http://www.google.com/groups?selm=gujl9uc88a4o8n3g99p01stpn3b0p1mcu2%
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 22:33:59 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 310
Message-ID: <gujl9uc88a4o8n3g99p01stpn3b0p1mcu2@4ax.com>
References: <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>
<yYUl8.2980$MC5.252302@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<3c989a0f@news2.lightlink.com>
<bq2m8.3867$s8.340999@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<3c98db22@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 01:37:18 -0500, 216.232.125.58
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:54:23 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Poopsy Charmicheal" <poopsy_charmicheal@yahoo.com> wrote
in message
>news:bq2m8.3867$s8.340999@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Fluffygirl" <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
>> news:3c989a0f@news2.lightlink.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > "Poopsy Charmicheal" <poopsy
_charmicheal@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
>> > news:yYUl8.2980$MC5.252302@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "Zinj" <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
>> > > news:MPG.170193285ee890f0989783@news2.lightlink.com...
>> > > > 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'.
>> > > >
>> > > > The guarantee being about as reliable as all other
Hubbardian
>> > > > guarantees.
>> > > >
>> > > > *I* was never a Scientologist, but *I* recognized
it...
why don't
you?
>> > > >
>> > > > Zinj
>> > > >
>> > > Because I never thought that what Gerry did would cave
Claire
in. But
maybe
>> > > you're right. Maybe all this is Claire's overwhelm.
>> > >
>> > > Point taken.
>> > >
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>> I didn't say that Gerry was trying to "tamp you down."
>
>No, you certainly did not.
>
>~I~ said it.
>
>>
>> I said that you were overwhelmed by Gerry's attempt to keep you on
the
>> point. There is a difference.
>
>Yes, and I addressed that supposition.
>
>I used different wording, but then again, I didn't really see the need to
>quote anyone verbatim when discussing this or any concept.
>
>
>>
>> Gerry was trying to keep you on one point, and,
>
>Perhaps he was. Almost assuredly.
>
>And he was also hammering me a tad bit rudely into the bargain.
>
>It is the latter aspect I elected to address.
>
>Simple as that.
>
>Why?
>
>Because I felt like it.
Of course, you did. You are cruel because you feel like it.
That's what I mean by your willful cruelty. It's very unpretty.
I was, as you admit, trying to keep you on one point. And you
addressed the fact I'm trying to keep you to one point and refuse to
address the point. That's cruel. Your response to me was shoddy, a
denial of reason, and cruel.
You are acting very cruel, Claire. You're cruel to a number of people
here on a.r.s. because you deny them reason.
You denied me reason by refusing to address the point, but using the
fact that I had a point to be addressed to attack me. That's cruel.
Scientology is very cruel. You justify your cruelty with nothing more
than you felt like it.
I understand that.
You have thus far refused to address any of the substance of my post
in this thread. Given the circumstances, that is very cruel.
If you honestly read my post, and in fact all my posts over the past 5
years, you will find that I put considerable thought and heart into
them. Your refusal to acknowledge that is cruel.
You communicate that Gerry Armstrong is someone that no one should pay
any attention to. That's cruel.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Just like YOU feel like saying some of the sorts of things you say and so
>forth.
>
>It's usenet. You and I have that freedom.
>
>
>>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)
>
>I seem to recall someone accusing me of not answering a question that had
>not yet been posed to me, THEN posing the question, which was then
answered,
>(and later ack'd) although I'd covered that same ground many times before.
>
>So no wiggling here.
>
>What happens is sometimes my answers are unacceptable to you and so you
>state or imply that there weren't really any answers at all.
>
>This is an interesting technique. ;->
>
>
>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.
>
>Well, no. Had I been, I'd not have responded in that manner. Overwhelmed
>people, if you've noticed, DON'T.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>No. I feel quite whelmed.
>
>If I was overwhelmed I'd leave or something.
>
>
>>You see it as a major threat.
>
>No. That is speculation on your part although you do not introduce it as
>such.
>
>And this speculation is incorrect.
>
>You don't really know me that well. You may believe that you do, but you
>don't.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Not sure what you are talking about. You and I have had almost no
>communications before this past weekend.
>
>> I can see that direct logical debate is a threatening thing to those
>> statements one makes,
>
>I don't feel threatened.
>
>If you look at what I respond with strong language to- it's NEVER civil
and
>structured debate. NEVER is.
>
>So obviously I don't feel threatened by debate nor do I act in a manner
that
>indicates such.
>
>I feel annoyed- but not threatened- and in heavy disagreement with- some
>OTHER sorts of personalized and rude conversations, but that's VERY
obvious.
>
>YOU are confusing debate on issues with slurs, slams, "you never do
this"
or
>"that" type statements.
>
>So have a look at those to whom I render polite and detailed discourse and
>compare that with those I don't.
>
>You will not be a good example of the latter since we have barely
>communicated before last weekend, though.
>
>
>> and those beliefs that one holds which are illogical.
>> I had not fully seen this before. Seeing this helps me to understand
>better.
>
>Anyone can see that this supposition is incorrect and baseless. They can
see
>by what I write and what preceded that.
>
>Try again.
>
>On 2nd thought, don't.
>
>You are wasting everyone's time making this about ME. You are STILL doing
>it.
>
>There is obviously something at play here as there has not been ONE
mention
>of Scn in this or in a couple other posts. It's all been Claire,Claire,
>Claire.
>
>You are writing about your opinions and speculations about me when you are
>posting on a newsgroup where that is off-topic.
>
>And you don't just do it a little bit like some people will about one
>another here.
>
>You are doing it so much that it's attracting some measure of notice.
>
>It reflects badly on you.
>
>Why do you not post about Scn on this ng?
>
>Why do you not direct these sorts of posts to other non CofS Scn'ists
>posting here?
>
>These are questions I have asked on a few different threads several times.
I
>have yet to receive an answer from you.
>
>Talk about questions not being answered.
>
>Yes, there is someone who attacks when questions are asked present here.
And
>I'm talking to him/her/it right now.
>
>So let's start talking about Scn.
>
>And let me know when/if you want to answer my questions, which have
hitherto
>gone ignored.
>
>Let's not be hypocritical.
>
>
>C
>
>
>