Re: Answers from Dan...

In article <3u4lf2$moe@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, Dan Sigal <dynamicd@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >As much as I'd like to spend more time and reply, I am much to busy
>with a new job and in the middle of 3 others. Besides, I don't believe
>my answers get duplicated and understood.
Why is this an issue? Sometimes, I have to try five or a dozen times before the person I'm speaking with Gets what I'm saying. It's part of the overhead of doing business with sentient others.... Sometimes they NEVER understand why you feel the way you do, but you still get to communicate with 'em because only while you're still communicating is there any chance of peaceful co-existence.

>But I am interested in seeing Ms. Kobrin respond to those that pushed
>the envelope.
As am I, believe me, honey, as am I....

> After seeing what happened to D.E., I am sure there will
Oh? What happened to Dennis? besides his ex-wife being dug up and flung at him, and his employer harrassed till it cost Dennis's job? And oh, yeah, the ransacking of his former home by goons who couldn't be bothered to get the paperwork done right or bring along a legally-constituted authority.

The only other thing I know of that's pending for Dennis is the court case, and I think it's premature to speak of it as having "happened" till the judge says his bit and bangs his gavel. It ain't over yet, bebe....

>be a lot more suits. In fact, you can bet Scientologists around the
>world will be chipping in to support those suits.
Oh, wow. Won't that slow 'em getting up the bridge? When the church is already spending a third of its take on barratry anyway? It'll be interesting to see where the break point is, when the sheep realize that all they're gettting for their "donations" is rich, incompetent lawyers.... Are we talking 40%, or maybe 42%? If I were a gambling man, it'd be tempting to set up an ars pool on that....

>I have always enjoyed responding to intelligent queries about my
>religious beliefs. What I find interesting in the lack of statements by
>the "antis" what their beliefs are. Can anyone recall a sincere post
My religious beliefs, sir, are off-topic in ars. This is a newsgroup for discussion of the cult of scientology, NOT a general religious discussion group. Gene Engram's NCIC number is ON-topic; my path to enlightenment is OFF-topic.

>what an anti's religious beliefs were? Nope. That would be a good
I can recall several impassioned defenses of the sacrament of free speech, such that I conclude you either have not been reading here carefully, or you are not an honest man. (I prefer to believe the former, till unmistakeable evidence to the contrary is presented.)

>forum, not to debate who is right (we are all right) but to show the
>differences in what or how we believe.
That could happen in talk.religion.misc, once one installed a suitable killfile for the insincere folks who want only to soapbox. But it's off-topic here.

>Without asking, I can guarantee you that the Church attorneys
>thoroughly investigated/researched the copyright laws. What has been
It's curious, then, if the "church" makes folks more able, why their understanding of copyright and "trade secret" law is so out of phase with reality. I wonder, is it that co$ doesn't make people more able, or is it that the actual outcome of a suit is seen as irrelevant, as long as the defendant can be jerked around for months and years.

BTW, when IS the co$ going to pay the judgement as affirmed by the Supreme Court?

>expressed here is only opinion by non legal types. One can quote
How can you know that? I know, from prior discussions in other newsgroups, which of the folks who post here are legal types. Some of them disagree with you rather strongly, too. If you said "some of what's been expressed here", I might agree, but I've read posts from people known to me to be in the legal profession, people who are quite certain that Fair Use, not Fair Game, should apply to Dennis's posts.

>certain laws verbatim, but when it comes to application, the court
>rulings usually are what counts.
Usually? But not in co$ v. Wollersheim? Interesting....

>Those that dare to fight the Church and the copyrights, beware.
Ooooh, I's scared. Real scared.

Your "church" is a conspiracy of lies wound up by a paranoid old fart on bad drugs. A course of Prozac would have helped, had it been invented in 1948, but now you're stuck. Source says "stick your head up your ass and lie till you're blue in the face", and y'all gotta squirt the KY onto your brains and push, up, up, up.

It's sad, really, and though I sometimes get annoyed at your cult's lies and nonsense, I do realize, all the time, that there are human beings behind the sloganeering, and that at one time, each of you believed that the cult would bring you to a higher level of spiritual development.

I am sorry that you're in the position you're in, trapped between a dead man's lies and the law of the land, but <shrug> I didn't do it, and actions do have consequences.

>Chiao.
Purina,

stella@netcom.com aka Steven James Tella SAVE THE REV! Send checks (non-US OK) endorsed DENNIS ERLICH DEFENSE FUND to Morrison & Foerster, 345 California St., San Francisco, CA Zip 94104-2675 Tel (415) 677-7700 SAVE THE REV, TRADE HIM WITH YOUR FRIENDS!!!!