Jerald Rowlett: Why can't you admit when you are wrong?
Jonathon Barbera
Jerald Rowlett: Why can't you admit when you are wrong?
I was wrong that you were a coward about admitting your religion. You
finally told me that you were a Baptist. That settles that.
Admit that you were wrong about the recent shooter having been off his
psych drugs (poisons) for "8 years" as you stated.
Admit that you were wrong about the number of Barb Graham's posts.
Admit that you were wrong about saying that I pay to have my seven
books printed. (I gladly and openly admit that writing seven books
does not give me any additional credibility but only demonstrates that
I am a real person.)
Admit that you were wrong to attack the religion of Scientology when
you meant to attack the church as an organization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o8ThcMMCDA
Love,
-- Jonathon
banchukita
wrote:
Jonathon, lay off the Dev-T.
From reading the above, Jerald has absolutely nothing to apologize
for.
You didn't 'gladly and openly admit' anything of the kind when you
popped in here. You used those books that you paid to have printed to
attempt to establish some kind of credibility. We all saw it.
The number of barb's posts has nothing to do with the price of tea in
China.
Jerald's inability to predict what the press will write about current
events is definitely not something he needs to apologize for.
And most of all, criticism isn't always an 'attack.' People have the
right to have the opinion that Scientology sucks. They don't have the
right to destroy Scientology buildings or physically harm
Scientologists. If you can't tell the difference, you need to stop
calling people 'anti-religious bigots.'
PLEASE nobody else feed this troll, the only reason I did was the
coffee hadn't kicked in yet this morning!
-maggie, human being
Hubbard liked 'em young
news:88ras31crlehcd11l...@4ax.com:
> Jerald Rowlett: Why can't you admit when you are wrong?
>
> I was wrong that you were a coward about admitting your religion.
Jonathan,
What was the name of the evil galactic overlord in OTIII? Was it Xemu?
Xenu?
C'mon Jonny, surely you're not afraid of YOUR religion. Tell me what your
scripture says. I want to learn the truth, and you're claiming to peddle
it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Hubbard liked 'em young
2952a2...@72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com:
> PLEASE nobody else feed this troll, the only reason I did was the
> coffee hadn't kicked in yet this morning!
Why not? I love watching LRH tech fail.
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera <jonatho...@ispname.net> wrote in
>news:88ras31crlehcd11l...@4ax.com:
>
>> Jerald Rowlett: Why can't you admit when you are wrong?
>>
>> I was wrong that you were a coward about admitting your religion.
>
>Jonathan,
>
>What was the name of the evil galactic overlord in OTIII? Was it Xemu?
>Xenu?
>
>C'mon Jonny, surely you're not afraid of YOUR religion. Tell me what your
>scripture says. I want to learn the truth, and you're claiming to peddle
>it.
I've been discussing OT III and Xenu openly on ars since 1995. My
current e-mail account only goes back to last year, but my posts since
1992 were signed "-- Jonathon" so you can find them.
As for your question, I do not believe that either Xenu or Xemu are
accurate renderings of his name. I only use "Xenu" because that is the
most common usage.
Love,
-- Jonathon
Hubbard liked 'em young
What is an accurate rendering?
jerald
Awwww now Jonathon, don't be so half assed. If you are gonna out me
do it right. It's Mr. Jerald Alan Rowlett. Now lets get to your
silly post.
Yep the press had it wrong about how long the shooter had been off his
meds. But the sad fact is he never hurt anyone when he was on them
and it was only when he stopped against doctor's orders that this
happened. USA Today quoted someone as saying he didn't want to be on
meds because he didn't want to be though of as mentally ill. I wonder
if he read a scientology/cchr pamplett that shamed him off his meds?
Bottom line is the meds kept him and those around him safe.
Wrong about Barb's post how? I included the link that google provides
on a users post. If it wasn't right maybe you should complain to
google.
Now about those seven books. You keep telling me how wrong I am but
seem to avoid answering one simple question. So here it is yet again.
Did you have to pay upfront to have your books published?
I have no problem with the faith part of scientology ( incert the
silly xenu story here) But yep if a group or a religion wants to
hurt people then they need to be stopped. I used to fight with
posters over the action/ religion thing. But I just don't see how you
can take them apart when its the writings they obey word or word thats
hurting people. Hubbard was a mentally ill man who had no problem
hurting or destorying those he didn't like or was tired or. If people
are going to use his words and call it a religion then yes I will
fight it.
Cool U Tube, your girlfriends son is getting better everyday at it.
Is he around 10?
jerald
Jonathon Barbera
<jerald...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 9:06 am, Jonathon Barbera <jonathonbarb...@ispname.net>
>wrote:
>> JeraldRowlett: Why can't you admit when you are wrong?
>>
>> I was wrong that you were a coward about admitting your religion. You
>> finally told me that you were a Baptist. That settles that.
>>
>> Admit that you were wrong about the recent shooter having been off his
>> psych drugs (poisons) for "8 years" as you stated.
>>
>> Admit that you were wrong about the number of Barb Graham's posts.
>>
>> Admit that you were wrong about saying that I pay to have my seven
>> books printed. (I gladly and openly admit that writing seven books
>> does not give me any additional credibility but only demonstrates that
>> I am a real person.)
>>
>> Admit that you were wrong to attack the religion of Scientology when
>> you meant to attack the church as an organization.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o8ThcMMCDA
>>
>> Love,
>> -- Jonathon
>
>Awwww now Jonathon,
<blame game snipped>
Jerald, this is very pathetic of you. You must eventually learn how to
take responsibility for your own actions. If you announce to the whole
newsgroup, for example, that the shooter in question had been off his
psych drug (poison) for eight years only to try to make me wrong, then
you realize that I was right in the first place, you still need to let
the newsgroup know that you were wrong. I do not own the truth. You
can report the truth without having to spin it for or against
Scientology. If you are going to make claims on an international
forum, I suggest being honest and owning up to your mistaken claims
when you realize it.
Blaming google groups or a news site for faulty data isn't acceptable.
You have to correct your mistakes. Others do it all the time! Why
can't you?
You aren't interested in truth. You are only interested in making
others wrong. Even when someone first reported Shawn's tragic suicide,
you forcibly began posting how there was no evidence, etc. even when
others were posting the actual data. Perhaps you were in denail of the
event, but even then you shouldn't go onto an international public
forum and insist that something is or isn't true because of your
feelings on the subject.
The people on this group are far smarter than you ever give them
credit, Jerald. They can see past your appeals to emotion and
prejudice. You lack the hard facts every time even when making your
anguished appeal to hate Scientology or the church. You are inspired
solely by your irrational feelings of hostility toward a subject you
know little about and a church in which you've never been involved.
All of this quite sad in reality, but you will probably insist the
opposite if only to make someone else wrong *again*.
How wrong am I? Well, I guess you will say that I'm totally wrong.
You're quite predictable, Jerald.
Love,
-- Jonathon
jerald
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
No Jonathon,
You make a vaild point. Of couse they are the very same kind of
points I have been trying to get you to make. I got the info from a
news site and the info was wrong. I'm very sorry the info was wrong.
Now you seem to have skipped over part of my post......
Now about those seven books. You keep telling me how wrong I am but
seem to avoid answering one simple question. So here it is yet
again.
Did you have to pay upfront to have your books published?
Are you ever going to be honest and answer the question? I can includ
a link to the site that did your books if needed to help you remember.
jerald
Anonology
>
> - Show quoted text -
from the website:
iUniverse has helped tens of thousands of authors get published, and
we understand that the process can be confusing. By following our
roadmap, you'll learn what it takes to succeed and be more likely to
have a positive publishing experience.
Think of it like this: compare publishing a book to taking a journey
to a new and exciting place. You wouldn't just hop in the car and
drive away without knowing your destination and planning your route
carefully. Before you begin the journey down the road to becoming a
published author, it's equally important to develop a strategy that
will help you achieve your goals. The iUniverse Roadmap is a step-by-
step guide that can help you do just that.
Anonology
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not only did he pay to get those books published, he wrote glowing
reviews on em too...
that is some sad sorry shit...
Hartley Patterson
> No Jonathon,
>
> You make a vaild point.
He's caved you in. He knows your FULL NAME. As DM knows from reading
Hubbard's secret notes on magik, saying someone's FULL NAME gives you
power over them.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Jonathon Barbera
<hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>jerald...@hotmail.com:
>
>> No Jonathon,
>>
>> You make a vaild point.
>
>He's caved you in. He knows your FULL NAME. As DM knows from reading
>Hubbard's secret notes on magik, saying someone's FULL NAME gives you
>power over them.
He even told me his middle name was Alan!
Jerald Alan Rowlett fails because he is convinced that I am in the
Church of Scientology. I blew the Sea Org 15 years ago, but Jerald is
convinced I must still be in the church.
Jerald fails because he doesn't want to look outside of himself for
truth. We can find truth about our common reality in reality itself,
not from imagining how it ought to be. This is what L. Ron Hubbard
meant by "look don't think". Look at the evidence available in
objective reality and then use that. Don't rely on what you think is
true or, in the case of Jerald, what you want to be true.
Instead of limiting his attacks on a church, Jerald and others attack
all Scientologists for their beliefs. This is anti-religious bigotry.
Love,
-- Jonathon
diarrhetics
> Instead of limiting his attacks on a church, Jerald and others attack all
> Scientologists for their beliefs. This is anti-religious bigotry.
>
> Love,
> -- Jonathon
isnt it more like that he attacks scientologists who are being complete
idiots? like you...
nothing against the stupidity that got hypnotized into you, but when you
annoy others with your faggotry, then it's no surprise that you get
attacked.
Anonology
for $600 they will publish your book, but if you want a hardcover
edition available, it's $1200... Jonathon's books are only available
in paperback, so i'm guessing he went the cheap route...
jerald
wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:36:44 -0000, Hartley Patterson
>
> >jerald-ja...@hotmail.com:
Jonathon the sad fact is I belive you when you say you are not in
scientology anymore. Like BS it seems no side wants you. There is
help out there for you. It doesn't have to includ meds of any kind
but you really need to see a talk therpist and get some help.
And feel free to show any post where I attacked anything other than
the actions of scientology. Or where I attack anyone for that matter
without good reason. Or is this just more lies?
jerald
Tom Newton
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:36:44 -0000, Hartley Patterson
><hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>jerald...@hotmail.com:
>>
>>> No Jonathon,
>>>
>>> You make a vaild point.
>>
>>He's caved you in. He knows your FULL NAME. As DM knows from reading
>>Hubbard's secret notes on magik, saying someone's FULL NAME gives you
>>power over them.
>
> He even told me his middle name was Alan!
>
> Jerald Alan Rowlett fails because he is convinced that I am in the
> Church of Scientology. I blew the Sea Org 15 years ago, but Jerald is
> convinced I must still be in the church.
You are obviously anything but independent of the Church of Scientology,
Jonathon:
#From: Jonathon Barbera <jonatho...@ispname.net>
#Subject: Re: Per the logic that an older religion is more legitimate,
#the Christians should convert to Hinduism as Hinuism is
#eight thousand year s older than Christianity.
#Message-ID: <4vges3p2lfcgv7sek...@4ax.com>
#Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:31:18 -0700
#
#On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:43:25 +0100 (CET), Tom Newton
#<t...@server.invalid> wrote:
#
#>>On 2008-02-27, Jonathon Barbera <jonatho...@ispname.net>
#wrote:
#>> Per the logic that an older religion is more
#legitimate, the Christians should convert to Hinduism as
#Hinuism is eight thousand years older than Christianity.
#
#>An excellent point.
#>
#>But logic is wasted on these fanatics, of course.
#>
#>Tom
#
#I do not know why I even bother anymore.
#
#Sometimes I hope that the Church of Scientology really would
#politely tell me to stop posting here.
#
#Love,
# -- Jonathon
I wouldn't tell you anything that I didn't want the CoS to know,
that's for sure.
If they told ME, politely or otherwise, to quit posting here, I'd
tell them to go have sex with themselves.
To even presume to _ask_ me such a thing would be an outrageous
assumption of authority and superiority that does not exist.
By-the-way, long subject lines like that are a violation of
the netiquette and annoying as hell. When I saw it I almost
dumped the post, assuming it was a troll or spam. It's supposed
to be a subject line, a title, not an essay.
The essay is supposed to be in the message body.
Many people configure their newsfilters to dump any posts with
subjects that long...
<snip>
Tom
--
calhobbit (at) | The Truth will set you free:
gmail [DOT] com | http://www.sethcenter.com
Jonathon Barbera
People misunderstand why I do not rush back to the church. I still
love and respect the people in the church. I'm not opposed to them
personally. Likewise, I am sure the organization is working to improve
conditions.
If OSA were to contact me and ask about Barb Graham, Tom Newton,
Jerald Alan Rowlett or whomever, I would be more than happy to tell
them everything I know. Why? OSA isn't my enemy.
If the FBI wanted the same information, I would give it to them just
as completely. Why? The FBI isn't my enemy.
Now, if the FBI asked me to infiltrate the church for them, I wouldn't
do it. That wouldn't be ethical for me because I favor the
international humanitarian work of the church over the national police
efforts of the FBI. If the church asked me to infiltrate the FBI, I
wouldn't do it because the FBI isn't my enemy, either.
Love,
-- Jonathon
barb
Now, if you wuz to go to lulu.com and look up Slices, you would realize
this is a shameless piece of self promotion that cost me nothing.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
I can haz Legion?
“I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don’t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.”
--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC
jerald
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aww Barb the difference is you wrote your book, told us about it and
then left it up to us on what we would want to do. You didn't beat us
over the head with it to prove yourself in 100 posts.
I would much rather read yours and intend to soon. At least you won't
be saying the same sad lines over and over again and I have always
liked your writing style.
jerald
Jonathon Barbera
You kept bringing it up over and over! You, Jerald Alan Rowlett, are
the one obsessed with my books! I remind you repeatedly that you're
only advertising them for me when you mention them at all, but you
think you're doing someone a favor by brining them up again and again.
The above post is just one of hundreds you've stuck into discussions
for no apparent reason.
If you love my books so much, why don't you marry them, loser? Or are
you already married to the mudkipz? Awwwwww Jerald!
LOL!
Love,
-- Jonathon
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
I paid extra for the Ingrams distribution which puts my books into all
bookstore databases. While your book is only available from your
publisher, mine are available from all online bookstores including the
big stores amazon.com and bn.com!
I could have gone free like you did, but I put the extra investment
into my art. It is as if we were both painters but I decided to pay to
put my paintings on a display at a respected gallery while you paid
nothing to have your painting hung up in the men's room of your
favorite bar.
It's a lifestyle choice. You made yours.
(I hope Jerald does read your book. He needs all of the practice
reading that he can get.)
Love,
-- Jonathon
Tom Newton
wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:07:36 +0100 (CET), Tom Newton
><t...@server.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-02-29, Jonathon Barbera <jonatho...@ispname.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:36:44 -0000, Hartley Patterson
>>><hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>jerald...@hotmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>> No Jonathon,
>>>>>
>>>>> You make a vaild point.
>>>>
>>>>He's caved you in. He knows your FULL NAME. As DM knows from
>>>>reading Hubbard's secret notes on magik, saying someone's
>>>>FULL NAME gives you power over them.
>>>
>>> He even told me his middle name was Alan!
>>>
>>> Jerald Alan Rowlett fails because he is convinced that I am
>>> in the Church of Scientology. I blew the Sea Org 15 years
>>> ago, but Jerald is convinced I must still be in the church.
>>
>>You are obviously anything but independent of the Church of
>>Scientology, Jonathon:
>>
>>#From: Jonathon Barbera <jonatho...@ispname.net> Subject:
>>#Re: Per the logic that an older religion is more legitimate,
>>#the Christians should convert to Hinduism as Hinuism is
>>#eight thousand year s older than Christianity. Message-ID:
>>#<4vges3p2lfcgv7sek...@4ax.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb
>>#2008 16:31:18 -0700
>>#
>>#On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:43:25 +0100 (CET), Tom Newton
>>#<t...@server.invalid> wrote:
>>#
>>#>>On 2008-02-27, Jonathon Barbera
>>#<jonatho...@ispname.net> wrote: >> Per the logic that
>>#an older religion is more legitimate, the Christians should
>>#convert to Hinduism as Hinuism is eight thousand years older
>>#than Christianity.
>>#
>>#>An excellent point.
>>#>
>>#>But logic is wasted on these fanatics, of course.
>>#>
>>#>Tom
>>#
>>#I do not know why I even bother anymore.
>>#
>>#Sometimes I hope that the Church of Scientology really would
>>#politely tell me to stop posting here.
>>#
>>#Love, -- Jonathon
>>
>>I wouldn't tell you anything that I didn't want the CoS to
>>know, that's for sure.
>>
>>If they told ME, politely or otherwise, to quit posting here,
>>I'd tell them to go have sex with themselves.
>>
>>To even presume to _ask_ me such a thing would be an outrageous
>>assumption of authority and superiority that does not exist.
>>
>>By-the-way, long subject lines like that are a violation of the
>>netiquette and annoying as hell. When I saw it I almost dumped
>>the post, assuming it was a troll or spam. It's supposed to be
>>a subject line, a title, not an essay.
>>
>>The essay is supposed to be in the message body.
>>
>>Many people configure their newsfilters to dump any posts with
>>subjects that long...
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Tom
>
>
> People misunderstand why I do not rush back to the church.
> I still love and respect the people in the church. I'm
> not opposed to them personally. Likewise, I am sure the
> organization is working to improve conditions.
>
> If OSA were to contact me and ask about Barb Graham, Tom
> Newton, Jerald Alan Rowlett or whomever, I would be more than
> happy to tell them everything I know. Why? OSA isn't my enemy.
They aren't my enemy either. But they have no authority over me.
They are not my friends, either.
I do not blindly support the CoS.
I just think they have a right to exist in peace.
>
> If the FBI wanted the same information, I would give it to them
> just as completely. Why? The FBI isn't my enemy.
The FBI has often been the enemy of freedom and positive change.
This is a matter of public record, though I am sure much of their
dirty work has been, and is, kept secret.
If you trust them, you are a fool.
They are the secret police, primarily investigative, of what you
could call the Consortium: The collective of the interdependent
mega-corporations. The ones that control all of the basic
resources and industries.
Which ARE fascist.
I doubt that I would ever cooperate with them.
Though I would pretend to, for my own protection, and feed them
bullshit.
>
> Now, if the FBI asked me to infiltrate the church for them,
> I wouldn't do it. That wouldn't be ethical for me because I
> favor the international humanitarian work of the church over
> the national police efforts of the FBI.
The FBI now has offices all over the world.
The national Consortium has become multinational.
They are probably involved in the persecution of the CoS in
Germany. America does have a LOT of influence there. It wouldn't
have those huge military bases there if it didn't.
> If the church asked me to infiltrate the FBI, I wouldn't do it
> because the FBI isn't my enemy, either.
I suspect that in the long run they will be proven to be the
enemies of the CoS. Probably after it is too late.
I'd destroy the FBI in a blink, if I could.
And the Pentagon, which is the main enforcement arm of the Consortium.
But I am not talking about violent destruction.
If I had the power I would tell all the people that worked for
those criminal institutions to do what the members of "Anonymous"
should do: Go home and find something constructive to do.
barb
Wow. I didn't pay anything to get my book published:
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812
Didn't have to pay for reviews, either.
barb
Are you serious? Cheesy computer graphics isn't art. And you bring
cheesy to a new level. Even the sleaziest dive bar in town wouldn't hang
that crap anywhere but the crapper. So, no, it is nothing like "we're
both painters and you choose to hang yours in a gallery." Doubt it.
If you write as badly as you assemble clip art elements, I'd suggest you
not quit your day job, if you have one.
You're lucky nobody reviews book covers. A dust mite could see that my
work is far superior to yours. It probably has something to do with
being free from the mindfuck of a fat, dead hack sci-fi writer.
Alert
youtube about the shitty reviews his books get, and its all because of
anti-scientologists.
Poor Jonaclam, he had to start a new account
to try bury his history of being a total fool and cult shill.
Client_10
So should we say to Jon BBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWl