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

 
 
 
 

 

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=k40v9ucmfnta71j9grn7ds4f1du3srv6tn% 404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

From: Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong @telus.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: McPherson litigation.TR-3ing Claire (was: Disgusted)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:49:25 -0800
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 249
Message-ID: <k40v9ucmfnta71j9grn7ds4f1du3srv6tn@4ax.com>
References: <MPG.17053955855ab6ad9897f7@news2.lightlink.com> < a7g9ub01j5a@drn.newsguy.com> <3c9bdf43@news2.lightlink.com> <g22r9uk42et4spsgs0os7b92v49446sajp @4ax.com> <a7l33f02bk7@drn.newsguy.com> <3c9e2038@news2.lightlink.com> < c4ls9uoiumd42qf6b8st4tnuj3ar7kvogf@4ax.com> <efish22-31F316.16362024032002@aurora.lightlink.com> <3c9e9f65 @news2.lightlink.com> <efish22-EBFBDD.23025824032002@aurora.lightlink.com> <3c9f6f2c @news2.lightlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.232.125.58
X-Original-Trace: 25 Mar 2002 15:52:43 -0500, 216.232.125.58


On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:43:12 -0600, "Fluffygirl"
<amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>"ef" <efish22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:efish22-EBFBDD.23025824032002@aurora.lightlink.com...
>> In article <3c9e9f65@news2.lightlink.com>,
>> "Fluffygirl" <amafluffygirl@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "ef" <efish22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:efish22-31F316.16362024032002@aurora.lightlink.com...
>> > > In article <c4ls9uoiumd42qf6b8st4tnuj3ar7kvogf @4ax.com>,
>> > > Gerry Armstrong <gerryarmstrong@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Not true. You do not know me and, judging by what you posted to and
about me
>> > last year, your evaluations and analysis of me (and perhaps other
things) is
>> > constituted of your personal speculations and opinions projected and
>> > purported to be fact.
>>
>> oh boohoo.
>
>No boo-hoo about it.
>
>> so i thought you would never leave the organization. and you
>> did indeed leave the organization.
>
>I'd already walked away from CofS at that point and was already making it
>known that I was inactive with the church.

Claire tells such whoppers. For reasons I leave to Claire to invent,
she "confuses" being "in the church" with being a member of one
corporate entity or another.

She calls this mental "tech" "differentiating" and "justifies" using
it with the Hubbard idea that "differentiating" is a superior mental
activity to any mental activity anyone "not differentiating," like
wogs (R), had happening.

What forms Scientology the church are Scientologists. This is, as
Claire knows, the "group." The third dynamic. She pretends it isn't,
and that some other "group" is the group. Scientology is the group.
Anything outside of Scientology is the wogworld. (R) Claire insists
she is not in the wogworld (R) but is in Scientology. Scientologists
inhabiting Scientology also call their "philosophy" Scientology. That
is what Claire also does.

Claire is a Scientologist. She can stop being a Scientologist simply
by stating, and honestly meaning obviously, "I am a wog (R)," but she
maintains that she has not done so and will not do so, thus she is a
member of the church, or group, or body of "believers."

She is, or is pretending to be, what I've metaphorized (read my latest
"novel" "The Poor Claires of Scientology) as a wild hair on the
Scientology body. She may not lie nice and straight with the rest of
the hairs lying there but she's still a part of them, still a part of
the body. Still a member of the group. The group is the "church,"
although, since the group is really in form and action a criminal
conspiracy, the use of the term "church" or "religion" by the members
of this criminal enterprise is really a bit of a bad joke.

>
>It was already old news, in a way. You'd already made up your mind about
>some things and were, of course, incorrect.

I would bet against you in this one, Claire, without having clue one
what it's about. You have shown yourself to me to consistently lie,
including consistently lying about utterly irrelevant things. You are
an agent and representative of Scientology, both the "philosophy" and
the "group." I will bet that you're lying, and that you will never
produce evidence to prove otherwsie. You are then an example of the
terrible communication, logic and trustworthiness skills Scientology
sells to and enforces in its members.

>
>They didn't even apply to me before I'd walked away.
>
>Or to the many CofS members who lurk here who might, if some of the people
>here didn't act so rudely

That's just you lying again, Claire. And very cruel of you. You
generate rudeness, attack excellent, well-meaning and well-thinking
wogs (R) with your rudeness, and your extremely rude dirty mouth, and
your rude threats and your rude and nasty denial of all reason. And
then you say that your fellow cultists don't come here because of
_wogs'_ (R) rudeness. How rude.

>and if those same people really DID want to
>discuss anything other than personalities, might actually start dialoguing
>and changing their minds, a bit, as I have done and as a couple others have
>apparently done.

Dialoguing? Good one, Claire. Imagine that all your clear and present
desperation is what you got out of Scientology. It gave you such
complete uncertainty (relate that to knowledge) and left you
desperate. You're so desperate to avoid dialogue you've plonked me.
You're so desperate you tell silly lies, and babble, and snip and
rabbit. Little Fluffytail. Isn't that Easterish.

(c) Gerry Armstrong

>
>> but claire... in fact you never did
>> leave scientology, the belief system, that is. and your faith in said
>> belief system informs every one of your postings. i wasn't all that
>> wrong.
>
>I never said I wasn't a Scn'ist.
>
>Or that I'd stop being one. But it does not change the speculations you made
>and the veracity of same (or lack thereof).
>
>Feel free to pull up those exchanges again, if you're so inclined.
>
>
>> "faith" is not condusive to intellectually valid dialogue.
>
>I'm just a girl posting on an ng.
>
>So what.
>
>And in any case I do not generally use my beliefs as arguments or debate
>tactics.
>
>Those who think that I do are just projecting.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > and then, also, you both view yourself as adherents of your respective
>> > > ahm, philosophies... but hey, them there (ahm) philosophies hardly
>> > > qualify as such.
>> >
>> > We all have our opinions.
>>
>> certainly. "what's true for you". well, that's crap. if one professes
>> an opinion one should be prepared to back said opinion up with factual
>> research.
>
>This is a discussion group. I discuss things.
>
>I don't have to do anything.
>
>I frequently make reference to errors, abuses, and other negatives in both
>the organization and in Hubbard himself. Sometimes I back these up with
>references, sometimes not. Either way, I don't hear any critic complaining
>that I've done so. They tend not to complain when what I write is
>negative.Or to ask for research.
>
>Some people only want research, studies and so forth when the points of view
>expressed are those with which they do not agree. The ones they already
>accept- well, those- these particular individuals often waive proof,
>studies, etc. (So obviously asking for such is a deflectionary tactic)
>
>Either way, doesn't matter.
>
>This is a discussion group. I discuss things. As do others.
>
>Lots of opinions here. Most of the time represented as such.
>
>
>> > > your dialogue (or lack thereof) is kinda fun to watch and ponder...
>> > > you're both perfectly nice people...
>> >
>> > Your judgment and assessment of me is irrelevant and is off-base just as
it
>> > was last year.
>>
>> obviously, you resent my assessment. but that matters not to me. i post
>> rarely. and only when i have something to say. whether you like it or
>> not is irrelevant.
>
>It's relevant to me, of course. If you don't like my commenting on this,
>then don't discuss *me*.
>
>>
>> what you seem to find so very bothersome is that i equate you with
>> gerry. heh... ironically, i suspect that he too would find that
>> bothersome. to be equated with you.
>
>We are entirely dissimilar individuals.
>
>Which is obvious.
>
>>
>> but you guys are very alike. boinking eachother on the head with them
>> there 4 foot, gas inflated, balloons.
>
>Dunno what you mean. I'm done with him.
>
>So at least one of us has moved on.
>
>You, on the other hand, are addressing personalities rather than the subject
>content of this ng.
>
>> > Therefore, I shall "consider the source" (no pun intended) re this post
as
>> > I've done all along with your gratuitous, specious and speculative posts
>> > about me.
>>
>>
>> i bug you, don't i claire.
>
>No. I do not know you.
>
>I just had some thoughts on your post, is all.
>
>Remember, this is usenet.
>
>> i make you angry,
>
>Not particularly. Should you be?
>
>don't i. well then, stop
>> fluffing around claire and wake up and smell the... whatever. your
>> balloon has a leak in it.
>
>Oh gee, what was that about backing up opinions with research? In this case,
>we don't even get specifics.
>
>Oh wait- it must just be rhetoric.
>
>I see.
>
>>
>> i repeat:
>>
>> "faith" is not condusive to intellectually valid dialogue.
>
>This is a discussion group. There are all kinds of people-including myself-
>posting opinions here.
>
>Feel free to digest that information.And while you're at it, feel free to
>apply your own suggestions to your own posts which you've not yet done.
>
>Bored now.
>
>Into the bozo bin you go.
>
>**plonk**
>
>C
>
>
>


 
 

Thread

 

 

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