http://www.google.com/groups?selm=le4f9u4aers3mp7kb7bcdm987sal2e5spb%
404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: McPherson litigation.TR-3ing Claire (was:
Disgusted)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:03:52 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 468
Message-ID: <le4f9u4aers3mp7kb7bcdm987sal2e5spb@4ax.com>
References: <cy8k8.60876$yc2.6627548@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com> <
3c93bf4a$2@news2.lightlink.com>
<rsf79ucg46o2uguutp6b2oadv81bf8c8f7@4ax.com> <3c93c5db
@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
X-Original-Trace: 19 Mar 2002 17:07:10 -0500, 216.232.125.58
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:27:44 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
Claire, normally, as you know, I don't try to argue with you, and I
very rarely comment on your opinions. Whether or not all
Scientologists are in Scientology is generally just fluff.
But your averment to which I'm responding is a very different category
of comment. Here you have made an emphatic statement of fact, which I
at least consider an important statement of fact, at a very key time
about a very key lawsuit involving Scientology.
Your treatment of me for questioning your statement of fact in this
important, active case is very shoddy. And thus far, you have utterly
failed to support your averment with anything other than this shoddy
attack.
But what you state as fact is too important to simply ignore the
support you give it here, even if it is only, as it is, this ad
hominem attack.
>
>
>"Gerry Armstrong" <gerryarmstrong@telus.net> wrote in
message
>news:rsf79ucg46o2uguutp6b2oadv81bf8c8f7@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:59:54 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
>> <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"Mada Rua" <gwalch.gwyn@ntlworld.com> wrote in
message
>> >news:cy8k8.60876$yc2.6627548@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> >> i saw the Lisa McPherson reports and everything again to
quote....
>> >>
>> >> "Lisa died needlessly at the hands of Scientology.
Hubbard
Tech
produced
>> >> the death of a young vibrant woman." from
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
>> >
>> >Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
>> >
>> >There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated
anything
of
>> >the kind.
>> >
>> >And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
>> >
>> >OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death
>>
>> How on earth can you make this pronouncement?
>
>Read what I actually wrote, silly man.
>
>Here's what I wrote:
>
>>
>> >but they have helped to make
>> >the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but
try to
>> >cover up the church's misdeeds.
>> >
>> >I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA
does
these
>> >things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur
>> >Anderson,Inc.
>> >
>>
>> If you were there watching, why did you not help her? You weren't
>> there watching, so you don't know.
>
>I know as well as you.
No, you do not. If you knew as well as I you would know that your fact
assertion that OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death is false.
>My comments are based on what critics have webbed.
If that is all they're based on then you have no basis whatsoever. If
you can logically support your fact statement, do you understand how
close to Miscavige himself this could put you?
> I
>was just as much not present at her isolation watch as you.
Yes you were just as much not present, but from what I know, by 33
years of study, experience, deduction, assimilation, cognition and
intuition independent of my being just as unpresent as you at Lisa
McPherson's death, I did not falsely conclude that OSA had nothing to
do with it. Nor would I consider communicating such a clear and
present falsehood for whatever unholy purpose.
>
>What you seem to think I said in my post is lightyears away from what I
>actually did say.
Well, I think, believe and am very, very certain that you said
precisely the following:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
You aver that what you think and believe I think you said is
lightyears away from what you actually did say. That's quite a
distance, so you must be doing some constant and quite high level
differentiating. Therefore it should be no trouble for you to state
this difference you're looking at. So please state what you think and
believe I think you said so that the differentiation becomes visible
to or possible by me.
Again, to help you, here's exactly what I think, believe, and am very
certain that you said:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
>
>Pull your head out of your ass and read for a fucking change.
Well, if I read the following, i.e., what you wrote, and if I'm very
certain, which I am, that you wrote the following, would you not agree
that your order that I pull my head out of my ass and read for a
fucking change has no logical basis?
Here's what I read:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
And that is precisely what you wrote.
>
>>
>> OSA is *not* an accounting firm. Your comparison with Arthur Anserson
>> is just plain BS.
>
>I even said as much- that it wasn't a good comparison.
No, you did not.
Here's what you wrote:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
>
>My analogy was due to the fact that both entities covered up egregious
>misdeeds. I also went on to say that OSA does so habitually and that as
far
>as I know, Arthur Anderson does not.
This simply continues to forward, without any support whatsoever, your
false assertion that "OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death."
>
>Have you pulled your head out of your ass yet? I'm waiting...
Surely you would agree that this is an unmerited, vicious ad homenim
attack, right?
You failed completely to deal in any reasoning manner with the
challenge I made to your false assertion that "OSA had nothing to do
with McPherson's death." All you have done is attack the person
making the challenge. My challenge is completely legitimate because
your assertion is false, and it is Scientology and Scientology actions
being discussed. Your response is completely senseless, other than in
dramatization of the Hubbard rule for Scientologists that they attack
the critic and refuse to discuss the criticism.
>
>>
>> If you'd compared OSA to the KGB, it would be accurate.
>
>Whatever.I'll make whatever analogies I choose. And since I qualified my
>analogy and specified where it was inaccurate IN MY ORIGINAL POST MAKING
>THAT ANALOGY,
Here's what you wrote:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
Now I suppose you could be referring to some other original post, but
your other posts are not here. In any event, I rarely read your posts
because they are usually disinformational and cruel. And because they
are so usually disinformational and cruel, no one can be expected to
read them. Would you not agree?
People do, of course, and I'll bet a good slice of them actually ask,
how can she be so cruel? With Scientologists it's an act. They will
themselves, if they're practicing Scientologists, to be cruel. It
isn't a pathology, it's a willed pathology.
Isn't it true, Claire, that what you say to whom on a.r.s. is under
your will? You are not reacting in any way, your communications are
caused by you. Whether or not people think your communications are
cruel or not is irrelevant, cruel or caring, honest or dishonest, they
were all done by your will. Is this not true for you?
In this age, and in any age I think, it is very cruel to deny people
logic. Or really, to deny people reason. It can be willful, and can be
employed with intent is to harm. Scientology practices reason denial,
and all Scientologists must deny reason in order to be Scientologists.
There Claire, there's an absolute for you. But prove me wrong. Reason
with me.
When reason is denied, communication conveys unreason. I think that
Scientology's communication tech will ultimately be seen as
frightfully cruel because society will ultimately view the denial of
reason itself that way, as assaultive and hateful behavior.
I had what would probably pass for a troubled youth, and some time
before the age of 22 when I got into Scientology, I had examined the
idea that what really ticked me off was being denied reason.
Scientology convinced me that it had reason and that it would not
withhold reason. Of course, as one would expect of a subject and
organization promising reason, they also promised honesty, sincerity,
science and truth.
Reason is, in fact the means of exchange. Money can indeed be
dispensed with, because it has no value. Reason is the currency to
hold. (Sign OUR Pledge Today? (R)) Reason is attainable, but virtually
impossible in Scientology, because it impedes communication, which of
course is unreasonable and willfully cruel.
Scientology's illogic and your illogic is cruel. But it's particulalry
cruel because you will it. It isn't excused by ignorance
All that notwithstanding, it is extrememely bad form for you to refer
to your posts as if I or others ought to have read them or ought to
read them. Your self-importance can only be your own. No one can share
it with you. Oops, another proof of black and white thinking. Quick,
differentiate that.
Do you read every message I post to a.r.s?
If you do, you certainly have no legitimate, non-Scientology basis for
the attacks you make on me.
> I do not see that you have ANYTHING to bitch about.
I am not bitching. I am doing my job. You made an important, and
material statement of fact, which happens to be false, at, as I said,
a very key time about a very key lawsuit involving Scientology. I
challenged your assertion. You failed the challenge. Your response was
a baseless ad homenim attack.
>
>>
>> OSA was up to their eyeballs in Lisa's death. Were you ever in OSA,
>> GO, or any Sea Org security force?
>
>They were involved in the aftermath. The coverup. They caused much
>heartbreak in so doing and they did nothing that was of redeeming social
>value in so doing.
That's not the issue. It's all well known, so you're giving nothing
away here, but it's completely irrelevant to the challenge to your
false fact statement.
>
>>
>> Lisa was a security flap. OSA handles security flaps. OSA handled
>> Lisa.
>
>That's pretty much what ~I~ said.
No, you did not. Here is what you said:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
Nowhere in this statement did you say pretty much what I said.
>Try to stop looking at artificial constructs of your own design when
reading
>my posts,Gerry and pull your head out of, etc, etc...
Here is precisely what I read:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
Now you have made the additional false assertion that I'm looking at
artificial constructs of my own design when reading your post(s).
Precisely what artificial constructs of my own design do you aver I'm
looking at when I read your post or posts?
Here is the post from you which gives rise to my challenge to your
false fact statement that OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's
death:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
I aver that when I was reading your post, the following is what I was
looking at:
[Quote]
Actually, she died at the hands of CofS incompetence and willful
negligence.
There are plenty of Scientologists who'd not have perpetrated anything
of the kind.
And not all Scn'ists are in CofS, anyway. I'm not.
OSA had nothing to do with McPherson's death but they have helped to
make the aftermath of her death most dreadful and have done nothing
but try to cover up the church's misdeeds.
I'd compare OSA to the Arthur Anderson firm, but fact is, OSA does
these things habitually so it wouldn't be a nice comparison to make re
Arthur Anderson,Inc.
[End Quote]
Please therefore identify the artificial constructs of my own design
which you aver I was looking at when reading your post.
I've repeated your post so many times, Claire, because Scientologists
embrace the concept that "the number of times over such material
equals certainty," and I want you to be just as certain as you can be
that your fact assertion I'm challenging is false. Thank you.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>C
>>
>
>
>