FACTNET rejects Scientology's 12 million settlement offer - Wollersheim
Joe Harrington
(following from Lawrence Wollersheim)
Subject: Scientology's 12 million dollar FACTNet-destroying "settlement
deal" rejected!
=
Part One: Why FACTNet and its directors said NO to 12 million dollars...
I thought you should know why FACTNet, Arnie Lerma, Lawrence
Wollersheim, and Bob Penny (current and former directors of FACTNet)
rejected
Scientology's recent 12 million dollar settlement offer. I refuse to
keep this information and my opinions about this information
confidential because both the general public and people who may be
considering other Scientology settlement offers need to know what is
going on behind closed doors.
It began with Scientology contacting me through an agent with the
following story: "Senior Scientology executives REALLY want to settle
with you, and you will not have to sign any gag order. This time they
will not bring you the same offers you have rejected before." From my 17
years of experience with Scientology I doubted that this was true, but
just in case, I contacted my attorney who in turn contacted Scientology.
It turned out that Scientology WAS interested in a settlement. I
went to L.A. for two days about ten weeks ago and met with Monique
Yingling (of the law firm of Yingling and Yingling of Washington D.C.,),
Marty
Rathburn, and Mike Rinder. I went into meetings in good faith and
at our expense because I knew that the conflict with Scientology was
about to escalate to a level beyond anything anyone has seen
before. Before that happened, I wanted to make at least one more good =
faith attempt to see if Scientology had changed and to know that I had
done everything in my power to reach a JUST settlement before more
escalation.
=
In those initial two days of meetings, operational promises were made by
both sides. First promised was that both parties were seeking peace, and
peace could only be honestly achieved by allowing each party dignity
in the settlement. Secondly, all restrictions would be reciprocally and
equally binding on both parties. And thirdly, negotiations would
continue for settlement of the all pending and possible FACTNet and
Wollersheim
law suits. The non-negotiable payment from Scientology to us was to be
12
million dollars. It was completely and absolutely clear to Scientology's
representatives that no settlement negotiations would continue past the
initial two days unless they agreed that 12 million was the settlement
amount.
=
We continued to negotiate for the next four weeks. The basics of what
Scientology sees in their minds as restrictions reciprocally and equally =
binding on both parties and a peace with dignity are as follows:
That the non-profit free speech library and historic preservational
archive called FACTNet be taken off the Internet and closed forever.
That all FACTNet library databases containing electronic books,
articles court decisions, government reports and former member
debriefings about Scientology (or any other cultic organizations)
contained in those databases be completely destroyed.
That a total gag order be agreed to by Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence so that
they can never again speak out about Scientology.
That Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence are never again permitted to assist
anyone in any manner trying to fight or expose Scientology.
That Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence are never permitted to testify at any
legal proceeding or government investigation or serve as expert
witnesses
concerning Scientology without service of a real adverse supoena.
That no money from the 12 million dollar package settlement could go
to anyone continuing to fight or educate in any way against Scientology.
That FACTNet return Scientology's court-submitted financial records
and all copies of their "advanced trade secret" materials and
non-original copyrighted materials.
That humiliating false and self-incriminating public statements be
made that imply that the FACTNet research on Scientology's problem with
members going psychotic or attempting or committing suicide while
involved with their bizarre initiation rituals is not credible.
That we falsely state in a public statement that FACTNet existed
exclusively and solely for anti-Scientology activities.
That Vaughn and Stacy Young and Graham Berry be included in the total
deal. =
And, if the above were not enough, Scientology wanted to structure the
deal so that only four or their many corporations, front groups, and
covert operations would be bound by their single reciprocal restriction
not to
sue, malign, or attack Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence. (They repeatedly
refused to include the soon-to-be-non-existent Factnet in the reciprocal
restrictions. This way they could kill FACTNet then cowardly attack a
dead
organization unable to defend itself.)
They also wanted an "agreement violation" damage clause that could
eventually amount to a flat penalty of $750,000 in damages against us
every time they proved we have violated ANY term of the agreement no
matter how inconsequentially and without showing any real damage to
themselves.
And finally, while Scientology corporations and fronts not bound by
this agreement could sue us back to the Stone Age for alleged violations
or anything else they could and would dream up, we of course, are still
bound by every single other term of the agreement as far as restricting
us from speaking out or working against Scientology.
=
Part 2: Other Interesting things that Scientology wanted or was
concerned about.
=
Scientology wanted all the Hubbard family heirs' names included in our
deal so that all probate actions to examine the fraudulent asset
transfers away from the Hubbard family heirs to David Miscavige's and
Starkey's control would be stopped (I wonder if the Hubbard Family
heirs authorized Yingling to negotiate for them as their personal
lawyer?)
Early on in the discussion, Scientology wanted a statement retracting
all statements that Miscavige's mother-in-law's suicide/murder might
have had any connection to David Miscavige or Scientology. They had
absolutely no concern whatsoever over Lisa McPherson's death and all its
publicity.
They were VERY concerned about having any more or new attention
drawn to the alleged induced suicide/ murder of Miscavige's
mother-in-law. Initially, they seemed most eager to bring this Flo
Barnet settlement bonus back to David Miscavige.
=
Part 3: Other opinions and observations about the Scientology
settlements negotiations and other matters:
=
The longer we stayed in the negotiations the more restrictive the
terms that they added to the agreement. I had hoped that they would have
done the exact opposite. I incorrectly believed they finally would get
it and start to promote ethical settlements and start building some
peace for themselves, but given enough time they once again showed their
real agenda.
Scientology has once again conclusively shown me it has not changed
one iota from the entrapping Gerry Armstrong, Margie Wakefield, Flynn
type settlement strategies. In fact it has gotten worse in its
settlement demands.
I consider Scientology's most recent 12 million dollar settlement deal
is nothing more than a trap and a lie concerning the original 2 day good
faith agreement. Their settlement offer is inherently contrary to
rational free speech and maintaining personal integrity, and socially
would further their ability to do evil and harm others, --- consequently
there
was no other option but to reject it.
I have been in many settlement negotiations over the last 17 years
with Scientology. Every one of them has been basically the same trap or
lie. Because they have failed to learn or change I seriously doubt I
will ever enter into ANY Scientology "settlement" negotiations ever
again.
Scientology is now or soon will be trying to settle other litigation
in the U.S. and around the world. I strongly recommend that anyone
considering settlement with Scientology ignore all their settlement
efforts. From everything I have experienced it is a waste of time
and money. There is no real settlement possible with Scientology because
in their minds, "it's either us or them" and they (fueled by their
attorneys desire for endless fees) can't ever let go to make real peace
so their litigation wars never really end.
I am convinced the only way I or anyone else engaged in any litigation
with them will ever get justice is through the enforcement of the
courts. Ignore Scientology's settlement scams. They will never give you
anything =
in a settlement that will allow you to live out your life with dignity. =
When you stop looking for Scientology to give you something and start =
taking justice and restitution through the enforcement of the courts, I
believe you will be on the right path.
=
Part 4: Scientology is in big legal trouble. That's why they were
willing to pay 12 million dollars and called us repeatedly to restart
the
negotiations even after we dropped them.
=
Scientology is now so desperate to get out of this income and public
relations disaster, they have moved to dismiss THEIR OWN trade secret
claims in the FACTNet case and it has been granted. In this motion they
are trying to keep their current leader, David Miscavige from having to
appear in court. Their new dismissal motion is sheer organizational
terror over the Hubbard/Miscavige probate death and asset fraud being
exposed. =
Think about this rush to dismiss for a moment. They are moving to
dismiss the very trade secret violation claims upon which they got a
search and seizure order to raid FACTNet.
Now also consider that Scientology has just mounted the most aggressive
attack on our Hubbard estate probate lawsuit that I have ever seen in 17
years of litigation consulting on Scientology. Their PI's are
investigating the senior partners of Music Peeler in search of
intimidation material, and have threatened Music Peeler with millions of
dollars in countersuits and damages if we dare to try to continue
the probate law suit probe into the fraud surrounding the copyright and
trade secret asset transfers out of the Hubbard estate.
If there is one thing you learn about Scientology's litigation tactics, =
the more they threaten and attack you on an issue, the more
they have confirmed that you are on the right track. They are
desperately trying to hide another disclosure of their crimes. I hope
our lead
lawfirm has the integrity and courage to withstand a Scientology
assault.
Scientology is also desperate to dismiss THEIR OWN claims in the FACTNet =
case because this is the only way they can block their fraud in the
Lerma raid. They want to ensure no one can prove that they don't own
these =
copyrights and trademarks, and that they don't have the proper legal
standing to bring the copyright cases. If Factnet can bring the
Hubbard/Miscavige
asset fraud to court, Arnie Lerma would get all his court costs back,
there would be
a new trial for a huge damage award, and a lot of Scientology attorneys
and executives would face stiff jail sentences for perpetrating such a
massive fraud in U.S. Federal Court.
Scientology has tried to dismissed their own trade secret claims in
other lawsuits like the Erlich case, once again, because they know that
their trade secret and copyright asset transfer fraud is about to be
exposed in the L. Ron Hubbard estate.
In spite of the fact that Scientology's copyrighted materials and
trade secrets are still being freely distributed all over the Net and
the world, Scientology has not filed any new copyright or trademark
infringement lawsuits for a long time or gone on any more of the
outrageous raids as it did to FACTNet and a few others. They know the
copyright and trade secret fraud is going to be exposed in the existing
legal lawsuits which they are trying to buy out or dismiss. If they
can't buy off or sabotage the existing law suits, they certainly don't
want
anyone else to have any new potentially huge counter claims against
them.
Scientology has almost never won a trial before a jury. They have a
long history of one humiliating trial defeat after another. They know
that they have created their own "worse possible legal nightmare
scenario" in the FACTNet and other copyright and trade secret cases.
Scientology really can lose almost everything in this one Internet
copyright legal battle. I believe FACTNet will win and deliver real
punishment though law to Scientology. Because of Scientology's own
abuse, misuse, and fraud surrounding its claimed copyrights and trade
secrets, =
the probable results of a FACTNet's court victory include:
=
A stinging defense of free speech, personal privacy, and libraries and
archives on the Internet with new high technology legal precedents being =
set for all three areas.
Besides the asset copyright and trade secret transfer fraud in the
Hubbard Estate being exposed with its criminal prosecution implications,
there is the connected issue that Scientology corporations have made
false claims to the IRS in regards to the ownership of the Hubbard
assets. The asset fraud when exposed has a chain-reaction effect on
Scientology's whole 1980's corporate reorganization and its continuing
or past legitimate qualification for a US religious non profit tax
exempt status.
Because the copyright and trade secrets would go back to the Hubbard
family heirs, they could at least temporarily assume control of all of
Scientology and maybe clean it up by really changing its management and
criminal policies.
The Hubbard family heirs would get back the hundreds of millions of
dollars from their legacy that Starkey and Miscavige stole.
Public loss of most of Scientology's bogus trade secret protection.
Public loss of most of Scientology's bogus copyright protection.
The chain reaction crumbling of other lawsuits in which Scientology
has sued people for trade secrets or copyrights violations.
Huge punitive damage awards against Scientology in all cases that
Scientology has sued people for trade secrets or copyrights violations.
(Anyone who has been sued by Scientology regarding trade secrets or
copyrights should make sure they have counter-suits are filed.)
Scientology's inability to bluff or con former or current members into
paying for materials which are not truly trade secrets or copyrights.
Legitimacy will have to be proved at each level, from the original
copyright creation and filing to all ownership transfers.
Scientology would be unable to extort licensing fees from members on
materials that are in the public domain.
Scientology would be stopped from using trade secrets or copyrights
for religious persecution OR for enforcing religious purity or to
establish a religious monopoly through perverting secular law.
Scientology's would be stopped from crushing religious reform
movements of ex-Scientologists seeking to use what they obtained in
Scientology in any way their religious free choice tells them.
A sea of outrageously bad world wide publicity surrounding
Scientology, entirely of its own making.
Many other chain-reaction free speech and privacy protecting effects
unforeseen at this point.
=
Scientology has only one real solution, but is the solution they can
never make because of their unalterable attack policy. If anyone on
their team had any sense they would simply drop all their litigation and
announce (like every religious group that eventually goes mainstream) a
new era of tolerance for the religious and other opinions of former
members and critics.
=
Part 5: This litigation is a huge opportunity for everyone concerned
with Scientology's assault on free speech on the net, but there
are challenges because FACTNet is in big trouble too.
=
Scientology knows there is absolutely no possibility of settlement under
the ridiculous terms it proposed. It must now act with even more legal
and illegal intimidation in trying to accomplish what it has always been
trying to do, the complete destruction of its effective FACTNet
adversary.
=
FACTNet, Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence can expect no less than a total
assault not seen since the worst days of Scientology's old Guardians
Office.
One of Scientology's lead attorneys Elliot Ableson already vowed to
drive FaCTNet and every one of its directors into personal bankruptcy if
we did not accept an earlier similar settlement offer. I have no doubt
that this is the continuing command intention of his Scientology
employer.
Scientology will not just attack FACTNnet Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence
because it now knows if we refuse 12 million dollars, we will fight. It
now
must attack the law firms representing FACTNet and if that doesn't work,
attack the court to insure that FACTNet never gets to trial to expose
their fraud. (Scientology has already accelerated its covert operations
to intimidate and undermine the lead law firm representing FACTNet to
force them in fear to find some passable reason to back out of FACTNet's
defense.)
Besides attacking our law firms, Scientology's other main legal tactic
will be their old tried and true tactic of simply running their
adversaries out money. Scientology's "sue them to silence" tactics have
forced the average case involving them to be a 3+ million dollar affair.
(The Time magazine case cost almost 7 million and FACTNet has already
spent over 2 million exhausting all its insurance money.)
=
So far few have come to FACTNet's financial aid. Major news media,
governments, and major corporations who have been attacked by
Scientology are so intimidated by this group that they appear paralyzed
in fear as =
as FACTNet with few assets stands up to this ruthless bully and draws
the line in the sand.
=
In spite of repeated requests for financial help, Internet and
non-Internet free speech, privacy, and, library advocacy organizations
have been all but invisible in this David and Goliath fight. Former
members and victims of Scientology (except for a few important
exceptions) aren't much better. They stand frozen in fear of their
former master's
legendary retaliation knowing full well that FACTNet's legal actions
could end Scientology's means to religiously persecute or "legally"
harass all former members. So far, ironically the most financial and
moral support has come from brave individuals or organizations who have
a religious background and see Scientology as a religious wolf in the
hen house and a religion at its core that is a great spiritual AND
social evil.
=
Conclusion
=
Scientology has always run on a policy of total war on any perceived
adversary. Its time to counter Scientology's TOTAL WAR take-no-
prisoners strategy. It is simply time to all come together, draw the
last line in the sand, and stop the social evil of Scientology in its
tracks. It is time because it MUST be time. It is time not to declare
the insane total war on Scientology that it has declared on us, it is a
time to declare the total defense of free speech and a free speech
revolt until Scientology changes its behavior and drops its intimidation
litigation.
=
FACTNet (Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network) Bob, Arnie, and
Lawrence will make OUR FINAL STAND against the social and criminal evil
called =
Scientology. We will never stop resisting Scientology's abuses because =
resistance for justice is both its own truth and its own reward.
=
Several directors already have put up their personal property to help
finance the litigation. Who else will now come forward and be counted on
to aid and support us? Who among you will publicly STAND with us and
break Scientology's fear grip on the Internet or on their lives of so
many in the world?
=
We wonder what it will take for the rest of the world that knows
Scientology's abuses to come to the moral, financial, and legal aid of
last major nonprofit organization left actively supporting Scientology
victims and resisting Scientology's unethical activities all over the
world. Don't let Scientology get away with first destroying the Cult
Awareness Network then doing the same thing to us. Don't let Scientology
get away with raiding Internet privacy and free speech just because they
have more money than FACTNet and their other opponents. Please don't let
FACTNet become another one of its many other casualties.
=
Everyone can do something to become active in the growing global
Free Speech Revolt to stop Scientology's ongoing abuses by: =
=
1. Boycotting ALL products that the celebrity promoters of Scientology
produce. The key products to boycott are from John Travolta, Tom Cruise,
and Kirste Alley. This will help focus world wide attention on
Scientology=92s abuses. =
2. Telling everyone what you know about Scientology and Dianetics
abuses.
=
3. Picketing Scientology (and Dianetics) organizations all over the
world.
=
4. Financially supporting everyone defending themselves in the ongoing
legal battle to protect the Internet against Scientology=92s censorship
and religious persecution assault. =
(Go to http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/litigations.html for the way to do
this.)
5. Putting our new Free Speech Revolt graphic on your web page (if you
have one) as a sign of your Free Speech Revolt solidarity against
Scientology. (Come to our web page after 07/26/97 at www.factnet.org
and get a copy of the graphic.
6. Registering on our site so we can keep you informed on the latest
events of this free speech battle. =
No matter what it takes, FACTNet is committed to winning the litigation
and to protecting all our valuable Internet rights, not only regarding
copyright fair use and free speech, but also e-mail privacy and open
access to information via libraries and archives.
In spite of having run out of insurance money, Factnet did the right
thing when it turned down Scientology's 12 million dollar deal to buy
Factnet out of existence. FACTNet's board. volunteers, and
supporters are determined to persevere, but we cannot do it without you
doing the right thing too and coming to our aid. Please make your
generous donation today to Factnet and forward this appeal to any other
individual or organization you think can help us financially or with
litigation assistance. http://www.factnet.org/donation.htm
=
I thank you in advance for supporting FACTNet in this financial
emergency. At this point, I estimate we will only need another
$250-350,000 to end and win this case. Factnet WILL use your support
effectively. To see how Factnet put past donations to work see our tax
returns and budget on our web page at
www.factnet.org/budget.htm
Sincerely,
Lawrence Wollersheim IMHO
As an Individual =
(Lawrence Wollersheim is also a Co-Founder of Factnet.)
P.S. Please help e-mail this to all parties who should know. Feel free
to re-post this to all the newgroups you think should have it.
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>From what I see, RTC has opted out of the case without wiping
anything
>at all out of existence. Wollersheim apparently wants us all to
>believe he's still in a fight-to-the-death battle when the battle
is
>over and done with. Why do you suppose Wollersheim's interested in
>continuing this fantasy?
>
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Perhaps because Wollersheim et.al. do not wish to be shuttered into
silence?
- From the original post, part of the "agreement":
>>That a total gag order be agreed to by Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence so
that
>>they can never again speak out about Scientology.
Sounds an awful lot to me like RTC wants Factnet (and everybody
else) to just shut the fuck up. I, for one, am glad to see that the
Factnet gang aren't going to roll over and make nice.
Factnet, give 'em hell.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBM9jar6n8flYc1m/ZAQEJpwf+LWWtbtJSMITr85mN0oFSvWHD3TKM8vJs
MOKyrbaJTbSpy4Is4UW80hmpJguDd8bbzt+knNnNb6WE3zYHklKZKWl5ivkjMVgu
qhEk96Q6+v8LUjrFuzpwpU0S9vl3UAf1ec1LXWUgfXXq5Pf2HlyqFHHu+apxpVNk
puuHMEfm3k7sHaf0bo/VPumJu8tN4KEen8NyGWgfsc2nylGnrCXbOQl9oiumYOOE
h2Cs3PJmyMhSwFM1CQ+ri+N6b5UQcMtjNQeUm+LpTtIQilV4SXOr3Htv4O8FYcHv
tZd1CZBzBvu/Pfe8FmfNEBpRnjkkdS3feiWUWE+169ykClxpabzwgg==
=D5en
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------
"Only an object can be objective."
--bc
the above e-mail address remains fictional...
the real one is bc9...@concentric.net
*SP2*
...bc...
Bernie
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in article
<33d89481...@snews.zippo.com>:
>On 25 Jul 1997 08:14:24 GMT, Kba...@uctlib.uct.ac.za (Kim Baker) wrote:
>> 12 million bucks?
>> 12 *million* bucks?
>> Well, so much for the "Wolly's only out for the money"
>> school of thought - that would have made a nice, comfortable
>> life-style, even after costs, reimbursements, etc.
>> I knew it. It's so nice to be right. :-)
>How much of that $12 million would have gone to FACTNet's lawyers and
>not into Wollersheim's pocket?
$12 million seems to me to be an awful lot of money. Isn't that
more than enough to pay everybody and still be left indecently
rich? Even if, say, $4 million is left for Wollersheim. That's
still an awful lot, I think.
Bernie
Diane Richardson
[snip]
>
> 12 million bucks?
> 12 *million* bucks?
>
> Well, so much for the "Wolly's only out for the money"
> school of thought - that would have made a nice, comfortable
> life-style, even after costs, reimbursements, etc.
>
> I knew it. It's so nice to be right. :-)
How much of that $12 million would have gone to FACTNet's lawyers and
not into Wollersheim's pocket? Berry and the rest of the much-vaunted
"dream-team" are working on a contingency basis, aren't they?
Sorry, Kim, but you're still falling for the same old bull.
>[...]
>>We continued to negotiate for the next four weeks. The basics of what
>>Scientology sees in their minds as restrictions reciprocally and equally
>>binding on both parties and a peace with dignity are as follows:
>>
>>That the non-profit free speech library and historic preservational
>>archive called FACTNet be taken off the Internet and closed forever.
>
> This is amazing. If, as the FACTNet bashers & Scientology claim,
> FACTNet is nothing more than a load of rubbish, why go to
> these lengths to shut it down?
From the magistrate's ruling on RTC's motion to withdraw, it appears
that RTC is *not* going to any lengths to shut it down. They've
withdrawn their charges against FACTNet.
Wollersheim's statements only make sense if we disregard the fact that
RTC has opted to end the litigation. I'm not sure how Wollersheim
thinks he's going to continue a court battle with an opponent who
isn't even in the ring anymore.
From what I see of the case, all that's left is Wollersheim trying to
come up with the money to pay off the people who weren't working on
the case on a contingency basis.
>>That all FACTNet library databases containing electronic books,
>>articles court decisions, government reports and former member
>>debriefings about Scientology (or any other cultic organizations)
>>contained in those databases be completely destroyed.
>
> Ditto. If these archives are nothing more than a load of
> lies, the general public have their Baloney Detection
> Kits out, they are quite capable of determining this for themselves,
> so why does Scientology want to destroy them?
> This confirms what I already personally know - that Scientology
> want FACTNet wiped out of existence.
Diane Richardson
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:57:26 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
>served it to the group:
>
><snip>
>
>>From what I see, RTC has opted out of the case without wiping
>anything
>>at all out of existence. Wollersheim apparently wants us all to
>>believe he's still in a fight-to-the-death battle when the battle
>is
>>over and done with. Why do you suppose Wollersheim's interested in
>>continuing this fantasy?
>>
>>
>>Diane Richardson
>>ref...@bway.net
>
>Perhaps because Wollersheim et.al. do not wish to be shuttered into
>silence?
I'm not aware of how shutters are utilized to silence anyone. Perhaps
you mean "shudder."
Apparently you have failed to understand the content of the
magistrate's ruling posted here by an anonymous OSA (no doubt) poster,
which approved RTC's motion to withdraw their complaint against
FACTNet.
If the magistrate's ruling is approved by Judge Kane (an I have no
reason to believe it will not), there is no longer a lawsuit between
RTC and FACTNet. FACTNet does not cease to exist. FACTNet isn't
being either "shuttered" or shuddered into silence. So what's your
point?
>- From the original post, part of the "agreement":
>>>That a total gag order be agreed to by Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence so
>that
>>>they can never again speak out about Scientology.
>
>Sounds an awful lot to me like RTC wants Factnet (and everybody
>else) to just shut the fuck up. I, for one, am glad to see that the
>Factnet gang aren't going to roll over and make nice.
FACTNet doesn't *have* to roll over and make nice, for crying out
loud! RTC has QUIT! They've dropped the lawsuit! Is that so
difficult for you to understand?
Perhaps it *is* difficult for you to understand. Go back, read the
newsfeed or dejanews, and think a little. RTC has dropped the lawsuit
against FACTNet. FACTNet is no longer being sued by RTC. RTC hasn't
required anyone to shut up. RTC hasn't required anyone to roll over
and make nice. FACTNet still exists, still produces a website, still
begs for money. The only thing that's different is that FACTNet isn't
being sued by RTC any more.
Got it?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 21:59:46 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in article
><33d89481...@snews.zippo.com>:
>
>>On 25 Jul 1997 08:14:24 GMT, Kba...@uctlib.uct.ac.za (Kim Baker) wrote:
>
>>> 12 million bucks?
>>> 12 *million* bucks?
>
>>> Well, so much for the "Wolly's only out for the money"
>>> school of thought - that would have made a nice, comfortable
>>> life-style, even after costs, reimbursements, etc.
>
>>> I knew it. It's so nice to be right. :-)
>
>>How much of that $12 million would have gone to FACTNet's lawyers and
>>not into Wollersheim's pocket?
>
>$12 million seems to me to be an awful lot of money. Isn't that
>more than enough to pay everybody and still be left indecently
>rich? Even if, say, $4 million is left for Wollersheim. That's
>still an awful lot, I think.
Not when the lawyers receive a percentage of the take. Attorneys
working on contingency have their clients agree to split any awards on
a percentage basis -- one-third, one-half -- depending upon the
difficulty and risk involved in the case. On top of that cut,
attorneys can then bill all their expenses (which include everything
from fees for expert witnesses to travel to business lunches) to the
client. The expenses are paid for from the *client's* share of the
take, not the attorneys'.
Wollersheim's $4 million could easily turn into a few thousand after
Graham Berry et al. got through deducting all their expenses from his
share. The whole system of legal representation in the U.S. stinks,
and contingency fees stink the worst.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Kim Baker
In article <33D80A...@worldnet.att.net>,
Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>(following from Lawrence Wollersheim)
>
>Subject: Scientology's 12 million dollar FACTNet-destroying "settlement
>deal" rejected!
>
>
>I thought you should know why FACTNet, Arnie Lerma, Lawrence
>Wollersheim, and Bob Penny (current and former directors of FACTNet)
>rejected
>Scientology's recent 12 million dollar settlement offer. I refuse to
>keep this information and my opinions about this information
>confidential because both the general public and people who may be
>considering other Scientology settlement offers need to know what is
>going on behind closed doors.
12 million bucks?
12 *million* bucks?
Well, so much for the "Wolly's only out for the money"
school of thought - that would have made a nice, comfortable
life-style, even after costs, reimbursements, etc.
I knew it. It's so nice to be right. :-)
[...]
>We continued to negotiate for the next four weeks. The basics of what
>Scientology sees in their minds as restrictions reciprocally and equally
>binding on both parties and a peace with dignity are as follows:
>
>That the non-profit free speech library and historic preservational
>archive called FACTNet be taken off the Internet and closed forever.
This is amazing. If, as the FACTNet bashers & Scientology claim,
FACTNet is nothing more than a load of rubbish, why go to
these lengths to shut it down?
>That all FACTNet library databases containing electronic books,
>articles court decisions, government reports and former member
>debriefings about Scientology (or any other cultic organizations)
>contained in those databases be completely destroyed.
Ditto. If these archives are nothing more than a load of
lies, the general public have their Baloney Detection
Kits out, they are quite capable of determining this for themselves,
so why does Scientology want to destroy them?
This confirms what I already personally know - that Scientology
want FACTNet wiped out of existence.
>That a total gag order be agreed to by Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence so that
>they can never again speak out about Scientology.
Like the gag order Malcolm Nothling agreed to, in South
Africa, earlier this year? How many gag orders have been
signed, I wonder? How many? What kind of *religion*
requires its former members to sign gag orders?
Again, if these former members are talking horse manure,
people are quite capabable of detecting it for themselves....
why the gag orders? Unless...just *maybe*, just *maybe*,
there might be an element of Truth in what they are saying?
>That Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence are never again permitted to assist
>anyone in any manner trying to fight or expose Scientology.
Yup, standard settlement contract with Scientology, those
are the terms.
>That Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence are never permitted to testify at any
>legal proceeding or government investigation or serve as expert
>witnesses concerning Scientology without service of a real adverse supoena.
>That no money from the 12 million dollar package settlement could go
>to anyone continuing to fight or educate in any way against Scientology.
>That FACTNet return Scientology's court-submitted financial records
>and all copies of their "advanced trade secret" materials and
>non-original copyrighted materials.
>That humiliating false and self-incriminating public statements be
>made that imply that the FACTNet research on Scientology's problem with
>members going psychotic or attempting or committing suicide while
>involved with their bizarre initiation rituals is not credible.
>That we falsely state in a public statement that FACTNet existed
>exclusively and solely for anti-Scientology activities.
>That Vaughn and Stacy Young and Graham Berry be included in the total
>deal.
Scientology have an "MU" on the word "settlement".
I know this. Most people think of settlement as
a compromise, a reasonable agreement reached, with
give and take on both sides. This is how bloodshed was
averted in South Africa, with all sides giving a bit.
For Scientology, however, it is *completely* one-sided.
The parties opposing them are required to sell their very
souls, give in to their terms, and they think the money
is a sufficient compensation, but the money is often merely
a *recouping* of what an individual has suffered from
Scientology, and so the playing field is not level at all.
Scientology need to turn a settlement into a "Victory",
need to parade it as a "Defeat of the enemy", need to show
that they have CRUSHED their opponents, and most importantly -
that THEY WERE RIGHT. "Settlement" *has* to show that they
were "right", per their policy, there is just no other way.
>Part 2: Other Interesting things that Scientology wanted or was
>concerned about.
>
>Scientology wanted all the Hubbard family heirs' names included in our
>deal so that all probate actions to examine the fraudulent asset
>transfers away from the Hubbard family heirs to David Miscavige's and
>Starkey's control would be stopped (I wonder if the Hubbard Family
>heirs authorized Yingling to negotiate for them as their personal
>lawyer?)
This, I believe, is *the* Key to the whole rotten
Empire.
>Part 3: Other opinions and observations about the Scientology
>settlements negotiations and other matters:
>
>The longer we stayed in the negotiations the more restrictive the
>terms that they added to the agreement. I had hoped that they would have
>done the exact opposite. I incorrectly believed they finally would get
>it and start to promote ethical settlements and start building some
>peace for themselves, but given enough time they once again showed their
>real agenda.
>
>Scientology has once again conclusively shown me it has not changed
>one iota from the entrapping Gerry Armstrong, Margie Wakefield, Flynn
>type settlement strategies. In fact it has gotten worse in its
>settlement demands.
It hasn't changed, no.
[...]
>Part 4: Scientology is in big legal trouble. That's why they were
>willing to pay 12 million dollars and called us repeatedly to restart
>the negotiations even after we dropped them.
>Think about this rush to dismiss for a moment. They are moving to
>dismiss the very trade secret violation claims upon which they got a
>search and seizure order to raid FACTNet.
:-)
Cute, Innit?
>Scientology is also desperate to dismiss THEIR OWN claims in the FACTNet
>case because this is the only way they can block their fraud in the
>Lerma raid. They want to ensure no one can prove that they don't own
>these
>copyrights and trademarks, and that they don't have the proper legal
>standing to bring the copyright cases. If Factnet can bring the
>Hubbard/Miscavige
>asset fraud to court, Arnie Lerma would get all his court costs back,
>there would be
>a new trial for a huge damage award, and a lot of Scientology attorneys
>and executives would face stiff jail sentences for perpetrating such a
>massive fraud in U.S. Federal Court.
Now *this* is what needs to be tested. Those copyrights.
I have spoken to former members who were there in the
old days, but not willing to come forward, and they
damn well KNOW that many of the bulletins were often
written by others, etc. I have only their word on it,
but they are from different countries, and their accounts
have enough of a common pattern to convince me, personally,
that there is definitely something not right, here.
It needs to be addressed, and I cannot refrain from displaying
my absolute relief that FACTNet will be going forward, in spite
of what must have been a VERY tempting offer. I shall do everything
in my power (off this forum) to support FACTNet in this.
KB
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 06:45:51 GMT, za...@die.spammers.mabry.com (Zane
Thomas) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>From all I see, the fight between RTC and FACTNet is over.
>
>Why then, do you suppose the kult of criminals would be offering them
>$12 million?
Gee, Zane, I dunno. Have you considered that maybe RTC tried to
settle with Wollersheim and when that didn't work they just dropped
the lawsuit? Sounds pretty logical to me.
Maybe Wollersheim was just a little slower on the draw than OSA.
Maybe he was trying to get in one last appeal for donations before
news that the lawsuit was dropped hit a.r.s.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 05:54:52 GMT, til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman
Hausherr) wrote:
>In <33d92b1c...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>
>>and make nice. FACTNet still exists, still produces a website, still
>>begs for money. The only thing that's different is that FACTNet isn't
>>being sued by RTC any more.
>
>But it is still sued by Bridge Publications. I think the move by RTC is
>done to complicate discovery.
Bridge Publications doesn't have a chance of prevailing in that
lawsuit. I predict that they, too, will seek dismissal of the
lawsuit.
From the scant information that's been provided about the whole
FACTNet litigation, BPI only entered the litigation after their
copyrighted material was found on the FACTNet computer hard drive
while it was in the possession of RTC. RTC filed an amended motion
with BPI as a co-plaintiff at that point.
I do not believe that any court in the United States would find
someone guilty of copyright infringement only because copyrighted
material is found in the hard drive of a computer in a defendant's
possession. Copyright infringement is not just about *copying*
copyrighted information, it's also about *distributing* that
information without the copyright holder's assent.
The Supreme Court of the United States found that copying a television
program with a VCR does not constitute copyright infringement as long
as the copied program is not distributed to others. You can't be sued
for infringement in the U.S. if you videotape a tv program. You must
have distributed that program to others before it constitutes
infringement. I fail to see why maintaining a copy of a document in a
computer's hard drive should receive different treatment.
There's a good chance that I don't know all of the details of the RTC
v. FACTNet litigation, since very little information about it has
appeared here. But unless BPI can somehow prove that FACTNet actually
distributed their copyrighted material to others (perhaps on the
FACTNet CD-ROM "archives"?), BPI doesn't have a case.
>What I have a problem with is that the judge doesn't want to set legal
>costs.
I don't doubt that Graham Berry will do everything possible to get the
money he and his law firm have spent on this case out of *somebody*,
if not RTC. Perhaps that's the motive for Wollersheim's recent appeal
for donations?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Ron Newman
In article <33d99016...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
> Note also that RTC bases its motion to withdraw the lawsuit on the
> fact that it prevailed in Arnie Lerma's case. Since RTC's trade
> secret claims were never at issue in that litigation (because Judge
> Brinkema threw them out), this motion deals with the remaining alleged
> copyright infringements, not trade secret violations.
>
> What remains to be explained, of course, is why Larry Wollersheim is
> still claiming to be fighting the cult in the courts and begging money
> from others to continue this fight.
>
> From all I see, the fight between RTC and FACTNet is over.
I'm as confused by all this as you are, Diane, but isn't there
a second plaintiff in this case, who has NOT filed a motion to withdraw?
See below:
> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
>
> Civil Action No. 95-K-2143
>
> RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, a California non-profit corporation, and
> BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. a California non-profit corporation,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
> Plaintiffs,
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:22:14 -0400, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
wrote:
I understand Bridge Publications entered the case as a co-plaintiff
after RTC's seizure of FACTNet's computers revealed copies of BPI
copyrighted works stored on the hard drive (at least I presume that's
what led them to enter the litigation). I have never seen the amended
complaint, so I'm only guessing this is what occurred.
From day one, I have stated my opinion that RTC's case against FACTNet
was absurd. If my assumption about why BPI entered the case is
correct, BPI's case against FACTNet is even shakier than RTC's.
Unless there are facts in the case of which I'm not aware (which is
very likely, very little information about the case has been made
public), I predict that BPI will soon follow RTC's lead in filing a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit altogether.
From what I can gather from the information I have, this is what
happened:
1. RTC got an ex parte seizure order from a Federal District Judge
and conducted a raid against Wollersheim and Penny in which FACTNet
material, both computerized and in print, was confiscated.
2. While going through the material seized in the raid, RTC informed
BPI that BPI material was included in FACTNet's material. This,
apparently, is why BPI joined RTC in filing the amended complaint
against RTC. BPI was not an original plaintiff in the case.
While RTC holds control of the allegedly "trade secret, unpublished"
materials, BPI holds control of the publicly available Scientology[tm]
materials. These materials are sold and distributed to the public in
the U.S. by BPI.
There is absolutely nothing criminal about owning copies of publicly
distributed copyrighted works (well, duh!). Copyright infringement
does not occur if you make a photocopy of a copyrighted work -- not
even if you scan that work into a computer. Infringment occurs only
if you *distribute* the work that has been photocopied or scanned
without the copyright owner's authorization. You cannot be found
liable for copyright infringment if you videotape a television program
to watch in your own home. You only infringe if you distribute that
videotape to others rather than keeping it for your own personal
entertainment and/or use.
5. Unless BPI can prove that FACTNet has distributed BPI-copyrighted
works to other people without BPI's express consent, BPI has no proof
that FACTNet has violated BPI's copyright. I dunno. Perhaps BPI has
such evidence. If they do have such evidence, I haven't seen any
mention made about it on a.r.s. or on any of the websites.
RTC accused FACTNet of infringement because RTC claimed that FACTNet
provided Lerma with the copy of the Fishman affidavit which he posted
to alt.religion.scientology. Lerma was never sued for violating any
BPI copyrights. I don't believe I've ever seen Wollersheim or Penny
post anything to a.r.s. that could even remotely be considered an
infringement of a BPI-owned copyright. Have you?
Whatever the facts of the matter, I do not see how a BPI lawsuit
against FACTNet has *any* relevance to freedom of speech on the
internet, censorship of "libraries and archives," or any of the other
claims FACTNet apparently still continues to make about the
litigation. Do you?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Joe Harrington
>
> In article <33d99016...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
> > Note also that RTC bases its motion to withdraw the lawsuit on the
> > fact that it prevailed in Arnie Lerma's case. Since RTC's trade
> > secret claims were never at issue in that litigation (because Judge
> > Brinkema threw them out), this motion deals with the remaining alleged
> > copyright infringements, not trade secret violations.
> >
> > What remains to be explained, of course, is why Larry Wollersheim is
> > still claiming to be fighting the cult in the courts and begging money
> > from others to continue this fight.
> >
> > From all I see, the fight between RTC and FACTNet is over.
MY understanding:
Arnie's case involved infringements of 4 documents, which RTC considered
part of the "Advanced Technology" which they claim to exercise control
over. The trade secret case was lost and the RTC prevailed on the
copyright infringments on the CC-Ot3 materials. Judge Brinkema entered
judgement for RTC for 4 copyright infringments by Lerma.
The FactNet case in Boulder involves a multitude of documents that were
in the FactNet archives, which the copyrighter holders alleged were
tantamount to copyright infringements. The list was quite long and
included MANY other documents besides the ones in the RTC vs Lerma case.
The FactNet case in Boulder did not involve posting anything on the
Internet.
RTC vs Lerma was about the publishing of materials by posting them on
the Internet.
The RTC vs Factnet, Wollersheim & Penny was about the FactNet archives
which contained voluminous documents on Scientology and FactNet's
investigation of the organization, and the adverse effects of
Scientology's "Advanced Technology".
Two different cases, RTC re the "Advanced Technology" and "trade
secrets", and BPI re all other materials. The recent recommendation by
the magistrate judge was in reference to the RTC cause of action, and
the latter case has not been resolved.
Joe
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:57:26 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
>>served it to the group:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>From what I see, RTC has opted out of the case without wiping
>>anything
>>>at all out of existence. Wollersheim apparently wants us all to
>>>believe he's still in a fight-to-the-death battle when the battle
>>is
>>>over and done with. Why do you suppose Wollersheim's interested
in
>>>continuing this fantasy?
>>>
>>>
>>>Diane Richardson
>>>ref...@bway.net
>>
>>Perhaps because Wollersheim et.al. do not wish to be shuttered
into
>>silence?
>
>I'm not aware of how shutters are utilized to silence anyone.
Perhaps
>you mean "shudder."
Pardon my mistyping. Damn, even my spell-checker missed it.
Shudder. There. Happy?
>Apparently you have failed to understand the content of the
>magistrate's ruling posted here by an anonymous OSA (no doubt)
poster,
>which approved RTC's motion to withdraw their complaint against
>FACTNet.
>
>If the magistrate's ruling is approved by Judge Kane (an I have no
>reason to believe it will not), there is no longer a lawsuit
between
>RTC and FACTNet. FACTNet does not cease to exist. FACTNet isn't
>being either "shuttered" or shuddered into silence. So what's your
>point?
My point is, why in the hell do they expect FACTNet to agree to a
gag order? I thought it was a valid question.
>>- From the original post, part of the "agreement":
>>>>That a total gag order be agreed to by Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence
so
>>that
>>>>they can never again speak out about Scientology.
>>
>>Sounds an awful lot to me like RTC wants Factnet (and everybody
>>else) to just shut the fuck up. I, for one, am glad to see that
the
>>Factnet gang aren't going to roll over and make nice.
>
>FACTNet doesn't *have* to roll over and make nice, for crying out
>loud! RTC has QUIT! They've dropped the lawsuit! Is that so
>difficult for you to understand?
So whence the gag order? Are you telling us that this is fiction?
>Perhaps it *is* difficult for you to understand. Go back, read the
>newsfeed or dejanews, and think a little. RTC has dropped the
lawsuit
>against FACTNet. FACTNet is no longer being sued by RTC. RTC
hasn't
>required anyone to shut up. RTC hasn't required anyone to roll
over
>and make nice. FACTNet still exists, still produces a website,
still
>begs for money. The only thing that's different is that FACTNet
isn't
>being sued by RTC any more.
>
>Got it?
What I "got" is what I have read--extensively. What I read recently
is that RTC expects Larry, Bob, Arnie, et.al., to agree to a gag
order. Why? Are you saying that this is fiction? Whence cometh
the $12M settlement discussion? Forgive my density, Diane. Some of
us aren't omniscient like you are.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBM9pUjKn8flYc1m/ZAQHHegf+JPt/Xi/pJlxDcq4TSYijXy1py921jw5M
zVIfxvTIj9ySs6GsQkXzGXiMHABrjsozVSdBhF0j97VZwMNONyeR+/RWqj8G+Q8N
iCmLeNeqJwRwKV0loZqFZyL5Pt9opWLcHVSwT1hB0U7jMLbeAGFpWn1o5Pqmjc18
870P2m1Peecbip0UjLtX4CjzO+VEMT89rQ8dxZ3gXEYKn8nj5UdDV3Y3UfheH9Pz
PEp+e7O8Zc8SRh+ECAYptvNmtWlq+q+jj72Q9PbO1NJDnKfWk02vfi3gJz7Qtyij
OE0hPVFDBHyCPWJrpn/rtkRtYISsmR/3EWLhaABQhwlj73dXS1b3xQ==
=Oj/k
Zane Thomas
Diane,
>Maybe he was trying to get in one last appeal for donations before
>news that the lawsuit was dropped hit a.r.s.
Fuck off. It's obvious why you're refered to as Wichardson.
zane za...@die.spammer.mabry.com
*** spammer busters ***
Number 3
In article <33d9f7fd...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
[clip]
>
> The Supreme Court of the United States found that copying a television
> program with a VCR does not constitute copyright infringement as long
> as the copied program is not distributed to others.
are you referring to the Sony Betamax case? i don't remember
the court saying quite this. the court found that a manufacturer
(sony) couldn't be liable for contributory infringement for
making a product that could be used to infringe, as long as there
were other valid uses for the product. one of the other uses
described was 'time shifting' of broadcast materials by
individuals, which seems to me more or less another instance
of a fair use of a copyright that effectively created by that court.
You can't be sued
> for infringement in the U.S. if you videotape a tv program. You must
> have distributed that program to others before it constitutes
> infringement.
it's worth mentioning that dissemination can occur by the
the playing of it for a few friends.
I fail to see why maintaining a copy of a document in a
> computer's hard drive should receive different treatment.
well, if the original was of a non-transient nature, then
'time shifting' would not be a valid reason for making the copy,
for example. legally, it seems like there are some different
factors that would have to be considered. like the conditions
under which one may make a copy for study or for archival.
>
> There's a good chance that I don't know all of the details of the RTC
> v. FACTNet litigation, since very little information about it has
> appeared here. But unless BPI can somehow prove that FACTNet actually
> distributed their copyrighted material to others (perhaps on the
> FACTNet CD-ROM "archives"?), BPI doesn't have a case.
if BPI didn't have something, why wouldn't they have moved
to withdraw at the same time as RTC? or even earlier, since
their case was not linked to the ultimate outcome of Arnie's
case?
but certainly it would be a significantly less compelling
and interesting case than RTC's for the majority of a.r.s.
-- see...@ix.netcom.com
Friends of Dennis Erlich (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Ted
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>In <33d92b1c...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>
>>and make nice. FACTNet still exists, still produces a website, still
>>begs for money. The only thing that's different is that FACTNet isn't
>>being sued by RTC any more.
>
>But it is still sued by Bridge Publications. I think the move by RTC is
>done to complicate discovery.
>
>What I have a problem with is that the judge doesn't want to set legal
>costs.
>
>Tilman
Gosh $12,000,000! Were they going to pay this out before or after
they pay Wollersheim the other $6,000,000 they owe him?
The Co$ is a bunch of dead beats; they'll promise anything; they'll
deliver nothing, or so pervert things that people'll wish they hadn't
delivered.
From the quotes I've read, cult rah-rahs, Diane and Bernie, would do
better to make a deal with the devil. Such a deal won't be the deal
you thought you were getting, but every letter will be observed;
whereas nothing is that certain with Co$. Co$ engages in
bait-n-switch, before, during and after the deal. Sorta like,
"Before the world was created, there was the con, and the con
persisted after the world was created, and when the world was
destroyed, there was only the con."
Thanks for the tip on BPI. I'd forgotten about that one. What a
devious bunch of weasels these clams are!
Ted
--
================== Perpetual Generalization Tool =====================
email: t...@ibexbsc.com All day smirkin/jokin/degrading
WWW: http://rainbow.rmi.net/~tpurdy/mar97.html
Bored? Stupid? Thinking of getting suckered by the vile
International Criminal Syndicate founded by the dead SF hack
with the hammy face? (Elron Hubbard, since you asked) Get
the facts about the blood sucking vampires of the soul and
wallet, $cientology, at:
http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/scientology/home.html
http://www.ezlink.com/~rayr/scieno.htm
http://www.whidbey.net/~skyhawk/cos/
http://wwwperso.hol.fr/~rgonnet
Speaking only for myself. (and probably a bunch of other people that
you don't know!) "Do you know where your BTs are tonight?"
========================== Generalized Sig ===========================
Number 3
In article <33da0fa1...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
[clip]
>
> There is absolutely nothing criminal about owning copies of publicly
> distributed copyrighted works (well, duh!). Copyright infringement
> does not occur if you make a photocopy of a copyrighted work -- not
> even if you scan that work into a computer. Infringment occurs only
> if you *distribute* the work that has been photocopied or scanned
> without the copyright owner's authorization.
this is not unqualifiably true. copyright gives the holder
rights over copying, dissemination, and performance of copyrighted
works, subject to fair use provisions and such elements as the
initial sale. the fair use provisions have been interpreted quite
broadly, to be sure, as concerns the rights to make copies for
indvidual study, for archives, and the like. but it has not given
organizations the automatic right to make copies of a work, even
if for their own use.
You cannot be found
> liable for copyright infringment if you videotape a television program
> to watch in your own home. You only infringe if you distribute that
> videotape to others rather than keeping it for your own personal
> entertainment and/or use.
this is a different thing than photocopying a book, and
i'm sure will be judged differently. as you have said,
it would be good to see the amended complaint to see exactly
what is being claimed.
[clip]
>
> Whatever the facts of the matter, I do not see how a BPI lawsuit
> against FACTNet has *any* relevance to freedom of speech on the
> internet, censorship of "libraries and archives," or any of the other
> claims FACTNet apparently still continues to make about the
> litigation. Do you?
>
nope.
tall...@mail.storm.ca
In article <seekon-2607...@sjx-ca50-14.ix.netcom.com>, see...@spamtrap.ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote:
>In article <33da0fa1...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>[clip]
>>
>> There is absolutely nothing criminal about owning copies of publicly
>> distributed copyrighted works (well, duh!). Copyright infringement
>> does not occur if you make a photocopy of a copyrighted work -- not
>> even if you scan that work into a computer. Infringment occurs only
>> if you *distribute* the work that has been photocopied or scanned
>> without the copyright owner's authorization.
>
> this is not unqualifiably true. copyright gives the holder
> rights over copying, dissemination, and performance of copyrighted
> works, subject to fair use provisions and such elements as the
> initial sale. the fair use provisions have been interpreted quite
> broadly, to be sure, as concerns the rights to make copies for
> indvidual study, for archives, and the like. but it has not given
> organizations the automatic right to make copies of a work, even
> if for their own use.
Actually, you Americans are in a better position than those of us north of
the border when it comes to fair use. The parallel concept under Canadian law,
which is known as "fair dealings," was recently tightened up considerable
through controversial amendments to the Copyright Act. The Canadian
Association of Libraries, as well as educational and research institutions,
were up in arms over some of the changes. The new law would treat the act of
copying material, even temporarily, more than once -- say, downloading a file
from another library to your computer, and then printing it-- as infringement,
since technically it extends beyond the one copy permited.
The law could also see libraries held responsible for *any*copyright
infringement that takes place using their equipment, including photocopiers,
which --as the nice lady from the Library Association told me when I
interviewed her for a story on this very issue -- would force libraries to
either post a guard at every machine, or deprive students of the facilities
altogether.
Technology is doing funny things to the definition -- and application -- of
reprography. Dunno about the situation down there, but during consultations on
the amendments, the creator lobby kicked the shit out of the user community,
and basically made already stringent exceptions virtually unusable. That's
what happens when a group has the luxury of putting luminaries like Margaret
Atwood in front of a parliamentary committee, I guess.
Anyway, this is offtopic, but hey - I so rarely get an opportunity to expound
on the minutaeia of copyright law.
K
ask me about timeshifting and ephemeral rights.
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 19:49:00 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
>served it to the group:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:57:26 GMT, dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>
>>
>>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
>>>served it to the group:
>>>
>>><snip>
>My point is, why in the hell do they expect FACTNet to agree to a
>gag order? I thought it was a valid question.
Did RTC expect FACTNet to agree to a gag order? Do you have any
verification that Wollersheim is telling the truth about what was said
in the supposedly confidential settlement talks?
Or are you willing to accept anything Wollersheim says as the
god-given, objective truth? I'm certainly not willing to believe
anything just because Wollersheim writes it.
[snip]
>>FACTNet doesn't *have* to roll over and make nice, for crying out
>>loud! RTC has QUIT! They've dropped the lawsuit! Is that so
>>difficult for you to understand?
>
>So whence the gag order? Are you telling us that this is fiction?
It could be just that. It could be a very distorted explanation of
what actually took place in those confidential talks. I'm just not
willing to accept Wollersheim's claims as honest and objective without
hearing from others who also participated in those talks.
OTOH, Wollersheim could be telling the whole, unvarnished truth.
If that's the case, RTC did an end-run around FACTNet when they
couldn't get the terms they were seeking from FACTNet in a settlement.
By dropping the lawsuit, RTC has essentially taken away FACTNet's
excuse for squealing "victim" at every opportunity.
>>Perhaps it *is* difficult for you to understand. Go back, read the
>>newsfeed or dejanews, and think a little. RTC has dropped the
>lawsuit
>>against FACTNet. FACTNet is no longer being sued by RTC. RTC
>hasn't
>>required anyone to shut up. RTC hasn't required anyone to roll
>over
>>and make nice. FACTNet still exists, still produces a website,
>still
>>begs for money. The only thing that's different is that FACTNet
>isn't
>>being sued by RTC any more.
>>
>>Got it?
>
>What I "got" is what I have read--extensively. What I read recently
>is that RTC expects Larry, Bob, Arnie, et.al., to agree to a gag
>order. Why? Are you saying that this is fiction? Whence cometh
>the $12M settlement discussion? Forgive my density, Diane. Some of
>us aren't omniscient like you are.
It's not a question of omniscience, it's a question of being able to
comprehend simple concepts and simple words. You appear to be
incapable of doing either. I see no evidence that you're any more
capable of critical thought now than when you were a
Scientologist[tm]/
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
>>
>> In article <33d99016...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>>
>> > Note also that RTC bases its motion to withdraw the lawsuit on the
>> > fact that it prevailed in Arnie Lerma's case. Since RTC's trade
>> > secret claims were never at issue in that litigation (because Judge
>> > Brinkema threw them out), this motion deals with the remaining alleged
>> > copyright infringements, not trade secret violations.
>> >
>> > What remains to be explained, of course, is why Larry Wollersheim is
>> > still claiming to be fighting the cult in the courts and begging money
>> > from others to continue this fight.
>> >
>> > From all I see, the fight between RTC and FACTNet is over.
>
>MY understanding:
>
>Arnie's case involved infringements of 4 documents, which RTC considered
>part of the "Advanced Technology" which they claim to exercise control
>over. The trade secret case was lost and the RTC prevailed on the
>copyright infringments on the CC-Ot3 materials. Judge Brinkema entered
>judgement for RTC for 4 copyright infringments by Lerma.
Yep, that's how I see it.
>The FactNet case in Boulder involves a multitude of documents that were
>in the FactNet archives, which the copyrighter holders alleged were
>tantamount to copyright infringements. The list was quite long and
>included MANY other documents besides the ones in the RTC vs Lerma case.
>The FactNet case in Boulder did not involve posting anything on the
>Internet.
Do you have a copy of this list? If so, would you post it? What
about the amended complaint, in which BPI joined RTC in suing FACTNet?
Do you have a copy of the amended complaint? If not, can you get a
copy of it and post it?
For being an organization dedicated to free speech on the 'net,
FACTNet certainly has been selective in which documents relevant to
their case they choose to circulate in public.
I would very much like to see a copy of the amended complaint and the
attached list of copyrights BPI accuses FACTNet of infringing. As it
stands, this case makes absolutely no sense at all to me. I'm
astounded that Larry Wollersheim thinks he can continue begging for
money without being completely open about the litigation it is
intended to support.
>RTC vs Lerma was about the publishing of materials by posting them on
>the Internet.
Yep.
>The RTC vs Factnet, Wollersheim & Penny was about the FactNet archives
>which contained voluminous documents on Scientology and FactNet's
>investigation of the organization, and the adverse effects of
>Scientology's "Advanced Technology".
Were any of those documents the intellectual property of BPI? That's
what I'd like to know. You're a FACTNet volunteer, Joe. Don't you
think that this information should be made publicly available?
BPI cannot claim infringement of their copyrights just because FACTNet
included original investigative reports written by FACTNet staff and
volunteers. What copyrights does BPI claim that FACTNet has violated?
FACTNet has certainly scanned numerous legal documents into their
database. Why does it seem impossible for them to do the same with
documents from the current litigation? IMO, Wollersheim is doing his
best to control what information about the case is made public. He
shows no hesitation to spam information he believes will help him, but
remains utterly silent when it comes to potentially damaging
information about the case. Is this the honest, open, access to
information that FACTNet purportedly advocates? Or is this the same
control of information ("acceptable truths") practiced by OSA?
>
>Two different cases, RTC re the "Advanced Technology" and "trade
>secrets", and BPI re all other materials. The recent recommendation by
>the magistrate judge was in reference to the RTC cause of action, and
>the latter case has not been resolved.
Yep. The whole "threat to freedom of speech on the 'net" issue in the
litigation has been dropped. FACTNet is no longer being sued for
anything any of its directors might have posted to the 'net. Why is
Wollersheim still claiming that the remaining lawsuit has the
capability of affecting intellectual freedom on the 'net?
Would you care to discuss this with Wollersheim and get back to us on
it?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Joe Harrington
(posted/mailed)
Diane Richardson wrote:
(snipped)
> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 15:10:57 -0400, Joe Harrington
> >The FactNet case in Boulder involves a multitude of documents that were
> >in the FactNet archives, which the copyrighter holders alleged were
> >tantamount to copyright infringements. The list was quite long and
> >included MANY other documents besides the ones in the RTC vs Lerma case.
> >The FactNet case in Boulder did not involve posting anything on the
> >Internet.
>
> Do you have a copy of this list? If so, would you post it? What
> about the amended complaint, in which BPI joined RTC in suing FACTNet?
> Do you have a copy of the amended complaint? If not, can you get a
> copy of it and post it?
I don't have a copy of either at the moment. Certainly in many civil
cases there were exhibits that were excerpts or complete copies of
documents that Scn has asserted copyrighted ownership of. The exhibits
in the Fishman case is just one example. These included policy letters,
technical bulletins, memos, and documents that they consider part of
their "Advanced Technology".
The criminal case involving the GO was huge and many of the exhibits in
that case were internal Scn GO directives, policy letters, documents,
memos etc that Scientology could make a claim of copyright ownership of.
Also in the FactNet questionnare that was mailed out to 7,000 former
members, respondents were asked to provide any documents in their
possession that were related to FactNet's inquiry about deaths,
suicides, and psychotic breaks associated with Hubbard's "tech". Some of
these documents may have been Scn internal documents or memos that Scn
asserts is copyrighted by them. FactNet's inquiry in this area was a
VERY hot area of contention for Scn and, in my opinion, it was the
impetus for the RTC raid.
Scientology has had a long practice of asserting "copyright" of ALL
their internal documents, so as to hamper inquiry and minimize exposure
of any questionable practices or activities. The RTC raid was a fishing
expedition for ANY documents that could create a problem for them, now
or in the future, plus an opportunity to compromise all the
laywer-client strategy documents for numerous cases. So I would think it
would be reasonable to believe that the list of "infringing documents"
in the possession of FactNet was quite long.
> For being an organization dedicated to free speech on the 'net,
> FACTNet certainly has been selective in which documents relevant to
> their case they choose to circulate in public.
I'm not sure that is was a matter of being "selective" as to what was
circulated. My understanding is that REAMS of motions, depositions, etc
are involved with this case. Scanning or typing in lengthy documents is
a very time consuming task although there are various people who have
volunteered and given a great deal of their time in that task. To have
these done by an outside company would probably cost $15-20 an hour or
better. To my knowledge, there is just no current budget available for
that, and funds must be raised to establish one. The court records are
available to the public at around $.57 a page thru the court clerk, or
about $1.80 a page thru court reporter firms. As regards ungoing
negotiatons or court-ordered settlement conferences, public disclosure
of these activities are forbidden by law. Also there is a often a 30 day
lag after depositions in order to allow any corrections to be made and
it would be unwise to publish such documentations before they are
reviewed for errors. Keeping on top of this is a full time job for one
person, someone not embroiled in litigation. Any volunteers who can pay
their own way until an operating budget is in place?
> I would very much like to see a copy of the amended complaint and the
> attached list of copyrights BPI accuses FACTNet of infringing. As it
> stands, this case makes absolutely no sense at all to me. I'm
> astounded that Larry Wollersheim thinks he can continue begging for
> money without being completely open about the litigation it is
> intended to support.
I'd like to see a copy of these documents also and in time I'm sure they
will become available. To my knowledge, none of the FactNet directors
receive any compensation for serving as FactNet directors and FactNet
volunteers certainly do not. And I think if a FactNet director were
receiving any compensation for their services, that would be quite
proper and not out of the ordinary. Copying, faxing, phone and mailing
expenses can add up quickly and FactNet is dependent upon public support
to defray these costs. I've never requested reimbursement for any
expenses I incur and I'm not aware of any other volunteers who have
requested reimbursements for their expenses. Becoming involved in
litigation with Scn is not a profitable venture, or something for the
weak-hearted.
I don't think stating Wollersheim is "begging" is a very accurate
characterization and more accurately reflects a rather deep personal
cynicism, which is certainly a right you can exercise..
One's decision to support or not support FactNet, financially or in any
other way should not be based on personalities, or someones charm,
public relation skills or lack thereof. Certainly Wollersheim and Lerma
are not Fortune 500 xecutives, nor have they ever pretended to be.
Support FactNet if you feel it performs a vital public service.
If anyone find something lacking in FactNet's organizational structure
or its activities, there are immediate openings for FactNet directors
and have been since its inception. But the positions are not without
risks. Jon Atack and Gerry Armstrong were former directors, as was Kim
Baker. I certainly can find MANY faults within the organization and some
decisions that were made, and I don't hesitate to point them out in the
proper channel, and I would encourage others to be likewise.
> Were any of those documents the intellectual property of BPI? That's
> what I'd like to know. You're a FACTNet volunteer, Joe. Don't you
> think that this information should be made publicly available?
I feel quite confident that some were and one would simply have to look
at the separate missions of the RTC and BPL, and see what their areas of
responsibility and control of Scientology-related materials are.
> FACTNet has certainly scanned numerous legal documents into their
> database. Why does it seem impossible for them to do the same with
> documents from the current litigation? IMO, Wollersheim is doing his
> best to control what information about the case is made public. He
> shows no hesitation to spam information he believes will help him, but
> remains utterly silent when it comes to potentially damaging
> information about the case. Is this the honest, open, access to
> information that FACTNet purportedly advocates? Or is this the same
> control of information ("acceptable truths") practiced by OSA?
Scanning by FactNet was an ongoing activity before the Aug 1995 RTC
raid. The seizure of files and computers pretty much brought this to a
complete halt. Bob Penny was doing a lot of this work before his
physical condition deteroriated. For the last 24 months FactNet has been
struggling to keep its head over water in the ocean of motions RTC has
been dumping on them.
Scanning requires the efforts of volunteers and a budget to help defray
their expenses. If there was an outpouring of financial support to
establish a working budget to cover adminstrative and office expenses
and supplies, and a dozen or two volunteers who can scan in the mountain
of FactNet archives, before FactNet is forced into bankruptcy and risks
these documents falling into the hands of Scn creditors, as almost
happened with the defunct CAN organization, perhaps the documents you
are interested in can appear on someones web site.
> Would you care to discuss this with Wollersheim and get back to us on
> it?
I sure will and I've forwarded a copy of this post to him.
> Diane Richardson
> ref...@bway.net
Joe
Martin Hunt
In article <33d99cf0...@snews.zippo.com>,
za...@die.spammers.mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>Why then, do you suppose the kult of criminals would be offering them
>$12 million?
Scientology is scared shitless of FACTnet; they must have something
on them. Either they see the bridge being lost to the litigation,
or they see their US tax-exempt status in jeopardy. Something has
scared them to make such a massive offer, even with all the crap
that went along with it. The demands were not capable of being
fulfilled in any case; how is FACTnet meant to remove their files
from the internet? Those things are everywhere; no one's going to
remove them at anyone's request. There's no way to get all this
stuffing back into the pillow. Scientology could claim that
FACTnet didn't live up to their contractual agreements over that,
and yank the deal anyway. It's completely unreasonable.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. ARS & Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Warning: strong spamblocking software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc"
in From:, To:, or Subject: headers, or your email will not get through.
Heidrun Beer
[posted/mailed]
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 22:06:50 -0400, Joe Harrington
<joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>(following from Lawrence Wollersheim)
[...]
>We continued to negotiate for the next four weeks. The basics of what
>Scientology sees in their minds as restrictions reciprocally and equally
>binding on both parties and a peace with dignity are as follows:
>
>That the non-profit free speech library and historic preservational
>archive called FACTNet be taken off the Internet and closed forever.
>
>That all FACTNet library databases containing electronic books,
>articles court decisions, government reports and former member
>debriefings about Scientology (or any other cultic organizations)
>contained in those databases be completely destroyed.
>
>That a total gag order be agreed to by Bob, Arnie, and Lawrence so that
>they can never again speak out about Scientology.
>
[...]
>
>Scientology has once again conclusively shown me it has not changed
>one iota from the entrapping Gerry Armstrong, Margie Wakefield, Flynn
>type settlement strategies. In fact it has gotten worse in its
>settlement demands.
[...]
Wollersheim is NOT talking about Scientologists here but about
a bunch of utterly confused conceptless failed students who are
mis-managing their group into a piece of nothingness. Hubbard,
if alive, would have shot them into the sun (or should have).
They are running the most incredible Not-Is-Ness on past events.
No genuine Scientologist (trained, I mean, I mean an educated
person who has assimilated the very few basic concepts) would
ever engage in such a course.
A Scientologist would insist on bringing the TRUTH to light
and therefore as-is (resolve) all past troubles forever.
This is the concept of auditing. Hubbard also considered
it necessary in any case of a negative incident which
concerned a group (to be found in "Notes on the Lectures",
article on the group engram). The so-called church is doing
the opposite. They cannot be called Scientologists. Sorry!
TRUTH (per LRH in Tech.Dict.,Def.1):
"Truth is the exact consideration. Truth is the exact
time, place, form and event."
NOT-IS (per LRH in Tech.Dict., Def. 2):
"Not-Is-Ness is the effort to handle is-ness [that which exists]
by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an
apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an is-ness."
AS-IS (per LRH in Tech.Dict):
"To view anything exactly as it is without any distortions
or lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist."
Again, this is the concept of auditing. We have to apply it
to life as well if we want things to improve. Church leaders
would be well advised to afford some time in a quiet corner,
re-reading their LRH basics and re-structuring their mock-ups
about how to go about things!
Heidrun Beer (clear baby)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussing CoS practice: http://www.icon.fi/~marina/clrbaby/index.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't worship our rituals. Be as orderly as you can. Follow our rules
as best you can. But a rule can be wrong and service and our mission
can never be wrong. Use the rules until they prevent you from doing
your job. But if these stop you, then to HELL with the rules!
- LRH, 29.10.59, "Service" -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Clark
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Did the FACTNet archives contain BPI-copyrighted materials? Did
>FACTNet distribute these materials to others? If so, it appears they
>infringed BPI's copyrights, just as surely as if the were distributing
>_A Piece of Blue Sky_ without the copyright owners' consent. Or --
>wait a minute -- they *did* distribute POBS without the
>copyright-holder's permission, didn't they?
jon atack was a director of FACTnet, or i suppose you've forgotten
that in your hate-crusade against FACTnet. just like you forgot the
fact that bridge publications is still suing them, and just as you
forgot that j. gordon melton declared a "moratorium" on the use of the
word "cult" when you were declaring my statement that cult apologists
were doing just that "fallacious."
i know for a fact you have milk crates of these legal documents,
unless you made good on your petulant threat to throw them all "into
the dumpster." in any case, it appears as if you have chosen to chuck
your mind into the dumpster.
jon atack gave his permission to distribute his book, it seems, that
as he was a director of FACTnet at the time his book was webbed, that
he certainly hasn't objected.
>I fail to see what this case has to do with "freedom of speech on the
>'net." Do you?
you "fail to see."
this is not surprising, as you have demonstrated full-well that you
are blind as a bat.
rob
Bernie
>On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 22:42:05 GMT, tall...@mail.storm.ca
>(tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>>Technology is doing funny things to the definition -- and application -- of
>>reprography. Dunno about the situation down there, but during consultations on
>>the amendments, the creator lobby kicked the shit out of the user community,
>>and basically made already stringent exceptions virtually unusable. That's
>>what happens when a group has the luxury of putting luminaries like Margaret
>>Atwood in front of a parliamentary committee, I guess.
>>Anyway, this is offtopic, but hey - I so rarely get an opportunity to expound
>>on the minutaeia of copyright law.
>It's not off-topic at all, as far as I'm concerned. Few people
>understand why librarians are such vigilant defenders of intellectual
>freedom. Thank the stars for the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee
>-- they're protecting freedoms that most U.S. citizens take for
>granted.
I'm lost. Why exactly are librarians vigilant defenders of
intellectual freedom?
Bernie
Bernie
>On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:32:07 -0400, Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Becoming involved in litigation with Scn is not a profitable venture
I am not so sure about that. If Wollersheim has indeed been
offered 12 million, 12 *million* dollars to settle down, I
wouldn't call it a non-profitable venture. Am I the only one
around here thinking that $12 million is an indecently huge
amount of money for an individual?
It makes me wonder how much other litigants received in order to
be silenced - Paulette Cooper, David Mayo, and so many others.
Although I am certainly not someone going to say anything
against David Mayo otherwise, I personally find it regrettable,
in some respect I am even shocked, that they should accept any
monetary deal at all. Morally, I find this indefensible.
>Support FactNet if you feel it performs a vital public service.
I wonder if there are still people, other than Thick-as-a-brick
Tilman, and other than our otherwise very wise Joe, continuing
to support FactNet.
Bernie
tall...@mail.storm.ca
In article <33dadf08...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>Believe me, intellectual property interests have been attempting for
>*decades* to tighten up restrictions on copying in the U.S. If they
>could get it through Congress, they would.
>
>The U.S. Congress has thus far refused to map out explicitly what is
>and is not considered "fair use" when it comes to personal
>photocopying. The Supreme Court, in the Texaco decision, found that
>photocopying by a for-profit organization to be an infringement of
>copyright. To date, however, the Supreme Court has refused to extend
>this restriction to photocopying for personal use by one individual.
I'll be interested to see whether our courts *will* actually enforce the
new, more stringent definition of fair dealings now that the changes are in
place. The thing is, copyright cases are *usually* (but not always) handled
outside of the legal system. Most of the time, a fine is imposed, and that's
the end of it - unless there's suspicion of wider criminal activity, ie
a business selling bootleg video tapes.
>Fortunately, that problem was handled in the U.S. during the
>promulgation of the current copyright law, approved in 1976 and in
>effect since 1978. As long as a library posts a sign at coin-operated
>photocopiers, informing patrons that they are responsible for
>copyright compliance, libraries are absolved of such responsibility.
>It would be financially impossible for libraries to monitor copying
>done on coin-operated photocopiers.
That was the case here, as well, before the bill's amendment this year. But
thanks to a very effective lobby push from the creators, libraries will no
longer be able to risk just putting up a sign. I suspect what will happen
is that libraries will stop permitting users to use their machines, and
instead put a staff member behind a desk who will make approved copies on
request. Which will cost at least one additional salary, but that's cheap when
compared with some of the fines with which CanCopy has threatened libraries.
(Gee, can you tell which side I'm more sympathetic to?)
If there are any plans to amend your Copyright Act in the next few years, be
prepared for a similiar fight, btw. The advent of new technologies has sent an
absolute shiver of paranoia through creator communities, especially when it
comes to the Internet.
>It's not off-topic at all, as far as I'm concerned. Few people
>understand why librarians are such vigilant defenders of intellectual
>freedom. Thank the stars for the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee
>-- they're protecting freedoms that most U.S. citizens take for
>granted.
Yes, you're lucky your group has been successful -- the Canadian Library
Association made a valiant effort during consultations last year, but
ultimately, creators were able to convince the government that even the most
strict exceptions were possible loopholes.
Actually, when I first started covering the amendments, though, I was
surprised at how quickly I could see the competing interests and larger
implcations of the changes -- thanks the thousands of posts on the subject I'd
read on a.r.s.!
Vive la bibliotheque libre,
K
Diane Richardson
>(posted/mailed)
>
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 15:10:57 -0400, Joe Harrington
>
>> >The FactNet case in Boulder involves a multitude of documents that were
>> >in the FactNet archives, which the copyrighter holders alleged were
>> >tantamount to copyright infringements. The list was quite long and
>> >included MANY other documents besides the ones in the RTC vs Lerma case.
>> >The FactNet case in Boulder did not involve posting anything on the
>> >Internet.
Did the FACTNet archives contain BPI-copyrighted materials? Did
FACTNet distribute these materials to others? If so, it appears they
infringed BPI's copyrights, just as surely as if the were distributing
_A Piece of Blue Sky_ without the copyright owners' consent. Or --
wait a minute -- they *did* distribute POBS without the
copyright-holder's permission, didn't they?
I fail to see what this case has to do with "freedom of speech on the
'net." Do you?
>> Do you have a copy of this list? If so, would you post it? What
>> about the amended complaint, in which BPI joined RTC in suing FACTNet?
>> Do you have a copy of the amended complaint? If not, can you get a
>> copy of it and post it?
>
>I don't have a copy of either at the moment. Certainly in many civil
>cases there were exhibits that were excerpts or complete copies of
>documents that Scn has asserted copyrighted ownership of. The exhibits
>in the Fishman case is just one example. These included policy letters,
>technical bulletins, memos, and documents that they consider part of
>their "Advanced Technology".
But the "Advanced Technology" documents are RTC's responsibility, not
BPI's. I don't get your point.
>The criminal case involving the GO was huge and many of the exhibits in
>that case were internal Scn GO directives, policy letters, documents,
>memos etc that Scientology could make a claim of copyright ownership of.
Does this mean that the FACTNet archive contained copies of all the
materials seized by the FBI raid? I find this highly unlikely, seeing
that these documents were sealed in the early 1980s. I understand
that the materials were returned to the CoS when the case was
concluded. If FACTNet got these materials, they certainly didn't
obtain them from the court.
>Also in the FactNet questionnare that was mailed out to 7,000 former
>members, respondents were asked to provide any documents in their
>possession that were related to FactNet's inquiry about deaths,
>suicides, and psychotic breaks associated with Hubbard's "tech". Some of
>these documents may have been Scn internal documents or memos that Scn
>asserts is copyrighted by them. FactNet's inquiry in this area was a
>VERY hot area of contention for Scn and, in my opinion, it was the
>impetus for the RTC raid.
Are you saying that FACTNet scanned in these donated copyrighted
documents and distributed copies to others? If so, FACTNet has
infringed BPI's copyrights. Again, however, I fail to see what this
case has to do with "freedom of speech on the internet."
>Scientology has had a long practice of asserting "copyright" of ALL
>their internal documents, so as to hamper inquiry and minimize exposure
>of any questionable practices or activities. The RTC raid was a fishing
>expedition for ANY documents that could create a problem for them, now
>or in the future, plus an opportunity to compromise all the
>laywer-client strategy documents for numerous cases. So I would think it
>would be reasonable to believe that the list of "infringing documents"
>in the possession of FactNet was quite long.
If FACTNet was in the habit of producing and distributing copies of
BPI-copyrighted documents, then I can imagine that the list would be
quite long. Why did FACTNet think it could get away with such
infringing activity, if that's what they actually did?
>> For being an organization dedicated to free speech on the 'net,
>> FACTNet certainly has been selective in which documents relevant to
>> their case they choose to circulate in public.
>
>I'm not sure that is was a matter of being "selective" as to what was
>circulated. My understanding is that REAMS of motions, depositions, etc
>are involved with this case. Scanning or typing in lengthy documents is
>a very time consuming task although there are various people who have
>volunteered and given a great deal of their time in that task. To have
>these done by an outside company would probably cost $15-20 an hour or
>better. To my knowledge, there is just no current budget available for
>that, and funds must be raised to establish one. The court records are
>available to the public at around $.57 a page thru the court clerk, or
>about $1.80 a page thru court reporter firms. As regards ungoing
>negotiatons or court-ordered settlement conferences, public disclosure
>of these activities are forbidden by law. Also there is a often a 30 day
>lag after depositions in order to allow any corrections to be made and
>it would be unwise to publish such documentations before they are
>reviewed for errors. Keeping on top of this is a full time job for one
>person, someone not embroiled in litigation. Any volunteers who can pay
>their own way until an operating budget is in place?
Let me suggest Arnie Lerma. He recently contacted me to tell me he
had received a substantial donation from a religious organization, and
that he intended to use this money to have copies made of the records
of the Time magazine lawsuit. I'm sure I'm not the only person here
who thinks that the money might better be used in making FACTNet's own
legal documents in the current litigation available to readers.
>> I would very much like to see a copy of the amended complaint and the
>> attached list of copyrights BPI accuses FACTNet of infringing. As it
>> stands, this case makes absolutely no sense at all to me. I'm
>> astounded that Larry Wollersheim thinks he can continue begging for
>> money without being completely open about the litigation it is
>> intended to support.
>
>I'd like to see a copy of these documents also and in time I'm sure they
>will become available. To my knowledge, none of the FactNet directors
>receive any compensation for serving as FactNet directors and FactNet
>volunteers certainly do not. And I think if a FactNet director were
>receiving any compensation for their services, that would be quite
>proper and not out of the ordinary. Copying, faxing, phone and mailing
>expenses can add up quickly and FactNet is dependent upon public support
>to defray these costs. I've never requested reimbursement for any
>expenses I incur and I'm not aware of any other volunteers who have
>requested reimbursements for their expenses. Becoming involved in
>litigation with Scn is not a profitable venture, or something for the
>weak-hearted.
Larry Wollersheim, of course, as a defendant in the lawsuit, has
copies of ALL documents filed in the case. Arnie could send him the
money to take the amended complaint to a local photocopy shop and have
it duplicated. If you'll send those copies to me, I'll glady scan,
proof, and put them on a website.
>I don't think stating Wollersheim is "begging" is a very accurate
>characterization and more accurately reflects a rather deep personal
>cynicism, which is certainly a right you can exercise..
And I will continue exercising that right as long as it accurately
reflects my opinion in the matter.
>One's decision to support or not support FactNet, financially or in any
>other way should not be based on personalities, or someones charm,
>public relation skills or lack thereof. Certainly Wollersheim and Lerma
>are not Fortune 500 xecutives, nor have they ever pretended to be.
>Support FactNet if you feel it performs a vital public service.
Do you consider part of that vital public service includes copyright
infringement?
>If anyone find something lacking in FactNet's organizational structure
>or its activities, there are immediate openings for FactNet directors
>and have been since its inception. But the positions are not without
>risks. Jon Atack and Gerry Armstrong were former directors, as was Kim
>Baker. I certainly can find MANY faults within the organization and some
>decisions that were made, and I don't hesitate to point them out in the
>proper channel, and I would encourage others to be likewise.
Well, for one thing, if they really have been infringing BPI's
copyrights, I'd encourage them to change their policy in that area.
Also, I'd suggest that Larry Wollersheim stop begging for funds
without being entirely honest how they're to be used. Wollersheim is
still blowing on his "freedom of speech on the internet" horn, even
though RTC has stopped playing that tune.
>> Were any of those documents the intellectual property of BPI? That's
>> what I'd like to know. You're a FACTNet volunteer, Joe. Don't you
>> think that this information should be made publicly available?
>
>I feel quite confident that some were and one would simply have to look
>at the separate missions of the RTC and BPL, and see what their areas of
>responsibility and control of Scientology-related materials are.
If you're that confident that FACTNet infringed BPI's copyrights, I
suspect that the court will issue a summary judgment just as Judge
Brinkema did in Arnie Lerma's case. I'm not sure why Wollersheim
believes he needs between $250,000 and $350,000 to continue defending
himself, if that's the general consensus.
>> FACTNet has certainly scanned numerous legal documents into their
>> database. Why does it seem impossible for them to do the same with
>> documents from the current litigation? IMO, Wollersheim is doing his
>> best to control what information about the case is made public. He
>> shows no hesitation to spam information he believes will help him, but
>> remains utterly silent when it comes to potentially damaging
>> information about the case. Is this the honest, open, access to
>> information that FACTNet purportedly advocates? Or is this the same
>> control of information ("acceptable truths") practiced by OSA?
>
>Scanning by FactNet was an ongoing activity before the Aug 1995 RTC
>raid. The seizure of files and computers pretty much brought this to a
>complete halt. Bob Penny was doing a lot of this work before his
>physical condition deteroriated. For the last 24 months FactNet has been
>struggling to keep its head over water in the ocean of motions RTC has
>been dumping on them.
How many students has FACTNet employed putting together the "Freedom
of Speech on the Internet" website? Don't you think those young
people might better be put to use on getting the current court
documents out to the public rather than repeating and rehashing
material that appears elsewhere on the 'net?
>Scanning requires the efforts of volunteers and a budget to help defray
>their expenses. If there was an outpouring of financial support to
>establish a working budget to cover adminstrative and office expenses
>and supplies, and a dozen or two volunteers who can scan in the mountain
>of FactNet archives, before FactNet is forced into bankruptcy and risks
>these documents falling into the hands of Scn creditors, as almost
>happened with the defunct CAN organization, perhaps the documents you
>are interested in can appear on someones web site.
How much money did Wollersheim spend on his new website? How many
people did he pay to get that website up and running? How many people
did he employ to send out the spam he's responsible for? Was the spam
a "volunteer" activity or were people paid to put together those
mailing lists?
>> Would you care to discuss this with Wollersheim and get back to us on
>> it?
>
>I sure will and I've forwarded a copy of this post to him.
Great. Why not forward a copy of this one to him too, while you're at
it?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
>In article <seekon-2607...@sjx-ca50-14.ix.netcom.com>, see...@spamtrap.ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote:
>>In article <33da0fa1...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>>
>>[clip]
>Actually, you Americans are in a better position than those of us north of
>the border when it comes to fair use. The parallel concept under Canadian law,
>which is known as "fair dealings," was recently tightened up considerable
>through controversial amendments to the Copyright Act. The Canadian
>Association of Libraries, as well as educational and research institutions,
>were up in arms over some of the changes. The new law would treat the act of
>copying material, even temporarily, more than once -- say, downloading a file
>from another library to your computer, and then printing it-- as infringement,
>since technically it extends beyond the one copy permited.
Believe me, intellectual property interests have been attempting for
*decades* to tighten up restrictions on copying in the U.S. If they
could get it through Congress, they would.
The U.S. Congress has thus far refused to map out explicitly what is
and is not considered "fair use" when it comes to personal
photocopying. The Supreme Court, in the Texaco decision, found that
photocopying by a for-profit organization to be an infringement of
copyright. To date, however, the Supreme Court has refused to extend
this restriction to photocopying for personal use by one individual.
>The law could also see libraries held responsible for *any*copyright
>infringement that takes place using their equipment, including photocopiers,
>which --as the nice lady from the Library Association told me when I
>interviewed her for a story on this very issue -- would force libraries to
>either post a guard at every machine, or deprive students of the facilities
>altogether.
Fortunately, that problem was handled in the U.S. during the
promulgation of the current copyright law, approved in 1976 and in
effect since 1978. As long as a library posts a sign at coin-operated
photocopiers, informing patrons that they are responsible for
copyright compliance, libraries are absolved of such responsibility.
It would be financially impossible for libraries to monitor copying
done on coin-operated photocopiers.
>Technology is doing funny things to the definition -- and application -- of
>reprography. Dunno about the situation down there, but during consultations on
>the amendments, the creator lobby kicked the shit out of the user community,
>and basically made already stringent exceptions virtually unusable. That's
>what happens when a group has the luxury of putting luminaries like Margaret
>Atwood in front of a parliamentary committee, I guess.
>Anyway, this is offtopic, but hey - I so rarely get an opportunity to expound
>on the minutaeia of copyright law.
It's not off-topic at all, as far as I'm concerned. Few people
understand why librarians are such vigilant defenders of intellectual
freedom. Thank the stars for the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee
-- they're protecting freedoms that most U.S. citizens take for
granted.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
MARGARETH1
Bernie wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:32:07 -0400, Joe Harrington
<joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Becoming involved in litigation with Scn is not a profitable venture
>I am not so sure about that. If Wollersheim has indeed been
>offered 12 million, 12 *million* dollars to settle down, I
>wouldn't call it a non-profitable venture. Am I the only one
>around here thinking that $12 million is an indecently huge
>amount of money for an individual?
But then again, Lawrence didn't accept it--remember?
Also, as far as I know the 12 mil was not just for Lawrence, but for
everyone involved in the suits.
<snip>
>I wonder if there are still people, other than Thick-as-a-brick
>Tilman, and other than our otherwise very wise Joe, continuing
>to support FactNet.
>Bernie
Well, there's Thick-as-a-brick (or should that be "otherwise very wise"
;-)) me; also, off the top of my head, Bev, Martin Hunt, Dennis Erlich,
Zane Thomas, Rob Clark, Ted Mayett--to mention just a few of the more
prominent posters here.
MH
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 07:56:43 GMT, xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark)
wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>Did the FACTNet archives contain BPI-copyrighted materials? Did
>>FACTNet distribute these materials to others? If so, it appears they
>>infringed BPI's copyrights, just as surely as if the were distributing
>>_A Piece of Blue Sky_ without the copyright owners' consent. Or --
>>wait a minute -- they *did* distribute POBS without the
>>copyright-holder's permission, didn't they?
>
>jon atack was a director of FACTnet, or i suppose you've forgotten
>that in your hate-crusade against FACTnet. just like you forgot the
>fact that bridge publications is still suing them, and just as you
>forgot that j. gordon melton declared a "moratorium" on the use of the
>word "cult" when you were declaring my statement that cult apologists
>were doing just that "fallacious."
Well, lookee here, Rob Clark is back with mouth blazing and brain
disengaged, as always.
For your information, Rob, John Atack does not own the copyright to A
Piece of Blue Sky. Whether he was a director of FACTNet or not is
totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Of course, facts, as always, are of little concern to you. You'd much
rather sling insults about and froth at the mouth. Whether what
you're saying is honest and accurate is much less important to you
than the emotions you stir with your rhetoric. You've readily
admitted this to me and others more than once, Rob.
Who cares about honesty? Who cares about accuracy? Working other
people up into a hate-filled frenzy against your current target is the
goal of your posts. Unfortunately, you've used this device too many
times on this forum to be effective any more. People ignore you, Rob.
Remember our discussions about the accuracy of the information
contained in Garry Scarff's deposition and Steve Fishman's "novel"?
You came right out and admitted that you didn't care if Scarff and
Fishman's charges against the CoS were totally fictional. You felt it
was much more important to fling such charges against the CoS, whether
there was any truth to them or not. It was much more important, in
your view, to whip readers up into a frenzy of hatred against the CoS
than to provide readers with honest, accurate information. "Blood,
sex crimes" and all that.
Of course, the same mindset is what led you to perpetrate a lie -- for
what, nearly two years? -- about your own situation. Your own story
was *much* more compelling if you could claim that someone forged the
final line in that post of yours. So what if the story was a total
fabrication? It played much better to your audience that way.
That, in the end, is what you're after. An audience. The truth be
damned.
>i know for a fact you have milk crates of these legal documents,
>unless you made good on your petulant threat to throw them all "into
>the dumpster." in any case, it appears as if you have chosen to chuck
>your mind into the dumpster.
They've been thrown into the dumpster. That was no petulant threat.
It was a matter of necessity. What this has to do with the current
discussion is beyond me.
>jon atack gave his permission to distribute his book, it seems, that
>as he was a director of FACTnet at the time his book was webbed, that
>he certainly hasn't objected.
Jon Atack was not in a position to give permission to do so. He sold
the rights to his work to his publisher.
>>I fail to see what this case has to do with "freedom of speech on the
>>'net." Do you?
>
>you "fail to see."
>
>this is not surprising, as you have demonstrated full-well that you
>are blind as a bat.
Blind? Really? Would you care to enlighten me? What relevance do
the remaining infringment charges against FACTNet have to freedom of
speech on the Internet, Rob? And why, pray tell, are you rushing to
the defense of someone you formerly publicly disparaged as Larry
*Wollerslime*? Could it be that your new-found respect for the guy
has more to do with a desire to engage in a dispute with me than it
does for defending *Wollerslime*?
Rob, you can continue sniping away at every post I make. That's your
right and there's nothing I could or would do to deny you that right.
Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
behind the "henri" curtain in real life. Your on-line blustering,
posturing, and strutting about have lost their effect. I know what a
pathetic, lying little coward you really are.
You're a one-trick pony who has performed that trick too many times in
public, Rob. You're a washed-up has-been.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 08:52:55 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in article
><33dadf08...@snews.zippo.com>:
[snip]
>>It's not off-topic at all, as far as I'm concerned. Few people
>>understand why librarians are such vigilant defenders of intellectual
>>freedom. Thank the stars for the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee
>>-- they're protecting freedoms that most U.S. citizens take for
>>granted.
>
>I'm lost. Why exactly are librarians vigilant defenders of
>intellectual freedom?
Because the profession deals exclusively with providing access to
information to our clients. Librarians are in a unique position to
see how copyright legislation affects society at large.
Balancing the rights of intellectual property owners with the rights
of the citizenry has never been easy, but it's become even more
difficult now that the world has entered "the information age." Large
multinational corporations entered the intellectual property business
when they realized that information (and access to it) was the
commodity of the future. They're in the business for profit, not
because they feel any great commitment towards furthering the common
good.
The CoS is not alone when they vigilantly protect their right to
charge what they like for access to information they purport to own.
The CoS may be the only "applied religious philosophy" that takes such
an aggressive stance, but they've certainly got a lot of publishers/
producers who keep them company.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Joe Harrington
Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:32:07 -0400, Joe Harrington
> <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> I fail to see what this case has to do with "freedom of speech on the
> 'net." Do you?
Seizing archives containing documents critical of Scientology, by what I
consider a fraud upon the court, and then entangling the organization in
expensive litigation in an attempt to bankrupt and overwhelm them and
shut down the operation so as to deprive the public of access to these
materials for the purpose of free and open discussion of the contents of
these materials, in the public forum of the Internet, is certainly what
I would consider an issue of "freedom of speech on the net".
> >> Do you have a copy of this list? If so, would you post it? What
> >> about the amended complaint, in which BPI joined RTC in suing FACTNet?
> >> Do you have a copy of the amended complaint? If not, can you get a
> >> copy of it and post it?
> But the "Advanced Technology" documents are RTC's responsibility, not
> BPI's. I don't get your point.
I think you got my point that the RTC is responsible for the "Advanced
Technology" and BPI is responsible for all other. The RTC dismissed
their cause of action. I'm not privy to what cause of action BPI may
have filed and what the current status, if any, is of that case.
> >The criminal case involving the GO was huge and many of the exhibits in
> >that case were internal Scn GO directives, policy letters, documents,
> >memos etc that Scientology could make a claim of copyright ownership of.
>
> Does this mean that the FACTNet archive contained copies of all the
> materials seized by the FBI raid? I find this highly unlikely, seeing
> that these documents were sealed in the early 1980s. I understand
> that the materials were returned to the CoS when the case was
> concluded. If FACTNet got these materials, they certainly didn't
> obtain them from the court.
I'm not sure parts of the criminal case FactNet mya have and what the
extent of the materials in the FBI case that have been made accessible
to the public under the FOIA. Are you? Several exhibits from the FBI's
case appeared in the Fishman/Geertz filings.
> >Also in the FactNet questionnare that was mailed out to 7,000 former
> >members, respondents were asked to provide any documents in their
> >possession that were related to FactNet's inquiry about deaths,
> >suicides, and psychotic breaks associated with Hubbard's "tech". Some of
> >these documents may have been Scn internal documents or memos that Scn
> >asserts is copyrighted by them. FactNet's inquiry in this area was a
> >VERY hot area of contention for Scn and, in my opinion, it was the
> >impetus for the RTC raid.
>
> Are you saying that FACTNet scanned in these donated copyrighted
> documents and distributed copies to others? If so, FACTNet has
> infringed BPI's copyrights. Again, however, I fail to see what this
> case has to do with "freedom of speech on the internet."
I have no knowledge if any such "donated copyrighted documents" have
been recopied and distributed to others. Certainly if they were provided
to the appropiate government agencies as part of a complaint of abuses
or criminal activity involving the CofS this would be an exception to
the Copyright Act.
Again, obtaining an exparte writ of seizure, in bad faith faith, from a
civil court for the purposes of conducting a fishing expedition to
obtain reports from former members regarding Scientology abuses and
criminal activities, under the pretense of "copyright infringement, or
demanding such files be destroyed or handed over as a condition of
dropping litigation, so as not to permit free and open discussion of the
subject matter of these files in a free and open forum on the Internet
is an substantial item of "freedom of speech on the internet."
> >Scientology has had a long practice of asserting "copyright" of ALL
> >their internal documents, so as to hamper inquiry and minimize exposure
> >of any questionable practices or activities. The RTC raid was a fishing
> >expedition for ANY documents that could create a problem for them, now
> >or in the future, plus an opportunity to compromise all the
> >laywer-client strategy documents for numerous cases. So I would think it
> >would be reasonable to believe that the list of "infringing documents"
> >in the possession of FactNet was quite long.
>
> If FACTNet was in the habit of producing and distributing copies of
> BPI-copyrighted documents, then I can imagine that the list would be
> quite long. Why did FACTNet think it could get away with such
> infringing activity, if that's what they actually did?
I'm not sure if that assumption is correct. I should point out that the
Lisa McPherson Introspection Rundown logs provided by the FSO certainly
would qualify as "copyrighted documents" under your legalistic view of
the Copyright Act and these logs are all over the Internet and in the
possession of "copyright infringers" around the world. Perhaps we will
if see Scn will pursue these infringing activities in the future.
Perhaps some people put issues of free speech above some rigid, literal
intrepretation of the Copyright Act and are willing to bear the
consequences of thier tortous "infringements".
> >One's decision to support or not support FactNet, financially or in any
> >other way should not be based on personalities, or someones charm,
> >public relation skills or lack thereof. Certainly Wollersheim and Lerma
> >are not Fortune 500 xecutives, nor have they ever pretended to be.
> >Support FactNet if you feel it performs a vital public service.
>
> Do you consider part of that vital public service includes copyright
> infringement?
You seem to be inferring that a judgement was entered that FactNet was
found to be engaging in copyright infringement. I've seen no such
judgement.
> >If anyone find something lacking in FactNet's organizational structure
> >or its activities, there are immediate openings for FactNet directors
> >and have been since its inception. But the positions are not without
> >risks. Jon Atack and Gerry Armstrong were former directors, as was Kim
> >Baker. I certainly can find MANY faults within the organization and some
> >decisions that were made, and I don't hesitate to point them out in the
> >proper channel, and I would encourage others to be likewise.
>
> Well, for one thing, if they really have been infringing BPI's
> copyrights, I'd encourage them to change their policy in that area.
> Also, I'd suggest that Larry Wollersheim stop begging for funds
> without being entirely honest how they're to be used. Wollersheim is
> still blowing on his "freedom of speech on the internet" horn, even
> though RTC has stopped playing that tune.
I don't think any arms are being twisted to donate to FactNet, and I'm
confident that if readers have a sound reason to believe that FactNet or
anyone connected with FactNet is engaging in dishonest conduct with
FactNet funds, I think they will withold any support. This certainly was
a constant refrain of OSA in the past, and has been something implied by
various cynics, yourself included. To date, I've seen nothing to give
credence to these allegations and rest assured I'd be the first to make
any substantial allegations public if I became aware of them.
> >> Were any of those documents the intellectual property of BPI? That's
> >> what I'd like to know. You're a FACTNet volunteer, Joe. Don't you
> >> think that this information should be made publicly available?
> >
> >I feel quite confident that some were and one would simply have to look
> >at the separate missions of the RTC and BPL, and see what their areas of
> >responsibility and control of Scientology-related materials are.
>
> If you're that confident that FACTNet infringed BPI's copyrights, I
> suspect that the court will issue a summary judgment just as Judge
> Brinkema did in Arnie Lerma's case. I'm not sure why Wollersheim
> believes he needs between $250,000 and $350,000 to continue defending
> himself, if that's the general consensus.
I'm not confident that FactNet "infringed" ANY BPI copyrights since many
non-confidential materials are readily available for purchase in the
form of technical and adminstrative books and course packs, publically
sold by the CofS.
> How many students has FACTNet employed putting together the "Freedom
> of Speech on the Internet" website? Don't you think those young
> people might better be put to use on getting the current court
> documents out to the public rather than repeating and rehashing
> material that appears elsewhere on the 'net?
My understanding is that only a small portion of FactNet's files have
been put on the web. FactNet's ongoing litigation is a small aspect of
FactNet's overall mission, although it certainly demanded the most time
of the organization for the last 2 years. I am not aware of how many, if
any, "students" FactNet has employed for any activities. As I recall,
this statement was made by some anon poster in the past, but no details
or responses to followups were provided.
> >Scanning requires the efforts of volunteers and a budget to help defray
> >their expenses. If there was an outpouring of financial support to
> >establish a working budget to cover adminstrative and office expenses
> >and supplies, and a dozen or two volunteers who can scan in the mountain
> >of FactNet archives, before FactNet is forced into bankruptcy and risks
> >these documents falling into the hands of Scn creditors, as almost
> >happened with the defunct CAN organization, perhaps the documents you
> >are interested in can appear on someones web site.
>
> How much money did Wollersheim spend on his new website? How many
> people did he pay to get that website up and running? How many people
> did he employ to send out the spam he's responsible for? Was the spam
> a "volunteer" activity or were people paid to put together those
> mailing lists?
I'm not aware of how many, if any, "employees" FactNet has, or how much
money, if any, they are paid. Its not an area that I have any fixation
on. Most organizations, non-profit or for-profit consider individual
salaries somewhat semi-private and in-house information. While this
might be helpful, I don't think FactNet has a public obligation to
publish the numbers of employees and their respective salaries, or a
breakdown of how they spent every penny taken in. If people suspect, as
you apparently do, that FactNet is involved in some shady dealing with
donations, then they should withold their financial support. Various
CofS members and anon posters have made such innuendoes in the past.
Please understand that I have NO reason to believe you are functioning
at the behest of the OSA or any CofS entity. I think your concerns are
based on your own deep and personal cynicism, not the promptings of Scn.
> >> Would you care to discuss this with Wollersheim and get back to us on
> >> it?
> >
> >I sure will and I've forwarded a copy of this post to him.
>
> Great. Why not forward a copy of this one to him too, while you're at
> it?
Consider it done.
> Diane Richardson
> ref...@bway.net
Rob Clark
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 16:36:56 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>>>I fail to see what this case has to do with "freedom of speech on the
>>>'net." Do you?
>>you "fail to see."
>>this is not surprising, as you have demonstrated full-well that you
>>are blind as a bat.
>Blind? Really? Would you care to enlighten me? What relevance do
>the remaining infringment charges against FACTNet have to freedom of
>speech on the Internet, Rob? And why, pray tell, are you rushing to
if after years of voraciously reading all the material you can gather,
you still "fail to see" the implications for internet freedom in
attempting to close down electronic archives through tortious and
abusive litigation, then i doubt anything i can say in a page or so
will cure your evident myopia.
>the defense of someone you formerly publicly disparaged as Larry
>*Wollerslime*? Could it be that your new-found respect for the guy
>has more to do with a desire to engage in a dispute with me than it
>does for defending *Wollerslime*?
when i called him that, he was, indeed, acting like a slime. larry is
not perfect, he may even be an incredible asshole at times. anyone
who has seen him in foot-bullet mode can attest to this. my public
disapproval of some of these acts does not equate to a denial of
FACTnet's right to exist and not to be smothered to death in
litigation. this kind of black-and-white, for-me-or-against-me
thinking does not serve you well, diane.
my attitude toward wollerhseim has always been an ambivalent one,
admiration and sympathy mixed with occasional anger or disgust at his
more outrageous acts. while i may have attacked some of his deeds, i
do not "fail to see" his courage and fortitude over decades of
gruelling litigation and harassment.
and to answer your last question, no, i have no interest in reviving
our permanent floating flame war, but i find the way you "fail to see"
the obvious too obtuse to be allowed to pass without comment.
>Rob, you can continue sniping away at every post I make. That's your
>right and there's nothing I could or would do to deny you that right.
>Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
>behind the "henri" curtain in real life. Your on-line blustering,
>posturing, and strutting about have lost their effect. I know what a
>pathetic, lying little coward you really are.
>You're a one-trick pony who has performed that trick too many times in
>public, Rob. You're a washed-up has-been.
i will allow this statement to stand back on its hind legs and
squeak for itself.
rob
Joe Harrington
>
> I am not so sure about that. If Wollersheim has indeed been
> offered 12 million, 12 *million* dollars to settle down, I
> wouldn't call it a non-profitable venture. Am I the only one
> around here thinking that $12 million is an indecently huge
> amount of money for an individual?
>
> be silenced - Paulette Cooper, David Mayo, and so many others.
> Although I am certainly not someone going to say anything
> against David Mayo otherwise, I personally find it regrettable,
> in some respect I am even shocked, that they should accept any
> monetary deal at all. Morally, I find this indefensible.
>
>
> Tilman, and other than our otherwise very wise Joe, continuing
> to support FactNet.
>
> Bernie
Wollersheim has been embroiled in litigation with Scientology for over
17 years, and has repeatedly turning down substanial cash settlement
offers, in exchange for his archives, and his silence and inactivity for
the rest of his life. I think the record speaks for itself as to what
his motivations are. Many others simply took the money and rolled over,
and took everybody to Disney World.
Joe
Number 3
In article <5rfhqd$1dr$1...@news.istar.ca>, tall...@mail.storm.ca
(tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
[clip]
>
> If there are any plans to amend your Copyright Act in the next few years, be
> prepared for a similiar fight, btw. The advent of new technologies has
sent an
> absolute shiver of paranoia through creator communities, especially when it
> comes to the Internet.
there are no plans, but various rather chilling proposals (such
as the recommendations put together by a group headed by
Bruce Lehman, head of the US Patent Office) which reflect
the influence of monied interests in gaining greater control
of intellectual property. the Lehman proposals would, if enacted
into law, have essentially ended fair use as we know it.
it is by no means clear to me how long congress, which is
pretty aligned to many of these same interests, will resist.
incidentally, RTC cited the Lehman proposals in one of their
arguments in the Netcom et al case before Judge Whyte.
Without fair use, of course, scientology would be in a much
better position to use copyright as a means of controlling
criticism about scientology.
i would guess the lehman report must still be on the net
somewhere. i ought to go look for it.
[clip]
ef
In article <33dcbfe8...@snews.zippo.com>, inF...@super.zippo.com
(Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
> Please do what you said you were going to do several months ago.
> Throw away your files. Unsubscribe from ars. Don't try any further
> to waste your wisdom on us. We just don't appreciate it.
>
> At least not when it's laced with your condescending vitriol.
this is more than just condescending vitriol on diane's part. this is
particularly obsessive and odious behavior.
rob has confessed his mistakes and has obviously learned from them. which
is rare enough... most people get stuck in a mode of behavior.
like diane... who has caged her image of him up in her brain... and talks
to it. snarling.
heh... there is a hungarian proverb, slightly paraphrased:
a kutya ugat de a karavan halad. the dog barks but the caravan moves on.
ef
Joe Harrington
Peter McDermott wrote:
>
> In article <33D80A...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >In spite of repeated requests for financial help, Internet and
> >non-Internet free speech, privacy, and, library advocacy organizations
> >have been all but invisible in this David and Goliath fight.
>
> Perhaps because the dummies *still* haven't learned to stop
> spamming?
The above is not something I wrote.
Joe
Ron Newman
> Well, lookee here, Rob Clark is back with mouth blazing and brain
> disengaged, as always.
[snippiness snipped]
> Of course, the same mindset is what led you to perpetrate a lie -- for
> what, nearly two years? -- about your own situation. Your own story
> was *much* more compelling if you could claim that someone forged the
> final line in that post of yours. So what if the story was a total
> fabrication? It played much better to your audience that way.
He apologized. Let it be. What more can you ask of someone?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Peter McDermott
In article <33d92b1c...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>Perhaps because Wollersheim et.al. do not wish to be shuttered into
>>silence?
>
>I'm not aware of how shutters are utilized to silence anyone. Perhaps
>you mean "shudder."
>
>Apparently you have failed to understand the content of the
>magistrate's ruling posted here by an anonymous OSA (no doubt) poster,
>which approved RTC's motion to withdraw their complaint against
>FACTNet.
I'm obviously somewhat lost here as well. In light of the fact that
RTC were the plaintiff, how could Wollersheim be offered a settlement?
I did note that FACTnet tried to bring some sort of claim but the
judge dismissed that, didn't he?
Peter McDermott
In article <33da2cbc...@snews.zippo.com>,
za...@die.spammers.mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>Diane,
>
>>Maybe he was trying to get in one last appeal for donations before
>>news that the lawsuit was dropped hit a.r.s.
>
>Fuck off. It's obvious why you're refered to as Wichardson.
So is this one a cultist then? He obviously has some experience
of their skills in argument.
Peter McDermott
In article <33dae292...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Let me suggest Arnie Lerma. He recently contacted me to tell me he
>had received a substantial donation from a religious organization, and
>that he intended to use this money to have copies made of the records
>of the Time magazine lawsuit. I'm sure I'm not the only person here
>who thinks that the money might better be used in making FACTNet's own
>legal documents in the current litigation available to readers.
No. I've also long been critical of the secrecy that FACTnet
seem to prefer to work in - right from the days of Arnies
original bust.
It seems they haven't changed much.
>>I don't think stating Wollersheim is "begging" is a very accurate
>>characterization and more accurately reflects a rather deep personal
>>cynicism, which is certainly a right you can exercise..
Really? Personally it seems to me to reflect the sort of critical
intelligence necessary if people are to avoid swallowing the
sort of bullshit that cultists and their ilk like to feed the
public.
How hard *is* it to post the key documents? A damn sight
easier than spamming, in my opinion.
Peter McDermott
MARGARETH1
marga...@aol.com (MARGARETH1) wrote:
>>>I wonder if there are still people, other than Thick-as-a-brick
>>>Tilman, and other than our otherwise very wise Joe, continuing
>>>to support FactNet.
>>>Bernie
>
>>Well, there's Thick-as-a-brick (or should that be "otherwise very wise"
>>;-)) me; also, off the top of my head, Bev, Martin Hunt, Dennis Erlich,
> You are not authorized to use my name in this fashion, SOse. I
>don't need a sock-puppet.
Not "authorized"???
>>Zane Thomas, Rob Clark, Ted Mayett--to mention just a few of the more
>>prominent posters here.
> I am not yours to use to win arguments. I speak for myself,
thankyouverymuch.
Eat it, Tarbaby. This is usenet--I mention anyone's name I want to, and I
need authorization from no one.
And I have no argument with Bernie.
MH
MARGARETH1
Ms. Richardson wrote:
>Rob, you can continue sniping away at every post I make. That's your
>right and there's nothing I could or would do to deny you that right.
>Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
>behind the "henri" curtain in real life. Your on-line blustering,
>posturing, and strutting about have lost their effect. I know what a
>pathetic, lying little coward you really are.
>You're a one-trick pony who has performed that trick too many times in
>public, Rob. You're a washed-up has-been.
I'm so glad Ms. Richardson does not (as she has told us many times) engage
in ad hominem. ;-)
MH
Zane Thomas
Peter,
>So is this one a cultist then?
You talkin bout me? Roflmao!
>He obviously has some experience of their skills in argument.
Yes, I don't have the inclination to get into an endless thread with
the continually carping Diane.
Stick around and learn what's going on kiddo.
zane za...@die.spammer.mabry.com
*** spammer busters ***
Hud Nordin
In article <B001BEFC...@0.0.0.0> ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes:
>I'm obviously somewhat lost here as well. In light of the fact that
>RTC were the plaintiff, how could Wollersheim be offered a settlement?
Both sides offer things in a settlement. It appeared that in this one
that FACTNet might get money and the suit dropped and RTC might get
destruction of files and silence. Roughly.
It does seem unusual that the plaintiff RTC would offer cash as part of
its settlement of the suit, but that could demonstrate a little of the
true value of FACTNet's silence.
===
Scientologists:
WHY would Miscavige turn your "donations" over to FACTNet?
WHAT facts does he want to hide from the members?
Evaluate data.
--
Hud Nordin <h...@netcom.com> Silicon Valley / The City of Sunnyvale / California
Joe Harrington
Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:29:30 -0400, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <33db6ceb...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
> >
> >> Well, lookee here, Rob Clark is back with mouth blazing and brain
> >> disengaged, as always.
> >
> >[snippiness snipped]
> >
> >> Of course, the same mindset is what led you to perpetrate a lie -- for
> >> what, nearly two years? -- about your own situation. Your own story
> >> was *much* more compelling if you could claim that someone forged the
> >> final line in that post of yours. So what if the story was a total
> >> fabrication? It played much better to your audience that way.
> >
> >He apologized. Let it be. What more can you ask of someone?
>
> well-demonstrated that no one on this newsgroup believed him any
> longer.
>
> Rob Clark's "confession" was the equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart's
> "confession" after he was caught with a prostitute. Too little, too
> late. Too self-serving.
>
> Rob Clark "apologized" to the CoS after he spent months vilifying me
> for bringing the truth of the matter to the attention of the
> newsgroup. I have been called a liar, a bitch, a shrew, a cunt, a
> cow, and many, many other names by this 27-year-old adolescent.
> Who among you have taken him to task for his behavior towards me?
>
> Ron, I e-mailed you when you praised Rob Clark for his public
> "confession" and "apology" to the CoS. Do you remember what I wrote
> to you? Apparently not. Do you remember what you wrote to me in
> response? Apparently you don't.
Well I certainly made it known, publically and privately, that I thought
a voluntary apology by Rob, to Diane, would be ideal.
Diane, at times, has a hard-hitting, cynical and abrasive writing style
that is a source of vexation for some. But its certainly not a
justification for a litany of the derogatory names she has been called.
Dispute her facts, not her gender or personality.
Lets kick this forum up a notch or two on the civility/maturity scale,
from all viewpoints?
Joe
Diane Richardson
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 14:22:18 -0400, Joe Harrington
<joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:32:07 -0400, Joe Harrington
>> <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> >The criminal case involving the GO was huge and many of the exhibits in
>> >that case were internal Scn GO directives, policy letters, documents,
>> >memos etc that Scientology could make a claim of copyright ownership of.
>>
>> Does this mean that the FACTNet archive contained copies of all the
>> materials seized by the FBI raid? I find this highly unlikely, seeing
>> that these documents were sealed in the early 1980s. I understand
>> that the materials were returned to the CoS when the case was
>> concluded. If FACTNet got these materials, they certainly didn't
>> obtain them from the court.
>
>I'm not sure parts of the criminal case FactNet mya have and what the
>extent of the materials in the FBI case that have been made accessible
>to the public under the FOIA. Are you? Several exhibits from the FBI's
>case appeared in the Fishman/Geertz filings.
And your point is? If the material is still under copyright, it is
the copyright holder's property, whether it is a part of a court
record or not. By this time I'd think everyone who's followed a.r.s.
for more than a few months understands this point of law.
>> >Also in the FactNet questionnare that was mailed out to 7,000 former
>> >members, respondents were asked to provide any documents in their
>> >possession that were related to FactNet's inquiry about deaths,
>> >suicides, and psychotic breaks associated with Hubbard's "tech". Some of
>> >these documents may have been Scn internal documents or memos that Scn
>> >asserts is copyrighted by them. FactNet's inquiry in this area was a
>> >VERY hot area of contention for Scn and, in my opinion, it was the
>> >impetus for the RTC raid.
>>
>> Are you saying that FACTNet scanned in these donated copyrighted
>> documents and distributed copies to others? If so, FACTNet has
>> infringed BPI's copyrights. Again, however, I fail to see what this
>> case has to do with "freedom of speech on the internet."
>
>I have no knowledge if any such "donated copyrighted documents" have
>been recopied and distributed to others. Certainly if they were provided
>to the appropiate government agencies as part of a complaint of abuses
>or criminal activity involving the CofS this would be an exception to
>the Copyright Act.
Oops, I guess you *don't* understand this point of law. Providing the
court with a copy of a copyrighted work as part of a complaint is well
within fair use. Distributing copies of a copyrighted work to anyone
and everyone -- without obtaining the copyright owner's consent -- is
NOT fair use. This issue has been discussed many times on a.r.s. in
the past.
If you doubt the accuracy of my statements, re-read Judge Brinkema's
decision in the Lerma case. The issue was dealt with in that lawsuit
and Lerma was found liable for infringing on RTC's copyright. What
makes you think that the outcome would be any different with the BPI
material?
>Again, obtaining an exparte writ of seizure, in bad faith faith, from a
>civil court for the purposes of conducting a fishing expedition to
>obtain reports from former members regarding Scientology abuses and
>criminal activities, under the pretense of "copyright infringement, or
>demanding such files be destroyed or handed over as a condition of
>dropping litigation, so as not to permit free and open discussion of the
>subject matter of these files in a free and open forum on the Internet
>is an substantial item of "freedom of speech on the internet."
If Wollersheim and Penny feel their rights were violated by the ex
parte seizure of materials (and I agree that the seizure was a very
questionable use of such power), they have every right to file suit
against RTC. Have they done so?
But what does this have to do with BPI suing FACTNet for copyright
violation? Are you claiming that FACTNet has the right to violate
copyright law just because RTC misrepresented themselves in obtaining
an ex parte writ? That just doesn't wash. That's arguing that two
wrongs make a right, and I doubt if the courts -- as bad as they may
be -- are willing to work on that principle in civil litigation.
>> >Scientology has had a long practice of asserting "copyright" of ALL
>> >their internal documents, so as to hamper inquiry and minimize exposure
>> >of any questionable practices or activities. The RTC raid was a fishing
>> >expedition for ANY documents that could create a problem for them, now
>> >or in the future, plus an opportunity to compromise all the
>> >laywer-client strategy documents for numerous cases. So I would think it
>> >would be reasonable to believe that the list of "infringing documents"
>> >in the possession of FactNet was quite long.
>>
>> If FACTNet was in the habit of producing and distributing copies of
>> BPI-copyrighted documents, then I can imagine that the list would be
>> quite long. Why did FACTNet think it could get away with such
>> infringing activity, if that's what they actually did?
>
>I'm not sure if that assumption is correct. I should point out that the
>Lisa McPherson Introspection Rundown logs provided by the FSO certainly
>would qualify as "copyrighted documents" under your legalistic view of
>the Copyright Act
I have a "legalistic" view of copyright because it is solely a legal
concept. Copyright laws are written by governments and enforced by
the courts. There's no way to view copyright other than
"legalistically," Joe.
>and these logs are all over the Internet and in the
>possession of "copyright infringers" around the world. Perhaps we will
>if see Scn will pursue these infringing activities in the future.
>Perhaps some people put issues of free speech above some rigid, literal
>intrepretation of the Copyright Act and are willing to bear the
>consequences of thier tortous "infringements".
<sigh> I guess the same old arguments will be discussed to death one
more time. There is no need to infringe copyright to let the world
learn about the abuses of the CoS. The fair use doctrine is adequate
to insure that free speech is not abridged by copyright protection.
The St. Petersburg Times did (in my estimation) an excellent job of
reporting on the information contained in the babywatch logs. They
had no need to infringe copyright to do so. They reported on the
content of the logs in their own words, utilizing fair use quotations
from the logs. Free speech was not abridged by any copyright the CoS
might claim to those logs.
U.S. courts have ruled time after time on this issue. The precedents
were set long ago. It's a losing argument in a U.S. court of law.
>> >One's decision to support or not support FactNet, financially or in any
>> >other way should not be based on personalities, or someones charm,
>> >public relation skills or lack thereof. Certainly Wollersheim and Lerma
>> >are not Fortune 500 xecutives, nor have they ever pretended to be.
>> >Support FactNet if you feel it performs a vital public service.
>>
>> Do you consider part of that vital public service includes copyright
>> infringement?
>
>You seem to be inferring that a judgement was entered that FactNet was
>found to be engaging in copyright infringement. I've seen no such
>judgement.
I'm basing my statement on what you said in your response, Joe. You
implied that the FACTNet archive contained many works owned by BPI.
If you do not actually know whether the FACTNet archive did or did not
contain such material, then I guess I'll have to wait for the matter
to be ajudicated in court to find out.
[snip]
>> >> Were any of those documents the intellectual property of BPI? That's
>> >> what I'd like to know. You're a FACTNet volunteer, Joe. Don't you
>> >> think that this information should be made publicly available?
>> >
>> >I feel quite confident that some were and one would simply have to look
>> >at the separate missions of the RTC and BPL, and see what their areas of
>> >responsibility and control of Scientology-related materials are.
>>
>> If you're that confident that FACTNet infringed BPI's copyrights, I
>> suspect that the court will issue a summary judgment just as Judge
>> Brinkema did in Arnie Lerma's case. I'm not sure why Wollersheim
>> believes he needs between $250,000 and $350,000 to continue defending
>> himself, if that's the general consensus.
>
>I'm not confident that FactNet "infringed" ANY BPI copyrights since many
>non-confidential materials are readily available for purchase in the
>form of technical and adminstrative books and course packs, publically
>sold by the CofS.
Sorry, Joe, you've lost me here. Copyright infringement occurs when
someone copies and distributes someone else's copyrighted material
without obtaining the consent of the copyright holder.
BPI, obviously, has every right to sell its material to anyone it
likes. That doesn't give FACTNet the right to copy it and distribute
it to others without first obtaining BPI's consent. Are you claiming
that just because something is sold to the public it isn't protected
by copyright law? That just doesn't make sense.
[snip]
>> >> Would you care to discuss this with Wollersheim and get back to us on
>> >> it?
>> >
>> >I sure will and I've forwarded a copy of this post to him.
>>
>> Great. Why not forward a copy of this one to him too, while you're at
>> it?
>
>Consider it done.
Thanks, Joe. I'm looking forward to his reply.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
MARGARETH1
In article <33dae292...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Let me suggest Arnie Lerma. He recently contacted me to tell me he
>had received a substantial donation from a religious organization, and
>that he intended to use this money to have copies made of the records
>of the Time magazine lawsuit. I'm sure I'm not the only person here
>who thinks that the money might better be used in making FACTNet's own
>legal documents in the current litigation available to readers.
If the money was donated to Arnie personally, as it sounds from your post
it was, then I don't see why he shouldn't use it in whatever way he thinks
would be most useful in fighting the cult at this time. I imagine that
was the intention of the donor. If the intent had been for it to be used
for FACTNet purposes, it would most likely have been donated to FACTNet.
Margaret H.
Diane Richardson
I'll be more than glad to discuss issues with Rob Clark if he cares to
discuss issues. As it is, I will respond to Rob Clark's ad hominem
attack on me in kind. Rob has shown an inability to refrain from
engaging in personal attacks when he fails to prevail in debate. I
will not remain silent in such a circumstance.
Presenting Rob Clark as an innocent victim of personal abuse is
absurd. He has heaped far more vitriolic abuse on others than he can
ever hope to receive himself.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 03:14:04 +0100, ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
McDermott) wrote:
>In article <33d92b1c...@snews.zippo.com>,
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>>Perhaps because Wollersheim et.al. do not wish to be shuttered into
>>>silence?
>>
>>I'm not aware of how shutters are utilized to silence anyone. Perhaps
>>you mean "shudder."
>>
>>Apparently you have failed to understand the content of the
>>magistrate's ruling posted here by an anonymous OSA (no doubt) poster,
>>which approved RTC's motion to withdraw their complaint against
>>FACTNet.
>
>I'm obviously somewhat lost here as well. In light of the fact that
>RTC were the plaintiff, how could Wollersheim be offered a settlement?
You're not the only one who's lost. FACTNet has done a marvelous job
of controlling information regarding their current litigation.
Newsgroup readers are kept in the dark about the lawsuit unless
Wollersheim decides it's time to feed the newsgroup some of his
propaganda bullshit in an effort to solicit donations.
The only information regarding the settlement negotiation which has
appeared on a.r.s. is Larry Wollersheim's version, which certainly
can't be accepted by anyone as an objective report. What actually
occurred in those talks will probably never be known by anyone who
wasn't present.
Wollersheim apparently didn't realize the news that RTC was abandoning
the lawsuit appeared before his latest fundraising appeal was posted.
He appealed for funds to defend against complaints that had already
been withdrawn.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:31:50 -0400, Joe Harrington
<joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The above is not something I wrote.
No, Joe, you didn't write it. You did, however, post it. I guess you
did so at the request of Larry Wollersheim, in your capacity as a
FACTNet volunteer.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Stephen Jones
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) reaches new levels of ugliness by
>attacking Robs confession:
>
>>Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
>>behind the "henri" curtain in real life.
>
> I think Aytch is improving himself. That you should slam him back
>into what he has confessed as his errors shows the darkness has taken
>hold in your soul, Di.
Nonsense. If Rob is re-examining things..well...bless him. I thought the
old Rob wasn't terrible but if he wants to look into a new
perspective..well...bless him. I think the current Diane has taken enough
crap from the old Rob and the semi-old Rob, things look better for the new
Rob, to justify reams of darkness. If Rob wants to examine his life via
the Internet...well...bless him. I just don't think anyone has an
obligation to provide a supportive environment. ARS is a terrible place to
look for an All Positive-All the Time support group....sorta. It seems all
Diane would have to do get some warm and fuzzy posts is to write about how
she was mean but now she realizes that being mean isn't being nice. KUDOS!
BRAVO! I'M GLAD YOU SEE IT MY WAY, FRIEND! I KNEW WE COULD PATCH THINGS
UP! Jeez.
>>Your on-line blustering,
>>posturing, and strutting about have lost their effect. I know what a
>>pathetic, lying little coward you really are.
>
> It is you who are revealed, Di.
>
>>You're a one-trick pony who has performed that trick too many times in
>>public, Rob. You're a washed-up has-been.
>
> I remember when you used to contribute more than bile to the
>newsgroup. It's sad, really.
>
> Please do what you said you were going to do several months ago.
>Throw away your files. Unsubscribe from ars. Don't try any further
>to waste your wisdom on us. We just don't appreciate it.
Nonsense, nonsense. Why on earth does she have to embrace Rob!? Rob
really hasn't been the bigger person in all of this. Why load-up on Diane?
I just don't get it. Spank 'em both if you feel it is needed or don't
bother. This selective Diane-bashing is terribly unjust (it also confuses
us Erlickers and Dianedroids. Perhaps I'll become a McDermotteer now that
he is thankfully posting again).
In desperate need of a kind father/mother/uncle/aunt/mythical being figure,
Stephen Jones
> At least not when it's laced with your condescending vitriol.
>
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <inF...@super.zippo.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
Zed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>I am not so sure about that. If Wollersheim has indeed been
>offered 12 million, 12 *million* dollars to settle down, I
>wouldn't call it a non-profitable venture. Am I the only one
>around here thinking that $12 million is an indecently huge
>amount of money for an individual?
>It makes me wonder how much other litigants received in order to
>be silenced - Paulette Cooper, David Mayo, and so many others.
>Although I am certainly not someone going to say anything
>against David Mayo otherwise, I personally find it regrettable,
>in some respect I am even shocked, that they should accept any
>monetary deal at all. Morally, I find this indefensible.
It's not the money so much as the harassment. There are transcripts
on some Freezone archives of tapes by a fellow named Ziegel (can't
remember the first name). In his last tape he renounced all his
previous tapes as lies. I seem to recall that he told David Mayo he
was changing sides because he just couldn't put up with the
harassment anymore.
Courage in the face of adversity is all very well, but people have
their limits.
Zed
Xenu Remailer for a.r.s.:
http://www.magna.com.au/~zed/remailer.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: cp850
iQEVAwUBM9ziQSsxIzhyTOOxAQG6rAgAj/b0BebvFnS4+JEFeQjhOZZ+86wqvFHP
lp9Jjc63dhwGYHYa86AdX3iopmzzjfe7P7WMwlCluSCOqgoRH1Kb/2zFgX9tsI4K
aoDyRIYTPFu2NKyi/gIxDr98T58D3PTe8RbKypc/R3k9ns585K8vTpWn8vb0Qh6E
2hSNZCaGBjudNvstuOfJfSPn5iTPwySqq63Musl5UPnsjpyoQ9CGR9E9SLerCvX3
Y12yVSVa/gTPrb704efMy5uDDTOOYVw/wB9RKaQtt8AgQ2gKYv0aKTV3HaYlp+R3
rU2ZjSPGE2DJFk5DEkGcenoI13pwZasTjrEOAJHIwPsGXcag+XhhMQ==
=aqb2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roland
Stephen Jones wrote:
>
> In article <33dcbfe8...@snews.zippo.com>,
> inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>
> >ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) reaches new levels of ugliness by
> >attacking Robs confession:
> >
> >>Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
> >>behind the "henri" curtain in real life.
I wish people would just *plonk* the bitch. She sounds better than our
recent Big-Baby spammer but underneath it she is much worse. She is
destructive. While she is arguing semantics and tying people in knots
with her intelligent sounding but inane arguments peoples lives are
being ruined by the cult. While some of us are out picketing, she is in
nit-picking. She is a deeply sick creature. People do her a diservice by
answering her posts. They keep her ill and they detract from doing
something useful to help overcome this cult problem.
*Plonk* the Bitch!
Roland
--
A The Xemu Leaflet: http://home.sn.no/~aheldall/leaflet/
/ \ OT PoWeRz !!!!: http://www.xs4all.nl/~jeta/
/ P \ Scientology compatible with Christianity? Oh Yea?
R --- C http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~rolandrb/nochrist.ra
"Somewhere between deciding to take the Comm Course and yelling at an
ashtray with delusions of Godhood, something happened that I would
describe as mind control" - Perry Scott
Peter McDermott
> Please do what you said you were going to do several months ago.
>Throw away your files. Unsubscribe from ars. Don't try any further
>to waste your wisdom on us. We just don't appreciate it.
Um, speak for yourself, Erlich. I don't need no sock-puppet.
But perhaps you've changed of late, and prefer people to
follow some invisible party line?
Martin Hunt
In article <33dafe47...@news.mindspring.com>,
xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>jon atack gave his permission to distribute his book, it seems, that
>as he was a director of FACTnet at the time his book was webbed, that
>he certainly hasn't objected.
Just to clarify this, Jon has said that he is not unhappy to see
his book on the web. However, he doesn't hold the copyrights, and
Carol has said no to webbing the book, and has objected.
Clear?
In any case, the book is still in print. I heartily recommend that
anyone who wants to read it buy a copy from Amazon. I would
suggest ordering a copy from the author so that he makes at
least something from it, but I don't know where his supplies
stand with that. Jon doesn't get one red cent from royalites
on this book, btw. He lost the rights to it in a bankruptcy.
The FACTnet scan is full of errors, but not as bad as Corydon's
scan, which has 5,000+ errors, as a matter of fact. If anyone
has purchased a copy of these books but would still like a scan
purely for research purposes, I can provide one. A scan does
facilitate text-searching and quotation, but there's no reason
to have one simply for reading if the book is still in print
and easy to purchase. Anyway, it's much nicer to have a copy
on the shelves, and it's much more pleasant to read than
computer screens.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. ARS & Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Warning: strong spamblocking software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc"
in From:, To:, or Subject: headers, or your email will not get through.
Peter McDermott
In article <33DC04...@worldnet.att.net>,
Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Peter McDermott wrote:
>>
>> In article <33D80A...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In spite of repeated requests for financial help, Internet and
>> >non-Internet free speech, privacy, and, library advocacy organizations
>> >have been all but invisible in this David and Goliath fight.
>>
>> Perhaps because the dummies *still* haven't learned to stop
>> spamming?
>
>The above is not something I wrote.
Perhaps not, but it *is* something you posted.
If you don't want Wollersheim's words attributed to you,
perhaps he should post from his own account instead of
having his lackeys do it for him?
Or you could try *reading* it before you post it?
Peter McDermott
In article <5rhj10$n...@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com>,
Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I think Aytch is improving himself. That you should slam him back
>>into what he has confessed as his errors shows the darkness has taken
>>hold in your soul, Di.
>
>Nonsense. If Rob is re-examining things..well...bless him. I thought the
>old Rob wasn't terrible but if he wants to look into a new
>perspective..well...bless him. I think the current Diane has taken enough
>crap from the old Rob and the semi-old Rob, things look better for the new
>Rob, to justify reams of darkness.
I always knew that mad bomber post was never a forgery. I always
thought it was a cowardly act to fail to acknowledge it for what
it was - a piece of Hunter S. Thompson style rhetoric. Rob should
have either owned it and apologized, or owned it and told them to
go fuck themselves and took the consequences.
Having to own up to it years afterwards is some weak shit.
Peter McDermott
In article <33dc229a...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>The only information regarding the settlement negotiation which has
>appeared on a.r.s. is Larry Wollersheim's version, which certainly
>can't be accepted by anyone as an objective report. What actually
>occurred in those talks will probably never be known by anyone who
>wasn't present.
I see there's been little change since the early days of Arnie's
case then. Keep 'em in the dark, let as little as possible
trickle out, and then only with a spin on it to maximize its
emotional impact, and *always* accompany it with a request
for more money.
Ho-hum.
What surprises me is that when the cult behaves in the same
way, so many people here scream blue murder. When FACTnet do
it, it's those who ask for more information that draw the
flack.
It does seem a trifle odd to me.
>Wollersheim apparently didn't realize the news that RTC was abandoning
>the lawsuit appeared before his latest fundraising appeal was posted.
>He appealed for funds to defend against complaints that had already
>been withdrawn.
I think we can fairly safely assume it won't be the last of
FACTnet's requests for funds. :-)
Peter McDermott
In article <hudEE0...@netcom.com>,
h...@netcom.com (Hud Nordin) wrote:
>In article <B001BEFC...@0.0.0.0> ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
>McDermott) writes:
>>I'm obviously somewhat lost here as well. In light of the fact that
>>RTC were the plaintiff, how could Wollersheim be offered a settlement?
>
>Both sides offer things in a settlement. It appeared that in this one
>that FACTNet might get money and the suit dropped and RTC might get
>destruction of files and silence. Roughly.
>
>It does seem unusual that the plaintiff RTC would offer cash as part of
>its settlement of the suit, but that could demonstrate a little of the
>true value of FACTNet's silence.
Unusual indeed. I can see that they might have offered some
sort of bribe to make the case go away, but I do find it strange
in light of the fact that all they have to do is just drop it -
as they did.
I also don't understand *how* it demonstrates the value of
FACTnet's silence. The truth is that there are many, many more
web site out there that are more useful and more damaging than
FACTnets. Why would it be worth 12 mil to them to silence FACTnet
while all those others still exist, particularly given the moral
impact it would have on their members in light of Hubbard's
demand 'Not one thin dime, etc.'
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 10:31:29 +0100, Roland <Rola...@netcomuk.co.uk>
wrote:
>Stephen Jones wrote:
>>
>> In article <33dcbfe8...@snews.zippo.com>,
>> inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>>
>> >ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) reaches new levels of ugliness by
>> >attacking Robs confession:
>> >
>> >>Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
>> >>behind the "henri" curtain in real life.
>
>I wish people would just *plonk* the bitch. She sounds better than our
>recent Big-Baby spammer but underneath it she is much worse. She is
>destructive. While she is arguing semantics and tying people in knots
>with her intelligent sounding but inane arguments peoples lives are
>being ruined by the cult. While some of us are out picketing, she is in
>nit-picking. She is a deeply sick creature. People do her a diservice by
>answering her posts. They keep her ill and they detract from doing
>something useful to help overcome this cult problem.
>
>*Plonk* the Bitch!
At least I don't advocate forcing Scientologists[tm] to wear
identifying insignia in public (yellow stars of David revisited) or
rounding all Scientologists[tm] up and incarcerating them (ala
concentration camps). Nor do I suggest that mail bombs to local orgs
would be a "good" thing.
Some sicknesses are more deadly than others, Roland. The sickness you
spread is well-known and lethally contagious. A lot of people have
lost their lives from it.
Coming from you, I wear the name Bitch with pride.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Rebecca Hartong
In article <33dc0d4a...@snews.zippo.com>, za...@die.spammers.mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>Peter,
>
>>So is this one a cultist then?
>
>You talkin bout me? Roflmao!
>
>>He obviously has some experience of their skills in argument.
>
>Yes, I don't have the inclination to get into an endless thread with
>the continually carping Diane.
>
>Stick around and learn what's going on kiddo.
Actually, if memory serves, Peter McDermott has been around a.r.s. for a long,
LONG time. I think I remember that name from maybe 3 or 4 years ago.
Joe Harrington
Peter,
Had you and several others taken the time to visit FactNet's web page,
you would have found many of the questions you sought regarding the
Bridge Publication case.
I post some excerpts of that case separately, along with the urls for
the complete file.
Joe
wgert
Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 23:32:07 -0400, Joe Harrington
>> <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> I fail to see what this case has to do with "freedom of speech on the
>> 'net." Do you?
>Seizing archives containing documents critical of Scientology, by what I
>consider a fraud upon the court, and then entangling the organization in
>expensive litigation in an attempt to bankrupt and overwhelm them and
>shut down the operation so as to deprive the public of access to these
>materials for the purpose of free and open discussion of the contents of
>these materials, in the public forum of the Internet, is certainly what
>I would consider an issue of "freedom of speech on the net".
The "freedom of speech on the net" is one of Wollersheim's buzz words
used to try and collect funds for his case. The whole probate matter
was a ploy to avoid the hard cold facts that 1) FACTNet people were
scanning thousands of pages of copyrighted works into their computers
and 2) they distributed these materials, at least in some cases, for a
fee, on CDs.
Arguing that he was a research library, that these were all scanned in
for litigation purposes, etc. are points that will have to be decided
by the court as legitimate. This is the evidence which FACTNet will
have to face and is why they have hired copyright experts i.e. to try
and find a way out of the overwhelming evidence. None of the
arguments which Wollesheim has put forth as arguments for the massive
copying of Scientology materials have been accepted by any of the
other cases where they have been used thus far: Lerma, Erlich, Ward,
Henson, etc.
>> But the "Advanced Technology" documents are RTC's responsibility, not
>> BPI's. I don't get your point.
> > Do you consider part of that vital public service includes copyright
>> infringement?
>You seem to be inferring that a judgement was entered that FactNet was
>found to be engaging in copyright infringement. I've seen no such
>judgement.
Don't you read? What about Arnie Lerma? Was he or was he not a
director and Treasurer of FACTNet? In case you are not up on what is
going on, he was found by the court to be a copyright infringer and
has a permanent injunction in force against him from doing it again.
FACTNet paid his legal fees! What more evidence do you need? Lerma
tried to get the court to rule RTC had not actually won the case and
he got a ruling which said just the opposite.
Joe, it is time to face the facts. You are supporting people who have
illegally engaged in copyright infringmenet. Trying to put a PR spin
to it makes you appear to be Wollersheim's puppet.
>I don't think any arms are being twisted to donate to FactNet, and I'm
>confident that if readers have a sound reason to believe that FactNet or
>anyone connected with FactNet is engaging in dishonest conduct with
>FactNet funds, I think they will withold any support. This certainly was
>a constant refrain of OSA in the past, and has been something implied by
>various cynics, yourself included. To date, I've seen nothing to give
>credence to these allegations and rest assured I'd be the first to make
>any substantial allegations public if I became aware of them.
>
You haven't found anything of credence because you have failed to look
are are helping Wollersheim to cover up what he is really doing with
the FACTNet finances. He has posted 990s up on his web site which are
not the same as the ones which he filed with the IRS. They are missing
attachments as well. Isn't that a bit dishonest?
Ask yourself, why has Wollersheim never answered the following:
1. how did he buy the new jeep?
2. where did he get the funds to pay for the new computer?
3. where did he get the funds to pya for the software and computer
programming time and the funds to pay to put up his web pages, to pay
his rent and food and living and travel expenses?
>I'm not confident that FactNet "infringed" ANY BPI copyrights since many
>non-confidential materials are readily available for purchase in the
>form of technical and adminstrative books and course packs, publically
>sold by the CofS.
What do you mean? Arnie Lerma, Director and Treasurer for FACTNet
was already found to have violated the copyrights. Who is "FACTNet"
if not its directors and officers?
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>>My point is, why in the hell do they expect FACTNet to agree to a
>>gag order? I thought it was a valid question.
>
>Did RTC expect FACTNet to agree to a gag order? Do you have any
>verification that Wollersheim is telling the truth about what was
said
>in the supposedly confidential settlement talks?
>
>Or are you willing to accept anything Wollersheim says as the
>god-given, objective truth? I'm certainly not willing to believe
>anything just because Wollersheim writes it.
I'm willing to read what I read here, and ask questions about it. I
was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that this was what
Usenet was all about. Discussion. Did I mess that up, too? Damn.
Please, Diane, TELL ME WHAT TO THINK (tm)!!!
For the humor-impaired, the above is a joke (tm). (B-{)})
>[snip]
>
>>>FACTNet doesn't *have* to roll over and make nice, for crying out
>>>loud! RTC has QUIT! They've dropped the lawsuit! Is that so
>>>difficult for you to understand?
>>
>>So whence the gag order? Are you telling us that this is fiction?
>
>It could be just that. It could be a very distorted explanation of
>what actually took place in those confidential talks. I'm just not
>willing to accept Wollersheim's claims as honest and objective
without
>hearing from others who also participated in those talks.
>
>OTOH, Wollersheim could be telling the whole, unvarnished truth.
>If that's the case, RTC did an end-run around FACTNet when they
>couldn't get the terms they were seeking from FACTNet in a
settlement.
>By dropping the lawsuit, RTC has essentially taken away FACTNet's
>excuse for squealing "victim" at every opportunity.
And FACTNet continues to exist, and the libraries continue to exist.
And RTC can't possibly be very happy about that. So they don't get
what they want by dropping the suit. I can't imaging (*) really
caring too much whether FACTNet "squeals victim" at any opportunity.
It would seem, IMHO, that the tech (bs) would be more important.
Assuming, of course, that what we've seen is the "whole, unvarnished
truth."
And I never made that assumption. I merely asked for clarification.
I suppose Bridge Publications is completely out of the picture,
too. Or maybe not. I just don't think the picture is quite as
simple as you would like us to believe, Diane. Maybe if you weren't
so busy vilifying FACTNet and all those involved at every
opportunity, you might take a look at the larger picture, also. But
then, maybe not--that wouldn't be nearly as much fun as telling us
all what scum Larry Wollersheim is, would it?
<snip>
>>>Got it?
>>
>>What I "got" is what I have read--extensively. What I read
recently
>>is that RTC expects Larry, Bob, Arnie, et.al., to agree to a gag
>>order. Why? Are you saying that this is fiction? Whence cometh
>>the $12M settlement discussion? Forgive my density, Diane. Some
of
>>us aren't omniscient like you are.
>
>It's not a question of omniscience, it's a question of being able
to
>comprehend simple concepts and simple words. You appear to be
>incapable of doing either. I see no evidence that you're any more
>capable of critical thought now than when you were a
>Scientologist[tm]/
Gee, my first official Diane flame (tm). Finally deflowered in
public! I'm honored! Was it good for you, too, Diane?
Diane, I'm not going to waste the effort of flaming you back. I
merely asked what I considered to be a reasonable question based on
what I have read. You know, maybe, just possibly, a little
clarification from Wollersheim and company? I'm not taking anything
as gospel--I'm just asking for information. Since you apparently
don't know too much about this specific subject (i.e., me), allow me
to clarify: I don't do "gospel". OK? You don't have the
information, and are operating simply on an assumption of evil
intent on the part of FACTNet (as evidenced by your decidedly
vitriolic posts against Wollersheim & co. [not to mention everyone
else]).
I'm not having any trouble at all understanding simple concepts and
words. I am having trouble, though, understanding why RTC
(allegedly) offered $12M to settle, demanding a gag order, while
OTOH, they have (apparently) dropped this particular case. My
deluded little mind finds a bit of a dilemma there. I'll continue
reading the ng (like I always do), and maybe I'll find a way out of
my little dilemma. Please forgive my intrusion on your most august
and important presence, Diane. I'd hate to think I wasted your time
on something so minor as a question posted to Usenet. The horror!
I won't bother you again. Maybe.
BTW, Diane, did you know me when I was a $cientologist? No? I
didn't think so. (For that matter, do you know me now?) How can
you possibly comment specifically on *my* capabilities WRT critical
thought during that period of my life? Would you care to present
some evidence to back up your assertion? Or are you just making
sweeping generalizations? Damn--wouldn't that just suck.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBM9zFEKn8flYc1m/ZAQGY+Af7BobXIJpu5APuxpB3jFI3cbt+K2ssh/4K
aJiu/d9Vfe3P7a0Z+G9zArp6a6Mbj0bnyG5FQAEYJd8/kzIn/WA6f0BQf3A+Oisr
hjWU3JqT+E2kVcNwHTNtM/cKsUHvo46WN7wFEwSaprv3MVshMA2pura0DAOnCMug
pI9QgHReMlAsw8DBAb7BrgUOmwFeFs2rbDkSnZYE9RMC/zraMSdwqYjm4ukHp7Rx
9N5fxxI1wLpySUxLUkL9NP0sTfEqZj85QMRmGyLAwSDRRN1nze2rmXeMSMUAVp5q
/wYdQbPiNbLuEByOQQFCSM+1bPmvXFlgToyzuqmvavR3MEzpRcDrbA==
=mQsQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------
"Only an object can be objective."
--bc
the above e-mail address remains fictional...
the real one is bc9...@concentric.net
*SP2*
...bc...
Peter McDermott
In article <33DC66...@netcomuk.co.uk>,
Roland <Rola...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
>> >>behind the "henri" curtain in real life.
>
>I wish people would just *plonk* the bitch. She sounds better than our
>recent Big-Baby spammer but underneath it she is much worse. She is
>destructive. While she is arguing semantics and tying people in knots
>with her intelligent sounding but inane arguments peoples lives are
>being ruined by the cult. While some of us are out picketing, she is in
>nit-picking. She is a deeply sick creature. People do her a diservice by
>answering her posts. They keep her ill and they detract from doing
>something useful to help overcome this cult problem.
Actually, I think I'd much rather *plonk* this sort of
irrational totalitarian bullshit instead.
*PLONK!*
Keith Henson
Peter McDermott (ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
snip
: I see there's been little change since the early days of Arnie's
: case then. Keep 'em in the dark, let as little as possible
: trickle out, and then only with a spin on it to maximize its
: emotional impact, and *always* accompany it with a request
: for more money.
Actually, Peter, the lawyers for LW are no doubt pissed because
settlement talks are supposed to be confidential, before, during and
after. On the other hand Lawrence is a wild man.
: Ho-hum.
: What surprises me is that when the cult behaves in the same
: way, so many people here scream blue murder. When FACTnet do
: it, it's those who ask for more information that draw the
: flack.
I don't care. If LW uses the money I send to buy himself, Arnie and Bob
Penny a case of beer, then, my response is Cheers! Keith Henson
Tilman Hausherr
In <33dc229a...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
>Wollersheim apparently didn't realize the news that RTC was abandoning
>the lawsuit appeared before his latest fundraising appeal was posted.
>He appealed for funds to defend against complaints that had already
>been withdrawn.
This doesn't matter as the news would have appeared anyway, and
provoking the same argument. Whether his appeal was right or not has yet
to be seen. Even without any legal ground to stand on, BPI could still
continue to sue for years. One claim has been that the works were in a
public area.
I agree that FACTNet hasn't told much about the trial, but I guess this
is more a result of their total disorganization and work overload. I
submitted *two* donations to them per credit card a year ago, none of
them was ever cashed, although I had told them several times about it.
After that I was pissed off and I made no third attempt and won't in the
future. (This does not mean that I encourage others to do the same. I
support FACTNet with my thoughts and I consider it good).
This certainly disproves that FACTNet "are only after the money".
tall...@storm.ca
>Nonsense, nonsense. Why on earth does she have to embrace Rob!? Rob
>really hasn't been the bigger person in all of this. Why load-up on Diane?
>I just don't get it. Spank 'em both if you feel it is needed or don't
>bother. This selective Diane-bashing is terribly unjust (it also confuses
>us Erlickers and Dianedroids. Perhaps I'll become a McDermotteer now that
>he is thankfully posting again).
>
>In desperate need of a kind father/mother/uncle/aunt/mythical being figure,
>Stephen Jones
Become a Tashback-olyte. Far less confusing, and you always seem to wind up on
the right side.
K
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <33DC66...@netcomuk.co.uk>,
>I wish people would just *plonk* the bitch. She sounds better than our
>recent Big-Baby spammer but underneath it she is much worse. She is
>destructive. While she is arguing semantics and tying people in knots
>with her intelligent sounding but inane arguments peoples lives are
>being ruined by the cult. While some of us are out picketing, she is in
>nit-picking. She is a deeply sick creature. People do her a diservice by
>answering her posts. They keep her ill and they detract from doing
>something useful to help overcome this cult problem.
>
I agree absolutely. Diane differs only in degree from Koos
in being a highly intelligent person who applies their intelligence
to insane and vindictive pruposes. Don't waste your time on her.
--
I plonked the Witch of Zun! Which old witch? The Witch of Zun
I plonked the Wicked Witch of Zun!
Hi Ho, Ko-Brin's the Ho, Sing it high, and sing it low
I plonked the Wicked Witch of Zun! --MR.
/ /^(From|References):.*bway\.net/h
_.._
(.--.) Dave Bird, Pope Potamus IIIrd--
.-~'\__/'~-. St Hippo of Agustine in
: ./~~\. : the First Canine Chapel of Bob Dobbs' Dog
::: (.__.) ::: (Church of the SubGenius)
~~~~
Tilman Hausherr
>> I wish people would just *plonk* the bitch.
>
>I'd had not called her a bitch, but there is a long time that i plonked
>her; she has no balls to respond to direct attacks or questions i asked
>her in mail: she's an intellect with no balls nor heart.
I haven't plonked her. I am still waiting for the day she will tell her
motives. Some know that she hasn't always been like that. A few weeks
ago she made allegations about FACTNet that were so easy to refute that
I was surprised.
Hey, I'm plonking Keith Wyatt instead. He's a troll who likes to post
illogical stuff to get responses.
Scott Goehring
In article <33da0fa1...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>There is absolutely nothing criminal about owning copies of publicly
>distributed copyrighted works (well, duh!).
No, but the possession of copies of a work that were made without
permission is strong evidence of unlicensed copying, which is an
infringement.
>Copyright infringement does not occur if you make a photocopy of a
>copyrighted work -- not even if you scan that work into a computer.
False. See, for example, the IMSAI case, where the simple act of
loading a program from a disk drive into system memory was adjudicated
to be actionable infringement.
>Infringment occurs only if you *distribute* the work that has been
>photocopied or scanned without the copyright owner's authorization.
False. Section 106 specifically states that the right to "reproduce
the copyrighted work in copies" is an exclusive right of the copyright
owner. Distribution is separately granted as an exclusive right;
doing either without license is infringement.
>You cannot be found liable for copyright infringment if you videotape
>a television program to watch in your own home. You only infringe if
>you distribute that videotape to others rather than keeping it for
>your own personal entertainment and/or use.
Ah, but not because making such a copy is not prohibited by Section
106. Rather, Section 106's grant of the exlusive right to making
copies is circumscribed in this case by the limitation on the
exclusive rights granted by Section 107. See SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL
CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
>5. Unless BPI can prove that FACTNet has distributed BPI-copyrighted
>works to other people without BPI's express consent, BPI has no proof
>that FACTNet has violated BPI's copyright.
Again, distribution is not the only means by which one can infringe on
a copyright. There are six exclusive rights granted by Section 106
(and one more granted by Section 106A) and infringing on any of them
is an infringement of the copyright, unless the specific act falls
within one of the limitations laid out in Sections 107 through 120.
In practice, the making of personal copies of most types of works
falls within Section 107's purview, but there may be exceptions; for
example, a copy made for the purpose of future unlicensed distribution
or future incorporation into an unlicensed derived work would be an
infringement, even if the distribution or derivation never took place.
Martin Hunt
In article <33dc229a...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>The only information regarding the settlement negotiation which has
>appeared on a.r.s. is Larry Wollersheim's version...
Wrong, Diane: Larry's is not the only side which has appeared. You have
posted about it, giving one other side, and also, more importantly,
the cult has posted about it and given its side of the question as well.
Don't let your biases get in the way of the facts, Diane.
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
>behind the "henri" curtain in real life.
Now, now, Diane; you *know* enough logic to avoid errors like this!
Just because henri's dick withered at the sight of you doesn't
make him "impotent"; it could just mean, for example, that you're
so ugly that you turned him off. Maybe if he saw a real babe
his organ would stand up and pay attention? Have you at least
*considered* that possibility objectively? Let's at least *try*
to be rational about this, please.
ttyl,
martin.
Martin Hunt
In article <B001BEFD...@0.0.0.0>,
ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>In article <33da2cbc...@snews.zippo.com>,
>za...@die.spammers.mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>
>>Diane,
>>
>>>Maybe he was trying to get in one last appeal for donations before
>>>news that the lawsuit was dropped hit a.r.s.
>>
>>Fuck off. It's obvious why you're refered to as Wichardson.
>
>So is this one a cultist then? He obviously has some experience
>of their skills in argument.
Welcome back, Peter; long time no see!
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps you
should read things for a couple weeks before commenting, particularly
if the comments are going to be as incendiary and stupid as this. :-)
No, Zane isn't a cultist; he's our local hothead, is all. You know
the type; we had them years ago, and we've still got them.
When you were last contributing, ars was the big deal. It isn't
any more, and hasn't been for some time. It's all on the web. Start
with Operation Clambake.
Still, the newspaper articles, and, as always, the court documents
are entertaining. The debate...forget it. Email.
>Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Peter McDermott wrote:
>
>> Perhaps because the dummies *still* haven't learned to stop
>> spamming?
>
>The above is not something I wrote.
Hmm. Peter. Tsk, tsk.
roger gonnet
Roland wrote:
>
> Stephen Jones wrote:
> >
> > In article <33dcbfe8...@snews.zippo.com>,
> > inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
> >
> > >ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) reaches new levels of ugliness
> by
> > >attacking Robs confession:
> > >
> > >>behind the "henri" curtain in real life.
>
I'd had not called her a bitch, but there is a long time that i plonked
her; she has no balls to respond to direct attacks or questions i asked
her in mail: she's an intellect with no balls nor heart.
A robot.
Intellectual robotic girl.
She sounds better than our
> recent Big-Baby spammer but underneath it she is much worse. She is
> destructive. While she is arguing semantics and tying people in knots
> with her intelligent sounding but inane arguments peoples lives are
> being ruined by the cult. While some of us are out picketing, she is
> in
> nit-picking. She is a deeply sick creature. People do her a diservice
> by
> answering her posts. They keep her ill and they detract from doing
> something useful to help overcome this cult problem.
>
> *Plonk* the Bitch!
Adopted since months. Same for the scraftsfts and scarrfffts, pfft!
Roger
Martin Hunt
In article <33e2d8db...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>marga...@aol.com (MARGARETH1) wrote:
>
>>>I wonder if there are still people, other than Thick-as-a-brick
>>>Tilman, and other than our otherwise very wise Joe, continuing
>>>to support FactNet.
>>>Bernie
>>
>>Well, there's Thick-as-a-brick (or should that be "otherwise very wise"
>>;-)) me; also, off the top of my head, Bev, Martin Hunt, Dennis Erlich,
>
> You are not authorized to use my name in this fashion, SOse. I
>don't need a sock-puppet.
<sigh>
Same here, Margaret; please leave me out of it. I'm quite ambivalent
about FACTnet, as well as most other things on this planet. I really
would rather not be a part of your little list of defined people with
defined sympathies and motives.
Anyone who wishes to know my opinions about FACTnet can read back
on DejaNews; what I wrote, I meant. Whether I still hold the same
opinions, I do not know.
Martin Hunt
In article <5rivfi$dom$1...@news.istar.ca>,
tall...@storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>Become a Tashback-olyte. Far less confusing, and you always seem
>to wind up on the right side.
How does one become a Tashback-olyte, exactly? Is it expensive?
Is it hard? Are there any odious hazing rituals? Does one have
to be a Canadian citizen? Does it conflict with arscc membership?
Does it prohibit certain posting styles, use of words, or is it
censorious in any other ways?
Inquiringly,
William Barwell
In article <33d89481...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On 25 Jul 1997 08:14:24 GMT, Kba...@uctlib.uct.ac.za (Kim Baker)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> 12 million bucks?
>> 12 *million* bucks?
>>
>> Well, so much for the "Wolly's only out for the money"
>> school of thought - that would have made a nice, comfortable
>> life-style, even after costs, reimbursements, etc.
>>
>> I knew it. It's so nice to be right. :-)
>
>How much of that $12 million would have gone to FACTNet's lawyers and
>not into Wollersheim's pocket? Berry and the rest of the much-vaunted
>"dream-team" are working on a contingency basis, aren't they?
>
>Sorry, Kim, but you're still falling for the same old bull.
Shut up Diane. You are babbling shit again.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Stephen Jones
>>This selective Diane-bashing is terribly unjust (it also confuses
>>us Erlickers and Dianedroids. Perhaps I'll become a McDermotteer now
>>that he is thankfully posting again).
>Become a Tashback-olyte. Far less confusing, and you always seem to wind
>up on the right side.
Right you are. I'll call myself a TashBacker.
I've found a home,
Stephen Jones
>K
>
>
Stephen Jones
In article <33df0d26...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>I think the current Diane has taken enough
>>crap from the old Rob and the semi-old Rob, things look better for the
>>new Rob, to justify reams of darkness.
>
> Rob's post was not vitriolic or ugly. Diane's responses are
>becoming more and more bilious. The one directed at Aytch is a
>needlessly vicious attack on someone who is attempting to change for
>the better, having confessed his failings and asked for our
>forgiveness.
Change for the better? Perhaps. I guess I'm not seeing any change. It is
sorta the same thing just using different words. I don't want to be overly
critical because though I don't know him I like him...I've enjoyed many of
his posts...etc. etc.
> Rob even took a month off the newsgroup to let things cool down and
>to regain his balance. His return shows the benefit of lowering the
>heat on the rhetoric. Then Di comes out of left field and wants to
>turn it up again.
Ok. While this comparison is rather shaky, I'd ask you to smooch Fishman if
he ever apologizes to you.
<snip>
>>ARS is a terrible place to
>>look for an All Positive-All the Time support group....sorta.
>
> I'm just pointing out some ugliness in Diane's part. She didn't
>have to respond to Rob's post at all.
Ok.
>>It seems all
>>Diane would have to do get some warm and fuzzy posts is to write about
>>how
>>she was mean but now she realizes that being mean isn't being nice.
>>KUDOS!
>>BRAVO! I'M GLAD YOU SEE IT MY WAY, FRIEND! I KNEW WE COULD PATCH THINGS
>>UP! Jeez.
>
> That's bullshit, Stephen.
Two words: Keith Wyatt.
> Nobody expects anybody to do anything of the sort. Diane is a
>contrarian. She disagrees because it is like a religion to her.
>Asking her to agree to something is like asking her to submit herself
>to voluntary commitment. She screams "censorship."
Maybe...but all sorts of interesting things come to light because someone
is willing to say unpopular things. Even if it was all for sport,
interesting things happen.
>>> Please do what you said you were going to do several months ago.
>>>Throw away your files. Unsubscribe from ars. Don't try any further
>>>to waste your wisdom on us. We just don't appreciate it.
>>Nonsense, nonsense. Why on earth does she have to embrace Rob!?
>
> Didn't say she did, Stephen.
>
>>Rob really hasn't been the bigger person in all of this.
>
> Rob admits his errors and tries to improve.
Many of us do this without a parade.
>>Why load-up on Diane?
>
> Because Rob's point, that vitriol is unhealthy, applies directly to
>Diane's response.
>
> Ironic, iznit?
It is. Almost as ironic as your vitriol-laced defense of moderation.
>>I just don't get it. Spank 'em both if you feel it is needed or don't
>>bother.
>
> Nobody's being "spanked". I am merely commenting on the fact that
>Diane's posts indicate a increasingly unhealthy element of vitriol.
Well, i think I may have placed myself in a position of trying to spank
you. Yes, it is an ugly image...sorry I mentioned it. It really isn't a
position i'm glad to have gotten myself into. Anyway, i'm commenting on
the unhealthy element of vitriol in your post to Diane. Now if someone
would only comment on my unhealthy element of vitriol, the circle would be
complete.
>>This selective Diane-bashing is terribly unjust (it also confuses
>>us Erlickers and Dianedroids. Perhaps I'll become a McDermotteer now
>>that he is thankfully posting again).
>
> Become whatever TF you want, Stephen.
A song from a musical? It is inspiring.
"Become whatever TF you want, Stephen."
"Just don't become a heathen!"
"Hang the frame half-way even!"
"Bake your bread semi-leven!"
"Wear clothes partially weaven!"
"Just become whatever the fuck you want, Stephennnnn!"
>>In desperate need of a kind father/mother/uncle/aunt/mythical being
>>figure,
>
> "It ain't me, babe." - B. Dylan
That's ok. I've realized that hoping to find a meaning in life by placing
my faith in a stranger or authority figure is a shallow existance. My new
friends, The Scads of People From Over Yonder Who Will Make You Very
Prosperous, agree. I'm at pierce with myself, brother.
Stephen Jones
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <inF...@super.zippo.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
Zane Thomas
Martin,
>No, Zane isn't a cultist; he's our local hothead, is all. You know
>the type; we had them years ago, and we've still got them.
Roflmao! Perhaps you should read _all_ my posts, might help you make
statements that are a little less rash.
zane za...@die.spammer.mabry.com
*** spammer busters ***
tall...@mail.storm.ca
In article <xYU3zMdl...@islandnet.com>, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <5rivfi$dom$1...@news.istar.ca>,
>tall...@storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>
>>Become a Tashback-olyte. Far less confusing, and you always seem
>>to wind up on the right side.
>
>Is it hard? Are there any odious hazing rituals? Does one have
>to be a Canadian citizen? Does it conflict with arscc membership?
>Does it prohibit certain posting styles, use of words, or is it
>censorious in any other ways?
The only prerequisite to becoming a Tashbackolyte is wit and/or charm. (Both
are preferable, of course.)
The price is surprisingly reasonable, and the hazing rituals are now fully
standardized, and legal in almost all US states and territories, as well as
Canada. There is a reciprocal agreementwith the ARSCC, and members of both
organizations (one of which, of course, does not exist) receive a minimum 10%
discount on all Tashback-related merchandise, with further discounts subject
to determination based on one's SP ranking, as well as one's Sycophant
Quotient.
All words are permitted; the one restriction being that they must be properly
spelled and punctuated, and not actively contradict Strunk and White.
Yours very truly,
K., TBA
Body router and registrar
tall...@mail.storm.ca
In article <seekon-2707...@sjx-ca82-15.ix.netcom.com>, see...@spamtrap.ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote:
> incidentally, RTC cited the Lehman proposals in one of their
> arguments in the Netcom et al case before Judge Whyte.
> Without fair use, of course, scientology would be in a much
> better position to use copyright as a means of controlling
> criticism about scientology.
This represented the first (and, I suspect, not the last) time that I found
my a.r.s-derived knowledge and experiences to have real, practical
application in the real world. (Well, other than the cult-proofing stuff.)
When I was talking to the creator and user communities to research my story, I
found myself unconciously weighing their arguments vis a vis an organization
bent on controlling information in a scientology-like fashion. I like to think
it gave me a unique perspective, and a good filter through which to
investigate an issue ensnarled in a labyrinth of competing interests.
> i would guess the lehman report must still be on the net
> somewhere. i ought to go look for it.
All I have to say to you 'mericans is this: learn from our mistakes north of
the border. Intellectual property law doesn't have to trample over fair use,
so don't let an avaricious lobby blindside the public interest the way it did
in Canada last year.
K
have you hugged a librarian today?
Diane Richardson
On 28 Jul 1997 22:20:37 GMT, sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Scott
Goehring) wrote:
>In article <33da0fa1...@snews.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>
>>There is absolutely nothing criminal about owning copies of publicly
>>distributed copyrighted works (well, duh!).
>
>No, but the possession of copies of a work that were made without
>permission is strong evidence of unlicensed copying, which is an
>infringement.
>
>>Copyright infringement does not occur if you make a photocopy of a
>>copyrighted work -- not even if you scan that work into a computer.
>
>False. See, for example, the IMSAI case, where the simple act of
>loading a program from a disk drive into system memory was adjudicated
>to be actionable infringement.
If I remember that case correctly, the decision was a controversial
one and not at all universally agreed upon. Was this decision
appealed and upheld on appeal?
>>Infringment occurs only if you *distribute* the work that has been
>>photocopied or scanned without the copyright owner's authorization.
>
>False. Section 106 specifically states that the right to "reproduce
>the copyrighted work in copies" is an exclusive right of the copyright
>owner. Distribution is separately granted as an exclusive right;
>doing either without license is infringement.
Can you cite a single successful lawsuit which was based solely on
making one copy for personal (not business) use?
I'd be interested in hearing about it if you do. To my knowledge, the
courts have still refused to consider individual copies for personal
use as infringing. This has, of course, been an issue of great
concern to the IP industry and intellectual freedom advocates for
quite some time. As far as I know, the courts have still held their
ground on that one.
>>You cannot be found liable for copyright infringment if you videotape
>>a television program to watch in your own home. You only infringe if
>>you distribute that videotape to others rather than keeping it for
>>your own personal entertainment and/or use.
>
>Ah, but not because making such a copy is not prohibited by Section
>106. Rather, Section 106's grant of the exlusive right to making
>copies is circumscribed in this case by the limitation on the
>exclusive rights granted by Section 107. See SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL
>CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
I've read it. In my opinion, an argument equally as valid as
time-shifting can be made for scanning materials into a hard drive
rather than retaining the purchased copy. I doubt that any copyright
owner -- other than the CoS or their ilk -- would attempt to sue for
violation of copyright if the case was based only on the existence of
a single copy scanned onto a hard drive.
>>5. Unless BPI can prove that FACTNet has distributed BPI-copyrighted
>>works to other people without BPI's express consent, BPI has no proof
>>that FACTNet has violated BPI's copyright.
>
>Again, distribution is not the only means by which one can infringe on
>a copyright. There are six exclusive rights granted by Section 106
>(and one more granted by Section 106A) and infringing on any of them
>is an infringement of the copyright, unless the specific act falls
>within one of the limitations laid out in Sections 107 through 120.
>In practice, the making of personal copies of most types of works
>falls within Section 107's purview, but there may be exceptions; for
>example, a copy made for the purpose of future unlicensed distribution
>or future incorporation into an unlicensed derived work would be an
>infringement, even if the distribution or derivation never took place.
Proving intent to distribute a pirated document at some future date is
not quite the easiest thing to do in a court of law. It wouldn't be
difficult if FACTNet had a warehouse filled with CD-ROMs and sale
fliers all printed and ready to mail, but unless I've missed something
big, I haven't seen FACTNet do anything quite that stupid.
Or have they?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On 28 Jul 1997 18:35:45 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:
>In article <33dc229a...@snews.zippo.com>,
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>The only information regarding the settlement negotiation which has
>>appeared on a.r.s. is Larry Wollersheim's version...
>
>Wrong, Diane: Larry's is not the only side which has appeared. You have
>posted about it, giving one other side, and also, more importantly,
>the cult has posted about it and given its side of the question as well.
I have posted my opinion of Wollersheim's story. I was not privy to
the settlement negotiations and have no information to provide on it.
Why do you claim that I have information on confidential settlement
negotiations? That's perhaps the strangest thing you've written about
me yet.
As for RTC, I have seen literally *nothing* from them about the
settlement talks Wollersheim reported on. Have I missed something?
>Don't let your biases get in the way of the facts, Diane.
I think you're confused or so eager to disagree with me that you're
not reading before responding. I was speaking above about the
confidential settlement talks that purportedly took place between RTC
and Larry Wollersheim. The only information I've seen about these
talks is what Wollersheim posted here. Joe Harrington also posted the
same message, specifying that it came from Wollersheim.
Have you seen additional posts about those settlement negotiations on
a.r.s,.? The only other mention of them I can remember was a "gossip"
item in **Biased Journalism**.
>
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>
>>Just remember that I've seen the impotent little coward who hides
>>behind the "henri" curtain in real life.
>
>Now, now, Diane; you *know* enough logic to avoid errors like this!
>Just because henri's dick withered at the sight of you doesn't
>make him "impotent"; it could just mean, for example, that you're
>so ugly that you turned him off. Maybe if he saw a real babe
>his organ would stand up and pay attention? Have you at least
>*considered* that possibility objectively? Let's at least *try*
>to be rational about this, please.
Ah, now I understand! You were just looking for an excuse to post
this prepubescent taunt.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Stephen Jones
In article <33de6430...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>>It seems all
>>>>Diane would have to do get some warm and fuzzy posts is to write about
>>>>how
>>>>she was mean but now she realizes that being mean isn't being nice.
>>>>KUDOS!
>>>>BRAVO! I'M GLAD YOU SEE IT MY WAY, FRIEND! I KNEW WE COULD PATCH
>>>>THINGS UP! Jeez.
>
> [line length]
>
>YHN:
>>> That's bullshit, Stephen.
>
>Stephen:
>>Two words: Keith Wyatt.
>
> You lost me here. What TF are you talking about?
You remember Gun Bunny. Let me paraphrase:
"Man, i'm sorry i acted rashly. I'm an alcoholic. I'll put up an
anti-CoS page."
ARS's response (paraphrase)
"Yippee, Keith has come to his senses! Damn the bastard demon
alcohol! Stick with it, pal."
Gun Bunny: I changed my mind. Liars. I bet the police are looking for Rob.
Hypocrisy or something. Bye. Hello. Bye. Hello.
ARS's reponse: Fuck you, lush! *PLONK* Rum_Bunny!
(I know, i know. Not *all* of ars did/said any of this)
ARS loves to reform and loves the reformed. I would get misty but it always
seems to blow-up in our face. Hiya, Kim. Garry, pleased to see you. Howdy,
Fishman. Gun Bunny, you'll pull through. Who else am I missing?
Anyway, in my experience, people change slowly or they don't change much at
all. Sudden change has been rare where I live. Has Kim changed. I don't
see it. Garry? Self-evident. Fishman? Join Scarff. Gun Bunny? Whatever.
The words may change and the cause may change but they are still saying the
essence of the same thing. I'm not saying sudden change is impossible, I
just think it is rare and very difficult. Bless the optimists who think it
is kinda common.
ANYWAY, sorry about the above paragraph, what I intended to say with my
original post, and it really ruins it by having to explain it, is that
Diane could take advantage of ARS's giddy belief in miracles and the power
of it's righteous message by posting a brief "Y'all were right. I was too
mean. Thanks, ARS." post. The crowd would go nuts. People may even begin
to tell small lies for her and stuff. Pretty neat, if you ask me....and
you did!
>>Well, i think I may have placed myself in a position of trying to spank
>>you. Yes, it is an ugly image...sorry I mentioned it. It really isn't a
>>position i'm glad to have gotten myself into. Anyway, i'm commenting on
>>the unhealthy element of vitriol in your post to Diane. Now if someone
>>would only comment on my unhealthy element of vitriol, the circle would
>>be
>>complete.
>
> Yes, complete and utter bullsh^t.
Maybe.
Stephen Jones
"May the circle be unbrooookennnn" - a songwriter
Martin Hunt
In article <33dc877...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Some sicknesses are more deadly than others, Roland. The sickness you
>spread is well-known and lethally contagious. A lot of people have
>lost their lives from it.
Stop the presses; I thought it was *Garry Scarff* who had AIDS?!?
Martin Hunt
In article <5rjrtp$s4n$1...@news.istar.ca>,
tall...@mail.storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
All right; sign me up! I can use some more stuff for my vanity .sig, anyway.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ttyl,
martin.
Martin Hunt
In article <33dd50ac...@snews.zippo.com>,
za...@die.spammers.mabry.com (Zane Thomas) wrote:
>Martin,
>
>>No, Zane isn't a cultist; he's our local hothead, is all. You know
>>the type; we had them years ago, and we've still got them.
>
>Roflmao! Perhaps you should read _all_ my posts, might help you make
>statements that are a little less rash.
I *have* read all your posts; everything you've ever posted here
since day one, Zane. :-)
>zane za...@die.spammer.mabry.com
>
>see http://www.mabry.com
>
>*** spammer busters ***
>
>back...@dumbass.com
>Eat...@yourbox.com
>fo...@S.pammer.com
Posting fascist!
Martin Hunt
In article <33dc44f...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,>>>I wish people would just *plonk* the bitch. She sounds better than our
>>
>>Actually, I think I'd much rather *plonk* this sort of
>>irrational totalitarian bullshit instead.
>>
>>*PLONK!*
>>
> *PLONK*
Stupid, childish plonkers. Everyone is *so* fascinated about the
contents of your killfiles. People literally sit on the edge of
their seats awaiting the news about the minute changes in your
killfiles. And, of course, you *are* the center of the universe.
The Unbearable Lameness of Plonking.
Why do people <plonk>? What is a <plonk>?
=========================================
Plonking: the childish habit of announcing the contents of your
killfile on Usenet done as a means of getting even with someone
who has annoyed you. These people truly need to get a life. Or
is it actually the case that the most interesting thing these
people have to say and contribute to the discussion in commentary
about their killfile's contents? Can it be that some people are
so self-obsessed that they truly believe that the contents of
their killfiles are a source of endless fascination for everyone
else? Perhaps one day a <plonking> newsletter will be circulated
with the names of the celebrities and the people in their
killfiles. Will it be accorded an honour to earn the right to
be in certain people's killfiles? Read on: this has already taken
place.
Why is <plonk> used? The sound of a name dropping into a killfile.
Yes, it's childish. Yes, it's immature. Yes, it's off-topic, except
for alt.plonk. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, it makes the person doing it
look foolish. Yes, it's supremely egotistical to think that everyone
is dying to know the contents of your killfile. But wait! There's more.
Usenet has something of a youth culture to it due to a large number
of young participants. Sometimes this lends a welcome fresh approach;
at other times it comes with some of the attributes of youth best
left behind at the entry point into adulthood.
Plonking awards: Stupidest <plonk>: Margaret:
=============================================
Article #255925 (256692 is last):
From: marg...@aol.com (Margelis)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Announce: (multiple) *PLONK*
Reply-To: marg...@aol.com (Margelis)
Date: Sun Sep 1 20:14:14 1996
I have killfiled the following list of people, so as not to
continually run into their off-topic postings about me, as i
would prefer to concentrate on more serious things without
being distracted by flames. I invite them, and anyone else
who doesn't wish to read my posts, to do the same to me.
(In order of the number of posts they have graced me with
in the past week): h3, Martin Hunt, Tashback, Barbara Snow,
Marina Chong, Cat Davidson-Hall, Tarla Star, Steve A, Dave
Gerard, Perry Scott, and Lance Buckley
Margaret H.
(It later turned out that AOL doesn't support killfiles!) This
post also won the award for most massive <plonk>, and became a
point of honour for the people so <plonked> in their .sigs with
the line: KBFM (killfiled by Margaret).
Plonking awards: Most Childish <plonk>: Dave Bird:
==================================================
I plonked the Witch of Zun! Which old witch? The Witch of Zun
I plonked the Wicked Witch of Zun!
Hi Ho, Ko-Brin's the Ho, Sing it high, and sing it low
I plonked the Wicked Witch of Zun! --MR.
/ /^(From|References):.*bway\.net/h
_.._
(.--.) Dave Bird, Pope Potamus IIIrd--
.-~'\__/'~-. St Hippo of Agustine in
: ./~~\. : the First Canine Chapel of Bob Dobbs' Dog
::: (.__.) ::: (Church of the SubGenius)
~~~~
(This is frequently seen in his .sig file, and has probably been
posted 100 times or more; it refers to Diane Richardson.)
Honourable mentions:
====================
Damon "I have had him killfiled for 8 or 9 months" Chetson
(Thank you for that vital information. I don't know where we'd be
without it.)
Marina "FWIW I killfiled Dave Bird for three months this year" Chong
(What is it worth? I wouldn't bet the farm.)
Sister "I killfiled Koos" Clara
(Who didn't? Hardly much sport in that. See if you can catch a
bigger fish in that thar thang.)
Rod "you post too much" Keller
(Good a reason as any, I guess, but you should have emailed it,
you see, because you were already in *my* killfile, so nyah nyah nyah!)
More on the unbearable lameness of <plonking>:
==============================================
One argument has it that <plonks> need to be announced, that they
serve a vital function in informing the person so <plonked> that
someone is ignoring them. Of course, this so-called vital function
could probably be served in email.
It has been said that announcing <plonks> is childish. One person
even said, in email, "I never announce <plonks>, as it's immature,
but I did want to tell you that I have killfiled you." The irony,
the irony. Children sometimes do this: <ring ring> "Hello". "Hello".
"Who's there?" "Me". Adults often escape the bonds of pure egotism
into a slightly more advanced way of dealing with reality, but not
always! <plonking> is a case in point; three-year-old behaviour
widespread on Usenet, indicting the <plonker> far more than the
<plonked> could ever be.
When to use a <plonk>:
======================
1. when you're losing the argument.
2. when other people do. (this is called gang-bang <plonking>. The
best example of this was for Garry Scarff, who racked up a world
record for killfile announcements in just a few short days.)
Netters are nothing if not deeply devoted to the herd instinct.
3. when you want to hurt the person, really, really badly, and you're
not very good at expressing yourself in more adult terms.
4. when you're three years old.
5. when the other person says something that upsets or disturbs you,
and you have the unbearable desire to shove your pinkies deep in
your ears and run away humming and singing "la la la la la!" and
"I can't HEAR you!"
6. when you have spare credibility, and you want to shed some.
7. when you're approaching your second childhood.
8. when you want to make the point that the other person just isn't
as cool and mature as you are. You'll show them! You know how to
be adult about it; you'll <plonk> them, and after that devastating
blow, they'll just shrivel up like the little worm they are and
disappear.
9. when typing FOAD becomes too difficult and it keeps coming out as
"FAOD".
10. after someone else has killfiled you. Don't get mad; get even.
How? By taking it out on someone else, of course. There has to
be some relief for these unbearable tensions.
11. When your newsreader doesn't support killfiles but you still
can't resist. (thanks, Prignillius!)
When not to use a <plonk>:
==========================
As often as you can manage.
Where do <plonks> belong in the ranking of bad and terrible posts:
==================================================================
1. a one-liner.
2. a me-too post.
3. an off-topic post.
4. a lame troll.
5. an all-caps IN THE NAME OF JEEEEEEEEEEEESUUUUUUUUUSSSSSS!!! post.
6. a make money fast post.
7. a cross-posted spam.
8. a "vertical" spam post.
9. a binary post.
10. a <plonk> post or killfile announcement.
Best flame of a <plonker>:
==========================
<plonk>
Stupid, childish plonker!
You have shit for brains. Your posts here are next to worthless.
You remind me of deep space. You're not in *any* killfiles...people
just ignore your posts, and you. Go back to lurking, net.scum! I
banish thee to my special killfile (yes, I have both a scorefile
*and* an advanced killfile) for killfilers.
Childish git, putting on airs and plumping up your pathetic ego
by publicly announcing your plonking of your bettors. One activist
out picketting and saving lives is worth a million of you, you
useless fool, squandering your rights away and refusing to defend
them. Oh, I'm sure people will jump to your defence, but they
don't know you like I do. (who *are* you, anyway? Barely recognize
your name...)
You're a childish, childish "man". Rest of your pathetic, completely
off-topic post snipped without reading. Oh, did you say something?
Yeah, like we have nothing better to do than read about your
fucking killfile! Tell us about your masturbation in front of the
computer, sometime, how you load up your killfile when you get
lonely, and whack off to it. Your Killfile; big news. Big topic. So
interesting. Is that it, these two posts about your fucking killfile,
or will you be gracing us with more? Why don't you add another dozen
totally useless posts about the contents of your killfile?
Better yet, follow this up with a <plonk> notice, you *fucking*
moron.
Send it to me in email so I'm sure to get a copy, OK? I'll treasure
it for life, believe me.
There; you started a thread. Be proud.
Apply at alt.flame.
Loser.
Accolade for _The Unbearable Lameness of <plonking>_:
====================================================
"I used to be a compulsive <plonker>. It started out with just one
<plonk>, but then I did another and another and pretty soon I soon
I found out I couldn't stop myself from <plonking>, <re-plonking>,
and <plonking> again. Hair began to grow on my palms. I couldn't
sleep at night. I'd wake up early in the morning just to <plonk>.
Once my wife caught me <plonking>. When I caught myself <plonking>
in front of the kids, I knew something had to change. Thank you
for spreading the word about this pernicious addiction. Please,
if you find yourself <plonking>, even just once, stop before it's
too late. Stop before it takes over your life and go to <plonkers>
anonymous and get help." - X. Plonker.
"Announcing <plonks> is childish. If you just have to scratch that
itch and let the person know you've plonked them (otherwise, what
good is a plonk if they don't even know about it?), then send them
an email announcing it to them. Better yet, keep it to yourself.
Killfiles are great, but it gets boring by about the time you've
seen your 10,000th Stupid one-liner <plonk> notice, obviously only
meant to get in a little dig at the intended target at their
expense. It's really, really absurd. I swear, I'm going to flame
the fuck out of anyone doing it again, and crosspost it to
alt.flame, where it belongs, or maybe dev.nul." - A. Flamer.
"<plonk>" - A. Wanker.
I want to thank all those who've killfiled me. What's that? They won't
see it? Oh well, then! <bronx cheer>
Tashback
> In article <xYU3zMdl...@islandnet.com>, mar...@islandnet.com
(Martin Hunt) wrote:
> >How does one become a Tashback-olyte, exactly? Is it expensive?
> >Is it hard? Are there any odious hazing rituals? Does one have
> >to be a Canadian citizen? Does it conflict with arscc membership?
> >Does it prohibit certain posting styles, use of words, or is it
> >censorious in any other ways?
>
> The only prerequisite to becoming a Tashbackolyte is wit and/or charm. (Both
> are preferable, of course.)
> The price is surprisingly reasonable, and the hazing rituals are now fully
> standardized, and legal in almost all US states and territories, as well as
> Canada. There is a reciprocal agreementwith the ARSCC, and members of both
> organizations (one of which, of course, does not exist) receive a minimum 10%
> discount on all Tashback-related merchandise, with further discounts subject
> to determination based on one's SP ranking, as well as one's Sycophant
> Quotient.
> All words are permitted; the one restriction being that they must be properly
> spelled and punctuated, and not actively contradict Strunk and White.
>
> Yours very truly,
>
>
> K., TBA
> Body router and registrar
<Sigh> Where are we *getting* these registrars? No wonder stats are so
low. I suspect infiltration.
It is not true that one must follow Strunk and White to be a
Tashbackolyte. We welcome followers of all mainstream style manuals,
including the AP (which actively contradicts Struck and White wrt use of
serial commas), the GPO, Chicago, the APA, the MLA, and even
Merriam-Webster's own.
Empire folks may continue to place periods and commas outside quotation
marks, in blatant violation of all civilized style guides, if they can
show proof of citizenship. They may even spell "civilized" that weird way
they do. We tolerate just about anything here. Stop scaring the customers
away, dammit!
In fact, if one violates *all* mainstream style manuals but can make a
convincing argument based on the works of Fowler or Follett, we often are
willing to forgo the comm-ev and assign only 500 hours of hard labor.
We follow Source, remember. The only requirement is that you wish to
batter your wife. Um, better your life.
Tash
Zane Thomas
Martin,
Ok, time to go over a few things.
First, I'm not a "hot-head" as you said. I don't pound my desk, gnash
my teeth, or often get very excited by messages. But I do respond as
I choose to messages that I take an interest in, and my responses are
tailored for the situation.
Now, about Diane and the "Fuck off" I flung her way. Some time ago I
made an effort to study the witch's style and then engaged her in a
thread or two. What I surmised from my effort, be it correct or not,
is that she is fundamentally dishonest in her exchanges. I drew this
conclusion after noting that out of the often dozens of "points" she
makes in her posts she latches on to responses that play to her strong
points, she often simply ignores other responses, and hammers her
hapless victim with the strong points. So when I tried her out I
picked a single idea or two, which I judged to not be her strong
points, in each of a few threads and played them. My recollection was
that she dropped all the threads where I tried that. I have little
patience with someone who burns incredible amounts of time in what
appears to simply be an attempt to hammer critics with one argument
after another.
Finally, let's talk about you. You seem to have a tendency to try to
"rally the troops", asking people to act this way or that as you
recently did. That doesn't particularly bother me, but what does
bother me is if someone keeps pestering me after I've told them that
I'm not going to get with the program. Further I'm of the opinion
that your reference to me as a "hot-head" stems from my recent lack of
interest in submitting to your plan for Garry. I deal with people and
events as _I_ see fit. When I think a situation requires a rational
response I give one, and when I don't I do something else. I don't
appreciate being labeled by you, or anyone, and if you do that again
I'll probably start refering to you as Our Fearless Leader or some
such.
Now here're some words of advice for you from Bob Dylan:
"Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters"
Rebecca Hartong
In article <t8S3zMdl...@islandnet.com>, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <B001BEFD...@0.0.0.0>,
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>>So is this one a cultist then? He obviously has some experience
>>of their skills in argument.
>
>Welcome back, Peter; long time no see!
>
>The more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps you
>should read things for a couple weeks before commenting, particularly
>if the comments are going to be as incendiary and stupid as this. :-)
Uh, Martin? I think maybe Peter was being sarcastic. (Though I may be
wrong. I hate when that happens.)
Rebecca Hartong
>Now, about Diane and the "Fuck off" I flung her way. Some time ago I
>made an effort to study the witch's style and then engaged her in a
>thread or two. What I surmised from my effort, be it correct or not,
>is that she is fundamentally dishonest in her exchanges. I drew this
>conclusion after noting that out of the often dozens of "points" she
>makes in her posts she latches on to responses that play to her strong
>points, she often simply ignores other responses, and hammers her
>hapless victim with the strong points.
Well, duh!
>So when I tried her out I
>picked a single idea or two, which I judged to not be her strong
>points, in each of a few threads and played them. My recollection was
>that she dropped all the threads where I tried that. I have little
>patience with someone who burns incredible amounts of time in what
>appears to simply be an attempt to hammer critics with one argument
>after another.
She's just a person who likes a good argument. And likes to win.
That hardly makes her the Spawn of Satan. (Or does it?....hmmm....)
You guys take this stuff WAY too personally.
BTW, I enjoy your posts Zane and I don't think of you as a "hot-head."
Carry on.
tall...@mail.storm.ca
>All right; sign me up! I can use some more stuff for my vanity .sig, anyway.
>ttyl,
>martin.
>
You'll be getting a package in the mail with all the information you'll need.
All you have to do now is pick a title.
K
Founding Member
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) brewed up the following, and
served it to the group:
<snip>
>I have posted my opinion of Wollersheim's story. I was not privy
to
>the settlement negotiations and have no information to provide on
it.
>Why do you claim that I have information on confidential settlement
>negotiations? That's perhaps the strangest thing you've written
about
>me yet.
Then why not stop flaming us mere mortals who are trying to get
clarifications? You certainly ACT like you have all the
information. And like the rest of us just can't evaluate data. If
you don't have the information, why impede the flow of information?
>As for RTC, I have seen literally *nothing* from them about the
>settlement talks Wollersheim reported on. Have I missed something?
Good grief! The Almighty Diane (tm) might have MISSED SOMETHING!!!
Martin, your idol is slipping! Do something (tm)! FAST (tm)!!!
<snip>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBM94Eyan8flYc1m/ZAQFV0Qf+OIG4/J73J7YT42wmSnSiWdH93H6zMhlp
jLFa+Nq/ARNTQJFDqOpa+Gl++WVy5LTWQTF+8PfAHQ33DyVOsS6CEjDIH6N1trE9
pQGKQMLNhIULU6BzVPLajvf1+UfjQ8eJM/Y/E//R599leBAP5jk/v0okxBE1gKQG
vh8tU5CeCPduJ5Fo7qZBSQJMMBm/av4/7M0c0GvtfOCQm77u8Ept9JAXAZUdQySE
jaxAU7ojppU54yZ8dLJfGOXxLRiIvpKhF9uyBmzJ0ByyQcMN198LSlkDOBWoV27S
IPzDUNk1rpJEv8XTc9iavymyNYwv5NkpGqbuGc5L2FHqe00z7a6HOg==
=onbP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------
"Only an object can be objective."
--bc
the above e-mail address remains fictional...
the real one is bc9...@concentric.net
*SP2*
...bc...
ef
In article <5rkuej$8ql$1...@news.istar.ca>, tall...@mail.storm.ca
(tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
martin,
the title "Picker Upper of the Veil of Hi-There-Big-Boy" is up for grabs.
and this way, you will have the priviledge of watching the rehearsals of
the Dance Troupe of the Fabulous Groupie Dance of Sacred Love ballet
company (chor. Tashback) without neccessarly having to be an alpha male.
it's a verrry prestigious position!
ef (co-prima ballerina)
--