Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: WASHINGTON POST ON LE
Message-ID: <9508151803.0PDMI01@support.com>
References: <40pdtj$n2l@pipe3.nyc.pipeline.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 18:03:54 -0700
Lines: 65


wbarwell@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)

>drogers@primenet.com (David D. Rogers) wrote:
>>You could always post a summary of the article, with pertinent quotes. I
>>believe you'd have to get permission from the Washington Post directly,
>>rather than the author, to post it, as they're the ones who hold the
>>copyrights.

>Jessie Blalock  <jcblal@clark.net> wrote:
>   Some brave person took it upon himself to post the article
>    without permission.  I was advised by the Post correspondent
>    that he could not give me permission to post it; I believe that
>    this may be because of the Post's new "online newspaper" for which
>    they're eager to solicit registrations.

Pope:
>If they printed an article of special interest to a select few,
>the regular readers and debators of alt.religion.scientology, and
>somebody requested permission to post the article at ARS, and they
>refused permission, they are fools.
     
    Right.  Posting one or two of their articles relating to ars 
    right in the newsgroup might even get them more subscriptions
    in the long run.  A teaser for their e-paper.

>What good is it to put out information that is then uslessly locked away
>from people?
                                                 
    S'gonna get on ars anyway.  Why don't they use it to look 
    good, I wonder?  Do they think allowing a few of the articles
    to run, they are obligated to lose their right to say no to 
    other publication?

>This is STUPID (64 point font here).  Truely stupid.
                     
    Lack of foresight.

>I simply would have no interest in an electronic newspaper that so
>shortsightedly managed to make itself so useless by insisting on
>monopolizing itself in this fashion.  Simply useless.
>If I had a subscription to an e-mail version, and had been told
>upon request that I could not some days after the fact reprint ONE
>article to the newsgroup particularly in need of knowing the contents
>of this article, I would quickly terminate my subscription with any such
>paper so foolish and short sighted and determined to make their own
>efforts not useful to me in this fashion.
                    
    They think they're protecting something, Pope.

>Stupid gits.
                                                  
    Not exactly trailblazers into the digital domain, I'd say.
    Lagging behind the times instead of getting out in front of 
    the wave.

>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!

            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"