Women in Technology

Article:		Privacy and Anonymity in Email
Subject:		Church of Scientology not the target
Date:		2003-06-13 11:14:56
From:		anonymous2
You know, I'm sick and tired of people trashing my religion on the Net, and especially to professional journalists glibly forwarding the lies. The Church of Scientology did not "misuse copyright claims to find disaffected members". a) The Church does not give a fig about disaffected members, being too busy with the millions of satisfied and happy parishioners. b) The issue is that a few apostates were misrepresenting the Church by posting out-of-context copyrighted materials in an effort to slander and vilify our religion. As a parishioner, these hate sites affect me personally as they cause me, my family and my kids social hardship. I applaud the Church's efforts in clearing its name.

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

• Church of Scientology not the target
  2003-06-16 05:49:16  anonymous2 [View]
  
  
  CoS shill: "... millions of satisfied and happy parishioners."
  
  Am I the only one who read this and immediately
  thought I was reading a piece of advertising
  copy? This almost sounds like "millions of
  satisified customers", or the burger franchise
  claim of "Over fixnum customers servered."
  
  The CoS is known for very crafty control of
  their message in the media. The post was not
  up to their usual standard of cunning. Next
  time, I'd suggest they make their claims read
  a little less like advertising cliches.

• Church of Scientology not the target
  2003-06-13 11:38:55  quilty [View]
  
  
  The Church of Scientology's behavior in the anon.penet.fi affair is actually far more deplorable than my brief article mentioned (since that was a side topic to the technical issues). Following the link I give in the resources is worthwhile for interested readers; or use a search engine to find more background. As a general matter, the CoS has been quite willing to misuse legal systems, and falsify court claims, in order to harrass and extort its critics.
  
  The general idea is that the CoS maintains, rather paradoxically, that its *doctorine* cannot be publically criticized because the beliefs themselves are protected by copyright. This absurd idea is given unfortunate legal weight because of the last decade's alarming trends in IP law. Just imagine a Muslim, Christian, or Buddhist claiming that their religion should be barred from discussion because such discussion would violate the copyrights on the holy texts (which must not even be revealed to those not willing to fork over $30k or so).