Thu, 19 Dec 2002 05:39:51 -0600
From: email@example.com (Diane Richardson)
Subject: Re: An open letter to Gerry Armstrong
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:39:47 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
On 18 Dec 2002 22:41:34 -0800, Warrior <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>Don't be too hard on him, Starshadow. The poor devil's
>>>>>a lot trying to defend his use of Hubbard terminology
to bash people
>>>>>he doesn't like.
>I only continue to defend against your mis-statements regarding the
>reasons for my use of Hubbard's terminology.
Thus far, your "defense"
has consisted of telling me to read
unspecified messages you've posted in the past. That's an evasion,
not a defense.
>>On 18 Dec
2002 15:21:18 -0800, Warrior <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>With regards to Hubbard's terminology, the only things I defend
>>>are your erroneous opinions/statements as to why I use it.
>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
>>Actually, you haven't done that at all. The only claim you've made
>>that you mention Hubbard's babble so often to "educate"
>This is a bald-faced lie. I've posted no less than four different reasons
>why I use Scienospeak in quotes.
Those reasons don't
seem to have made it through my newsfeed,
all, this is alt.religion.scientology, so discussions about the
>>>terminology are entirely on topic here.
>>Ah, but you weren't discussing anything when you blasted Tigger
>>by claiming she was "dubbing-in."
>But I did say "making up ('dubbing-in')" so I did define it,
and then I
>further explained the concept in the sentence or two following.
Oh, please! You were
blasting Tigger with your Hubbardspeak.
Quit trying to misrepresent what you did.
make similar comments on this newsgroup, but I have yet to
>>see you observe that what you are doing is "dubbing-in."
>You'll have to be specific if you want me to address that.
Here's one specific:
On 15 Dec 2002 10:20:14
-0800, Warrior <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.1021215064745.108Aemail@example.com>,
>Joe Cisar wrote:
>>Gee, I wonder why Gerry hasn't rushed down to a.r.s. to watch the
>>monkeys throw bananas at him to see if he'll call them "OSA".
>>Joe Cisar http://cisar.org
>Gerry posted, on December 6th:
>"This coming week I'm scheduled to speak at a conference on totalitarian
> cults in Ekaterinburg, Russia."
>People like Tigger would rather go on making up ("dubbing-in")
Why do you describe
Tigger's actions as "dubbing-in" when, unlike you,
she has never been a Scientologist? You've stated before that you use
Hubbardspeak to "educate" people. Do you honestly believe you
educating anyone by describing Tigger's actions in the terms of a
completely discredited, phoney "tech"?
I think it much more
likely that you yourself describe your world
using Hubbard's thoroughly bogus "tech." Of course you will
disagree, but with evidence like this, you're going to have to post
hundreds of lines of explanatory babble to talk your way out of
such a conclusion.
>Her bigotry continues
to reinforce her "perceptions"; in
>turn, her irrational conclusion as to the reason(s) why Gerry has not
>responded become her "reality".
And why, pray tell,
wouldn't Hubbard's idiotic terminology about
"dubbing in" apply just as much to your statement as it does to
Sorry, Warrior, you're
splitting apart at the seams. Another straw
man bites the dust.
you equate my use of the terminology to mean that I practice the
>>"tech" is wrong. Clearly you can see that.
>Naturally you will try to wriggle out of your bizarre claim:
>>Actually, I do not see that. Your regular use of Scienobabble to
>>describe the actions of others is an indication that you still
>>continue viewing the world around you through Hubbard's eyes.
>I do no such thing.
Your continued reliance
on Hubbard's terminology to describe the
actions of those who criticize you or Armstrong is evident in the
messages you post to this newsgroup. If you cannot see that, you
not practicing medical technology when I use medical terms, nor am
>>>I practicing Hubbard's technology when I use his terminology,
>>>when I note the use of such with quotation marks around the
>>That's utter bullcrap, Warrior. You use the terminology when you
>>to belittle another person. You don't refer to yourself by using
>>Scienobabble, but you use it liberally when you are attacking those
>>who criticize Gerry Armstrong, the Prophet of God (R).
>Look, dimwit, using the terminology *while* noting with quotation marks
>that I have done so (which I always do when using it), is expressedly
>done by me to denote that I am aware that I am using Scienospeak. I
>have given no less than four different reasons why I use Scienospeak
>on this newsgroup.
The only reason you've
given me is you do so to "educate" people.
There was no "education" going on when you described Tigger's
remarks as "dubbing-in." You used that particular piece of
Scienobabble to belittle Tigger and for no other reason.
were using the terminology as a stealth weapon, I certainly wouldn't
>>>give definitions or try to explain Scientologists' use of the
>>If you weren't using it as a stealth weapon, you wouldn't continue
>>using it to smear those who you wish to put down. You aren't fooling
>I'm not trying to fool anyone. And I wasn't trying to smear Tigger
>when I expressed my opinion that she "dubbed-in".
You employ Hubbardspeak
to diminish the arguments and opinions
of others, Warrior. That has nothing whatever to do with "educating"
people; you use it to trash people you do not like.
Without that stealth weapon, he's forced to jump down in the gutter
>>>>> with the likes of Elizabeth Ann Cox, Arnie Lerma, and
>>>It's not a stealth weapon.
>>In my opinion, you've demonstrated your penchant for using it
>>thus so many times it is impossible not to draw such a conclusion.
>>You may disagree with my opinion, but it's still my opnion.
>And that's all it is. My opinion is that you use my use of the
>terminology to attack me.
If you think I'm
attacking you, you're just plain nuts.
friends are not in the gutter.
>>If you consider Lerma and Cox your friends, you're down there
>>wallowing around in the same filth they are.
>There are a whole lot more than just Arnie and Elizabeth Ann on this
>list: http://www.lermanet.com/cos/whypaulette.html I would count
>all of them far more decent people than you, Diane. And if any of
>them *were* to ever be in a gutter, I'd far sooner be there than be
>in your company and your self-made mental asylum that exists inside
>your mind. I pity you.
And I pity you, Warrior.
all very human, and I'd rather have them as my friends than you.
>>I'm glad you've found your level of comfort with Lerma and
>>Cox. It's much easier to understand your reaction as Defender
>>of the Prophet of God (R) when you class those two as your
>At least we agree on that.
>>>You are one of the most vicious, mean-spirited people I have
>>>across on the Internet.
>>And you are one of the most self-centered, pompous prigs I have
>>come across on the Internet.
>Self-centered? Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
Yes indeed! You're
a self-centered, pompous prig. And that
little tittle of laughter looks unbelievably forced.
>That's why I
have spent so much of
>my time trying to help victims of Scientology for absolutely free.
You are the idiot,
>Oh, and sorry
you don't like my writing style. Most people have no
>problem whatsoever understanding me. Of all the people I've engaged
>in discussions of Scientology on Usenet over the past seven years, you
>and Enzo Piccone are the only people who have behaved like a vicious,
>mean-spirited bashers towards me for any considerable length of time.
That's because so
few people bother reading your long-winded efforts
to "educate" people, Warrior. Your messages drone on and on.
>Many others feel
much the same about Diane, as may be seen here:
>>How endearing that a liar like you chooses to base your argument
>>Lerma's lies! Thanks for revealing just how deep into the mire you've
>Ha ha ha ha ha! Tell another one of you insane lies.
Your forced laughter
isn't fooling anyone, Warrior, not even yourself.
everyone's right to express his or her opinion, even though I
>>>The reason I became involved in this discussion is I happen
to think that
>>>while posting one's opinion is fine, I have to question the
>>>some invididuals who repeatedly sling mud in the form of terms
>>>"insane", "lunatic", "profit",
>>Yet you yourself find nothing wrong in namecalling when it suits
>>purposes. There's that pesky double standard of yours again!
>I don't repeatedly sling mud at anyone, unlike some of the black
>propagandists on this newsgroup who have engaged in attempted character
>assassination of Gerry.
Gerry Armstrong doesn't
need anyone to assassinate his character.
He's done a fine job of that all by himself.
>When is the last
time you said anything nice to Gerry?
When is the last
time Gerry Armstrong has ever said anything nice
to me? That's a gigantic strawman if I've ever seen one.
>When have you
ever tried to help him?
The only person who
can help Armstrong at this point is a qualified
mental health professional. I've urged him to seek such help.
I have perceived (correctly or incorrectly) as "black propaganda"
>>>has been what appears to me to be intentional character assassination
>>Why how coy of you, Warrior! Let's see ... last time you referred
>>this you barked:
>>>Where have I ever stated that individuals' personal opinions
>>I replied with:
>>It's not simply a matter of their webbing of posts because of
>>disagreement. I think (and Gerry and/or Caroline can correct me
>>am wrong) that the webbed posts demonstrate quite clearly the black
>>propaganda being waged against them.
>Clearly, expressing one's opinion is not the same as *repeatedly* calling
>Gerry a "lunatic", a "kook", etc. in an attempted
>I still think that the webbed posts demonstrate quite clearly the black
Thanks for clarifying
an acknowledgment from you that you had indeed
>>accused me, Cerridwen, Tigger, Deana Holmes, Gandalf,
>>ptsc, Rebecca Hartong, Starshadow, and Exscn "forwarding OSA's
>Let me clarify my position. I think it's you and Deana who have
>helped forward OSA's agenda. The others are decent people who
>don't have to sling mud like you do, Diane, or hide like Deana.
Ah, so you're changing
your position now! Have you advised
Armstrong that he is wrong including Cerridwen, Tigger, Gandalf,
ptsc, Rebecca Hartong, Starshadow and Exscn on his goOn SquAd
Or doesn't it bother
you that the Prophet of God [R] is falsely
accusing people of "forwarding OSA's agenda"?
>Those who repeatedly
pump out volumes of propaganda designed to
>discredit Gerry do indeed forward OSA's agenda.
Thanks for expressing
your opinion, Warrior.
>have admitted that you don't know much about OSA.
I've never been a
member of the CoS, as you have, and I've never
been in the Sea Org, as you have, so no, I don't have the same
"up close and personal" understanding of OSA that you have.
>therefore unqualified to make an educated statement about what
>forwards OSA's agenda.
But I shall continue
making statements here whether you believe
I am qualified to do so or not, Warrior. Although it may make you
mad as hell that I am as free to express my opinion here as you
are, I'm going to continue doing it.
no desire to understand Scientology well enough to be able
> to differentiate between 'OSA policy' and 'examples of how OSA
> get's their stats,' Warrior. "
>--Diane Richardson 2/27/2002
>"I was wrong. You are right. After all, you have spent a great
> deal of your life studying this stuff, while I am nothing more
> than an observer. There's no question that you are the expert
> when it comes to Hubbard's tech."
>--Diane Richardson 2/27/2002
>"Warrior spent years as a Scientologist studying the tech, I defer
> to his knowledge of Scientology."
>--Diane Richardson 2/27/2002
>"Given Tory's decades of membership in the CoS, she is far more
> conversant with CoS policy than I am. "
>--Diane Richardson 2/27/2002
>"I do not doubt that both you and Tory are far more conversant
> OSA policy than I."
>--Diane Richardson 3/17/2002
There's no doubt
in my mind that your experience in the Church of
Scientology has given you a much greater appreciation for OSA
than I'll ever have, Warrior.
There's also no doubt
in my mind that years after you officially
ended your affiliation with the Church of Scientology, you still
allow it to dominate your life.
>>You may not
have the courage to admit to me that you accused
>>as of such, but at least you've acknowledged publicly that you
>>have. That's good enough for me.
>I've not changed my opinion. And that nasty little shrew Deana is
How very noble of you!
posts an adverse opinion about him I have no particular
>>>problem with it, but when someone repeatedly slings mud to the
>>>exclusion of making any positive statements, I have to question
>>>motives of such a person.
>>I take it, then, that you believe Starshadow is still "forwarding
>>OSA's agenda." How endearing!
>You always believe what you wish, anyway. But no, I do not believe
>she is currently.
Will you be asking
the Prophet of God [R] to remove Starshadow from
his goOn SqAd follies page then?
want to understand my position better, I urge you to read the
>>>chapter on propaganda in Aldous Huxley's _Brave New World Revisited_.
>>>He explains it far better than I can. And he supports my position
>>>that propaganda can be the work of one man.
>>I stopped reading Huxley after high school. but I don't recall Brave
>>New World addressing anything but totalitarian regimes and
>>government use of propaganda to control the citizenry. Perhaps
>>you read a different book than I did.
>I was talking about _Brave New World Revisited_, which is a different
>book than his _Brave New World_. This is the problem with you. I write
>something and you see things I have not written. In Scieno lingo, you
>do not "duplicate" (see what is and understand it).
My problem is that
I did not type "Revisited," Warrior. If my typing
skills are a problem for you, you needn't resort to your Scienobabble
to complain about them. I was fully aware of the fact that you were
referring to Orwell's book of essays.
If you want to fall
back on your Hubbard training to describe my
action, then ... well ... you're still permitting Hubbard to define
your world for you.
>>You may not
like personal opinions critical of your Prophet of God
>>[R]. but that sure as hell doesn't make it "black propaganda"
>>make those criticizing Armstrong as "forwarding OSA's agenda."
>You have failed to understand what I said. What I object to is the
>*repeated* propaganda that Gerry is a "kook", a "lunatic",
>no such thing.
That's your opinion.
>But I don't expect
you to agree with me on this.
No, I don't. But
I've also changed my opinion of Armstrong. I don't
believe he is a kook or a lunatic, I believe he's caught up in his own
little game of showing the world how "witty" he is by pretending
be a kook and a lunatic.
I think Beverly Rice's
description of Gerry Armstrong is the most
accurate assessment of him I've seen thus far. Rather than being
a kook or a lunatic, he is a con-man, a fraud, and a liar.
is, unless you're still mired deep in the mental mud of
>I think you wish -- for some reason beyond my understanding -- it were
You continue showing
me (and anyone with the stomach to wade through
your mountains of verbiage) that you still allow Hubbard to define
your world for you.