Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!news.igc.apc.org!cdp!zthomas Mon Jul 10 17:01:18 1995 Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!enews.sgi.com!news.igc.apc.org!cdp!zthomas From: Zane Thomas Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: HELENA SPEAKS, AGAIN Message-ID: References: Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 12:42:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Gateway: notes@igc.apc.org Lines: 55 Lenny, |Zane Thomas (zthomas@igc.apc.org) wrote: | |: ... |: |: 9. Regarding the two parts of SCAMIZDAT that the culties don't claim |: as their own she says that "Posting these documents in such a way |: as to suggest they are legitimate Scientology documents is |: actionable under section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act." |: |: What the heck is that? | |The concept she's talking about is the "attribution" side of the copyright |law -- just as one cannot claim authorship of somebody else's work, one |cannot sully another author's reputation by claiming that he wrote something |that he did _not_. Ok, makes sense. But if I posted them and said that although the cult doesn't claim ownership of the material it cure looks like El Tubbard's droppings to me, then I'd probably be ok. Right? I notice that Helena has repeatedly said that the documents in question are "forgeries." This must mean that they are similar in some way to actual cult documents. I suppose that the similarity could be as little as the title, but who knows? It could be that they are paraphrased versions of the real thing. Some have claimed and/or speculated that the documents are actually the cult's official rantings and that they are being "disowned" because of the laughability of what they contain. I'm having a little trouble accepting this idea since applying the "laughability index" to El Tubbard's droppings would require them to disown just about everything he's ever written. I realize that calling Jesus a pervert is pretty damning and if El Tubbard actually said that, or something substantially similar to it, it would put a little egg on the cult's face. However, I fail to see that they have any appreciation for how foolish they already look. Again I'm forced to conclude that Helena is probably not lying when she says that the docs are "forgeries", but I am left wondering how "good" the forgeries are. Also, it seems that if the forgeries are reasonably accurate "forgeries" of the originals, that the cult has failed to protect its "trade secrets" inasmuch as it has failed to move to prevent distribution of the forgeries. For instance, if I had the formula for The Real Thing and simply rearranged the ingredients, changed some names (like suger = cane-suger) and published it, then wouldn't it be true that the formula was, essentially, no longer secret since by following it anyone could make The Real Thing? Zane

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank