http://www.google.com/groups?selm=h7uf9u8r7d4680alvlib6nattnp029n40n%
404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: McPherson litigation.TR-3ing Claire (was:
Disgusted)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:00:33 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <h7uf9u8r7d4680alvlib6nattnp029n40n@4ax.com>
References: <cy8k8.60876$yc2.6627548@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <
3c93bf4a$2@news2.lightlink.com>
<rsf79ucg46o2uguutp6b2oadv81bf8c8f7@4ax.com> <3c93c5db
@news2.lightlink.com>
<le4f9u4aers3mp7kb7bcdm987sal2e5spb@4ax.com> <3c97dad1
@news2.lightlink.com>
<jjSl8.2546$MC5.215966@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<MPG.170193285ee890f0989783@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
X-Original-Trace: 19 Mar 2002 22:03:52 -0500, 216.232.125.58
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:26:16 -0800, Zinj <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article
<jjSl8.2546$MC5.215966@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>poopsy_charmicheal@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> "Fluffygirl" <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
>> news:3c97dad1@news2.lightlink.com...
>>
>> > "Gerry Armstrong" <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
wrote
in message
>> > news:le4f9u4aers3mp7kb7bcdm987sal2e5spb@4ax.com...
>> > > On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:27:44 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
>> > > <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Claire, normally, as you know, I don't try to argue with
you,
and I
>> > > very rarely comment on your opinions. Whether or not all
>> > > Scientologists are in Scientology is generally just fluff.
>> >
>> > Some of us are fluffier than others.
>> >
>> > > But your averment to which I'm responding is a very
different
category
>> > > of comment. Here you have made an emphatic statement of
fact,
which I
>> > > at least consider an important statement of fact, at a very
key time
>> > > about a very key lawsuit involving Scientology.
>> > >
>> > > Your treatment of me for questioning your statement of fact
in this
>> > > important, active case is very shoddy.
>> >
>> > You misquoted me. You made other misattributions.
>> >
>> > Too bad.
>>
>> This is very unfair, Claire. Gerry certainly did not misquote you. He
>> exercised the greatest possible care in making absolutely sure that
you
were
>> not misquoted, and to zero in on exactly what he wanted to discuss
with
you.
>>
>
>Don't be silly Poopsey... Gerry did much more than 'making absolutely
>sure' that she wasn't misquoted.
>
>He used a piece of 'Tech' 'guaranteed' to 'cave in'.
Oh, did I? I say you can't support that with anything other than
misinterpretation.
>
>The guarantee being about as reliable as all other Hubbardian
>guarantees.
>
>*I* was never a Scientologist, but *I* recognized it... why don't you?
Then please identify that piece of "tech."
And if you think that eliminating wiggle room so that the point being
discussed will not be missed, and an answer will be gotten, then you
would agree that every wog (R) lawyers uses the "tech," right. Or at
least the competent ones.
And if competent lawyers have been getting their questions answered
and keeping the person being examined focused on the point in issue
since before Hubbard, then surely it isn't the "tech" at all they're
using. And yes, Claire was being examined on a significant fact
assertion she made. You clearly have no trouble with her abusive
response to my challenge. And your interpretation of mine is in wildly
error. Why is that?
I deny that I was using any Hubbard tech whatsoever in my response to
Claire. Now it is up to you, since you made the charge, to support it
with evidence, so that it too can be discussed.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Zinj
>
>
>> > > And thus far, you have utterly
>> > > failed to support your averment with anything other than
this
shoddy
>> > > attack.
>> >
>> > Guess you missed the post I wrote earlier today on that same
thread,
then.
>> >
>> > Not that I had any obligation to you or to anyone else to write
it.
>> >
>> > >
>> > > But what you state as fact is too important to simply
ignore
the
>> > > support you give it here, even if it is only, as it is,
this
ad
>> > > hominem attack.
>> >
>> > It was prompted by your rudeness and misquotation of what I'd
written.
You
>> > couldn't have gotten what I said more wrong if you tried.
>> >
>> > I do not apologize for having written that anymore than you'd
apologize
for
>> > the various idiotic and rude things you've said to me over the
years.
>> >
>> > Get over it.
>> >
>> > And how very odd that you'd feel the need to TR3 something that
I'd
already
>> > written earlier today AND that it wasn't an actual TR3. It was a
different
>> > issue- what I said to/about YOU.
>> >
>> > This post does not constitute a TR3. It is your commentary on
what
I said
to
>> > you. Period.
>>
>> It is such a relief to see someone else try what I have tried to do
with
>> Claire, and see her handle him the EXACT same way that she has
handled
me. I
>> was thinking that I was the only one who this happened to.
>>
>> Gerry - I am a witness. Your post was extremely polite, and iron-clad
in its
>> reasoning.
>>
>> You left every opportunity for Claire to respond in like manner.
>>
>> Instead, she returned the steamiest, the chunkiest, and the smelliest
shit I
>> have ever seen smeared in anyone's face.
>>
>> Seems to me that Claire needs an enema.
>>
>> Poopsy
>>
>>
>>
>>