Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: COPYRIGHT AND TRADE S 1/2 Message-ID: <9509150622.08YL500@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Fri, 15 Sep 95 06:22:42 -0700 Lines: 178 werdna@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) >If you say so, Ms. Richardson. He certainly had the time to write the >extended ad hominem attack at me. I thought y'all didn't believe in the >policy of "always attack, never defend." I thought you believed that >light and truth was the best means of defeating the church. It was, and >is, my view that subterfuge and misappropriation Now you're accusing me, in addition to being a lawbreaker, of subterfuge and misappropriation? And you expect me to be polite? Get real. Diane: > I suspect that Dennis Erlich has the same > opinion of your views that I'm just now developing; that is: > You have waltzed into this newsgroup, Mr. Greenberg, and presume > to know everything involved in this entire, contorted affair. Andy: >I presumed nothing. You were calling us criminals. This was the line used by the scienos. I assume you have a vested intrest in painting anyone who is *accused* of violating your client's sakrid copyrights as lawbreakers. That's what you get paid for, now isn't it Andy? >I did know a bit more about the law than most of the >commentators here, and did presume to set the record straight. By calling us criminals? >You and >others have been helpful in guiding me through the facts. As to points of >moral rightness, personal faith and justice, I presume to have my own >views on that subject, and respect those of others. I responded harshly, >yes, to ad hominem assaults on me, by suggesting, as I did in the note to >which you reply. It is always my view that ideas should be assaulted not >people, and that civil conduct is the best policy, even against the >harshest and darkest of opponents. Well, you can certainly keep your views and your method of "handling opponents." You have the comfort of sitting in your office giving what you think is sage advice on how others should handle this fascist group. I'm sincerely impressed by your ivory tower approach to what is a very personal battle being waged by Arnie, Larry, Bob and me. > I wonder if you might step away from your lectern for a moment to > consider these events in a totally different light. You may not > feel that, as an attorney, you have any need to think of the > human beings behind this litigation. If that's the case, I pity > you. > >To the contrary, ma'am, to the contrary. Perhaps you might consider my >reaction to his, and to your words as well. I did not assault any >individual or their dignity, except perhaps by general remarks directed at >the CoS. I ask only the same for myself. Bullsh*t, Andy. You characterized us as lawbreaking criminals. I suppose this is the way you have become accustomed to painting those who you conduct your business against. But I'm not in court now, and I will continue to treat you with the exact same degree of disrespect with which you have treated me. > So please excuse Dennis Erlich for insulting you, if that's what > you think he's done. Dennis Erlich has more integrity in his > little finger than you have in your entire body, Mr. Greenberg. > >I imagine those who are interested enough can review the comments he made, >and decide for themselves whether he attacked me personally in his >comments, and whether he directed his criticism of my remarks at the ideas >of my remarks, or at me personally. Both the stupid ideas and the jerk who voiced them. >Frankly, I wasn't so much insulted as troubled that this gentleman >wouldn't go so far as to direct a reasoned reply to a reasoned comment, >but instead simply responded with an argument in the form "accept my >views, or I will think ill of you and consider you foolish." > >ACCEPT MY VIEWS OR I WILL THINK ILL OF YOU AND CONSIDER YOU FOOLISH?? Haven't you learned how to quote? Or would you rather capitalize your misrepresentations of my words? Here, allow me ... * Quote from DENNIS L ERLICH to NEWS dated 09-11-95. 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. [ ...End external quotes ] You asked a direct question and I answered it. I made a joking comment about your inability to grasp a simple point that had been explained to you before. You are such a stuffed shirt that you took it as a serious insult and became defensive. Your problem. Now I have some actual insults for you, because you can't seem to discuss these matters except by misrepresentations of my words and actions as above. >To my criticism that argument of this form is not convincing or valid, you >reply with an argument of the form, Mr. E need not answer that criticism, >for he has good lawyers to do that for him. I speak for myself here on ars. >This is the moral high ground? Please. Spare us your pontification and stop trying to dictate how people in the newsgroup should post. >Please, accept my criticism as well-intended. It is. You need to apologize for characterizing us as criminals. >My feelings for a >man whose life is destroyed unjustly are, perhaps, not worn on my sleeve, >you are right. You are too kind to yourself, Andy. You are an insensitive, well-paid mouthpiece who is used to grinding up little folks who quote too much of your client's work. Now you bring your vast knowledge of how to do it here to ars as an authority on IP. >Indeed, it is a travesty what was done to Mr. E., whom I >respect, at least, for his willingness to stick to his principles, however >inarticulately put. Gee, Andy. Not enough style for you? Perhaps if *I* get a 3-piece suit and don't say "f*ck you" every time some jerk trickles his money-grubbing agenda down on me and expects me to lap it up like it were some kind of legal holy water, I'd seem more articulate to you. >But you are wrong to blame the messenger here. You called us lawbreakers. Until you apologize for that I have only similar rudness to return to you. >My views are shared by >many with whom I have spoken to about this matter, and a reasoned response >*WILL* ultimately be necessary if you are to convince the critic's >critics. You need not worry about trying to convince the Church, as you >so eloquently stated, that is a futile endeavor. Direct, then, your >remarks to the as-yet unconverted, and raise the skepticism among the >skeptics. Why don't *you* do it? Why are you so busy telling *us* what to do and how to do it? Don't you have any family or a secretary to order around? >I realize that you don't love my words, Diane. Perhaps they too often >appear pedantic and stiff [ Continued In Next Message... ]