§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §




From: ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gerry Armstrong and OSA: Separated at Birth??
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:27:20 -0500
Organization: Busts Your Rips!
Message-ID: <d8qitugdr0151703uh0j6m2s09jj7gss2d@4ax.com>
References: <Xns92C95F6E3CD07mirelesonicnet@> <0e7itu8qm0fr5kemhfekt82j9a8oguium8@4ax.com> <lfbitu0jiqtrc0a7c7jm68sm86g8rc5ris@4ax.com> <6jfituo57p3hohs86vg4ngo0d7qc4it7js@4ax.com> <B9FECBE3.E3E6%rhartong@cox.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 68

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:55:02 GMT, Rebecca Hartong <rhartong@cox.net> wrote:

>On 11/18/02 2:26 PM, in article 6jfituo57p3hohs86vg4ngo0d7qc4it7js@4ax.com,
>"Tilman Hausherr" <tilman@berlin.snafu.de> wrote:

>> I'd say it implies a similarity, a parallel to OSA methods. This applies
>> to you pretty well, considering your Gandow security check attempt.
>> Compare your questions to OSA's questions (webbed on GA's page).

>You may have noticed, Tilman, that Gerry has included a post of mine also on
>his page. If you read it, you will see that it is barely insulting towards
>him and--in fact--is directed at Deana and her quarrel with Gerry, telling
>her that I think the whole thing (her side of it and his) is silly.

Here's the post in question. I'm sure Gerry will be glad to point out
the "parallel to OSA methods" in it. Funny, I don't see anything remotely
OSA-like in it, but then I'm not a Profit of God like Gerry Jihad.


User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Subject: Re: Gerry Armstrong: Bald-faced liar
From: Rebecca Hartong <rhartong@cox.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID: <B9EFF038.D7C3%rhartong@cox.net>
References: <t6gcsu03l6mu56i0df0aj7rbp7t5qf77gb@4ax.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Lines: 21
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 15:26:02 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: news1.east.cox.net 1036682762 (Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:26:02
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 10:26:02 EST
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: news.online.de alt.religion.scientology:683696

On 11/7/02 12:45 AM, in article
Xns92BEE7ABA862Amirelesonicnet@, "Deana Holmes"
<mirele@sonic.net> wrote:

> I'm certainly not going to waste any time trying to prove anything to
> *you*, since you're so blind as to fail to see that Gerry has no proof for
> his allegations. Go find someone else to badger.

I'm curious about what you would consider proof. Since, as far as I can see,
this whole debate hinges on what Caroline's state of mind was when she
decided not to be involved in the McPherson case, it seems like the most
compelling proof would be for Caroline herself to explain it. Better yet
would be something *from Caroline* from around the time of her decision--
stating something to the effect of, "I'm not going to do it because of
Deana." Frankly, this whole thing is goofy. You and Gerry arguing about what
a third person *felt* at a certain point in time. It's ridiculous.
Particularly since Caroline herself hasn't commented one way or another
(that I've noticed...not that I've been paying all that much attention.) I
understand that you're annoyed with Gerry's claiming that it's all your
fault but, jeez, consider the source!




§ Legal Archive || Wog Media || Cult Media || CoW ® || Writings || Fun || Disclaimer || Contact §