Subject: Re: kids
From: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 29 Oct 2003 16:53:42 -0500
X-Trace: 29 Oct 2003 16:53:42 -0500, 184.108.40.206
X-Original-Trace: 29 Oct 2003 16:53:42 -0500, 220.127.116.11
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1653032
Jess Lurking <email@example.com> wrote in news:Xns94242AC7CDCC9notemailthnx@
> Rebecca Hartong <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in
>> Actually, I have yet another theory. Maybe Gerry is
>> collecting all of these posts where people call him a kook
>> because he expects at some point to need an insanity
>> defense and he wants to be able to point theses posts and
>> say, "See? Everyone thinks I'm crazy!"
> Hey guys, I've chimed in with a couple of posts on this thread,
> but I simply can't go along with this approach towards Gerry.
> I really believe he is hurting, and not handling things very
> well at all, maybe even self-destructing. While I've long
> thought he was a bit 'kooky' in a harmless 'eccentric' sort of
> way, I now think it's more serious than that.
> Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but as I've said recently I
> hope those who claim to be his friends look out for him, rather
> than just 'egg him on' in his current strategy towards ars.
> And I also hope these comments of mine don't come across as in
> any way condescending towards Gerry because that's not what I
> feel at all.
I respect your feelings on this matter, and I think you have been very
even-handed in your approach to this thread, so you shouldn't worry.
However, at the same time, I'd like to draw the parallel to past and
present participants on a.r.s. who have demonstrated similar behaviour:
Koos and Barbara Schwarz. Note: I am *not* stating that Gerry's craziness
is as yet at this level, since I have no way of knowing if that is the
case, but I think there are still parallels to be drawn, given your
In the case of Koos, I'm not sure if he thrived or was thwarted by the
reaction he got from denizens herein, and I have no idea if his interaction
with the voices outside his head here on a.r.s. played any role in his
subsequent meltdown. However, when the facts surrounding his daughter's
death, and his subsequent incarceration became public knowledge, I know
that I, at least, felt much less comfortable treating him as a USENET joke;
his lunacy did, eventually, have otherworld consequences, perhaps even
including the death of a young woman.
In the case of Barbara Schwarz, she has made a concerted effort to spread
libellous information about a.r.s. participants through a webpage for which
she claims authorship, which has since been taken down after complaints
from her targets. She is also clearly insane, and while on one hand, I
think it is despicable for OSA to so callously use her as a tool when she
is clearly a victim of her own biochemistry, at the same time, I don't
think it's fair to expect those victimized by her libels to sit back and
take it simply because she's mentally unhinged.
On to Gerry, who, in comparison with the aforementioned, is clearly not
nearly as 'far gone' as far as his own mental state. At the same time,
however, I can't help but notice that indulgence or, as you put it 'egging
on' of such behaviour does not seem to lead to the most desired outcome,
which is that the individual in question stops behaving in the manner that
has provoked the initial criticism.
To put it plainly, I'm not willing to sit back and let him spin wild
hallucinatory conjecture on my alleged intention to testify on behalf of
Scientology, or to be lumped in with OSA as one engaged in a deliberate and
agenda-driven effort to "destroy" him. I find the very suggestion to
repugnant, and completely without any basis, and I'm not going to let it
stand unchallenged, because unlike Koos and Barbara Schwarz, there is a
very real danger that a large segment of the a.r.s. readership will believe
him when he says such things.
Finally, and perhaps most questionably, I don't believe that it is right to
sit back and shut up when you find yourself in opposition to public
opinion, and I do believe in speaking up when I have something to say. I
don't want anyone on a.r.s., whether newcomer, longtime lurker or regular
poster, to feel that they have to parrot the party line in order to
participate in discussions on the newsgroup. (Clearly, in your case, you do
not, and that's a good thing.)
I understand your concern over Gerry's wellbeing, and I share with you the
hope that his friends will guide him out of this self-destructive cycle,
but I'm not going to sit back and be a punching bag for someone caught in a
tail spin of paranoia. If I did, I may as well depart from a.r.s.
altogether, as so many have done before me for similar reasons. Until such
time that I give up entirely, I'm not willing to be pushed out by the
madding crowd. (Present company, of course, excluded.)