From: Gerry Armstrong <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: An open letter to Gerry Armstrong
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:37:11 +0100
Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: news.online.de 1040557011 1261 220.127.116.11 (22 Dec 2002 11:36:
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Dec 2002 11:36:51 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
On 12 Dec 2002 15:30:15 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org (Chris Owen)
>ExScn <none @thnx.net> wrote in message news:<
>> For those who may be interested, this is how I see it all came
>> Gerry/Caroline announce to ars that they are going to construct a
>> page of Garry Scarff's 'hateful' postings about Gerry on ars.
>> as if anyone gave a damn or even read them !). So Gerry starts
>> holy war by blowing a couple of his toes off.
>> Gerry/Caroline are then very *mildly* chastised for being so
>> infantile, and instead of bandaging his toes, the previously
>> Gerry goes into massive denial and decides to include all those
>> dared to criticise his heroic self on an expanded web page to
>> all of those obviously 'OSA' or 'OSA-apologist' goons as anti-
>> and therefore anti-humanitarian godless cowards traitorous to the
>> war for Gerry Wogdom.
>Gerry is wrong on this, no doubt about it - badly wrong. Ex-Scn's
>post has prodded me into posting this open letter to him.
>Gerry, your page at
>"Posts by a.r.s. participants who claim to not be formally
>OSA staff or formally operated OSA agents but who, in and with
>pretended stupidity, forward OSA's purposes by attacking the
>Scientology cult's fair game victims."
>So are you saying that Cerridwen, ptsc, Starshadow, Deana Holmes and
>others are all OSA agents or allies of OSA because they've criticised
>your statements and tactics? I'm criticising your statements and
>tactics here and now. Am *I* an OSA agent? Do let me know, because
>as a past target of fair game I'd be very interested to know your
>Do you believe that you are automatically right about everything? Do
>you believe that people can honestly disagree with you, that they can
>have an honest belief that you have got something wrong? Do you
>believe that anyone has a right to question you? Does this amended
>quote describe how you feel about those criticising you? -
>"My critics are simply an anti-Armstrong propaganda agency so far
>am concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no
>matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing
>is intended and start the attack with their first breath."
>Gerry, I'm very disappointed that you've taken this tack. You've won
>the admiration of myself and many other people for the courageous
>stand that you've taken against Scientology over the years. Your
>actions in standing up to Scientology's harassment have been
>inspiring, and the rest of your website is very interesting - I've
>been trawling through it over the past few days. But your apparent
>view that anyone who criticises you is an enemy doesn't do you any
>credit and it will harm the high reputation you've deservedly earned.
>This is not a road that you need to go down, Gerry. "If you're
>with me, you're against me" may work for Dubya but I don't see
>being yet another lunatic ars flamer or a Rumsfeldian chickenhawk. If
>people criticise you, put your case, argue with good grace and agree
>to disagree if necessary. But don't start claiming that people who
>disagree with you are all OSA agents or allies, because it's untrue,
>unfair and paranoid. You're not L. Ron Hubbard, so please don't act
>like him. Please take that page down; it's not helping anyone, least
>of all you.
Clearly this issue is very important for you, and I hope it will
continue to be so that we can actually and rationally discuss the
facts, opinions and other factors which form the issue.
I have very little time over the next few days, but I will continue to
engage in a dialogue, or debate, or actual, rational discussion if you
You ask a number of questions, which are obvious insults: e.g.,
"Do you believe that you are automatically right about everything?
"Do you believe that people can honestly disagree with you, that they
can have an honest belief that you have got something wrong?" "
believe that anyone has a right to question you?"
Just so we start off civilly, you do acknowledge that these are
In one of your follow-up posts you state:
And does being a "fair game victim" make one immune to all
or exempted from the need to be fair, honest and accurate? This claim
particularly annoys me.
Will you please identify who is making this claim which is annoying
I am not making the claim, and have never made the claim. If you are
trying to insult me because you're annoyed based on your erroneous
belief that I'm making this annoying claim, please re-examine this
belief, or reread whatever you thought contained this "claim."
In the same post you state:
Gerry is simply finding patterns that don't exist.
He has failed to come up with any evidence for his claim other than
"they criticise me, OSA criticises me, therefore they work for
That is all that his argument boils down to.
For us to have a real discussion or debate of the issue, it would be
helpful, I think, to clarify a couple of basic points. Since you state
as fact that I have failed to come up with any evidence for my claim
(that certain people forward Scientology's fair game purposes with
their attacks on the cult's fair game victims), this is also an
acknowledgement that you have read all my posts, and that you have
read all the posts I've webbed. Is this correct?
You have put this phrase in quotes, which implies that I wrote it:
"they criticise me, OSA criticises me, therefore they work for
I never wrote this statement you attribute to me. Is that correct?
When you state that I am "finding patterns that don't exist"
you cannot honestly state that, right?
You can honestly state that you have not found any pattern, if you
have not found any pattern. Isn't that true?
And you can honestly state that there may be no pattern, since you've
found none, right?
And you can honestly state that it appears to you that Gerry believes
he has found a pattern, but that you have not found one yourself,
But you cannot honestly state that I am "finding patterns that
exist," don't you agree?
You use the term "criticize" apparently to include everything
OSA/Scientology has done to me and every statement made by every
person whose posts I've webbed on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page.
Presumably your definition for "criticize" includes lying, black
propaganda and other forms of fair game. This would mean that
"depopularizing the enemy to a point of total obliteration" is
form of "criticism." Is this correct?
I think it is important that we agree on this term "
it is key to your criticizing me, and key to our discussion or debate.
Finally, to start our discussion or debate, I would like to get from
you exactly what you believe the relevant difference is between my
webbing of the subject posts and the posters posting them to this
newsgroup to begin with.
If, for example, ptsc or Tigger or Diane stated in a post that I'm
doing OSA's work, would you write them an open letter? Have you
written other open letters when someone else stated that someone is
helping OSA by doing something?
Do you believe that there is some difference which makes websites more
holy or less holy than usenet posts, and if so, what? And do you
believe that I am more deserving of your criticism than all of the
usenet posters whose posts I've webbed?
I look forward to your response to my concerns I've expressed here and
to a future excellent discussion or debate.
> | Chris Owen - ronthewarhero@OISPAMNOyahoo.co.uk |
> | NARCONON EXPOSED: The full facts about the Narconon program |
> | http://www.narconon-exposed.org |
© Gerry Armstrong