Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: COPYRIGHT AND TRADE S
Message-ID: <9509170911.0CX4K00@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 09:11:49 -0700
Lines: 171


werdna@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg)

>dennis.l.erlich@support.com wrote:
>     You are truely full of sh*t, Andrew.
>     Yea, *we* have, you pompus jerk.
>     You pompus *ss.  Who the f*ck do you think you are to
>     invite me into the debate?
>
>In light of Denis' reasoned analysis, I retire from this thread.  I stand
>by the points made earlier, and feel that I needn't fill gigabytes with
>further invective.
 
    Ha.  Your response it laden with irony, Andrew.  Especially 
    considering that both Kane and Brinkima have already ruled 
    that no copyright infringement has occured in Wollersheim, 
    Lerma *or* Washington Post.
    
    Kinda makes your argument moot, eh?  Fortuitous time to retire 
    from this thread and save a bit of face, isn't it?

>Dennis, one doesn't have to use big words or be an attorney to be
>pompous.

    Gee thanks, Andy.  That's good to know.

>I undertand that you have been through quite a bit -- and have
>been urged to give you quite a bit of slack from your friends and
>defenders.  That's fine.  You are still invited to join me.

    That's very kind of them and of you to let me "off the hook",
    Andrew.  But there's really no need to cut me any slack.  
    I've got plenty where it matters.

>Just don't pretend to be addressing my issues when all you really had to
>say was that a lawyer's views on the law shouldn't be considered simply
>because he is a bad person [substitute the asterisk-laden remarks
>throughout], paid a fee (substantially less than your made-up $250/hour),
>and works in an office (thirty floors lower than your made-up locale).

    If that's all you think I was saying, I'm afraid I'll just
    have to keep at it.  I was calling into question your
    *motive*, Andrew, for placing a spin on the newsgroup.  And
    challanging your leaning (toward bureaucratic regulation of
    speech and away from first amendment issues) in dragging us
    all through arguments which, while they might be interesting
    to a lawyer, have (as proven by the rulings) no bearing on
    the cases at hand, whatsoever.

>Your assertions about me personally, my unfamiliarity with the street and
>my understanding about how the law works in the "real world" are a
>fiction, made up and assumed to suit your argument.

    Attitudes gleened from your arguments, Andy.

>In your assumptions,
>you are wrong.  But my point was that you should not dwell upon the merits
>of Andy Greenberg --in this respect, his merits are not the point-- but
>rather to think about the arguments that he made.  Attacks on him don't
>make your point, but profoundly illustrate how you are avoiding his.

    So you say.  What particular arguments have you made that you
    feel I avoided?  Let's go man to man and get it straight,
    Andy.

>Can't we get over this, Dennis?

    Over what, Andy?  
    
    Anyone who's read ars for more than a week knows that I have 
    as little difficulty telling my friends they're full of shit 
    as my enemies.

>You took my remark quite personally, and
>properly reminded me that there are real people being seriously jerked
>around by the CoS, while I am discussing raw theories from an ivory
>tower.  I plead guilty, and lay myself upon the mercy of the court.

    I am not a judge or court on ars.  I am just another slob,
    much like you.  The only difference is that I have chosen to
    stand up for my beliefs and stand behind my words in Federal
    Court.  Something I've suggested others "don't try at home".

>I
>understand that these horrors happened to you, and that I can have no
>concept for what you have gone through (and I am sorry for what they have
>done to you).

    I doubt you do, Andy.  But I'm sure you think you do, and
    even that small amount of empathy at this late stage in my
    public sodomy is appreciated.

>I still feel that there is a difference between showing solidarity for an
>individual, and designing a cause behind the ratification and
>justification of the conduct alleged against others.

    If you'd care to point out where I (or Arnie, Larry or Bob)
    have done that (please quote if possible), I'll be happy to
    back off this point.  In the meantime, Kane and Brinkima have
    both ruled that no copyright infringement has occurred.  Only
    Fair Use.  So your argument seems completely specious at best.

>I believe that an
>assault upon the Copyright Act in order to assault the CoS is a misguided
>effort that focuses energies and expends resources at the CoS' strongest
>positions.

    The power to come into people's homes, invade thier most
    private documents and seize their property (all without due
    process demanded by the Constitution) must be revoked from
    the Copyright Act (or where ever it is granted).  If you
    oppose this reform, you *should* be on retainer to the cult.

>If you prevail, wonderful.  If you fail, much will have been
>lost.

    You've talked much about the arcane Copyright law.  Are you
    referring to loss of it's power?  Or loss of civil rights of
    citizens?  It is not clear from your statement.  You might
    fill us in on your stand on free speech relating to this.