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 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"