From: Gerry Armstrong
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 10:53 AM
To: Ian Camacho
Cc: Massimo Introvigne
Subject: A liar walks into a barrier
Dear Mr. Camacho:
Posted at: https://gerryarmstrong.ca/a-liar-walks-into-a-barrier/
You are, of course, lying. What I wrote and am writing is a sincere effort to get through and analyze your 55 pages of horseshit after your prance around the facts, the truth and reason.
Of course I have counter evidence, at least to your lies. I can see why you would lie about this. What you have done is monstrous, vampiric and you now have made it even more monstrous and vampiric.
These are the simple facts of your relationship with me. I am your victim. You have libeled and vilified me. I have signaled my unacceptance of your libels and vilifications, and I have communicated my distress. I have legitimately challenged your fact statements and findings.
You cannot but know you’re lying.
And you come back with this callow scoff.
Are you refusing to answer my requests for evidence, etc.? Unless you say otherwise, I am assuming that you will not answer any questions I might ask of you, and I will proceed with that assumption.
Regrettably yours,
Gerry Armstrong
From: Ian Camacho
Sent: July 27, 2021 3:07 PM
To: Gerry Armstrong
Cc: Massimo Introvigne
Subject: Re: A Rum Time for Ron in Old Town Las Palmas (Part 1)Dear Gerry,
That was a really great example of a Gish gallop and a rather interesting, long way of stating that you have no counter evidence.
Thanks for drawing more attention to the article than it would have normally warranted or than I could have done on my own.
Kind Regards,
Ian C. Camacho
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 5:36 PM Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
Dear Mr. Camacho:
Re: Your article “1950 Shades of Pinks and Greys: Was L. Ron Hubbard Drugged Out When He Developed OT III?”1
I am grateful for your effort to school your readers on the legal term “burden of proof.” (The definition below is from my old Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Ed.)2 Your implied understanding of the concept is faulty, and you are perverting how it applies in Hubbard’s “Case of Rum and Pinks and Greys.”
Note that there is no legal “cause” involved in this matter or in this medium; nor is there a court, nor a judge, nor jury. Your understanding or definition of “burden of proof” is useful, however, at least for application to your own fact statements in your article.
I have excerpted a set of your statements, principally your fact statements, which, in my judgment, are some of those you have made in your article without proof. I have made some comments and numbered requests for evidence where you have omitted it, or where your statements were unclear, or your claimed facts unproven. I separated my requests into three parts for manageability, and this is the first part with my initial thirty-three requests.
[…]
My letter continues at: https://gerryarmstrong.ca/a-rum-time-for-ron-in-old-town-las-palmas-part-1/
Challengingly,
Gerry Armstrong