From: BarbaralovesMarty@excite.com (Barbara Schwarz)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
Date: 5 Nov 2003 13:41:04 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <4c418fa.0311051341.c1d5852@posting.google.com>
References: <3f9c736e@news2.lightlink.com> <bnjhgh0f7m @drn.newsguy.com> <3F9D864B.3050307@rochester.rr.com> <Xns9421ABE6DAFC4kadywwwaifnet @205.232.34.12> <3FA40071.4090007@rochester.rr.com> <Xns94269224CDA4Dkadywwwaifnet @205.232.34.12> <bo75d701ff3@drn.newsguy.com> <MPG.1a10c0b4a29c39f39899a6@news2.lightlink.com> <bo7mau0kc@drn.newsguy.com> <MPG.1a118c86537f9b569899a9@news2.lightlink.com> <th2gqvk2nnl1nf50lu1c77jqt3ot3vie5t@4ax.com> <MPG.1a1201f01cac2af29899ac@news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.127.246.116
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1068068465 15273 127.0.0.1 (5 Nov 2003 21:41:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:41:05 +0000 (UTC)
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!skynet.be!skynet.be!news- spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1655234

Zinj <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a1201f01cac2af29899ac@news2.lightlink.com>...
> In article <th2gqvk2nnl1nf50lu1c77jqt3ot3vie5t@4ax.com>,
> gerry@gerryarmstrong.org says...
> > On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:15:10 -0800, Zinj <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >Nobody's disputing *anybody's* contributions. Well mostly not
> > >anyway, and when they do, the 'my contribution is bigger than
> > >your contribution' is pretty silly.
> > >
> > >What is happening is that activist type people are claiming that
> > >one must revere, defend and never never ever criticize
> > >'critics' in proportion to their 'contributions'.
> >
> > That's a lie. I believe it's a lie to excuse your unmerited,
> > irrational, threatening, vicious attacks on good people. I further
> > believe that such attacks based on such lies serve the cult's
> > malevolent purposes.
>
> Oh poor Gerry. There you go again pretending to be too stupid to
> tell an opinion from a lie. Beyond that, why would I need to
> excuse anything? Criticizing and even making fun of you; is that
> my sin?
>
> 'Unmerited' is in the eye of the beholder, unless you're
> claiming your eye sets the standard. Do you?
>
> Irrational seems to me to be merely failing to fall over stunned
> by your hypothetically brilliant yet disingenuous rhetorical
> skills, but 'theatening'? Vicious? Good? Are you the 'good'
> person meant? Again, good is a bit subjective for me to judge.
> You probably are good, but you do a pretty good imitation of
> loony too. They're not incompatible.
>
> > Or prove me wrong. Produce all of these claims made by me or anyone
> > else.
>
> Oh, I think we can do fine sticking with you for now.
> According to you:
>
> "Therefore, actions that "depopularize the enemy," among whose
> numbers I do include myself, serve the cult's malevolent
> purposes toward its "enemy," regardless of whether the
> depopularizers doing the depopularizing are Scientologists in
> good standing, whether they are doing their depopularizing as
> "part of an OSA operation," or whether they are even aware that
> in their depopularizing of the "enemy" they are serving the
> cult's purposes."
>
> You'd have to be pretending to be pretty damn stupid not to
> recognize that by this theory, not only criticizing you (or any
> other 'enemy' for that matter) but even saying anything likely
> to 'depopularize' you; such as that you're disingenuous, or
> sound loony or that you're kind of full of yourself, would
> qualify as 'serving the cult's malevolent purposes'.
>
> In fact, the only things that would qualify as 'acceptable' (if
> we grant that 'serving the cult's malevolent purposes' is
> unacceptable) would be gratious appreciation of your beingness
> and efforts, or silence. 'If you can't say something nice about
> Gerry; don't say anything at all!'
>
> So, like I said, you're 'playing' at least as 'stupid' as anyone
> you're accusing of that horrid crime, if you don't recognize the
> identical nature of your weird theory and 'claiming to be beyond
> crtiicism' (at least for anyone unwilling to accept 'serving the
> cult's malevolent purposes')
>
> > I say you can't, because no such claims were ever made by real
> > "activist type people."
>
> Since the theory stated above is exactly the same as 'don't
> criticize Gerry, cuz otherwise you're serving the cult!' it
> doesn't matter whether the 'activist type persons' said so
> directly, or whether they chose to weasle around it.
>
> > If they were ever made they were made by posters serving the cult's
> > malevolent purposes to "set up" this kind of bogus argument to justify
> > unmerited, irrational, threatening, vicious attacks on people.
>
> Speaking of which. Since the cult has attacked me, and considers
> me an 'enemy', doesn't that make you 'serving the cult's
> purposes' by criticizing and attempting to 'depopularize me?
>
> Kady? Ptsc? anybody else on *your* particular 'enemy' list? The
> Cult has *lots* of enemies, not all of them ensrhined in your
> 'hall of recognized critics'.
>
> > But why don't you just post all these "claims" by " activist type
> > people" saying that one must revere, defend and never never ever
> > criticize 'critics' in proportion to their 'contributions'.
>
> I think your own statements, minus the weasle words, say that
> pretty succinctly. But, of course, since you're 'pretending to
> be stupid', you're unlikely to admit that.
>
> > I say you're lying, and lying to create an illusory basis to carry out
> > your black PR attacks.
>
> And I say you're a self-inflated and impressed popinjay with
> delusions of grandeur, but hey; nobody's perfect. Yet. Including
> you.
>
> Since readers of ARS might agree with me, and you might be
> 'depopularized' I guess I'll just have to live with being
> considered as 'serving the malevolent cult' by you and your
> other 'activist type' friends.
>
> Not a biggy
>
> Oh, I almost forgot; since you seem to be attempting to pass
> Barbara Schwarz in the Loony Lane, you yourself are doing the
> most effective job of 'depopularizing' Gerry Armstrong. Maybe
> you'd better write yourself a KR about that.
>
> Zinj

According to Garry Armstrong's website, I don't exist. Yes, he devoted
one whole page to me, more than to any other Scientologist or
"critic", but he calls me a "David Miscavige operation", which means,
he tries to say that I am no person. Isn't that so, Garry, fugitive of
American justice?

Garry hides cowardly in Germany, and as long as criminals attack SCN,
they are protected by the German government, it doesn't matter how
disgusting their crimes are.

Anyway, Garry knows of course better. He knows that I exist, and he
knows Marty and I from the 70s, but he conceals that.

Garry is a German agent. Him running a headline on his website that I
am just an "operation" of somebody confirms also my suspicion what the
German government and their agents, SCN attackers, did behind my back.

Here it is: I am certain that they framed Mark Rathbun (Marty) de
Rothschild of having done horrendous criminal things to me and that he
even murdered me. Why did they frame him having murdered me? That no
American court would be able to subpoena me as witness.

If the German government misinforms the American authorities and
courts that I am dead, the Americans say, they can't get a dead person
in the witness chair as relief witness for Marty, because I am no
more. The American authorities and courts are of course German poodles
and don't question the honesty of the German authorities, which they
should.

And Garry Armstrong is supporting that lie on his website, saying that
I am just an "operation" from somebody. What a German liar.

Barbara Schwarz