|
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lfbitu0jiqtrc0a7c7jm68sm86g8rc5ris%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
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 13:17:22 -0500
Organization: Busts Your Rips!
Message-ID: <lfbitu0jiqtrc0a7c7jm68sm86g8rc5ris@4ax.com>
References: <Xns92C95F6E3CD07mirelesonicnet@208.201.224.154> <0e7itu8qm0fr5kemhfekt82j9a8oguium8@4ax.com>
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: 45
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:05:13 +0100, Tilman Hausherr <tilman@berlin.snafu.de>
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Nov 2002
16:21:22 GMT, Deana Holmes <mirele@sonic.net> wrote
>in <Xns92C95F6E3CD07mirelesonicnet@208.201.224.154>:
>>Let's see...now I have not one, but TWO hate pages! Gosh, I am so
>>privileged!
>>The first page (www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/holmes1.html)
is
>>compliments of our fave friends at the Office of Special Affairs, Church
of
>>Scientology. It's been up for a few years now.
>>The second page is from Gerry Armstrong, "profit" of God. His
page can be
>>found here: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html
>>You know, I never knew that so-called "critics" would stoop
to OSA tactics
>>to smear people like myself who are telling the hard truth about their
>>antics.
>What "smear"?
>What "OSA tactic"?
>The page simply contains your own postings (aren't you proud of them?),
>plus a cartoon with you dancing. I didn't know your legs go that high!
>That picture is a nice piece of art.
If capitalizing the letters
"OSA" in "goOnSquAd follies" is not supposed to
imply some connection to OSA by the people on the page, then exactly
what is it supposed to imply?
I think the only reasonable
inference is that Armstrong is accusing the
people featured on his hate page of being OSA or connected to OSA.
I find this to be frankly lunatic behavior.
Obviously you do not differ
significantly, since in attempting to mitigate
the page, you list every other salient feature of the page EXCEPT the
one feature which is most discreditable about it.
Do you expect your curious
silence on the main aspect of the page
which is objectionable to remain unnoticed?
ptsc
|