From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry
Subject: Re: Yo Gerry ! Re Hate pages, unmerited lies
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:18:01 +0100
References: <Xns942AE1F758856notemailthnx@18.104.22.168> <
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: 7 Nov 2003 15:18:19 -0500, 22.214.171.124
X-Original-Trace: 7 Nov 2003 15:18:19 -0500, 126.96.36.199
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1655690
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:55:16 +0100, Gerry Armstrong
>On 6 Nov 2003 10:32:10 -0800, ladayla <ladayla
>>In article <GYEM1O0D37930.email@example.com>, Jurybox
>>>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>>ladayla <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> >On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:12:19 +0100, Gerry Armstrong
>>>> ><firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> >>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:00:47 -0500, mimus <
>>>> >>>> >(BTW, putting "Cerridwen" on
list is definitely bonkers-- relax.)
>>>>That's your opinion. Isn't Cerridwen the one who said "
like Warrior are a
>>>>dime a dozen"? I think that qualifies her for the Follies
page. Statements such
>>>>as that are what are intended to nullify a person, to make
>>>> do SO serve OSA's purpose. It is also a hateful and hurtful
>>>Web pages such as Gerry's are "intended to nullify a person,
>>>make nothing of them." And unlike Usenet where a person can
>>>respond to another, Gerry's nullification of others are on a
>>>website where no one can defend themselves in an open manner. He
>>>won't even discuss it on ARS beyond his arrogant tone. His site
>>>serves "OSA's purpose." It's not only something OSA
>>>it's something OSA does. I'd say his site is "hateful and
>>>hurtful" to the many people who spend hours critiquing the
>>>He learned well while in Scientology.
>>As far as I can see, Gerry put up a page that has a heading that says
>>Squad Follies". Some of the letters "flash".
>The whole marquee blinks once a second. Half the time the letters
>GONQUDFOLLIES are majusculized. Half the time they are minusculized.
>It is exactly the same with the remaining letters o, s and a. Here's
>an explanation of how the marquee came to blink:
>On November 19, it will one year that the marquee has been blinking.
>That will be thirty-one million five hundred thirty-six thousand
>blinks. Now that's a lot of blinking persistence.
>We've been insulted, lied about, black PRed, threatened with copyright
>litigation, and threatened with worse, and still the blinking marquee
>> Some of the letters are in 'caps'
>>Those letters flash "OSA".
>The whole marquee blinks. The case changes every second. One second
>eighty-one and a quarter percent of the letters are lower case. And
>the next second eighteen and three-quarters percent of the letters are
>lower case. It's all perfectly fair.
>> Then there are little columns headed by known posters
>Well, the columns are not so little. There are now well over three
>hundred posts webbed, listed in two columns. The posters have been
>very productive. It is almost impossible for us to keep up with all
>the lies, attacks, insults, black PR, pretended stupidity and help for
>the Scientology cult that they can generate.
>And remember, this is just directed toward a couple of Scientology's
>major opponents. Imagine what these posters must generate to
>depopularize to the point of total obliteration the rest of the cult's
>major opponents. I can only hope that the rest of the cult's major
>opponents have hit on this extraordinarily useful and efficacious idea
>of simply webbing all the lies, attacks, insults, black PR, pretended
>stupidity that these folks throw at them.
>It really is no wonder that the Miscavige regime -- RTC, OSA, and all
>their lawyers, agents, assigns, and goons -- so totally hate the GOoN
>sQUaD FOLLIES Page. It patiently parries the cult's malevolent purpose
>of depopularizing its enemies to the point of total obliteration.
>> I can rationally assume that if I open one of these columns, I will
>>quoted posts from the afore 'headed' posters.
>You will see the totality of the post, with headers. You will see no
>comment. You will see a link to the complete Google-archived thread
>in which the post was made.
>>So, now I can assume that gerry
>>has posted quotes from messages that have been posted to this NG.
>No, I have webbed the entirety of the messages. It's really quite
>That's what makes the black PR claim that I'm doing what OSA is doing
>such hogwash. In no place does OSA do this. I would love if OSA did
>this, but they don't. That's why calling this page a "hate page"
>simply pure black propaganda. Anyone with a brain can see that it's
>not a hate page, and that OSA would not dare do what I'm doing.
>> A lot of my
>>'assumption' is based on what I have been reading here. Correct me if
>> I can see NO reason in my world to open up one of the goddam things
>>read 'entheta' that has been written ( about anyone).
>As I've said many times, I need the page as it exists for my legal
>defenses and for the prosecution of offensive actions. Obviously I
>don't need the images of the Goon Squad Troupers® as the images exist,
>but I think they add to the sense of what's going on, and I think it's
>a good thing to laugh at the folks who've generated all these posts to
>whip up the depopularization effort.
>> If the site is hateful and
>>hurtful to the people who are quoted there, I think that they should
>>what they are here for.
>I think it would be insulting to assume and project onto the posters
>that they don't know what they're doing.
>I resolve the question of whether Hubbard knew what he was doing the
>same way. He most definitely knew what he was doing. He knew every
>lie he was telling. It is far more demeaning of Hubbard to claim that
>he was so deranged or unconscious that he didn't know what he was
>doing. He made conscious choices, evidenced in his writings, to lie,
>to black PR, to depopularize his human targets to the point of total
>obliteration, and to even promote the notion of disposing of human
>beings quietly and without sorrow.
>That doesn't mean the folks whose posts appear on the GOoN sQUaD
>FOLLIES page can't reconsider what they're here for. But what they're
>here for is evidenced in the posts I've webbed.
>> Is it to demean, lessen. denigrate, show themselves to
>>be users of 'oneupmanship' etc., or is it to disseminate news (old and
>>hope) about scientology.
>There's another good purpose for the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page. It's
>there, in addition to all its other useful functions, to educate about
>what doesn't educate but serves another baser purpose.
>>>>has said that Warrior is " not worth speaking to".
what do you think about
>>>In what context?
>>Do you think that helps or harms the reputation of a poster to the
>>>> I dunno what Cerriden has said to Gerry. I haven't read his
>>>What *do* you know? Why even bother getting involved in the
>>>first place if you haven't read what is going on? Not reading
>>>the follies page, or even glimpsing at it, says something sad
>>>about your inability to deal with the issue at hand.
>>See above. Why would I read that shit? Have you read it? I have shown
>>here of what Gerry is no doubt showing on his page from these very
>>don't have to go into his page to read filth that has been posted.
Here is a just posted excellent example. You can read the flith right
From: Zinj <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Zinjifar Pukes on Warrior
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:33:49 -0800
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60
X-Trace: 7 Nov 2003 14:32:43 -0500, 188.8.131.52
X-Original-Trace: 7 Nov 2003 14:32:43 -0500, 184.108.40.206
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1655679
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
<nasty snip tech for the sake of 'clarity'>
> >Why do you attack scientology's enemies?
> Certain people who claim to be Scientology's enemies also hate
> clarity in their discussions. Their
> discussions happen to contain, more than randomly, attacks on
> Scientology's certain -- not just claimed -- enemies.
Now we have clarity: Gerry is 'Scientology's certain' enemy';
the people *He* attacks are just 'claimed enemies'. That's the
> No, just go ahead and address the content. Why not stop this silly
> snip tech? Why not stop this silly pettiness about the syle of the
> writer, or how many times the writers uses a term to express a point,
> and deal with the point being expressed?
'Nasty Snip Tech' serves wonderfully to 'clarify' the point by
stripping Gerry's logorrhistic rhetorical carpet bombings of
their deliberately obfuscatory yet intellectually dishonest and
Hubbardian circular logic to reveal the shining beacon of his
blinding narcissistic delusion of grandeur, and thus
illuminated, actually reveal his 'point', the bone of
contention, AXIOM #1 of Gerryology - Criticizing or otherwise
'depopularizing' 'The Gerry' is evil *because* he is
'Scientology's Certain Enemy', and his own attempted
'depopularizing' of his 'enemies' in retaliation is not
hypocritical because *those enemies* are only 'claimed enemies'
of Scientology. It's that simple.
> >Stop with furthering the cult's agenda.
> You will provide some evidence for this false factual assertion,
> right? Or will you just give some inanity such as I "can't stand a
> difference of opinion?"
At least Gerry has decided to weasel a bit and only call Mike's
'assertion' a 'false factual assertion' rather than a 'LIE!!!'.
Perhaps this weasel element is actually a distant hall of the
lonely voice of sanity within Gerry, that watches aghast as he
plants his flag firmly at the summit of Mt. Narcissistic
'Obviously' Mike's assertion must be 'false' since, as this
'nasty snip tech' has demonstrated, depopularizing Gerry is evil
*because* he is 'Scientology's Certain Enemy', while those he
attempts to depopularize are merely 'claimed enemies'.
> >You are most welcome! Btw, breeding hamsters can be beneficial for
> >They never talk back. You can sit and preach to them all the long
> Love your insults.
Do you love mine too?
Scientology® - Deliberately killing no more than 0.5 percent of
its members since 1953
Zinjifar has consistently shown that he will not communicate honestly
or rationally, but simply dishes out this kind of unprincipled hate.
In this he serves Scientology's purposes. His opposition to
Scientology is faked so that as a "critic" he can carry out these
sorts of attacks on actual opponents. His agenda is obvious, and his
hate posts do not merit a response, but properly belong on the GOoN
sQUaD FOLLIES page.
>>I see much
>>more than that shit than I care to every day on this fucking so-called
>>NewsGroup." Says something sad about my ability," eh? Well.
you do post as
>>Jurybox. I guess that means that you can judge my ability ar
>You're right that you don't have to go to the page. And really to
>grasp the whole picture you'd have to read the totality of the posts
>because together they form the picture of what's going on. It truly is
>a massive effort, in no conceivable way just some random flames made
>in the heat of the moment as has been suggested.
>But when closely examined, what is happening is simply an effort to
>stop my free speech. I am not trying to stop any of these posters from
>saying anything. I use the idea of them stopping their lies, black PR
>and others attacks as a concept to compare with their effort to stop
>my defending myself from those attacks. But I do not seek to stop
>their free speech at all.
>There is no doubt, however, that someone who says, "Take down that
>page," wants to stop my free speech, and wants to reduce my ability
>defend my reputation and person by reducing my free speech options.
>>>>have just thought that he has a quirky sense of humor, but I
not on his page.
>>>Then I guess if you were on Gerry's page, the page you haven't
>>>even viewed yet, the page that is the topic of discussion, then
>>>you'd be against what Gerry is doing?
>>I don't think so. I am in agreement with the perception that ARS would
>>better place without the constant attempts at 'oneupmanship',
>>winning at all costs mentality. Also, I think that Gerry has every
>>up what he damned well pleases. He has only posted what has been
>>here.Now, if I thought that I had any power over Gerry, or that he had
>>reason to respect my opinion on the subject, I would say Gerry, at
>>the letters all the same size.
>They all are. Just not all at the same time.
>> Then post the policies that OSA uses to shudder
>>their enemies into silence.
>I do that as possible. See, e.g.,
>It is bad warfare to fight battles on your own terrain, in your own
>subject area. It is not good to fight in the territory of allies.
>Fight battles wherever possible only on enemy terrain, in and about
>his subject and his people, not ours. You can gauge your relative
>success by this. When all your battles are fought on his terrain, you
>Note the effort of the posters to make the battle about me, i.e., on
>One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. He deprives
>the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes
>over enemy territory. He raids and harrasses.
>Note the effort to harass and to cut off any support from anyone such
>Intelligence identifies targets and finds out enemy plans and
>purposes, enemy connections, dispositions, etc. It is fatal to attack
>a wrong enemy. But it is good tactics to make the enemy attack wrong
>targets or persons himself.
>Note the folks falling right in line to wrong target the cult's
>enemies. Some are instigators. Some are instigatees.
>The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a
>frenzy of hate against the enemy, this means standard wartime
>propaganda is what one is doing, complete with atrocity, war crimes
>trials, the lot. Know the mores of your public opinion, what they
>hate. That's the enemy. What they love. That's you.
>You preserve the image or increase it of your own troops and
>degrade the image of the enemy to beast level.
>And there you have the GOoN sQUaD hat.
>> Then put up the posts of the people who have carried
>>out those policies on this group as applies to you. But that's just
>There's a lot more work to do, but the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page as it
>exists right now is a start.
>>>>If Cerridwen has made statements to/about Gerry that are
to what she
>>>> has said about Warrior, then she rightfully deserves to be
>>>> pages. That's my opinion.
>>>You deserve to still be in Scientology. It's where people like
>>>yourself belong. Where everything is positive, and anything
>>>negative gets obliterated from thought. I am beginning to think
>>>that Scientology creates mentally inferior people.
>Scientology is evil and dangerous. So don't serve its malevolent
>purposes toward its fair game targets.
>>O! I was mentally inferior before I got into scientology. They just
>>better at it.
>>Thank you so very much for all your kindnesses.
>© Gerry Armstrong
© Gerry Armstrong