Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: COPYRIGHT AND TRADE S
Message-ID: <9509111043.0F2EQ01@support.com>
References: <Kmberry-1009951301090001@edm-p21.supernet.ab.ca>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 95 10:43:30 -0700
Lines: 78


werdna@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg)

>... why, henry, is it necessary to quote a document
>regarding the r-2-45 procedure in order to expose and hold it out to
>ridicule?

    The documents are self refuting.  They make the argument
    against the cult more damningly than any other type of
    dissertation.

    If you can't get this simple point through your head, Andrew,
    I will have to revise downward my opinion of either your
    intelligence or your intellectual honesty.

    And that's gotta sting.

>I understand the radically bizarre and anti-social conduct that
>is alleged here by CoS critics, and though I have no personal knowledge of
>any of it, find it quite credible for the most part in light of the CoS'
>conduct in reaction to it.  But this is not because I have been exposed to
>any primary resources, but because of the dialogue concerning their
>content.

    How self-centered your view is.  You are not our only audience.  
    Think about it, foo'.

>I don't ask why the CoS is bad -- I ask why it is neccessary to risk
>breaking the law in this way in order to expose why the CoS is bad.

    You're really beginning to irritate me, Andy.  No laws have
    been broken.  If they had been, someone woulda been put in
    jail.  
    
    *Perhaps* some sort of tortuous damages has been done.  If so, 
    the courts will adjudicate how much, by whom and set a monetary 
    amount for compensation.

>Look at this very newsgroup, now utterly cluttered with discussions of
>arcane legal theories and blabber from lawyers such as myself.  Rather
>than focusing on criticizing the church itself, we are focusing on whining
>about the legal merits of lawsuits and the propriety of their prosecution.

    *You* are, yes.

>To me, this is not a defense of the internet, nor of free exercise or
>freedom of speech.  The internet conduct that is most assaulted here is
>the posting cancellations, and that has become a quiet sideshow in these
>discussions.  In fact, this is the strongest argument of unlawful conduct
>alleged against the church, if only it could be tied to them -- yet
>discussions of that are a mere side-show to the plaintiff [sic-pun
>intended] wails of "barratry."

    Get a real job, Mr. Esquire.  Perhaps as a gardener.

>Instead of defending society against the church's excesses, we are
>defending against the church's strongest claims -- of copyright
>infringement.   Now, why, why, why have we done this?  What is so
>important that the tremendously salutory message of church critics must be
>so diminished?  Why is copyright infringement (presuming that it is
>copyright infringement) the only way to expose the church?  Why can't
>direct criticism and fair use be sufficient to accomplish the same end
>without so great a cost?

    By quoting from their own skriptures <spit>, we permitted the
    fascist cult an opportunity to show the world its true colors.

>just another view,

    Are Devil's Advocates well paid?

>Andy Greenberg

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