Re: Is AB Dead?

>noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
(snip) >>One other thing. Caltech was really humming right after the raid on
>>anon.penet.fi! It's fascinating to hear the stories coming out of there and
>>how CoS investigators went in there -- sort of like a bull in a china shop.
>>And Interpol! That's another interesting subject. If I were CoS, I'd
>>permanently drop all the lawsuits against Erlich, Netcom, support.com, and
>>all other net.entities we may not be aware of at the moment. Then maybe,
>>just maybe, all this hoopla will just die down. CoS instead should work on
>>their Web site and learn to develop a thicker skin. CoS has some of the
>>thinnest skinned people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. If they say
>>that we are ineffective, then why do they continue to waste all this time and
>>effort trying to convince the Internet that we are ineffective? It just does
>>not compute.
>
>>Jon Noring
cmiller@lightside.com (Chris Miller) replied:

(snip) >The point you are missing on the whole affair with Anonpennet fi,
>Netcom, etc is the one point that really matters. Is there a
>violation of law or not. That is why the police acted on Pennet fi.
>That is why the judge issued restraining orders on Erlich. These are
>matters of law. It is illegal to re-copy and distribute copyrighted
>material. It doesn't matter if YOU don't agree with it or not. That
>is the simplicity of what is trying to be gotten across and it is
>pretty simple. All the rest is noise. There are rights by law that
>should be followed and that is it.
>
>Chris
Chris

It is YOU who is missing the point: Had the scienos truly been interested in copyright and/or trade secret matters they would have gone after the ORIGINAL posters of whatever material supposedly is copyrighted and/or a trade secret. And they would also go after the SCAMIZDAT posters of today. But they are not doing that! Ever asked yourself why that is so? Instead they went after Dennis because he was such a visible target. Nobody can stop any journalist anywhere in the world to quote from SCAMIZDAT (or from Clearwater Sun or St. Petersburg Times or LA Times or TIME magazine who all carried parts of what the current big noise is about).

Scientology has been known to use the legal system for their own ends meaning, to clarify this, to create noise or to silence critics and others and NOT for the exclusive purpose of seeking justice. On the other hand, being sentenced by the U.S. Supreme Court to pay ex-scieno Larry Wollersheim several millions of dollars they are evading the court ruling in whichever way they can dream of. It is right in their handbooks. You may not like this, but then I want to give you a clue which should start you on the road to truth:

As all scienos and ex-scienos know in scientology there is nothing more sacred than LRH's writings. However, RTC (or whichever other scientology entity) has started to engage in a massive clean-up operation in LRH's writings. In other words they have started to selectively cut pieces of articles which would be out-pr for them. Here is the perfect example you yourself can go and verify:

In old red volume no. II you fill find on page 157 (The scientologist, a manual on the dissemination of material) the following:

... The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly....

Now go and look in your new red volumes and - SURPRISE! - the above has mysteriously disappeared. You can find many more bulletins and policies where this was done. If you can get hold of some of the old books go and compare them with the new books. The original green volumes were put together by highly dedicated scientologists (Edinburgh and Copenhagen), and not one of them would ever have altered any of LRH's writings. (They also simply were too busy publishing, they would not even have had the time to start editing) So go and look for more discrepancies. (E.g. the original version of HCO PL 30. September 1966, Issue II, "OT Regulations" as printed in old green volume VII is quite different from what you find in new green vol VI. In nowhere is there any note that the policy or bulletin was revised, etc.) And then write to the RTC Reports Officer and ask why LRH's writings were "squirrelled"? And then post that answer for open discussion. Chris, if you were to alter Hubbard's writings as has been done by official scientology you would walking the plank! Your amends project and the hundreds of hours of sec checks you'd have to undergo would keep you busy for more than just one life!

As a side note: It is also very interesting to learn about LRH's misconception of copyright law. Just before what I just quoted for you Hubbard explains that because the materials are "owned" only such persons would be allowed to use the materialize who have been granted official permission by scientology. I guess this misconception continues today. When you publish something anyone can use it. That is why you publish it in the first place. Should it be copyrighted not everyone has the permission to copy it but USE it he may. What's been published is usually sold for some money. That money is also used to pay the author. So you paid your dues and that is it.

Andrew

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.