Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: XS4ALL THANKS ALL FOR
Message-ID: <9509091111.0FPV500@support.com>
References: <42qd81$bav@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 11:11:20 -0700
Lines: 82


milne@crl.com (Andrew Milne)

Diane:
>:    "...we can use fair use to paraphase the advanced materials, quoting
>:     important excerpts while just descibing in our own words the
>:     incredibly tedious junk that stuff is made up of."

OSA's resopnse:
>I cam across this at the end of somebody's post.

    Not just somebody, scumbag.  Diane Richardson.  She has
    repeatedly and resoundingly kicked your lying *ss on ars.

>I hope nobody makes the
>mistake of taking this statement seriously.

    It is excellent advice.  Paraphrasing is never actionable
    under Copyright Law.  Only if you have a legal contract to
    maintain secrecy are you liable for action under Trade Secret
    law.

    So paraphrase away.  There is no legal grounds to prevent you
    from doing so.

>It is utterly malicious and
>false, as well as being extremely bad advice.

    You are a lying sack 'o sh*t, Milne.

>The materials in question are
>trade secrets and there is of course no fair use of trade secrets.

    Buck, buck, buck.  Protecting your golden eggs?  (Saykrid
    Droppings, rather)

>The most recent decision upholding the trade secret status of these
>materials is of course Bridge Publications Inc. (BPI), RTC & CSI
>v. Enid Vien. In May 1993, the U.S. District Court in San Diego found
>that:
>
>"Under California law, information contained in religious organizations'
>materials was 'trade secret', so that instructor's use of information
>in courses which she offered for sale was misappropriation of trade secret;
>information was confidential and kept under tight scrutiny, was disclosed
>only to those who had acquired requisite level of spiritual training,
>and could not be accessed without first signing agreement to maintain
>its secrecy and confidentiality, instructor knew of confidential nature
>of information and signed confidentiality agreement, and religious
>organizations used proceeds from sale of materials to support
>churches worldwide."
>
>And:
>
>"The court finds that as a matter of law, plaintiff's 'Advanced
>Technology' qualifies as a trade secret, and that no factual dispute
>exists regarding defendant's misappropriation of these works through
>the courses offered to her students."

    Unbelievable!  Finally an actual verifiable reference from
    OSA.  One that doesn't apply ... but still, it's something.

    Enid was making money selling Sakrid Droppings without paying
    her blood money to the Stench.

    No one here's makin' a cent.  We're all just doing our civic
    duty; inForming the public so that they can be smart
    consumers and not fresh "raw meat" or "bodies in your shop."

    Don't look now, but ...

    Your cult of lies is crumbling as ars rolls over it.  Next
    stop: CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS and Federal Grand Jury 
    indictments!

    Correct change, please.

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