Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: AYTCH IN TROUBLE? Message-ID: <9510092319.0WRI301@support.com> References: <9510092225.AA02459@pixel.fc.hp.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Mon, 09 Oct 95 23:19:20 -0700 Lines: 149 lepton@panix.com (Mike O'Connor) | Andrew Milne wrote: | | > Erlich posted this statement on September 27, 1995, "As soon as the | | >scienos return my research to me, I will commence a fair use posting of | | >all the materials I am being sued for having posted in the first place. | | >This thread I will begin, Oat Tea - Fair Use, will systematically | | >explain and criticize every paragraph and sentence, point by point, that | | >El Rotundo makes. I will review all of the material on both Exhibit B | | >and A of the suit. So get ready for fireworks." | | sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring) wrote: | | Milnot, there is nothing at all illegal in Dennis (or anyone else) | | posting a thorough and devastating critique of any of L. Ron's | | droppings, quoting from said droppings as necessary to make one's | | points. for Dennis to do so is perfectly in line with Whyte's order, | | because it is fair use and thus permitted. | | | | i have a copy of the fundamentals of thought which i intend to | | critique as time permits over the next month (the book is due back at | | the library on november 7th). i'll probably counterpoint each posting | | with a few comments from Roy Wallis' book, The Road to Total Freedom, | | and any other material i feel pertinent. the whole thing will be | | utterly and uncontestably fair use. | | Mike: | >I am not a lawyer, | | Frankly, I have no idea (and could care less) *who* you are, | Mike. What *is* obvious about you is that your reading | comprehension sucks. | | >but I am fairly sure that _methodically_ quoting a | >document little by little in a series of postings, such that you have | >eventually posted the whole document, is not fair use, even if each | >individual posting, taken alone, would be considered fair use. | > | >Someone with legal background should check on this. I can't find it, but I | >read something recently on the Net (not in a.r.s) that mentioned this as | >an example of something that is not fair use. I don't want anyone to fall | >into a cult trap. I'll see if I can dig up the reference. | > | >I think it would be fair to answer questions, or make comments on | >different subjects, and in each posting, include a fair use quote | >applicable to the question. Even if after a while most of the document had | >ended up being quoted, it would be fair, since it was not done | >methodically. -Mike | | Jeeze, Mike, are you as brain-dead as Milne? I said I would: | | "... systematically explain and criticize every paragraph and | sentence, point by point, that El Rotundo makes. I will | review all of the material on both Exhibit B and A of the suit." | | "... systematically explain and criticize every paragraph and | sentence ..." | | "... explain and criticize ..." | | Geddit? Mike: >Dennis, I've been on various online networks for 15 years, but I just >stumbled on this group at random last January and have lurked here all >year. I've seen the posts on everything the cult has done, from the >rmgroup to tossing acid on your parent's car. I've heard the stories, seen >the posted lies, read the web pages, watched you lose your job, home, >money, heard how your family was split apart, heard about others who had >mailboxes broken into, parents bilked out of family photos, the works. I'm >the one who, earlier this year at a.r.s' peak readership, posted a message >that said, based on the best Net statistics I could find, that up to >100,000 people might eventually see a typical message posted in a.r.s at >that time. For months after, I saw the cult ridicule my figure. > >You are a true hero - brave, and eloquent, who has sacrificed a lot in >order to get some truths to the public - to me. At first, I didn't believe >the things I read. You see a lot of stupid stuff on the Net. But you can >bet I know the score now. I think every a.r.s newbie goes through a period >of disbelief. > >Maybe you didn't notice that the reply above was not to you but to scott >goehring, who said "there is nothing at all illegal in Dennis (or anyone >else) posting a thorough and devastating critique of any of L. Ron's >droppings, QUOTING from said droppings as necessary to make one's points." >I see that you are not saying you will be quoting, and I see that HE says >there is nothing wrong with quoting. I believe that is true, because I >know what fair use is. But, I just wanted to toss out to the group that I >have heard that if you quote methodically, that may not be ok. No offense >meant. I actually thought I was helping. Mike, I'm sorry. It's just that the scienos have once again prevented the return of the material they stole during the unconstitutional raid by citing the post where I said I would make use of my constitutional rights and critique the material they were suing me about. It becomes very frustrating to deal with their continuously subverting justice and robbing me of my civil rights ... and getting away with it over and over. >It hurts to be compared in any way to Andrew Milne, I certainly can appreciate that and I apologize. Taking my words, twisting them and presenting them to Judge Whyte so that they have (specious) justification to further violate my freedom of speech is getting to be really frustrating. >the man who just 24 >hours ago I called a paid liar and propagandist for the cult, a man with >no dignity. I don't post many messages here and frankly I thought that one >was courageous. I guess I just missed it or didn't connect the name. It takes a while to get to know new posters. >It is so hard to trust anyone around here. I blame it on the cult. I >believe they have a number of infiltrators here. Not just the obvious >ones, but some subtle, longer-term ones. I think the cult uses them as a >tool to try to breed distrust in the group. I don't blame you for >distrusting anyone new. I don't really. But when people make their arguments for the scienos, I get suspicious. >But you've got many friends on the Net, Dennis. I know that. Perhaps I deserve them, perhaps not. I'm sure I'll feel much more friendly when this is over and I have won my civil rights back (if I ever really had them). >For every poster, there are MANY lurkers. As a sysop on a large commercial >service, I see the stats on it. I know how many lurkers are there and I >believe it must be similar on Usenet, and on a.r.s the lurk ratio has got >to be higher than on most groups, because posting here can bring >consequences. You've got MANY Net friends. Hang in there. I look forward >to your future postings and wish you the best. Thank you. And once again, accept my apology for the "quick defrost." >-Mike, SP2 since yesterday +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"