M. Le CLameleon:

I haven't posted a worthwhile response to your attacks because it seemed so pointless. I had tried to communicate as if you were open-minded and that incurred more attacks. You know and I know that open-mindedness is not possible at this time, and that you have been, since not long after you heard my name, on a crusade to destroy it. I know you have a greater gift for attacking than I have for responding, so anything beyond reading what you've written seemed, as I say, pointless. Then what is the point of pointlessness but Dev-T?

At the same time, I know there is some interest on a.r.s., and I would suppose in the $cientology cult, and even into legal and government forums, concerning the set of people and data upon which you base your attacks on me. I understand that I am but one, and but a clerk and a car driver at that, among the many wogs ® and $cientologists you attack. But you attack from the same base no matter which wog ® or $cientologist you attack, and the set of people and data in that base is what has generated this some considerable interest.

Thus I propose and challenge you to a debate. I know that your declining of the challenge indicates greater physical danger for me from the cult's agents and associated nut cases; but I feel a face-to-face debate, with an audience and appropriate monitors, is an offer, unless you're a cult agent or an associated nut case, you can't refuse.

You say David Miscavige doesn't run $cientology, and isn't (leaving God aside; or, as Hubbard would have said, agreeing not to intrude into the 8th Dynamic) ultimately responsible for the fraud, crime and human abuse being perpetrated by agents or nut cases of $cientology against wogs ® and $cientologists. I say, on the other hand, that David Miscavige does run $cientology and is as responsible as a managing agent can be for the fraud, crime and human abuse being perpetrated by $cientology's agents or nut cases against anyone. I think this establishes a tight enough thesis for an excellent debate.

I propose that each of us can have a set of witnesses, who might even testify and be cross-examined; on, e.g., their knowledge of Miscavige's running the criminal cult, or the others whom you contend run $cientology's operations. Meade Emory comes to mind. The debate format can, with your input, be worked out any number of ways. I'm very open-minded. I suggest Portland, Oregon as a city somewhere between us. But maybe Clearwater, Florida is another idea. There are certainly a number of witnesses there to DM's running the cult or not.

There are plenty of witnesses in LA too, but I wouldn't suggest a California venue because, as you know, cultist Miscavige (you'd have to prove that he's just acting on the orders of, e.g., Lyman Spurlock) has had his criminal cult lawyers obtain, through hooks, crooks and cooked books, a warrant to have me, as you know, arrested in the Golden State. (Oh the madness!) So don't try to duck out by saying you'll debate me but only in California.

DM can have a say as well. He can come out and debate or he can send his many minions. He can be a witness for you, perhaps testifying that the Lenskes run the criminal cult and he, the Chairman of RTC, is actually being held in unwilling bondage by onerous contracts and licenses. If you refuse to debate or don't give me any other good reason, I will continue to write that you are acting as an agent of the criminal $cientology enterprise. And, as I mentioned, I'll consider myself in even more imminent physical danger.

I know that you are smarter than I'll ever be, and that you're a decidedly more skillful debater, so I'm not going into this thinking I have a chance. I have something completely different from a chance. I have the absolute certainty that you're lying, because I'm the Gerry Armstrong you're lying about. And I have a hand that cannot be beat because it contains five aces; which is the truth.

You know who I am and I know who I am, whereas only you know who you are, so I also have twice your number. Nevertheless, in our debate I would give you exactly the same amount of time; even more if you needed it. How about as a working title: DEBATING DAVID MISCAVIGE: Petty Dictator, or Just a Puppet of Some Other Petty Dictator?

I also invite input from other a.r.s. participants on format, venue, scheduling, security and so forth.

Copyright 2000 Gerry Armstrong