§  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: 30 Oct 2003 13:52:22 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 498
Message-ID: <71d327bb.0310301352.2b8913e5@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> <71d327bb.0310261359.44b0497@posting.google.com> < jq2vpv8kr04s9c5ffns35uesk4vtfob65d@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1067550742 29598 (30 Oct 2003 21:52:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:52:22 +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:1653356

Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news: <jq2vpv8kr04s9c5ffns35uesk4vtfob65d@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.
> Then, using your standard for "connection" that you now make clear, in
> answer to your first assertion, I don't know. And I assume you don't
> either.

I can rule out Deana Holmes and Gerry Scarff as being *connected*. I
met them personally, so I base my opinion on that. On the other hand,
Diane Richardson, Rob Clark, Tigger, Starshadow and Joe Lynn I can
rule out because of their posts on ars. If Cerridwen would be indeed
part of an OSA operation, it would be the most silliest one in
Scientology history. With regards to Kady O'Malley I use my common
sense and a quick look at her home page: Someone who writes about a
"Shakespearian approach to chess" isn't likely an OSA-operative

> I have never claimed, nor implied that they have a
> "connection" as you had a "connection" until July 1992.

You are *implying* by putting these posts in a folder with *blinking*
(= size-changing) OSA-letters on top. The page is additionally
contained in a folder called "Scientology's Black Propaganda and Black

> So what's the point of your statement?

I want to find out if you are aware that you are implying that these
people are *connected* to OSA when you put "blinking" (=
size-changing) "OSA"letters on top of these posts. Evidently I am not
the only one who has this kind of thinking.

> >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?
> For their content. They will be used in my defenses and in my
> prosecutions.

I wish you good luck with that kind of legal strategy.

> I assume you've read them all. I also assume you've read
> all the legal documents on my web site.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/index.html
> Are these assumptions correct?

No. I've glanced at about 10 of these posts, I've read several
Scientology documents and I've downloaded approximately 20 documents.

> >A certain degree of self-importance can be found in everybody. The
> >degree makes the difference and how it is displayed.
> Yes. For example, if someone observably unsupportive presumed to
> question a litigant about his legal strategies and defenses, after
> taking baseless swipes at the litigant, that would be a display of
> self-importance, wouldn't you say?

No, it would solely indicate a certain degree of disdain for either
the litigant's legal strategy or the litigant him-/herself. The
motives for doing that can vary.

> What is bullshit is that you call this bullshit. Let's go back to Bob
> Minton, to a context where bringing up his name is actually relevant.
> I believe I have heard from many people here, in fact many who appear
> on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page, that Bob served the cult's malevolent
> purposes with attacks on the cult's opponents, and that those attacks
> were unmerited.

If they did this (= claiming that he served Scientology), it was
indeed bullshit, if he did this *before* March/April 2002.

> Bob has never, as far as I know and as far as anyone has stated, been
> "connected" to the Scientology cult as you say you were " connected"
> until July 1992. But many people, most relevantly the people whose
> posts appear on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page, claim that he
> nevertheless has served the cult's malevolent purposes.

He certainly served Scientology and has been indeed *connected* to
this organization from April 2002 onward. You certainly agree that
sitting at a table with Rinder, Rosen and Yingling to discuss exchange
of money and making court cases of critics "go away", makes him
*connected*, correct?

> You appear to be asserting with your complete bullshit response that
> people who profess to be critics of the Scientology cult cannot serve
> the cult's malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's
> opponents. I find your assertion to be complete bullshit.


> How on earth do you justify calling this inarguable statement
> bullshit? It is this sort of pretended stupidity that serves the
> cult's purposes. But perhaps you have some rational, logical way of
> showing my statement to be untrue, which I haven't thought of.

There is Scientology critic A posting on ars during his/her spare
time. And then there is Scientology critic B, currently under heavy
legal attack by Scientology. One day A calls B a lunatic, asshole or
moron on ars.

Case 1: Not *connected* to Scientology but having come to his/her own
conclusion that B must be a lunatic, asshole or moron and having
posted that on ars, A is not serving Scientology's malevolent
purposes, because it was an action independently from Scientology's
activities. And, by the way, in this case, only an *opinion* is

> I wouldn't bother, by the way, arguing that there is a massive,
> unbridgable difference between Bob testifying in court and folks
> posting to a.r.s. in terms of serving the cult's malevolent purposes.

I agree totally, because this is just ars, one of thousands of

> Let's say, for example, that Kady O'Malley is subpoenaed by the cult
> to testify at my trial. Do you think that she would testify that I am
> exactly as she has attempted to portray me in her posts attacking me
> on a.r.s.? Or would she, rather than help Scientology, tell the truth
> about me? I would bet that she'd continue to lie and continue to serve
> the cult's malevolent purposes toward its opponents.

This is pretty hypothetical. How in the world would this Canadian girl
find herself in the Californian state court case discussing your
mental state?

> If Kady was subpoenaed and put on the stand or ordered into a
> deposition and questioned by Sandy Rosen would she state that Gerry
> Armstrong's "logic" meets none of the minimal standards to so qualify?


>Would she testify that the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES
> page is demented, paranoid hate pages, that is no more than a product
> of Gerry's fertile paranoia?

The only probable case would be if Kady was a certified psychiatrist
and Scientology would have called her as an expert witness and she
would testify after she had examined you with a row of clinical tests.
Excuse me, but your example is too far out.

> Or, you and Kady, prove me wrong. What Bob testified to about Ken
> Dandar is not nearly as vicious and false as what Kady would testify
> to against me if given the opportunity by Scientology. She doesn't
> even do anything about it now before she is supoenaed to clean up the
> record she's made.

I find it a bit daring to compare what actually happened in the Lisa
McPherson case with your imagination of what someone might do under
some very unrealistic circumstances. Just as a side note, pissing on
the grave of a dead woman by trying to make the Lisa case "go away" I
find pretty vicious.

> And how about you, Martin? If you were subpoenaed, would you lie for
> Scientology too?

I cannot imagine under which circumstances whatsoever I could testify
in your case.

> If Sandy Rosen asked, would you repeat your idiocy
> that it is complete bullshit 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?

As long as they aren't *connected*, of course.

>Would you testify that any
> lies you told on a.r.s. are true if that served Scientology's
> malevolent purposes toward its opponents?

What lies are you talking about?

> But listen to what you are saying. I state a simple fact: 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.
> You say that it's the same crap Scientology tells its members about
> criticisms. You are accusing me of acting the same as Scientology,
> which is false. But when I state the truth when it's true, you say
> it's complete bullshit. Now that is bullshit!

I am not accusing you of anything. I just state that the above thesis
is bullshit, that's all. BTW, you are using the word "truth"
incorrectly. You have stated an *opinion*.

> >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".
> No, that's your invention. You are morally allowed. Unmerited attacks
> on anyone are simply unmerited attacks. They can include every word in
> every language. When unmerited attacks are made on the cult's actual
> opponents, such attacks can serve the cult's purposes. The cult's
> purposes toward their opponents are all malevolent.

If any OSA operatives would think, that critic A's opinion towards B
would serve them, they are deluded.

> Let's consider a shooting war with live ammunition. Let's say the
> Allies are fighting the Axis powers. If a soldier on the side of the
> Allies shoots another soldier on the Allies side, the shooter serves
> the Axis' purposes.

Gerry, this is ars, this is not the Second world war. I skip that.

> >> >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.
> That's fine. But so what?

Exactly, so what? Someone states on ars that you are crazy. So what?
Have you ever taken a look at other newsgroups to see what goes on
there? Check out newsgroups, which discuss Islam, Israel, etc. You
will see then how civilized ars in fact is.

> I tell the truth, and you say I don't have the courage to lie. How do
> you justify your logic?

What do you refer to with "I tell the truth"?

> >> 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]
> I know what the cheap irrelevancy is. But I was asking where the
> cheap irrelevancy came from. What motivated you to inject that cheap
> irrelevancy into this particular discussion?

You wanted to know where it came from. Well, I showed you where it
came from.

> Doesn't my response to Stefan prove that a claim that someone would
> make that all a person has to do is disagree with me for his post to
> be webbed on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page is a lie? Doesn't my
> response to Stefan prove that a claim that someone would make that all
> a person has to do is criticize me for his post to be webbed on the
> GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page is also a lie?

If this has been exactly said so, it is definitely a statement that I
would not support.

> >> > 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".
> Yes, but so what? What does that have to do with my having to resume
> to whatever you say I'm having to resume to? You haven't shown that I
> have to resume to anything.

Why are the letters O, S, and A *blinking* (= changing their size)????
What did you have in mind when you created that effect?? Can you
answer that question????

> >Or have you created that visual effect
> >subconsciously?
> No. But what a ridiculous thing to ask.

It's not ridiculous, because you are evading to answer the above

> I would be grateful if the marquee caused innocent readers to stop and
> read those posts, and examine the content of all of them, identify
> lies and black PR in them, to see that they can serve OSA's malevolent
> purposes toward its opponents.

Maybe you can fill us in how innocent readers have responded to your
page, f. e. by sending comments to your webmaster.

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

Take a look at the reply of yours, 13 pages!

> >No, I would like to know what you had in mind when you created that
> >visual effect with the "blinking" or size-changing letters.
> Well it arose as a response to and an effort to satisfy Rob Clark.
> I've got the explanation around here somewhere. Oh yeah, here it is:
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2002-11-19-3.html

This is no explanation at all, it is less cumbersome but doesn't sheds
any light on why you chose to use the "blinking" (= size-changing) OSA

> But how do you think it's okay to state something on usenet and not
> have it put up on a website? Are you trying to stop this particular
> form of free speech? And if so, why?

I don't try to stop anything. You can put on your website anything you
want. I am just curious about those *blinking* (= size-changing)

> I think it's valuable to web this whole set of posts by this whole set
> of posters. Why do you care? If you really hold to the opinion that
> the idea is complete bullshit 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, then surely my claim, that
> these professed critics of the Scientology cult serve the cult's
> malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents,
> could not possibly do any harm. If what you say is true, then my claim
> that these professed critics of the Scientology cult serve the cult's
> malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents
> would only rise to the level of criticism or disagreement, which is
> all the professed critics claim that they're doing.

And I am just critizising it. I am not saying that you are serving the
Office of Special Affairs.

> But surely it isn't just fear
> alone that motivates you to attack me for my critcisms while saying
> nothing about their attacks, is it?

I am critizising only what I momentarily think it is worth
critizising. There is no strategy behind my posting, it is 100%
spontaeous, and depends on when I am coming home from work, if I go
out, if I have/want to do other things on my computer/Internet, etc.

You may also interested to hear that I recently questioned Diane
Richardson about her motives to put up a website on Thomas Padgett,
earlier on I indicated to Joe Lynn that I think of him as a lame ass,
because he's constantly wondering in a loud manner about the
"intention" of other people who post certain documents, while he
himself is doing shit and living at the center of Scientology, in LA
with all this great access to court documents.

> >> 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.
> That's the point. But why are you trying to correct my opinion, which
> is supportable, and not attempting to correct actual lies that are
> insupportable? Perhaps you can explain your motive.

I've looked at some of the posts on your page, and what I've seen are

> And I say that in their totality and in specifics they serve
> Scientology's malevolent purposes.
> Let's go back to the Bob Minton example. No, let's choose someone who
> is in a more equivalent position or status to me in relation to
> Scientology, for example, Ken Dandar. Dandar is engaged in a huge
> on-going case against the cult. So am I. Dandar is an attorney. I am
> my own attorney. So there's a reasonable parallel between us in our
> relation to Scientology, at least in the legal area.
> Now let's say that a group of people made two hundred ninety or so
> posts in which they accused Dandar of being, among other nasty lies, a
> coward, insane, a kook, a despicable liar, a fake Christian,
> anti-Semitic, a true moron, a brainwashed zombie, a leader of
> sycophants, a cultist, dull and simple, delusional, cynical and
> dishonest, and they charged that what Dandar's doing constitutes hate,
> that he's a down and out celebrity seeker, that the authorities should
> be alerted about his travels, that his "logic" meets none of the
> minimal standards to so qualify, that he writes demented nut rants,
> that he's quite a pro when it comes to chomping and swallowing, that
> the Lisa McPherson website is no more than a product of Dandar's
> fertile paranoia, that his writing sounds like he's syphilitic, that
> if in a cubicle with Dandar and someone else it would be best to
> choose Dandar and then shoot him, and that the solution for Dandar is
> a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on his head at the nearest
> sewage facility. Would you say it's complete bullshit that these
> statements could serve the cult's malevolent purposes toward Ken
> Dandar?

It depends if these people are connected to Scientology and their
allegations are part of an OSA operation. Here is a nice example for
that, where Dandar just fits in:

SP Times from April 20th, 2002:] [...] On Friday, Minton, one of
Scientology's most vocal critics, sat in court and testified for the
church in a related case. "Mr. Dandar is a lying thief," Minton said,
hitting his fist on the witness box. [...]

In this case I totally agree with you: Minton is serving OSA's
purposes. I assume, per your logic, you agree with me on this one,

> Do you really believe that people with some history on a.r.s. could
> accuse Dandar of all these things, and make all these vicious attacks
> on him and *not* know they were serving the cult's malevolent purposes
> toward a significant opponent? Similarly, I believe that many of the
> people here know they are serving the cult's malevolent purposes with
> their vicious, baseless attacks on me.

Did it ever come to your mind that one reason for these some people to
"attack" you, is because simply they don't like you? Did it ever come
to your mind that insults or verbal attacks are mostly based on
personal animosities, no matter if you are a critic, an
ex-Scientologist or Hubbard's ex-archivist? Hell, maybe this is one
reason why Scientology is still after you. I am sure that personal
reasons play a role too when they decide how to pursue someone.

> >You are wasting your time with this webpage.
> I think that by the reactions it has engendered, by the time it has
> actually saved, and by its potential in my legal matters, I have shown
> very clearly it is far from a waste of time. But really, how I spend
> my time, I'm quite sure, is not something to which you really and
> honestly apply your intellect, energy and heart, do you?

Occasionally I visit your page to check what has been added. But with
that particular "blinking" OSA page, you certainly have created a kind
of perpetuum mobile. One year (?) after its creation you still find
yourself in the midst of a discussion about its actual purpose. And
people critizise it and then find themselves on it at the end of the
day, which then carries on the discussion.

> But let's look very rationally at what you've said. This is but a
> small item in my defenses, prosecutions and legal strategy, but a
> useful one for easily and simply disproving your silly assertion that
> if I believe that these posts and comments have anything to do, even
> remotely, with the activities of the Scientology organization against
> me, then I have lost my grip on reality.

> As you see, the sums involved are truly astronomical, probably up in
> the trillions of dollars. But the same principle and math also hold
> with the $50,000 per reader concept. Thus the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page
> saves me probably in the hundreds of billions. I don't know how
> wealthy you are, but for me that's not chicken feed. And it is all
> directly related to the activities of the Scientology cult against me.


> If you continue to assert, in the face of all the irrebuttable
> evidence to the contrary filed in legal cases, and described by me
> here, that the subject posts and comments have nothing to do with the
> activities of the Scientology organization against me, it would likely
> be you who have lost your grip on reality, wouldn't you agree?

If I were you and I would want to use these posts for litigation
purposes, I would simply save them on a disc and not post them on the
Internet. Doing that I would then even save the $ 50,000. Besides, why
do you want to the Scientologists know about your legal strategy?

> > 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.
> No, those bar room comments and insults would probably be unrelated to
> my legal matters, there would probabably be no record, the results
> would probabaly not be viewable by billions of people, Scientology is
> probably not archiving and using whatever it can of what is said in
> the bar, and it would probably not necessarily serve the cult's
> malevolent purposes. Your analogy doesn't hold beer.

This newsgoup isn't that important, and it is not read by billions.
And Scientology can't do shit against you with the posts that you are
archiving so meticulously. You need to shift your energy towards
things that are more important.






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