http://www.google.com/groups?selm=j6jl9ukb2pv6m40vvq08s1e1fcfhfvdun6%
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 22:21:25 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <j6jl9ukb2pv6m40vvq08s1e1fcfhfvdun6@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>
<h7uf9u8r7d4680alvlib6nattnp029n40n@4ax.com>
<MPG.1701ee6a2088c74d989786@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 01:24:44 -0500, 216.232.125.58
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:55:46 -0800, Zinj <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <h7uf9u8r7d4680alvlib6nattnp029n40n@4ax.com>,
>gerryarmstrong@telus.net says...
>> 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
>
>'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.'
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
So repeating things so that Scientologists get it, that is, being
clear and kind to them because of their special infirmity, because
they have this dictum which they embrace, which I recognize and, for
communication to occur, must accomodate, is using the "tech." Balls.
By that standard, anyone who repeats anything is using the "tech,
"
since the whole of the "tech" here you say I'm using consists of
repeating something.
For Scientologists a wog (R) with a clue must repeat things many times
or communication does not happen. They're programmed that way.
You would have us not repeat anything so that Scientologists can
remain uncertain. How cruel. It is useful at least to discover what
your goal is.
Your assertion that I used the "tech" by repeating something, no
matter how many times, is false. Now please withdraw your false
accusation against me.
Or, conversely, you might acknowledge that any time you repeat
anything you yourself are using Hubbard tech. I therefore am *not* the
one using the "tech," but you are by your own admission.
But why not do the honest thing and admit that I was *not* using their
"tech" and your accusatioin that I was is false?
Your justification for claiming that I was using the "tech" on
Claire
is baseless and pathetic.
>
>Beyond that, the Black Dianetic nature of the repetition is as obvious
>as a Laserclam pseudo-freudianism.
Is it now? I say you're a liar. I say repetiton of a matter is
absolutely unrelated to Hubbard tech. You say it must be. BS.
The Hubbard "tech" involved here is the denial of logic or
reason.
That is Claire's "tech," and Hubbard's "tech," and you're
using this
"tech" here. You're denying reason in order to mock up a platform to
attack me.
Why not go back and address my whole post to Claire with reason. The
first conclusion you unreasonably jumped to is false.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>Zinj
>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>