http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prjl9usl7o91mgtjpb9htafe6ko0q5b9fr%
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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:31:41 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 164
Message-ID: <prjl9usl7o91mgtjpb9htafe6ko0q5b9fr@4ax.com>
References: <rsf79ucg46o2uguutp6b2oadv81bf8c8f7@4ax.com> <3c93c5db
@news2.lightlink.com>
<le4f9u4aers3mp7kb7bcdm987sal2e5spb@4ax.com> <3c97dad1
@news2.lightlink.com>
<jjSl8.2546$MC5.215966@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<MPG.170193285ee890f0989783@news2.lightlink.com>
<yYUl8.2980$MC5.252302@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <3c989a0f
@news2.lightlink.com>
<bq2m8.3867$s8.340999@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> <a7aggd0125
@drn.newsguy.com>
<3c98db23@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
X-Original-Trace: 22 Mar 2002 01:35:00 -0500, 216.232.125.58
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:57:17 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Warrior" <warrior@entheta.net> wrote in message
>news:a7aggd0125@drn.newsguy.com...
>> >Claire "Fluffygirl" Swazey <amafluffygirl
@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
>> >news:3c989a0f@news2.lightlink.com:
>> >>
>> >> No one said that I was caved in, just that the attempt was
made.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know if I'd use THAT term- but yeah, I think he was
trying
>> >> to tamp me down in some respect. It certainly wasn't
dialogue
he
>> >> was interested in.
>> >> He just wanted to hammer me a bit.
>> >>
>> >> So, since I was not caved in or overwhelmed, I gave him a
bit
of
>> >> that back.
>> >>
>> >> More than a bit.
>> >>
>> >> Let that be a lesson to everyone.
>> >>
>> >> C
>>
>> In article
<bq2m8.3867$s8.340999@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> "Poopsy" wrote:
>> >
>> >I didn't say that Gerry was trying to "tamp you down."
>> >
>> >I said that you were overwhelmed by Gerry's attempt to keep you
on
the
>> >point. There is a difference.
>> >
>> >Gerry was trying to keep you on one point, and, in order to make
absolutely
>> >sure that there was no wiggle room for you, (because you *do*
wiggle
off
the
>> >point onto every other thing besides the point) he repeated that
point
over
>> >and over so that there could be absolutely no mistake what his
point
to
you
>> >was. He was just trying to keep you on the point.
>> >
>> >You were overwhelmed by that.
>> >
>> >It didn't work, either. I think that this does explain the
phenomenon
I
have
>> >witnessed. You are overwhelmed by direct logical debate of the
statements
>> >you make. You see it as a major threat. It is the most obvious
thing
and
it
>> >has been right in front of my face the whole time, and I have
never
seen
it.
>> >It explains why I have had the trouble that I have had trying to
debate
with
>> >you.
>>
>> This is what I have observed, too. It's obvious when she resorted to
>> name-calling rather than answer the questions.
>
>Let me explain this to you.
>
>When someone engages me in civilized discourse, I don't give them a bad
>time.
>
>When they don't, I do.
And that is cruel.
>
>So do others posting here.
So what. Other's cruelty does not make your cruelty any less cruel?
>
>All one has to do is pull up posts where I've replied to people and then
>looked at if I was polite or not. Those to whom I was, usually were civil
>and polite and on-topic.
Your adherence to such a base philosophy for human interaction is
cruel. You signal to everyone with this attitude and "tech," that
you
cannot be trusted. That's the VFP of using your cruel, reason-denying
communication "tech."
>
>Those to whom I was not, weren't.
>
>Simple as that.
Fine. But please understand that this "tech" is cruel, and your
behavior is cruel. I know you don't mind being cruel because it's your
clear intention to be cruel, but do realize that it is cruelty. Some
people may be fooled by it. I am not. I know something about
Scientological cruelty, and you, Claire, are cruel.
>
>It's not like YOU have never said any harsh words to anyone.
Irrelevant. You espouse this as your "tech." It's on the line
here
in
contrast with other ways of handling human communications. I say your
"tech" is cruel and an inferior "tech." You say it's
superior.
Fine.
That's cruel, but it's fine.
Your cruelty is really out of my hands, Claire. Whether you cease
being cruel to people on a.r.s. is unimportant. Scientology has lots
of members being cruel to people, that one more Scientologist being
cruel doesn't make one hell of a difference. You can, however, expect
to have your cruelty indicated until you stop it.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Shall I pull up posts of yours where, out of the blue, when I wasn't even
>talking to you, you were aggressive and rude?
>
>Heaven knows there are more than a few of them.
>
>Pot, kettle, black!
>
>You and I have had a recent and polite exchange.
>
>Why?
>
>Because you kept your manners in.
>
>If you don't, if others don't, I will not be nice.
>
>And I cheerfully and freely admit it.
>
>Why this is being presented as some great revelation, I really don't know.
>
>I would think that you'd have something better to do.
>
>I admit to being insulting on occasion. I never said I wouldn't be.
>
>But if you look at who doesn't receive that kind of communication, you
will
>see that that person had just asked or said some things directly on the
>point of Scn, CofS, etc.
>
>If someone is rude, I'll be rude back.
>
>But I don't initiate that. Which is more than I can say for a number of
>people posting here. Including you.
>
>I don't know why you should have a problem with that. Some of your posts
>are very good and some have been rude or far too concerned with
>personalities.
>
>I remind you that this is not alt.fluffy and this attempted gangrape is
not
>of interest to me since I have already used up all my KY jelly.
>
>Find some other bandwagon to jump on.
>
>Maybe something about, oh, I don't know- SCIENTOLOGY??
>
>
>C
>
>
>
>
>