrogant fool.
>
> Askrix

It would be nice to live in a world where we can respect shared common
goals and learn to live with each other without all the hostility & spite
on both sides. Simply put, Gerry Armstrong is a down-and-out celebrity
seeker who seeks to invoke hostility & confusion after dwindling away
$800,000 in Scientology funds. Hey, Mr. Moxon: Pay me $800,000, hell
pay me $100,000 and I'll slip away to Tahiti & you'll never hear from me
again...

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Garry Scarff

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

+> > In article <19971112060...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > grah...@aol.com (GrahamEB) wrote:

> > > Well, I do know his sense of humor and it can be pretty wierd

Wierd? Did you say wierd? I'm not the one living in LA getting high on
the smog fumes...

but usually,even
> > > at his most outrageous he has his tongue in his cheek -I hope some
of
> > you can
> > > learn that and get less upset with his humor and pranks and either
> > respond in
> > > like spirirt or remain focused on the debate

Hey, bitch... I'm proud to be ARS' Official Demon...

,disclosures and the general
> > > "enturbulation" that keeps DM the asmatic dwarf-who the tech cannot
cure-
> > > cotinually "spinning"-so much so that one has to think about missed
withholds
> > > and rock slams.

Nah, the nuts on ARS are to busy flaming & insulting to do anyone much
good.

> > So you feel he is doing something here in a.r.s other than the cult's
> > work

No, no, no. I am doing the cult's work dammit. I am a Scientologist..just
ask Jeff Jacobsen, Keith Henson, Deana Holmes, Zane Thomas, Ray Raymond,
David Blippo all the other dwarfs. Experts so below the tone scale they
are off of it.

: Trying to disrupt the group, lower its tone, and threaten organizers
> > of pickets? -Mike

Ooh, baby. Pull that log out of your ass..it's affecting your brain
cells..

> Add: insult Deana, of all people.

Deana, the Pork Queen, deserves what she gets. What's good for the goose,
is good for the Hog.

> Take care
> Joni

Fuck you, Joni.

Martin Hunt

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

In article <64f1tv$3...@drn.zippo.com>, Fra...@hotmail.com wrote
to Gerry Armstrong in a fit of worried suppression:

>Woah, boy. Keep focused on the debate, disclosures and general "enturbulation."
>Ok.
>
>Heard you are under *another* bar complaint investigation.
>How's it going?
>
>Try to keep focused on the disclosure.
>
>Frank

Then:

>GRAHAM, READ MY PIXELS
>
>KNOCK OFF THE DRUGS.

Frank, who are you? Where are you from? Who pays you to post here?

Are you an OSA employee? If so, how are conditions there? I hear
the pay and food's lousy...

--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

jbwebb

unread,
Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97
to

Garry Scarff wrote:

> > Add: insult Deana, of all people.
>
> Deana, the Pork Queen, deserves what she gets. What's good for the goose,
> is good for the Hog.
>
> > Take care
> > Joni
>
> Fuck you, Joni.

Thanks, Garry, but no thanks. I really don't like anal sex. :-)

Garry Scarff

unread,
Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97
to

Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<64g05p$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...

> sca...@iag.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be nice to live in a world where we can respect shared common
> > goals and learn to live with each other without all the hostility &
spite
> > on both sides. Simply put, Gerry Armstrong is a down-and-out celebrity
> > seeker who seeks to invoke hostility & confusion after dwindling away
> > $800,000 in Scientology funds. Hey, Mr. Moxon: Pay me $800,000, hell
> > pay me $100,000 and I'll slip away to Tahiti & you'll never hear from
me
> > again...
>
> With a price tag of $800K, Gerry must have been considered a formidble
> and highly creditable witness?
>
> How much did they offer you for your "silence"? Would you consider
> $1.99, cash, and a 10 day unlimited GreyHound ticket?
>
> Joe

I'd consider a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on your head at the
nearest sewage facility.

sca...@iag.net

unread,
Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97
to

In article <346D38...@idt.net>,

Try it..you might like it. I hear Dennis Erlich is good at it with kids.
Maybe he can teach you.

Xenu Mania

unread,
Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97
to

On 15 Nov 1997, Garry Scarff wrote:

> I'd consider a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on your head at the
> nearest sewage facility.

Following is the complete post with headers. If nobody else wants to
make a complaint, I will. -- Joe Cisar

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

Path: szdc!super.zippo.com!lotsanews.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!iag.net!not-for-mail
From: "Garry Scarff" <Sca...@iag.net>
Path: szdc!super.zippo.com!lotsanews.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!iag.net!not-for-mail
From: "Garry Scarff" <Sca...@iag.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Joe's hairy problem
Date: 15 Nov 1997 02:14:41 GMT
Organization: ARSholes Anonymous
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <01bcf107$393e98c0$e74f1ecf@scaarf>
References: <19971111085...@ladder01.news.aol.com> <3469232d...@snews.zippo.com> <8793997...@dejanews.com> <64g05p$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.30.79.231
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
Xref: szdc alt.religion.scientology:227553

William Barwell

unread,
Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97
to

In article <64k4a2$6av$3...@usenet11.supernews.com>,
Zinjifar <zinj...@inreach.com> wrote:
>In article <64j32t$cl3$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>says...
>>
>>In article <19971112093...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,

>>MikeSmith3 <mikes...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:53:45 GMT, ask...@hotmail.com (askrix) wrote:
>>>
****************** Deleted ******************
>>>
>>
>> Hubbard was a lying sunuvabitch, MS3.
>>As I noted in tape 5 of the tape series "Radiation and your Survival"
>>Hubbard claims that at very the end of the war in 1945 he and his buddy
>>Johnny Alwine, "still in uniform" held a meeting with nuclear phycisists
>>at Cal Tech. Now, wasn't he supposedly blind and crippled?
>>The man couldn't even keep his lies straight.
>>
>>And Hubbard's supposed meeting he relates in this tape with
>>supposed mutinous nuclear physicists has to be the whackiest lie
>>he ever told.
>>
>>You Scientologists sure like it when Hubbard lies to you, dontcha, kid?
>>
>
>Actually Pope.. while Hubbard was capable I'm sure of creating whole cloth
>bullshit, this one may have some basis in fact.
>After all, he was in Pasadena with Parsons, and Parsons was at caltech..
>So maybe, just maybe Hubbard was allowed to fetch drinks for some of Parsons'
>faculty buddies.
>
>The humiliation of being totally outshone and declassified may be the root of
>his hatred of anything intellectually honest.

That would be the only truth here.
Hubbar din that moronic tape claims HE and Johnny Alwine called this
meeting and Hubbard chaired it. Bullshit.
And that some of his old nuclear physics buddies remembered him from the
old days. Yeah sure. Hubbard the flunkout.
Weren't no nuclear physicists working with Parsons.
On edoes not ethat even though Parsons had that claim to fame, Ol
Ron never mentions hanging out with Parsons and rocket scientists.
Wonder why?

Still, note MikeSmith3's silence on all of this.
Can't admit Hubbar dwas full of shit when he uttered
these lies in 1957, as these tapes clearly show.

Hubbard clearly claimed he had a degree in physics,
which is a lie. Too bad Andrew Milne is not here.
He tried to convince one and all it was merely a matter
of somebody else, not Hubbard, but one Laurel Sullivan
who erroneously put "By a nuclear physicist" on that
"All About Radiation" book cover. That Hubbard never made
any such lying claims. I have now tracked down several such
claims. Lies, all lies. Of course.

Milne was an editor of Standup!, a clam rag, and a writer occasionally
for Freedom.
He spewed clam propaganda here, and not very successfully.
MikeSmith3 takes the other tack, he just hangs his head in shame and is
silent on the fact that his idol, Elron Hubbard was a lying fraud.

Nuclear physicist my ass! Mutinous nuclear physicists planning
to arm themselves with a-bombs? What a lie!

What a buffoon!

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!


Zinjifar

unread,
Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97
to

In article <64j32t$cl3$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
says...
>
>In article <19971112093...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>MikeSmith3 <mikes...@aol.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 03:53:45 GMT, ask...@hotmail.com (askrix) wrote:
>>
>>--del

>>>
>>>You *really* love the 3rd party 'tek' don't you, RonsEcho ?
>>>
>>>You never answer any questions or deign to respond to lowly
>>>wogs who don't share your delusions as regards El Wrong
>>>and his mongrel creation, but you never miss a chance for
>>>a bit of malicious sniping.
>
>
>Right as usual. Note MikeSmith3 never did respond to my many posts
>challenging him to tell us what he thought about the fact that L.
>Ron Huubard was a liar. He never did tell me what he thought of
>the fact that the well known statement in "What is Scientology?" that
>Hubbard was nearly blind and crippled and abandoned by his family
>at the end of WWII was a set of outrageous lies.
>Hubbar dwas not crippled. And was not blind. And he drove his car down the
>San Diego from San Francisco when he was released from the Navy to join
>Jack Parson's OTO temple to practice sex magic, abandoning his young wife
>and two kids in Seattle.
>Imagine lying on your own family in this manner? Imagine, this cult still
>peddles this lie on their website where one can find WIS?.
>
>
>MikeSmith3, well he just hangs his head in shame when I asked him to
>comment on why the cult still peddles such an outrageous lie form Hubard
>to this day.
>
>He has no confront. He can't answer questions, just throw little inane
>one liners out for lack of anything really useful he could post.
>And really, that is kind of sad.

>
>
>>
>>This response comes from ARSCC's new complaint generator.
>>There are several versions available. This one is the, "You never answer
>> questions", format. It even adds the insults so you don't have to overuse
>> "clueless" and "moron".
>>
>
> Hubbard was a lying sunuvabitch, MS3.
>As I noted in tape 5 of the tape series "Radiation and your Survival"
>Hubbard claims that at very the end of the war in 1945 he and his buddy
>Johnny Alwine, "still in uniform" held a meeting with nuclear phycisists
>at Cal Tech. Now, wasn't he supposedly blind and crippled?
>The man couldn't even keep his lies straight.
>
>And Hubbard's supposed meeting he relates in this tape with
>supposed mutinous nuclear physicists has to be the whackiest lie
>he ever told.
>
>You Scientologists sure like it when Hubbard lies to you, dontcha, kid?
>
>
>Snigger!

>
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
>

Actually Pope.. while Hubbard was capable I'm sure of creating whole cloth

bullshit, this one may have some basis in fact.
After all, he was in Pasadena with Parsons, and Parsons was at caltech..
So maybe, just maybe Hubbard was allowed to fetch drinks for some of Parsons'
faculty buddies.

The humiliation of being totally outshone and declassified may be the root of
his hatred of anything intellectually honest.

Zinj

sca...@iag.net

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.97111...@darkstar.zippy>,

Xenu Mania <fi...@cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 15 Nov 1997, Garry Scarff wrote:
>
> > I'd consider a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on your head at the
> > nearest sewage facility.
>
> Following is the complete post with headers. If nobody else wants to
> make a complaint, I will. -- Joe Cisar

Words said in humor don't constitute "terroristic threats" my dear
Watson, but since you are desperately looking for opportunties to attack
your enemies, lie & flaunt away...

jbwebb

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

sca...@iag.net wrote:

> > >
> > > Fuck you, Joni.
> >
> > Thanks, Garry, but no thanks. I really don't like anal sex. :-)
>
> Try it..you might like it. I hear Dennis Erlich is good at it with kids.
> Maybe he can teach you.

Teach me? Teach me what? Personally, I'm not into shit (as opposed to
Chuck Berry :) ). You now, Scarff, you ought to forget about Rinder.
Lawrence is much much better looking and richer too! Good luck!

Take care
Joni

Xenu Mania

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 sca...@iag.net wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.97111...@darkstar.zippy>,
> Xenu Mania <fi...@cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 15 Nov 1997, Garry Scarff wrote:
> >
> > > I'd consider a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on your head at the
> > > nearest sewage facility.
> >
> > Following is the complete post with headers. If nobody else wants to
> > make a complaint, I will. -- Joe Cisar
>
> Words said in humor don't constitute "terroristic threats" my dear
> Watson, but since you are desperately looking for opportunties to attack
> your enemies, lie & flaunt away...

Ha ha. Did the scientologists at least give you lunch when they flew you
out to LA? Why don't you talk about scientology instead of loaded weapons
and anal retention on this news group? You should be posting to alt.sex.
or alt.humor.murder instead of to a serious news group.

Joe Cisar

reply to: iy...@cleveland.freenet.edu
For Volcanoes of Fun, Try Xenu Mania !
http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/conmenu.htm
RELIGION SPEADS FAITH -- SCIENTOLOGY BETRAYS TRUST


sca...@iag.net

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

In article <346F59...@idt.net>,

Yeah, you're right, Lawrence is cute, but the Mafiaso types turn me on,
plus when you get real up close to him, Mike is a gorgeous man & an
intelligent one too.

sca...@iag.net

unread,
Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97
to

In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.97111...@darkstar.zippy>,
Xenu Mania <fi...@cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 sca...@iag.net wrote:
>
> > In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.97111...@darkstar.zippy>,
> > Xenu Mania <fi...@cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 15 Nov 1997, Garry Scarff wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd consider a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on your head at the
> > > > nearest sewage facility.
> > >
> > > Following is the complete post with headers. If nobody else wants to
> > > make a complaint, I will. -- Joe Cisar
> >
> > Words said in humor don't constitute "terroristic threats" my dear
> > Watson, but since you are desperately looking for opportunties to attack
> > your enemies, lie & flaunt away...
>
> Ha ha. Did the scientologists at least give you lunch when they flew you
> out to LA? Why don't you talk about scientology instead of loaded weapons
> and anal retention on this news group? You should be posting to alt.sex.
> or alt.humor.murder instead of to a serious news group.
>
> Joe Cisar

SERIOUS??? Where have you been, Joe?? ROTFLOL!!!!!

Xenu Mania

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 sca...@iag.net wrote:

> > > > On 15 Nov 1997, Garry Scarff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'd consider a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on your head at the
> > > > > nearest sewage facility.

Since I don't think death threats are funny.
I further responded with:

> > Why don't you talk about scientology instead of loaded weapons
> > and anal retention on this news group? You should be posting to alt.sex.
> > or alt.humor.murder instead of to a serious news group.
> > Joe Cisar
>
> SERIOUS??? Where have you been, Joe?? ROTFLOL!!!!!

For 50 years, Americans and others have been asking the German people,
"How could you have let Hitler rise to power? Why didn't you do
anything?"

Now I'm asking, "How could we let Scientology rise to such a power that
its agents freely make death threats over the internet? (I'm not talking
about a barney.die.die posting; the above was an actual threat.)

Years ago, 11 scientologists were convicted of spying on our governemnt
(Operation Snow White), and sent to prison. At that time, the entire
scientology cult should have been investigated. All books should have
been opened and read and all financial dealings should have been traced
and identified. But that didn't happen.

Instead Scientology retreated and regrouped. One of its "lessons learned"
was that if it wanted to avoid the Bent Corydons, Jon Atacks and Gerry
Armstrongs in the future, then it would have to use outside agents who
were not loyal to Scientology beliefs, i.e. the lawyer who hires Gene
Ingram, Diane Richardson, Garry Scarff, et al.

How could we let this totalitarian group of fanatics get this far? What's
next? Tax-exempt status for a psychologically terrorist organization?

To what degree do we let our freedom be undermined before we realize that
we are no longer free?

The Germans can teach us something. We don't have to learn, but we should
at least listen. We can always learn later (we hope.)

Joe Cisar

reply to: iy...@cleveland.freenet.edu
For Volcanoes of Fun, Try Xenu Mania !
http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/conmenu.htm

I'm not AGAINST Scientology. I'm FOR freedom.

sca...@iag.net

unread,
Nov 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/21/97
to

In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.97112...@darkstar.zippy>,
Xenu Mania <fi...@cleveland.freenet.edu> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 sca...@iag.net wrote:
>
> > > > > On 15 Nov 1997, Garry Scarff wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'd consider a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on your head at the
> > > > > > nearest sewage facility.
>
> Since I don't think death threats are funny.
> I further responded with:
>
> > > Why don't you talk about scientology instead of loaded weapons
> > > and anal retention on this news group? You should be posting to alt.sex.
> > > or alt.humor.murder instead of to a serious news group.
> > > Joe Cisar
> >
> > SERIOUS??? Where have you been, Joe?? ROTFLOL!!!!!
>
> For 50 years, Americans and others have been asking the German people,
> "How could you have let Hitler rise to power? Why didn't you do
> anything?"

Your sermon is a very good example how people of a personally one-sided
conviction pose the danger to the free world. In your struggle to reveal
the "truth" and to "save the world", Joe, you act in a way that's no
different than the Hitlers or Mussolinis of our past. Your way or no
way! No thanks!

Xenu Mania

unread,
Nov 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/22/97
to

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 sca...@iag.net wrote:

> Your sermon is a very good example how people of a personally one-sided
> conviction pose the danger to the free world. In your struggle to reveal
> the "truth" and to "save the world", Joe, you act in a way that's no
> different than the Hitlers or Mussolinis of our past.

I object to use of your death threats on a.r.s., and I write in opposition
to the totalitarian practices of scientology. Both of these actions
undermine freedom of speech.

"Totalitarian" pertains to a centralized group which grants neither
recognition nor tolerance to parties of differing opinion. Death threats
certainly fall into this category.

If you would like to express opinions which differ from those of the
"mother church" of Scientology, or if you know of someone who would like
to express opinions which differ from those of scientology elite, please
refer them to this news group.

Hopefully they will not be intimidated into not posting because of either
death threats or covert investigation by dept.20, as this would mean our
freedom is being limited.

Joe Cisar

p.s. Dept 20 is the scientology organization that pokes in your trash and
peeks in your windows.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages