> > > > > > On 5 Nov, 04:28, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > No answer? This is the third thread in a row where you got answers > > > > > > > time and time again. Where you are exposed to be a dumbass that > > > > > > > doesn't read and ignore the answers, to subsequently state: "You have > > > > > > > no answers". > > > > > > > You are sick, Michel.
> > > > > > You don't actually know who I am... For the other it is interesting to > > > > > > see that you have very little imagination, you AGAIN use MY words. I > > > > > > called you a sick person, all you can do, is copy, copy, and copy...
> > > > > > RR
> > > > > I have an idea, and you wouldn't like it. > > > > > But I do know what you are: a sick, twisting, manipulative, lying, > > > > > degrading, invalidating person that constantly applies double > > > > > standards.
> > > > > And when playing ball, you should expect it coming back to you.
> > > > Fact remains that ALL you can do is copy, copy and copy. On your site > > > > we find basically nothing from you, you just c.o.p.i.e.d...
> > > That doesn't change the fact that you are: a sick, twisting, > > > manipulative, lying, degrading, invalidating person that constantly > > > applies double standards.
> > > > You will be judged by your products...
> > > > RR
> > > ORLY?
> > > Peter
> > > "You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you > > > mocked up your past lives. > > > Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology. > > > L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no > > > uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the > > > bridge. > > > He even told you he was selling you a bridge." > > > - Ladybird
> > He has 23 hours remaining to provide solid, irrefutable proof that I > > said anything that he claimed or he is now and forever a liar. > > Ticktock, Michel. Links or GTFO, failtroll.
> Trust me: He won't present anything but the usual defamations, > degrading, invalidations, opinions, assumptions and lies. He always > does. > And re his messages not showing: Now he all of a sudden is a computer > expert too? > In all those years I never experienced that messages didn't show. And > checking, I found he DID respond to these so called not appearing > messages. Must be his genius that he however could. Or his OT > abilities. LOL!
> Peter
> "You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you > mocked up your past lives. > Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology. > L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no > uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the > bridge. > He even told you he was selling you a bridge." > - Ladybird
Its quite simple. He assumes I am "deviated" and is looking for my "crimes". He makes up what seems plausible, then backpedals when I prove him to be a lying moron.
On 7 Nov, 05:04, "Voltaire's Child" <Voltaires_Ch...@ymail.com> wrote:
> And the score is...
> Kat: 76 trillion
> RR: negative 0
Do I have to remind you that Spaetraveler got you effectively cornered quite a while back.
Supporting Kat also means you support her beliefsystem and mind outset. Drugging children, yeah, very nice, very nice indeed... Want some ECT, here ya go...
You just showed that you are NO better than her... :0]
> > > > > > Alright, various responses didn't show in my browser, now thye all do. > > > > > > My rmessages are not bulshit posts though. But yours can be noted for > > > > > > their ignorance.
> > > > > > RR
> > > > > Yeah, right. And all we have for this lame excuse is your word.
> > > > > Peter
> > > > Lying, manipulating and rumouring follow you in your tracks, in fact > > > > one of your hero's, St. Gerry, has a reputation of being a > > > > pathological liar, therefore we may safely disregard from your > > > > utterances...
> > > > RR
> > > Yeah, right. But it is YOU who has been exposed to be a liar, Michel. > > > And it is well documented here on ARS. > > > So, the only reason you keep pulling in Gerry Armstrong is to divert > > > from that fact. > > > Even your 11,000+ words article on your website doesn't PROVE Gerry > > > Armstrong is a liar, only ASSUMES he is.
> "You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you > mocked up your past lives. > Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology. > L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no > uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the > bridge. > He even told you he was selling you a bridge." > - Ladybird
> > > "Therefore we may safely disregard from your utterances..." > > > Yes, we may, Michel, disregard from YOUR utterances.
> > > Peter
> > > "You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you > > > mocked up your past lives. > > > Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology. > > > L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no > > > uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the > > > bridge. > > > He even told you he was selling you a bridge." > > > - Ladybird
> > > > > > > On 5 Nov, 04:28, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > No answer? This is the third thread in a row where you got answers > > > > > > > > time and time again. Where you are exposed to be a dumbass that > > > > > > > > doesn't read and ignore the answers, to subsequently state: "You have > > > > > > > > no answers". > > > > > > > > You are sick, Michel.
> > > > > > > You don't actually know who I am... For the other it is interesting to > > > > > > > see that you have very little imagination, you AGAIN use MY words. I > > > > > > > called you a sick person, all you can do, is copy, copy, and copy...
> > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > I have an idea, and you wouldn't like it. > > > > > > But I do know what you are: a sick, twisting, manipulative, lying, > > > > > > degrading, invalidating person that constantly applies double > > > > > > standards.
> > > > > > And when playing ball, you should expect it coming back to you.
> > > > > Fact remains that ALL you can do is copy, copy and copy. On your site > > > > > we find basically nothing from you, you just c.o.p.i.e.d...
> > > > That doesn't change the fact that you are: a sick, twisting, > > > > manipulative, lying, degrading, invalidating person that constantly > > > > applies double standards.
> > > > > You will be judged by your products...
> > > > > RR
> > > > ORLY?
> > > > Peter
> > > > "You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you > > > > mocked up your past lives. > > > > Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology. > > > > L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no > > > > uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the > > > > bridge. > > > > He even told you he was selling you a bridge." > > > > - Ladybird
> > > He has 23 hours remaining to provide solid, irrefutable proof that I > > > said anything that he claimed or he is now and forever a liar. > > > Ticktock, Michel. Links or GTFO, failtroll.
> > Trust me: He won't present anything but the usual defamations, > > degrading, invalidations, opinions, assumptions and lies. He always > > does. > > And re his messages not showing: Now he all of a sudden is a computer > > expert too? > > In all those years I never experienced that messages didn't show. And > > checking, I found he DID respond to these so called not appearing > > messages. Must be his genius that he however could. Or his OT > > abilities. LOL!
> > Peter
> > "You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you > > mocked up your past lives. > > Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology. > > L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no > > uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the > > bridge. > > He even told you he was selling you a bridge." > > - Ladybird
> Its quite simple. He assumes I am "deviated" and is looking for my > "crimes". He makes up what seems plausible, then backpedals when I > prove him to be a lying moron.
How nice, the conspirators chatting... As I said, ALL you and the Peter robot can do is try to convince readers by statement ALONE...
On 7 Nov, 04:46, Kat <ladyas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm starting a tally. At this point, I have not yet read your reply. I > have the reply box open and I will type as I read through your posts. > If you:
> * meet or pass personal attack #15 > * cannot respond to all of my questions with actual data or theory > that does not depend on personal attack > * cannot prove with links to previous posts ANYTHING you claim I said
> .. you will have 24 hours to provide links or validly respond to data > WITH data or you are forever proven an ignorant liar. At that point, > you will return to my kill file and you lose ALL RIGHT to claim I ran > or lied, because you cannot prove yourself to be a mature, ethical, > intelligent or even a capable researcher.
My research is published, free to verify by all, you on the other hand show nothing... Sorry girl, my research qualities have been repeatedly fully acknowledged by people much more intelligent and honest than you.
You LIED having researched in the subject of Scientology with proper research critieria.
> On Nov 6, 7:28 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can't dig up something you don't have... the least you could have > > done is recall from memory whcih adequately would show that indeed you > > had properly researched. Considering your revelations you have > > performed nothing that could be considered honest and proper > > research...
> You have no proof that I did not do research. I gave arguments that > were in my research without digging up my notebooks and wasting my > time typing it up for you. I even gave data from my research, which > you aknolwedged I did I might add, then afterwards claim I did > nothing. Personal attack #1
You have failed to apply proper research criteria. Anything you have jotted down can be quickly taken from Wikipedia or your YouTube hero. In fact you made the very same mistake as this YouTube character of yours...
> > >I did so. You now > > > try and call that hero worship? You are seriously deranged. You cannot > > > contest the fact that my knowledge was NOT limited to what 13 > > > mentioned in his video, so you try and dismiss anything I say as > > > improper research. Why? Because you cannot contest the facts > > > themselves, only slam the person stating them.
> > This has been addressed and countered. You used Wikipedia and your > > YouTube hero. You fall here into your own trap as you reveal, and this > > so very very clearly, that you have not understood what proper > > research is about. That what you argue is simply a joke in regards to > > research critieria...
> It hasn't been countered :P You would very much like for it to be so, > but I mention things NOT stated in wiki but I did cut and paste from > there in my reply to you to save time. Source was cited, link > provided, and OTHER LINKS ANS INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT GIVEN. No > matter how you try and attack me, no matter how you try and manipulate > it, you were wrong and are attempting to cover your ass with personal > attacks. Personal attack #2
You will deny anything, whatever it may be... You can't proclaim victory by your statement alone. You again expose yourself here. You take from Wikipedia, you in fact admit that. You are a REPEATER and COPYIST...
> > > > > > The matter of 'how people can mock up past lives' is entirely > > > > > > irrelevant.
> > > > > Actually it is VERY relevant as, you put it, the book is just a > > > > > collection of incidents reported in session. If scientology is REALLY > > > > > allowing people to revisit events on thier time track that gave them > > > > > an engram, a faked session based on the auditee's imagination (and > > > > > provided for the sake of having some kind of result) would be > > > > > important for new auditors to analyze so they could learn to tell the > > > > > difference between real and fake. Imo it's all fake, but there are > > > > > some people who believe in it, so understanding that not every result > > > > > is going to be genuine IS important.
> > > > You don't get it, it got nothing to do with real or fake... but be my > > > > guest, continue to bang your head on that wall...
> > > No, you are the one who doesn't get it. Someone sat there and pulled > > > something out of their ass in a session.
> > I actually own photocopies of the original LRH auditing sessions as we > > see them in edited and transcribed form in 'Dianetics Today'. This > > just came to mind, as the only one that is pulling things out of his > > ass is you. (hate your rude language)
> I treat you how you treat me. Remember RR, I have admitted that I > enjoy treating you as you treat others then watching you WHINE like a > small child about it afterwards. Personal attack #3
Again you were asked for your research in matters, again you fail to provide for it... We have no data concerning you having understood the essense of auditing.
> > >Those sessions are supposed > > > to be theraputic, due to the session "identifying" the sources of > > > people's problems (engrams). If they make up the content of their > > > sessions based on their misconceptions of history, HOW can those > > > sessions be theraputic at all?
> > This is because you haven't researched ANYTHING. You just jot down > > your prejudices and plain opinion...
> Personal attack, not an answer to my question. #4
Delusional, in the above here it can be clearly seen you perform NO research, you just assume a lot of things.
> > I am amazed by your displayed ignorance. You haven't listened to a > > word I said about the story and purpose of this ms. 'What to Audit'. > > You are either ignorant or plain stupid.
> Personal attack, not an answer to my question. #5
It has been explained in detail repeatedly, but you are simply in total denial.
> > Girl, 'misconeption of history' got NOTHING to do with it. You again > > marvelously display that you HAVE NOT A CLUE AF THE ESSENSE AND > > PURPOSE OF AUDITING PROCESSES.
> Personal attack, not an answer to my question. I am giving you a > chance to share your knowledge, but alas, all you seem to be capable > of is attacking me. #6
If you have understood auditing essenses, then you can account for these. If you fail to address issues properly, we have to assume that you have not understood.
> > Why do you twist anything and everything? You repeatedly claim to know > > better than me, and have nothing proper to show for it.
> More personal attacks in response to me pointing out you made a > mountain out of a molehill. #7
A very true observation of mine, you STATED that you were no expert, and still display the behaviour knowing matters better than me, but fail to account for it.
> > > > > > Pretty much so. Check the magazines form that time addressing these > > > > > > topics.
> > > > > Yes because the print media represents EVERY possible opinion on the > > > > > matter. /eyeroll Oh wait, you only cite television as your sources > > > > > about psychiatry (sources other than personal experiences) so it > > > > > doesn't surprise me you believe everything you read, either.
> > > > You are making up things here, your claim about only citing television > > > > is false.
> > > I'll dig out a link to what you claimed later, I only have a few > > > minutes to respond to this.
> > > > > > I don't think I have to do that. For one it is a very plausible > > > > > > assumption also because Piltdown was under scrutiny at that time, and > > > > > > thus in the news.
> > > > > So the fraud was in the news prior or was not? Which is it?
> > > > You try to mix 2 diffrent issues on this matter, you are twisting > > > > again. See, a proper researcher does not display this behaviour and > > > > manipulation attempts.
> > > Actually I'm mimicking your behavior again with this statement, so its > > > amusing you would say that.
> > Attempt to distract...
> Nope, I pointed out your behavior, which you attempt to do to me. > Filing this as well under "personal attack" #8
The matter is that you mixed 2 unrelated aspects of the matter, and when I point out that you ignore to account for that, you immediately regard that as 'personal attack', yeah right...
> > > Too bad you are holding the reflective part of the mirror to > > > yourself.
> > The blind will make up anything and then convince themself they see...
> And you accuse ME of twisting :P Number 9
> > > A proper researcher will discuss evidence and not just attack the > > > credibility of the presenter. You fail to discuss fact time and again, > > > and make your stance solely on personal attacks.
> > If you quote Jesus out of context, man will have another justified > > reason to crucify Him, when he once again will appear this day...
> The context was presented in that audio clip. Its quite a lengthy one. > Hubbard said a lot of.. well... bizarre and unscientific things. More > science fiction than science fact.
You again fail to address matters in a scientific and researched manner... you just make general claims. We can only conclude that you have seriously misunderstood matters.
> > > > And your point is, hmmm... what exactly?
> > > That Hubbard was an idiot, and so are you.
> > You explain your no-understanding with nasty comments... grand > > research, but it is your usual type of 'research'...
> > See, you can not even discuss the matter... :0]
> Actually I provided the context in which those things were said. They > still looked utterly absurd. You attack me then complain when I attack > you back... this dance is getting boring.
Again, you FAIL to discuss the matter itself!!!!! Is this your research???? It does not suffice with quoting some additional context, you have to EVALUATE and DISCUSS matters....
> On 7 Nov, 05:04, "Voltaire's Child" <Voltaires_Ch...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > And the score is...
> > Kat: 76 trillion
> > RR: negative 0
> Do I have to remind you that Spaetraveler got you effectively cornered > quite a while back.
> Supporting Kat also means you support her beliefsystem and mind > outset. Drugging children, yeah, very nice, very nice indeed... Want > some ECT, here ya go...
> You just showed that you are NO better than her... :0]
> RR
I hope you do realize that your way of answering is extremely childish. "But X cornered you a while ago!". And anybody should take ypouseriously!? LOL! You keep insisting that Kat supports drugging children. Everybody but you have read a dozen times by now what her answer was to that ridiculous accusation. That makes you a manipulative liar and a propagandist. She also explained ECT to you: Are you too stupid to understand her explanations? More propaganda indeed.
No, Michel, she is even better than YOU. Your moves her become more and more pathetic. However: Feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.
> > > > > > > Alright, various responses didn't show in my browser, now thye all do. > > > > > > > My rmessages are not bulshit posts though. But yours can be noted for > > > > > > > their ignorance.
> > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > Yeah, right. And all we have for this lame excuse is your word.
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > Lying, manipulating and rumouring follow you in your tracks, in fact > > > > > one of your hero's, St. Gerry, has a reputation of being a > > > > > pathological liar, therefore we may safely disregard from your > > > > > utterances...
> > > > > RR
> > > > Yeah, right. But it is YOU who has been exposed to be a liar, Michel. > > > > And it is well documented here on ARS. > > > > So, the only reason you keep pulling in Gerry Armstrong is to divert > > > > from that fact. > > > > Even your 11,000+ words article on your website doesn't PROVE Gerry > > > > Armstrong is a liar, only ASSUMES he is.
> > > > > > > > On 5 Nov, 04:28, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > No answer? This is the third thread in a row where you got answers > > > > > > > > > time and time again. Where you are exposed to be a dumbass that > > > > > > > > > doesn't read and ignore the answers, to subsequently state: "You have > > > > > > > > > no answers". > > > > > > > > > You are sick, Michel.
> > > > > > > > You don't actually know who I am... For the other it is interesting to > > > > > > > > see that you have very little imagination, you AGAIN use MY words. I > > > > > > > > called you a sick person, all you can do, is copy, copy, and copy...
> > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > I have an idea, and you wouldn't like it. > > > > > > > But I do know what you are: a sick, twisting, manipulative, lying, > > > > > > > degrading, invalidating person that constantly applies double > > > > > > > standards.
> > > > > > > And when playing ball, you should expect it coming back to you.
> > > > > > Fact remains that ALL you can do is copy, copy and copy. On your site > > > > > > we find basically nothing from you, you just c.o.p.i.e.d...
> > > > > That doesn't change the fact that you are: a sick, twisting, > > > > > manipulative, lying, degrading, invalidating person that constantly > > > > > applies double standards.
> > > > > > You will be judged by your products...
> > > > > > RR
> > > > > ORLY?
> > > > > Peter
> > > > > "You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you > > > > > mocked up your past lives. > > > > > Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology. > > > > > L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no > > > > > uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the > > > > > bridge. > > > > > He even told you he was selling you a bridge." > > > > > - Ladybird
> > > > He has 23 hours remaining to provide solid, irrefutable proof that I > > > > said anything that he claimed or he is now and forever a liar. > > > > Ticktock, Michel. Links or GTFO, failtroll.
> > > Trust me: He won't present anything but the usual defamations, > > > degrading, invalidations, opinions, assumptions and lies. He always > > > does. > > > And re his messages not showing: Now he all of a sudden is a computer > > > expert too? > > > In all those years I never experienced that messages didn't show. And > > > checking, I found he DID respond to these so called not appearing > > > messages. Must be his genius that he however could. Or his OT > > > abilities. LOL!
> > > Peter
> > > "You mocked up your own reactive mind, you mocked up your BTs and you > > > mocked up your past lives. > > > Those ARE the EPs (End Phenomenons) of scientology. > > > L. Ron Hubbard told you so. This is what you are paying for, in no > > > uncertain terms. Hubbard makes it very clear all the way "UP" the > > > bridge. > > > He even told you he was selling you a bridge." > > > - Ladybird
> > Its quite simple. He assumes I am "deviated" and is looking for my > > "crimes". He makes up what seems plausible, then backpedals when I > > prove him to be a lying moron.
> How nice, the conspirators chatting... As I said, ALL you and the > Peter robot can do is try to convince readers by statement ALONE...
> RR
But does that change the fact that you are a manipulative, twisting liar, proved, documented and all? No. It doesn't change the facts at all, Michel.
> On 7 Nov, 05:04, "Voltaire's Child" <Voltaires_Ch...@ymail.com> wrote: >> And the score is...
>> Kat: 76 trillion
>> RR: negative 0
> Do I have to remind you that Spaetraveler got you effectively cornered > quite a while back.
No, cuz it never happened. I answered your- oh, excuse me, I meant "Spacetraveller"'s (wink wink) questions, every single one, then I killfiled him for rudeness. Much bitching has ensued ever since.
I see your m.o. has not changed.
> Supporting Kat also means you support her beliefsystem and mind > outset. Drugging children, yeah, very nice, very nice indeed... Want > some ECT, here ya go...
I'm not against psychiatry or psychology as an en masse general thing. There are different practices in those fields and there are different situations for different people. There are things of which I don't approve but I don't let that lead me to a wholesale damnation of the entire non Scn mental health field.
And, no, even if I didn't feel that way, supporting Kat wouldn't automatically mean I supported psychiatry. I just happen to like Kat very much. I like her, I think you're a dick, it's all good.
> You just showed that you are NO better than her... :0]
On 7 nov, 14:49, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have a fulltime job attacking something you don't approve of, > isn't that wasting time??? What kind of people do that?????
> RR
Pardon? This thread you started was only intended to attack. And now you accuse others of doing what you started with? By the way, I read your response. All I have to say about it is: You prove again to be a manipulative, twisting liar, proved, documented and all, and you yourself have contributed to it time after time. Good job, Michel!
> On 7 Nov, 04:46, Kat <ladyas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I'm starting a tally. At this point, I have not yet read your reply. I > > have the reply box open and I will type as I read through your posts. > > If you:
> > * meet or pass personal attack #15 > > * cannot respond to all of my questions with actual data or theory > > that does not depend on personal attack > > * cannot prove with links to previous posts ANYTHING you claim I said
> > .. you will have 24 hours to provide links or validly respond to data > > WITH data or you are forever proven an ignorant liar. At that point, > > you will return to my kill file and you lose ALL RIGHT to claim I ran > > or lied, because you cannot prove yourself to be a mature, ethical, > > intelligent or even a capable researcher.
> My research is published, free to verify by all, you on the other hand > show nothing... Sorry girl, my research qualities have been > repeatedly fully acknowledged by people much more intelligent and > honest than you.
> You LIED having researched in the subject of Scientology with proper > research critieria.
Sorry, that was not the appropriate response to my request. You see, you made some rather big claims about things I have said... when I never have. It is up to you to prove these claims that you made by posting a link to where I have supposedly said the things you claimed. Burden of proof falls to the accuser. Show ARS some proof or you are proven to be a lying propagandist.
You see, you have this lovely habit of answering valid questions and data with personal attack. If you want to be taken seriously, you could try answering questions with data, not insults. You could try discussing theory and opinion without being a dick. The conversation has so far, been very one sided.. with me presenting logical, valid arguments and presenting research materials... and you saying "YOU LIE!", "YOU DIDN'T DO RESEARCH" and you slinging insults in response. Not the mark of a scientific mind, RR. That is how small minded children behave.
> > On Nov 6, 7:28 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You can't dig up something you don't have... the least you could have > > > done is recall from memory whcih adequately would show that indeed you > > > had properly researched. Considering your revelations you have > > > performed nothing that could be considered honest and proper > > > research...
> > You have no proof that I did not do research. I gave arguments that > > were in my research without digging up my notebooks and wasting my > > time typing it up for you. I even gave data from my research, which > > you aknolwedged I did I might add, then afterwards claim I did > > nothing. Personal attack #1
> You have failed to apply proper research criteria. Anything you have > jotted down can be quickly taken from Wikipedia or your YouTube hero. > In fact you made the very same mistake as this YouTube character of > yours...
You keep insisting that, but you never answer my question. Do you think it is impossible for two people to look at something, examine it, and come to similar conclusions without ever talking to each other about their opinions? Apparently, you DO thinks this.
> > It hasn't been countered :P You would very much like for it to be so, > > but I mention things NOT stated in wiki but I did cut and paste from > > there in my reply to you to save time. Source was cited, link > > provided, and OTHER LINKS ANS INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT GIVEN. No > > matter how you try and attack me, no matter how you try and manipulate > > it, you were wrong and are attempting to cover your ass with personal > > attacks. Personal attack #2
> You will deny anything, whatever it may be... You can't proclaim > victory by your statement alone. You again expose yourself here. You > take from Wikipedia, you in fact admit that. You are a REPEATER and > COPYIST...
I will deny what you say because you are a documented liar. You demanded existing data online, then slam me for it. In the real world, we call that "entrapment". Do not ask for something so that you can bash people for it later. You try so very hard to attack me here I will again start counting personal attacks. I believe this to be number 3 so far.
> > I treat you how you treat me. Remember RR, I have admitted that I > > enjoy treating you as you treat others then watching you WHINE like a > > small child about it afterwards. Personal attack #3
> Again you were asked for your research in matters, again you fail to > provide for it... We have no data concerning you having understood the > essense of auditing.
You owning photocopies of documents doesn't make you an expert on anything. It just means you own something and have an opinion on it. You have failed to answer many of my questions regarding scientology, so I am inclined to think that you are not an expert, but an opinionated blowhard.
> > Personal attack, not an answer to my question. #4
> Delusional, in the above here it can be clearly seen you perform NO > research, you just assume a lot of things.
A personal attack is not an answer to a question. I was asking your opinion as to how sessions can be theraputic, to help rid people of their problems, when it amounts to someone playing fantasyland while in session. You answered me with an insult, and insult me again when I point out that you didn't answer me. Are you incapable of giving even an opinion without being a jerk first? Personal attack # 4. HAH, I'm detecting a trend here...
> > > I am amazed by your displayed ignorance. You haven't listened to a > > > word I said about the story and purpose of this ms. 'What to Audit'. > > > You are either ignorant or plain stupid.
> > Personal attack, not an answer to my question. #5
> It has been explained in detail repeatedly, but you are simply in > total denial.
Personal attack number 5... , you like being consistent, don't you?
> If you have understood auditing essenses, then you can account for > these. If you fail to address issues properly, we have to assume that > you have not understood.
The essence and purpose of auditing is outlined very clearly in dianetics which I have read repeatedly (much to my chagrin). It is meant to be an alternative to talk therapy, Hubbard says as much himself. I do not understand how telling a story that is entirely fictional can be considered theraputic in terms of isolating and working through problems in someone's life.
> > > Why do you twist anything and everything? You repeatedly claim to know > > > better than me, and have nothing proper to show for it.
> > More personal attacks in response to me pointing out you made a > > mountain out of a molehill. #7
> A very true observation of mine, you STATED that you were no expert, > and still display the behaviour knowing matters better than me, but > fail to account for it.
You claim to be an expert on everything, but fail to provide ANYTHING to prove it. Computers, archaeology, science labs, please to tell me more about yourself because you MUST have several masters degrees by now at least.
You made a big deal out of a typo and claimed it was proof that I didn't know what I was talking about. You make typos all the time, but I do not correct you because they are TYPOS. Everyone makes them, particularly on usenet. Even if I did run my post through a spellchecker, a number certainly isn't going to come up, now is it?
> The matter is that you mixed 2 unrelated aspects of the matter, and > when I point out that you ignore to account for that, you immediately > regard that as 'personal attack', yeah right...
Nope, I did not, you keep missing my ultimate point about Piltdown and try and nitpick over minutia to dismiss a perfectly valid and reasonable question. When I try and pin you down on my question, you go back to slamming over minutia like typos or resort to personal attack.
> > The context was presented in that audio clip. Its quite a lengthy one. > > Hubbard said a lot of.. well... bizarre and unscientific things. More > > science fiction than science fact.
> You again fail to address matters in a scientific and researched > manner... you just make general claims. We can only conclude that you > have seriously misunderstood matters.
Personal attack #6 and your opinion only. I wonder why you will not discuss the actual quotes themselves, just dismiss them out of context. Could it be that YOUR hero is a drug addled psycho who knew nothing of real science and you are embarassed by what he says?
> > > > > And your point is, hmmm... what exactly?
> > > > That Hubbard was an idiot, and so are you.
> > > You explain your no-understanding with nasty comments... grand > > > research, but it is your usual type of 'research'...
> > > See, you can not even discuss the matter... :0]
> > Actually I provided the context in which those things were said. They > > still looked utterly absurd. You attack me then complain when I attack > > you back... this dance is getting boring.
> Again, you FAIL to discuss the matter itself!!!!! Is this your > research???? It does not suffice with quoting some additional context, > you have to EVALUATE and DISCUSS matters....
You fail to discuss the matter itself, answer with personal attack, and then accuse ME of not discussing the quotes in question? Fuck off, personal attack number 7.
> Where is your knowledge of auditing processes displayed?????
Where is YOUR proof that piltdown was the vernacular for all ancient man as you claim? Where is your answer to my questions that would share your "wisdom" on the subject, I see only attack. Humor me, RR, I want your opinion, am ASKING for your opinion, but you seem intent only on
...
On Nov 7, 7:37 am, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Supporting Kat also means you support her beliefsystem and mind > outset. Drugging children, yeah, very nice, very nice indeed... Want > some ECT, here ya go...
> You just showed that you are NO better than her... :0]
> RR
You have yet on any occasion to prove this accusation. At ~11pm last night I demanded that you provide links to where I have said such things within 24 hours. You only have a few hours remaining to provide those links. I could give you an eternity to find such a link, but since it doesn't exist 24 hours will suffice.
The best you can provide is weak and demented logic based upon your prejudiced notion that I am deviated. You assume that because I speak out against the CCHR and Scientology, that I have crimes, and you are digging yourself a massive hole trying to find them. Silly Roadrunner. You try to bullbait and slander so very hard, but you cannot make a single thing stick.
On Nov 7, 10:45 am, "Voltaire's Child" <Voltaires_Ch...@ymail.com> wrote:
> And, no, even if I didn't feel that way, supporting Kat wouldn't > automatically mean I supported psychiatry. I just happen to like Kat very > much. I like her, I think you're a dick, it's all good.
Dawwww, thanks Claire <3 You are pretty awesome too. :)
I think the little poo monkey is feeling cornered atm. The more agitated he gets, the more insulting he gets, the more he flings poo to try and make it stick so he can make his escape. It is a shame really, that he lacks the mental acuity to actually hit anyone with what he's flinging... so in the end he is covered in shit from his own efforts.
I really must dig through my mythology books again to see if I can find one that describes this fellow. Snot boy was such a good nickname for Hall, there has to be one somewhere about monkeys flinging poo.
> *grabs a bowl of popcorn in anticipation of the entertainment the RR > troll will provide*
Fun isn't it. We troll the Ronbots when we have a spare moment, they are dutifully posting stuff here when they could be out there Keeping Scientology Working. So we Win, they Lose.
Being traitors to Scientology, they have been lying for a decade to Mr David Miscavige, telling him that they are handling ARS. He, being an ignorant high school drop out, can't admit that he knows nothing about the Internet so he has to let them carry on and dare not RPF them.
24 Hours has now come and gone, and surprise surprise no solid proof from Roadrunner. Let it be known for the ages, that he is in fact a lying fuckwit.
On 8 nov, 07:16, Kat <ladyas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> 24 Hours has now come and gone, and surprise surprise no solid proof > from Roadrunner. Let it be known for the ages, that he is in fact a > lying fuckwit.
Which, I gladly add, was already proved months ago. He is unable to deny that.
What we have witnessed is a person that refuses to give straight answers, that avoids to address the issues, falls back to lying, invalidating, manipulating, and claiming to be an expert even where he at the same time shows he is not at all. Will he ever admit it? No. His inflated ego doesn't allow. After all, in his delusional world HE is the only one that is always right, even when it is proved over and over again he is wrong. All he had left was repeating his bullshit over and over again. As this thread has shown.
> On 8 nov, 07:16, Kat <ladyas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > 24 Hours has now come and gone, and surprise surprise no solid proof > > from Roadrunner. Let it be known for the ages, that he is in fact a > > lying fuckwit.
> Which, I gladly add, was already proved months ago. > He is unable to deny that.
> What we have witnessed is a person that refuses to give straight > answers, that avoids to address the issues, falls back to lying, > invalidating, manipulating, and claiming to be an expert even where he > at the same time shows he is not at all. > Will he ever admit it? > No. His inflated ego doesn't allow. After all, in his delusional world > HE is the only one that is always right, even when it is proved over > and over again he is wrong. > All he had left was repeating his bullshit over and over again. As > this thread has shown.
Pretty much, Peter, pretty much. I knew he was already exposed as such, but when a troll decides to pick a fight, well now.. who am I to deny them a verbal beat down >=)
And Hartley, glad someone else understands what I'm doing. I enjoy making trolls waste their time by trolling THEM. It is especially hysterical as short of one or two people on here, no one knows jack shit about me. I am really nothing more than a disembodied collection of words and thoughts with a feminine inflection. No real identity to slam.
I LOVE watching the Ronbots jump to conclusions about who I am and what I'm about (and make fools of themselves in the process). If they are wasting time on lil' ol me, well then, that's less time they have to attack a named critic. It's why I don't wear a mask at protests and pose for the OSA camermen hiding behind bushes trying to get my pic. They won't find me, but they will waste a small fortune trying and that is fucking HYSTERICAL. In the end, the OSA dogs and the trolls try and chase and attack a shadow, and end up biting their own tails.
> On 7 nov, 13:37, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 05:04, "Voltaire's Child" <Voltaires_Ch...@ymail.com> wrote:
> > > And the score is...
> > > Kat: 76 trillion
> > > RR: negative 0
> > Do I have to remind you that Spaetraveler got you effectively cornered > > quite a while back.
> > Supporting Kat also means you support her beliefsystem and mind > > outset. Drugging children, yeah, very nice, very nice indeed... Want > > some ECT, here ya go...
> > You just showed that you are NO better than her... :0]
> > RR
> I hope you do realize that your way of answering is extremely > childish. "But X cornered you a while ago!". And anybody should take > ypouseriously!? LOL! > You keep insisting that Kat supports drugging children. Everybody but > you have read a dozen times by now what her answer was to that > ridiculous accusation. That makes you a manipulative liar and a > propagandist. > She also explained ECT to you: Are you too stupid to understand her > explanations? More propaganda indeed.
> No, Michel, she is even better than YOU. > Your moves her become more and more pathetic. However: Feel free to > continue to make a fool of yourself.
> Peter
You really are a typical robot. You are all about that. You project, simply blindly throw back what has been said about your behaviour... You are using the exact same arguements you have been exposed to be doing, and at that, you use my EXACT same wordings. Only a child copies and behaves as you do...
Sole statements and claims will not do the job... You are the prototype of robotic behaviour and propaganda. Visiting your site will make that clear for all, and you my friend, will be judged by that...
> > On 7 Nov, 05:04, "Voltaire's Child" <Voltaires_Ch...@ymail.com> wrote: > >> And the score is...
> >> Kat: 76 trillion
> >> RR: negative 0
> > Do I have to remind you that Spaetraveler got you effectively cornered > > quite a while back.
> No, cuz it never happened. I answered your- oh, excuse me, I meant > "Spacetraveller"'s (wink wink) questions, every single one
You refused to respond to particular issues and forwardings. This is either your delusion or you are lying (denial).
>, then I killfiled > him for rudeness.
It is of course, when an opponent is expecting to receive an adequate counter response, but is not getting it. To then interpret gentle nudges as rudeness.
> > Supporting Kat also means you support her beliefsystem and mind > > outset. Drugging children, yeah, very nice, very nice indeed... Want > > some ECT, here ya go...
> I'm not against psychiatry or psychology as an en masse general thing. > There are different practices in those fields and there are different > situations for different people. There are things of which I don't approve > but I don't let that lead me to a wholesale damnation of the entire non Scn > mental health field.
> And, no, even if I didn't feel that way, supporting Kat wouldn't > automatically mean I supported psychiatry. I just happen to like Kat very > much. I like her, I think you're a dick, it's all good.
She is dishonest, and you support her.
> > You just showed that you are NO better than her... :0]
> (yawning cavernously and stretching)...
> I'm sorry- did you say something?
Yes, do you think a sane person doesn't look through this here, please... :0]
> > *grabs a bowl of popcorn in anticipation of the entertainment the RR > > troll will provide*
> Fun isn't it. We troll the Ronbots when we have a spare moment, they are > dutifully posting stuff here when they could be out there Keeping > Scientology Working. So we Win, they Lose.
Hihi, well, only the diehards will defend 'honest' Kat...
> Being traitors to Scientology, they have been lying for a decade to Mr > David Miscavige, telling him that they are handling ARS. He, being an > ignorant high school drop out, can't admit that he knows nothing about the > Internet so he has to let them carry on and dare not RPF them.
On 7 Nov, 16:58, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 nov, 14:49, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You have a fulltime job attacking something you don't approve of, > > isn't that wasting time??? What kind of people do that?????
> > RR
> Pardon? This thread you started was only intended to attack. And now > you accuse others of doing what you started with?
She was gently asked to explain herself and share appropriate well- researched parts of her research in matters (which she repeatedly claimed she had), and she REFUSED... that's all there is to it.
> By the way, I read your response. All I have to say about it is: > You prove again to be a manipulative, twisting liar, proved, > documented and all, and you yourself have contributed to it time after > time.
And you think you win by statement alone...? Well people, visit his site, please do, If you BELIEVE this guy (as in guru) then you are in for a shakedown...
This is ALL you got left dear Peter character, you lost already everything else. You have no arguments left to sell, so you project...
So, let's put a definite close to this. This Kat charater will go on forever, she will continue to deny, twist, ignore, and continue to make excuses for why she is not forwarding her 'research', which she (in the earlier threads) repeatedly referred to.
No doubt she and her stout defenders and followers will claim that I run (as they do already). But honestly, what else is there to say. You can't reason with people that persistently deny and twist matters?
You, the reader will have to make up your OWN mind about this.
One last comment though, these characters like Peter and the Kat, now, they want you to BELIEVE them, they will STATE matters, and they will repeat that as many times as required, and it is their wish that you adopt that as your truth. This is one way of creating illusions, the media does this all the time. Now, people who do like that, do they have valid arguments to defend their case? Think about it, ask them the RIGHT questions, CONSULT their actual understanding (you'll find they have little to none), INVESTIGATE these people... good luck.
> And Hartley, glad someone else understands what I'm doing. I enjoy > making trolls waste their time by trolling THEM.
One Lisa McPherson Day I was outside the old London Org when a particularly unpleasant clam came up and asked why I was there. Was it some special occasion? He obviously expected me to start explaining about Lisa, and had his prepared script ready. So I lied to him, I said I didn't know. I implied that I was just there for a laugh, and know nothing much about Scientology. He went away. The concept of a Suppressive Person lying was too much for him. HE was supposed to be the liar!
> > > Do I have to remind you that Spaetraveler got you effectively cornered > > > quite a while back.
> > > Supporting Kat also means you support her beliefsystem and mind > > > outset. Drugging children, yeah, very nice, very nice indeed... Want > > > some ECT, here ya go...
> > > You just showed that you are NO better than her... :0]
> > > RR
> > I hope you do realize that your way of answering is extremely > > childish. "But X cornered you a while ago!". And anybody should take > > ypouseriously!? LOL! > > You keep insisting that Kat supports drugging children. Everybody but > > you have read a dozen times by now what her answer was to that > > ridiculous accusation. That makes you a manipulative liar and a > > propagandist. > > She also explained ECT to you: Are you too stupid to understand her > > explanations? More propaganda indeed.
> > No, Michel, she is even better than YOU. > > Your moves her become more and more pathetic. However: Feel free to > > continue to make a fool of yourself.
> > Peter
> You really are a typical robot. You are all about that. You project, > simply blindly throw back what has been said about your behaviour... > You are using the exact same arguements you have been exposed to be > doing, and at that, you use my EXACT same wordings. Only a child > copies and behaves as you do...
Yes Michel. I use your words INTENTIONALLY, as I know it is one of your many buttons, and because you have done your very best to prove them right, because you use propaganda techniques a lot. OTOH, how many times you used MY exact words? O, you forgot? Or are you going to lie about that too and tell us you didn't. Well, I couldn't care less.
> Sole statements and claims will not do the job... You are the > prototype of robotic behaviour and propaganda. Visiting your site will > make that clear for all, and you my friend, will be judged by that...
> RR
O dear. Is that so? Guess what: I don't care! As long as it is the truth. That is the only and most important thing I care about. Not what some Dutch guy in Sweden things about it.
|
