Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: COPYRIGHT AND TRADE S 1/2 Message-ID: <9509141336.0J4G500@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 13:36:45 -0700 Lines: 178 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? Me: > 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. Andrew: >Dennis, one doesn't make a point merely by repeating it. Oh gee, professor. Would you write that on the blackboard so I can copy it down? >Neither does one >make a point by threatening disrespect for continuing disagreement as a >response to a direct question. I'm not threatening anything, Andrew. I think you're full of it. >The ad hominem nature of your reply, while >poignant, isn't helpful to any part of your cause. I'll take your free PR advice under advisement. Any comments about content, or only about style? >As to the merits of your claim, that the documents are self refuting, and >make the argument "more damningly than any other type of dissertation" is >more demeaning of your confidence and faith in your own advocacy and >argument skills. I must admit, I do feel inadaquate against a mental giant like you. >Indeed, I would find it particularly *HELPFUL* that the other side relies >upon secret documents and claims that the analysis is taken out of >context. I would quite snippets sufficient, but not more than necessary >to make my point, and challenge the other side to reveal the flaws in my >argument. Well, Mr. Authority-on-my-Postings, if you bothered to read what I had posted you would see that that is exactly what I did. But no bother that you didn't know that. >Responses in generalities will flail in the wind, as my >criticism would become more and more poignant and detailed and quote less >and less of the primary sources. Beautifully poetic and meaningless drivel. >Finally, I would repeat --with glee and to good effect-- the statement: >Prove me wrong. Show us where we misquoted, mischaracterized, mislaid >context. Prove me wrong. Call them bald-faced liars as they call you >liars, and use only that much of the source materials as is needed for the >purpose. Andrew, your dispassionate $250/hr approach to this disgusts me. These things you suggest I have done and encouraged. If you had read the newsgroup for more than the past month you would know that. I post what I want. I don't conform to other's expectations or instructions regarding how or what I present to this newsgroup. In short, stuff your critique of my style. I know it's crude and blunt. I like it that way, rather than pedantic and intellectually flatulent. But I admit that in our society vacuosity sells. >By doing so, you will be engaging in legitimate debate and coloquy You don't define legitimacy here, you pompus fool. >-- and >defying them at every step to sue you for infringement. I would love to >defend *THAT* cause of action! I'm sure you don't have the grit to defend a *real* person in a real life situation. Only some ideal situation. If I had it to do over I would be much more calculating in staking out my free speech rights. You missed the game and are analyzing other people's analysis. I believe that's called Monday-morning Quarterbacking. > >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'. >Foo'? Moi? Lay off it. You may reject my views and thoughts as you like, >but don't pretend that you have responded to them. Calling me >self-centered does not prove your point. Neither will it help you make >your case in court. You didn't offer help when I used to needed it. It will not be significant to my position or the outcome of my case whether it is given now or not. >> >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. >More assaults on me. Ease up, Dennis. Not necessary. You claim to know what you're talking about and yet you use terms like "breaking the law" when you know that those terms imply criminal activity. You mischaracterize these things just as the scienos would. What am I to think of your motivations? (not that I care what you think I should think) >As to whether laws have been broken, this is a purely technical point. As >you know, willful copyright infringement is a crime, though it is rarely >enforced. That is not the issue here so why do you characterize it so? Just helping the cult in fostering the impression laws were broken as when they bring handcuffs for Larry to their newsconference? >Moreover, any copyright infringement is proscribed by federal >statute unless excused by a statutory defense, and civil remedies are >provided for those acts. A tort. Damages. Nothing illegal about it. Same as saying I broke the law by throwing a baseball through your front window. You characterize it as a crime. I call it part of playing the game of life. >I disagree entirely that one can conclude that no laws have been broken >simply because noone has been incarcerated. If you want to make the >technical point, many laws have been broken, both civil and criminal, if >the allegations of the Church were true. But that isn't the point here. >And you know better. I know that there were *no* criminal acts. So why characterize it as a crime instead of what it is (a tort) unless you have some ulterior motive to assist the scienos in their PR campaign? > *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. > >This is the kind of technical argument worthy of Mr. Milne, and not of an >internet folk hero. I'm nothing now that I wasn't before this all started. If you don't like my style, that's gonna hafta be your problem. >You say that a law is not broken simply because only >civil remedies have been alleged. Fine. I say that a law has been broken >because remedies result from the conduct that is alleged. Fine. So >what? The distinction between criminal and merely damaging (even intentionally) is critical to understanding the spin the scienos (and you) are attempting to put on these evens. >Or are you trying to prove your point that anything less than a full quote >is necessarily an agument made out of context. If you don't know me by now ... > >than focusing on criticizing the church itself, we are focusing on whining [ Continued In Next Message... ]