From your blog:
tsumm // August 20, 2009 at 2:00 am
What’s your take on Gerry Armstrong?.
He looks like a class A nutter and I can’t tell if he was born that way or if it comes from years of harassment. I don’t know whether to believe anything he says or not. I see he’s been writing long rants in the form of letters to you wanting an apology and/or a confession to vindicate him. You’ve probably got more insight into what the real story is with this guy that most people. Any insight?
martyrathbun09 // August 20, 2009 at 2:08 am
Thanks. If Gerry wrote a civil communication that was even understandable, I’d answer him. To date he hasn’t.
I’m not going to deal with the civility issue now, only my communications’ understandableness.
It’s helpful at the same time, I think, to observe that you answered a person who said I looked like a class A nutter, which is a good clue regarding your rules of civility.
The class A nutter comment also forwards the black PR Miscavige and you submitted to the IRS to get Scientology its tax exemption: that you truly believe I’m psychotic. I’d written you specifically about this black PR to the IRS on August 14, six days before tsumm, anonymous guy, wrote you at 2:00 am and you answered at 2:08. You said, of course, that my communications to you to date had not been understandable, which would also imply that there was therefore no connection between anything I’d communicated and anything you were doing or saying; since you hadn’t understood any of it.
If you had actually understood my letter to you about the black PR to the IRS, which I believe is what’s real for you, then the acceptance and answering of the post with the class A nutter comment is also a good clue to your real answer to my request for your help to correct that black PR. Because of your decision to assert that my communications are ununderstandable, you couldn’t, of course, discuss their issues, or even any of their content. Otherwise, you’d be shown to be a liar about their understandableness. It’s much better, before that happens, to yourself acknowledge that you understand what you understand.
You haven’t published your civility rules, at least in what I’ve seen, although you have indicated that these rules govern your behavior, that is, your treatment or handling of people. I must confess that I only saw tsumm, anonymous guy’s, post with the “class A nutter” comment, and your answer, a couple of days ago when someone sent it to me. You indicate, and not just in your answer to him, that you answer communications that you adjudge civil, and you don’t answer communications that you do not find to be civil. For me, specifically and at least, you impose the additional condition for answering that my communication must be understandable. The meaning in your answer to tsumm, anonymous guy, was that all my recent communications to you to date, were ununderstandable. I hope with this letter to motivate you to acknowledge that my communications are not ununderstandable, and that you understand or can understand them easily deeply enough to be able to answer them.
It’s obvious to me that tsumm, anonymous guy’s, communication was understandable. I can’t tell for sure that you understood his communication, but I think that just as with my communications, you pretend you don’t understand. You appear, or made yourself appear, to conceivably have not understood his communication, because you definitely didn’t answer his possibly sincere question. You didn’t provide any insight into my real story, and you let stand his misunderstandings or ununderstandings about me. I think, however, as I said, that you were simply pretending to not understand what he wrote, and in fact you understood it, as it relates to you and Scientology, much as I understood it.
The guy didn’t understand, or at least implied he didn’t understand, that I didn’t want an apology from you. You might not have understood this as well, although I believe you’ve been merely pretending to not understand this. In any case, in my letter to you two days ago I made my position impossible to not understand, and I’m sure you understood. I haven’t been and am not asking for or seeking an apology at all, just some basic help correcting ongoing injustices and crimes that you helped commit, and which you have the experience and knowledge to help correct.
It is an important clue for me concerning your civility rules that saying Gerry Armstrong looks like a class A nutter is civil enough to get tsumm, anonymous guy, an answer. I didn’t think it was very civil of the guy to say that; when he was at the same time admitting to such gargantuan ignorance of me that he didn’t even know whether to believe anything I say or not. It’s not my civility rules, if I had any, however, but yours, that are relevant in your decisions to answer people or not. You certainly know to believe what I say.
I doubt that if someone wrote to you that, for example, Hubbard was a class A nutter, or looked like a class A nutter, you would consider that civil enough to answer the person, at least civilly. But again, your civility rules are not very clear. You thanked tsumm, anonymous guy, for saying I looked like a class A nutter, and I doubt you’d thank someone in your answer for saying that about Ron. Or is “class A nutter” a term of civility, which I had misunderstood to be a term of incivility, and you’re totally fine with being called a class A nutter yourself, or at least being told you look like a class A nutter. The possibly dim tsumm didn’t say what photo of me he’d looked at to conclude that I looked like a class A nutter. Maybe he couldn’t tell a class A nutter from his asana.
I truly believe that in all my communications to you to date I said nothing nearly as uncivil as saying you look like a class A nutter. I’m not, moreover, about to start saying you look like a class A nutter to test your civility rules, just because tsumm once said I looked like a class A nutter and you deemed his communication sufficiently civil to answer. The class A nutter clue is, as I said, a good one for understanding your civility rules unless you’ve made them deliberately ununderstandable.
I actually made my communications to you deliberately understandable, as is my habit with pretty well all my communications to anyone, and with all my communications’ thoughts and even words. You make yourself a tad ununderstandable to me by withholding any answer from me to my serious, deliberately understandable communications, which are all requests for help. But most importantly, and why I’m again communicating with you, you say my communications to date have not been understandable.
It could be viewed as quixotic or futile to write you again without radically dumbing down the quality of my communications, or shallowing up their content and meaning, since you say they’ve all been ununderstandable to you to date. I believe, however, that you’re just pretending you don’t understand, you actually know my communications to you have been eminently understandable, and I don’t have to dumb down anything for you.
I have for many years observed that pretended ignorance is a common “beingness,” or “valence,” or modus operandi among Scientologists. Pretended ignorance among Scientologists is, clearly, contemptuous, and facilitates fair game in all its forms. Pretended ignorance is often accompanied with pretended knowledge or even pretended exceptional intellectual capacity or other exceptional abilities; for example, OT. It is an extraordinarily common and yet incredible assertion of fact among Scientologists, especially OTs, that my communications are not understandable.
My communications are clearly understandable, so the assertion that they aren’t is a lie. They conceivably might not be understandable by you because you really might not have the intellectual capacity to understand them. If your intellect was beneath that capacity, your implied assertion that my communications aren’t understandable to anyone definitely shouldn’t be believed, in part because the number of people above you on the world’s IQ scales would be in the big billions.
The slim possibility that you really believe that my communications to date have been ununderstandable to you, let alone the world’s more understanding masses, however, is belied by your numerous communications to date I’ve read that aren’t answers to my communications. I’m not saying you’re the sharpest Cardinal in the Free Zone, but I’m sure you’re smart enough to understand my communications. An ex-Sea Org Cardinal of any intellectual capacity would be able to understand my communications; especially because I’d consciously made them so understandable. This would also mean that any ex-SO Cardinal would have the intellectual capacity to pretend to not understand my communications.
It’s funny, don’t you think, that my simple communications to you bring into focus Scientology’s workability, and its actual products. Your intellectual capacity is a Scientology product. Your understanding is a Scientology product, and your treatment and handling of people are Scientology products. You assert that my communications are ununderstandable. Understanding, Scientology teaches equals ARC. I’m sure you will agree that Scientologists virtually universally claim that by applying Scientology, they are increasing their ARC, their understanding. As I said above, pronouncing my communications ununderstandable, is extremely common among Scientologists. The fact that a greater percentage of wogs reading my communications find them understandable, or even one wog finding them understandable, would demonstrate that applying Scientology decreases ARC or understanding.
I believe, however, that you do understand my communications, and I think for everyone’s sake it makes sense for you to acknowledge that that’s what’s true for you too. I make my communications language and my texts’ meanings as precise as I can. If there really are concepts you really are having trouble understanding, and you understand all the words, why not ask for help? I doubt that I’ve used any words you don’t understand, but if I have, look them up. Mainly, how about acknowledging what’s really true for you, that my communications to you to date have been understandable, and you’ve understood them. I’ll bet that if you read them all again in a new unit of time you’ll find I’m right.