NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 08:32:58 -0600
From: email@example.com (Diane Richardson)
Subject: Re: Gerry Armstrong
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:33:01 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:48:34 +0100, Gerry Armstrong
>On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:58:40 GMT, "Phineas Fogg"
>>Those goon pages are silly. You can't complain about how Scientology
>>treats people if you treat them similarly.
>You bring up an important point here, the subject of tactics.
>First of all, to understand tactics -- or here in your paradigm, the
>treatment of people, both one's own and those of the "enemy" --
>would have to understand the context in which the tactics were
>employed. The context here is Scientology's war on wogs (R). If you
>did not grasp that Scientology is at war, and that their "enemies"
>wogs (R), you will not be able to understand the tactics being used.
I know you believe this, Gerroline Unit, but here's a newsflash:
there is no "war on wogs (R)" except the one you are fighting
in the depths of your very delusional mind.
You are not a "Prophet of God," Gerroline Unit.
That's a ploy
you yourself invented when you found you had no legal defense
for your own actions. You are either (in your own words) pretending
to be very, very, very stupid or else you have departed reality and
now believe in your own fabrications.
Either way, you are no longer operating on a rational view
real world. That may work in court -- I'm sure you've convinced
many a judge that you are non compos mentis -- but that little
"tactic" doesn't play well on this newsgroup.
>So, do you understand, or are you willing to accept for
>discussion, that Scientology and Scientologists are at war?
No, I am not willing to accept your delusion. It's a pity
managed to deceive a few other lunatics into accepting your
>largely a covert war, and it is largely a psychological war, with, of
>course, intelligence, PR, legal and financial fronts.
That war does not exist anywhere except in the dark depths
your own brain, Gerroline Unit.
>Hubbard defines and describes Scientology's "enemies"
in a way that is
>very similar to the way Hitler identified National Socialism's
A lot of other people define "enemies" the same
way. So what?
>Hubbard and Scientology use "religious" and
>to identify, declare and target "SPs," as the Nazis did with the
>Scientologists support the rightness of their dehumanization of their
>identified SPs with pseudo-scientific claims and "research," just
>the Nazis did to support their dehumanizing of their Jews.
>What Hubbard wrote about SPs, and fills Scientology's
>just as hateful, vicious and threatening as what Hitler wrote in Mein
>Kampf about the Jews. Hubbard's and Scientology's "SPs" are, of
>course, all wogs (R). When Miscavige thrills about "shooting down SPs
>like ducks in a pond" he is talking about wogs (R). The Nazis in the
>1920's, and, under their domination, pretty well all Germany in the
>30's, were at war with Jews. Scientologists are at war with SP's, or
>really with wogs (R).
Here's where your little delusion falls apart. There's a
difference between what Hitler did and what Hubbard did.
If you think really, really hard I'm sure you can recognize that
>When you say, that I "can't complain about how Scientology
>treats people if [I] treat them similarly," you, of course, don't mean
>that. You mean that I could lose the support of wogs (R) for my side
>in the war if I treat people like Scientology treats them, right?
What war, Gerroline Unit? Oh yes, that imaginary war that
place in the innermost reaches of your brain. THAT war.
>One of the Scientology cult's tactics in their war on
wogs (R), their
>war for the human mind, is the building of websites. If we wogs (R)
>were not allowed, by fear of public opinion, to employ any tactic, or
>utilize any weapon that Scientology employs or uses, we could not
Hey, you can build any website you like. But, like the CoS,
must take responsibility for that website and its contents.
>Since such an idea is nonsensical, I'm sure you will
>standard, which is even less severe -- similar, rather than identical
>-- for acceptable tactics, must also be nonsensical.
Your claim that a trademarked "war on Wogs (R)"
exists is the
only nonsensical thing I've seen here, Gerroline Unit. Did your
God tell you about this war?
>One of the Germans' battle tactics in WW II was to bomb
Gee, thanks for the history lesson, Gerroline Unit.
>Should the Brits, and the Yanks and the rest of the Allies
>bombed the Germans because it would be treating the German people in a
>similar way to how the Germans were treating the British?
World War II was not a figment of your imagination, Gerroline
Your trademarked "War on Wogs (R)" is. That's a huge difference.
>I'm sure you
>would agree here too that bombing the Germans, even though the Germans
>were bombing the Allies, was an essential battle tactic. In fact, not
>bombing the Germans would have been a stupid military tactic, and
>would have lost all public support.
At least I understand now that the Gerroline Unit isn't a
That certainly contradicts earlier statements the Prophet of God
has made. Maybe God ordered the Gerroline Unit to change its
>So, broadly stating, as has been done here on a.r.s.
many times, that
>using Scientology's tactics, or treating people similarly to the way
>Scientology treats people, should not be done, or necessarily makes
>the wog (R) using the tactics "as bad as Scientology," is nonsensical.
In other words, the Gerroline Unit is justifying its use
Scientology tactics by claiming that to eschew such tactics is
>Scientology uses communication in its war on wog (R).
>therefore not communicate? Scientology exposes its wog (R) opponents'
>crimes. Must we therefore not expose Scientology's crimes? Scientology
>posts to a.r.s. Must we therefore not post to a.r.s.? No. Such
>conclusions would be, I'm sure you would also agree, nonsensical.
The nonsensical part is your delusional claim that the "war
(R)" is anything more than your own personal delusion, Gerroline Unit.
>On the goon squad follies page
>I have put up a set of posts to a.r.s. by certain people who support
>and assist the Scientology cult in its war on wogs (R).
It is your personal opinion that those people "support
and assist the
Scientology cult in its war on wogs (R)." That doesn't make it a
fact; it just makes it a personal opinion. Just because you firmly
believe God has told you to fight this trademarked war doesn't make
it any more true than any number of other delusions.
Barbara Schwarz believes she is the daughter of L. Ron Hubbard
and the granddaughter of Dwight D. Eisenhower. That's a delusion,
even though she is convinced of its truth. The Gerroline Unit
believes there is a "war on wogs (R)" and that it is a Prophet of
God who has been ordered by God to fight this war. That's a
delusion, even though you may be convinced of its truth.
>I have put up
>the posts in their entirety, without comment, and I have linked to the
>complete thread in which they originally appeared.
That does not justify your appropriation of other people's
intellectual property for your own purposes, Gerroline Unit.
Maybe God told you to do it. That doesn't make it right, that
just makes you delusional, just like Barbara Schwarz.
>These webbed posts and their posters have a number of
>common. They all attack Scientology's fair game victims. They all
>employ one of Scientology's signature battle tactics, pretended
>stupidity. They all refuse to unstupidly support their attacks, or
>engage in rational discussion.
Here we go with the Gerroline Unit's patented, trademarked,
copyrighted "stupidly stupid" gibberish. Maybe God has told
you to employ gibberish in your imaginary war on wogs (R). I
can't think of any other reason why you would regularly resort
to such silliness.
>Your statement above contains the assumption, or implies,
that I am
>treating these people in a way that Scientology treats people, but
>that is simply not true.
In your mind it isn't true, but that doesn't mean everyone
your version of reality, Gerroline Unit.
>If Scientology treated me as I am treating
>these people I would have no complaint.
Does that mean God (R) commands all wogs to emulate you?
I don't think so.
>Scientology would web my posts
>in their entirety with links to the threads providing the complete
>context. Since Scientology does not do that, it is erroneous, surely
>you would agree, for you to imply that I am doing what Scientology
You are doing what Scientology does, Gerroline Unit.
>I would be very grateful if you or anyone would web every
one of my
>posts to a.r.s. in their entirety and link to their complete threads.
Why would anyone on earth wish to propagate your gibberish?
Haven't we seen you post "really, really stupid pretended stupidity"
too many times as it is? Why would you want to subject people
to even more of your gibberish?
>I stand by all of my posts, even though I certainly have
had my stupid
>moments, and I am willing to discuss and support all of my posts,
>without pretended stupidity.
Now THAT is a statement to which I strongly disagree.
>I would appreciate it if Scientology
>would do the same. Scientology does not do that because it uses a
>different tactic, one which I am not employing.
You are employing the tactics you learned while you were
member of the Church of Scientology, Gerroline Unit. Although you
don't like people to point it out to you, that's what many people
happen to believe.
>There are, of course, instances when I will not submit
to an a.r.s.
>sec check from one of the people on the goon squad follies page,
That works if we unquestioningly accept your judgment on
constitutes a "sec check." Your problem is that not everyone is
willing to allow you to do their thinking for them. That's why your
use of Scientology tactics doesn't work here.
>from certain others, because the would be sec checker is doing
>Scientology's dirty work,
Once again, this is all based on your personal opinion of
constitutes a "sec check." To date, you have called any question
you do not want to answer a "sec check." How clever!
>and I will not assist the cult in its war on
>wogs (R). Similarly, there are other subjects, which, for strategic,
>personal or other reasons, I will not discuss on a.r.s.; but I will
>rationally discuss why I will not discuss them.
Screeching and blathering about "pretended really, really
stupidly" isn't rational, Gerroline Unit. And that's the gibberish
you resort to spouting whenever you don't wish to address
>Scientologists' battle tactics also include, e.g., fair
game, black PR
>and use of the law to harass. I use none of these tactics. I oppose
>these tactics with sworn testimony, court documents, facts, rational
>discussion, and often humor. The people whose posts are on the goon
>squad follies page attack my efforts and me personally with pretended
Here we go with the "pretended stupidity" gibberish.
realize that your mantra is nothing but meaningless blather that
lost any usefulness long ago?
>Although the Allies used, and, we Canadians would have
>upon, the Germans' tactics of bombing military targets, industrial
>sites, and even cities, the Allies did not engage in the Germans'
>tactic of disposing of their own dehumanized citizens quietly and
Gee, how admirable!
>The Germans used intelligence tactics, e.g., covert
>ops, disinformation and infiltration. During that war, we would have
>hoped that our side, the Allies, would have used the same tactics. It
>would have been idiotic for the Allies not to have an intelligence
>service, and not to use the tactics of covert ops, disinformation and
>infiltration just because those were the Germans' tactics.
Wow, you sure do know your history, Gerroline Unit.
>So would you agree that if I had used a tactic in this
war which was
>identical to a tactic used by Scientology in its war on wogs (R), it
>would not mean that all my tactics were the same as Scientology's?
You base your justification for your own behavior on a false
World War II was real; it actually happened. The "war on wogs (R)"
is not real; it is only a figment of your imagination.
>Would you also agree that using a tactic which was identical
>tactic used by Scientology in its war on wogs (R) would not
>necessarily mean that I could or should lose public wog (R) support
>for my side in the war?
I think you've lost your way in your own rhetoric in that
>And would you agree that on the goon squad follies page
I have *not*
>used one of Scientology's tactics, and I have not treated the people
>whose posts appear on the goon page as Scientology treats, e.g., me?
You are fighting your perceived enemies using the same tactics
employed by the Church of Scientology. That's okay with me. What
I object to is the rambling rhetoric you attempt to hide your action
>Again, I would welcome anyone, including the Scientology
>every single one of my a.r.s. posts. A great start was made in this
>undertaking at The Gerry Armstrong Chronicle
I don't think anyone beyond the Gerroline Unit would want
subject the world to additional copies of your rambling gibberish.
But hey, if you'd like to see that happen, get started and do it.
>>My advice is that the best road is the high road,
and your goon pages
>>are the low road.
>This would be correct advice, if there was no war on wogs (R),
Here's a very important clue for you, Gerroline Unit: there
war on wogs (R) except the one you are waging in your head.
>I really was treating people as Scientology treats them. But there
>really is a war on wogs (R),
No there isn't. It's your own invention and it exists only
[remainder of rambling gibberish snipped. I think we've all
seen enough to get the gist of it.]