Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: COPYRIGHT AND TRAD Message-ID: <9509171908.0QVX701@support.com> References: <43h96k$6op@panix2.panix.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 19:08:20 -0700 Lines: 133 werdna@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) Me: > One Reader chides: > > >I think Andrew's contributions to this forum are valuable > >and I don't understand why you are dissing him. > So do I. Why I am dissing him is that he is characterizing > those of us who stood up against the cult, as criminals and > scofflaws. Andrew: >I have never used the word criminal or scofflaw. I do not think you are, >or would be. I do think that there are important elements of the law that >have been overlooked by many in their discussions of the law in these >notes. Okey dokey. >At any rate. Mellow out, as I do not hold you to be evil, criminal or >otherwise rotton. You are a brave soul, who has put yourself out into the >forefront of a battle, which you believe to be important. That is a point >worthy of respect. While I disagree with you as to certain fine points >and tactics, that does not bear upon or limit that respect. If it's just tactics we're discussing and not lawbreaking, I understand your points. You are still wrong, but it can be blamed on your unfamiliarity with the scieno cult. > He is attempting to steer the issue in such a way > as to stake out the most ground for his clients, the current > owners of IPs. I consider him like a person at the opposite > end of "my party". >There is little I can do do dissuade you of that. I suggest that you >consider that I believe the things that I say and that I write, and that I >represent plaintiffs and defendants alike in the IP battles. I find that >all property laws have their place in society, and think about IP deeply >from all perspectives. I have come to my conclusions without first >deciding which conclusions are suitable for me, as I hope have you. I knew I had a right to do what I did. I still do. It is protected speech. Nothing you (or really anyone short of God) can say will convince me otherwise. > If you think I'm gonna let this Andrew lecture to all us > endlessly, without jumping on his tendency to spin things to > the favor of future business for him (and that's what he's > maybe doing here - spamming for business) you have seriously > misjudged me. >And if you think I'm "gonna" let such remarks go unanswered, you have >seriously misjudged me. I don't know you at all. >You know nothing of my interests or my motives. S'wat I said. I'm just guessing at what could make you take those positions regarding regulating MY SPEECH. >To reduce my thoughts and writings to the "spin-doctoring" of someone who >wishes to support my own self-interest, knowing nothing else about me, is >petty and unwarranted (and untrue!). Perhaps. And if so, I apologize. You must concede that your postion and the (in)advertent help you have given the scienos makes your motives questionable. >But I do not feel that such nonsense >justifies the kind of "in your face" rudeness with which you assault me. You're just not used to Usenet. >You call that view "presuming to take the high ground." I call it >decency. Are you bleeding from anything I wrote about you? No? Then you have no cause for complaint. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around. >I retract any inference that I consider you a criminal, and apologize for >your horror at that implication. (I have already done this twice!). .5 *ssed apology accepted. >Yet >you continue to posture and set up straw men with my name to beat down. You are only arguing with my debating style. Make a point so it can be logically refuted. >Please stop that, at least, in setting out your invective against me and >lawyers generally. There, there. >You have had a rough time, good enough reason to blame those who have hurt >you. You also have good reason to have developed a healthy dislike and >disdain for lawyers. I think very highly of some of them. Very highly. >You properly accuse me of not understanding who you >are, what you have been through, and drawing conclusions from the cold >words of the reports on the net. Right. >On the other hand, you have made strong comments about me without having >the first damned clue who I am. Your words on ars give more than a clue. >I rather like myself as a person, and do >not appologize for my present profession -- it is my second. I have nothing against lawyers in general. >I chose it >willingly from my former life, in which I had made more money, and had >more fame and more prestige. I did so because of a strongly developed >sense that IP law has been going haywire and that this is the best vantage >point from which to understand and to fix things. You are right about that. Good luck. >Andy Greenberg +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"