From: Starshadow <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: CLairification of Fraud
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 18:08:56 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
X-Original-Trace: 3 Dec 2002 21:09:14 -0500, 126.96.36.199
>>>In article <3DEBFF90.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Starshadow
>>>>Oh, and one more thing. I did not give you, Caroline, permission
>>>>archive my ng postings. I demand you remove them.
>>>In article <3DEBFF50.email@example.com>, Starshadow
>>>>I also don't put critics' disagreements with me up on DA webpages,
>>>When I asked, "Since 'DA' by definition consists of obtaining
>>>proof that what was said consisted of lies, what is in the content
>>>posts that you object to?", you responded to my question in message
>>><3DEC1912.firstname.lastname@example.org>, "In this case
I should probably
>>>have said Black Propaganda."
>>>You seem to have responded that the content of your posts are black
>>>propaganda, since I asked what is in the content of your posts that
>>>you object to. If that's the case, I can understand why you want
>>>them removed. Will you be asking Google to remove them?
> In article <3DECD5D9.email@example.com>, Starshadow says...
>>No, I think Caroline and Gerry's characterization of anyone on that
>>page as belonging to some kind of goon squad with the letters OSA
>>made large is "black propaganda".
> 100 of the 138 posts (72%) webbed on the page are by six individuals:
> Garry Scarff - 57 posts
> Diane Richardson - 13 posts
> Starshadow - 7 posts
> Deana Holmes - 8 posts
> Keith Wyatt - 7 posts
> Rob Clark - 8 posts
> Perhaps you should put yourself in Gerry's and Caroline's position
> for a bit. How would you feel if certain critics were constantly and
> continuously calling you "insane", a "lunatic", "kooky",
> "delusional", a "hypocrite", "stupid", a "snake",
and similar insults?
> I think you would feel that the individuals who were engaging in this
> type of behavior were acting like OSA goons. Does it mean that those
> who act like OSA, are actually OSA? Who really knows the answer to
> this, except for those who actually are OSA? But the fact remains,
> the propaganda being pushed out is much the same as OSA's black PR.
Whatever. The worst I called Caroline was "hypocrite" at first, in the
post responding to Claire. I've called Armstrong a lunatic, yes, when
he's behaved like one. If they don't like being called lunatics, my
advice is to quit acting like lunatics. The honorable response might be
a newsgroup lambasting, but not putting up black propaganda pages just
like a certain cult we are all supposed to be "critics" of.
I think THEIR response
is cultlike. I don't think disagreeing with them,
even to the extent of calling them on their lunacy, is cultlike--to the
contrary, the cult hates critism so much it attempts to stifle it
>>Smiley aside, I don't think that's funny at all.
> It wasn't meant to be funny, but rather friendly. After all, two
> people can disagree without hating each other or resorting to the
> use of emotionally charged contumelies.
I don't hate you, Warrior.
I don't hate Caroline or Gerry. I hardly hate
people worth hating. I *do* hate blatant hypocrisy, which is what I see
them indulging in.
>>And I don't think your "humorous response" to me is very humorous
>>you know damn well what they are doing with those pages.
> My response wasn't meant to be humorous. And yes, I know what they
> are doing with the pages. They are webbing posts by persons they
> feel are acting like OSA goons. I think their webbing of the posts
> is intended to document them.
If you then KNOW what they
are doing with their pages, why pretend you
do not by "innocently" asking what I mean, when you know damn well what
>>I thought better of you, Warrior. Chalk one more up for my disappointment
>>of regular "critics". Yes, you do valuable work. But I'm rather
>>by your pretend naivite [sic] as to what these two are doing.
> There's no pretense on my part. My questions asked in the posts to this
> thread are sincerely asked. I note that as of now, there are yet a few
> questions you have not answered. Instead, you mischaracterize my
> position or questions as pretend naivete.
Yes, I misspelled naivete, because I was in a hurry and needed to get
out the door. Even so I did in fact answer your question. See the
response to the last which you quoted, in fact, in which I stated that
what THEY were doing was black propaganda, not what I said, which was
not black propaganda.
>>I didn't give them permission to archive my posts on such a page. Google
>>on the other hand has my permission to archive, otherwise I would have
>>typed a no archive header.
>>I am a bit hurt and angry by your support of the tactics of these two
>>against anyone who speaks out disagreeing with them.
> It's not simply a matter of their webbing of posts because of disagreement.
> I think (and Gerry and/or Caroline can correct me if I am wrong) that
> the webbed posts demonstrate quite clearly the black propaganda being
> waged against them.
Oh, what utter and complete
bullshit. People disagree on the ng, and
when they do, sometimes heated things are said. The sane response is not
to web a cutesy page with OSA highlighted with peoples' disagreements
about them posted, the sane response is to disagree and state why one
disagrees. Instead what was done was lying, obfustication and outright
lunacy. If you can't see that, I'm done with you, too. (No, this doesn't
mean I disconnect, but that I'm sick to death of people defending any
sort of lunatic response which is JUST LIKE THE FUCKING CULT which they
supposedly decry. I've better things to do with my time than try to
defend human rights in a forum which is taken over by this loony-tunes
and bizarro world behavior where anyone who states the facts is set upon
by suppoosed critics using just the sort of behavior they supposedly
decry when it's the CofS using it. I am dealing with a debilitating
illness in Real Life, and I'm rather sick of cults and cult like
behavior. If people insist in acting like the cult they supposedly left,
then they can get buggered for all of me. Fuck 'em all.
> I'm saddened by your *lack* of support for Gerry and his efforts in
> documenting Scientology's ruthless and unending campaign of fair game
> against him and other Scientology victims.
Lack of support? Christ
on a crutch. I've picketed, I've leafletted,
I've written letters, and I've given support to real victims privately
and publicly. I've dissuaded a number of people from joining the cult,
just by telling them the truth. I've continued speaking out on it. And
what have I got just by stating the truth but people like Gerry, like
Joe Lynn, like Arnie, like numerous others acting exactly like the
goddamn cult, for Gods' sakes. Fuck you.
Fuck the cult, and fuck you.
> No, instead, when Gerry asks an honest question, he gets answers like
> the following from Deana Holmes: "Gerry, I see no reason to answer your
> questions. I don't think you're interested in answers."
Do I control Deana? In
fact, if he asked questions the way he did of
Deana, I'd do the same goddamn thing.
> When Bogie asks questions, he gets responses such as: "Don't waste
> my time, Boudewijn. Basically, you're taking the word of a paranoid,
> scientologically-oriented man living in his own fantasy world over
> my word, AND over the ENTIRE correspondence as posted here. Your idiocy
> is noted, as well."
And this is untrue exactly
> When J.R. Ford asks
a question, he gets a respons like: "If you believe
> Gerry's paranoid mindset when faced with the *evidence*, well then, God
> have mercy on you, because you're an idiot. P.S. I'm not going to take
> responsibility for the ravings of a deluded mind, whether it's Gerry's,
> OR yours."
I have Ford in my "better
ignored" list for lack of a killfile, because
he's not worth my being aggravated over. So what he says, after his
trashing of me, I'm not interested in.
> When Gerry asks questions, he gets responses like these: "I have been
> told that you are delusional and that I should excuse your lying on that
> basis. I have chosen not to take that 'advice', but to expose you for
> the liar that you are. You can continue to post your paranoid delusionary
> posts, but I won't be answering them." and "Gerry Armstrong is
> summate whiner, complainer, blamer and thumbsucker."
And anymore, this is untrue
exactly how? And it's my problem exactly why?
> When Tory or I say
something in support of Gerry, we get responses such
> as this: "Oh, Tory, for you to claim that Gerry ~loves ~ Beverly, and
> Warrior ~loves~ Beverly (although he would dump on her in support of Gerry)"
> And when I respond, "This -- that I 'would dump on' Beverly -- is yet
> another vicious lie by Scarff.", Garry's response is, "Why? Can't
> your lips from Gerry's ass?"
Jesus, talk about Straw
Men. You must enjoy setting them up so as to
destroy them. Hate to break it to you, but I don't control Garry Scarff,
Well, don't bother answering
any more of my questions, btw, as I'm
putting you on my ignore list too, at least for threads like this.
Again, I don't hate you. I don't even pity you. I'm angry at you,
though, and anger is only something I waste on those I think matter. But
if you really feel like I've done nothing, fine. I don't need to be
there for anyone on this ng except the few who know Who They Are. The
rest of you can all go to hell. I'm done.
I am in fact, extremely
tempted to unsubscribe to ars. It's a waste of
my time, it's rather obvious. You can't save people who don't want to be
saved, and I have more important things in my life than supporting
Starshadow, KoX, SP5, Official
Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
"Scientology in 1986, after fraud judgement in favor
of ex-member Lawrence Wollersheim --'Not one thin dime for
Scientology May 9, 2002 before final appeal--
86,746,430 Thin Dimes for Wollersheim." www.factnet.org
www.xenu.net --what the Church of Scientology doesn't want
you to see