§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

 
 
 
 

 

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8ckb0vc03csra0fl09jgcmf9i0dn00hln4% 404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry @gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: An open letter to Gerry Armstrong
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:59:45 +0100
Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <8ckb0vc03csra0fl09jgcmf9i0dn00hln4@4ax.com>
References: <f758becc.0212121530.66ce49c7@posting.google.com>
<7d5b0vc62lg1i1g2kqngquepi2pj6efqu8@4ax.com>
<lpib0vkinc58oa444u03carqsff911pqs4@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9e153f8.dip0.t-ipconnect.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.online.de 1040569165 10221 217.225.83.248 (22 Dec 2002 14: 59:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@online.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Dec 2002 14:59:25 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!nntp-out.monmouth.com! newspeer.
monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fj
serv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.nacamar.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni- stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!schlund.de!news.online.de!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1580099

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 14:21:58 GMT, ExScn <none@thnx.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:37:11 +0100, Gerry Armstrong
><gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>
>
>>For us to have a real discussion or debate of the issue, it would be
>>helpful, I think, to clarify a couple of basic points. Since you state
>>as fact that I have failed to come up with any evidence for my claim
>>(that certain people forward Scientology's fair game purposes with
>>their attacks on the cult's fair game victims), this is also an
>>acknowledgement that you have read all my posts, and that you have
>>read all the posts I've webbed. Is this correct?
>
>LOL ! Gerry points out a few hay-stacks he's built up and questions
>whether Chris is *absolutely sure* there's no needle in any of them.

No this isn't what I did.

Chris Owen made a statement containing an assertion of fact that I
have failed to come up with *any evidence* for my claim.

I am simply trying to establish the data base Chris used to reach his
conclusion.

Your analogy is faulty.

Why not let Chris answer for himself?

Surely you would agree that if Chris has not read all my posts and not
read all the posts I've webbed his factual assertion is made in error.

If he *has* read all my posts and the posts I've webbed, then at least
I can debate the assertion of fact that within all these posts there
is no evidence.

Do you not agree with this?

If not, why not?


© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

 
 

Thread

 

 

§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §