§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: the unbearable looniness of gerry
From: "kady@wwwaif.net" <kady@wwwaif.net>
References: <FFJF3HOG37914.7641666667@anonymous.poster> <GCI03P7637914.8952430556@anonymous.poster> <bn27h302hqk@drn.newsguy.com> <Xns941AF118B6D89kadywwwaifnet@> <bn2cr6084@drn.newsguy.com>
Message-ID: <Xns941BC692FE1Bkadywwwaifnet@>
User-Agent: Xnews/05.08.12
Date: 21 Oct 2003 01:11:13 -0400
X-Trace: 21 Oct 2003 01:11:13 -0400,
X-Original-Trace: 21 Oct 2003 01:11:13 -0400,
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 99
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1650908

Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote in news:bn2cr6084@drn.newsguy.com:

<snipping at random solely to drive gerrior into an anal retentive frenzy>

>>Have you looked at some of the posts on Gerry's
>>megalomaniac hate page?
> Strawman. Go back in your wittle "natter club" (irc).

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 OSA attack. That,
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 minimal standards
to so qualify. 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

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 Goon Squad
posts, then denied that doing so was suggesting that his collection was in
any way an accusation that the posters were OSA. 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 blind

>>with his tortured philosophizing, and attempt to rationalize the
>>irrational and defend the indefensible.
> I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. But I'm
> not surprised any longer.

Well, I'll leave any masochists still perusing this thread to read some of
Gerry's writings, and determine for themselves whether this description is
accurate or not. This thread, in fact, would be an excellent example, since
rather than simply graciously admit that his speculation was at best
premature, Gerry went on a rampage of what the late lamented Ray Randolph
described as "stupid people deep talk", rather than simply admit that it
was, in fact, highly unlikely that the anonymous poster was Bruce Ullman.
It really was as simple as that.

>>If you can't see that, nothing that anyone, Cerridwen included, can
>>say will remove the Gerry-shaped blind from your eyes.
> There. There. Feel better now? Now go give ptsc a slap on the
> back and a hug, will you?

>>What is pathetic is that she *needs* to say it,
> That's what *I* said.
>>to Gerry and, by inference, to you, but what's even more pathetic is
> Uhhh... Let me guess: That you're dumber than a box of rocks?

Would that I were a box of rocks, without eyes to read Gerry's rambling
diatribes. Alas, I am a human being, and when I see sophistic nonsense
touted as deep wisdom, I get cranky enough to post in rebuttal.

>>It's nice to see that when you run out of actual arguments
> Strawman. I'm not out of arguments by a long shot. In fact,
> I've only just started.

Where? Where are these arguments? In this post, the only arguments you have
made are a) I are right, Kady is wrong; b) Kady is just too stupid to
realize that I'm right, and she is wrong; and c) No, really, Kady is dumb
as a box of rocks. Oh, and lots of gratuitous uses of the word "strawman",
with questionable basis. If you have an actual argument, it's yet to
present itself, but since I'm so stupid, perhaps you could frame it in
nice, easy words of two syllables or less.






§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §