Subject: Re: the unbearable looniness of gerry
From: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
References: <FFJF3HOG37914.email@example.com> <GCI03P7637914.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 21 Oct 2003 11:01:02 -0400
X-Trace: 21 Oct 2003 11:01:02 -0400, 220.127.116.11
X-Original-Trace: 21 Oct 2003 11:01:02 -0400, 18.104.22.168
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1650992
Gerry Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote in
<snipping away the backstory in a futile attempt to keep this post from
being the size of a small novel>
>>You know, if you're going to accuse other people of not being fully
>>broken free from Scientology control patterns, it would behoove you not
>>to use Hubbard jargon in an futile effort to disguise the lack of
>>substance in your arguments. The selection of posts on the megalomaniac
>>hatepage lovingly maintained by Gerry Armstrong demonstrate clearly that
>>he believes any criticism of himself to be tantamount to a deliberate
> No. That is a lie.
Okay, stop right there. I've read over this post several times, and I have
to ask you: How exactly do you define the word "lie"?
The paragraph to which you are replying here is, in fact, my opinion. I
believe that the posts demonstrate clearly that you believe any criticism
of yourself to be a deliberate OSA attack. Your response to my pointing
that out has been to accuse me of being either insane, or paid by
Scientology, but you don't seem to be able to conceive that someone can
simply disagree with you, and find your actions to be indicative of a
deeply unbalanced perspective. That, too, is not a lie, but again, an
opinion. Saying, "No. That is a lie," which you do repeatedly in this
reply, is not rebutting an argument, any more than would be an endless
exchange of "Yes you did!" "No, I didn't!"
With that in mind, I will cherrypick from the rest of your response to
demonstrate *why* I believe that you consider any criticism to be
tantamount to a deliberate OSA attack.
You made here the factual assertions that, (1)
> presumably, my GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page
> is a megalomaniac hatepage; (2) that I clearly believe that any
> criticism of myself to be tantamount to a deliberate OSA attack.
> I have never said, nor implied that any criticism of myself is
> tantamount to a deliberate OSA attack. I believe no such thing. I
> believe that deliberate lies about me by people like yourself, and
> deliberate viciousness by people like yourself toward me, which
> together constitute deliberate black PRing of me, and the deliberate
> refusal of people like yourself to address straight across your lies,
> viciousness and black PR serve Scientology's evil purposes toward an
> "enemy" the cult seeks to destroy. It is the lies, viciousness,
> propaganda and refusal to address and correct it, all of which forward
> the cult's purposes, that merits inclusion on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES
> page, not "criticism."
> The only hateful things on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page are the hateful
> posts archived there.
What is hateful about this post?
Please explain in detail.
From what I can see, Jommy Cross simply advised you to reread the original
explanation of why it was unlikely that the post was made by Bruce Ullman,
and criticized your decision to email the news provider, which he felt was
unhelpful to the remailer, since it could lead to access problems or other
administrative problems. You, however, still refuse to acknowledge that you
were wrong on your original claim, which was that somehow, it was more
likely that the post was made by Bruce Ullman than by anyone else in the
world who isn't Bruce Ullman, despite the fact that the original anonymous
poster made a deliberate effort to include Bruce Ullman's name and email
address in teh header, which would suggest to sane people that it was an
effort to "frame" Bruce Ullman for the original post.
When someone points this out to you, as did Jommy Cross, you go into a
frenzy of rationalization that makes no sense, and is heavy on the paranoid
characterizations, which make sense when one realizes that you clearly
believe that any criticism of yourself is somehow "serving Scientology's
purpose," and not simply brought on by disagreement with something that you
> I have assembled this set of posts that serve Scientology's purposes
> toward the cult's enemies for legal reasons.
What possible legal reason can you have for including even the most mild
criticism on a page dedicated, in your own words, to "Posts by a.r.s.
participants who claim to not be formally employed OSA staff or formally
operated OSA agents but who, in and with pretended stupidity, forward OSA's
purposes by attacking the Scientology cult's fair game victims"?
Eegardless of what you claim is "pretended stupidity" - one of your
favourite meaningless phrases - on the part of mistaken interpreters that
your page is alleging that each listed poster belongs to OSA, it's not at
all clear to those who might stumble on your page via google, presuming
that said stumbler doesn't run screaming at your over the top ramblings
that punctuate the otherwise valuable documents and records that you have
made available on your site. As a matter of fact, it appears that you *are*
alleging that each listed poster is OSA, despite your semantic can-can
about "pretended stupidity", although you use weasel words to do so.
Perhaps this would be better phrased as a simple yes/no answer: Do you
believe that any post to a.r.s. that criticizes or disagrees with you
"forwards OSA's purposes"? If you do not, why did you include the mild
disagreement with your actions that was posted by Jommy Cross yesterday, or
any number of other examples of posts that simply disagree with something
that you have said or done?
> You have it within your power to stop serving the cult's evil purposes
> by stopping your lies and viciousness, and by correcting the unmerited
> attacks you've made on the cult's targets.
Gosh, that's awfully kind of you to say, Gerry, but unfortunately, I think
the A-E steps are demeaning hokum, whether it is proposed by Scientology or
by you. If I change my mind, or you change your behaviour, I'll reconsider
my assessment, but I'm hardly going to correct an "attack" that I believe
to be entirely legitimate criticism. To thine own self be true, and all
>>in case you were wondering, is loony.
>>>>you traipse into the thread after Gerry has thoroughly entangled
>>>>whatever point he was trying to make
>>> I'm really sorry you have such a limited capacity to follow the
>>> discussion. Perhaps you should find another hobby that is
>>> less taxing on your brain.
>>My brain is just fine, no worries; the problem is with Gerry's writing,
>>and what I hesitate to call "logic", as it meets none of the
>>standards to so qualify.
> That is a lie. And it is a lie for black PR purposes. You make the
> factual assertion that the logic in my writing meets none of the
> minimal standards to qualify as logic. Since you have made this
> factual assertion, it is up to you to support it.
Well, not to get meta, but I think this very post to which I reply contains
enough examples of your irrational paranoid conclusions to support my
position. It is utterly illogical to call an opinion on your writing style
a "lie"; it is, once again, an opinion. As for the suggestion that it
for "black PR purposes," perhaps you could explain exactly what you
If I, or anyone else, posts an opinion, it is to make it public, for
whatever reason. I'm not sure why that would qualify as a "black PR
purpose"; by the same logic, isn't your post to which I am replying also
the service of "black PR purposes"? Or does that only count when the
is Gerry Armstrong?
> Just identify all of the minimum standards that qualify logic in
> writing as logic. Then show how the logic in my writing fails to meet
> any of those minimal standards.
> I know you don't have access to everything I've ever written, but you
> have easy access to virtually everything I've ever written and posted
> to a.r.s., so just use that body of writing.
> If you cannot do this; i.e., identify the minimum standards that
> qualify logic in writing as logic, and show how the logic in my
> writing in my posts to a.r.s. fails to meet any of those minimal
> standards, then please simply admit that you lied.
> I know that people will allow you the time and space to clear up this
> matter once and for all. I doubt that there's more than three or four
> hundred thousand lines of my a.r.s writing in Google's usenet
> archives. If you really are able to identify all the minimum standards
> that qualify logic in writing as logic, and show how the logic in my
> writing fails to meet any of those minimal standards, I certainly will
> admit that you didn't lie after all.
> But you made the factual assertion, so it's incumbent upon you to
> support it.
> I believe that I have shown even here, by the logic I've employed to
> address this one assertion by you -- that the logic in my writing
> meets none of the minimal standards to qualify as logic -- that your
> assertion is a lie.
I think that this post, in specific, and your participation in this thread,
in general, more than supports my contention that you believe any and all
criticism, no matter how mild or how clearly entirely unaligned with
Scientology, to be a "deliberate effort" at "black PR" that
Scientology's purpose." It is unclear whether you consider yourself to be
equally guilty of such a "deliberate effort" by webbing the posts of
>>The pattern has become all too familiar: Gerry kooks out
>>about something, some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects him, he flies
>>into a paranoid hissy fit, and posts 400 line screeds of
>>pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a remarkable resemblance to the
>>insights offered by burned out hippie barflies throughout the ages and
>>across the world, and after he's worked himself into a truly
>>entertaining fit of pique, you show up and try to blame everyone else
>>for not being properly indulgent of his insanity.
> Well if the pattern you say exists has become, as you also say, all
> too familiar, you should have absolutely no trouble finding many
> examples of where you say I kook out about something, some unwitting
> a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I fly into a paranoid hissy fit, and post
> 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a
> remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out hippie
> barflies throughout the ages and across the world.
Again, this post would be an excellent example, and I note that you are
resorting to the same copy/paste mantra that made the legal filing at
cv021632.html so resplendantly, unapologetically kooky.
> If you can't find the pattern you say exists that is formed by all
> those times you say exist where you say I kook out about something,
> some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I fly into a paranoid hissy
> fit, and post 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that
> bears a remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out
> hippie barflies throughout the ages and across the world, then admit
> that you lied?
Well, since I'm replying to such a thread right now, that would be
difficult to do with a straight face.
> In fact, you are viciously lying. And it is lying, viciousness,
> refusal to correct lies, and the assistance that behavior provides the
> Scientology cult that brings me to put a poster on the GOoN sQUaD
> FOLLIES page.
So, basically, because I disagree with you, and refuse to stop disagreeing
with you even though you demand that I do so, that makes me a vicious liar
with a vicious refusal to correct lies? Some might call that insane. As for
the alleged "assistance that behaviour provides the Scientology cult,"
what I can see, you do the most in that regard with your kooky response to
> So, go ahead, I'm sure the Internet will provide you bandwidth.
> Support your factual assertion with all those times that you say I
> kooked out about something, some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrected
> me, I flew into a paranoid hissy fit, and posted 400 line screeds of
> pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a remarkable resemblance to
> the insights offered by burned out hippie barflies throughout the ages
> and across the world; which times and 400 line posts form that all too
> familiar pattern you claim exists.
>>If you read back over this thread, you'll see that's exactly what
>>happened, as was the case way back when Gerry began collecting his OSA
> There's another lie. The goon squadders call it the "OSA Goon Squad."
> I don't.
>>posts, then denied that doing so was suggesting that his collection was
>>in any way an accusation that the posters were OSA.
> That's true. And the goon squadders are still lying about it. I say
> that by the attacks on the cult's real opponents, by the goon
> squadders' lying, viciousness and refusal to deal straight-across with
> their false factual assertions, they serve OSA's purposes. No one has
> shown otherwise.
It is not a false factual assertion to say that you are, at the moment,
doing a hauntingly good imitation of L. Ron Hubbard at the height of his
paranoid egomania. It is my opinion, and I'm sticking with it. It would be
a lie for me to say that you weren't doing a hauntingly good imitation of
L. Ron Hubbard at the height of paranoid egomania, since that would be the
opposite of what I believe. How much more do I have to simplify this before
you're able to grasp the notion of non-Scientology individuals having a
problem with your increasingly irrational, malicious behaviour?
> I realize you may be doing so because you are being paid, or ignorant,
> or psychopathologically inclined, or perhaps some other reason. It is
> not necessary to know the reasons to know that some of your actions
> serve OSA's purposes.
So in your mind, one has to be crazy or OSA to think you're a lunatic? I
don't think CSI has the money to cover the payroll, nor mental health
facilities sufficient resources to address those needs, since right now, I
suspect many, many people would think that you are acting like a lunatic.
Of course, I can only speak for myself, and I'm not being made to think
you're a lunatic, nor am I a lunatic myself. Again, you do realize, don't
you, how very closely your reaction mirrors the reaction of Hubbard to any
dissent or outside criticism?
> Right now you serve OSA's purposes with this piece of black
> propaganda, presented as a factual assertion, that you cannot support
> with evidence. You can only provide more black propaganda to support
> earlier black propaganda. But here, you have your opportunity to
> correct the record. Post all those all too familiar pattern-forming
> times you say exist where you say I kook out about something, some
> unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I fly into a paranoid hissy fit,
> and post 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a
> remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out hippie
> barflies throughout the ages and across the world. And if you cannot
> provide all those all too familiar pattern-forming times you say
> exist, please admit you lied.
>> You showed up there, too,
>>and your performance in that thread was equally infuriating, since on
>>most subjects, you are one of the more sane, rational critics. It's just
>>when the subject turns to Gerry Armstrong that you turn into a wilfully
> That's a lie. When people like yourself have lied about me, leveled
> vicious unmerited attacks on me, and have refused to address straight
> across with their lies and attacks, Warrior has at times spoken up to
> rebut those lies and vicious, unmerited attacks.
See above re: definition of lie. By your definition, I could say that your
characterization of criticism as "vicious, unmerited attacks" is also
lie, and that you are a lying liar, filled with hateful hatred and bigoted
bigotry. But since I'm not a megalomaniac, I won't.
> He has, in doing so, been himself lied about and viciously attacked by
> the same set of liars and vicious attackers.
> You lie and viciously attack him right here by black PRing his
> honorable actions in response to your dishonorable actions as
> "turn[ing] into a wilfully blind apologist."
> I would bet that there are many other people who see what people like
> yourself are doing in your lying and vicious attacks, but don't speak
> up to rebut them because they fear that they would themselves be lied
> about and viciously attacked. So the lying and vicious attacks by
> people like yourself work, and they serve Scientology's immoral and
> destructive purposes.
Scientology doesn't have to make you look like a deranged hypersensitive
lunatic, because at the moment, you're doing a bang-up job yourself.
> It has taken great courage by Warrior to speak up and tell the truth,
> knowing full well that he will be ruthlessly black PRed by the people
> like you. By doing so, he has served an even greater purpose than
> defending me against lies and attacks, because he has demonstrated
> beyond any doubt that the people like you serve, with your lies and
> vicious attacks, Scientology's evil purposes.
So because I don't agree with Warrior that you aren't behaving like a
lunatic, that proves "beyond all doubt" that I serve Scientology's purpose?
That? Also demonstrative of a woeful lack of both proportion and the
ability to accept that other people may disagree with your worldview
without being tools of your own personal Satan.
> It is more painful to me to witness your lies and abuse directed at
> Warrior than it is to be the target myself. But it is also encouraging
> beyond all the pain you could possibly inflict with all the lies,
> hatred and abuse you could heap on the whole world, to know that this
> man, Warrior, stood up, and fought back with truth and logic.
I guess I must have missed those posts. The ones I read just included lots
of shots at my intelligence, described me as a 'little snake', and when in
doubt, just deemed any point to which he could not respond a "strawman",
term that I am seriously considering for a one-month absolute ban here on
a.r.s., so grossly and gratuitously misused it has been over the last few
<snip gerry cutting and pasting to pad his length - in fact, snipping the
rest, because this post has taken way too much of my time already, and
there's nothing really new to address>