Subject: Insufferable Arrogance (was Re: Ease Off?) From: David Mayo Date: 1996/05/29 Message-Id: <4ohkit$4uu@light.lightlink.com> Sender: electra@light.lightlink.com Organization: Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway v2.4 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 27 May 1996 23:54:43 +0100, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote: >In article <4oc3q1$lak@power5.rz.uni-hohenheim.de>, Cornelius Krasel > writes: >>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine (dave@xemu.demon.co.uk) wrote: >>> I am curious about the basis for the following exchange, >>> and I don't have the relevant material archived ---- [...] > Thanks for looking it up, Cornelius. [...] > So there are a number of places where dennis raises this, not > as a certainty, but as a possibility to be taken seriously. > (I was simply mistaken in thinking David Nayo had said it). A simple mistake, in which you expressed your annoyance at me. ("What has caused me annoyance is ... [David Mayo ... ") > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >>> Similarly, could you do another article reposting: >>> (3) what I asked; >>> and >>> (4) David Mayo's reply. >> >> >> >>Subject: Re: My position on a.r.s >>From: David Mayo >>Date: 1996/05/16 >>Message-Id: <4nfmef$pru@light.lightlink.com> >>On Mon, 13 May 1996 22:18:06 +0100, Dave Bird wrote: >>>In article <4n61aq$pcv@light.lightlink.com>, David Mayo writes >>> >>>> I also hold a position that will not be universally popular >>>>in this group, that acts of copyright infringement have played into >>>>Scientology(tm)'s hands more than any imagined benefit from those >>>>infringements. >>> How so? >> >>Contrary to the assertions of Scientology(tm) and some critics, acts of >>alleged copyright infringement have not significantly adversely affected >>Scientology(tm) nor have they brought about any social reform. Those >>actions have empowered Scientology by giving them legitimate or apparently >>legitimate reasons to sue, complain, lobby and to get support from other >>I.P. owners, the courts and law enforcement agencies. >> >>Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion have been minimally enhanced, if >>at all, and often have suffered restriction as a result of those actions. >> >>Evidence of the above exists in each of the instances of alleged copyright >>infringement and/or of trade secret infringement in the past several years. Evidence or insufferable arrogance? >> >>That information is available to anyone here on a.r.s and is within the >>memories of some. Evidence or insufferable arrogance? >> >>I also expressed opinions on this in the thread: >>Re: <<< Repost the NOTS everywhere! >>> >> >>I continue to recommend reporting, exposing and combatting by legitimate >>means the undesirable behaviors of Scientology(tm). To be effective this >>must be done with a very high degree of accuracy or it will become >>self-defeating. This, I would say, is "... simply an expression of David Mayo's opinion." >> >>I do not mean to imply that these effective actions are not already being >>done here on a.r.s. >> >> > As I though. There is no irrefutable demonstration of fact here, > simply an expression of David Mayo's opinion. Yes, it was and is, my opinion. > The idea that anyone who does not agree with it must be a fool I did not say or imply that you are a fool. > is simply insufferable arrogance on his part. If I express my opinion, in this newsgroup that is insufferable arrogance? Oh my! > > Indeed, he has implied I am a fool **BECAUSE** anyone who does > not agree with the above argument on hearing it stated Not at all, look about 12 paragraphs up to where I pointed to the evidence (and experience) upon which I based this "insufferably arrogant" opinion. (... each of the instances of alleged copyright infringement and/or of trade secret infringement in the past several years.) > must be a fool. But he earlier said It is you who have imputed both "insufferable arrogance" and "foolishness." >>>> I also hold a position that will not be universally popular >>>>in this group, > meaning he knows full well it is an opinion which, whether or not > it eventually proves correct, most of the group > do not now agree with. Correct and I pointed to the cases, IMHO, no IMIAO. ("IA" = "Insufferognance"?) > > The logical conculsion must be he thinks most of the group are fools > for not agreeing with it. I do not think that your conclusion, above, is logical. BTW,the cases I had in mind are: RTC vs Scott RTC vs Wollersheim RTC vs Gerbode RTC/Bridge vs Vien A couple of copyright cases in Europe in about 1984 to 1986 RTC vs Erlich et al RTC vs FACTnet (Wollersheim et al) RTC vs Lerma et al (did miss any?) Yes, I know that my wife and I and our lawyers, won the first three above, but have you any idea at what cost to us? --and we did not even committ the predicate acts for which those three cases are named! Who is being insufferable AND opinionated AND arrogant AND foolish AND illogical? David Mayo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMaryzOmCyCdNXuVZAQFEBgP/WLTis7xOJP2ajWrZRNvdKk/XzFK6XeQ4 MeLnPPb2rgwX+vCcfclaMUB6Z6xoUHWffNZLZ/XyELroG3UMo2YywMR1R/ElaO+j ZSN9/hUmoZiiGt0t0dw0gLAXkbO1vEqeV+LsXlJc0I1633oC7OUSHTCDmpLXLwBJ v8mjWn2jBMU= =pj6X -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----