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

     
 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: kids
From: "kady@wwwaif.net" <kady@wwwaif.net>
References: <bn95g001mr4@drn.newsguy.com> <bndb8q02bs1@drn.newsguy.com> <HE71R10537920.1760069444@anonymous.poster> <1q8npv8mvjbeqmqu2in7cog3i0t5eu87ks@4ax.com> <71d327bb.0310260548.245385df@posting.google.com> <kamnpv0bg5vnruui79jfdouq1p0t0nqs34@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Xns9420710AE94A7kadywwwaifnet@205.232.34.12>
User-Agent: Xnews/05.08.12
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.25.162
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.230.25.162
Date: 26 Oct 2003 11:04:58 -0500
X-Trace: 26 Oct 2003 11:04:58 -0500, 64.230.25.162
X-Original-Trace: 26 Oct 2003 11:04:58 -0500, 64.230.25.162
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 142
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1652090

Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
news:kamnpv0bg5vnruui79jfdouq1p0t0nqs34@4ax.com:

[snip - once more into the breech]

>>So these people mentioned on your page are indeed connected to the
>>Church of Scientology (if you want to use their posts in future
>>litigation with the organization)?!
>
> I have never said that. But aren't all of us here connected to the
> Scientology cult? Aren't you?

Quit dancing and answer the question. How would the posts of critics
without an official - or ex-officio - connection to the Church of
Scientology serve your purposes in litigation with the Church of
Scientology? If someone in a bar calls you a git for spilling beer on his
trousers, would that be relevant to the ongoing litigation against you?
Would you immortalize that "attack" on your OSA Goon Squad Follies
hatepage? If not, why do you include "attacks" that are entirely
independent of the influence of Scientology propaganda? I don't think
you're an egomaniacal lunatic because that's what the Scientology Dead
Agent packs say; I think you're an egomaniacal lunatic based on your words
and actions, both here on a.r.s. and in the filings you make before the
court.


>>Why else would you use their
>>posts?
>
> Because I have litigation as a defendant in which they are valuable
> for what they say. And they are valuable as they are displayed on this
> page. They are also valuable for the prosecution of an offensive
> action.

How are my words "valuable for what they say" to someone who has
"litigation as a defendant" when my thoughts and opinions have nothing
whatever to do with the claims the CoS has made against you? As for the
'prosecution of an offensive action' - well, offensive would indeed be le
mot juste if you were to launch a legal attack on those included on the
page for having the temerity to criticize The Gerry. Unless you were
referring to an 'offensive action' against the CoS, in which case none of
the posts in question are remotely relevant, since none of the posters are
in any way legally connected to the CoS. There is clearly no "legal
reason" why you have created this page; that defence is something you
concocted after the fact to rationalize your paranoid and egomaniacal
actions.

<snip>

>
> There is a message that is undeniable that is often heard here on
> a.r.s., and that cannot logically be refuted, that people who profess
> to be critics of the Scientology cult can serve the cult's malevolent
> purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents. Do you
> disagree with this?

I don't think that any sane person reading the full collection of posts on
the OSA Goon Squad Follies webpage would come to the conclusion that these
are "unmerited attacks," since the bulk are clearly simply examples of
disagreement with points you put forward, and criticism of your entirely
disproportionate response to such disagreemen.


>>
>>In contrast to your former hero Minton you don't have the courage to
>>name your perceived "enemies" "OSA whores"
>
> What a stupid statement. I have had the courage at least to tell the
> truth, and to web the subject posts in their entirety, without
> comment, and with a link to the entire context. Do you have the
> courage to do that?

This may be difficult for you to grasp, but most a.r.s. denizens have
accepted the fact that not everyone will agree with every word that they
write, and some may even express that disagreement publicly, and do not
believe that such disagreement merits the creation of a special webpage to
monitor such disagreement.

> In contrast to my "former hero Minton?" Where did that cheap
> irrelevancy come from?
>
>> but you have to resume to
>>alternately blinking letters
>
> That's ridiculous. I don't have to resume to alternately blinking
> letters at all. Any more than someone has to resume to the color blue
> and Arial lettering on a web page.

I believe Martin meant "resort", not "resume". However, if you think that
there is anything remotely coy or endearing about your repeated refusal to
simply admit that you are sending a very specific message with the blinking
O-S-A letters, you are sorely mistaken.

>>and lengthy, cumbersome explanations
>>instead.
>
> That's false. There, is that short and uncumbersome enough for you?
>
> Tell me, how exactly is it any different if a poster accuses me of
> serving OSA's purposes when I say that certain posters are serving
> OSA's purposes with certain posts, or if I web these certain posts of
> certain posters and say that they serve OSA's purposes?

I don't even CARE about OSA's purposes. I'm tired of hearing about what OSA
wants, and doesn't want. If I wanted to live my life based on what OSA
thinks, I'd join the Sea Org. Your page is idiotic, insulting and greatly
indictive of your insanity. Good enough?


> I ask that because I notice you have never corrected one of the people
> whose posts I've webbed when they've made such allegations, or when
> they've lied, or when they've engaged in other unmerited attacks.

Okay, you might want to sit down, and get the smelling salts ready before
you consider this, but maybe, just maybe, he didn't "correct" these alleged
"lies" and "unmerited attacks" because he either didn't read the thread in
question, or - and this will be the part that you find difficult to grasp,
I suspect - because he doesn't agree that they are "lies" and "umerited
attacks," but simply the expression of a difference of opinion. Which, of
course, quickly spirals into a bizarre interrogation, courtesy of yourself
and loyal officer Gerrior, where questioning a claim made by The Gerry
descends into 500 line masturbatory threads largely consisting of demands
that the initial poster retract "lies" that are, of course, merely
statements of opinion. I can't *imagine* why someone wouldn't want to
subject themselves to that by simply publicly agreeing with the original
criticism.


> I believe that my webbing of these people's posts is a much fairer
> treatment than I get from them. As a rule, they refuse to address the
> lies they're telling honestly and straight across. I simply say that
> by this amazing set of posts containing an amazing number of lies and
> put downs, and this amazing amount of viciousness, pretended stupidity
> and black propaganda, OSA's malevolent purposes toward me are served.
> Don't you agree?

No.


K

 
 

Thread

 

 

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