LMT violates "The Profit" copyright AGAIN
Deana M. Holmes
employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time they have put
up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week! I know, because I
checked on Monday and the page was down and all the clips were gone, but I
see that they are back up today.
It's hard for me to find the words to express to describe what Bob and Mark
are doing. It is apparent to just about everyone except for the sorry SOBs
at the LMT that "The Profit" is NOT the property of the Lisa McPherson
Trust and under no circumstances should "clips" be on the LMT website. I
don't know where the LMT gets off on posting these copyrighted excerpts
without the permission of the copyright holder. Not only that, these
"clips" are fourth generation copies from a videotape and not from the
print itself, and to put those up on a website is an insult to the
filmmakers and the cinematographer.
Moreover, the director and producer of "The Profit", Peter Alexander and
Patricia Greenway, have NOTHING to do with the Lisa McPherson Trust, and
they don't want to have anything to do with the LMT. Greenway and Alexander
severed ties with the LMT over a year ago, and the LMT has made it clear in
its public postings on the subject that there is a real hatred towards
Patricia Greenway emanating from the LMT.
It is abundantly apparent from Minton and Bunker's continued bad behavior
that they harbor the worst of intentions towards Alexander and Greenway,
since Bunker and Minton seem to have no problem continuing to violate the
film's copyright by posting excerpts on a totally unrelated website. Bob
and Mark don't CARE about the damage they may be doing to Peter Alexander
and Patricia Greenway, because that is their absolute intent: to hurt them.
It should come as no surprise that as a result of these shenanigans that
Alexander and Greenway want to make it clear that they have nothing to do
with the out-of-control Lisa McPherson Trust.
Of course, this shameful behavior is par for the course for the Lisa
McPherson Trust. The Trust appropriated the name of Lisa McPherson and
then, when the going got tough, Bob Minton bailed on the case. Now the
Trust is owned by Stacy Brooks and it is well known what SHE thinks of the
Estate's case--she wanted to fly to Dallas to talk Dell Liebreich out of
continuing the case. It's apparent to me that the LMT has only sought to
ride on the coattails of the death of Lisa McPherson to pursue its own
ends; perhaps that might explain LMT attorney John Merrett's attempt to
trademark the name.
And finally, Bob, Stacy, Mark, John--anyone related to the LMT: If you have
a problem with what I am saying, you'd best contact me. Don't contact
Patricia and scream at her. Patricia doesn't control what I post. It
irritates me to no end that you people are so moronic as to think that I am
Patricia's shill. And if you didn't get my phone number from my last post,
it is: 480-968-7562.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
DilbertPerkins
roger gonnet
Are you trying to put more acrimony between people who should be friends and
, possibly, are?
Even if you were right to sustain that opinion here, which I don't believe,
you should rather not lose the main topic here: getting rid of the
scientology criminal cult.
LMT or Courage Productions are not working opposed one to another.
roger
"Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@nospamsonic.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns91B5BDAC7159...@208.201.224.154...
Jeff Jacobsen
Holmes) wrote:
>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time they have put
>up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week! I know, because I
>checked on Monday and the page was down and all the clips were gone, but I
>see that they are back up today.
If Patricia is so mad, and you're not her mouthpiece, then she should
just come here and say it herself.
I don't see why you are so concerned about a business agreement
between Bob and Peter and Patricia. You are not a party? You have no
financial investment? You don't know what any contract may say?
You're listening to only one side? You just like to pick at the LMT?
Mike O'Connor
mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
> I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
> employee Mark Bunker have not learned.
[...]
Well at least you're not third partying or anything...
--
LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Mike O'Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>It's hard for me to find the words to express to describe what Bob and Mark
>are doing. It is apparent to just about everyone except for the sorry SOBs
>at the LMT that "The Profit" is NOT the property of the Lisa McPherson
>Trust and under no circumstances should "clips" be on the LMT website. I
>don't know where the LMT gets off on posting these copyrighted excerpts
>without the permission of the copyright holder.
Isn't it up to the owners of the film to send complaints to the Lisa
McPherson Trust? I'm curious why you're complaining when TFCVP should
be the one asking Mr. Bunker to remove the clips.
-- Listen to Scientology's insane "International President" nutter
ranting insanely at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice
When scientologists are involved it raises the chances of business
fraud by about 100 fold. -- Human Rights activist Mr. Keith Henson
"Commodore Rimjob" available http://www.stationmp3.com/enturbulator
JimDBB
>From: mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes)
>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time they have put
>up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week! I know, because I
>checked on Monday and the page was down and all the clips were gone, but I
>see that they are back up today.
Big deal. Bob Minton and others with the LMT are in the "Profit", why wouldn't
they put up clips.
>It's hard for me to find the words to express to describe what Bob and Mark
>are doing. It is apparent to just about everyone except for the sorry SOBs
>at the LMT that "The Profit" is NOT the property of the Lisa McPherson
>Trust and under no circumstances should "clips" be on the LMT website. I
>don't know where the LMT gets off on posting these copyrighted excerpts
>without the permission of the copyright holder. Not only that, these
>"clips" are fourth generation copies from a videotape and not from the
>print itself, and to put those up on a website is an insult to the
>filmmakers and the cinematographer.
Do we have to suffer through all of this again? Click on the delete key.
Jimdbb.
Deana Holmes' Shadow
mir...@nospamsonic.net says...
>
>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time they have put
>up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week! I know, because I
>checked on Monday and the page was down and all the clips were gone, but I
>see that they are back up today.
>
Maybe you should get a court order and raid Minton's home to confiscate
the illegally copyrighted material?
>Deana Holmes
>mir...@sonic.net
Tigger
(Rev. Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>Xenu allowed mir...@nospamsonic.net
> (Deana M. Holmes) to write:
>> It's hard for me to find the words to
>> express to describe what Bob and
>> Mark are doing. It is apparent to just
>> about everyone except for the sorry
>> SOBs at the LMT that "The Profit" is
>> NOT the property of the Lisa
>> McPherson Trust and under no
> circumstances should "clips" be on the
>> LMT website. I don't know where the
>> LMT gets off on posting these
>> copyrighted excerpts without the
>> permission of the copyright holder.
>Isn't it up to the owners of the film to
> send complaints to the Lisa McPherson
> Trust? I'm curious why you're
> complaining when TFCVP should be the
> one asking Mr. Bunker to remove the
> clips.
Mr. Rice,
How do you know Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway have not told Mr.
Minton to remove the illegal clips of The Profit from the LMT website?
How do you know they haven't told Mr. Minton SEVERAL TIMES?
Why don't YOU ask Mr. Minton if the owners of the copyrights have asked
him to remove the clips and WHY HE HAS NOT?
Geesh, how much Minton crap are you going to condone?
Tigger
Michael
Why not compromise the "Profit" I mean he was after all turned down for
a part....
Michael
Deana M. Holmes
news:ekuo6ug5p11msbaot...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:37:22 GMT, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M.
> Holmes) wrote:
>
>>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson
>>Trust employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time
>>they have put up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week!
>>I know, because I checked on Monday and the page was down and all the
>>clips were gone, but I see that they are back up today.
>
> If Patricia is so mad, and you're not her mouthpiece, then she should
> just come here and say it herself.
Goddamnit, you obviously can't read, can you Jeff? I said at the very
bottom of my post that I spoke for myself. I even gave my phone number for
you or anyone else to call me if you have a problem with me verbally
expressing myself on this. You know me pretty well, but obviously you must
be listening to some Stacy Brooks propaganda line that says that I'm too
stupid to make up my own mind about things and have to be fed stuff by
Patricia.
In any case, I see that you know which side your bread is buttered on,
Jeff, and you won't listen to common sense OR the law for that matter.
The LMT is supposed to have nothing to do with Bob Minton, right? I thought
Bob sold it to Stacy. So I don't understand how Bob has any rights to (a)
tell an LMT employee (Mark Bunker) to put up these clips, since *Bob does
not hold the copyright* and (b) why the LMT should be involved in *any
case* since there is NO contractual relationship between "The Profit" and
the LMT.
I don't think, Jeff, that you can explain this away. Instead, you resort to
attacking me. What is so difficult to understand about taking someone's
hard work and misappropriating it? Or are there separate rules for the LMT
that don't apply to anyone else.
> I don't see why you are so concerned about a business agreement
> between Bob and Peter and Patricia. You are not a party? You have no
> financial investment? You don't know what any contract may say?
> You're listening to only one side? You just like to pick at the LMT?
I'd love to hear the LMT justification for violating copyright. I'd really
love to hear that. But I don't think I'm going to hear that, because Bob
Minton thinks he can run roughshod over Patricia Greenway and Peter
Alexander.
The thing that irritates me the most about this is that it came about
because I expressed my opinion on an IRC channel about John Merrett's
lawyering skills. Because of these off-the-cuff remarks, Bob thinks he has
got to attack Greenway and Alexander and grind them down into the ground,
because he has no way to directly reach me. Do you know how *shitty* that
is, Jeff? I guess you don't, since you've joined together with your former
co-worker on that IRC channel to try and pick at and harass me.
You really are despicable. You used to be a decent person that I looked up
to, but your time with the LMT has ruined your morals.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
news:a4htbn$1far$1...@news6.isdnet.net:
> LMT or Courage Productions are not working opposed one to another.
Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway do not want to have anything to do
with the LMT. Period. Given the LMT's lack of moral values, I think this is
the wisest thing to do.
Deana M. Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
news:20020214231620...@mb-cf.aol.com:
> Big deal. Bob Minton and others with the LMT are in the "Profit", why
> wouldn't they put up clips.
Bob doesn't own the copyright and the LMT has no rights to post the clips.
This is not hard to understand, except by those who do not want to
understand.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
ptsc
wrote:
>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time they have put
>up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week! I know, because I
>checked on Monday and the page was down and all the clips were gone, but I
>see that they are back up today.
The proper forum for such a complaint would be in a copyright infringement suit.
Perhaps they can hire Helena Kobrin to send some ho' notes.
ptsc
Deana M. Holmes
news:mike-34FAEB.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> In article <Xns91B5BDAC7159...@208.201.224.154>,
> mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>
>> I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson
>> Trust employee Mark Bunker have not learned.
> [...]
>
> Well at least you're not third partying or anything...
>
Well gee, you going to say anything else besides that? Or, Mike, do you
have a problem with the LMT taking someone's hard work and appropriating it
without permission?
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
news:a4i22...@drn.newsguy.com:
> Maybe you should get a court order and raid Minton's home to confiscate
> the illegally copyrighted material?
Legal steps are being taken.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Tigger
wrote:
>>I just checked, and it's apparent that
>> Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>> employee Mark Bunker have not
>> learned. This is the third time they
>> have put up clips from "The Profit"...the
>> second time in a week! I know,
>> because I checked on Monday and the
>> page was down and all the clips were
>> gone, but I see that they are back up
>> today.
>Big deal. Bob Minton and others with the
> LMT are in the "Profit", why wouldn't
> they put up clips.
Well, JimDBB, it may not be a big deal to you if someone steals your
music or tries to destroy it. You can always run up $50,000 credit card
debt and then beg for money. But Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway
put their blood, sweat, tears and money in this movie, not to mention
all the harassment dished out by the COS and the LMT.
>>It's hard for me to find the words to
>> express to describe what Bob and >>Mark are doing. It is apparent to
just
>> about everyone except for the sorry
>> SOBs at the LMT that "The Profit" is
>> NOT the
>>property of the Lisa McPherson Trust
>>and under no circumstances should
>>"clips" be on the LMT website. I don't
>> know where the LMT gets off on
>> posting these copyrighted excerpts
>>without the permission of the copyright
>> holder. Not only that, these "clips" are
>> fourth generation copies from a
>> videotape and not from the print itself,
>> and to put those up on a website is an
>> insult to the filmmakers and the
>> cinematographer.
>Do we have to suffer through all of this >again? Click on the delete
key.
Geesh, apparently you, too, will condone any crap Minton wants to dish
out and any crime he wants to commit. I hope Peter Alexander and
Patricia Greenway sue the socks off of Minton. He's one of the sorriest
SOBs I have ever seen.
Tigger
>Jimdbb.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I DON'T GIVE THEM HELL. I JUST TELL THEM THE TRUTH AND THEY THINK IT'S
HELL."'
Harry S. Truman (GIVE 'EM HELL, HARRY)
U. S. President
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ptsc
So they can cement their separation by returning the two million dollars they
took from Bob Minton if they feel that strongly about it.
ptsc
ptsc
Do you have problems with taking two million dollars from Bob Minton and then
burying the product? I guess not, it's just fine to take two million from
someone and then accuse them of copyright infringement on the flimsiest
imaginable grounds.
Who is going to be the attorney who would say that the producer of a film using
a minute or two of clips from it is copyright infringement? I'd like to see
what kind of sewer you'd dredge a creep like that out of.
Whoever would litigate that loser of a case would be seeking an addition to
their disciplinary records.
ptsc
ptsc
>Bob doesn't own the copyright and the LMT has no rights to post the clips.
>This is not hard to understand, except by those who do not want to
>understand.
So what percentage of the film does this represent? Are you willing to argue
that the producer of a film using one or two percent of it can't constitute fair
use? Based on what?
Sounds like a load of sorry horseshit to me.
And again, the proper forum for addressing this is in a copyright suit--why
hasn't one been brought? Well, let's guess. Could it be because it's a DOA
loser of a suit? Could it be because the issue of a certain two million dollars
would almost certainly come up in it?
This is a sorry sack of shit argument, and I'm amazed anyone with a legal
education would even touch this loser.
You are deifying Helena Kobrin with this shit.
ptsc
Deana Holmes' Shadow
says...
>
>Deana Holmes' Shadow <Deana_...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>news:a4i22...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> Maybe you should get a court order and raid Minton's home to confiscate
>> the illegally copyrighted material?
>
>Legal steps are being taken.
>
Well I understand that a certain dude in Sweden has already archived the
*illegal copies* and will deploy them if any ridiculus action by some overpaid
producers take place. The genie is out of the bottle and you will never control
who sees the movie.
Starshadow
Tigger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002, 4:16am (CST+6) From: jim...@aol.com (JimDBB)
> wrote:
> Subject: LMT violates "The Profit" copyright AGAIN
>
>>From: mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana
>>M. Holmes)
>>
>
>>>I just checked, and it's apparent that
>>>Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>>>employee Mark Bunker have not
>>>learned. This is the third time they
>>>have put up clips from "The Profit"...the
>>>second time in a week! I know,
>>>because I checked on Monday and the
>>>page was down and all the clips were
>>>gone, but I see that they are back up
>>>today.
>>>
>
>>Big deal. Bob Minton and others with the
>>LMT are in the "Profit", why wouldn't
>>they put up clips.
>>
>
> Well, JimDBB, it may not be a big deal to you if someone steals your
> music or tries to destroy it. You can always run up $50,000 credit card
> debt and then beg for money. But Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway
> put their blood, sweat, tears and money in this movie, not to mention
> all the harassment dished out by the COS and the LMT.
>
>
Just an fyi for anyone reading Shirley's feeble attempt at
me-tooing, Minton gave TFC two million of HIS money to
make that film.
Feel free to send them money to support a lawsuit which
will most certainly lose especially when the two million
bucks Minton invested in the film is brought out and that
the film clips can be claimed as "fair use".
Shirley, you are a piece of work. I hope you're proud of
yourself for your attempts at trying to flail at LMT and
at Minton, in this post and in your posts where you feebly
attempt to link him and Tory with the death of a suicide
victim.
Fuck you, Shirley. If you want to see a sorry SOB, look in
the damn mirror. As my grandmother used to say "There are
none so blind as they who will not see."
>
>
>>Jimdbb.
>>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "I DON'T GIVE THEM HELL. I JUST TELL THEM THE TRUTH AND THEY THINK IT'S
> HELL."'
>
> Harry S. Truman (GIVE 'EM HELL, HARRY)
> U. S. President
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow KoX, SP5, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
(to find out what this means go to www.xenu.net)
Deana M. Holmes
news:fi8p6uoc08g5inddu...@4ax.com:
> So they can cement their separation by returning the two million
> dollars they took from Bob Minton if they feel that strongly about it.
In other words, Rob, theft is OK? If Bob wants his money, there are legal
ways to go about it. This way is simply harassment.
Deana
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
> Do you have problems with taking two million dollars from Bob Minton
> and then burying the product? I guess not, it's just fine to take two
> million from someone and then accuse them of copyright infringement on
> the flimsiest imaginable grounds.
Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is not distributable, and he is culpable
in *that* as well.
> Who is going to be the attorney who would say that the producer of a
> film using a minute or two of clips from it is copyright infringement?
> I'd like to see what kind of sewer you'd dredge a creep like that out
> of.
The film has never been released for distribution. So to take those clips
and put them on the web is theft, pure and simple. What makes this more
heinous (not that you *care*, Rob) is that the LMT is not a part of "The
Profit" at all. There is no contractual relationship, Bob does not own the
LMT and there is no connection. It is wrong for Bob to appropriate "The
Profit" and put it up on the LMT website.
> Whoever would litigate that loser of a case would be seeking an
> addition to their disciplinary records.
Yeah right. The LMT has no rights to the clips from an undistributed film;
what Mark Bunker did at the instigation of Bob Minton is theft.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
> Well I understand that a certain dude in Sweden has already archived
> the *illegal copies* and will deploy them if any ridiculus action by
> some overpaid producers take place. The genie is out of the bottle and
> you will never control who sees the movie.
Yes, those would be illegal copies. And I can just about guarantee you that
if this "Swedish dude" distributes illegal copies, that the Swedish dude
will be sued...and not just by "The Profit's" owners.
Deana
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:37:22 GMT, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M.
> Holmes) wrote:
>
>>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson
>>Trust employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time
>>they have put up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week!
>>I know, because I checked on Monday and the page was down and all the
>>clips were gone, but I see that they are back up today.
>
> The proper forum for such a complaint would be in a copyright
> infringement suit.
Uhm, a DMCA complaint is in order, I believe.
> Perhaps they can hire Helena Kobrin to send some ho' notes.
So I guess it's wrong for people to protect their intellectual property by
misappropriation by those who do not have permission to reproduce or
distribute same?
Do you have a problem with all this, Rob? You should. After all, don't you
think that Bob Minton and Mark Bunker don't know that their acts violate
copyright and aren't subject to DMCA--even more than your average person?
After all, Mark took down copies of video tapes after receiving cease and
desist letters from news outlets just last year. It would be highly ironic
if Mark thought he could violate copyright for this particular instance.
Given this past history, it's going to be very hard for Mark Bunker to
explain away how he didn't know that taking a copy of a film that has not
been distributed and does not belong to him or to the organization he works
for, *or* that his organization has permission to put up clips from the
film isn't a violation of copyright.
Mark *knows*, but he thinks all this is *funny*. I can hear him now...he's
laughing because he's got me in a tizzy and he thinks that Patricia and
Peter must be furious, so he's struck a blow at the enemies of the LMT.
And in fact, that is the major reason why those clips have to come down off
the LMT website. Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander don't want to have
anything to do with the LMT, which is not hard to figure out after Greenway
was the subject of a vicious, premeditated attack by Bob Minton and then
persons employed by the LMT. Don't you think that it would be highly
offensive, then, to find excerpts from your film on a website being run by
people who have made it clear that they think you're a terrible person (a
"Suppressive Person" in Scientology parlance)? How hard is this to
understand?
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
news:Xns91B5BDAC7159...@208.201.224.154:
> And if you didn't get my phone number from my last post,
> it is: 480-968-7562.
Oh yeah, and to the person who called at 1:45 am this morning: I'm not
going to interrupt my sleep to listen to your ravings. If you have
something to say, say it when I'm awake.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
ptsc
Is it theft? Why not let a judge decide if they're so all-fired sure they're
win a case. I mean potentially $100,000 statutory damage per infringement--that
would buy some distribution.
Of course, if the claims of infringement are just a crock of fucking shit, why.
. .well, I'd expect to hear a bunch of whining and squalling and no lawsuit.
ptsc
ptsc
>ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in
>news:qj8p6uc1mh6vi51fr...@4ax.com:
>> Do you have problems with taking two million dollars from Bob Minton
>> and then burying the product? I guess not, it's just fine to take two
>> million from someone and then accuse them of copyright infringement on
>> the flimsiest imaginable grounds.
>Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is not distributable, and he is culpable
>in *that* as well.
So what you mean to say is you don't fucking know, and have no evidence, and are
making accusations based on no knowledge whatsoever.
Why the fuck should I ask Bob to prove accusations YOU made?
Or I guess the usual rules for making wild-ass rules are suspended in YOUR case.
If so, why? What's so fucking special about you that you think you can get away
with making accusations like this.
>> Who is going to be the attorney who would say that the producer of a
>> film using a minute or two of clips from it is copyright infringement?
>> I'd like to see what kind of sewer you'd dredge a creep like that out
>> of.
>The film has never been released for distribution. So to take those clips
>and put them on the web is theft, pure and simple. What makes this more
>heinous (not that you *care*, Rob) is that the LMT is not a part of "The
>Profit" at all. There is no contractual relationship, Bob does not own the
>LMT and there is no connection. It is wrong for Bob to appropriate "The
>Profit" and put it up on the LMT website.
That film has been shown in Clearwater in public--that puts it in a different
class than completely unpublished material. Fact is, the reason it isn't
released isn't Bob Minton's fault. What consideration did Bob receive for two
million dollars toward its publication? Was there any distribution clause in
the contact?
If not, why not?
If there is, aren't Totally Fun in breach of it?
Do you know? Don't you? Or are you just full of fucking shit?
>> Whoever would litigate that loser of a case would be seeking an
>> addition to their disciplinary records.
>Yeah right. The LMT has no rights to the clips from an undistributed film;
>what Mark Bunker did at the instigation of Bob Minton is theft.
So they should sue.
That's what I'd expect if someone were committing a real act of copyright
infringement.
If there weren't I'd expect a bunch of shrill fucking whining and complete
inability to back up a word of this bullshit.
And that's what I'm seeing.
ptsc
ptsc
>ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in
>news:057p6u0sn0n5o2i7p...@4ax.com:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:37:22 GMT, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M.
>> Holmes) wrote:
>>>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson
>>>Trust employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time
>>>they have put up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week!
>>>I know, because I checked on Monday and the page was down and all the
>>>clips were gone, but I see that they are back up today.
>> The proper forum for such a complaint would be in a copyright
>> infringement suit.
>Uhm, a DMCA complaint is in order, I believe.
>> Perhaps they can hire Helena Kobrin to send some ho' notes.
>So I guess it's wrong for people to protect their intellectual property by
>misappropriation by those who do not have permission to reproduce or
>distribute same?
I don't even think this is an infringement. I think a judge should decide that.
And then I think a judge should decide wherther Totally Fun is in breach of
whatever contract they have with Bob. I'd frankly like to see that goddamn two
fucking million dollars put to work.
>Do you have a problem with all this, Rob? You should. After all, don't you
What I have a problem with is that two million goddamn dollars would have done a
lot of good for the public if it had been spent on a LEGITIMATE project instead
of generating a giant fucking turd that has as yet done nothing worth shit for
anyone.
Two million dollars would have scanned every goddamn page of cases involving
Scientology that was worth having, PDF'ized them, and created a website--not to
mention helped a few people along the line besides the recipients of the two
million.
So frankly I don't give a flying fuck about a bullshit, worthless infringement
that is de minimis at best.
But it's nice to see you've gone to join Helena Kobrin's flying monkeys.
>think that Bob Minton and Mark Bunker don't know that their acts violate
>copyright and aren't subject to DMCA--even more than your average person?
So go ahead. Bring it, bitch. Or shut the fuck up.
>After all, Mark took down copies of video tapes after receiving cease and
>desist letters from news outlets just last year. It would be highly ironic
>if Mark thought he could violate copyright for this particular instance.
It would be interesting to see if Bob could get his two million back and put it
toward something useful. If they don't have the two million, they could turn
over the film so it could do some good, instead of moldering.
Come on, post the fucking contract, bitch.
Do you have it? Do you know its clauses back and forth?
Come on, bring it. Or shut the fuck up.
>Given this past history, it's going to be very hard for Mark Bunker to
>explain away how he didn't know that taking a copy of a film that has not
>been distributed and does not belong to him or to the organization he works
>for, *or* that his organization has permission to put up clips from the
>film isn't a violation of copyright.
Come on, bring it. Or shut up.
>Mark *knows*, but he thinks all this is *funny*. I can hear him now...he's
>laughing because he's got me in a tizzy and he thinks that Patricia and
>Peter must be furious, so he's struck a blow at the enemies of the LMT.
>And in fact, that is the major reason why those clips have to come down off
>the LMT website. Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander don't want to have
>anything to do with the LMT, which is not hard to figure out after Greenway
>was the subject of a vicious, premeditated attack by Bob Minton and then
>persons employed by the LMT. Don't you think that it would be highly
>offensive, then, to find excerpts from your film on a website being run by
>people who have made it clear that they think you're a terrible person (a
>"Suppressive Person" in Scientology parlance)? How hard is this to
>understand?
Prove it or shut the fuck up.
Prove that Bob Minton has, in fact, no rights whatsoever to the work.
In fact, prove that the use isn't fair.
There are a few minute-long snippets. Even if Minton had no right to the work
whatsoever some use would be fair. This is a minimal infringement at best, and
possibly no infringement at all.
I think you just took a lesson from the Helena Kobrin Rule 11 University.
I think you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.
ptsc
ethercat
wrote in <Xns91B643674E3E...@205.232.34.12>:
>Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is not distributable, and he is culpable
>in *that* as well.
Deana, I'd like to see the film in its entirety, and I bet others
here would too. Why is is not distributable?
|_____|__| |\__/,| (\
|__|_____| _.|o o |_ ) )
|------------------------| ethercat |------------------(((---(((--------|
|_____|_____|___ http://www.cafepress.com/pickets ____|_____|_____|_____|
|__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__|
|__ http://alley.ethercat.com/malloffire _|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
|__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__|
ptsc
>On 15 Feb 2002 08:36:09 -0500, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes)
>wrote in <Xns91B643674E3E...@205.232.34.12>:
>>Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is not distributable, and he is culpable
>>in *that* as well.
> Deana, I'd like to see the film in its entirety, and I bet others
>here would too. Why is is not distributable?
Remove all other factors, and it remains a piece of shit!
At least it has a certain Ed Wood appeal.
It also really didn't goddamn help that when it was shown in Clearwater,
Patricia used her "sound bite" time to attack Bob Minton and the Lisa McPherson
Trust. She might have just slapped a biohazard symbol on the whole film.
No distributor wants to touch a film the backers are obviously fighting about.
So it turned into total poison, the film equivalent of a leper.
Great job! What a huge waste of two million dollars that could have actually
gone to fighting Scientology.
It's really a tragedy and a sick disgrace, and frankly I'm more concerned with
that than some de minimis copyright infringement and a bunch of goddamn
worthless whining about it.
ptsc
ef
mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
> So I guess it's wrong for people to protect their intellectual property by
> misappropriation by those who do not have permission to reproduce or
> distribute same?
i wouldn't call the profit an "intellectual" property, exactly
-ef
Nessie
"ptsc" <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> schreef in bericht
news:eibq6usvmbnsja5d1...@4ax.com...
Why haven't we heard _why_ the film is not being further
distributed? As the film _was_ made to be distributed, I gather
that no one has been interested till now or not enough effort
was done to have it appear in other cinemas.
But, of course it could also be a personal or a money problem.
WHY?
Personally, I liked the film, but I did have some critical points
like some things were imo overdone and other things were
missing. On the other hand I consider it a difficult task and
maybe completely impossible to make a normal size of movie
about the complex and sinister 'life' of $cientology and get the
unknowing public to understand the evils and anti social
functions of $cientology and other cults.
After the show Patricia sincerely asked people what they
thought about 'The Profit' and what one could think of to
make it more impressionable.
Patricia told me that she was interested in viewers impression,
because they were considering remaking the film for further
distribution.
I must say that I am very sorry that 'The Profit' has not yet
made a go for a broader public.
To get it into 'the world', maybe selling it as a TV film would
be the best option.
Will it ever appear again?
Xenu, I sincerely hope so!
Nessie at 'The Profit':
http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
JimDBB
>From: boobook...@webtv.net (Tigger)
>Date: 2/14/02 11:37 PM Central
Jimdbb wrote:
>>Big deal. Bob Minton and others with the
>> LMT are in the "Profit", why wouldn't
>> they put up clips.
>Well, JimDBB, it may not be a big deal to you if someone steals your
>music or tries to destroy it. You can always run up $50,000 credit card
>debt and then beg for money.
Excuse me, but I did not 'beg' for money. I asked for contributions to help me
out of a bad debt situation. I offered a plan wherein I would pay contributors
back.
> But Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway
>put their blood, sweat, tears and money in this movie, not to mention
>all the harassment dished out by the COS and the LMT.
I keep reading that Bob Minton financed this film. Is this true or not?
JImdbb
perky...@my-deja.com
<ekuo6ug5p11msbaot...@4ax.com>, Jeff said...
>
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:37:22 GMT, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M.
>Holmes) wrote:
>
>>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>>employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time they have put
>>up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week! I know, because I
>>checked on Monday and the page was down and all the clips were gone, but I
>>see that they are back up today.
>
>just come here and say it herself.
>
And you should just pay the $32,000 for violating the injuction.
guess...@hotmail.com
<23769344.0...@drn.newsguy.com>, Deana said...
There is just one place right now on the net that in
fact has the entire movie webbed.
ptsc
wrote:
>Why haven't we heard _why_ the film is not being further
>distributed? As the film _was_ made to be distributed, I gather
>that no one has been interested till now or not enough effort
>was done to have it appear in other cinemas.
>But, of course it could also be a personal or a money problem.
>WHY?
It could have something to do with the fact that the Totally Fun Company took
their soundbite time when the film was first shown in Clearwater not to promote
the film, but instead to insult and trash Bob Minton and the Lisa McPherson
Trust.
That just slapped a huge biohazard symbol on the whole film. What kind of
fucking idiot wants to get involved with a film that is already an object of
controversy? Why buy trouble?
They committed box office suicide that day.
ptsc
Kaeli
about it being shown in Toronto at the Toronto Film Festival. Is there a
reason as to why it's not being shown outside the U.S.?
Kaeli A.
Tigger
(Jeff Jacobsen) wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:37:22 GMT,
>>I just checked, and it's apparent that
>> Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>> employee Mark Bunker have not
>> learned. This is the third time they
>> have put up clips from "The Profit"...the
>> second time in a week! I know,
>> because I checked on Monday and the
>> page was down and all the clips were
>> gone, but I see that they are back up
>> today.
>If Patricia is so mad, and you're not her
> mouthpiece, then she should just come
> here and say it herself.
Well Jeff Jacobson, why don't you ask BOB MINTON to come here and tell
us why he THINKS he can violate copyrights anytime he wants to. Ask him
to bring a copy of the business agreement.
>I don't see why you are so concerned
> about a business agreement between
> Bob and Peter and Patricia.
> You are not a party? You have no
> financial investment? You don't know
> what any contract may say? You're l>istening to only one side? You
just like
> to pick at the LMT?
So ask Minton what the business agreement says.
Ask him to show you a copy.
Ask him if he is sending pirated copies overseas.
Ask him why he wants to destroy THE PROFIT whiich will deep six his
"investment".
Why don't you ever ask Bob Minton any questions? Are you being fooled
by Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton? Are you some brainwahsed cult member?
Is anything they do, no matter how despicable, illegal, dishonest and
corrupt just fine with you?
Geeesh, apparently you ARE NOT the Jeff Jacobson I thought you were.
Tigger
Tigger
Subject: Re: LMT violates "The Profit" copyright AGAIN
>From: boobook...@webtv.net
> (Tigger)
>>Date: 2/14/02 11:37 PM Central
>>Jimdbb wrote:
>>>Big deal. Bob Minton and others with
>>> the LMT are in the "Profit", why
>>> wouldn't they put up clips.
>>Well, JimDBB, it may not be a big deal
>> to you if someone steals your music or
>> tries to destroy it. You can always run
>> up $50,000 credit card debt and then
>> beg for money.
>Excuse me, but I did not 'beg' for money.
> I asked for contributions to help me out
> of a bad debt situation. I offered a plan
> wherein I would pay contributors back.
Contributions, gifts, loans, whatever, you still ASKED for money, didn't
you to repay your personal credit card debt of $50,000
which was not incurred because you were fighting Scientology or being
sued by COS or anything to do with Scientology, was it?
>> But Peter Alexander and Patricia
>> Greenway put their blood, sweat, tears
>> and money in this movie, not to
>> mention all the harassment dished out
>> by the COS and the LMT.
>I keep reading that Bob Minton financed
> this film. Is this true or not?
Bob Minton made an "investment" didn't he? If he wants to get his money
back or make a profit, he shouldn't be trying to destroy the product in
which he invested, should he?
Why don't you ask Minton why he illegally webbed "snippets" of THE
PROFIT and if he plans to destroy the marketability of THE PROFIT BY
webbing it snippet by snippet or if he has already sent pirated copies
to be webbed overseas?
Wake up. Your hero has feet of clay.
Tigger
>JImdbb
Nessie
"Tigger" <boobook...@webtv.net> schreef in bericht
news:4426-3C6...@storefull-2274.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Geeesh, apparently you ARE NOT the Jeff Jacobson I thought you were.
> Tigger
Geesh, Jeff, you used to be a nice guy:-))))))))))))
Nessie.:-)
Mike Krotz
anything about why or how this has been done and have not talked to Bob,
Peter or Patricia in a while, I must refrain from comment.
MK
Deana M. Holmes wrote:
> Mike O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com> wrote in
> news:mike-34FAEB.2...@news2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
>
>
>>In article <Xns91B5BDAC7159...@208.201.224.154>,
>> mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson
>>>Trust employee Mark Bunker have not learned.
>>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Well at least you're not third partying or anything...
>>
>>
>
> Well gee, you going to say anything else besides that? Or, Mike, do you
> have a problem with the LMT taking someone's hard work and appropriating it
> without permission?
>
> Deana Holmes
> mir...@sonic.net
>
Starshadow
Tigger wrote:
> Fri, Feb 15, 2002, 5:40pm (CST+6) From: jim...@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote:
> Subject: Re: LMT violates "The Profit" copyright AGAIN
>
>>From: boobook...@webtv.net
>>(Tigger)
>>
>
>>>Date: 2/14/02 11:37 PM Central
>>>Jimdbb wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>Big deal. Bob Minton and others with
>>>>the LMT are in the "Profit", why
>>>>wouldn't they put up clips.
>>>>
>
>>>Well, JimDBB, it may not be a big deal
>>>to you if someone steals your music or
>>>tries to destroy it. You can always run
>>>up $50,000 credit card debt and then
>>>beg for money.
>>>
>
>>Excuse me, but I did not 'beg' for money.
>>I asked for contributions to help me out
>>of a bad debt situation. I offered a plan
>>wherein I would pay contributors back.
>>
>
> Contributions, gifts, loans, whatever, you still ASKED for money, didn't
> you to repay your personal credit card debt of $50,000
> which was not incurred because you were fighting Scientology or being
> sued by COS or anything to do with Scientology, was it?
>
Do you know this for certain, or are you once again
pulling it out of your arse? In any case, Jim has a
history with people on this newsgroup, and a reputation
which is far better than yours. Yes, there are people who
don't like what he says some of the time. There are people
who don't like him at all, just as in any number of
people. But I venture to say many more people count Jim as
a friend. Some may be in a position to help him. Without
asking one never knows.
In any case you are perfectly free to not help Jim out. No
one is twisting your arm.
>
>>> But Peter Alexander and Patricia
>>>Greenway put their blood, sweat, tears
>>>and money in this movie, not to
>>>mention all the harassment dished out
>>>by the COS and the LMT.
>>>
>
>>I keep reading that Bob Minton financed
>>this film. Is this true or not?
>>
>
> Bob Minton made an "investment" didn't he? If he wants to get his money
> back or make a profit, he shouldn't be trying to destroy the product in
> which he invested, should he?
Minton wasn't the one who tried to "destroy" the product.
This is another of your fantasies, Shirley.
> Why don't you ask Minton why he illegally webbed "snippets" of THE
> PROFIT and if he plans to destroy the marketability of THE PROFIT BY
> webbing it snippet by snippet or if he has already sent pirated copies
> to be webbed overseas?
Why don't you ask him, Shirley, and if you think it's
illegal, why don't you bring a lawsuit against "fair use"
snippets of the film and see it through? Then watch as a
judge laughs you out of the courtroom.
>
> Wake up. Your hero has feet of clay.
How do you know Minton is Jim's "hero", Shirley? Oh, I
forgot, you are a master psychic just like Miss Cleo, only
minus the phony Jamaican accent.
Either that or you are so desperate to bash Minton you
will pull shit out of your ass, as usual, and post it all
over ars.
Rev. Fredric L. Rice
>Bunker has to justify his Mintonbux somehow.
No one asked you for your opinion, bitch.
-- Listen to Scientology's insane "International President" nutter
ranting insanely at http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice
When scientologists are involved it raises the chances of business
fraud by about 100 fold. -- Human Rights activist Mr. Keith Henson
"Commodore Rimjob" available http://www.stationmp3.com/enturbulator
Elizabeth Ann Cox
another and frivolously throw it away!
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
"Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@nospamsonic.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91B5E51FAE8B...@205.232.34.12...
Elizabeth Ann Cox
have no problem understanding that.
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
"Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@nospamsonic.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91B5E501F8B...@205.232.34.12...
> jim...@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote in
> news:20020214231620...@mb-cf.aol.com:
>
> > Big deal. Bob Minton and others with the LMT are in the "Profit", why
> > wouldn't they put up clips.
>
> Bob doesn't own the copyright and the LMT has no rights to post the clips.
> This is not hard to understand, except by those who do not want to
> understand.
>
> Deana Holmes
> mir...@sonic.net
Elizabeth Ann Cox
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
"Tigger" <boobook...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25393-3C6...@storefull-2278.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002, 4:16am (CST+6) From: jim...@aol.com (JimDBB)
> wrote:
> Subject: LMT violates "The Profit" copyright AGAIN
> >From: mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana
> > M. Holmes)
>
> >>I just checked, and it's apparent that
> >> Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
> >> employee Mark Bunker have not
> >> learned. This is the third time they
> >> have put up clips from "The Profit"...the
> >> second time in a week! I know,
> >> because I checked on Monday and the
> >> page was down and all the clips were
> >> gone, but I see that they are back up
> >> today.
>
> >Big deal. Bob Minton and others with the
> > LMT are in the "Profit", why wouldn't
> > they put up clips.
>
> Well, JimDBB, it may not be a big deal to you if someone steals your
> music or tries to destroy it. You can always run up $50,000 credit card
> debt and then beg for money. But Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway
> put their blood, sweat, tears and money in this movie, not to mention
> all the harassment dished out by the COS and the LMT.
>
> >>It's hard for me to find the words to
> >> express to describe what Bob and >>Mark are doing. It is apparent to
> just
> >> about everyone except for the sorry
> >> SOBs at the LMT that "The Profit" is
> >> NOT the
> >>property of the Lisa McPherson Trust
> >>and under no circumstances should
> >>"clips" be on the LMT website. I don't
> >> know where the LMT gets off on
> >> posting these copyrighted excerpts
> >>without the permission of the copyright
> >> holder. Not only that, these "clips" are
> >> fourth generation copies from a
> >> videotape and not from the print itself,
> >> and to put those up on a website is an
> >> insult to the filmmakers and the
> >> cinematographer.
>
> >Do we have to suffer through all of this >again? Click on the delete
> key.
>
> Geesh, apparently you, too, will condone any crap Minton wants to dish
> out and any crime he wants to commit. I hope Peter Alexander and
> Patricia Greenway sue the socks off of Minton. He's one of the sorriest
> SOBs I have ever seen.
>
> Tigger
>
> >Jimdbb.
Elizabeth Ann Cox
the church of scientology to me.
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
"Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@nospamsonic.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91B643B5D8A6...@205.232.34.12...
> Deana Holmes' Shadow <Deana_...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> news:23769344.0...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
> > Well I understand that a certain dude in Sweden has already archived
> > the *illegal copies* and will deploy them if any ridiculus action by
> > some overpaid producers take place. The genie is out of the bottle and
> > you will never control who sees the movie.
>
> Yes, those would be illegal copies. And I can just about guarantee you
that
> if this "Swedish dude" distributes illegal copies, that the Swedish dude
> will be sued...and not just by "The Profit's" owners.
>
> Deana
> mir...@sonic.net
Elizabeth Ann Cox
direction from them.
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
"Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@nospamsonic.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91B6453A3AA1...@205.232.34.12...
> ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress DOT com> wrote in
> news:057p6u0sn0n5o2i7p...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:37:22 GMT, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M.
> > Holmes) wrote:
> >
> >>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson
> >>Trust employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time
> >>they have put up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week!
> >>I know, because I checked on Monday and the page was down and all the
> >>clips were gone, but I see that they are back up today.
> >
> > The proper forum for such a complaint would be in a copyright
> > infringement suit.
>
> Uhm, a DMCA complaint is in order, I believe.
>
> > Perhaps they can hire Helena Kobrin to send some ho' notes.
>
> So I guess it's wrong for people to protect their intellectual property by
> misappropriation by those who do not have permission to reproduce or
> distribute same?
>
> Do you have a problem with all this, Rob? You should. After all, don't you
> think that Bob Minton and Mark Bunker don't know that their acts violate
> copyright and aren't subject to DMCA--even more than your average person?
> After all, Mark took down copies of video tapes after receiving cease and
> desist letters from news outlets just last year. It would be highly ironic
> if Mark thought he could violate copyright for this particular instance.
> Given this past history, it's going to be very hard for Mark Bunker to
> explain away how he didn't know that taking a copy of a film that has not
> been distributed and does not belong to him or to the organization he
works
> for, *or* that his organization has permission to put up clips from the
> film isn't a violation of copyright.
>
> Mark *knows*, but he thinks all this is *funny*. I can hear him now...he's
> laughing because he's got me in a tizzy and he thinks that Patricia and
> Peter must be furious, so he's struck a blow at the enemies of the LMT.
>
> And in fact, that is the major reason why those clips have to come down
off
> the LMT website. Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander don't want to have
> anything to do with the LMT, which is not hard to figure out after
Greenway
> was the subject of a vicious, premeditated attack by Bob Minton and then
> persons employed by the LMT. Don't you think that it would be highly
> offensive, then, to find excerpts from your film on a website being run by
> people who have made it clear that they think you're a terrible person (a
> "Suppressive Person" in Scientology parlance)? How hard is this to
> understand?
>
> Deana Holmes
> mir...@sonic.net
JimDBB
>>>Well, JimDBB, it may not be a big deal
>>> to you if someone steals your music or
>>> tries to destroy it. You can always run
>>> up $50,000 credit card debt and then
>>> beg for money.
>
>>Excuse me, but I did not 'beg' for money.
>> I asked for contributions to help me out
>> of a bad debt situation. I offered a plan
>> wherein I would pay contributors back.
>
>Contributions, gifts, loans, whatever, you still ASKED for money, didn't
>you to repay your personal credit card debt of $50,000
>which was not incurred because you were fighting Scientology or being
>sued by COS or anything to do with Scientology, was it?
Actually, a good part of this debt has been incurred from time and money spent
fighting scientology and helping people with scientology situations by talking
with them, meeting with them etc. When CAN was forced to close in 1996 I lost
half of my income. the other half I made as a bandleader-musician in the
Chicago area. For health reasons I had to curtail that activity and finally a
year ago this month I had to stop altogether. I did not figure on CAN closing
and having to quit music this soon. I'm down but not out. I have a book that
I'm working on, slowly but it is edging along. I can't get around much but I
can certainly use the computer etc. In a few weeks I am giving a talk on cults
at a Senior Center.
JImdbb
JimDBB
>Tigger wrote:
I think that I should clear up some misunderstandings. Tigger and I have
confrontational differences but we are ok off stage. I have told her that I
come on too strong perhaps at times but not to take anything personal because I
greatly respect her and like her. She stepped up and gave me some money a
while back and I will not forget that. More important is that she stepped up
to help my granddaughter who was striken last year with a deadly cancer. She
sent money more than once to my son and his wife to help with gas money as they
were driving 50 miles each way to the hospital, many times. Tigger is solid
gold in my book even though we have differences of opinion and differences of
expression.
Jimdbb
Bedford McIntosh
> I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
> employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time they have put
> up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week!
I don't get it.
If a copyright holder has a beef with someone, they can complain to
the infringer, their publisher, their ISP, whatever.
You, if I understand it correctly, are not the copyright holder.
What's the purpose of making your gripes known to this group rather
than the copyright holder?
I mean, IIRC, weren't you almost a lawyer? Don't you know the
appropriate recourse here?
Perhaps you need to retrain on taking on the valence of a critic.
Your blatent attempt at Dev-T is showing.
Michael
Hand.
Michael
ptsc
This is a bit unfair. I think Deana's motives in this are worthy--I just don't
particularly care for the opinions themselves. My possibly completely off-base
view of this is that she sees Patricia Greenway as sorely abused by a host of
people including Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks, and isn't going to back down from
supporting a friend just because that friend has become "politically"
inappropriate at this time.
I think it's a sign of character that she isn't going to be bullied out of
supporting a friend, but I think the facts of this particular matter suck.
The Profit should be being seen, whatever its merits. Taking two million bucks
for making it and then just sitting on it out of some crazy grudge is
outrageous.
I also don't think any copyrights are being infringed here, except possibly by
Helena Kobrin's standards.
ptsc
Deana M. Holmes
news:u6rj2dq...@corp.supernews.com:
> Boy, it must be somebody with deep pockets for lawyers fees. Sounds like
> the church of scientology to me.
Elizabeth,
That is dead agenting pure and simple. You are simply dead wrong,
considering the legal hassles that Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander
have had to endure (and will continue to endure) from the Church of
$cientology's legal sharks as a result of LMT activities. I don't see the
LMT volunteering to pay the legal fees that Patricia and Peter are having
to rack up in order to defend themselves against Scientology because of
what the LMT has done.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
2274.public.lawson.webtv.net:
> Bob Minton made an "investment" didn't he? If he wants to get his money
> back or make a profit, he shouldn't be trying to destroy the product in
> which he invested, should he?
That's the interesting thing. He seems bent on destroying the product that
he invested money in. I have to ask, is Bob's hatred of Patricia Greenway
so severe that he'd do this?
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
> Yes, people who kick their friends in the teeth typically run in the
> other direction from them.
Yes, that would definitely apply to the actions of Bob Minton and the LMT
since last summer, when Patricia Greenway was declared an SP.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
news:cpcq6uo4n7nj55g60...@4ax.com:
> On 15 Feb 2002 08:36:09 -0500, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes)
> wrote in <Xns91B643674E3E...@205.232.34.12>:
>
>>Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is not distributable, and he is
>>culpable in *that* as well.
>
> Deana, I'd like to see the film in its entirety, and I bet others
> here would too. Why is is not distributable?
You would have to ask Bob Minton that question, Ethercat.
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Deana M. Holmes
> Remove all other factors, and it remains a piece of shit!
Right. You've seen this movie, haven't you, Rob?
No, you haven't? Well, then, how can you comment?
(BTW, this is the only remark of your many remarks that I will comment
upon. I don't have to respond to voracious cursing.)
Deana Holmes
mir...@sonic.net
Tigger
cryptofortress DOT com (ptsc) wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2002 00:27:49 -0500,
> mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M.
> Holmes) wrote:
>>"roger gonnet"
>> <roger....@worldnet.fr> wrote in
>>news:a4htbn$1far$1...@news6.isdnet.net:
>>>LMT or Courage Productions are not
>>> working opposed one to another.
>>Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway
>> do not want to have anything to do with
>> the LMT. Period. Given the LMT's lack
>> of moral values, I think this is the
>> wisest thing to do.
>So they can cement their separation by
> returning the two million dollars they
> took from Bob Minton if they feel that
> strongly about it.
Well, geesh, ptsc, why don't you just get Bob Minton to post that
Alexander and Greenway tied him up, blind folded him and took him to
Dorian's Mystery Mansion where Dorian told him lies about the creation
of Scientology until he (Minton) caved and GAVE Alexander and Greenway
$2 mil.?
MINTON MADE AN INVESTMENT OF HIS OWN FREE WILL. GOT IT?
Perhaps you would like to tell us how many investors can get their money
back or make a profit by trying to "trash" or give away the product in
which they invested.
Geesh, maybe you better contact one or all of MINTON'S THERAPISTS to
explain why MINTON would want to do something like that. Perhaps Minton
is off his meds again or Stacy is feeding him too many cocktails and
fairy tales?
Tigger
BTW WARNING: Anyone who goes to Minton/Brooks/LMT for help and/or
accepts help from them COULD BE sorry.
Apparently if you don't agree to let them control you, they will do
anything to destroy you. Pure Hubbard tech.
>ptsc
arnie lerma
Jim, please be advised, that at one time, years ago, GunBunny AKA
Kieth Wyatt mailed me in a check for $100.
Theres the possibility that its couldjust be a suitable guise.
arnie lerma
I'd prefer to die speaking my mind than live fearing to speak.
The only thing that always works in scientology are its lawyers
The internet is the liberty tree of the new millennium
Secrets are the mortar binding lies as bricks together into prisons for the mind
http://www.lermanet.com/grifters.htm - mentioned 4 January 2000 in
The Washington Post's - 'Reliable Source' column re "Scientologist with no HEAD"
You want Bigots? http://members.home.net/bwarr1/Movie2.html
Beverly Rice
> It's hard for me to find the words to express to describe what Bob and Mark
> are doing. It is apparent to just about everyone except for the sorry SOBs
> at the LMT that "The Profit" is NOT the property of the Lisa McPherson
> Trust and under no circumstances should "clips" be on the LMT website. I
> don't know where the LMT gets off on posting these copyrighted excerpts
> without the permission of the copyright holder.
These are just ~small~ portions of the movie.
> Greenway and Alexander
> severed ties with the LMT over a year ago, and the LMT has made it clear in
> its public postings on the subject that there is a real hatred towards
> Patricia Greenway emanating from the LMT.
The wisest thing for LMT to do would be to keep the
personal feelings of their members separate from the
actions of the LMT.
However, putting up a little clip here and there
of the movie is not the big deal that you are making
it to be.
I don't see where they have tried to "profit" from
it, the clips are just that, clips, and there would
never have even been a movie to begin with had it
not been for Bob backing Peter in his desire to
make the movie.
I think the problem with the movie not being
successful is that like a lot of movies made by
insiders of a certain belief and/or understanding
trying to get a message across via a movie . . .
it may hit with those with the inside knowledge and
"get it", whereas with the average Joe Schmoe public . . .
that "awareness" and therefore admiration for it
is absent, and "appreciation" and desire to see it
is lost.
Kind of like the movies "Vanished" and "Revelation" put
out by the Christian Fundies, who thought they were the
most spectacular movies ever made, and then can't
figure out why the public doesn't receive them with
the same awe and they end up flopping . . .
or like the scientologists with "Battlefield Earth",
who ~knew~ what was really the truth behind the movie
and how spectacular it was in getting the truth out . . .
and then it flops because the public at large was
just not really the necessary audience to "appreciate"
the meat of the movie.
> And finally, Bob, Stacy, Mark, John--anyone related to the LMT: If you have
> a problem with what I am saying, you'd best contact me.
I see no reason why they should need or want to contact
you, you are dramatizing. You're just like any other
person here writing your opinion, nothing more, nothing
less.
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
Tigger
cryptofortress DOT com (ptsc) wrote:
>>ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress
>> DOT com> wrote in
>>news:qj8p6uc1mh6vi51fra6qncb0ut8uig
>>ub...@4ax.co
(snip)
>>Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is
>> not distributable, and he is culpable in
>> *that* as well.
>So what you mean to say is you don't
> fucking know, and have no evidence,
> and are making accusations based on
> no knowledge whatsoever.
So, ptsc,
Are you saying YOU, ROB CLARK, "don't fucking know, and have no evidence
and are making accusations based on no knowledge whatsoever"? And that
YOU, ROB CLARK, are too f_______ lazy and/or scared to ask BOB MINTON
any questions?
>Why the fuck should I ask Bob to prove
> accusations YOU made?
To prove YOU, ROB CLARK, aren't a coward and want to know the truth.
Hey, don't worry, no doubt Stacy can mock up some shore story that will
satisfy your uninquiritng mind.
>Or I guess the usual rules for making
> wild-ass rules are suspended in YOUR
> case. If so, why?
Gee, you mean only King Bob and his KKK are entitled to do that?
>What's so fucking special about you that >you think you can get away
with making
> accusations like this?
Answer: Becasue they are true?
(snip)
>That film has been shown in Clearwater
> in public--that puts it in a different class
> than completely unpublished material.
> Fact is, the reason it isn't released isn't
> Bob Minton's fault.
How do you know that "THE REASON IT ISN'T RELEASED ISN'T BOB MINTON'S
FAULT? Did you ASK Bob Minton or did you fall for one of Stacy's shore
stores?
> What consideration did Bob receive for
> two million dollars toward its
> publication? Was there any distribution
> clause in the contact?
Well like NORMAL (meaning non vindicctaive, cut off your nose to spite
your face) investors, Minton would be entitled to some percentage of the
profits, which he is trying to prevent by trashing and giving away the
product in which he invested.
Geesh, didn't you just say: "Fact is, the reason it isn't released
isn't Bob Minton's fault."? And YOU don't know what's in the contract?
Why don't you ASK BOB what's in the contract?
>If not, why not?
Ask Bob.
>If there is, aren't Totally Fun in breach of
> it?
Ask Bob. Oh shoot, ASK STACY. It would be interesting to see what
shore story she mocks up this time.
>Do you know? Don't you? Or are you just
> full of fucking shit?
Do YOU, ROB CLARK, know? Or are you just too full of f------ coward
s--- to ask BOB MINTON?
Tigger
Tigger
Now that's the JimDBB I knew and had fond feelings for.
Thanks for all the good things you have done. May all your troubles
soon fly away. Please consider filing for bankruptcy.
Tigger
Rod Keller
obviously fair use, you might as well try to challenge every kid who
replaced his computer's alarm sounds with Star Trek clips.
But what is the motivation behind webbing the clips? I'd have to think
it's in order to get the movie shown. It would be terrific if showing the
movie returned a profit (or even just a part of the expenses) to the
investor. But that seems really unlikely at this point. There's no
distributor, there's no point in throwing money at a distributor if one
existed, the only professional review of the movie was less than kind. So
maybe it would be nice to see the movie released to anybody who cared to
see it. Maybe it can succeed in some small part as education rather than
mass market entertainment.
Anybody who would claim that webbing the clips is an attempt to "destroy"
the movie is really twisting the facts to fit their prejudice. It's an
attempt to get the movie shown in one form or another.
Rob has hit the shame of this entire project on the head. It's a shame
that so much money and talent went into a project that stood so small a
chance of returning any money. I don't have the figures at hand, but I
think a large majority of studio movies lose money. It just seems like a
big risk for people who hadn't made a movie before.
The whole thing is sad, the money wasted, years of people's lives that
ended up being unproductive, the friendships that were ended.
--
Rod Keller/ Irresponsible Publisher/ Black Hat #1/ OSA Patsy/ Killer Rod
Expert of the Toilet/ CWPD Mouthpiece/ Shelly Thompson in Drag
The Lerma Apologist/ Merchant of Chaos/ Socio-Political Censor
Bigot of Mystery/ Quasi-Scieno/ Mental Bully/ Vision of Destruction
Beverly Rice
> That is dead agenting pure and simple. You are simply dead wrong,
> considering the legal hassles that Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander
> have had to endure (and will continue to endure) from the Church of
> $cientology's legal sharks as a result of LMT activities.
What are Co$'s legal sharks doing to Peter and Patricia?
What specific activities of the LMT are you talking about?
> I don't see the
> LMT volunteering to pay the legal fees that Patricia and Peter are having
> to rack up in order to defend themselves against Scientology because of
> what the LMT has done.
What is it that the LMT has done that is causing Peter
and Patricia to rack up legal fees to defend themselves
because of what the LMT has done?
I know that since you brought the issue up, that you
will enlighten the NG.
I know that you have raised my curiousity, is there
something to what you have said, or is it just "smoke".
Tigger
(Bedford McIntosh) wrote:
>mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M.
> Holmes) wrote in message
>e...@208.201.224.154>...
>>I just checked, and it's apparent that
>> Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>> employee Mark Bunker have not
>> learned. This is the third time they
>> have put up clips from "The Profit"...the
>> second time in a week!
>I don't get it.
Mr. McIntosh:
You don't get that Minton/Brooks/Bunker are illegally webbing THE PROFIT
out of PURE VINDICTIVENESS?
>If a copyright holder has a beef with
> someone, they can complain to the
> infringer, their publisher, their ISP,
> whatever.
And how do you know they haven't?
>You, if I understand it correctly, are not
> the copyright holder.
No Deana is not the copyright holder. And neither is the LMT.
>What's the purpose of making your
> gripes known to this group rather than
> the copyright holder?
Perhaps because the COPYRIGHT HOLDER already knows and has MADE
COMPLAINTS to the COPYRIGHT INFRINGERS, MINTON/BROOK/BUNKER/LMT, who
took down the Illegal "snippets" and now have AGAIN REPEATED their
illegal act.
Perhaps she's tired of King Bob and his KKK thinking they are above the
law and can do anything they damn well please and NOBODY will dare to
disagree?
Or perhaps she knows the slime and crime of the LMT will/could be used
as a weapon by the COS to discredit other critics who had no part in the
slime tactics and footbullets of the LMT?
>I mean, IIRC, weren't you almost a
> lawyer? Don't you know the appropriate
> recourse here?
Well Deana knows a crime and viciousness when she sees it. Apparently
you don't or you refuse to see it out of devotion to King Bob and his
KKK.
>Perhaps you need to retrain on taking on
> the valence of a critic. Your blatent
> attempt at Dev-T is showing.
Perhaps you should look at the history of LMT footbullets, crimes,
viciousness, etc.
A sucker is born every minute. Surely you don't want to be one??????
You do want to be FULLY informed about a group you support, don't
you???????
Tigger
ale...@nospam.bellatlantic.net (arnie lerma) wrote:
>On 16 Feb 2002 05:56:52 GMT,
> jim...@aol.com (JimDBB) wrote:
>Subject: Re: LMT violates "The Profit"
> copyright AGAIN
>>From: Starshadow
>> stars...@starshadow.net
(snip)
>Jim, please be advised, that at one time,
> years ago, GunBunny AKA Kieth Wyatt
> mailed me in a check for $100.
>Theres the possibility that its couldjust
> be a suitable guise.
>arnie lerma
Gee Mr. Lerma,
Are you trying to justify your putting me on your little ole OSA & OTHER
ENEMIES list?
There's also a "possibility" I am Diana Hubbard, your former fianece,
wasn't she? Anything's possible, I guess. But just because something
is possible, does not mean it is probable.
If you or JimDBB have any OSA suspicions about me, there are several
people who will tell you I am not. They might tell you I am feisty,
obnoxious, too big for my britches, etc., but they won't tell you I am a
scientologist or OSA.
HTH,
Tigger
BTW Jim, I, too, sometimes (as you know) go off the deep end. I
apologize for some of the remarks I made concerning you lately. I
sincerely hope everything goes well with you and yours.
ptsc
wrote:
Yeah, use the cursing to weasel your way out of actually proving your claims of
infringement. Typical bullshit excuse. It's a piss-poor dog of a case, and the
argument that Bob could "steal the hard work of others" by putting up a few tiny
clips of a movie he paid two million dollars to produce is such a dog of an
argument I think we need not discuss it further.
I take your non-response to any of those substantive issues as an admission that
you can not support your claim, hence the resort to this cheap cop-out--which is
very typical for you when you are defending the indefensible.
ptsc
Starshadow
Beverly Rice wrote:
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow KoX, SP5, Official Wiccan Chaplain ARSCC(wdne)
(to find out what this means go to www.xenu.net)
ethercat
DOT com> wrote in <v6eq6usq1o1q69ajs...@4ax.com>:
Thanks for your answer, ptsc.
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:16:25 -0500, ethercat <ethe...@arscc-atl.com> wrote:
>
>>On 15 Feb 2002 08:36:09 -0500, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes)
>>wrote in <Xns91B643674E3E...@205.232.34.12>:
>
>>>Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is not distributable, and he is culpable
>>>in *that* as well.
>
>> Deana, I'd like to see the film in its entirety, and I bet others
>>here would too. Why is is not distributable?
>
>Remove all other factors, and it remains a piece of shit!
>
>At least it has a certain Ed Wood appeal.
>
>It also really didn't goddamn help that when it was shown in Clearwater,
>Patricia used her "sound bite" time to attack Bob Minton and the Lisa McPherson
>Trust. She might have just slapped a biohazard symbol on the whole film.
>
>No distributor wants to touch a film the backers are obviously fighting about.
>
>So it turned into total poison, the film equivalent of a leper.
So the reason it isn't distributable is because of personal
conflicts? If so, that's a shame.
I've read the reviews posted here, and seen the very short clips, and
I'd still like to see the whole movie and make up my own mind about what
I think of it.
It would be nice if Deana would respond - I see she has responded to
others after I posted this... Since she raised the issue of the film
being undistributable, it would be nice to get her take on it too,
unless she's satisfied with your response. Or maybe she just didn't see
my post.
I don't care to get involved in vendettas or take sides...
I just want to see the movie, dammit!
>Great job! What a huge waste of two million dollars that could have actually
>gone to fighting Scientology.
>
>It's really a tragedy and a sick disgrace, and frankly I'm more concerned with
>that than some de minimis copyright infringement and a bunch of goddamn
>worthless whining about it.
>
>ptsc
|_____|__| |\__/,| (\
|__|_____| _.|o o |_ ) )
|------------------------| ethercat |------------------(((---(((--------|
|_____|_____|___ http://www.cafepress.com/pickets ____|_____|_____|_____|
|__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__|
|__ http://alley.ethercat.com/malloffire _|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
|__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__|
ethercat
<ness...@SPAMpsychassualt.org> wrote in <3c6d...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>Why haven't we heard _why_ the film is not being further
>distributed? As the film _was_ made to be distributed, I gather
>that no one has been interested till now or not enough effort
>was done to have it appear in other cinemas.
>But, of course it could also be a personal or a money problem.
>
>WHY?
Yes, WHY isn't it being distributed?
>Personally, I liked the film, but I did have some critical points
>like some things were imo overdone and other things were
>missing. On the other hand I consider it a difficult task and
>maybe completely impossible to make a normal size of movie
>about the complex and sinister 'life' of $cientology and get the
>unknowing public to understand the evils and anti social
>functions of $cientology and other cults.
>
>After the show Patricia sincerely asked people what they
>thought about 'The Profit' and what one could think of to
>make it more impressionable.
>Patricia told me that she was interested in viewers impression,
>because they were considering remaking the film for further
>distribution.
>
>I must say that I am very sorry that 'The Profit' has not yet
>made a go for a broader public.
I agree. After reading about it here from the beginning, reading
about the filming and the showings in Clearwater, it's a letdown not to
be able to see it.
>To get it into 'the world', maybe selling it as a TV film would
>be the best option.
Or on videotape or DVD. TV film would attract a larger audience, but
would require a gutsy network.
>Will it ever appear again?
>Xenu, I sincerely hope so!
I hope so too!
ethercat
<3C6D4D1E...@klis.com>:
>I haven't seen this movie either, even though I've asked repeatedly
>about it being shown in Toronto at the Toronto Film Festival. Is there a
>reason as to why it's not being shown outside the U.S.?
It's not being shown inside the US either. Apparently the only place
it is being shown is on the Lisa Trust website, and that's just a few
short pieces.
How about a "pay-per-download" from www.theprofit.org ?
Starshadow
ptsc wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2002 23:10:38 -0800, ploc...@deltanet.com (Bedford McIntosh) wrote:
>
>
>>mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes) wrote in message news:<Xns91B5BDAC7159...@208.201.224.154>...
>>
>>>I just checked, and it's apparent that Bob Minton and Lisa McPherson Trust
>>>employee Mark Bunker have not learned. This is the third time they have put
>>>up clips from "The Profit"...the second time in a week!
>>>
>>I don't get it.
>>
>>If a copyright holder has a beef with someone, they can complain to
>>the infringer, their publisher, their ISP, whatever.
>>
>>You, if I understand it correctly, are not the copyright holder.
>>
>>What's the purpose of making your gripes known to this group rather
>>than the copyright holder?
>>
>>I mean, IIRC, weren't you almost a lawyer? Don't you know the
>>appropriate recourse here?
>>
>>Perhaps you need to retrain on taking on the valence of a critic.
>>Your blatent attempt at Dev-T is showing.
>>
>
> This is a bit unfair. I think Deana's motives in this are worthy--I just don't
> particularly care for the opinions themselves. My possibly completely off-base
> view of this is that she sees Patricia Greenway as sorely abused by a host of
> people including Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks, and isn't going to back down from
> supporting a friend just because that friend has become "politically"
> inappropriate at this time.
>
> I think it's a sign of character that she isn't going to be bullied out of
> supporting a friend, but I think the facts of this particular matter suck.
>
I agree. I haven't put my oar in regarding possible
motives of Deana because I think she's holding to a good
and pure motive of defending a friend regardless of my or
others' opinions of what's going down. And I know nothing
of what's gone on between Greenaway and Minton, but I do
have an opinion on the copywrite thingie, and IMHO if it's
just a few minute's clips it wouldn't be infringing. I'm
not against or for the feud between Minton and Brooks and
TFC peoples--I liked both parties when they initially came
on ars and IRC and I still do and I refuse to get involved
in personalities and feuds thereby--but I am a bit tired
of wholesale Minton bashing, which sometimes seem to go on
because some people hate anything the man does, and are
determined to claim that everyone who doesn't is getting
paid by him. (I wish!)
> The Profit should be being seen, whatever its merits. Taking two million bucks
> for making it and then just sitting on it out of some crazy grudge is
> outrageous.
Is there any proof, she wondered idly, that EITHER Minton
and co or TFC are solely responsible for sitting on it or
destroying it or whatever? I really would like to see it.
I've seen every possible criticism of it from total praise
to total disaster, and would really like to judge for
myself. If anyone from TFC would condone even a pay per
view thingie on streaming I'd settle for that, if such
would be a doable thing. Or having videos made. Or something.
I mean, my opinion is if the CofS was that anxious to stop
its being made in the first place, it can't be all bad.
> I also don't think any copyrights are being infringed here, except possibly by
> Helena Kobrin's standards.
>
> ptsc
>
My opinion also, though IANAL--in fact, far from it.
realpch
>
> In article <Xns91B6453A3AA1...@205.232.34.12>,
> mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes) wrote:
>
> > So I guess it's wrong for people to protect their intellectual property by
> > misappropriation by those who do not have permission to reproduce or
> > distribute same?
>
> i wouldn't call the profit an "intellectual" property, exactly
>
> -ef
Snerk!! I really want to see it, but sort of in the same spirit that I
really wanted to see Battlefield Earth.
Peach
Starshadow
JimDBB wrote:
I'm glad she helped you. I just wish she'd climb off her
high horse and examine her own motives. People --including
me--have been both confrontational and conciliatory to
her, trying to explain things such as elementary ng
courtesy to her for instance, as well as other matters and
her response is always the same--screech, piss, moan and
cry about how terrible everyone is for doubting the great
word of "Tigger" and how badly done by she is, followed by
endless little pokes and prods of "I am only joking"
which are untrue, just a cover up for her fear of
expressing honest anger--and designed to provoke honest
anger so she can then claim victimhood again. This doesn't
make her an evil person, just one who is not really very
bright and cannot seem to get through her skull that she
cannot rewrite nettiquette to suit her insecurities, and
an unwillingness to learn. I have a long tolerance for
ignorance--we are all ignorant of something, but I do not
tolerate stupidity, which in my book is refusal to learn
by virtue of foot stomping and temper tantrums when no one
sees her dubious wisdom.
Maybe oofline she has a heart of gold--but she needs to
learn that stomping her feet and throwing tantrums online
is no way to earn respect. And if she won't learn that,
she deserves everything dished out to her.
Keith Henson
wrote:
snip
> It would be nice if Deana would respond - I see she has responded to
>others after I posted this... Since she raised the issue of the film
>being undistributable, it would be nice to get her take on it too,
>unless she's satisfied with your response. Or maybe she just didn't see
>my post.
I am surprised "why" has not openly discussed. The biggest problem is
the music in the movie. Peter was able to get rights to the music
only for showing the film in film festivals, not for general release.
I don't know if the problem was scientology threatening the artists or
if they wanted too much or whatever, but I have this first hand from
(I think) Patricia Greenway when I was trying to get the film into the
Toronto film festival last year.
Peter also wanted to recut the film some and ran out of money for
editing studio time, prints, etc. The film would be better with some
cut out of the first half I am told. It drags a bit in the first
half, but the second is really tight.
> I don't care to get involved in vendettas or take sides...
>
> I just want to see the movie, dammit!
I am not much of a movie critic, but I thought it was well worth
watching. You could call it an instant cult film. :-)
I kind of doubt it is ever going to go into distribution--given how
much effort scientology would put on trying to keep it from being
shown. And I have no idea of how much money it would take to put it
into video distribution. But if that number was known maybe enough
copies could be pre-ordered from Blockbuster for them to do it as a
video release--though a thousand copies at even $50 each may not be
enough.
Keith Henson
Rod Keller
: I am surprised "why" has not openly discussed. The biggest problem is
: the music in the movie. Peter was able to get rights to the music
: only for showing the film in film festivals, not for general release.
: I don't know if the problem was scientology threatening the artists or
: if they wanted too much or whatever, but I have this first hand from
: (I think) Patricia Greenway when I was trying to get the film into the
: Toronto film festival last year.
So how is this supposed to be Bob's fault?
Starshadow
Tigger wrote:
> Date: Fri, Feb 15, 2002, 10:53am (CST+1) From: ptsc AT nym DOT
> cryptofortress DOT com (ptsc) wrote:
>
>
>>On 15 Feb 2002 08:36:09 -0500,
>>mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M.
>>Holmes) wrote:
>>
>
>>>ptsc <ptsc AT nym DOT cryptofortress
>>>DOT com> wrote in
>>>news:qj8p6uc1mh6vi51fra6qncb0ut8uig
>>>ub...@4ax.co
>>>
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>>Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is
>>>not distributable, and he is culpable in
>>>*that* as well.
>>>
>
>>So what you mean to say is you don't
>>fucking know, and have no evidence,
>>and are making accusations based on
>>no knowledge whatsoever.
>>
>
> So, ptsc,
>
> Are you saying YOU, ROB CLARK, "don't fucking know, and have no evidence
> and are making accusations based on no knowledge whatsoever"? And that
> YOU, ROB CLARK, are too f_______ lazy and/or scared to ask BOB MINTON
> any questions?
>
Free clue, Shirley, pointing out someone like you has no
fucking clue is not making accusations based on no
knowlege whatsoever, it is pointing out what you are
doing, based on your own words.
>
>>Why the fuck should I ask Bob to prove
>>accusations YOU made?
>>
>
> To prove YOU, ROB CLARK, aren't a coward and want to know the truth.
> Hey, don't worry, no doubt Stacy can mock up some shore story that will
> satisfy your uninquiritng mind.
The burden of proof, Shirley, is on the accuser. In the
Real World, that is.
>
>
>>Or I guess the usual rules for making
>>wild-ass rules are suspended in YOUR
>>case. If so, why?
>>
>
> Gee, you mean only King Bob and his KKK are entitled to do that?
>
Prove where they've done it, or shut up, bitch.
>
>>What's so fucking special about you that >you think you can get away
>>
> with making
>
>>accusations like this?
>>
>
> Answer: Becasue they are true?
>
> (snip)
Prove it, bitch.
>
>
>>That film has been shown in Clearwater
>>in public--that puts it in a different class
>>than completely unpublished material.
>>Fact is, the reason it isn't released isn't
>>Bob Minton's fault.
>>
>
> How do you know that "THE REASON IT ISN'T RELEASED ISN'T BOB MINTON'S
> FAULT? Did you ASK Bob Minton or did you fall for one of Stacy's shore
> stores?
Or could there be a third reason which you are too stupid
to ascertain?
>
>
>>What consideration did Bob receive for
>>two million dollars toward its
>>publication? Was there any distribution
>>clause in the contact?
>>
>
> Well like NORMAL (meaning non vindicctaive, cut off your nose to spite
> your face) investors, Minton would be entitled to some percentage of the
> profits, which he is trying to prevent by trashing and giving away the
> product in which he invested.
>
> Geesh, didn't you just say: "Fact is, the reason it isn't released
> isn't Bob Minton's fault."? And YOU don't know what's in the contract?
> Why don't you ASK BOB what's in the contract?
>
You're the one demanding to know what's in the contract,
Shirley. Why don't YOU ask him?
>
>>If not, why not?
>>
>
> Ask Bob.
>
>
>>If there is, aren't Totally Fun in breach of
>>it?
>>
>
> Ask Bob. Oh shoot, ASK STACY. It would be interesting to see what
> shore story she mocks up this time.
>
Since you've already decided she will lie, why bother? You
can just skip to making wild accusations. Oh, wait, you're
already doing that. Never mind.
>
>>Do you know? Don't you? Or are you just
>>full of fucking shit?
>>
>
> Do YOU, ROB CLARK, know? Or are you just too full of f------ coward
> s--- to ask BOB MINTON?
Another free clue. In the Real World it's up to the
accuser to prove their assertions, not everyone else.
Of course, blinded by your hatred, you will ignore this
free clue like you've ignored hundreds of others already.
Beverly Rice
> That is dead agenting pure and simple. You are simply dead wrong,
> considering the legal hassles that Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander
> have had to endure (and will continue to endure) from the Church of
> $cientology's legal sharks as a result of LMT activities.
What are Co$'s legal sharks doing to Peter and Patricia?
What specific activities of the LMT are you talking about?
> I don't see the
> LMT volunteering to pay the legal fees that Patricia and Peter are having
> to rack up in order to defend themselves against Scientology because of
> what the LMT has done.
What is it that the LMT has done that is causing Peter
and Patricia to rack up legal fees to defend themselves
because of what the LMT has done?
I know that since you brought the issue up, that you
will enlighten the NG.
I know that you have raised my curiousity, is there
something to what you have said, or is it just "smoke".
ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
Beverly
Emir
(Keith Henson) wrote:
<snip>
> I am not much of a movie critic, but I thought it was well worth
> watching. You could call it an instant cult film. :-)
>
> I kind of doubt it is ever going to go into distribution--given how
> much effort scientology would put on trying to keep it from being
> shown. And I have no idea of how much money it would take to put it
> into video distribution. But if that number was known maybe enough
> copies could be pre-ordered from Blockbuster for them to do it as a
> video release--though a thousand copies at even $50 each may not be
> enough.
>
> Keith Henson
I don't know if this is the case, but from what I pick up this thing
sounds made for the underground film scene. The average public
draws a blank on The Profit, but it's already received more attention
than your average feature at CUFF or another festival that doesn't
deal with Hollywood-type films.
Please remember that Hal Hartley paid for his first film by (1.)
selling his computer, and (2.) taking out a $10K loan under
false pretenses (he convinced his employer at the time to co-sign
for it, too). That film, "The Unbelievable Truth", wasn't a smash
hit, but I'm pretty sure they at least got their money back. And
it allowed Hartley to make a SECOND film, and a third, and since
then many people (including myself) have gone back to see that
first feature. This is how most directors I know of and like
begin -- a two day shoot, "a porno set without the sex". I'm sort
of shocked that a first-time director had a budget that large.
Maybe all this has been addressed but really, if the billion $
corporations aren't going to risk it, you can either bury it or
try by other means. No sense in reinventing the wheel if you do
the latter. "Burying" happened with one of the movies by my
favorite director, Emir Kusturica, whose English language feature
"Arizona Dream" was heralded at film festivals but then shoved
by the company that produced it straight into video. For that
movie, he had Johnny Depp and a well-known female lead, music
by Iggy Pop, Jerry Lewis in a supporting role, etc. So it can
happen to good films...
Anyway, tons of indy movies don't get distributed. They're done
for the experience, the resume, and most of all to attract future
investors. If the Profit never makes it beyond the underground
crowd, I don't think it will be terribly unique. If it never even
goes that far, that's depressing.
As for a war between the producer and the director: I'm fairly
sure that this entire thread has been saved and will probably be
sent anonymously to anyone interested in distributing the film.
This wasn't the way to settle a problem, but I'm pretty sure that
you know that.
Emir, not Kusturica
Tigger
Beverly Rice wrote:
>Deana M. Holmes wrote:
>>It's hard for me to find the words to
>> express to describe what Bob and
>> Mark are doing. It is apparent to just
>> about everyone except for the sorry
>> SOBs at the LMT that "The Profit" is
>> NOT the property of the Lisa
>> McPherson Trust and under no
>> circumstances should "clips" be on the
> LMT website. I don't know where the
>> LMT gets off on posting these
> copyrighted excerpts without the
>> permission of the copyright holder.
>These are just ~small~ portions of the
> movie.
With all due respect, your opinion, Beverly, has made some good
arguments, but IMO you have overlooked a few relevant details. Perhaps
comparing this issue with something less personally combustible for you
would be helpful?
"~small~ portions of anything can do harm. Poison, in small doses may
not kill, but they can damage health and the qualify of life. Small
doses of poison, over time, can kill. A couple of "small" insults/lies
may not kill a friendship. But "small" insults/lies repeated over time
can.
Would you want the LMT to web anything of yours if Minton had done a DA
post on you like the one he did on Ursula Cabaerta and Patricia
Greenway based on lies told by Stacy Brooks?
>>Greenway and Alexander
>>severed ties with the LMT over a year
>> ago, and the LMT has made it clear in
>> its public postings on the subject that
>> there is a real hatred towards Patricia
>> Greenway emanating from the LMT.
>The wisest thing for LMT to do would be
> to keep the personal feelings of their
> members separate from the actions of
> the LMT.
Amen to that. And IMO the owner of a
"business" would do better NOT to appoint her lover/sugar daddy as
Chairman of the Board and promote him ss the Saviour of the Planet, Hero
beyond compare and God of all Gods, especially when the lover/sugar
daddy is Bob Minton, mere mortal with many flaws who just happens to
have a lot of money.
>However, putting up a little clip here
> and there of the movie is not the big
> deal that you are making it to be.
And would you consider a dirty old man who lives next door and takes a
little feel here and there of your son or daughter's anatomy not a big
deal? Or if a cop only takes a teeny tiny bribe here and there not a
big deal? Where do you draw the lineS? After the dirty old man has
raped your child? After the poison has killed your friend? Or when
the teeny tiny cop bribe has a direct effect on your life?
After Minton/Brooks/Bunker/LMT have snippeting all the life and
marketability out of THE PROFIT?
>I don't see where they have tried to
> "profit" from it, the clips are just that,
> clips, and there would never have even
> been a movie to begin with had it not
> been for Bob backing Peter in his
> desire to make the movie.
Who said anything about "profit"? Snipeting THE PROFIT was done out of
pure spite. Like Deana said they couldn't make her "shudder into
silence", so they are going after The Profit and Alexander and Greenway.
Like all the critics they can't control for whom Minton has posted DA
posts and done other outrageous things to destroy freedom of speech and
them personally.
So where do you draw the line, Beverly?
And is it a different line than what you draw for the COS?
>I think the problem with the movie not >being successful is that like a
lot of
> movies made by insiders of a certain
> belief and/or understanding trying to get
> a message across via a movie . . .
The "movie" has never been released in a proper theatre and there is no
doubt in my mind, that Minton could have circumvented any problem there
if he REALLY wanted THE PROFIT to make a profit.
>it may hit with those with the inside
> knowledge and "get it", whereas with
> the average Joe Schmoe public . . .
>that "awareness" and therefore
> admiration for it is absent, and
> "appreciation" and desire to see it is
> lost.
There is nothing like humor to get a message across. THE PROFIT just
hasn't had a REAL chance to be out there for the "public" to to see it.
Heck, not even 99 per cent of arsers have seen it. If it's webbed on
the LMT, who would see it? But it could destroy any change of future
marketability.
No matter how great you, Minton, Bunker, Brooks, etc. think the LMT
website is, 99 per cent of the public doesn't know it exists.
>Kind of like the movies "Vanished" and
> "Revelation" put out by the Christian
> Fundies, who thought they were the
> most spectacular movies ever made,
> and then can't figure out why the public
> doesn't receive them with the same awe
> and they end up flopping . . .
Not exactly the same. Thanks to the COS, you have celebs like Tom, John
and Kirstie, etc. who promote Scientology. You also have the
possibility that the scienos will lose their cool and picket. What
better promotion could you ask for?
>or like the scientologists with "Battlefield
> Earth", who ~knew~ what was really the
> truth behind the movie and how
> spectacular it was in getting the truth
> out . . .
>and then it flops because the public at
> large was just not really the necessary
> audience to "appreciate" the meat of the
> movie.
Have you seen THE PROFIT? Aren't you mixing Falcons and Turkeys here?
>>And finally, Bob, Stacy, Mark,
>> John--anyone related to the LMT: If
>> you have a problem with what I am
>> saying, you'd best contact me.
>I see no reason why they should need or
> want to contact you, you are
> dramatizing. You're just like any other
> person here writing your opinion,
> nothing more, nothing less.
Oh come on, Beverly, surely you can see that Deana was drawing a much
needed line (even if you think such lines only need to be drawn for the
COS) and telling Minton/Bunker/Brooks that she was the sole master of
her own mind and words and that going after Alexander/Greenway/The
Profit because of what she had said was beyond reason and sanity and was
exactly what the COS would do and does.
Tigger, As-ising the Real LMT
>ARC = As-Ising the Real Co$,
>Beverly
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ethercat
wrote in <3c70a853...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>I am surprised "why" has not openly discussed. The biggest problem is
>the music in the movie. Peter was able to get rights to the music
>only for showing the film in film festivals, not for general release.
>I don't know if the problem was scientology threatening the artists or
>if they wanted too much or whatever, but I have this first hand from
>(I think) Patricia Greenway when I was trying to get the film into the
>Toronto film festival last year.
>
>Peter also wanted to recut the film some and ran out of money for
>editing studio time, prints, etc. The film would be better with some
>cut out of the first half I am told. It drags a bit in the first
>half, but the second is really tight.
Thanks Keith, for a logical reason. I'm glad to know there's a
reason other than personal animosity. Re: the music, I wonder if the
solution may be to change it - with all the musicians in this newsgroup,
and other musicians not on the ng trying to get their name into the
public eye, it seems an alternative could be worked out. I recognize
that it would take more money to edit in new music, but still... Do you
happen to know who the original musicians are?
>> I don't care to get involved in vendettas or take sides...
>>
>> I just want to see the movie, dammit!
>
>I am not much of a movie critic, but I thought it was well worth
>watching. You could call it an instant cult film. :-)
>
>I kind of doubt it is ever going to go into distribution--given how
>much effort scientology would put on trying to keep it from being
>shown. And I have no idea of how much money it would take to put it
>into video distribution. But if that number was known maybe enough
>copies could be pre-ordered from Blockbuster for them to do it as a
>video release--though a thousand copies at even $50 each may not be
>enough.
Well, in that case, TFC might be best off to run off their own
videotapes (even the slow way) and sell them through a SSL website. I
wonder how the original musicians would feel about a small release like
that? It's sad to have spent the money and effort to make it, and for
them to have endured the co$ harassment, to have it end up sitting on
the shelf, with people wanting to see it. There must be some way to
work out the problems and get it out into the public.
The showings in Clearwater weren't a festival, were they? I thought
they were regular theatre showings...
Birgitta
I watched The Profit in Leipzig and I enjoyed it a lot.
When it comes to those small portions of the movie on the LMT site, I
can't see how they do any harm. Rather the opposite. Most movies shows
small portions as advertisement in order to catch peoples interest.
Then you said "Would you want the LMT to web anything of yours if
Minton had done a DA post on you like the one he did on Ursula
Cabaerta and Patricia Greenway based on lies told by Stacy Brooks?"
In my opinion ... it wasn't a DA post made by Minton. I didn't catch
any lie in it. How do you REALLY know who is lying?
Bid
Michael
Grand Paranoid Traits.
Tigger is really Miscavige' Secretary and I am posting from your
neighbors attic.
ooga booga!
Michael
Tigger
STARSHADOW POSTS:
OFF TOPIC: 21 (Some personal attacks)
HAVING TO DO SLIGHTLY WITH COS, but not main topic (usually one or two
sentence comments. Several personal attacks): 10
TIGGER ATTACKS: 9
LEX ATTACKS: 2
TOTAL: 42
Oh geesh, I think Starshadow is obcessed with Tigger. :-)
Quick somebody tell the witch I am NOT A LESBIAN before she waves her
magic broom and puts a love spell on me. :-)
Tigger
Elizabeth Ann Cox
Would you care to enlighten us?
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
"Deana M. Holmes" <mir...@nospamsonic.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91B74E17EDC6...@208.201.224.154...
> "Elizabeth Ann Cox" <eliza...@chesapeake.net> wrote in
> news:u6rj2dq...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> > Boy, it must be somebody with deep pockets for lawyers fees. Sounds
like
> > the church of scientology to me.
>
> Elizabeth,
>
> That is dead agenting pure and simple. You are simply dead wrong,
> considering the legal hassles that Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander
> have had to endure (and will continue to endure) from the Church of
> $cientology's legal sharks as a result of LMT activities. I don't see the
> LMT volunteering to pay the legal fees that Patricia and Peter are having
> to rack up in order to defend themselves against Scientology because of
> what the LMT has done.
>
> Deana Holmes
> mir...@sonic.net
ethercat
Holmes) wrote in <Xns91B74F0DEA74...@208.201.224.154>:
>ethercat <ethe...@arscc-atl.com> wrote in
>news:cpcq6uo4n7nj55g60...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 15 Feb 2002 08:36:09 -0500, mir...@nospamsonic.net (Deana M. Holmes)
>> wrote in <Xns91B643674E3E...@205.232.34.12>:
>>
>>>Go ask Bob, he knows why the film is not distributable, and he is
>>>culpable in *that* as well.
>>
>> Deana, I'd like to see the film in its entirety, and I bet others
>> here would too. Why is is not distributable?
>
>You would have to ask Bob Minton that question, Ethercat.
Bob did not bring the subject up. You're the one who said it was not
distributable and that Bob is culpable. The fact that you blame Bob
implies that you know both why it isn't distributable and why Bob is
culpable. I wanted your take on the matter. Bob's take I would get
from him. I doubt the two answers, if I could get either, would be the
same. If Bob ~is~ actually to blame, I somehow doubt that he would
answer me. Why will you not answer?
I am not going to write an email to Bob saying "Deana said you're to
blame for The Profit not being distributable. Why?" That's a bit too
childish for me.
I'm not interested in who's to blame or why. You notice I didn't say
"what did Bob do"; I asked why it's not distributable. I am interested
figuring out a way to get the film distributed so I and others can see
it.
Keith Henson
>Keith Henson (hkhe...@cogeco.ca) wrote:
>: I am surprised "why" has not openly discussed. The biggest problem is
>: the music in the movie. Peter was able to get rights to the music
>: only for showing the film in film festivals, not for general release.
>: I don't know if the problem was scientology threatening the artists or
>: if they wanted too much or whatever, but I have this first hand from
>: (I think) Patricia Greenway when I was trying to get the film into the
>: Toronto film festival last year.
>
>So how is this supposed to be Bob's fault?
No clue. Keith Henson
Nessie
"ethercat" <ethe...@arscc-atl.com> schreef in bericht
news:r3qt6ucqp3eg15bib...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 19:04:07 GMT, hkhe...@cogeco.ca (Keith Henson)
> wrote in <3c70a853...@news2.lightlink.com>:
>
> >I am surprised "why" has not openly discussed. The biggest problem is
> >the music in the movie. Peter was able to get rights to the music
> >only for showing the film in film festivals, not for general release.
> >I don't know if the problem was scientology threatening the artists or
> >if they wanted too much or whatever, but I have this first hand from
> >(I think) Patricia Greenway when I was trying to get the film into the
> >Toronto film festival last year.
> >
> >Peter also wanted to recut the film some and ran out of money for
> >editing studio time, prints, etc. The film would be better with some
> >cut out of the first half I am told. It drags a bit in the first
> >half, but the second is really tight.
>
> Thanks Keith, for a logical reason. I'm glad to know there's a
> reason other than personal animosity. Re: the music, I wonder if the
> solution may be to change it - with all the musicians in this newsgroup,
> and other musicians not on the ng trying to get their name into the
> public eye, it seems an alternative could be worked out. I recognize
> that it would take more money to edit in new music, but still... Do you
> happen to know who the original musicians are?
What really hit me was when the Horst Wessel song sounded
comparing the cult to the nazi regime. That can not be replaced.
> >> I don't care to get involved in vendettas or take sides...
> >>
> >> I just want to see the movie, dammit!
> >
> >I am not much of a movie critic, but I thought it was well worth
> >watching. You could call it an instant cult film. :-)
> >
> >I kind of doubt it is ever going to go into distribution--given how
> >much effort scientology would put on trying to keep it from being
> >shown. And I have no idea of how much money it would take to put it
> >into video distribution. But if that number was known maybe enough
> >copies could be pre-ordered from Blockbuster for them to do it as a
> >video release--though a thousand copies at even $50 each may not be
> >enough.
>
> Well, in that case, TFC might be best off to run off their own
> videotapes (even the slow way) and sell them through a SSL website. I
> wonder how the original musicians would feel about a small release like
> that? It's sad to have spent the money and effort to make it, and for
> them to have endured the co$ harassment, to have it end up sitting on
> the shelf, with people wanting to see it. There must be some way to
> work out the problems and get it out into the public.
>
> The showings in Clearwater weren't a festival, were they? I thought
> they were regular theatre showings...
They were regular showings, but no more regular than OSA had
their goons at each showing.
Nessie went to 'The Profit' in Clearwater:
http://nessie.psychassualt.org/
Nessie
Nessie
"JimDBB" <jim...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:20020216005652...@mb-ci.aol.com...
Well, yeah! The devil gives favors as well some times to gain power
over you.
Nessie.
Nessie
"Elizabeth Ann Cox" <eliza...@chesapeake.net> schreef in bericht
news:u6u2pse...@corp.supernews.com...
> Legal Fees? What legal fees? Based upon their association with the LMT?
> Would you care to enlighten us?
I would consider 2 million dollars from Minton enough to cover a legal
fee. If there is a legal fee, that is.
Nessie.
Nessie
"Tigger" <boobook...@webtv.net> schreef in bericht
news:11155-3C...@storefull-2276.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> Good for you, Jim:
>
> Now that's the JimDBB I knew and had fond feelings for.
>
> Thanks for all the good things you have done. May all your troubles
> soon fly away. Please consider filing for bankruptcy.
Good doggie, Jim, but ONLY if you write what momma wants.
Nessie.
>
> Tigger
>
Elizabeth Ann Cox
--
Elizabeth Ann Cox
aka, Bunnyann
FOLO ED ("Flukenet" Online Liaison Office)
ARS Chic with attitude!
Doubt is not a crime; simply a reasonable response to tyranny!
"Tigger" <boobook...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11351-3C...@storefull-2273.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Starshadow
Tigger wrote:
> Compilation from Google From February 1, 2002
>
> STARSHADOW POSTS:
>
> OFF TOPIC: 21 (Some personal attacks)
Citations, please.
>
> HAVING TO DO SLIGHTLY WITH COS, but not main topic (usually one or two
> sentence comments. Several personal attacks): 10
>
>
> TIGGER ATTACKS: 9
The attacks of your methods and motives raised several
point by point questions which you conveniently ignored,
Shirley.
>
> LEX ATTACKS: 2
And your point is...??
>
> TOTAL: 42
>
> Oh geesh, I think Starshadow is obcessed with Tigger. :-)
I thought you were going to ignore me from now on,
Shirley---what happened? BTW, this is still not addressing
any of the actual points I've made re you and your
obsessions--ergo, Minton, the LMT, and Tory.
>
> Quick somebody tell the witch I am NOT A LESBIAN before she waves her
> magic broom and puts a love spell on me. :-)
Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble, Shirley. I'm happily
married. And if I wasn't you'd be the last woman on earth
*I'd" be interested in.
I've never had an interest in small twisted souls like
yourself.
DilbertPerkins
lame OSA attempt to get the focus away from Scientology.
David Miscavidge
2254.public.lawson.webtv.net>, micha...@hotmail.com
says...
> C'mon up and call me that to my face,pussy.
> Hand
[on cock slappin'it furiously]
>
> Michael
>
See ya soon, Ace.
Better yet why don't you come to me. It's not far for you.
Tom's here too (for the weekend).
I've been told by Tigger (you didn't know she was Tom did
you?) that you have a purdy mouth...
The PuppetMaster