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


From: martinottmann@yahoo.com (Martin Ottmann)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: kids
Date: 26 Oct 2003 13:59:15 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 143
Message-ID: <71d327bb.0310261359.44b0497@posting.google.com>
References: <bn95g001mr4@drn.newsguy.com> <bndb8q02bs1 @drn.newsguy.com> <HE71R10537920.1760069444@anonymous.poster> < 1q8npv8mvjbeqmqu2in7cog3i0t5eu87ks@4ax.com> <71d327bb.0310260548.245385df@posting.google.com> < kamnpv0bg5vnruui79jfdouq1p0t0nqs34@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1067205556 27398 (26 Oct 2003 21:59:16 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 21:59:16 +0000 (UTC)
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!priapus.visi.com!news- out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not- for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1652138

Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news: <kamnpv0bg5vnruui79jfdouq1p0t0nqs34@4ax.com>...

> >So these people mentioned on your page are indeed connected to the
> >Church of Scientology (if you want to use their posts in future
> >litigation with the organization)?!
> I have never said that. But aren't all of us here connected to the
> Scientology cult? Aren't you?

I was *connected* to the FSO until July 1992, later they SP-declared
me. I assume this is where any connection to the Scientology ends.

> >Why else would you use their
> >posts?
> Because I have litigation as a defendant in which they are valuable
> for what they say. And they are valuable as they are displayed on this
> page. They are also valuable for the prosecution of an offensive
> action.

How are these posts from people who are neither staff of the Office of
Special Affairs or any other Scientology organization nor members of
the IAS (except Cerridwen, I presume) valuable in any litigation
against a Scientology entity?

> >I would say that your oSa/OsA-page is there principally to satisfy
> >your own obsessive self-importance.
> Then I would say that you're wrong.
> Or if that's the reason they're there, would you agree that every lie
> or unmerited attack included in the posts webbed there have been
> written to satisfy the writer's own self-importance? Did you write
> this post to satisfy your own self-importance?

A certain degree of self-importance can be found in everybody. The
degree makes the difference and how it is displayed.

> > It is there to put people that say
> >negative things about you in connection with OSA.
> There is a message that is undeniable that is often heard here on
> a.r.s., and that cannot logically be refuted, that people who profess
> to be critics of the Scientology cult can serve the cult's malevolent
> purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents. Do you
> disagree with this?

This is complete bullshit. It is the same crap that Scientology tells
its members, i. e., that it is suppressive to criticize Scientology in
public, that a Scientologist should not say negative things about
Scientology, Hubbard and the organization to other Scientologists
because it's entheta and it only helps the SPs, etc. etc.

Following your "logic", I would not be morally " allowed" to call any
Scientology "critic" an asshole, because he/she is above " unmerited"
criticism due to his/her position as a "critic".

> >In contrast to your former hero Minton you don't have the courage to
> >name your perceived "enemies" "OSA whores"
> What a stupid statement. I have had the courage at least to tell the
> truth, and to web the subject posts in their entirety, without
> comment, and with a link to the entire context. Do you have the
> courage to do that?

I don't find it necessary to create a web page with an assembly of
negative posts from other people. If someone criticizes me, I either
comment it with a reply or I don't answer it at all.

> In contrast to my "former hero Minton?" Where did that cheap
> irrelevancy come from?

De: Gerry Armstrong (gerry@gerryarmstrong.org)
Objet: Re: Caroline Letkeman letter to U.S. President, Federal
Departments and Congress
Groupes de discussion: alt.religion.scientology
Date: 2003-06-29 23:20:10 PST

On 29 Jun 2003 06:23:01 -0500, steff0@s.netic.de wrote:

[beginning of post] [...]

>Gerry, please correct this, his name is Claus Schenk Graf von
>Stauffenberg, so that would be Stauffenberg.

You're right. I'm sorry. And I have no excuse. I had even written out
his name some time back here on a.r.s. See below. I had emphasized
his middle name (*Schenk*) because he shared that name with another
gentleman, who was another sort of a hero to me at the time, Robert
*Schenk* Minton. (Among us Anglos, Schenk is a very unusual middle
name.) [...] [end of post]

> > but you have to resume to
> >alternately blinking letters
> That's ridiculous. I don't have to resume to alternately blinking
> letters at all. Any more than someone has to resume to the color blue
> and Arial lettering on a web page.

"Blinking", alternately size-changing letters that form in this way
the eye-catching word "OSA". Or have you created that visual effect
subconsciously? Hey, if you don't know it by now, it might imply to
the innocent reader that the poeple who wrote that posts are connected
to the "Office of Special Affairs.

> >and lengthy, cumbersome explanations
> >instead.
> That's false. There, is that short and uncumbersome enough for you?

No, I would like to know what you had in mind when you created that
visual effect with the "blinking" or size-changing letters.

> Tell me, how exactly is it any different if a poster accuses me of
> serving OSA's purposes when I say that certain posters are serving
> OSA's purposes with certain posts, or if I web these certain posts of
> certain posters and say that they serve OSA's purposes?

There is a difference between posting something in a newsgroup and
putting something on a website.

> I ask that because I notice you have never corrected one of the people
> whose posts I've webbed when they've made such allegations, or when
> they've lied, or when they've engaged in other unmerited attacks.

Because I don't engage in such discussions that often.

> I believe that my webbing of these people's posts is a much fairer
> treatment than I get from them. As a rule, they refuse to address the
> lies they're telling honestly and straight across. I simply say that
> by this amazing set of posts containing an amazing number of lies and
> put downs, and this amazing amount of viciousness, pretended stupidity
> and black propaganda, OSA's malevolent purposes toward me are served.
> Don't you agree?

No, as far as I can tell, these people have nothing to do with OSA
activities against you. You are wasting your time with this webpage.
If you believe that these posts and comments have anything to do, even
remotely, with the activities of the Scientology organization against
you, then you have lost your grip on reality. You should consider
these posts in the same way, as you get negative comments, insults,
etc when you walk into a Bavarian saloon and get annoying comments by
some stranger.






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