Posting the NOTs
Zenon Panoussis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
CC: Helena Kobrin and Dahlman Magnusson advokatbyrå.
The NOTs follow in separate postings. My posting them demands an
explanation.
In most western cultures, including the one I live in, legislation
is seen as a codification of generally accepted moral values; not
as the rectifier of the moral values themselves. Democracy, along
with the main human rights, is accepted as one of the highest of
these values and most other values are considered subordinate to
it. Therefore, it follows logically, it is acceptable and even
honourable to break secondary rules, if the aim is to preserve or
restore primary ones. This idea is best illustrated by the fact
that those who oppose foreign occupation or domestic repressive
regimes are always criminals under the legislation that they revolt
against, but are seldom seen as criminals in a moral or historical
perspective.
I admit and honour the right to property, including the right to
intellectual property. Therefore, in general, I would say that
copyright laws reflect a moral value that is widespread, that I
share, and the enforcement of which is in accordance with the
principles of democracy.
The right to property includes also people's right to their money.
Fraud and extorsion are criminal offences because they violate that
right.
The right of expression is another basic right that I believe in
and that is generally accepted. The right of expression is not
a democratic right, in the sense that it doesn't need democracy
to exist. On the contrary, democracy needs the right of expression
for its own existence. The right of expression is a right that is
not given, but taken, by force if necessary, more or less as
the right to life.
In the case of scientology ideas, there is no conflict between
any of these rights. In a democratic society there is freedom
of belief and of expession and there is protection of intellectual
and material property. Thus, the CoS should be allowed to propagate
its ideas and sell its books without interference, even if both the
ideas and the books that spread them are utterly moronic.
There is though a conflict of rights in the case of scientology
practices. In my opinion, the CoS violates the right to property
by extracting money from people through deceit and the exercise
of psycological coercion (among other questionable methods).
It then abuses the right to intellectual property in order to
stifle its opponents' right of expression, the exercise of which
could provide some protection against that deceit and psycological
coercion. Thus, the CoS abuses its right to intellectual property
in order to be able to violate others' right to their material
property. In short, the CoS uses such institutions of democracy
as law and law enforcement bodies in order to undermine central
values of democracy and democracy itself.
In these ways the CoS makes a perfect parallell of itself to
fascist movements, and poses the same dilemma to democracy:
meeting such threats with democratic methods is inefficient
and meeting them with their own methods is in itself undermining
and limiting democracy.
This sort of dilemma can only be solved by grading the values and
defending the most precious ones at the cost of the less important
ones. Personally I place the right to intellectual property below
the rights to personal freedom and material property. If exercizing
the right of expression in a given situation can save the rights to
personal freedom and material property at the cost of the right to
intellectual property, then I think the choice is clear.
Through this reasoning I find myself morally entitled to break the
law and violate whatever copyrights there may be by publishing the
NOTs in the interests of democracy and of all presumptive CoS victims.
With regard to Verlon's posting and the subsequent cancelling of
that posting, I find this moment very opportune for my posting.
I don't think that a posting here or there will force the CoS to
change its practices, but wide publicity on CoS and its methods
in general will. I am doing my part in creating that publicity but,
I regret to say, all my attempts until now to attract a lawsuit
from the CoS have failed. Well, it's decision time now. If the
CoS steps against me, some of the desired publicity will be
created. If the CoS does not step against me, others will interpret
the fact to the effect that the CoS is giving up its fight against
the publication of its material, and will publish more of that
material. Either way the good guys win.
Finally I have to state that I have done all the above reasoning
under the presumption that the CoS might have a copyright to the
NOTs, but that I regard such copyright only as a possibility; not
as a fact.
Z.
- ---
oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
iQCWAgUBMh8VESfDoP8jBCUpAQGIzAQBAQPVtUOaCTE1pjGyXDKcKv2wCYEI8ISX
H2zJe6zZDw7Zgp3Tt7P52MZepntVRfSEBzzy46nwWxzQOCqx/IjG7fwxjmePsCsA
h0m/A1KaoXWAcJcznRyuck2yv1JHgKXTynqVMzhimiv85FMAP4wgusx30fEBEMKV
yA8+lDDzK0zK
=oGeB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Zenon Panoussis <ora...@dodo.pp.se>:
>The NOTs follow in separate postings. My posting them demands an
>explanation.
[Zenon's fine apology - snipt]
You have made a clear case for taking the action you did. I
sincerely doubt that the scienos can successfully claim these
materials are secret, ever again.
Their bait-and-switch scam is exposed.
NOTs was their golden goose. Now it's rotting, BT-infested carcass
lies festering in the daylight for the whole world to smell the
stench, see the carrion and avoid it.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Jon Noring
[My comments follows Mr. Panoussis' comments, which I've kept intact in
full despite their length...]
In article Zenon Panoussis <ora...@dodo.pp.se> writes:
>CC: Helena Kobrin and Dahlman Magnusson advokatbyrå.
[Note, these people represent the Church of Scientology in some capacity.]
Mr. Panoussis has carried through with his intention of posting the Church of
Scientology's highest level "secret" documents, the NOTS, which of course
have been anonymously posted on Usenet, and which are still available on the
Internet via other sources. You can find them posted, in several parts, to
alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s.).
There's little doubt they'll be quickly cancelled anonymously, and in
violation of U.S. Federal law (at least based on my interpretation of U.S.
law), by Scientology representatives or supporters, so if you're interested
to see them, do act fast. And even if they are cancelled, you may still
locate them somewhere on the Internet, though it will take a little more
effort (don't ask me how since I don't keep copies of the NOTS materials nor
will I tell anybody where to get them, even if I knew where they are
specifically located, which I don't.)
And there is no doubt that RTC, the entity created by the Church of
Scientology (CoS) to defend its intellectual property, will (actually, must)
sue Mr. Panoussis in Sweden as an example to show to the world what happens
when a person "messes" with it. It will probably get ugly, and no doubt will
make the headlines (and we'll make sure on a.r.s. to publicize what happens
to Mr. Panoussis).
I have high admiration for Mr. Panoussis' courage in the face of the "Church
of the Holy Lawsuit". He will no doubt face the onslaught of an organization
that has virtually unlimited resources to legally and PR-wise attack anybody
they like. I certainly hope the Swedish courts take into account where the
money is coming from to try to destroy Mr. Panoussis (? secret European bank
accounts), as well as looking at the higher purposes that Mr. Panoussis so
eloquently states above. And of course there are the irregularities involved
with who actually owns the copyrights to the NOTS materials, but that's
another matter left to others to discuss and investigate.
As an electronic publisher, I see the value and the necessity of robust
copyright and other intellectual property laws. However, as Mr. Panoussis
points out above, there are higher laws which morally (if not legally) take
precedence over intellectual property laws. Public disclosure and discussion
of "secret", unpublished materials which deal with matters of profound public
interest *must* take a higher precedence over copyright laws, even if current
"law" does not take this morally just position.
And it is my belief from having observed and participated on a.r.s for almost
a year and a half that the NOTS materials must become available to the public
for discussion and criticism. In essence, copyright law *must not* be used to
keep materials from public access (As a *publisher* of materials for public
availability, I vehemently oppose using copyright law to "protect" materials
never intended to be published and intended to be kept from all public
scrutiny, and hope the international community comes to this realization as
well. Note that some of the NOTS materials include aspects of the use and
claims of the E-meter for health purposes, which, in my opinion, violates
U.S. law regarding such matters -- there's little doubt in my mind that it
advocates practices which violate Swedish law as well.)
Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
scrutiny. Mr. Panoussis is one person who has courageously come to the same
conclusion as I and who, unlike me, has the courage to do something about it
(I admit it, I'm a coward in this regard -- and I note that anybody else who
makes the NOTS available to the public does so AT THEIR OWN risk). I do
realize that from the "letter" of the law regarding IP materials that what
Mr. Panoussis did probably did violate Swedish copyright statutes provided
that the copyrights are valid (Sweden no doubt is a signatory to the Berne
Convention). But as I and Mr. Panoussis stated above, there is the
compelling public interest which totally overshadows IP law, even if the law
has not caught up with compelling public interest (which it unfortunately has
not in the U.S. -- I hope Sweden is more enlightened than the U.S.)
I strongly urge those in Sweden to contact your government representatives as
soon as possible, to tell them how you feel about Mr. Panoussis' actions, and
to urge the Swedish government to look at the bigger picture of compelling
public interest and not just the "letter of the law". And urge your
government to contact the German government about this issue. No doubt the
German government will gladly share their intelligence knowledge of the
dangers the CoS organization poses to basic human rights and international
stability (my opinion, of course), and they will give good, sound reasons why
the NOTS materials must be made available to the public for evaluation,
discussion, and criticism. As a Scandinavian myself (of 100% Norwegian
ancestry, with some Swedish and Finnish mixed in), I have faith that the
Swedish people will look above petty wording of law and look at the deeper
moral issues involved.
Mr. Panoussis may end up being on the losing end of a lawsuit in Sweden by
the *letter* of the law, but I will admire his courage and convictions, since
he decided to post the NOTS materials for a higher moral purpose and not for
any personal gain (he has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by taking
such an action, and he knew this before he decided to post the NOTS
materials).
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majo...@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
Steve Whitlatch
Thank you Zenon Panoussis. Thank you for posting NOTS, and
thank you for your inspiring statement.
America needs help with its scientology problem. Your actions,
and the actions of many other Europeans are greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Steve Whitlatch
swhi...@aimnet.com
In article <321F17...@dodo.pp.se>,
Andrew C. Greenberg
> Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
> and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
> scrutiny.
Nice pabulum. How about these:
Since Microsoft refuses to publish its prinicpal source codes, it is
therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made available
to the public for scrutiny.
Since Coca-Cola refuses to publish its recipe, it is therefore right and
proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
scrutiny.
Since I refuse to publish my new book excerpts until after the people who
paid me for first publication rights thereto, it is therefore right and
proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
scrutiny.
Since I refuse to publish my IRS tax returns, it is therefore right and
proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
scrutiny.
Since Arnaldo Lerma refuses to publish his attorney-client communications,
it is therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made
available to the public for scrutiny.
Please don't go ballistic, Jon. My point is not that any of these
assertions or true, or even that they follow from yours. My point is that
you are stating a conclusion, not making an argument for that conclusion.
By substituting different facts, you can see that the "form" of your
argument doesn't support the result.
I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
--
just another view,
Andy Greenberg (wer...@gate.net)
Carlton Fields
Bruce Hayden
Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>
> I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
> copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
> engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
Could possibly part of the problem be that unless you have spent the
mega$$ required (and even then you would probably be covered by NDA)
you probably don't have access to the texts so as to make informed
commentary. Of course, it could be argued that the reason that the
CoS is so litigous about its scriptures is precisely that the general
public would hold them up to redicule if generally released.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 1996 Bruce E. Hayden, All Rights Reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bha...@acm.org
Austin, Texas bha...@copatlaw.com
Jon Noring
In article wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) writes:
>In article nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>> Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
>> and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>> scrutiny.
>Nice pabulum. How about these:...
[snip]
Nice taking the above paragraph of mine *out of context*. I'd expect more
from you than that.
I clearly recognize that what Mr. Panoussis did violated copyright law, and
from the letter of the law he could (and probably will be) successfully sued
for copyright infringement, even in a socially enlightened country such as
Sweden.
My post dealt with the bigger issue of the *special moral circumstances of
THIS case*, which you as an attorney are not in the business to dwell upon
or consider -- your job is to represent the *law* as it stands without any
consideration of moral/ethical issues. Thus you see no difference between the
trade secrets of Coca-Cola, one of your examples, and the "trade secrets" of
a "religion" that has abused hundreds of thousands of people over the years,
and cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in barratrous lawsuits and general
abuse of the legal process.
I am not so constrained in my profession as you are. I see a *big* difference
between those two examples. You cannot allow yourself the luxury to do the
same because of your profession.
Mr. Panoussis felt a higher calling for what he did -- he knows he'll be
sued, slandered and harassed by PI's. Yet he did this for a higher motive.
Sure, that doesn't necessarily make it *right*, but I admire the guy for
the sincerity of his convictions. And he'll face the consequences for what
he did. History will be the final judge of whether his actions were
justified or not, since history tends to look at the bigger picture, and is
rarely constrained by the paradigms of the time, particularly legal paradigms.
So, please reread my post *carefully*, and you'll see that your reply totally
took things out of context. Then go on defending IP without regard to moral
and ethical consequences/considerations, *as is your job*. Then recognize
that society in general places moral/ethical considerations above the law,
and in fact the law is based ultimately on what society values in this
regard. But like anything, the law is *not always right* since the law can
only imperfectly mirror society's values. To make the law perfect would make
the law totally unworkable in order to cover every conceivable nuance of
society. I even argue that the *process* to make law can never be made
perfect, so perfect law is impossible.
And as a final statement on this whole issue, the law is to be the servant of
the people, not the other way around. Anybody who places the law above
morality and ethics, who considers the law inerrant, infallable, perfect in
every regard, who says that the law *must* always be followed since it is the
*law* (and for only that reason), only has my contempt since that person is
placing the law as the dictator over, rather than the servant of, the people.
I don't believe you to be such a person, but I have met several people, many
of whom are attornies, who do think that way, and arrogantly so.
Oh, and about using Fair Use to quote the "sekrit skriptures". Just try it,
and see what happens. The Washington Post was sued for duplicating 6 lines,
*6 lines* out of tens of thousands. Of course, the judge threw out their
suit as fast as you can say "Xenu" and ordered CoS to pay the Post's legal
costs, but the suit had the chilling effect intended on the entire news media.
And in the case of NOTS, CoS *also* claims trade secret protection, and that
goes beyond simple Fair Use quotation, as you know. I'd like you to take one
of the NOTS (there's 50 or so, I gather), and summarize the process in your
own words (as allowed under Fair Use), and repost it, so a person considering
going through the NOTS program will know exactly what he/she expects. Then
sit back and wait for the nice letter from Ms. Kobrin to arrive in your
mailbox.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg):
>I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
>copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
>engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
(deja vu) The scieno bait-and-switch skripture cannot be 'fair use'
criticized unless they are available to be quoted, Andy.
Comparing the scieno droppings to software source code is a specious
and distracting argument.
IP rights must be protected. I agree. But must not be used to
stifle discussion, keep fraudulent and illegal practices secret, or
bludgeon alleged violator's rights and privacy.
Ted Mayett (Xenu)
nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>[My comments follows Mr. Panoussis' comments, which I've kept intact in
>full despite their length...]
>
>
>In article Zenon Panoussis <ora...@dodo.pp.se> writes:
>
>Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
>and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>scrutiny. Mr. Panoussis is one person who has courageously come to the same
>conclusion as I and who, unlike me, has the courage to do something about it
>(I admit it, I'm a coward in this regard -- and I note that anybody else who
>makes the NOTS available to the public does so AT THEIR OWN risk).
I'm not so sure we are cowards. It takes courage to even post to this
NG. Rather I see it as levels of courage. Zenon is now at the top of
the list along with so many others who battle in court. The courts
are the real battlefield.
You are braver than I am Zenon. Salute!
>OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
Next International Picket of Scientology Sept. 7 and/or 8, 1996: see
http://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/demo.htm
Tilman Hausherr
(posted and mailed to Grady and Zenon and Dennis)
In <noringDw...@netcom.com>, nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>Mr. Panoussis may end up being on the losing end of a lawsuit in Sweden by
>the *letter* of the law, but I will admire his courage and convictions, since
>he decided to post the NOTS materials for a higher moral purpose and not for
>any personal gain (he has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by taking
>such an action, and he knew this before he decided to post the NOTS
>materials).
While it is a lot of fun seeing the clam trade secrets being vaporized,
I see the following problem with Zenon or other "clam copyright
gerilleros". They have no money, will lose a lawsuit and are likely to
have debts for years / decades, depending how private bankruptcy is
handled in a country.
This makes such people vulnerable to potential clam blackmail, i.e. they
might sign a "Dennis Erlich made me do it" paper if "handled" the
scientology way.
If Grady had really been pressured to sign a paper "Dennis Erlich made
me do it" as part of the confidential settlement discussions, he should
file an affidavit under seal in the Erlich case to document these
tactics.
It might even be possible that the clams pay a some guy to post the NOTS
and then to pretend "Dennis Erlich made me do it" thing, which would be
partly similar to the tactics used against attorney Michael Flynn where
they visited a con-man Ala Tamimi in jail to make him sign a paper
claiming Flynn told him to forge a check on Hubbard's money.
So my advice to all: don't post the NOTs.
Tilman
--- Tilman Hausherr
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/
Celebrities in scientology FAQ: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/celeb.txt
Ram Samudrala
Andrew C. Greenberg (wer...@gate.net) wrote:
>Nice pabulum. How about these:
>Since Microsoft refuses to publish its prinicpal source codes, it is
>therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made available
>to the public for scrutiny.
>Since Coca-Cola refuses to publish its recipe, it is therefore right and
>proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>scrutiny.
>Since I refuse to publish my new book excerpts until after the people who
>paid me for first publication rights thereto, it is therefore right and
>proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>scrutiny.
[On and on and on...]
Each of the statements you make depends on the ethics of the
individual(s) involved. If Microsoft's lack of publishing its source
code to the public violates your ethical code (i.e., it's wrong
according to your ethics), it is of course right according to your
ethics that they are available to the public.
What the law says is irrelevant. A given person's actions should be
based on their own moral code. Microsoft's actions might be
considered wrong and destructive to society by many people and to
them, making the propreitary source code public is as "right" as
helping someone in need.
This applies to everything, including your IRS tax returns.
--Ram
m...@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
If you didn't care what happened to me, and I didn't care for you,
we would zig zag our way through the boredom and pain occasionally
glancing up through the rain wondering which of the buggers to blame
and watching for pigs on the wing. ---Pink Floyd
Stuart P. Derby
In article <werdna-2508...@192.0.2.23>,
wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) wrote:
: In article <noringDw...@netcom.com>, nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
wrote:
:
: > Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
: > and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
: > scrutiny.
:
: Nice pabulum. How about these:
:
: Since Microsoft [...]
: Since Coca-Cola [...]
: Since I [...]
: Since Arnaldo Lerma [...]
When Microsoft, Coca-Cola, you, or Arnie have a history of criminal acts
like Scientology's (such as obstruction of justice, burglary, theft, etc.
etc. etc.) then activists might consider breaking laws for a higher good.
Until that time, the organization you should probably use for comparison
is probably the Mafia (though Scientology lacks the history of murder and
violence - Scientology's favorite modus operandi is fraud and deceit.)
Jon wasn't claiming that the postings were legally defensible, it was a
moral argument he was making, the kind of argument that each of us has to
look to our own conscience and knowledge of the facts to decide whether to
accept or not.
Also, in regard to verbatim reprinting of this material, you should note
that Scientology itself has a "verbatim" rule that is literally an article
of faith, that to argue effectively with Scientologists one *must* quote
verbatim Scientology documents, otherwise the argument is disregarded.
-Stu
--
Ruined lives. Lost fortunes. Federal crimes. Scientology poses as
a religion but really is a ruthless global scam -- and aiming
for the mainstream. -Time Magazine cover story, May 6, 1991
(available at <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html> )
h3
[newsgroups trimmed significantly]
>In article <noringDw...@netcom.com>, nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
[clip]
>I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
>copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
>engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
ah, but how does one obtain them to make such fair use criticism
possible? that is the nub of the matter.
Andrew C. Greenberg
> In article wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) writes:
> >In article nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>
> >> Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
> >> and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
> >> scrutiny.
>
> >Nice pabulum. How about these:...
>
> [snip]
>
> Nice taking the above paragraph of mine *out of context*. I'd expect more
> from you than that.
If you say so. I believe that I was responding quite directly to your remarks.
> I clearly recognize that what Mr. Panoussis did violated copyright law, and
> from the letter of the law he could (and probably will be) successfully sued
> for copyright infringement, even in a socially enlightened country such as
> Sweden.
A point I didn't make, but one that is probably accurate. My point, Jon,
was simply this: your assertion, without more, that a particular kind of
conduct is morally responsible does not prove itself. Indeed, to the
contrary, it merely announces a result, and is subject to a response of
the kind I presented, and, indeed, one to which you did not here respond
in your posting.
If you wish to make your argument on a moral plane, its time to make your
argument.
> Oh, and about using Fair Use to quote the "sekrit skriptures". Just try it,
> and see what happens. The Washington Post was sued for duplicating 6 lines,
> *6 lines* out of tens of thousands. Of course, the judge threw out their
> suit as fast as you can say "Xenu" and ordered CoS to pay the Post's legal
> costs, but the suit had the chilling effect intended on the entire news media.
Exactly how did that happen? Who was "chilled?" Your example made my
point precisely: its better to defend actions that you can win than
actions that you can lose.
Arthur Kreitman
Zenon Panoussis <ora...@dodo.pp.se> wrote in article
<321F17...@dodo.pp.se>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
> CC: Helena Kobrin and Dahlman Magnusson advokatbyrå.
Thanks for your bravery. I enjoyed reading that nonsense. I they want
to collect from infringers what the NOTS are worth, the Co$ would have to
pay money, not demand damages.
Dave Touretzky
In article <noringDw...@netcom.com>, Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> wrote
to Andrew Greenberg:
>[*snip*] ... I'd like you to take one
>of the NOTS (there's 50 or so, I gather), and summarize the process in your
>own words (as allowed under Fair Use), and repost it, so a person considering
>going through the NOTS program will know exactly what he/she expects.
Why settle for a posting on Usenet, which cult attorney Roger Milgrim argues
is ephemeral and doesn't really count as "publication"? Why not a web site?
Visit the NOTs Scholars Home Page at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs
>Then sit back and wait for the nice letter from Ms. Kobrin to arrive in your
>mailbox.
I have several Kobrin-o-grams already. Milgrim's letters are better.
-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4++++): serious scholar of ridiculous beliefs.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Zenon Panoussis (ora...@dodo.pp.se) writes:
>
> CC: Helena Kobrin and Dahlman Magnusson advokatbyrå.
>
> The NOTs follow in separate postings. My posting them demands an
> explanation.
>
> In most western cultures, including the one I live in, legislation
> is seen as a codification of generally accepted moral values; not
> as the rectifier of the moral values themselves. Democracy, along
> with the main human rights, is accepted as one of the highest of
> these values and most other values are considered subordinate to
> it. Therefore, it follows logically, it is acceptable and even
> honourable to break secondary rules, if the aim is to preserve or
> restore primary ones. This idea is best illustrated by the fact
> that those who oppose foreign occupation or domestic repressive
> regimes are always criminals under the legislation that they revolt
> against, but are seldom seen as criminals in a moral or historical
> perspective.
What if?
What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
--
Cogito, ergo sum. "our position on the multiple posts to alt.religion.
scientology - or to any other newsgroup for that matter - is simple.
Anyone who wishes to express himself or herself is free do so thanks
to the United States Constitution." - Scientology PR Debbie Blair.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Andrew C. Greenberg (wer...@gate.net) writes:
> In article <noringDw...@netcom.com>, nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>
>> Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
>> and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>> scrutiny.
>
> Nice pabulum. How about these:
>
> Since Microsoft refuses to publish its prinicpal source codes, it is
> therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made available
> to the public for scrutiny.
>
> Since Coca-Cola refuses to publish its recipe, it is therefore right and
> proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
> scrutiny.
Oh, I hadn't heard! When did Microsoft and Coca Cola Corp. turn into
tax-exempt non-profit "religions" like the cult of $cientology?
You're arguing, let me get this straight, that scientology needs this
NOTs bullshit to be kept secret for some kind of business advantage?
Well, since they charge $360,000 to get through these levels of
enlightenment of the wallet, I suppose that actually makes sense
in some sick and twisted way.
Cornelius Krasel
Martin G. V. Hunt (av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
1) It would be considered spam and thusly cancelled.
2) RTC would proceed to sue a thousand people.
--Cornelius (who would like to have Till Poser's ability of English).
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Ted Mayett (Xenu)
Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>You could also refer to it as TRUTH IN ADVERTISING.
It seems I've heard that one before. :)
>Again, I just want to point out the MAJOR issue is about HONESTY, INTEGRITY,
>and TRUTH IN ADVERTISING.
>
>Anyone wanting more information please go to
>
>http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/Co$/docs
Thomas J. Merritt
In article <werdna-2508...@192.0.2.23>,
Why don't make these a little bit more comparable.
|Since Microsoft refuses to publish its prinicpal source codes, it is
|therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made available
|to the public for scrutiny.
Say Microsofts operating system software mails copies of its users private
documents to a Microsoft private warehouse. Say they later use the documents
to slander their customers that complain about their buggy software. Does
a holder of Microsoft internal documents that describes these "features" and
slander techniques have a moral right to publish said documents?
|Since Coca-Cola refuses to publish its recipe, it is therefore right and
|proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
|scrutiny.
Say Coca-Cola's forumal includes an addictive drug. Does one have the
legal right to publish this fact? Does one have moral responsibility
to publish this fact?
|Since I refuse to publish my new book excerpts until after the people who
|paid me for first publication rights thereto, it is therefore right and
|proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
|scrutiny.
Say your new book is designed to create interest in a new religion that
practices a cripiling form of mind control. Does one have a right or
responsibility to publish precisely, including extracts from you new book,
how the bait-and-switch works?
|Since I refuse to publish my IRS tax returns, it is therefore right and
|proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
|scrutiny.
I haven't seen anyone publishing the CoS tax returns have you?
|Since Arnaldo Lerma refuses to publish his attorney-client communications,
|it is therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made
|available to the public for scrutiny.
Has Arnie refused?
|Please don't go ballistic, Jon. My point is not that any of these
|assertions or true, or even that they follow from yours. My point is that
|you are stating a conclusion, not making an argument for that conclusion.
|By substituting different facts, you can see that the "form" of your
|argument doesn't support the result.
|
|I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
|copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
|engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
In general it is not necessary to publush verbatim copies of works to hold
them to public scrutiny. CoS has penchant for claiming that they have
been taken out of context. They will repeat the claim rather than defend
their works if you include a large context. Thus, the only way to avoid
being accused of quoting out of context is to quote verbatim entire documents.
Then the only question is authenticity and not proper context. Authenticity
is relatively easily proved by being sued for copyright infringement.
-- TJ
David Gerard
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996 16:53:11 +0200, Zenon Panoussis (ora...@dodo.pp.se) wrote:
:CC: Helena Kobrin and Dahlman Magnusson advokatbyrå.
:The NOTs follow in separate postings. My posting them demands an
:explanation.
:Through this reasoning I find myself morally entitled to break the
:law and violate whatever copyrights there may be by publishing the
:NOTs in the interests of democracy and of all presumptive CoS victims.
Excellent! I would say 'morally required' rather than 'morally
entitled' here though.
Other than that ... wonderful.
--
Reverend Doctor David Gerard, KoX, SP 4.04, kOh; http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
Prestige Elite(tm) Research Church of the SubGenius
Now a CARD-CARRYING SCIENTOLOGIST! No, really. Would I lie to you?
July 5, 1998, 7 AM. Saucers. End of the world. Your US$30 is your trip ticket.
Andrew C. Greenberg
In article <sderby-2508...@news.blkbox.com>, sde...@blkbox.com
(Stuart P. Derby) wrote:
> In article <werdna-2508...@192.0.2.23>,
> wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) wrote:
>
> When Microsoft, Coca-Cola, you, or Arnie have a history of criminal acts
> like Scientology's (such as obstruction of justice, burglary, theft, etc.
> etc. etc.) then activists might consider breaking laws for a higher good.
> Until that time, the organization you should probably use for comparison
> is probably the Mafia (though Scientology lacks the history of murder and
> violence - Scientology's favorite modus operandi is fraud and deceit.)
It is one thing to consider it an act for the higher good, it is another
to assert that there is a "proper and moral basis" for the act. It is one
thing to say that it is acceptable to acquire the property of another who
has taken it from you, it is another to say that it is acceptable to take
the property of another whom you consider to be a criminal.
Note closely my last example.
> Jon wasn't claiming that the postings were legally defensible, it was a
> moral argument he was making, the kind of argument that each of us has to
> look to our own conscience and knowledge of the facts to decide whether to
> accept or not.
My point was NOT that it was a legally defensible position. It has
already conceded by Jon that it is not. My point is that he didn't make a
moral ARGUMENT. His statement was merely the announcing of a conclusion.
He wrote:
: > Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
: > and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
: > scrutiny.
Although written in the form "if a then b," this is not an argument, the
consquent doesn't follow from the former, and the steps inbetween are not
included in any of the remarks per se.
You seem to be saying that if the person is not liked by YOU, or YOU deem
them to be criminal, then you may take their property. If THAT is, in fact
your predicate, I think you are *FAR* from making a moral argument. What,
pray tell is the difference between this argument, and CoS' fair game policy?
(Indeed, in CoS v. Lerma, it was CoS that prevailed on Summary Judgment).
Deirdre
I think this should be re-named the Alice's Restaurant Massacree and
should also involve jumping up and down on a desk saying, "I wannna
kill...."
_Deirdre (visitor from another decade)
In article <4vrq51$v...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
> What if?
>
> What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
Deirdre
In article <4vsde3$s...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
> Martin G. V. Hunt (av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> > What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
>
> 1) It would be considered spam and thusly cancelled.
If done all at once, certainly.
> 2) RTC would proceed to sue a thousand people.
Ah, but do they have the resources to sustain a thousand-front war?
I don't think they do.
_Deirdre
Arnaldo Lerma
and running gulags....
Arnaldo Lerma
wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) wrote:
>In article <noringDw...@netcom.com>, nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>
>> Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
>> and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>> scrutiny.
>
>Nice pabulum. How about these:
>
>Since Microsoft refuses to publish its prinicpal source codes, it is
>therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made available
>to the public for scrutiny.
>
no, it isnt, but if Microsoft were defrauding the public, causing
suicides, ruining lives, perhaps it would be.
>Since Coca-Cola refuses to publish its recipe, it is therefore right and
>proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>scrutiny.
>
no, it isnt, but if Coca -Cola were defrauding the public, causing
suicides, ruining lives, perhaps it would be.
>Since I refuse to publish my new book excerpts until after the people who
>paid me for first publication rights thereto, it is therefore right and
>proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>scrutiny.
>
no, it isnt, but if you were defrauding the public, causing
suicides, ruining lives, perhaps it would be.
>Since I refuse to publish my IRS tax returns, it is therefore right and
>proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>scrutiny.
>
no, it isnt, but if the secrecy of your tax returns were
defrauding the public, causing suicides, ruining lives, perhaps it
would be.
>Since Arnaldo Lerma refuses to publish his attorney-client communications,
>it is therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made
>available to the public for scrutiny.
>
no, it isnt, but if my attorney client privlege were defrauding
the public, causing suicides & ruining lives, perhaps it would be.
>I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
>copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
>engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
The cult just says what you say is false... especially if whay you
say and quote is unbelieveable...
-
>just another view,
ditto
>Andy Greenberg (wer...@gate.net)
>Carlton Fields
Arnie Lerma
http://www2.dgsys.com/~alerma
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg):
>
>I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
>copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
>engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
Andrew, and with all due respect,
There can be no fair use discussion of something that the Church <spit>
of $cientology has deemed to call a "trade secret." This is something
that Dave Touretzky has learned this past week with regards to his "NOTS
Scholars" web page. He received a letter from the co$ attorney Milgrim,
asking him to take down the page. The co$ does not see these NOTS as
copyrighted...they are trade secrets, pure and simple. And, thus, as
trade secrets, they cannot be discussed *at all*. Not even in "fair use"
format. I looked at Touretzky's page, and the NOTS are not there, only
"fair use" excerpts. But that's the way the co$ and its attorneys think.
Of course, I am still wondering how a *church* with a *tax exemption* can
have *trade secrets* (which, I have assumed, should be reserved only for
business).
But the simple answer, Andrew, is that the co$ and their army of
attorneys claim that it is a trade secret, thus it can never be discussed
publicly. There is no "fair use" of a trade secret in the minds of the
co$.
Deana
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
April 1996 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
mir...@xmission.com
Ted Mayett (Xenu)
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>What if?
>
>What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
>
A thousand people would be sued.
What if a thousand people were to picket?
What if a thousand people were to send out disks with info?
I've yet to send out one lousy disk.
And I have a thousand places I can send them to in my city.
Robert Mashlan
Bev <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
>Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>> Since Microsoft refuses to publish its prinicpal source codes, it is
>> therefore right and proper from a moral basis that they be made available
>> to the public for scrutiny.
>
[snip]
>
>You could also refer to it as TRUTH IN ADVERTISING. If Microsoft (your
>example) advertised it was going to sell you one thing, and instead it
>substitutes another, that is DECEPTIVE.
There exists a book called "Unauthorized Windows 95" by Andrew
Schulman. One of the major themes of the book is discrediting
Microsoft's claim that Windows 95 is not based on MS-DOS. To prove
the point, the book contains several reverse-engineered excerpts of
Windows 95 system code.
rm
B.P.F. Kassler
Hello Tilman
(til...@berlin.snafu.de) ## 25 Aug 96 ##
>So my advice to all: don't post the NOTs.
^^^^^
... mail them instead ??
mit freundlichem Grusse: Bernd
min...@toppoint.de..........................(bkas...@ploe.comcity.de)
- erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amusement -
My opinions are my own - not those of my Usenet service providers.
Keith Bennett
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>
>> 2) RTC would proceed to sue a thousand people.
>
>Ah, but do they have the resources to sustain a thousand-front war?
>
>I don't think they do.
>
Well, out here in Judge Whytes back yard, they have 3-4. I wonder
what he'd do if several dozen people around the bay area invited
lawsuits.
Who knows, eventually we might be able to outnumber the lawyers ;)
Stuart P. Derby
In article <werdna-2608...@192.0.2.23>,
: My point was NOT that it was a legally defensible position. It has
: already conceded by Jon that it is not. My point is that he didn't make a
: moral ARGUMENT. His statement was merely the announcing of a conclusion.
: He wrote:
Calling it a "concession" sounds like spin-control already. Jon's
initial statement included the phrase
"I do realize that from the "letter" of the law regarding
IP materials that what Mr. Panoussis did probably
did violate Swedish copyright statutes provided that the
copyrights are valid"
Calling it a "concession" is not appropriate, what has Jon given up?
Also please note that Jon's statement includes the possibility that a
legal defense might be made on the validity of the copyrights. That is a
real possibilty inasmuch as some people have argued that the current
holder, RTC, obtained the copyrights through an improper conveyance, that
RTC had troubles with documenting some of their copyright claims in the
Netherlands cases, and that in the Klemesruud case, a challenge on those
conveyances was made and RTC subsequently settled for less than their
litigation expenses, with no acknowledgment of fault by Klemesruud.
: : > Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
: : > and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the
public for
: : > scrutiny.
: Although written in the form "if a then b," this is not an argument, the
: consquent doesn't follow from the former, and the steps inbetween are not
: included in any of the remarks per se.
You're right, if you're going to argue from 2 lines of a multiparagraph
posting (probably about 4 pages worth including Mr. Panoussis' quoted and
referenced statement). Unfortunately Jon's statement included such lines
as
"Public disclosure and discussion of "secret", unpublished
materials which deal with matters of profound public
interest *must* take a higher precedence over copyright laws,
even if current "law" does not take this morally just position.
However, Jon's moral argument was really an acceptance and affirmation of
Mr. Panoussis' moral argument. I suggest you go back and read the orignal
again and compare it to your 2 line excerpt.
.
: You seem to be saying that if the person is not liked by YOU, or YOU deem
: them to be criminal, then you may take their property.
You know, it always amuses me when someone standing up for intellectual
property rights drops the "intellectual" part. (It usually indicates to me
that someone has a vested interest or an axe to grind.) You know there are
fundamental differences between IP, and personal/real property. No one is
advocating burglary here, that's a Scientology tactic.
The documentation of Scientology's criminality is overwhelming. If
you're interested I can point you to some of it. As a small example, I've
appended the table of contents from the Stipulation of Evidence from US v.
Mary Sue Hubbard, et al. (A lot of Co$-related legal documents can be
found at http://superlink.net/~mgarde/ ).
The problem we have is that it is clear to many of us that the Church of
Scientology is fundamentally a racketeering organization that our
government has failed to disband for over 20 years. (I hasten to add that
it is mostly the rank-and-file members of the Church of Scientology who
are the victims.) Those of us who believe that are faced with a choice, do
we stand by and do nothing or find a way to oppose such an organization?
Republishing the NOTS documents is one person's response to that
challenge.
: If THAT is, in fact
: your predicate, I think you are *FAR* from making a moral argument. What,
: pray tell is the difference between this argument, and CoS' fair game policy?
My, my, my. How far you've leapt. You're equating a copyright violation
with fair game? A policy that reads:
"[The victim m]ay be deprived of property or injured by any
means by any Scientologist without any discipline of
the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed"?
Methinks you're deliberately trying to conflate two things that are very
far apart on most people's scale of harm. I personally can't equate
destroying an individual with unauthorized publication of dead man's
writings, and I seriously wonder how you can.
: (Indeed, in CoS v. Lerma, it was CoS that prevailed on Summary Judgment).
Umm, you've jumped back to the legal arena again. Back to Rhetoric 101
for you.
-Stu
---------------------- Edited for spacing, incudes some scanning errors -----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. Criminal No. 78-401
MARY SUE HUBBARD, et al.
S T I P U L A T I O N O F E V I D E N C E
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
- i -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. The Witness Michael J. Meisner 1
II. Organizational Structure of the Guardian's Office 6
111. The Conspiracy to Intercept Oral Communications, 12
Burglarize and Steal, and the Substantive Acts
Committed Pursuant Thereto
A. The Order to infiltrate the Internal Revenue
Service in Washington, D,C. 17
B. The Bugging of the IRS Chief Counsel's
Conference Room on November 1, 1974 22
C. The First Infiltration of the IRS in the
District of Columbia Pursuant to GO 1361 32
D. Infiltration of the Tax Division of the
United States Department of Justice 57
E. The Guardian's Office Awards its GO 1361 Workers 79
F. The Theft of IRS Documents Exempted from
Disclosure Under the Freedom of Information Act 81
G. The Guardian Program Order Instituting An "Early
Warning System" to Detect Possible Legal Actions
Against L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard 90
H. The Los Angeles Guardian's Office Sends Help to
the District of Columbia @Quardian's Office 100
I. The Guardian's Office Orders Mr. Meisner to
Los Angeles for Debriefing and Auditing 106
J. Mr. Meisner Returns to the District of Columbia 112
K. The Entry Into the IRS identification Room and
the Making of Counterfeit Identification Cards 119
L. Guardian Program Order 302 and the Theft of
Documents Withheld by the United States Under
the FOIA 123
M. Burglaries of the Suite of Offices of the
Deputy Attorney General of the United States 127
N. Burglaries of the Office of International
Operations of the Internal Revenue Service
and Theft of Documents Therefrcm 133
O. Burglaries and Thefts or Documents Fro-.n the
Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. 139
1. Office of Paul Figley 139
2. Interpol Liaison Office at the Department
of Justice 142
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ii -
Offices of Special Assistant to Assistant
Attorney General ror Administration
John F. Shaw
150
P. Burglaries and Thefts or Docu-.ients from Assistant
United States Attorney Nathan Dodellt-- Office,
Located in the United States Courthouse for the
District of Columbia 155
IV. The Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, to Obstruct
an Investigation, to Harbor a Fugitive and to
Make False Declarations Before the Grand Jury 176
A. The Preparation or the Cover-up Story 176
B. The Defendant Gerald Bennett Wolfe is Arrested
in Washington, D.C., by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation 190
C. The United States Case Against the Defendant
Gerald Bennett Wolfe is Referred to the Grand
Jury, and an Arrest Warran*- is Issued for
Michael Meisner 196
D. The Guardian's Office Harbors and Conceals
Fugitive From Justice Michael Me@isner 198
E. The Guardian's Office Gives the FBI and the
Grand Jury False Handwriting Exemplars 209
F. The Guardian's Office Refines its Cover-up Plans 214
G. The Federal Grand Jury Investigation in the
District of Columbia Continues 225
H. The Guardian's Office Cover-up Moves Into
its Final Phase 232
1, The Guardian's Office Restrains and Guards
Michael Meisner 238
J. Michael Meisner's First Escape from His Guards 248
K. The Defendant Wolfe's Sentencing and Subsequent
Testimony Before the Grand Jury in the District
of Columbia 252
L. The Defendant Wolfe is Debriered by the Guardian's
Office After his Grand Jury Appearance 265
M. Michael Meisner Surrenders to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation 268
Jim Lewis
In article <sderby-2708...@news.blkbox.com>,
Stuart P. Derby <sde...@blkbox.com> wrote:
|In article <werdna-2608...@192.0.2.23>,
|wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) wrote:
|: You seem to be saying that if the person is not liked by YOU, or YOU deem
|: them to be criminal, then you may take their property.
|
| You know, it always amuses me when someone standing up for intellectual
|property rights drops the "intellectual" part. (It usually indicates to me
|that someone has a vested interest or an axe to grind.) You know there are
|fundamental differences between IP, and personal/real property. No one is
|advocating burglary here, that's a Scientology tactic.
|
| The documentation of Scientology's criminality is overwhelming. If
|you're interested I can point you to some of it.
There is the additional complication that the IP in question could
be considered evidence of wrongdoing -- that Scientology is flouting
the Gesell(sp?) ruling which prohibits them from representing the
E-meter as a medical device. The NOTS documents contain several
passages which refer to auditing processes (i.e. use of the e-meter)
to cure physical conditions.
I don't think it's proper to allow intellectual property law to be used as
a weapon against those who are making a good faith effort to expose wrongdoing.
Keith Henson reposted a brief excerpt from the NOTS pack to support his
contention that Scientology is violating a court order and making
false medical claims. Now he's at the wrong end of Co$ lawsuit, as
a pro per defendant. I think it's ridiculous to portray Scientology as the
injured party here! They have turned the US justice system into an
accomplice in their ongoing campaign of harrassing, intimidating, and
if possible, utterly ruining those who dare to criticize them.
-- Jim Lewis
Center for EUV Astrophysics
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <321f45b5...@204.245.3.50>,
Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Zenon Panoussis <ora...@dodo.pp.se>:
>>The NOTs follow in separate postings. My posting them demands an
>>explanation.
> You have made a clear case for taking the action you did. I
>sincerely doubt that the scienos can successfully claim these
>materials are secret, ever again.
it's too bad they had to force the issue by lying about
it in court. perhaps if the cult weren't so willing to
commit perjury, other people wouldn't be so willing to
shit on its copyrights.
> Their bait-and-switch scam is exposed.
it also appears they're too weak and pathetic lately
even to manage a decent bout of spam. perhaps i ought
to knock on wood, but is it possible that keith
henson forced them to stop?
> NOTs was their golden goose. Now it's rotting, BT-infested carcass
>lies festering in the daylight for the whole world to smell the
>stench, see the carrion and avoid it.
it also seems as if grady ward has discovered a new
amusement in the L series. L12 was in SCAMIZDAT and
its form was like this:
SCIENTOLOGIST!
Liar?
Perjurer?
Cultist?
Dog-drowner?
Lawyer?
Pimp?
Coke-dealer?
Ho' of Babble-On?
on and on and on like that. amazing--all this proves is
my assertion on first seeing the OTs that the more a cult
course costs, the more of a crock of shit it is.
the Comm Course, the only even remotely useful part of
schientology, is practically free and this amazing bullshit
(that i could have written drunk off my ass) costs thousands.
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <dennis....@support.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMiNkf3Z/m2/Pgo35AQFf8gH/bWr8SILooe5KpnmMXAghE8hrcwk6g5cC
ODkuYhRp+VVPWWuyDXlwDXTZcfreaMqvyMWUn6sF9tl1sMeQv2gPHQ==
=4F6S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <deirdre-2608...@pm0a18.new.sover.net>,
Deirdre <dei...@sover.net> wrote:
>I think this should be re-named the Alice's Restaurant Massacree and
>should also involve jumping up and down on a desk saying, "I wannna
>kill...."
>_Deirdre (visitor from another decade)
>In article <4vrq51$v...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
>(Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>> What if?
>> What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
what if, i say, what if ONE person posted NOTS to
the internet? they might say it was a copyright
violation.
and what if two people posted NOTS to the internet?
well, they might say it was a conspiracy.
but if a thousand, i say, a thousand people posted
NOTS to the internet, they might say it was a
MOVEMENT!
now sing along with me:
"you can get anything you want
at lafayette's restaurant
(excepting freedom)
you can get anything you want
at lafayette's restaurant.
walk on in it's around the back!
right down here on teegeeack!
and you can get anything you want
at LAF-AY-ETTE's RESTaurant. ..
doo doo doo doo doo doo doo yeah."
and don't forget the four-part harmony and
groovy stuff like that.
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMiN1+3Z/m2/Pgo35AQGT+QH+PSi+JoYN6ZWudJxynAEqfwn4IcRtJu4z
5VlrTFAFCDCB+jDjfs7tGaoK4e5B3zxrG75PMfDOIhA/xoft+z9IWw==
=MYXC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <werdna-2508...@192.0.2.23>,
Andrew C. Greenberg <wer...@gate.net> wrote:
>In article <noringDw...@netcom.com>, nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>> Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
>> and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>> scrutiny.
[a bunch of examples that seem irrelevant to me--here's a better
example:
since intel refuses to publicly publish the details of the
flaw in their pentium chip, it is therefore right and proper
from a moral basis that they be made available to the public
for scrutiny.
>Please don't go ballistic, Jon. My point is not that any of these
>assertions or true, or even that they follow from yours. My point is that
>you are stating a conclusion, not making an argument for that conclusion.
>By substituting different facts, you can see that the "form" of your
>argument doesn't support the result.
the implicit conclusion you have already reached is that legal
"rights" supercede natural rights.
>I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
>copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
>engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
i actually have a number of reasons that this has been
necessary, most of which have to do with fair use.
the first is obvious: how is one to comment on materials
which are kept top-secret, even in some cases behind
electronic locks and fancy motion-detectors on a ship
which likes to hang out in international waters to avoid
troublesome things like laws against setting up private
prisons?
the commentary and criticism of such documents as OT III
which i have seen since the publication of the OTs in the
fishman affidavit has literally exploded. i have seen
exhaustive analysis of this material from legal, religious,
metaphysical and scientific standpoints, all within
fair use, since the publication of the OT materials.
my second reason also has to do with fair use, and
simple self-defense. the scientologists have in the past
sued every writer who has ever dared comment upon their
scam. the list includes paulette cooper, the late
bob kaufman, cyril vosper, jon atack, russell miller,
bent corydon, richard behar--in fact, every author
of a critical work. even omar garrison, who started
out positive to Co$, was harassed, and the cult ended
up paying his publisher $200,000 *not* to publish
the authorized biography he had written.
the lawsuits always used to be for libel. eventually,
the cult had no good reputation left to defend, making
libel actions doomed from the outset. they switched
tactics to copyright suits.
now the cult has a vast, but not limitless 'war chest'
earmarked each year to sue critics, regardless of the
merits of the claim. in the case of the net, the cult
is forced to concentrate solely on the worst and most
dangerous violators of its copyrights, who often
bravely post under their real names as a slap in the
face to the cult and a challenge.
it is my contention that if there were no massive and
constant wholesale copyright violations of the cult's
copyrights that they would begin suing people for simple
fair use. therefore, the massive violators protect
those who do nothing illegal, but would otherwise be
sued and harassed in a tortious, if not criminal manner.
third, turnabout is fair play.
if they think *i'm* fair game, i think they're fair game--
if they go after me with a fist, i'll pull a knife.
if they go after me with a knife, i'll pull a gun.
in this case, the matter is far simpler and less violent.
they are trying to crush *any* quoting of their material,
fair use or otherwise, and the net pulls out in response--
a massive and uncoordinated assault on their copyrights.
if they intend to attack us with copyright,
then the only sane response is to make those copyrights
utterly worthless to the cult--if necessary, until
they expire utterly.
the fourth reason is political--people, including media,
are attracted to disorganized, sprawling conflicts. the
copyright 'terrorism' draws crowds, and makes quite
evident the utter helplessness of the cult to stop it.
one of their selling points is having a reputation
as a bunch of serious badasses who can point to a list
of destroyed victims, saying "this'll happen to you if
you mess with us." some unscrupulous bullies are attracted
to such an organization.
who is attracted to a bunch of pathetic loser cultists
who get their asses kicked day in and day out by a
bunch of computer geeks? further, as in the previous
paragraph, "revenge of the nerds" scenarios play
out well in the press.
the fifth reason involves the litigation which erupts
whenever one of these posts occurs. it wastes the
cult's time and money, which they cleverly spend to
draw attention to the brutal sodomizing of their own
damn selves. if they had ignored dennis' eminently
legal and conservative quotes of their material in
months'-long ongoing conversations, nobody would
have felt it to be appropriate to rape the cult's
copyrights like this. as it is, they begged for it.
nevertheless, the litigation will, in the long run
(the one bit of relevance i'll grant all your legalistic
maunderings), result in a very 'clear' definition of
precisely where it *is* legal to quote this cult's
documents.
as the fishman posting of lerma provoked the placing
of the fishman affidavit on karin spaink's web page,
it also provoked the litigation against karin spaink.
it turned out in that litigation that the cult only
is able to prove in a dutch court that they own a
small fraction of that material, OTs II and III.
therefore, the rest of it is entirely legal for
karin to keep on her web page--and we now have
a legally-approved fishman affidavit web site
with all the OTs except II and III, which are
summarized, including those fair use quotes.
in terms of practicality, i say that while arnie
lerma may have lost on summary judgment, karin
spaink and the *net*, thanks to arnie, *won utterly*.
not only did these tactics i relate cause the
cult to be even further discredited, but even
to *actual legal victories*, which even you must
recognize.
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMiN/DHZ/m2/Pgo35AQEaTwH+N/LP+fvP2dLyDb01xiSreRRzIsYAeuwk
sklGuJv6ghHBzKQx4yNECCc95vj/opoa+xWSTn2SJdfw7nb0DtdWew==
=cUEq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry):
>if they had ignored dennis' eminently
>legal and conservative quotes of their material in
>months'-long ongoing conversations, nobody would
>have felt it to be appropriate to rape the cult's
>copyrights like this. as it is, they begged for it.
I tol' them and tol' them. "Let it lie." But no, they had to be
the bigshots and crush YHN like a bug. They shouldn't have messed
with the tarbaby.
They done 'bumped the stump' this time.
"Sometimes you're the windshield, baby
Sometimes you're the bug." - M. Knoffler
Keith Bennett
see...@ix.netcom.com (h3) wrote:
>>
>> What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
>>
> ok. i'll sign up to be #957
>
>-- see...@ix.netcom.com
Has #666 been taken yet? If so, I'd like it.
Perhaps out little sisters of the perpetually juicy would agree to
share #69?
Martin G. V. Hunt
Deirdre (dei...@sover.net) writes:
> In article <4vsde3$s...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
> kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:
>
>> Martin G. V. Hunt (av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>> > What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
>>
>> 1) It would be considered spam and thusly cancelled.
>
> If done all at once, certainly.
Even then, it would be a mass-protest not a spam atack. Vertical spam
has one header and one sender. A thousand individuals posting under
slightly different headings wouldn't be equivalent to the spam the cult
puts out.
Anyway, the cult has spammed 20,000+ posts here, not just a mere 1,000. :-)
>> 2) RTC would proceed to sue a thousand people.
>
> Ah, but do they have the resources to sustain a thousand-front war?
>
> I don't think they do.
I'm pretty sure they *don't*, which is the point of it. There's some
interest out there in doing this. Perhaps it's a way for everyone to
join in the protests in a way?
If it does happen, I bet it draws a bit of media attention.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Deirdre (dei...@sover.net) writes:
> I think this should be re-named the Alice's Restaurant Massacree and
> should also involve jumping up and down on a desk saying, "I wannna
> kill...."
Father rapers....
Michael Reuss
> Andrew C. Greenberg (wer...@gate.net) wrote:
>
>My point, Jon, was simply this: your assertion, without more, that a
>particular kind of conduct is morally responsible does not prove itself.
Hi Andrew,
Welcome back to a.r.s. It's been a while.
Most of us probably see Jon's conclusion and agree with it, not for what
preceeded his sentence in an individual post, but for what's preceeded it
here on Usenet for going on two years, and for what has happened in secrecy
to the critics of Scientology for the past 40 years.
As for posting NOTS, it's civil disobedience, pure and simple. And you're
absolutely right, Mr. Panoussis could very well lose a judgement over this.
But, maybe he doesn't care.
Maybe he thinks that even if he loses, he'll win. Last year the Dutch people
got a big cult-innoculation booster shot when the Co$ went after Karin,
XS4ALL, et. al. This year, it might be Sweden's turn to get innoculated.
Sometimes one has to look at the big picture.
>Indeed, to the contrary, it merely announces a result,
So, are you saying the argument "Scientology is bad, therefore one should
post the NOTS" does not ring true with you? :-)
Hey, remember the last time you got into a thread like this one? Back then
you advised critics not to even take the chance of being sued and and not to
quote at all, even considering fair use. It sounds like your position is
changing a little bit. I like it. Keep it up at this rate and 30 or 40 years
from now, you'll be ranting about the "evil" Co$ on a.r.s just like the rest
of us a.r.s regulars ;-)
(except of course, in the highly likely event that the cult goes spinning
down the toilet before then).
Anyway, it's good to see you posting again.
I just thought of another good ARS-CC slogan:
As Scientology goes down the toilet, ARS-CC pulls the chain
-
Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid
Hillel
In article <werdna-2508...@192.0.2.23>,
Andrew C. Greenberg <wer...@gate.net> wrote:
>I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
>copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
>engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
Diane spelled out, just for you, this very issue several months ago.
The point that you made a real effort to miss is that Erlich posted fair
use paragraphs from the document and he was raided by the Co$. They
wanted to play the legal loop-hole game, and they get their wish.
The Co$ had to deal with "secret" documents on a web page in Holland.
Now the Co$ has to go to a court in Sweden and prove that they have the
copyrights of the NOTs. I don't know what country will be the next in
line, but I hope that sometime in the future even the Co$ will
understand that raiding people can be counter-productive.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
Trying to fit your charges that Erlich engaged in "wholesale copying" into
the Procrustean bed of "minimally transformative" may work in court, but
it doesn't work on a Usenet newsgroup. Sorry. -- Diane Richardson
Dave Touretzky
In article <werdna-2508...@192.0.2.23>,
Andrew C. Greenberg <wer...@gate.net> wrote:
>I have never quite understood why it was necessary to "publish" verbatim
>copies of these works to hold them to public scrutiny. Why not simply
>engage in fair use criticism of them, and leave it at that?
I've been following your advice, Andrew. I created the NOTs Scholars Home
Page, at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs
Want to see what this produced? Look below.
-- Dave Touretzky, KoX (SP4++++): Fearless NOTs Scholar Extraordinaire.
================================================================
Law Offices of
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY, & WALKER LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations
399 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
Telephone (212) 318-6000
Facsimile (212) 319-4090
Internet www.phjw.com
Writer's Direct Access Our File No.
(212) 318-6016 24437.01100
August 22, 1996
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
David S. Touretzky, Ph.D
Computer Science Department
Center for the Neural Basis of Cognition
Carnegie Mellon University
5000 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Re: The NOTs Scholars Home Page
Dear Mr. Touretzky:
I write to you on behalf of Religious Technology Center
("RTC"). This firm is representing RTC in its actions against Dennis
Erlich, Keith Henson, Arnaldo Lerma and Grady Ward, cases pending in
U.S. federal courts before either Judges Whyte (N.D. Cal.) or Brinkema
(Lerma, E.D. Va.). I believe you are familiar with these cases.
RTC is the licensee of the copyrights and owner of other
intellectual property of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the
Scientology religion, in the confidential, unpublished Scientology
scriptures known as the "Advanced Technology." RTC's copyright claims
have led Judges Brinkema and Whyte to rule that each of the
above-listed defendant's Internet postings violated RTC's copyrights.
Such conduct has been enjoined. Judge Whyte also denied Netcom's
request to have RTC's copyright claims against it, as an Internet
access "provider," dismissed. Subsequently, RTC and Netcom settled
their dispute; Netcom has considerably tightened its rules to avoid
lending provider auspices to infringers and misappropriators.
Although Judge Brinkema denied RTC's motion for a
preliminary injunction on trade secret grounds, reasoning that
Internet posting of certain, defined issues had ended their trade
secret status, that ruling did not involve any of the NOTs issues
which you are now threatening to acquire or post. Moreover, Judge
Whyte (in Erlich) has, as of now, declined to rule that the trade
secrets in various NOTs issues were impaired as a result of Internet
postings and has undertaken further hearings on this very point. Even
more recently, Judge Whyte declined to modify the trade secret
injunctions against Ward and Henson, based on the latters' claim that
the Internet posting of these issues vitiated their trade secret
status. Judge Whyte indicated that he would soon be ruling on the
impact of Internet postings on the trade secret status of these works.
That ruling has not yet been issued.
We write to you because of your recent opening of a Web-site
at Carnegie Mellon soliciting RTC's NOTs materials and expressing the
seeming intention to post them. Your past history, as the first
person to post the so-called Fishman declaration to a Web-site (like
conduct has been unequivocally determined to be a copyright violation,
as to which the poster and a provider on notice would have liability),
gave impetus to others to make echo postings that, at the very least,
infringe RTC's copyrights.
RTC is confident that you are aware that RTC objects to any
infringement of its copyright in this material and that the genesis of
unpublished materials outside any Church of Scientology is notorious
thefts in Denmark and England, to which an article on your Web page
refers.
RTC does not desire to engage in litigation with you. Nor
does it wish to impinge on your legitimate First Amendment rights. It
does, however, insist that you respect its intellectual property
rights. Toward that end, on its behalf we request that you now:
1. Cease soliciting copies of the NOTs materials and
retract your solicitations (as to which there are two judicial
actions, both of which enjoined individuals from soliciting or
acquiring NOTs materials).
2. Turn over to this firm for safekeeping any and all
copies of NOTs or portions of it that you have or control.
3. Make no disclosure, in whole or in part, of the NOTs
materials in any media.
4. Remove the summaries of the NOTs works from your Web
page and turn over to this firm for safekeeping all copies of those
summaries that you have or control.
5. Cease posting, or accepting for posting on your Web
page, any further materials that reproduce, in whole or in part, any
of the contents of the NOTs materials.
This letter is not intended as a complete statement of facts
or RTC's claims of rights. It is intended to assure that in
exercising your legitimate First Amendment rights you do not further
infringe upon RTC's intellectual property.
Very truly yours,
[signed]
Roger M. Milgrim
RMM/ia
cc: General Counsel,
Carnegie Mellon University
h3
>
> What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
>
Paul Sears
Sure... But Mr. Touretzky is not enjoined at this time.
>
> 2. Turn over to this firm for safekeeping any and all
>copies of NOTs or portions of it that you have or control.
>
Right...
> 3. Make no disclosure, in whole or in part, of the NOTs
>materials in any media.
>
Hehe. Why not? What is there to hide? Afraid the media would have a field
day???
> 4. Remove the summaries of the NOTs works from your Web
>page and turn over to this firm for safekeeping all copies of those
>summaries that you have or control.
I don't think they can ask this. A summary is fair use especially if it is
your own words. And reading the letter, it seems that they are
addressing this under "copyright" claims. Thus "fair use" can be
validated for these summaries... Of course, the issue of "trade secrets" is
still unresolved. However, doesn't the readily accessability of NOTS on the
net void any claims of "trade secrets" for NOTS? I am aware that many people
have downloaded them. They will likely end up on some CD-Rom Archive
sometime. I have read the NOTs when they were posted online. I never
downloaded them, I just read them many moons ago (when they were first posted)
via my newsreader. I am sure that many other people have read them also.
So, what if we come up with our own summaries that are derived from our own
memories? Would there still be any claims against them?
>
> 5. Cease posting, or accepting for posting on your Web
>page, any further materials that reproduce, in whole or in part, any
>of the contents of the NOTs materials.
What about requesting summaries from various people that are not reproductions
of NOTS? I guess he could do that without problems...
>
> This letter is not intended as a complete statement of facts
>or RTC's claims of rights. It is intended to assure that in
Hehe... Especially if the stated facts are incorrect
>exercising your legitimate First Amendment rights you do not further
>infringe upon RTC's intellectual property.
>
> Very truly yours,
>
> [signed]
>
> Roger M. Milgrim
>
>RMM/ia
>
>cc: General Counsel,
> Carnegie Mellon University
Paul Sears Se...@uh.edu (MIME mail accepted)
Systems Administration <URL:http://www.egr.uh.edu/~sears>
Engineering Computing Center College of Engineering
University of Houston Copyright (c) 1996
**** I do not represent the University of Houston ****
*Unsolicited Email of a commercial nature delivered to this address is*
*subject to a $500 charge. Emailing such items, manually or *
*automatically, constitutes acceptance of these terms and conditions. *
Someone with my name
In article <3222a18a...@nntp.best.com>,
dke...@best.com (Keith Bennett) writes:
> Perhaps out little sisters of the perpetually juicy would agree to
>share #69?
>
idea... What if everyone posted a copy of the NOTs on their
birthday? Then we wouldn't have to pick numbers! Somebody
post details on how to do posts anonymously, and we can start
posting PGP encrypted stuff, (but not necessarily copyrighted
stuff), right away! BTW if <ack><coff> "trade secrets" are
public knowledge... Can they ever be "trade secrets" again?
Perhaps this could save Vorlon!
-Me
(I'll go on Feb 11th!)
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <3221061f...@news.xmission.com>,
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series) <mir...@xmission.com> wrote:
>Of course, I am still wondering how a *church* with a *tax exemption* can
>have *trade secrets* (which, I have assumed, should be reserved only for
>business).
i can think of legitimate trade secrets for religious
institutions. if, say, the benedictine monks were to
keep a secret recipe for benedictine liqueur to support
their order, that would be legit.
of course this is irrelevant to Co$' bogus trade secret
claims. a trade secret has to be secret. period.
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMihxlXZ/m2/Pgo35AQFuRAH/deurrywo01vPL7RggOhHmTf1VdJpJtQm
9CC4TMjkSO7KJDtR/sRDNPJSqjT/3GqjyEAqxwAcN1GbNCSqExA7Rw==
=bquN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dan McKinnon
>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series) <mir...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>Of course, I am still wondering how a *church* with a *tax exemption* can
>>have *trade secrets* (which, I have assumed, should be reserved only for
>>business).
>i can think of legitimate trade secrets for religious
>institutions. if, say, the benedictine monks were to
>keep a secret recipe for benedictine liqueur to support
>their order, that would be legit.
>of course this is irrelevant to Co$' bogus trade secret
>claims. a trade secret has to be secret. period.
>h
I wonder...
You cannot patent a useless invention anymore, can you? Doesn't
there have to be some proof that it actually will work?
So - are "trade secrets" valid trade secrets if they do not
accomplish a goal with something approaching 100% succcess?
IOW, if $cientologies "trade secrets" are the subject of court
litigation, can the defendant _demand_ that there be proof that they
accomplish what is claimed, by way of scientific testing?
IOW IOW - can nonsense be protected as a "trade secret"?
Dan -
as to
the answer
_I_ would give...
too much
to hope for
I guess...
Zane Thomas
dan,
>
> IOW IOW - can nonsense be protected as a "trade secret"?
>
I'll hazard a guess that the answer is yes, depending upon what your
definition of nonsense is. In our system anything which can be used
to extract money from people is not "nonsense" and so I suppose it can
be protected as a "trade secret". For instance, coke and other
sugar-water "beverages" are nonsense of the worst sort, yet the
forumla can be protected as a trade-secret.
Zane
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQCNAzDWV4wAAAEEAPEa65dkUQPkNGFvum3AZ5SlU/v28F4qvsP2jexG4dniTmah
sMc85gX2m0aAwqW7aPCoRtyHkXw0LyZEca8DRjYoU1j0SuWpBS+3+BUjKfcYq21a
UqE8lniEvupg38obRnq5BR4sPwd1UpCTx3i8yqfSRhpcBBBj9FOCWnK6OJtFAAUT
tBx6dGhvbWFzQHBhY2lmaWMudGVsZWJ5dGUubmV0
=vYq5
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Cornelius Krasel
Someone with my name (c...@removethispartornotrpi.edu) wrote:
[complete snip]
You shouldn't even *think* about posting the NOTs. After all, it
was a matter of minutes to find out that your real account is
cur...@stu.rpi.edu (Peter F. Curran).
But thanks for delurking :-)
--Cornelius (for ARSCC security; Herne is obviously on vacation).
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Stuart P. Derby
In article <50a95o$g...@news.interlog.com>, da...@interlog.com wrote:
: I wonder...
:
: You cannot patent a useless invention anymore, can you? Doesn't
: there have to be some proof that it actually will work?
:
: So - are "trade secrets" valid trade secrets if they do not
: accomplish a goal with something approaching 100% succcess?
:
: IOW, if $cientologies "trade secrets" are the subject of court
: litigation, can the defendant _demand_ that there be proof that they
: accomplish what is claimed, by way of scientific testing?
:
: IOW IOW - can nonsense be protected as a "trade secret"?
"Trade secrets" are any information that the exclusive possession
of which confers competitive advantages against business rivals. (Wow,
that almost sounds like lawyer-speeak! Well, IANAL...)
Trade secrets can include things that can't be copyrighted or
patented, such as customer lists,a recipe's ingredient lists, or a
collection of labrotory data, so there's
obviously no requirement that a trade secret be effective.
As far as what can and can't be a secret, I have no idea but there's
got to be some law in that area, I'll see if I can find an easy primer
on the next visit to the law library.
More generally, trade secrets and copyright are based on different
principles: trade secret law exists to preserve a fair environment for
business competition, while copyright in the U.S. exists (as enshrined in the
Constitution) "to promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts",
i.e. to benefit the public..
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <50a95o$g...@news.interlog.com>, Dan McKinnon
<da...@interlog.com> writes:
> You cannot patent a useless invention anymore, can you? Doesn't
>there have to be some proof that it actually will work?
>
> So - are "trade secrets" valid trade secrets if they do not
>accomplish a goal with something approaching 100% succcess?
>
> IOW, if $cientologies "trade secrets" are the subject of court
>litigation, can the defendant _demand_ that there be proof that they
>accomplish what is claimed, by way of scientific testing?
An interesting point has been made in one of the cases (Dennis
Erlich's ?) as to what is a trade secret, and whether these are
in fact trade secrets.
Copyright material is newly created writing which is openly published
and licensed by charging per copy of it;
a patented process is a newly invented manufacturing process which
is openly published and licenced by charging per item made with it.
A trade secret is a novel detail of manufacturing process from
which its owners profit per item of goods or services they themselves
make and openly sell based on that knowledge, while taking all
reasonable steps to keep that knowledge secret from competitors.
If, clearly defined, one profits through the use of trade secret
knowledge not by selling, licensing or teaching that knowledge--
such matters being the province of copyright for text or
patent for processes--then I cannot see how $cientology's
"secret scriptures" are trade secrets at all. Nor are they
processes whose effectiveness can be demonstrated for patent
purposes. The are copyright works of fiction, nothing more.
(On your original point, whether nonsense can be trade secrets,
I think the ansewer is "yes, it can." The point of a trade
secret is that it is knowledge of how to get money from the
public. An illusionist's new method of sawing a woman in half
and reassembling her could prefectly well be a trade secret
although it is only a trick; but if he tried to patent it on the
basis it actually accomplished that, and license the rights
to others, he would have to first show it did so).
--
Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on ( alt.religion.scientology
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
___________________________________________________________________
OT8 Cognition:"Source is the 8th Dynamic"[LRon Hubbard is God]BWAAH!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan McKinnon
zth...@activexpert.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>dan,
Dan McKinnon:
>> IOW IOW - can nonsense be protected as a "trade secret"?
>>
>I'll hazard a guess that the answer is yes, depending upon what your
>definition of nonsense is. In our system anything which can be used
>to extract money from people is not "nonsense" and so I suppose it can
>be protected as a "trade secret". For instance, coke and other
>sugar-water "beverages" are nonsense of the worst sort, yet the
>forumla can be protected as a trade-secret.
>Zane
Well, that is not _exactly_ my point, Zane! <G>
Coke is a product that can be seen and consumed, that has a unique
taste, more or less, and even some of its less strenuous claims can be
validated. "It refreshes" - well, the water rehydrates, the sugar gives
some quick energy, and the caffeine can make you more alert! <G>
But if coke claimed to have a secret ingredient, say "cokium", that
they couldn't prove existed , such as Xenu in $cientology, could they
have trade secret status? ( I note that some have said that Coke keeps
the formula secret by _not_ registering it, I'm just assuming that for
the sake of argument)
Dan
Zane Thomas
dan,
>
> Well, that is not _exactly_ my point, Zane! <G>
>
> Coke is a product that can be seen and consumed
Ok, I got off on a bit of a tangent.
Still, my limited understanding of Trade Secrets is that as long as
it's something you can use to seperate the marks from their money then
it's legitimately a trade secret. Money _is_ the measure of good ya
know.
Marina Chong
On 1 Sep 1996 16:07:19 GMT kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius
Krasel) wrote in article <50ccbn$1...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>:
>Someone with my name (c...@removethispartornotrpi.edu) wrote:
>[complete snip]
>
>You shouldn't even *think* about posting the NOTs. After all, it
>was a matter of minutes to find out that your real account is
>cur...@stu.rpi.edu (Peter F. Curran).
YM _seconds_. Here's the header of the post:
From: c...@removethispartornotrpi.edu (Someone with my name)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Posting the NOTs
Date: 30 Aug 1996 22:20:47 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA
Lines: 27
Sender: cur...@stu.rpi.edu (Peter F. Curran)
Message-ID: <507pfv$t...@usenet.rpi.edu>
References: <321F17...@dodo.pp.se> <4vrq51$v...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
<seekon-2908...@sfo-ca9-12.ix.netcom.com>
<3222a18a...@nntp.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tigershark.stu.rpi.edu
X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.3
Whoops!
M
p.s. Welcome to a.r.s., Peter :)
[posted and mailed to PF Curran]
--
Marina Chong SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, Joker/Degrader
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientology is an abusive cult that responds to criticism with harassment,
barratrous lawsuits, home invasions, intimidation and conspiracy to murder.
Usenet: alt.religion.scientology
World Wide Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Marina's Manor: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$cientology drove Noah Lottick and Richard Collins to suicide
mar...@singnet.com.sg mar...@pacific.net.sg mar...@super.zippo.com
TarlaStar
c...@removethispartornotrpi.edu (Someone with my name) wrote:
>In article <3222a18a...@nntp.best.com>,
> dke...@best.com (Keith Bennett) writes:
>>see...@ix.netcom.com (h3) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> What if a thousand people posted NOTs to the internet?
>>>>
>>> ok. i'll sign up to be #957
>>>
>>>-- see...@ix.netcom.com
>>
>> Has #666 been taken yet? If so, I'd like it.
>> Perhaps out little sisters of the perpetually juicy would agree to
>>share #69?
Hey, if you can't share a little 69, how juicy of a Little Sister can
you possibly be?
Tarla
Oh Clara!
I have a propositon...
B.P.F. Kassler
Hello Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
(da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) ## 01 Sep 96 ##
>(On your original point, whether nonsense can be trade secrets,
>I think the ansewer is "yes, it can." [...]
What about the trade secrets of German Chemistry Plant owners who sell
production facilities for Chemical Warfare to Lybia ??
(just a thought - wondering... )
mit freundlichem Grusse: Bernd
min...@toppoint.de..........................(bkas...@ploe.comcity.de)
- erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amusement -
My opinions are my own - not those of my Usenet service providers.
Martin G. V. Hunt
69 is nice, 99 is good (least for me), but I still go for that old pq.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. "when you are up to your ass in crocodiles its prudent
to ignore the hyenas howlin' on the banks..." - Arnie Lerma
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <6G9ph...@alnilam.toppoint.de>, "B.P.F. Kassler"
<ro...@alnilam.toppoint.de> writes
>Hello Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
>(da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) ## 01 Sep 96 ##
>
>>(On your original point, whether nonsense can be trade secrets,
>>I think the ansewer is "yes, it can." [...]
>
>What about the trade secrets of German Chemistry Plant owners who sell
>production facilities for Chemical Warfare to Lybia ??
Yes, nasty destructive things can be trade secrets too.
A trade secret is knowledge (1) which you keep secret
for your own use to get commercial adavtage over your
competitors, and (2) which is useful not just for the
perceived value of the information but because you get
income by making goods and services with it [it could
be process information, customer adress lists, etc, etc].
That which is (1') hired out per use can be either a copyright
expression or a patentable process.
Heh, Still with my name
In article <3229f85a...@snews.zippo.com>,
Sorry, not my email! Didn't get... Still, I wouldn't use
an account on my own machine to do that... There are plenty
of dial-in slip accounts with plenty of holes!
Me again
In article <50kg3h$i...@usenet.rpi.edu>,
Opps! I forgot to mention the only reason I screw with
the email address is to avoid auto-harvesting junk email
spammers. Not to really hide identity! I haven't done
anything illegal, so I have nothing to hide! :) If I
DID want to engage in that sort of activity I'd recompile
my newsreader to post the content of environment variables
into the subject fields and temporarily change my machine's
IP. Or, more likely, (since I wouldn't want to involve my
org), I'd use one of the local online services who let you
post before verifying name and address.
- Me
P.S. Don't send me commercial info about ANYTHING.
Andrew C. Greenberg
> The point that you made a real effort to miss is that Erlich posted fair
> use paragraphs from the document and he was raided by the Co$. They
> wanted to play the legal loop-hole game, and they get their wish.
So you say. At least one judge has not concurred that the use constituted
fair use, at least for the purposes of a preliminary injunction.
> Trying to fit your charges that Erlich engaged in "wholesale copying" into
> the Procrustean bed of "minimally transformative" may work in court, but
> it doesn't work on a Usenet newsgroup. Sorry. -- Diane Richardson
Nice rhetoric. Unfortunately, the forum in which these rights are determined
are in federal district court. They were not my charges, by the way, the
language flowed from the opinion and determinations of a federal court
judge who reviewed those materials. Those who believe this war will be won
or lost on usenet are kidding themselves. Usenet is a tool, and it has
substantially helped the end of the critics. It has also given the CoS'
legal strategies new hopes, for it has seduced far too many critics into
engaging in genuinely actionable activities. Previous cries of barratry
fall hollow in forums where critics pablum isn't a gospel, and particularly
in the only forums where that matters: the courthouse itself.
So much time has been wasted stating and restating this pablum, yet it
continues. Jon's posting clearly made no pretense of a legal justification
for the conduct -- he spoke clearly to the philosophical justification of
what he deemed to be morally defensible civil disobedience. I responded
to that, questioning the predicates of the moral argument -- not so much
because I disagreed with them, but because I felt they were wholly unstated,
except as conclusions.
I *DO* feel that engaging in genuine fair use would be a better strategy for
CoS critics, as I have stated countless times in past postings, and
notwithstanding a recent posting claiming to have engaged in fair use, yet
still drawing a demand letter, I still feel this approach is sound. CoS has
clearly indicated a willingness to pursue at great expense even frivolous
claims, and they may well do so in the future. Doing something they don't
like will surely draw their ire, and probably whatever actions they can
undertake to stop it. But at least, it would be nice, if the lawsuit
*IS* undertaken, that the critic should be able to prevail on the merits.
--
just another view,
Andy Greenberg (wer...@gate.net)
Carlton Fields
Zenon Panoussis
> ... Those who believe this war will be won
> or lost on usenet are kidding themselves. Usenet is a tool, and it has
> substantially helped the end of the critics. It has also given the CoS'
> legal strategies new hopes, for it has seduced far too many critics into
> engaging in genuinely actionable activities. Previous cries of barratry
> fall hollow in forums where critics pablum isn't a gospel, and particularly
> in the only forums where that matters: the courthouse itself.
This is very relative. One can choose to win a war by guerilla warfare
or
by regular warfare. If the price of winning the war is loosing a battle,
it might be well worth loosing a battle. Any general will tel you that.
Z
Zenon Panoussis
> I *DO* feel that engaging in genuine fair use would be a better strategy for
Sorry. I just responded to part of your posting before I had read it to
its end.
The point is that there can't be any fair use discussion if not all
participants
of the discussion have access to all the material. I have the NOTs and I
can make
a fair use quote and discuss it. But I would be discussing with myself
if no-one
else can contradict me with another fair use quote, and there can be no
other fair
use quote if the whole material is not available. If the CoS hadn't
pressed the
trade secret issue as they have done, they would probably have been much
better
off on the copyright infringment front. Copyright is meant as a
protection of
commercial interests in the publishing of the protected work, as for
example the
sale of books, not as a protection of interests in the work itself.
Z
Hillel
In article <werdna-0709...@192.0.2.23>,
## The point that you made a real effort to miss is that Erlich posted fair
## use paragraphs from the document and he was raided by the Co$. They
## wanted to play the legal loop-hole game, and they get their wish.
>So you say. At least one judge has not concurred that the use constituted
>fair use, at least for the purposes of a preliminary injunction.
You're playing a hide and seek game.
Do you, personally, think that what Erlich did was fair use, yes or no?
Clarify your personal position. (IMO it was fair use.)
%% Trying to fit your charges that Erlich engaged in "wholesale copying" into
%% the Procrustean bed of "minimally transformative" may work in court, but
%% it doesn't work on a Usenet newsgroup. Sorry. -- Diane Richardson
>Nice rhetoric. Unfortunately, the forum in which these rights are
>determined are in federal district court.
How much power the federal district court has in Holland?
How much power the federal district court has in Sweden?
How will the Co$ be able to defend its rights in Spain?
(Every lawyer that the Co$ will hire will be served with orders to
bring the run away scientologists in the criminal case to justice.)
Those things will be decided all around the globe, and if even one court
will reject the Co$ claims then it will be over. The newsgroup is going
to win this battle, regardless of what the lawyers say.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even
one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.
Cornelius Krasel
Heh, Still with my name (c...@removethisornot.stu.rpi.edu) wrote:
> Sorry, not my email! Didn't get... Still, I wouldn't use
> an account on my own machine to do that... There are plenty
> of dial-in slip accounts with plenty of holes!
There are two possibilities: either you are posting from tigershark
or not. At the moment, evidence for the contrary is quite weak (i.e.
nonexistent). Tigershark looks like a linux box to me and therefore
almost certainly is crackable.
The reason you didn't get the email is that the address above didn't
work -- seems usenet.rpi.edu is slightly misconfigured, or you did
misconfigure your newsreader. However, email to curren@tigershark
would work.
Even if you would post OT levels/NOTs from another account, it is likely
that the CoS might issue a search warrant of your machine, home, etc.
if you announce your intention on a.r.s. first.
--Cornelius (for ARSCC security).
Steve A
ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) wrote:
>How much power the federal district court has in Holland?
>How much power the federal district court has in Sweden?
>How will the Co$ be able to defend its rights in Spain?
>(Every lawyer that the Co$ will hire will be served with orders to
>bring the run away scientologists in the criminal case to justice.)
>
>Those things will be decided all around the globe, and if even one court
>will reject the Co$ claims then it will be over. The newsgroup is going
>to win this battle, regardless of what the lawyers say.
Well said, Hillel.
It is my belief that the battle against Scientology, while it may
not be fought solely on soil other than American soil, will
certainly be won on foreign soil.
The reaction of Germany to Scientology, while *somewhat*
excessive in my view, is nonetheless typical of the reception
Scientology will ultimately reap elsewhere in Europe and - who
knows? - beyond as well.
In the meantime, the reputation of US justice as the best that
money can buy will, with the unstinting efforts of His Honour "L"
Ron Whyte, continue to spread inexorably throughout the world.
--
ObURLS:
Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
Fools, losers, and mugs: http://www.scientology.org
--
SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
Support the Campaign For Free-Range Body Thetans. Ban dressage.
IN MEMORIAM: Richard Collins, victim of the criminal cult of Scientology
IN MEMORIAM: anon.penet.fi, rema...@utopia.hacktic.nl, victims of the
criminal cult of Scientology.
Arnaldo Lerma
wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) wrote:
>In article <sderby-2508...@news.blkbox.com>, sde...@blkbox.com
>(Stuart P. Derby) wrote:
>
>> In article <werdna-2508...@192.0.2.23>,
>> wer...@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg) wrote:
>>
>
>> When Microsoft, Coca-Cola, you, or Arnie have a history of criminal acts
>> like Scientology's (such as obstruction of justice, burglary, theft, etc.
>> etc. etc.) then activists might consider breaking laws for a higher good.
>> Until that time, the organization you should probably use for comparison
>> is probably the Mafia (though Scientology lacks the history of murder and
>> violence - Scientology's favorite modus operandi is fraud and deceit.)
>
>It is one thing to consider it an act for the higher good, it is another
>to assert that there is a "proper and moral basis" for the act. It is one
>thing to say that it is acceptable to acquire the property of another who
>has taken it from you, it is another to say that it is acceptable to take
>the property of another whom you consider to be a criminal.
>
>Note closely my last example.
I am, The cult is citing its scripture as law.
I am citing common law, which classicly devolves
from God's law.
>
>> Jon wasn't claiming that the postings were legally defensible, it was a
>> moral argument he was making, the kind of argument that each of us has to
>> look to our own conscience and knowledge of the facts to decide whether to
>> accept or not.
>
>My point was NOT that it was a legally defensible position. It has
>already conceded by Jon that it is not. My point is that he didn't make a
>moral ARGUMENT. His statement was merely the announcing of a conclusion.
>He wrote:
>
>: > Since CoS refuses to publicly publish the materials, it is therefore right
>: > and proper from a moral basis that they be made available to the public for
>: > scrutiny.
>
>Although written in the form "if a then b," this is not an argument, the
>consquent doesn't follow from the former, and the steps inbetween are not
>included in any of the remarks per se.
>
>You seem to be saying that if the person is not liked by YOU, or YOU deem
>them to be criminal, then you may take their property. If THAT is, in fact
>your predicate, I think you are *FAR* from making a moral argument. What,
>pray tell is the difference between this argument, and CoS' fair game policy?
>(Indeed, in CoS v. Lerma, it was CoS that prevailed on Summary Judgment).
Because I am asserting the following:
from :
OUTLINES OF LECTURES
on
JURISPRUDENCE
by Roscoe Pound
Cambridge 1928
97
XXII
CONDITIONS OF NON-RESTRAINT OF
NATURAL POWERS
(LIBERTY AND PRIVII,EGE)
Austin, Jurisprudence, 4 ea., 281-283, 366-367; Salmond,
Jurisprudence, 75; Miller, The Data of Jurisprudence, 96-100, 103108;
Bigelow, Torts, 8 ea., 13-16; Brown, The Austinian Theory of Law,
180-181 (note); Bentham, Works (Bowring's ed.), II, 217-218; Hearn,
Theory of Legal Duties and Rights, 133-134; Hohfeld, Fundamental
Legal Conceptions, 38-50; Bohlen, Incomplete Privilege, 39 Harvard Law
Rev., 307; Kocourek, Jural Relations, 125-128.
Thon, Reehtsnorm und subjektives Reeht, chap. 6; Soml6,
Juristisehe
Grundlehre, 128-129.
A. Liberty.
E. g. the "right to pursue a lawful calling," the jus abutendi
of an owner,
"liberty" under the V and XIV Amendments
Field, J., in Butehers' Union Co. v. Creseent City Co., 111 U.
S., 746, 756757;
Bradley, J., Id., 762-763; Quinn v. Leathem [1901] A. C. 495, 534;
Attorney
General v. Adelaide Steamship Co. [1913] A. C., 781, 793
Chatfield v. Wilson, 28 Vt. 49; Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 N. Y. 39;
Letts v. Kessler,
54 Ohio St., 73; Allen v. Flood [1898] A. C., 1; Dig. 1, 17, 55;
Dernburg,
Pandekten, 8 ea., I, 34.
Harlan, J., in Adair v. United States, 208 U. S., 161, 174,
Peekham, J., in
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S., 578, 592; Holmes, J., in Aikens v.
Wiseonsin,
195, U. S., 194, 205; Black, J., in State v. Loomis, 115 Mo., 307,
315; O'Brien, J.
in People v. Coler, 66 N. Y. l, 14-17; Dodge, J., in State v.
Kreutzberg, 114 Wis.,
530, 536-537; Sutherland, J., in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.
S., 525,
545-546; MeReynolds, J., in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S., 390, 399
Sutherland,
J., in Tysop v. Banton, 273 U. S., 418.
B. Privilege.
1. Recognized by law immediately.
Self-defense. Self-help.
Self-redress,
Prevention of felony. Arrest for felony,
affray, etc. Privileges as to speech and
writing. In legal proceedings. In
administrative matters. In legislative
assemblies. Reports of public
proceedings.
98
Comment on and criticism of public affairs, public officers
and candidates.
Private communications on privileged occasions.
Prevention of or defense against public peril-fire, flood,
disease.
Defense against the public enemy.
Deviation where highway is impassable.
2. Arising from legal transactions.
License.
Estate without impeachment of waste.
On necessity, see: Moriaud, Du delis neeessaire et de l'etat
de neeessite;
De Hoon, De l'd.tat de neeessite en droit penal et civil, Rev. de
droit Belge,
VI, 29, 79, Titze, Notstandsreebte; C)etker, IJeber Notwehr und
Notstand;
Neubeeker, Zwang und Notstand in reehtsvergleii hender Darstellung, I,
1-14,
107-133; Goldsehmidt, Der Notstand, ein Sehuldproblem.
Compare Smitll v. Stone, Style, 65; Gilbert v. Stone, Aleyn,
35; Cunning-
ham v. Pitzer, 2 W. Va. 264; Ploof v. Putnam, 81 Vt. 471.
arnie lerma
http://www2.dgsys.com/~alerma
Support the FACTNet defense fund TODAY
Your check and this crucial time will ensure
that the cult loses its copyrights forever...
And the also lost trade secrets, and lost injunction, and had thier
seizure vacated.
>
>--
>just another view,
>Andy Greenberg (wer...@gate.net)
>Carlton Fields
and on top of it all, it was a bloody open-public-court-record...
Anima
ga...@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>Those things will be decided all around the globe, and if even one court
>will reject the Co$ claims then it will be over. The newsgroup is going
>to win this battle, regardless of what the lawyers say.
>Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
A brilliant remark, worth repeating, so I repeat it here. It's been said
before: each time the cult sues someone, that person is at serious risk.
But each time, the cult it self risks EVERYTHING. And one single loss for
them, is a total and absolute loss. How long can they really believe--
even though they generally do claim to believe the impossible-- the "trade
secrets" and "copyrights" to which they lay claim are actually going to
survive? And when it comes out in court at last as a matter of judicial
fact that they have NO trade secrets and copyrights, what will be the
reaction of all those who have been scourged by the cult for alleged
violations of these very claims? Even more fun: What will be the result
when it is determined that all the cult's officers have been perpetrating
a fraud upon the court with such false claims? What will be the impact
upon the lives and reputations and professional status of the barrators
who are shown to have participated in these revolting fictions?
--
an...@io.com When making public policy decisions about new technologies
for the Government, I think one should ask oneself which technologies would
best strengthen the hand of a police state. Then, do not allow the Government
to deploy those technologies. --Philip Zimmermann
Sturle Fladmark
This discussion has nothing in soc.culture.nordic and no.religion to do.
Please stop this crossposting.
--
SturleF
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <1996091115...@nm10-8.ppp.sn.no>, Sturle Fladmark
<sfla...@sn.no> writes
This twit has not noticed it is a new event in Sweden (Nordic, right?)
and about religion, though I agree se.religion might be more
appropriate. He has also "accidentally" sent the follow-up
to misc.test. If you do include misc.test in the newsgroups line,
please put "Reply-To: sfla...@sn.no", so all the test replies
go to the correct place.
Steve A
sfla...@sn.no (Sturle Fladmark) wrote:
>This discussion has nothing in soc.culture.nordic and no.religion to do.
>Please stop this crossposting.
Given that it concerns the potential legal harassment of a
Swedish citizen, and is therefore presumably a matter of some
interest to his fellow Swedes, I should have thought it was most
relevant to soc.culture.nordic; given that the harassment is
being perpetrated by an organisation claiming to be a religion, I
am surprised at your view that it has nothing to do with
no.religion.
Finally, I should like to point out that your petty and
vindictive attempt to create problems by setting Follow-Up: to
misc.test wrecks any chance you might have had of your comment
being taken as a serious attempt to reduce unnecessary
crossposting.