From: Zinj <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: kids
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:22:24 -0700
References: <email@example.com> <5XMLB54D37911.9194444444@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
X-Trace: 20 Oct 2003 03:18:59 -0400, 18.104.22.168
X-Original-Trace: 20 Oct 2003 03:18:59 -0400, 22.214.171.124
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1650721
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
Now we're getting to the nitty gritty.
> No. I didn't ask Gerry. And I'll tell you why, anyway.
I never for one
> second even considered that Gerry made the post with the author of
> "George Ullman". Gerry has always spoken his mind openly, using
> real name to the best of my knowledge. Also, I don't think he knows
> how to post to newsgroups using anonymous remailers. It's not that
> he couldn't learn, but that I believe he has no interest or need to use
> one, and therefore has never taken the trouble to learn.
> Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
As a 'johnny come lately' Scn critic, since I was never a
Scientologist, and only became a 'critic' at any level around
'95, and only achieved 'recognition' from the 'cult' in
'98..there is no question that I grant Gerry huge credibility.
His 'beingness' in 'Blue Skies' works too :)
What I'm trying to say is this:
For me, Gerry Armstrong is worthy of very large 'handicaps',
one is judging 'credibility'
I'd still say that.
Unfortunately, the past 3 years have shown that Gerry has
That's not to say that the previous info was wrong, but,
go to show that Gerry makes the mistake of taking the previous
true descriptions as 'full'.
And then expects others to do so too.
Let me put it this way:
Do I think Gerry Armstrong is God's avatar on earth, sent
help us idiots?
Do I think Gerry thinks he is?
Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953