http://www.google.com/groups?selm=12085197.0310211101.56d7b646%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
From: dicktop_stud@mindless.com (Dicktop_Stud)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: the unbearable looniness of gerry
Date: 21 Oct 2003 12:01:25 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 563
Message-ID: <12085197.0310211101.56d7b646@posting.google.com>
References: <FFJF3HOG37914.7641666667@anonymous.poster> <GCI03P7637914.8952430556@anonymous.poster>
<bn27h302hqk@drn.newsguy.com> <Xns941AF118B6D89kadywwwaifnet@205.232.34.12>
<bn2cr6084@drn.newsguy.com> <Xns941BC692FE1Bkadywwwaifnet@205.232.34.12>
<470apvo4u3poal163l4p2vggai2krp2igp@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.81.26.103
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066762885 21737 127.0.0.1 (21 Oct 2003 19:01:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:01:25 +0000 (UTC)
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!feed3.news.rcn.net!feed2.news.rcn.net
!rcn!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: news2.lightlink.com
alt.religion.scientology:1651038
Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote
in message news:<470apvo4u3poal163l4p2vggai2krp2igp@4ax.com>...
> On 21 Oct 2003 01:11:13 -0400, "kady@wwwaif.net" <kady@wwwaif.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Warrior <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote in news:bn2cr6084@drn.newsguy.com:
> >
> ><snipping at random solely to drive gerrior into an anal retentive
frenzy>
> >
> >>
> >>>Have you looked at some of the posts on Gerry's
> >>>megalomaniac hate page?
> >>
> >> Strawman. Go back in your wittle "natter club" (irc).
> >
> >You know, if you're going to accuse other people of not being fully broken
> >free from Scientology control patterns, it would behoove you not to use
> >Hubbard jargon in an futile effort to disguise the lack of substance
in
> >your arguments. The selection of posts on the megalomaniac hatepage
> >lovingly maintained by Gerry Armstrong demonstrate clearly that he believes
> >any criticism of himself to be tantamount to a deliberate OSA attack.
>
> No. That is a lie. You made here the factual assertions that, (1)
> presumably, my GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html
> is a megalomaniac hatepage; (2) that I clearly believe that any
> criticism of myself to be tantamount to a deliberate OSA attack.
>
> I have never said, nor implied that any criticism of myself is
> tantamount to a deliberate OSA attack. I believe no such thing. I
> believe that deliberate lies about me by people like yourself, and
> deliberate viciousness by people like yourself toward me, which
> together constitute deliberate black PRing of me, and the deliberate
> refusal of people like yourself to address straight across your lies,
> viciousness and black PR serve Scientology's evil purposes toward an
> "enemy" the cult seeks to destroy. It is the lies, viciousness,
black
> propaganda and refusal to address and correct it, all of which forward
> the cult's purposes, that merits inclusion on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES
> page, not "criticism."
>
> The only hateful things on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page are the hateful
> posts archived there.
>
> I have assembled this set of posts that serve Scientology's purposes
> toward the cult's enemies for legal reasons.
>
> You have it within your power to stop serving the cult's evil purposes
> by stopping your lies and viciousness, and by correcting the unmerited
> attacks you've made on the cult's targets.
>
> > That,
> >in case you were wondering, is loony.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>>you traipse into the thread after Gerry has thoroughly entangled
> >>>whatever point he was trying to make
> >>
> >> I'm really sorry you have such a limited capacity to follow the
> >> discussion. Perhaps you should find another hobby that is
> >> less taxing on your brain.
> >
> >My brain is just fine, no worries; the problem is with Gerry's writing,
and
> >what I hesitate to call "logic", as it meets none of the minimal
standards
> >to so qualify.
>
> That is a lie. And it is a lie for black PR purposes. You make the
> factual assertion that the logic in my writing meets none of the
> minimal standards to qualify as logic. Since you have made this
> factual assertion, it is up to you to support it.
>
> Just identify all of the minimum standards that qualify logic in
> writing as logic. Then show how the logic in my writing fails to meet
> any of those minimal standards.
>
> I know you don't have access to everything I've ever written, but you
> have easy access to virtually everything I've ever written and posted
> to a.r.s., so just use that body of writing.
>
> If you cannot do this; i.e., identify the minimum standards that
> qualify logic in writing as logic, and show how the logic in my
> writing in my posts to a.r.s. fails to meet any of those minimal
> standards, then please simply admit that you lied.
>
> I know that people will allow you the time and space to clear up this
> matter once and for all. I doubt that there's more than three or four
> hundred thousand lines of my a.r.s writing in Google's usenet
> archives. If you really are able to identify all the minimum standards
> that qualify logic in writing as logic, and show how the logic in my
> writing fails to meet any of those minimal standards, I certainly will
> admit that you didn't lie after all.
>
> But you made the factual assertion, so it's incumbent upon you to
> support it.
>
> I believe that I have shown even here, by the logic I've employed to
> address this one assertion by you -- that the logic in my writing
> meets none of the minimal standards to qualify as logic -- that your
> assertion is a lie.
>
> >The pattern has become all too familiar: Gerry kooks out
> >about something, some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects him, he flies
into
> >a paranoid hissy fit, and posts 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual
> >claptrap that bears a remarkable resemblance to the insights offered
by
> >burned out hippie barflies throughout the ages and across the world,
and
> >after he's worked himself into a truly entertaining fit of pique, you
show
> >up and try to blame everyone else for not being properly indulgent of
his
> >insanity.
>
> Well if the pattern you say exists has become, as you also say, all
> too familiar, you should have absolutely no trouble finding many
> examples of where you say I kook out about something, some unwitting
> a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I fly into a paranoid hissy fit, and post
> 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a
> remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out hippie
> barflies throughout the ages and across the world.
>
> If you can't find the pattern you say exists that is formed by all
> those times you say exist where you say I kook out about something,
> some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I fly into a paranoid hissy
> fit, and post 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that
> bears a remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out
> hippie barflies throughout the ages and across the world, then admit
> that you lied?
>
> In fact, you are viciously lying. And it is lying, viciousness,
> refusal to correct lies, and the assistance that behavior provides the
> Scientology cult that brings me to put a poster on the GOoN sQUaD
> FOLLIES page.
>
> So, go ahead, I'm sure the Internet will provide you bandwidth.
> Support your factual assertion with all those times that you say I
> kooked out about something, some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrected
> me, I flew into a paranoid hissy fit, and posted 400 line screeds of
> pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a remarkable resemblance to
> the insights offered by burned out hippie barflies throughout the ages
> and across the world; which times and 400 line posts form that all too
> familiar pattern you claim exists.
>
> >
> >If you read back over this thread, you'll see that's exactly what happened,
> >as was the case way back when Gerry began collecting his OSA Goon Squad
>
> There's another lie. The goon squadders call it the "OSA Goon Squad."
> I don't.
>
> >posts, then denied that doing so was suggesting that his collection was
in
> >any way an accusation that the posters were OSA.
>
> That's true. And the goon squadders are still lying about it. I say
> that by the attacks on the cult's real opponents, by the goon
> squadders' lying, viciousness and refusal to deal straight-across with
> their false factual assertions, they serve OSA's purposes. No one has
> shown otherwise.
>
> I realize you may be doing so because you are being paid, or ignorant,
> or psychopathologically inclined, or perhaps some other reason. It is
> not necessary to know the reasons to know that some of your actions
> serve OSA's purposes.
>
> Right now you serve OSA's purposes with this piece of black
> propaganda, presented as a factual assertion, that you cannot support
> with evidence. You can only provide more black propaganda to support
> earlier black propaganda. But here, you have your opportunity to
> correct the record. Post all those all too familiar pattern-forming
> times you say exist where you say I kook out about something, some
> unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I fly into a paranoid hissy fit,
> and post 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a
> remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out hippie
> barflies throughout the ages and across the world. And if you cannot
> provide all those all too familiar pattern-forming times you say
> exist, please admit you lied.
>
> > You showed up there, too,
> >and your performance in that thread was equally infuriating, since on
most
> >subjects, you are one of the more sane, rational critics. It's just when
> >the subject turns to Gerry Armstrong that you turn into a wilfully blind
> >apologist.
>
> That's a lie. When people like yourself have lied about me, leveled
> vicious unmerited attacks on me, and have refused to address straight
> across with their lies and attacks, Warrior has at times spoken up to
> rebut those lies and vicious, unmerited attacks.
>
> He has, in doing so, been himself lied about and viciously attacked by
> the same set of liars and vicious attackers.
>
> You lie and viciously attack him right here by black PRing his
> honorable actions in response to your dishonorable actions as
> "turn[ing] into a wilfully blind apologist."
>
> I would bet that there are many other people who see what people like
> yourself are doing in your lying and vicious attacks, but don't speak
> up to rebut them because they fear that they would themselves be lied
> about and viciously attacked. So the lying and vicious attacks by
> people like yourself work, and they serve Scientology's immoral and
> destructive purposes.
>
> It has taken great courage by Warrior to speak up and tell the truth,
> knowing full well that he will be ruthlessly black PRed by the people
> like you. By doing so, he has served an even greater purpose than
> defending me against lies and attacks, because he has demonstrated
> beyond any doubt that the people like you serve, with your lies and
> vicious attacks, Scientology's evil purposes.
>
> It is more painful to me to witness your lies and abuse directed at
> Warrior than it is to be the target myself. But it is also encouraging
> beyond all the pain you could possibly inflict with all the lies,
> hatred and abuse you could heap on the whole world, to know that this
> man, Warrior, stood up, and fought back with truth and logic.
>
> Thank you Warrior. Thank you for your courage, decency and friendship.
>
> >
> >
> >>>with his tortured philosophizing, and attempt to rationalize
the
> >>>irrational and defend the indefensible.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. But I'm
> >> not surprised any longer.
> >
> >Well, I'll leave any masochists still perusing this thread to read some
of
> >Gerry's writings, and determine for themselves whether this description
is
> >accurate or not.
>
> Yes, please provide those writings you assert form an all too familiar
> pattern where you say I kook out about something, some unwitting
> a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I fly into a paranoid hissy fit, and post
> 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a
> remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out hippie
> barflies throughout the ages and across the world. Or, please admit
> that you lied.
>
> And to explain my repetition of my simple demand that you support your
> false factual assertions with evidence, I am doing so, and have done
> so in past posts for the very reason that posters like yourself all
> too often refuse to support their factual assertions with evidence,
> and ignore, and even snip, such requests for such evidence.
>
> >This thread, in fact, would be an excellent example, since
> >rather than simply graciously admit that his speculation was at best
> >premature, Gerry went on a rampage of what the late lamented Ray Randolph
> >described as "stupid people deep talk", rather than simply
admit that it
> >was, in fact, highly unlikely that the anonymous poster was Bruce Ullman.
> >It really was as simple as that.
>
> There's another lie. I went on no such rampage. Rob Clark went on a
> rampage. I say you're lying. It is this sort of black PR lying that
> makes you a goon squadder. You don't just disagree, you lie in order
> to manufacture black propaganda, and in doing so you serve
> Scientology's evil purposes.
>
> >
> >
> >>>If you can't see that, nothing that anyone, Cerridwen included,
can
> >>>say will remove the Gerry-shaped blind from your eyes.
> >>
> >> There. There. Feel better now? Now go give ptsc a slap on the
> >> back and a hug, will you?
>
> >>>What is pathetic is that she *needs* to say it,
> >>
> >> That's what *I* said.
> >>
> >>>to Gerry and, by inference, to you, but what's even more pathetic
is
> >>
> >> Uhhh... Let me guess: That you're dumber than a box of rocks?
> >>
> >
> >Would that I were a box of rocks, without eyes to read Gerry's rambling
> >diatribes.
>
> Let's see some examples of my rambling diatribes. I say you're lying
> for base black PR purposes.
>
> > Alas, I am a human being, and when I see sophistic nonsense
> >touted as deep wisdom, I get cranky enough to post in rebuttal.
>
> Please post an example of this. I say you're lying. You're lying about
> the sophistic nonsense. You're lying about about any touting as deep
> wisdom. And you're lying about any rebuttal you've made. My
> dictionary says of "rebut:" "to contradict, meet or oppose
by formal,
> legal argument, plea or countervailing proof." I say you have never
so
> engaged with me, but have attacked me as a person, and refused to deal
> with my facts and opinions with legal argument or countervailing
> proof.
>
> Here's another opportunity to demonstrate your rebuttal tech. Again,
> just simply present what you call the all too familiar pattern-forming
> posts of mine you say exist where you say I kook out about something,
> some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I fly into a paranoid hissy
> fit, and post 400 line screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that
> bears a remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out
> hippie barflies throughout the ages and across the world. Or, again,
> admit you lied. Your presentation of all of my posts that fit your
> description would constitute a rebuttal.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>It's nice to see that when you run out of actual arguments
> >>
> >> Strawman. I'm not out of arguments by a long shot. In fact,
> >> I've only just started.
> >>
> >
> >Where? Where are these arguments? In this post, the only arguments you
have
> >made are a) I are right, Kady is wrong; b) Kady is just too stupid to
> >realize that I'm right, and she is wrong; and c) No, really, Kady is
dumb
> >as a box of rocks. Oh, and lots of gratuitous uses of the word "strawman",
> >with questionable basis. If you have an actual argument, it's yet to
> >present itself, but since I'm so stupid, perhaps you could frame it in
> >nice, easy words of two syllables or less.
>
> I have provided here actual arguments disputing a number of your
> factual assertions. I have said that you lied, because your factual
> assertions are false. I believe that you know they're false. Now you
> inarguably do, because I've informed you. Now it is up to you to
> provide the evidence that supports your factual assertions or admit
> you lied.
>
> © Gerry Armstrong
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Speaking of factual aeertions and lying, let's take a look at the
Legend-In-His-Own-Delusional-Mind Gerry Armstrong:
On December 6, 1986, Gerry Armstrong signed a settlement with
Scientology for $800,000, in return for a gag order against him.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/settlement-signing.html?FACTNet
In 1997, Gerry violated the gag agreement and was found guilty for
Contempt of Court and sanctioned. Later, he fled the United States for
his native Canada to avoid prosecution.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/warrant-1997-08-06.html
Factual assertion: In 1986, Gerry Armstrong signed a gag order with
Scientology to collect $800,000. He later lied by violating this gag
order. He has consistently lied to countless others in order to
promote his egotistic-driven, self-important legacy as a Scientology
martyr.
In 1999, he deliberately lied and manipulated a woman into an intimate
& sexual relationship for personal purposes, convincing her to destroy
all e-mails to her from him, but later revealing that he kept all her
e-mails.
From: Beverly Rice (dbj1120@mpinet.net)
Subject: Re: Calling Gerry Armstrong
View: Complete Thread (173 articles)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Date: 2003-02-20 16:07:26 PST
Warrior wrote:
> In article <kn3a5vcj6vpll41eqtnutqg91kgk9rbbrg@4ax.com>, ptsc says...
> >I also don't dump women and then mock them over the suicide of their
> >husband, as that dirty fucker Gerry Armstrong has done.
Hey Mark, I figure this may be kind of uncomfortable for you, and
I know that you have said many a time you love Gerry, but I have
stated facts that I know you don't want to see.
I love you as a friend, and like I said, I know your love and your
loyalty for Gerry, but I stand firm on what I know.
It's hard taking the stars out of ones eyes.
> Gerry in fact did not mock Beverly over the suicide of her husband.
Yes, it was not really a "mock" . . .
it was a direct, ~covert~ low blow. I know Gerry in that way a
lot better than you do.
But something ~THAT~ low I will not sit back and lick wounds
on . . .
I will expose it openly, and that is exactly what I did.
> His words regarding the heads of the hydra in fact referred to the
> corporate octopus known as Scientology. Gerry explained this back
> on April 11, 2002 in his post "Re: CLamelon Challenge No. 3 (or is
> that 4?)".
I will put the entire post up for people to read, and it is
up to them to see what they want to see.
You know me, what they choose to think is their own business,
to each their own.
I just want you to know that no matter where it goes from here,
I love you as a friend . . . but I already know that I have the
short end of this stick with you <g>.
Fact is, Gerry is a covert little asshole, and all would have
been fine if he had not pulled this super boner, but I have no
intention of sitting back and taking it . . .
and he knows very well I am happy to wait for his "re-emergence".
This post I made still stands as truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Beverly Rice (dbj1120@mpinet.net)
Subject: Re: THE REAL GERRY ARMSTRONG (repost)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Date: 2002-11-18 20:14:23 PST
Gerry Armstrong wrote:
> Just to set the record straight about what follows, Beverly Rice
> completely misinterpreted something I wrote back in April this year,
> took it in a personal way that was unrelated to the way it was
> intended, made a connection which didn't exist, and used it as a
> certainty from which to attack me.
No I didn't, you are a liar, as much as you will try to spin it, I
am very well aware of your covertness . . .
I know why you were picked as being Intel Ops in Co$ for Hubbard,
you are very clever, just as Co$ is very clever until they are
made known.
Your added, unnecessary remark at the end of a post to me in a
thread you made about yourself ~was~ directed as a stab intended
to hurt deep.
You can play ignorant for others.
The fact is that over the two and a half years our "friendship"
spanned shortly after my husbands suicide, when I was still
really messed up and incredibly vulnerable .
I shared with you in absolute detail my inner most thoughts,
and the details of my therapy, among many other most personal
aspects of my life, because, as you said . . .
you cared, and we had a special relationship.
One of the things I shared with you, ~explicitly~ . . .
was how everyday statements that are made quite commonly,
such as "I need that like a hole in the head", or "putting a
gun to his/her head", or "just shoot me", or ~anything~ that
had to do with shooting heads, would totally cave me in.
That was explicitly stated to you, and talked about severally.
Your added, unnecessary remark at the end of a post to me when
I was calling you out about making the CST issue about you:
"Oh, and don't go shooting at the heads of the people trying to do
what
you think is this most important thing to do."
was a deliberate jab, and was intentional, and you can't play
ignorant, and I won't let you because we both know better.
I know what you pretend to be now, but I also know that you
are still Intel in your heart.
And while we are on that subject, let me tell you another
HubTOADian/Co$ action that you took that has been decried
by many others regarding Co$ tactics as being one of the
worst . . .
and this is the one that I am most disgusted at where you
are concerned.
You were upset when you saw I had saved a few of the e-mails
you sent me, I normally do not keep e-mails after I receive
them, but destroy them, but these were just a couple of
ones that were little jokes between us or a little mushy . .
but you asked me to delete them, you know, "just in case I
get raided" by the Co$, they won't be in my computer, so I
did . . .
it's called "respect for another human being".
But then, in one of our last conversations . .
you made a call to me, and out of the blue you tell me that
you have kept every communication and everything I have ever
sent to you over that long period of time of trust and of
confidence . .
things that Co$ would love to have on me, and things that
would be absolutely devastating to my life . . .
and informed me that you had turned them into a "collection"
of me.
In other words, you did not give me the same consideration
and respect that you demanded for your own self . . .
but then again the truth of the matter is no matter what you
pretend to be now, you ~are~ Intel at heart . . .
and it's a good thing to have complete write-ups of the most
intimate portions of a persons life for your files, isn't it?
You know, something gained along the lines of some words that
were posted on ARS not too long ago that went:
"Scientology's retention of a person's records fraudulently obtained
by the creation of a relationship of "trust" is an excellent issue."
Maybe you feel that only refers to Co$, and not to you when
you do the exact same action.
Except I know better than to ask for my "records" back.
As a matter of fact, I don't even want them back, but would like
the same courtesy from you that you received from me, just destroy
and delete them from existance.
But I know better, I know you won't, because I know you ~can't~ . . .
and I know that you ~don't~ give others the same respect you
receive for yourself, unless they toe the line with you without
question.
For that one action alone, of turning me in to a "collection" that
you keep of my most personal life and my deepest thoughts and
emotions, and the most tragic and secret things of my life . .
******************************************************************************
i call you scum.
And you ~are~ a liar. Try to spin this any other way you wish . . .
*******************************************************************************
you are ~NOT~ a "Man of God" . . .
you're not even a man . . .
you've always had to depend on finding a strong woman to be your
"left nut" for you.
You are a fraud, and you are every bit as much a con man as
Hubbard was . . .
just with a much smaller following .
Yeh, I know, you are working on that.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Con-Artist,
Beverly
Later, Gerry collected $100,000 from Bob Minton and has since fled his
native Canada for residence in Germany.
So, Gerry, where do you get off calling Kristi or anyone else a liar
when you are a known liar, manipulator, a romantic that enjoys conning
women then dumping them, saving emails for potential future use of
blackmail, and spinning your web of lies to induce Bob Minton for a
$100,000 payoff when you spent all the $800G Scientology gave you?
Your number is up, Strawman. Not even your PR agent, Warrior, can help
you now. Enjoy living the life of a coward and a liar in Germany.