Subject: Re: Gerry Armstrong: Bald-faced liar
From: Rebecca Hartong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
References: <email@example.com> <Xns92BDE0285EF7Cmirelesonicnet@18.104.22.168>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:26:02 GMT
X-Trace: news1.east.cox.net 1036682762 22.214.171.124 (Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:26:02
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:26:02 EST
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: news.online.de alt.religion.scientology:683696
On 11/7/02 12:45 AM, in
Xns92BEE7ABA862Amirelesonicnet@126.96.36.199, "Deana Holmes"
> I'm certainly not
going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
> *you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
> his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.
I'm curious about what
you would consider proof. Since, as far as I can see,
this whole debate hinges on what Caroline's state of mind was when she
decided not to be involved in the McPherson case, it seems like the most
compelling proof would be for Caroline herself to explain it. Better yet
would be something *from Caroline* from around the time of her decision--
stating something to the effect of, "I'm not going to do it because of
Deana." Frankly, this whole thing is goofy. You and Gerry arguing about what
a third person *felt* at a certain point in time. It's ridiculous.
Particularly since Caroline herself hasn't commented one way or another
(that I've noticed...not that I've been paying all that much attention.) I
understand that you're annoyed with Gerry's claiming that it's all your
fault but, jeez, consider the source!