§  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> <71d327bb.0310261359.44b0497@posting.google.com> <jq2vpv8kr04s9c5ffns35uesk4vtfob65d@4ax.com> <Xns9423E728D8DDCnotemailthnx@203.59.27.131> <qpmvpvs6jddmvhjf33amo5o65uqqrlp1lu@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <Xns9423736789AE5kadywwwaifnet@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: 29 Oct 2003 11:20:52 -0500
X-Trace: 29 Oct 2003 11:20:52 -0500, 64.230.25.162
X-Original-Trace: 29 Oct 2003 11:20:52 -0500, 64.230.25.162
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 207
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1652932

Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
news:qpmvpvs6jddmvhjf33amo5o65uqqrlp1lu@4ax.com:

<snipping bulk of Gerry's insanity, which I'll leave to Martin to reply, if
he so desires>

> On 29 Oct 2003 14:42:55 GMT, Jess Lurking <pass@that.thanks> wrote:
>
>>Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in
>>news:jq2vpv8kr04s9c5ffns35uesk4vtfob65d@4ax.com:
>>
>>..snipping all but this ...
>>
>>>
>>> I bet she would. I bet she would help Rosen to the best of
>>> her ability to black PR and destroy me. She would never
>>> tell the truth, because the truth would be that she has
>>> attacked me with unmerited lies. She would far rather help
>>> Scientology destroy me, even by testifying against me with
>>> the same words she puts into all her a.r.s. posts attacking
>>> me, than tell the truth.
>>
>>That's pretty frightening stuff you write Gerry !
>>
>>It's what most people would call 'kooky, delusional and
>>paranoid'. Do you seriously believe this of Kady ?
>
> You snipped the rest of the post that makes this part completely
> non-kooky, non-delusional and non-paranoid. Here, deal with it:

No; no, it doesn't. The rest of the post is replete with similarly kooky,
delusional and paranoid snippets. I've snipped all but my personal
favourite, in the interests of not causing any unwary readers' heads to
explode at the leaps of illogic and pervasive persecution complex that make
up the bulk of your reply ...

> Or, you and Kady, prove me wrong. What Bob testified to about Ken
> Dandar is not nearly as vicious and false as what Kady would testify
> to against me if given the opportunity by Scientology. She doesn't
> even do anything about it now before she is supoenaed to clean up the
> record she's made.

Okay, I lied; I'm including two snippets. The above is, in fact, indicative
of a kind of mental rot the likes of which is rarely seen outside of
environments where the inhabitants are kept away from sharp objects. Then
again, I wouldn't want to be around Gerry if there were any sharp objects,
but that's a separate issue.

The attentive reader will notice that not only does Gerry try to draw a
parallel between someone critizing him on a USENET group and someone
commiting perjury on the stand, accusing a lawyer of perfidious conduct in
order to assist Scientology in having him disqualified from the case, and
the case itself thrown out of court, but he actually suggests that the
USENET criticism is "not nearly as vicious and false".

To continue with the snippage ...

<snippage>
> But listen to what you are saying. I state a simple fact: 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.
> You say that it's the same crap Scientology tells its members about
> criticisms. You are accusing me of acting the same as Scientology,
> which is false. But when I state the truth when it's true, you say
> it's complete bullshit. Now that is bullshit!

Gerry, for the love of whatever God is acting as your second chair and
chief witness today, get help. You are clearly utterly unable to comprehend
the difference between a "lie" and a difference of opinion. There is really
no reason in continuing to discuss anything with you, given this gap in
your mental processing, but since you're now suggesting that I'm in league
with Rosen to destroy you, I'm going to reply to this for the benefit of
anyone who is masochistic enough to follow this thread.


> [End Quote]
>
> How about if you tell us what Kady will say on the stand in response
> to Rosen's questions.

How about if you tell me, the person with whom your creepy obsession is
becoming clear in this monstrous reply, complete with hallucinatory
dialogue, on what possible ground such an exchange would ever take place?

If your legal strategy rests entirely on the thesis that I don't think
you're insane, you're in trouble. I don't think it does, however, since it
would be pretty stupid for you to carefully gather all evidence to the
contrary, and host it on your website, if you think that it serves the
purpose of OSA.

If your legal strategy is to demonstrate that somehow, "OSA made her do
it," with regards to my opinion, I think that the fact that I deny that
this is the case in virtually every post so enshrined, and have even
challenged you to show one example of how my opinion of your complete and
utter insanity is derived, in whole or in part, from Scientology sources,
would also argue against this being the basis of your defence.

Unless you're trying to do OSA's work yourself, presuming that OSA's work
somehow involves calling me to the stand to confirm that I think you're a
lunatic. The mobius loop of fractured logic makes my head hurt.


> E.g., "Ms. O'Malley, you write that Gerry Armstrong's so-called logic
> doesn't meet any of the minimal standards to so qualify. Do you
> believe this to be true?"
>
> I bet she'll lie and say, "Yes."

How, pray tell, would that even be a "lie" if it is, in fact, what I've
written, and is, in fact, what I think? More to the point, what possible
relevance does my opinion of your sanity have to the case against you,
which is over your breach of contract with the Church of Scientology? It
would in no way help Scientology's case, since I believe that their
argument is that you knowingly and deliberately violated the gag order into
which you entered. My opinion that you are insane would in no way help
Scientology to demonstrate that you are doing so deliberately, but would,
in fact, help *your* defence, presuming said defence was insanity.

Again. Head hurting. Must .. make ... it ... to ... end ... of ... post ...


> E.g., "Ms. O'Malley, you write that there's an all too familiar
> pattern with Gerry Armstrong, where you say that he 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? Do you believe that to be true?"
>
> I bet she'll lie and say, "Yes."
>
> Rosen: "And you've characterized what Gerry Armstrong calls the GOoN
> sQUaD FOLLIES page as "demented, paranoid hate pages," is that
> correct?"
>
> KO: "Yes."
>
> Rosen: "And you believe that to be true?
>
> KO: "Yes."
>
> Rosen: "And what are your qualification for these observations and
> conclusions about Gerry Armstrong?"
>
> KO: "I'm a journalist."

No, in that case, in this fantasy interrogation which would never occur in
real life, since it's not like there is a shortage of people who have read
your words on USENET and have concluded that you're a loon, I would state
that my only qualifications for making such observations is that I am a
regular reader of a.r.s., and I knows kooks when I sees 'em.


> Rosen: "And you've read everything Gerry Armstrong has written and
> posted to the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology, correct?"
>
> KO: "Yes I have."
>
> Rosen: "And as you sit here, under oath, you are very certain that
> Gerry Armstrong's so-called logic doesn't meet any of the minimal
> standards to so qualify, that there really is an actual all too
> familiar pattern with Gerry Armstrong, where he, as you say, kooks out
> about something, some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects him, Armstrong
> 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 that what he calls his GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES
> page are demented, paranoid hate pages, is that correct?"
>
> KO: "Yes I am."
>
> Rosen: "No further questions."
>
> Now do you think that Kady O'Malley's testimony, as postulated above
> using only her already published words, which testimony she is daily
> locking in by refusing to deal honestly and straight across with her
> lies and black PR about me, will serve the Scientology cult's
> malevolent purposes towards me?

It wouldn't. It would, in fact, hurt their case, which would require that
your alleged breach of contract was done deliberately, and in sound mind.
But don't let that cramp your style, or impinge on your cunning efforts to
equate your imagined enemies, like me, with OSA, even to the point of
speculating that I would work with Rosen.

Perhaps you have mistaken me for Bob Minton, who did, in fact, work closely
with Rosen to tell *actual lies* - ie untruths about factual matters, not
opinions - in a futile effort to destroy Ken Dandar, in which case, perhaps
you might take this entire argument and apply it to Arnie Lerma, who has on
his website many such attacks on Ken Dandar, and was even publicly
predicting his imminent disbarring on the front page of his website.

I don't seem to recall you flying into high dudgeon at that sorry little
episode, which rather than simply involving criticism and a difference of
opinion, included allegations of theft, fraud, perjury and other actual
criminal acts, all of which were soundly disproven.

> Or perhaps Kady would like to change her testimony in advance of that
> day with Rosen on the stand or in deposition.

If anything, your most recent post demonstrates that you're a hell of a lot
crazier than even I thought.

K

 
 

Thread

 

 

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