Subject: Re: THE REAL GERRY ARMSTRONG (repost)
Date: 14 Nov 2002 23:00:16 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1037343616 12391 127.0.0.1 (15 Nov 2002 07:00:16 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Nov 2002 07:00:16 GMT
Warrior <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:<email@example.com>...
> From: Warrior
> Subject: Re: THE REAL GERRY ARMSTRONG
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, nl.scientology
> Date: 2002-03-26 >
> Gerry Armstrong is a kind, loving individual, who, as Tory says,
> got hard proof of the truth about L Ron Hubbard. For having been
> in a position to discover the real truth about Hubbard, and for
> having the courage to disseminate it so that others may be spared
> from Scientology's ruthless practice of fair game, Gerry has been
> the target of Scientology's hatred for more than 20 years.
> God Bless Gerry Armstrong. May he persevere.
> See The Gerry Armstrong Chronicle at http://armstrong.xenu.ca/
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Magoo" says...
> >Having been "in" The C of S for 30 years I remember well the
> >hatred spread so viciously about Gerry Armstrong. He truly (within C
> >S....and out, but for diff reasons :) is an entity of his own. They
> >not only dislike Gerry Armstrong...they HATE him.
> >What you write is just a taste of what is ~constantly~ pumped about him...
> >or at least was to me, having volunteered for OSA on and off for 20 years.
> >I truly thought he was all this man says, and much worse.
> >It was not until I got out and realized the REAL reason they hate him
> >sooooooo much, that it all began to fall into place. Gerry Armstrong
> >of, if not the one person who had (and has) the actual EVIDENCE...written
> >Hubbard, that he is a complete liar, phony, and embellisher Extraordinaire.
> >As Hubbard states: when someone is "nattering" (saying critical
> >another, it is solid proof they have done WAY worse. Your words are proof
> >your own ~seeekret~ actions, dearie.
> >Gerry Armstrong has one thing you [Garry Scarff] do not:
> >the guts to make a difference. Your childish rants only show how
> >fearful this group is of him. Thanks for the confirmation.
Well, let's see...Warrior
speaketh on April 10, 2002:
From: Warrior (email@example.com)
Subject: Re: GERRY ARMSTRONG: YOU OWE BEVERLY AN APOLOGY
Date: 2002-04-10 19:35:22 PST
Garry Scarff is full of
BS. Despite his attempt to make it appear to
the case, Gerry Armstrong never made any covert or cruel remarks to
Therefore, no apology is
needed from Gerry.
CL and Garry Scarff should
be the ones apologizing.
Only sickos like CL and
Garry Scarff would try to make this innocuous
comment from Gerry into something it is not, was not, and never was
intended to be.
Here's what Beverly said:
"Again, the most important thing is to bring ~ALL~ the heads of the
in the open, and that way one knows what they are dealing with."
Here's Gerry Armstrong's
post in its entirety. Note that Gerry was
responding to Beverly's statement regarding "heads of the Hydra", as
in the Hydra known as *Scientology*. The discussion was about the
CL and Garry are obviously
mentally deficient to even try to spin this
into something else. Not to mention the fact that they have other
motives for trying to chop Gerry down.
This was followed by reknowned
Gerry-suck-up & apologist,
From: Magoo (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Subject: Re: GERRY ARMSTRONG: YOU OWE BEVERLY AN APOLOGY
Date: 2002-04-11 01:36:11 PST
this sick kind of *crap* needs to stop.
is a person here with much deeper feelings to
with than any of this insensitive trashing.
Garry....just as Warrior
has said, you did far worse to Beverly years
ago...so just stop all of this. It is sick, not nice, and only hurts
who is a very kind girl, that both Gerry, Warrior, and I love...that
And then this was followed
by Beverly Rice herself who blasts
Warrior's and Tory's contentions to smithereens and shows THE REAL
From: Beverly Rice (email@example.com)
Subject: Re: CLamelon Challenge No. 3 (or is that 4?)
Date: 2002-04-14 18:53:33 PST
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> Beverly Rice <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> >> Oh, and don't go shooting at the heads
> >Wow, and you have the nerve to accuse others of "cruel"
> >That was very ~covert~ of you, and ~very~ cruel.
> >You have just demonstrated once and for all to me just how
> >low you will go when you are taken off your pedestal.
> How about if I didn't do whatever you say I did?
But you did.
Don't play any of your
little mind games with me anymore,
I know better because I know you.
However, all you write
is a good attempt for the benefit of
others on the NG to CYA.
I don't forget that you
were Intel, and that you were the
one that Hubbard relied on to straighten out "shore flaps"
or "make things go right."
You are very good with
your sleight of hand, deflection and
smooth tongued blather.
> I saw what you posted here, and saw that you were attacking me, but
Oh god, poor Gerry, always seeing "attacks" when being
called on the carpet.
I wasn't "attacking"
you, I was directly addressing what
> didn't make the connection you made until an hour or two later. I
> mention that to show how disconnected I was from the connection you
> are making.
The only thing you are disconnected from is any reality
that you don't want to see or that isn't beneficial for
Snip to Gerry's creation
of a good shore story to correct
a shore flap.
> When I thought of
"heads" it was in response to your image of chopping
> off Scientology's heads. And my comment about being shot in the head
> was because you had been, as I said, sniping at me,
Oh, boo hoo. I disagree with you on certain issues, and I'm
tired of you making every issue into an issue about your
"persecution". I addressed you the same way I have others
I think are FOS.
You actually used to ~like~
that same tone of my posts
when they were for ~your~ benefit, you said you admired
And BTW, you have never
anywhere even come close
to using that expression before, no matter what excuse you
create now for using it.
> when I had been
> doing exactly what you thought was so important to do. What you
> likened to getting the Scientology heads on the block.
No, you weren't, you continue to turn CST threads into
attention that they are ops against you, and have not addressed
questions that have been put to you. You make an issue that
others should answer your questions, but aren't willing to
do the same yourself.
> Not for one second before or after writing what I wrote did I connect
> it to Dave's death, and I do not now.
Liar, but I know that you do, after all, have your reputation
of being "humble" to protect.
You know from the many
talks we have had, and the many
times I have broken down and cried with you, the effect
of seeing anything talking about anything to do with
"shooting" at "heads" has at tearing me apart.
You know, because I shared
this with you so many times,
and also shared with you for years about the special
therapy I was getting for the trauma of my husbands
suicide, and the picture that was burned in to my mind
of him after shooting himself in the head with all the
blood and other horrible visual memories around it . . .
not even to mention the
talks we had about the mental
and emotional impact and devastation it had on me.
Don't even try to play
innocent with me here on this one,
although I know your replay is more for the NG than for
me, because we both know that was an intentional, added,
low blow from you
I know full well the mind
games that you play, but hey,
I was the one that allowed it. No more.
> I am truly sorry that you made
> such a connection yourself, and that others are using this connection
> that never existed for their own black PR purposes.
No, you are truly sorry that you got busted and that I
called you on the carpet openly.
The hell with others black
PR purps, black PR on ars is
like breathing air, it's unavoidable. I don't let it
dictate my life anymore, had enough of it, and learned
that you just have to let it fall off your back.
However, it is so typically
Very Gerry for you to use
what others may do to again deflect from your own
> Can you therefore forgive me for what never happened?
This has nothing to do with forgiveness.
And don't try to deflect
away what you did by implying
that it never happened. I'm all too familiar with your
playing on words to get sucked up in to that anymore.
Gerry blather follows:
> And that is why forgiveness works at all. Because that which is
> forgiven didn't happen, and that which needs to be forgiven didn't
> If you can forgive me for this thing which never happened, perhaps you
> can forgive me for the other things which didn't happen. Knowing what
> really happened, it can only be misinterpretations of what happened
> (which misinterpretations would be things which never happened), for
> which you can't forgive me. That's why forgiveness works.
No, that's the way your holier-than-thou bullshit works.
All this "it never
really happened" crap you continually
spew forth is merely a self-contrived out you have constructed
for your own self for when you hurt others or need to
You sure don't apply it
when you refer to what you claim
others have done to you, you keep hold of that stuff. Plus
you even have written to others that you expect or want
> In any event, as I said, at no time did I connect it to Dave's tragic
> death, and I do not now.
Liar, see above.
I'm tired of you playing
things off as either being ignorant,
innocent, unintentional, other peoples "misinterpretations",
or just joking.
You don't get it, it doesn't
And it should be duly noted
that after Beverly had her say, not a peep
was heard from the embarassed and humiliated souls of Warrior or