http://www.google.com/groups?selm=r6kl9uo9bhan060tnllr61v3jsj8j3g9r7% 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 22:40:39 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 469
Message-ID: <r6kl9uo9bhan060tnllr61v3jsj8j3g9r7@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> <3c9808cc @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 01:43:58 -0500, 216.232.125.58

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:54:01 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Poopsy Charmicheal" <poopsy_charmicheal@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:jjSl8.2546$MC5.215966@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "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.
>
>Yes, he did.

Since I did not misquote you, now you have become a liar. Why is that?
What is so all important that you need to lie about me quoting you. I
didn't misquote you.

>
>Here is what he said.
>
>Start quote:

Oh, where does this quote end?

>
>
>How on earth can you make this pronouncement?
>
>If you were there watching, why did you not help her? You weren't
>there watching, so you don't know.
>
>OSA is *not* an accounting firm. Your comparison with Arthur Anserson
>is just plain BS.
>
>**Here Gerry says that I have compared OSA to an accounting firm and that
>it's BS. Actually I said in my original analogy

But your original analogy is not here and irrelevant. It's rude of you
to use your former posts the way you do. I already explained this to
you very clearly, but you snipped it.

>that it wasn't even right
>because OSA is NOT like Arthur Andersen since OSA has done far more things
>than just the one.
>
>**This is a misrepresentation.

That's a lie.

You lied about me misquoting you, and now you're lying about me
misinterpreting you.

>
>Gerry cont'd:
>
>If you'd compared OSA to the KGB, it would be accurate.
>
>**My comment:
>
>Non sequitur.

That's a lie.

> I did not say OSA was truly like Arthur Andersen.

Nobody said you did.

> I said I'd
>like to compare them to Arthur Anderson because of the hushing up after the
>fact BUT that it wouldn't really work because...etc...etc...

So what?

>
>Here is what I had originally said:
>
>>
>>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.

So what?

>
>So here I say I *WOULD* compare OSA to the Andersen firm BUT...
>
>And then Gerry makes the misattribution we all see here.

No Gerry does not. That's another lie. You have now falsely accused me
in this post of "misquoting," misinterpretation," and
"misattribution." You are one hell of a liar.

You have also failed to support even one of these lies.

>
>Any questions?
>
>Did not think so.

Yes, I have questions.

1. Why are you lying about me?

2. Where precisely did I misquote you?

3. Where precisely did I misinterpet you?

4. Where precisely did I misattribute something in my communications
to you?

5. What is the payoff for you for your absolute denial of reason?

>
>
>> 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.
>
>And in the process of this failed attempt, he utterly misquoted and
>misattributed what I did say.

That's a lie. You're a liar. Why are you lying? What's the big payoff
for you for all these lies about me?

>
>And this can be seen. By anyone.

That's a lie. It cannot be seen by anyone because it never happened.
It's nothing more than your lie.

But go ahead, produce these "misquotes," " misinterpretions" and
"misattributions" you say can been seen by anyone. I'm anyone. I can't
see them. You're a liar.

>
>>
>> > > 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.

Well, that's irrelevant, and very cruel. You cannot expect anyone,
given the cruel way in which you "communicate" to read any of your
posts.

But I do take it as an acknowledgement that you do admit that my
challenge to you was well-based, and that your assertion that OSA had
nothing to do with Lisa McPherson's death is false.

>> >
>> > Not that I had any obligation to you or to anyone else to write it.

Well, isn't that a nice cogntion.

>
>Again- how can it be a TR3 when I had already posted an addendum to that
>post on that thread a couple hours before this was written?

Because the sun does not revolve aroud Claire Swazey. Because Claire
is cruel in her communications. Because she consistently denies good
people reason. And because of these things, people cannot be expected
to read your posts.

>
>And it can't be a TR3

No, this is false.

>because this particular thread addresses Gerry's
>feelings about my comments I made to/about him.

No, the original post in this thread addressed your false fact
statement. Certainly this involved an observation about your avoidance
"tech" in this matter, and your earlier vicious attack in response to
a challenge to your false statement of fact, but my post was very
clear in its address of your false statement and my continuing
challenge to it.

> That makes it a new topic.

No. But so what? Oh, I see, it offers you another opportunity to be
cruel, to deny me reason, and to attack me.

>The first comment on a new topic would not be a TR3 as it is colloquially
>used hereabouts.

This is completely false. There is no such rule on posts or topics or
TR-3. You are spreading disinformation.

>
>> >
>> > >
>> > > 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.

That's a lie. There was no misquotation. But go ahead, produce this
"misquotation" if you can.

>You
>> > couldn't have gotten what I said more wrong if you tried.

What a lie. I got nothing wrong in my quoting, interpreting and
attribution, and you say I couldn't have gotten what you said more
wrong if I tried. Again, you're lying.

>> >
>> > 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.

No, Claire, that's a lie.

>>
>> 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.
>
>Up until this weekend you and I had almost no contact.
>
>I am not interested in handling either you or Garry.

How about handling me? I'm not Garry, but if you meant me, you're
lying. Your attacks on me demonstrate you're lying. Your attacks on me
are efforts to "handle" me. Clearly these efforts to " handle" me are
cruel, and involved denying me any logic or reason in your
communications, but they still are efforts to "handle" me. Your
assertion that you are not interested in handling me, if it's me,
Gerry, you mean, is therefore a lie.

>
>I want to post things on a discussion group and I do not think that these
>replies from others should be all about ME.

Then you must give people reason in your communications. If rather
than giving reason you communicate with people on this NG in the cruel
manner in which you communicate with me here, communications to you
will inevitably be about you. But that's precisely what you want,
because your cruel communication "tech" is willful.

>That is off topic for this ng.
>It is rude. It has nothing to do with Scn or CofS or LRH or Dn or anything
>else.
>
>So when such replies ARE all about me in this sort of negative fashion
>and/or with misquotations and misattributions, I will not be nice about it.
>
>I've not promised to.
>
>The only people to whom I speak this way are those who are rude to me. IOW,
>they have to initiate that line of communication.
>
>As you have been doing for the past couple days.
>
>A word of advice:
>
>This is alt.religion.scientology. It is not alt.fluffy.
>
>Your posts concerning me are utterly off topic. Comments about "so you'd win
>then" and accusations about my not answering questions (that are then posed
>AFTER the accusations are made) really are irrelevant and a waste of
>bandwidth.
>
>The only posts about me that anyone should be making in a negative vein are
>"I don't agree with Claire and I think that the argument of ___ that she
>used doesn't hold water because..."
>
>But you, and the occasional other wandering soul, are not confining your
>disagreements to that.
>
>It's out-netiquette and it indicates that you have way too much attention on
>me as a person rather than on my arguments and views.
>
>This can be seen by anyone and has been remarked on to me by a number of
>individuals.
>
>You are angry with me and you have elected to speak from that anger and thus
>go totally off the given topic of this ng.
>
>You are wasting everyone's time.
>
>You display malice in these particular posts.
>
>You should not do that.
>
>
>> I
>> was thinking that I was the only one who this happened to.
>
>Of course it's not. If you think it was, then you really have missed quite a
>few posts.
>
>Here's what another contributor said about me last week:
>
>." There is no Scientologist with
>this capability of reasoned assault, except perhaps Claire who
>hosed quite a few critics and fools."
>
>I have never said that I wouldn't do that.
>
>Those who engage in civilized discourse with me- even if they think I am
>totally full of shit on what I am saying (that happens A LOT here! Heh!) are
>treated with civility. I had an exchange with Jim earlier today. We did not
>agree at all. He thought I had some thoughts that weren't exactly what I
>thought. He rendered his guess with civility. I responded in kind.
>
>I ~know~ the guy thinks I'm all wet on stuff. As does Phineas Fogg and a few
>others with whom I have civilized discourse- and guess what! They don't get
>hosed, flamed, or dosed with ad hominem insults by me.
>
>I give people back a dose of their own medicine.
>
>So best make sure that what you give me is civilized discourse on Scn, CofS,
>etc. Even if that discourse includes strong expressions of disagreement.
>
>If you cannot do BOTH of those things at the same time- and all signs
>indicate that you either can't or won't- then you are making this about
>personalities.
>
>And it really doesn't reflect well on you or on anyone else who does that.
>
>I STILL wanna know why you and some other folks do not direct this sort of
>communication- or even a more civil version if you are capable of it- to
>other non CofS Scn'ists.
>
>Several individuals take exception with the fact that I'm a Scn'ist to the
>point where they must make value judgments about me personally. As far as I
>know, I am either the only nonCofS Scn'ist who receives this, or at least,
>who receives the bulk of it.
>
>I think that this is terribly odd.
>
>> Gerry - I am a witness. Your post was extremely polite, and iron-clad in
its
>> reasoning.
>
>No, it was not. He misattributed what I said

This is already covered. You're lying.

(c) Gerry Armstrong

>and he was not particularly
>polite about it.
>
>I would think an effective witness would be someone who exercised his or her
>listening and reading skills so that what was written was adequately and
>truly summarized.
>
>>
>> You left every opportunity for Claire to respond in like manner.
>
>Yes, that he did.
>
>And so I did.
>
>>
>> Instead, she returned the steamiest, the chunkiest, and the smelliest shit
I
>> have ever seen smeared in anyone's face.
>
>Really. The steamiest, chunkiest and smelliest. Wow. You must not have seen
>some of the posts Gerry has written to me over the years, or the things you
>have said to/about me, or the time I was called a "cocksucking whore" (I
>hate half truths) on this ng, or what Phil C said about me, or when Garry
>called me a "scared ho' running for the cult".
>
>Advising a rude and untruthful person to pull his head out of his ass pales
>by comparison.
>
>But it doesn't have to.
>
>I'm entitled to say what I like.
>
>Anyone who doesn't like these things can try posting in the manner of those
>individuals who DO stick to the issues at hand.
>
>As I said, I felt Jim, for example, did not really summarize what I actually
>meant. But he was polite about it and he presented it in such a way that
>room for rebuttal/clarification was offered- and taken.
>
>But some people won't do that.
>
>You appear to be in that number.
>
>
>>
>> Seems to me that Claire needs an enema.
>
>I suggest you get over this hangup you have concerning me.
>
>It doesn't really work too well, netiquette-wise.
>
>Otherwise, feel free to start a usenet group about me personally and come on
>there with your many many comments about me personally.
>
>Until that happy day dawns, do us all a favor and employ some netiquette and
>stay on topic.
>
>My friend Lori wanted me to ask you something:
>
>Re: Post entitled "I love Claire" from last year sometime.
>
>She sez: "What happened to all the looooove"?
>
>Actually I KNOW what happened to it, but it's still not a bad point. I had
>been biting back with various rude flame'y communications initiated by
>others for a long time now. And you knew that. In fact, that post indicated
>that you did.
>
>But now that you are an ex Scn'ist and I am not, you have begun to find
>fault with me. Not just my stance- THAT would be normal and on topic. But it
>seems to have spread to a personality issue.
>
>VERY poor debate and netiquette. Very poor indeed.
>
>And oh so childish.
>
>You poor thing.
>
>C
>
>
>

Thread