kids
misca...@flag.sea.org
>On 19 Oct 2003 14:32:07 +0200, Gerry Armstrong
><ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>Again, I'm not claiming that Ullman made the post. I just want to be
>>>>clear that it is not absolutely certain that he could not have. Isn't
>>>>that correct?
>>
>>>It's a forgery, you fucking asshole.
>>
>>>© Gerry Armstrong
>>>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>>
>>I think you're jumping to conclusions.
>>
>>Isn't it true that although there is evidence to support the
>>conclusion that it is a forgery, it cannot be said with absolute
>>certainty that it *is* a forgery.
>>
>>Pretended stupidity doesn't help.
>>
>>Remember what I said about pretended stupidity? You pretended you
>>didn't see it. Remember? Pretended stupidity is cruel. It is a very
>>$cientological trait.
>>
>>It is only because of Scientology's unjust War on Wogs (WoW!)® that I
>>have had to flee first America and then my own mother's house to live here
>>in Germany, and because of unjust accusations of idiocy, which I document
>>for posterity on my goOn SquAd follies page.
>>
>>I would be a truly pretended stupid interpretation that you goons are using to
>>support or prove their pretended stupid conclusion that I am saying that
>>Bruce Ullman posts forgeries from remailers but uses his own email address
>>to do it, then claims to be a pedophile. I am merely stating that it is
>>certainly
>>within the realm of technical possibility. This is my basic human right as a
>>Prophet of God, which Scientology, in the very very pretended stupid pretended
>>>stupidity of it's War on Wogs (Wow!)® would deny me.
>>
>>Now you will have to excuse me. I have to go shove my cock down a
>>10 year old's throat.
>>
>>© Gerry Armstrong
>>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>>
>
>E-mail sent to Frog-...@nym.frogadmin.yi.org
>
>Dear Frog-Abuse Department:
>
>The following Usenet message was not written by me, but uses my name
>and e-mail address without my permission. Please investigate it, and
>advise me of the outcome of your investigation.
How can Frog know with absolute certainty that the message you're complaining
about is in fact a forgery? As you pointed out yourself when it was Bruce Ullman's
name and not yours, it is entirely possible that you posted it yourself.
>Gerry Armstrong
>c/o Dialog Zentrum Berlin
>Heimat 27
>D-14165 Berlin-Zehlendorf
>Germany
>Tel: +49 (0) 30-84723958
>Fax: +49 (0) 1212-5-205-27-015
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>ge...@gerryarmstrong.org
>
>Message-ID: <J8H0U0PN3791...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
>From: Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org>
>Subject: Re: kids
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>References: <vok2pv8a6sj5tg6m1...@4ax.com>
><29f3pvol84lq3sf0l...@4ax.com>
><EPM8QT4K3791...@anonymous.poster>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above
>address.
> It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail
>services.
> You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP
>!!!
> Get information about complaints from the URL below
>X-Remailer-Contact: http://80.65.224.85/POL/ In case my abuse address
>is unreachable: It is because it has been flooded by <m...@uiuc.edu>,
>please contact <ab...@uiuc.edu>
>Date: 19 Oct 2003 14:32:07 +0200
>Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
>Lines: 44
>X-Mail2News-Contact: http://80.65.224.85/
>Path:
>news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!wasp.rahul.net!news.mainstreet.net!newsf
>eed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!new
>sfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!sjc72.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.co
>m!news.alt.net!Gilgamesh-frogadmin.yi.org!not-for-mail
>Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1650469
>
>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Gerry Armstrong <ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>>>Again, I'm not claiming that Ullman made the post. I just want to be
>>>clear that it is not absolutely certain that he could not have. Isn't
>>>that correct?
>
>>It's a forgery, you fucking asshole.
>
>>© Gerry Armstrong
>>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>
>I think you're jumping to conclusions.
>
>Isn't it true that although there is evidence to support the
>conclusion that it is a forgery, it cannot be said with absolute
>certainty that it *is* a forgery.
>
>Pretended stupidity doesn't help.
>
>Remember what I said about pretended stupidity? You pretended you
>didn't see it. Remember? Pretended stupidity is cruel. It is a very
>$cientological trait.
>
>It is only because of Scientology's unjust War on Wogs (WoW!)® that I
>have had to flee first America and then my own mother's house to live
>here
>in Germany, and because of unjust accusations of idiocy, which I
>document
>for posterity on my goOn SquAd follies page.
>
>I would be a truly pretended stupid interpretation that you goons are
>using to
>support or prove their pretended stupid conclusion that I am saying
>that
>Bruce Ullman posts forgeries from remailers but uses his own email
>address
>to do it, then claims to be a pedophile. I am merely stating that it
>is certainly
>within the realm of technical possibility. This is my basic human
>right as a
>Prophet of God, which Scientology, in the very very pretended stupid
>pretended
>stupidity of it's War on Wogs (Wow!)® would deny me.
>
>Now you will have to excuse me. I have to go shove my cock down a
>10 year old's throat.
>
>© Gerry Armstrong
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
>
>© Gerry Armstrong
>http://www.gerryarmstrong.org