| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lisa
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
 |
|
Six, count- 'em six replies to this thread by Ranty Granny. The Haldol's
running low over there in FL.....
<<You will hear from my lawyer and that WILL be the end of it.>>
Yeah, you said the same exact thing to me about a year ago, and I never heard a
-thing-. Tease! I doubt Poodles has much to worry about - you can't even muster
the $$$ to sue enemies right here in the good ol' US of A, much less muster the
cash to mount an international prosecution.
But please continue - your Chicken Little-isms and screaming rants provide a
helluva lot of entertainment here. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
- wolf -
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:33 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
"People's Commissar" <satanicreds@www.com> wrote in message
news:f4c223d9.0308021605.7f0ef381@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | You will hear from my lawyer and that WILL be the end of it.
|
Please clarify: are you talking about the sample on the web site that proves
that *you* (or Phil, or someone other than me) had written "Dr. LaVey" in
the text, which was provided on the web site with that specific intent, and
which cannot possibly serve as a tutorial on the roots of Satanism? Or are
you talking about my use of the dark doctrines?
| Quote: | Renditions? Sorry, Ole, you asked US permission to make them. We
gave you PERMISSION to make them.
|
Nope, it doesn't work that way. I didn't ask for permission to do it,
because I don't *need* a permission to make a personal copy and rendition of
anything. I wouldn't be allowed to use my personal copy or rendition
anywhere outside of my own house. But that's a moot point, because the issue
here is whether I should revoke your rights to use my rendition.
| Quote: | They are as much "your property" as
a letter from a the lawyer will be the property of the secretary for
typing it, choosing the font and the style and format.
|
No. In the above case, there's a business agreement stating that anything a
person writes for the business is the property of the business. You and I
don't have such an agreement.
| Quote: | I asked Phil. He wrote it FOR the COS - specifically - Gilmore asked
for the article. So he put in Dr.
|
Nonetheless, you had a line about what kind of people would do such a thing.
- wolf - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harry Lime
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
Dear Lisa:
Boy you ain't kidding. Tani is the penultimate (that's PENTA- FIVE-SIDED,
PENT-UP -- REPRESSED, BAH-OF-MET, ULTIMATE Sat-TAN, SINE QUA NON PINKY
DICKED BLOW JOB SEX. GET IT? IT'S CAUSE THEY CAN'T FUCK OR HAVE FUN!)
hypocrite. She cut-and-pastes copyrighted material freely into her
scribblings yet accuses Castrati-Team Poodles of violating her intellectual
property rights. She can't afford a lawyer to prosecute him, never mention
the fact of hiring one in Euro-land. Empty threats from the Tatar Twat.
Regards,
Harry Lime
| Quote: | Six, count- 'em six replies to this thread by Ranty Granny. The Haldol's
running low over there in FL.....
You will hear from my lawyer and that WILL be the end of it.
Yeah, you said the same exact thing to me about a year ago, and I never
heard a
-thing-. Tease! I doubt Poodles has much to worry about - you can't even
muster
the $$$ to sue enemies right here in the good ol' US of A, much less
muster the
cash to mount an international prosecution.
But please continue - your Chicken Little-isms and screaming rants provide
a
helluva lot of entertainment here.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
People's Commissar
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 3:18 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
"- wolf -" <wolf@nospam-blazingangles.com> wrote in message news:<3f2cacb4$0$97223$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
Given to Tani to post. August 2, 2003 XXXVIII
Ole, Phil here.
I wrote _Roots One_ due to the specific *request* of Peter Gilmore,
with the sole intention that the Church of Satan, at the time Anton
LaVey's organization, would have this information. It was published
in the official journal of the Church of Satan. I had to stick to
English-only references, which made it difficult, but the essay is
referenced. No one ever referred to Anton LaVey in any other serious
work or academic paper even when there was a definite call for it.
This was a fact bemoaned by Blanche Barton and others many times.
Anton LaVey said things and, while he had the idea first and said it
first, he was never given credit for it. In a 4-book treatise on the
Devil, Anton LaVey was given short and inaccurate shrift. Credit
needed to be given where credit was due.
I asked Peter how he (ASL) *should* be referred to, since I was
writing it for him. As far as I'm concerned, the Church of Satan is
entitled to use the information in that article. It was also
published in the Fenris Journal, another Church of Satan affiliated
journal.
_Roots Two_ "Tenders of the Flame" was written primarily by Wayne
Hill, again, for the Church of Satan and for others. It was printed
in the official journal of the Church of Satan. _Roots Two_ "Christian
Racism," the second part of _Roots Two_, was written for the Embassy
of Satan, primarily by Wayne Hill.
These two articles have nothing to do with the Dark Tradition
monographs which were not given to any organization to print or
publish. These include: _Set_, _Real Wicca_, _Taoism_,
_Tantra-Vajrayana-Pythagoreanism_, _Dark Kaballa_, _Serpents vs.
Adamites_, and _Sigil of Baphomet_. _Convalescence from
Christianity_, written primarily by Wayne Hill, is not part of the
Dark Tradition.
You refer to images or renderings in the Dark Tradition articles.
Every single image in the texts of those articles was provided by us.
You merely drew them in a neat, geometric fashion. On your own you'd
either have never seen such images and explanations (such as Shao
Yung's Wheel and other images we provided, such as the proper way to
interweave the pentacle and many other images) or you'd have seen them
and not have known what they were. The images are still our property,
our drawings, our explanations. You did, indeed, ask permission to
act as a "secretary" (not in those words) - you asked permission to
make them "pretty." You did this more than once. Needless to say, we
managed to make all of the other articles "pretty" on our own, and in
one week, and in a format that is very easy to update. Notably, ours
are in a format that, should we want them printed as an entire
collection, would be very easy to format.
The laws in the USA also take "intentions" into account. You were
asked, and I clearly remember this, what would happen if more
information came forth on the subject, or if an update was needed.
Concern was expressed regarding anyone else having "sole access" to
the computer format. We certainly would have wanted to be able to do
this ourselves without *"needing"* you. You assured us, yap yap yap.
Intentions. You deliberately made our work in a format that you
thought no one else could access, *even with Framemaker*. These can
not be accessed or opened in Framemaker.
You do realize that in the USA, even publishers are required to return
all original copies, galleys, or other media that the material is
stored on, to the author if they are no longer considered the
publisher? You weren't a publisher. You acted as a secretary, for
lack of any better word. You asked us if you could do this. You
asked us for original images of images we had on these articles. You
didn't create these images or know their meanings and your
"renderings" are the equivalent of taking a hand written letter from a
manager and letting a secretary format it. We drew the images. The
manager draws the images. The secretary perfects them. Since you
did this years ago and never asked for any payment whatsoever
(contrary to that, you asked us if you could do it) - and since this
was done prior to three years ago, you have no legal recourse in any
civil court. You wouldn't have it at any rate - you asked our
permission to do this. We never employed you. The drawings are
*ours*. You merely did what any secretary would do and "typed" the
images. If you refer to the images on the front covers, they were
changed long ago and presently exist in a format we can easily access.
Your posting of a page on a website because Tani didn't know that *I*
spoke to H.P. Gilmore quite extensively regarding *my* article, is a
clear indication that you do not intend to use these privately. You
do this for petty reasons. You are in violation of copyright laws.
Your clear intention is to own the Dark Tradition monographs for
yourself or for your organization. Your organization is extensively
involved, if I'm not mistaken, with combatting the SRA allegations and
dealing with Fundamentalist Christians. I never wrote these articles,
or any part of them, for such usage nor did I ever care about
combatting the lunatic accusations of people I'd no sooner look at or
notice, let alone deal with. Like anyone else, they will think what
they choose to think. Who cares.
What kind of person am *I* that I'd call Anton LaVey "Dr. LaVey" for
an article written for his own organization? I'm a person that
*asked* Mr. Gilmore how he should be mentioned in the article. If I
were to write an article about your organization, I'd refer to you as
Mr. Wolf unless you otherwise indicated another title, such as Dr.
Wolf, Ph.D Science.
I *respect* Anton LaVey and always did. I do not personally agree
with some of the things being said about him, by both his friends,
followers and/or his enemies. I respect the man and nothing will
change that. That should answer the question of "what kind of person
I am." I like whomever I choose to like and I don't particularly have
to have a "reason" for liking the person. Who I like, or dislike, is
not dependent upon who anyone else likes or dislikes.
The *only* reason Tani edited out references to the CoS as much as she
could in the "Roots" monographs was apparently due to the harassment
of the current membership of the Church of Satan. We sell these
articles. They don't need the CoS to "ride on" to sell and the
accusation that they do is absurd. The Church of Satan *has* the
Roots articles; they were published by the Church of Satan
originally. No one would claim that the Dark Tradition rides on
anyone's coat tails. Most of the articles that sell best are the Dark
Tradition monographs - and no one was ever given permission to publish
any part of these except Dr. James Lewis (not the Temple of Set
member). He got *written* consent from us before he set about to
publish a word.
While, as you say and as I'd also say, no one "invented" the Dark
Wisdom or Tradition. But the rendering of it, for *Satanists
interested in the Dark Force and the Black Flame*, is ours alone and,
as such, is our property. You'd never be able to understand any of
this reading it from mystical Eastern texts or Ancient Attic Greek
tests, or from any academic books out there.
If you are so concerned about the use of these Doctrines and/or if
your organizations needs them so badly, I strongly suggest you stop
disparaging the facts about my wife and how she happens to know these
doctrines inside and out. She does, Ole. And do did her Grandfather
and her parents. As presented, they are presented in a form that is
almost akin to hearing it spoken. No one on the planet has *ever*
been able to do that, or ever done it if they could have. As I
stand, I do not want you using a single thing that is copyrighted by
me. And that would be *all* of the Dark Doctrine monographs and
commentary written by myself or Tani.
You are fond of critiquing H.P. Gilmore, as if he changed his tune
about the Dark Tradition. H.P. Gilmore is one of the few people in
the Church of Satan that appreciated and *understood* these doctrines
as we presented them. This was personally told to me; he especially
appreciated the pre-Socratic information and found that our Kaballa
article explained this system better than anything else he ever read,
which he found incomprehensible. Our words were very clear. They
were otherwise incomprehensible in any other text on them. You
misunderstood him to be saying that this was "all" of what the Church
of Satan was about. I never heard him say that; not even once. I did
not read his text the way you read it. Members of the Church of Satan
were free to dip in or free not to dip on. No one dictated to them
"from on high" what to read or study. Except you. I told you, I
resented that. Paramount to the Tradition is that some will "get it"
and others will not, no matter how it is explained. We compared these
to music many times. If anything, the comparison clicked with Peter
immediately: he *is* a musician with very good ears. Either the
comparison fell on your own deaf ears, or you ignored it intentionally
and did what you felt like doing with our material. Not at any time
did either Tani or I ever try to push these Doctrines on anyone in the
Church of Satan. You did that. And we got the complaints.
I have nothing more to say.
Philip Marsh, the last I looked: Magister, Church of Satan. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harry Lime
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:23 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
Dear Phil:
Why not just hire an attorney and work this out in the courts rather than
waste bandwidth here? It's very expensive to enforce international
copyrights, Skippy. Frankly, trying to humiliate Poodles in this forum is
passé -- as the Turanian Twat is so fond of saying, "no one cares".
<snip>
| Quote: |
You refer to images or renderings in the Dark Tradition articles.
Every single image in the texts of those articles was provided by us.
You merely drew them in a neat, geometric fashion. On your own you'd
either have never seen such images and explanations (such as Shao
Yung's Wheel and other images we provided, such as the proper way to
interweave the pentacle and many other images) or you'd have seen them
and not have known what they were. The images are still our property,
our drawings, our explanations.
|
Legally, they aren't because you permitted Poodles to re-render them with
out being hired. For your own amusement, consider the following:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/201.html
Sec. 201. - Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial Ownership. -
Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author
or authors of the work. *The authors of a joint work are coowners of
copyright in the work.*
(b) Works Made for Hire. -
In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom
the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title,
and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written
instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the
copyright.
(c) Contributions to Collective Works. -
*Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct
from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the
author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the
copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the
collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of
reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular
collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later
collective work in the same series.
(d) Transfer of Ownership. -
(1)
The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any
means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or
pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2)
Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any
subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be
transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any
particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all
of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this
title.
(e) Involuntary Transfer. -
When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the
exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred
voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or
other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer,
or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the
exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect under this title,
except as provided under title 11.
Sec. 202. - Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material
object
*Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the
work is embodied.* Transfer of ownership of any material object, including
the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself
convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in
the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of
any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any
material object
So, Phil, unless you specifically have a written employment contract,
Poodles, you and Ex-Magistra Melanoma are co-owners of this material. If
Poodles is selling the material, you might have a case. Seems to me his
more of a co-author.
| Quote: | You did, indeed, ask permission to
act as a "secretary" (not in those words) - you asked permission to
make them "pretty." You did this more than once. Needless to say, we
managed to make all of the other articles "pretty" on our own, and in
one week, and in a format that is very easy to update. Notably, ours
are in a format that, should we want them printed as an entire
collection, would be very easy to format.
|
(red herring)
| Quote: | The laws in the USA also take "intentions" into account. You were
asked, and I clearly remember this, what would happen if more
information came forth on the subject, or if an update was needed.
Concern was expressed regarding anyone else having "sole access" to
the computer format. We certainly would have wanted to be able to do
this ourselves without *"needing"* you. You assured us, yap yap yap.
Intentions. You deliberately made our work in a format that you
thought no one else could access, *even with Framemaker*. These can
not be accessed or opened in Framemaker.
|
So you gave Poodles approval to format the work, yet didn't have any sort of
contract except for an oral agreement? Sounds like a co-author to me.
| Quote: | You do realize that in the USA, even publishers are required to return
all original copies, galleys, or other media that the material is
stored on, to the author if they are no longer considered the
publisher? You weren't a publisher. You acted as a secretary, for
lack of any better word. You asked us if you could do this. You
asked us for original images of images we had on these articles. You
didn't create these images or know their meanings and your
"renderings" are the equivalent of taking a hand written letter from a
manager and letting a secretary format it. We drew the images. The
manager draws the images. The secretary perfects them.
|
Actually, the co-author "perfects" them, Phil. By your own admission you
asked Poodles to help you with this, like it or not he's considered a
co-author.
| Quote: | Since you
did this years ago and never asked for any payment whatsoever
(contrary to that, you asked us if you could do it) - and since this
was done prior to three years ago, you have no legal recourse in any
civil court.
|
Bullshit. Poodles was a co-creator considering he didn't receive any payment
for his work. So you're an attorney now waxing poetically about civil court?
If that's the case, why the fuck didn't you have the COMMON SENSE to draw up
a written agreement between you three? LOLOLOLOLOL!
| Quote: | You wouldn't have it at any rate - you asked our
permission to do this. We never employed you. The drawings are
*ours*. You merely did what any secretary would do and "typed" the
images. If you refer to the images on the front covers, they were
changed long ago and presently exist in a format we can easily access.
|
Nope, Phil, Poodles is a co-author. Nice try.
| Quote: | Your posting of a page on a website because Tani didn't know that *I*
spoke to H.P. Gilmore quite extensively regarding *my* article, is a
clear indication that you do not intend to use these privately. You
do this for petty reasons. You are in violation of copyright laws.
|
Poodles is certainly petty, but he didn't violate any laws.
| Quote: | Your clear intention is to own the Dark Tradition monographs for
yourself or for your organization. Your organization is extensively
involved, if I'm not mistaken, with combatting the SRA allegations and
dealing with Fundamentalist Christians. I never wrote these articles,
or any part of them, for such usage nor did I ever care about
combatting the lunatic accusations of people I'd no sooner look at or
notice, let alone deal with. Like anyone else, they will think what
they choose to think. Who cares.
What kind of person am *I* that I'd call Anton LaVey "Dr. LaVey" for
an article written for his own organization? I'm a person that
*asked* Mr. Gilmore how he should be mentioned in the article. If I
were to write an article about your organization, I'd refer to you as
Mr. Wolf unless you otherwise indicated another title, such as Dr.
Wolf, Ph.D Science.
I *respect* Anton LaVey and always did. I do not personally agree
with some of the things being said about him, by both his friends,
followers and/or his enemies. I respect the man and nothing will
change that. That should answer the question of "what kind of person
I am." I like whomever I choose to like and I don't particularly have
to have a "reason" for liking the person. Who I like, or dislike, is
not dependent upon who anyone else likes or dislikes.
|
You ''respect'' LaVey, yet you allow your lunatic common-law wife to spread
outright lies about him and his organization? Nice job of letting
Ex-Magistra Menopause keep your testicles in a jar.
| Quote: | The *only* reason Tani edited out references to the CoS as much as she
could in the "Roots" monographs was apparently due to the harassment
of the current membership of the Church of Satan. We sell these
articles. They don't need the CoS to "ride on" to sell and the
accusation that they do is absurd. The Church of Satan *has* the
Roots articles; they were published by the Church of Satan
originally.
|
Using your logic, I guess the CoS owns all of your ''Roots" articles, no?
This in the same way that you claim to own Poodles' artistic re-renderings
of your drawings?
| Quote: | No one would claim that the Dark Tradition rides on
anyone's coat tails. Most of the articles that sell best are the Dark
Tradition monographs - and no one was ever given permission to publish
any part of these except Dr. James Lewis (not the Temple of Set
member). He got *written* consent from us before he set about to
publish a word.
While, as you say and as I'd also say, no one "invented" the Dark
Wisdom or Tradition. But the rendering of it, for *Satanists
interested in the Dark Force and the Black Flame*, is ours alone and,
as such, is our property. You'd never be able to understand any of
this reading it from mystical Eastern texts or Ancient Attic Greek
tests, or from any academic books out there.
|
Proof pal. Just blowing smoke in this newsgroup is just so much flatus.
Simply stated, Poodles is a co-author. If you feel bound to challenge this,
be my guest and hire a lawyer.
| Quote: | If you are so concerned about the use of these Doctrines and/or if
your organizations needs them so badly, I strongly suggest you stop
disparaging the facts about my wife and how she happens to know these
doctrines inside and out. She does, Ole. And do did her Grandfather
and her parents. As presented, they are presented in a form that is
almost akin to hearing it spoken. No one on the planet has *ever*
been able to do that, or ever done it if they could have. As I
stand, I do not want you using a single thing that is copyrighted by
me. And that would be *all* of the Dark Doctrine monographs and
commentary written by myself or Tani.
|
Big fucking deal. You don't want former Castrati Poodles to use them? Sue
him. Keep this petty bullshit out of this newsgroup.
| Quote: | You are fond of critiquing H.P. Gilmore, as if he changed his tune
about the Dark Tradition. H.P. Gilmore is one of the few people in
the Church of Satan that appreciated and *understood* these doctrines
as we presented them. This was personally told to me; he especially
appreciated the pre-Socratic information and found that our Kaballa
article explained this system better than anything else he ever read,
which he found incomprehensible. Our words were very clear. They
were otherwise incomprehensible in any other text on them. You
misunderstood him to be saying that this was "all" of what the Church
of Satan was about. I never heard him say that; not even once. I did
not read his text the way you read it. Members of the Church of Satan
were free to dip in or free not to dip on.
|
"Dip" being the key operating word here. I'm thinking this "dip" is more
akin to effluent.
| Quote: | No one dictated to them
"from on high" what to read or study. Except you. I told you, I
resented that. Paramount to the Tradition is that some will "get it"
and others will not, no matter how it is explained. We compared these
to music many times. If anything, the comparison clicked with Peter
immediately: he *is* a musician with very good ears. Either the
comparison fell on your own deaf ears, or you ignored it intentionally
and did what you felt like doing with our material. Not at any time
did either Tani or I ever try to push these Doctrines on anyone in the
Church of Satan. You did that. And we got the complaints.
|
You got complaints, but you never had the stones to confront Poodles about
this matter?
| Quote: | I have nothing more to say.
|
You usually don't unless you have permission from the Tatar Twat.
| Quote: | Philip Marsh, the last I looked: Magister, Church of Satan.
|
Nice to see you're still riding on the CoS coattails. Fucking moron.
Regards,
Harry Lime
http://harrylime.biz |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
- wolf -
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 7:25 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
Knock it off. I'm evaluating business agreements and intellectual property
rights as part of my occupation. It's a simple fact that you do not own the
rights to any individual expressions or symbols used in the dark doctrines,
let alone the dark doctrines themselves. You own the rights to figures and
text that you produce on your own. If anyone makes an almost exact copy of,
say, one of your drawings, then you can prevent that person from selling it,
but the same person can also prevent you from using his rendition. (If I
were to make an interpretation of a Britney Spears song, I'd own that
interpretation and would probably not be allowed to sell it without paying
royalty fees; but Britney Spears wouldn't be allowed to use it either.)
Speculations as to whether the person was inspired directly from the
original drawings have no bearing on this fact, nor has the person's
understanding, or lacking understanding, of the underlying symbolism any
bearing on this fact.
In the particular case of the dark doctrine articles, there is no written
agreement of transfer of rights of the contents that I have contributed
with, as is standard procedure in the publishing world. We do not have an
agreement. That makes me a co-contributor, and while I haven't brought this
up earlier, it implies not only my ownership of the individual renditions,
but also my co-ownership of the articles in their current form.
I am certain that all of the involved parties would prefer to not go through
a trial, and it is quite evident to me that you and Tani are lying, trying
to convince me that I should drop any such case. Tani has stated that you
are not using any of my renditions. I take it that this, too, was a blatant
lie, considering how intensely you want to explain to me that you own my
renditions.
In the case of the excerpt of the Roots article, the intention was clearly
to show (yes, publicly) that Tani blew it in her tirade about the kind of
person that would write such a thing. It will stay there for a while,
although with your and Tani's admission that it wasn't me who wrote it, its
relevance as documentation has been reduced. It was made available for
viewing for editorial purposes. I presume you know what that means.
I have a case, and you don't. That's the bottom line. Your lawyer can
explain the same thing to you. In addition, I have the money to start an
overseas trial if I want to, and you don't.
- wolf - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
People's Commissar
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 3:22 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
We do not use your cover renditions - and the drawing of the pyramid
and eye is the ONLY rendition you can actually say you made. That is
NO LONGER USED - that is the ONLY image in any of those doctrines that
you can acutally say you "created." The pentacles, the shapes, Shao
Yung's wheel - (that could have been done with a jpeg since we already
have it exactly as you made it) are ours. And it is precisely for
this reason that I HEDGED when you made your worthless offer,
repeatedly. Intentions are also taken into account. Three witnesses
my end would testify that you offered this freely and never intended
to TAKE what was ours. Three witnesses.
The rest were OUR drawings in pen. You simply did the typing. You
didn't change a single line or angle. We did talk to an attorney and
pushed him to get out that letter, it's not some silly joke as he
thought.
I doubt YOU'd like to be dragged into a civil court in the state of
Florida. You changed not one single thing that was drawn by pen in
those articles, every single detail is exactly what WE DREW in there.
If you take a paragraph of a text written in Ariel 10 and change it to
Times New Roman 12, it doesn't mean you can take the material for
other than personal use.
You are a freaking pain in the ass, Ole. Phil said to mention that he
knows why you want to KEEP the Doctrines. They are your pent up
excuse to carry on petty conflict on a "high level" with people that
do not meet your "strict criteria" for being OK.
All portions of those doctrines are copyright by law, and reproduction
of them in any media for other than PERSONAL USE is a violation of
copyrights. PERIOD. And yes, the lawyer DID say that.
You admit here that you desperately NEED the Dark Doctrines for your
organization. Interesting. I don't see why. Why don't you take
Church of Satan material? After all, you'd never have known about SRA
if not for your involvement with the Church of Satan. Amina doesn't
need them for HER organization (as the entire "let's get huggy with
the SRA accusers" was always her project). You are far more Church of
Satan in all ways than anything the Dark Tradition represents.
Knock it off? YOU knock if off. You didn't "render" any images that
we DREW. You made them to the line and angle, exactly as we drew
them. One had to be fixed and we did that. Since these are the
equivalant of geometrical shapes being defined by words in the text
(which we wrote); they are ours. You'd have never even have heard of
any of this if we didn't write them and show you.
Now, kindly FOAD. You can squirm and bitch and bicker all you want,
little man. It would amount to the same as when Egan used our stuff.
Everyone finds out who wrote it and PHOOEY on the pretender.
"- wolf -" <wolf@nospam-blazingangles.com> wrote in message news:<3f2e6d01$0$97187$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
| Quote: | Knock it off. I'm evaluating business agreements and intellectual property
rights as part of my occupation. It's a simple fact that you do not own the
rights to any individual expressions or symbols used in the dark doctrines,
let alone the dark doctrines themselves. You own the rights to figures and
text that you produce on your own. If anyone makes an almost exact copy of,
say, one of your drawings, then you can prevent that person from selling it,
but the same person can also prevent you from using his rendition. (If I
were to make an interpretation of a Britney Spears song, I'd own that
interpretation and would probably not be allowed to sell it without paying
royalty fees; but Britney Spears wouldn't be allowed to use it either.)
Speculations as to whether the person was inspired directly from the
original drawings have no bearing on this fact, nor has the person's
understanding, or lacking understanding, of the underlying symbolism any
bearing on this fact.
In the particular case of the dark doctrine articles, there is no written
agreement of transfer of rights of the contents that I have contributed
with, as is standard procedure in the publishing world. We do not have an
agreement. That makes me a co-contributor, and while I haven't brought this
up earlier, it implies not only my ownership of the individual renditions,
but also my co-ownership of the articles in their current form.
I am certain that all of the involved parties would prefer to not go through
a trial, and it is quite evident to me that you and Tani are lying, trying
to convince me that I should drop any such case. Tani has stated that you
are not using any of my renditions. I take it that this, too, was a blatant
lie, considering how intensely you want to explain to me that you own my
renditions.
In the case of the excerpt of the Roots article, the intention was clearly
to show (yes, publicly) that Tani blew it in her tirade about the kind of
person that would write such a thing. It will stay there for a while,
although with your and Tani's admission that it wasn't me who wrote it, its
relevance as documentation has been reduced. It was made available for
viewing for editorial purposes. I presume you know what that means.
I have a case, and you don't. That's the bottom line. Your lawyer can
explain the same thing to you. In addition, I have the money to start an
overseas trial if I want to, and you don't.
- wolf - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
- wolf -
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:16 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
"People's Commissar" <satanicreds@www.com> wrote in message
news:f4c223d9.0308041422.1be54ef@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | I doubt YOU'd like to be dragged into a civil court in the state of
Florida.
|
None of us would like that, but there's a difference in our attempts to
avoid such a case: As you may have noticed, I just told you to have a chat
with your lawyer about your claims about copyright on the dark doctrine
ideology, and I haven't gone to any pains trying to explain to you that it's
a lost cause. You, however, are doing quite a job trying to convince me that
I have no case.
| Quote: | You changed not one single thing that was drawn by pen in
those articles, every single detail is exactly what WE DREW in there.
|
Even if every angle, every line, and every dot were placed in the same
position, it doesn't change the fact that I redrew the figures from scratch
and can prove it. That means my renditions belong to me, and if you use them
without my express permission, it's copyright violation no matter how you
want to turn it.
If you choose to be an asshole about the dark doctrines and try to sue me
for using the dark doctrines, your case is lost and you'll be paying for the
lawyers. If I choose to sue you back as a counter-case, as a reaction
against your constant harrassment of me as a former member, or for any other
reason, you'll lose the renditions and pay the lawyers. Either way is fine
with me.
- wolf - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Harry Lime
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:52 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
Dear Twat of Turania:
Please see inside text, tovarisha:
| Quote: | We do not use your cover renditions - and the drawing of the pyramid
and eye is the ONLY rendition you can actually say you made. That is
NO LONGER USED - that is the ONLY image in any of those doctrines that
you can acutally say you "created."
|
You've just admitted that you used this in the past, ergo, Poodles is a
co-creator.
| Quote: | The pentacles, the shapes, Shao
Yung's wheel - (that could have been done with a jpeg since we already
have it exactly as you made it) are ours. And it is precisely for
this reason that I HEDGED when you made your worthless offer,
repeatedly. Intentions are also taken into account. Three witnesses
my end would testify that you offered this freely and never intended
to TAKE what was ours. Three witnesses.
|
Three witnesses? I'm sure they're Cancer Ass Gerber, Phil, and Sheromay.
Pretty easy to impeach those folks. Zonk, you lose, Tani.
| Quote: |
The rest were OUR drawings in pen. You simply did the typing. You
didn't change a single line or angle. We did talk to an attorney and
pushed him to get out that letter, it's not some silly joke as he
thought.
|
Right. If he only did ''typing'' why didn't you just sign a simple
employment contract where Poodles donated his time?
| Quote: |
I doubt YOU'd like to be dragged into a civil court in the state of
Florida.
|
Oh, I'd fuckin' pay to see this. You live in a tenement in the Lehigh
Acres, "I Brake For Colostomies Zone", yet you threaten Poodles with ''civil
court in the state of Florida"? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
| Quote: | You changed not one single thing that was drawn by pen in
those articles, every single detail is exactly what WE DREW in there.
If you take a paragraph of a text written in Ariel 10 and change it to
Times New Roman 12, it doesn't mean you can take the material for
other than personal use.
|
Actually contextual or artistic change to the content equals co-authorship
unless you possess a specific employment or volunteer contract for Poodle's
services. Whether it's Times New Roman or Ariel, doesn't matter. Yes, he
can use this as a co-author for whatever he wants. LOL!
| Quote: | You are a freaking pain in the ass, Ole. Phil said to mention that he
knows why you want to KEEP the Doctrines. They are your pent up
excuse to carry on petty conflict on a "high level" with people that
do not meet your "strict criteria" for being OK.
|
Wow, Phil's a CoS Magister Shrink Castratti. Who knew? I'm sure the CoS is
*very* proud. LOLOLOL!
| Quote: | All portions of those doctrines are copyright by law, and reproduction
of them in any media for other than PERSONAL USE is a violation of
copyrights. PERIOD. And yes, the lawyer DID say that.
|
Sure he did Tani. Care to provide anything resembling proof?
| Quote: | You admit here that you desperately NEED the Dark Doctrines for your
organization. Interesting. I don't see why.
|
That makes two of us, Sweetie.
| Quote: | Why don't you take
Church of Satan material?
|
Oh come on, you know the answer to that you arid twat: It's because it
pisses you off.
| Quote: | After all, you'd never have known about SRA
if not for your involvement with the Church of Satan. Amina doesn't
need them for HER organization (as the entire "let's get huggy with
the SRA accusers" was always her project). You are far more Church of
Satan in all ways than anything the Dark Tradition represents.
|
And I'm sure that's why the CoS excommunicated Poodles.
| Quote: | Knock it off? YOU knock if off. You didn't "render" any images that
we DREW. You made them to the line and angle, exactly as we drew
them. One had to be fixed and we did that. Since these are the
equivalant of geometrical shapes being defined by words in the text
(which we wrote); they are ours. You'd have never even have heard of
any of this if we didn't write them and show you.
|
Pay back is a bitch, no?
| Quote: | Now, kindly FOAD. You can squirm and bitch and bicker all you want,
little man. It would amount to the same as when Egan used our stuff.
Everyone finds out who wrote it and PHOOEY on the pretender.
|
Oh this is too funny, Tani. Bravo, I haven't laughed this hard at your
antics in months.
Regards,
Harry Lime
http://harrylime.biz
| Quote: | "- wolf -" <wolf@nospam-blazingangles.com> wrote in message
news:<3f2e6d01$0$97187$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk>...
Knock it off. I'm evaluating business agreements and intellectual
property
rights as part of my occupation. It's a simple fact that you do not own
the
rights to any individual expressions or symbols used in the dark
doctrines,
let alone the dark doctrines themselves. You own the rights to figures
and
text that you produce on your own. If anyone makes an almost exact copy
of,
say, one of your drawings, then you can prevent that person from selling
it,
but the same person can also prevent you from using his rendition. (If I
were to make an interpretation of a Britney Spears song, I'd own that
interpretation and would probably not be allowed to sell it without
paying
royalty fees; but Britney Spears wouldn't be allowed to use it either.)
Speculations as to whether the person was inspired directly from the
original drawings have no bearing on this fact, nor has the person's
understanding, or lacking understanding, of the underlying symbolism any
bearing on this fact.
In the particular case of the dark doctrine articles, there is no
written
agreement of transfer of rights of the contents that I have contributed
with, as is standard procedure in the publishing world. We do not have
an
agreement. That makes me a co-contributor, and while I haven't brought
this
up earlier, it implies not only my ownership of the individual
renditions,
but also my co-ownership of the articles in their current form.
I am certain that all of the involved parties would prefer to not go
through
a trial, and it is quite evident to me that you and Tani are lying,
trying
to convince me that I should drop any such case. Tani has stated that
you
are not using any of my renditions. I take it that this, too, was a
blatant
lie, considering how intensely you want to explain to me that you own my
renditions.
In the case of the excerpt of the Roots article, the intention was
clearly
to show (yes, publicly) that Tani blew it in her tirade about the kind
of
person that would write such a thing. It will stay there for a while,
although with your and Tani's admission that it wasn't me who wrote it,
its
relevance as documentation has been reduced. It was made available for
viewing for editorial purposes. I presume you know what that means.
I have a case, and you don't. That's the bottom line. Your lawyer can
explain the same thing to you. In addition, I have the money to start an
overseas trial if I want to, and you don't.
- wolf - |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Corax
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 11:28 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
"People's Commissar" <satanicreds@www.com> wrote in message
news:f4c223d9.0308041422.1be54ef@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | You admit here that you desperately NEED the Dark Doctrines for your
organization.
|
Tani, your mistake can probably be excused on the ground that you are unable
to read the texts written in connection with our organization. Last I heard
you where unable to read Danish, and all our organizations texts are written
in Danish. If you want to use the fact that we also use material about older
cultures, or include words and concepts from philosophy and religious
groups, you should be aware that I am a student in the field of history of
religion. I have had university classes in philosophy, Buddhism, Chinese
religion, antic Jewish religion etc. etc. If we where to use your material
as it is for our own texts, we would have to ignore science and use
unscientific and rather silly claims. I guess you have no idea as to how
your group and your texts are viewed by people in the field of sociology and
history of religion.
| Quote: | Interesting. I don't see why. Why don't you take
Church of Satan material? After all, you'd never have known about SRA
if not for your involvement with the Church of Satan. Amina doesn't
need them for HER organization (as the entire "let's get huggy with
the SRA accusers" was always her project).
|
Again, you are missing a lot of things. For one, I do not have an
organization. I have an website but that is not the same thing. And no, I am
not getting huggy with SRA people, but I do have a good relationship to
other people who study the SRA hysteria and with other minority groups, and
I have been able to influence SRA people. In my field of study the SRA
hysteria is a legitimate field of work, and my webpage and my collection of
articles etc. is known to be one of the biggest. Talking about the SRA - as
far as I remember Russel Smith was one of your members, and you used to work
with ONA people and Egan. But hey, you are right, the Russel Smith case was
not a SRA case it was a real crime case. I can see how this makes you group
look good and clean.
- Amina |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Corax
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2003 3:02 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
"People's Commissar" <satanicreds@www.com> wrote in message
news:f4c223d9.0308050126.4737897f@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | I know exactly how religious theologians view the Dark Tradition.
Like comparitive and very legit religion.
|
Sociology of religion and history of religion is not the same as theology.
Theology has to do with the religious study of religion, and is usually used
about the religious study of the Christian religion. They do not usually
have training in the scientific study of (other) religions. It is a bit
funny that you do not even know the difference between the two fields of
study.
And yes, I would also call your group a religious group. I would include it
in the new age cult category because it is a new syncretistic religion that
is very much shaped by its time and origin in the US. It has been a bit
funny to se how your group has tried to distance itself from Satanism. As it
is, your group is only mentioned in connection with Satanism - it would
surprise me very much to see anything about your group in a book on Tantra
or other older traditions. Kaiden showed a text to a professor in theology?
Wow, I am so impressed. Within a few years I will be able to teach classes
in the history of religion for a living.
I don't "feel you texts"? Sorry, but I am not religious. I also have a hard
time feeling the love of Jesus etc., but that does not mean that I am not
alive and able to feel love. When you know how religions work it is a bit
hard taking any of them serious, especially when they try to play religious
games on you. Accusing a non-believer of being a sinner, klippoth, bad
person or what ever just doesn't work.
- Amina |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
- wolf -
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2003 1:07 am Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
"Corax" <ccc44406@vip.cybercity.nospam.dk> wrote in message
news:3f2f809c$0$97243$edfadb0f@dread12.news.tele.dk...
| Quote: |
"People's Commissar" <satanicreds@www.com> wrote in message
news:f4c223d9.0308050126.4737897f@posting.google.com...
I know exactly how religious theologians view the Dark Tradition.
Like comparitive and very legit religion.
Sociology of religion and history of religion is not the same as theology.
Theology has to do with the religious study of religion, and is usually
used
about the religious study of the Christian religion. They do not usually
have training in the scientific study of (other) religions. It is a bit
funny that you do not even know the difference between the two fields of
study.
|
It's very evident that Tani takes the theological (i.e., faith-based) route
rather than the sociological and historical route. This is seen in the
material she sells. For example, in _Serpent Race Versus Adamic Race_, she
states:
"The reader will notice that I do not go into his [Jesus'] birth, or death,
but rather what he SAID. ALL scholars of theology know that much of what is
put into his mouth in the Bible is borrowed from Hellenic thought, and from
Hillel. Atheists would argue that the man never existed."
The conflict between theology and atheism is a question of faith. In the
above, Tani completely misses the field that is orthogonal to both theology
and atheism which is called SCIENCE. Science can tell us that it is quite
natural that Hellenic thought would be put into Jesus' mouth, because the
New Testament was written in Greek in part as an attempt to convert the
Romans. It is therefore only to be expected that the Jewish sect would be
filtered through Greek culture, terminology, and symbolism.
Tani seems to realize the latter in the above quote, but leans on theology
rather than science and draws the incorrect conclusion that "the church
STOLE from Hellenic thought" (as she claims in her text) for the reason
discussed above. Furthermore, Hellenic thought was basically the New Age of
those days, and Jesus himself would most likely have been influenced by such
ideas, making it unnecessary for anyone to "steal" it and add it to whatever
he said.
But that's one thing. She introduces her tutorial on Jesus with the
following text: "Does that [stealing Hellenic thought] mean that the church
did not know who and what the real Jesus was and said? NO. ... What did
Jesus actually SAY? Some of it can be found in Jewish sources, but not much,
because Jews do not want to come out looking like monsters. MUCH was written
by Pythagoreans, most of it utterly destroyed. But there are HINTS of it and
of course--WORD OF MOUTH handed down." Tani then presents those "facts"
about what Jesus said. And that poses another problem.
There are indications that there were many preachers walking around in
Palestine at that time, and Jesus could in theory have been a real person.
But this does not imply that it was *that* Jesus (Jesus was an extremely
common name then), or that there it was one of those Jesuses at all that was
described. Jesus could easily be just a mythological figure created by those
that wrote about him.
Sociology of religion cannot describe what Jesus did in the year 0, nor
determine whether he even existed. His claimed existence, and the validity
of the words put into his mouth by those that wrote books beginning one
generation after his death, are faith-founded discussions for believers
only.
Jesus' words, as described in the Christian Bible, are embedded in stories
describing how he sent evil spirits from possessed humans into pigs. It is
more plausible that he basically told people to behave themselves or that he
said and meant what Tani claims, but just because such speaches are more
likely than chasing spirits, it doesn't mean he DID say such things (IF he
existed). Rational people of today should doubt both the plausible and the
implausible stories about Jesus.
It is remarkable that Tani can be so certain about Jesus' words and
meanings, given the above facts. There are literally tens of thousands of
Christian groups that have each their interpretation of what Jesus really
said and meant. Insisting on any one version as the correct one is
religious, adding Jesus as a religious figure in Tani's universe that she
*believes* in. Her belief in faith-based argumentation in the form of
theology is also demonstrated when she insists that Satanism is to be
defined by theological standards, as she has done on this newsgroup.
The only certain knowledge about Jesus is the fact that a group of people in
about year 50 told stories about him. When Tani states that other sources
than this group of people are more "real" than what they stated, then she's
on very thin ice. Jesus mainly exists as a mythological figure in the New
Testament. It is also noteworthy that her choice of sources for Jesus' words
in _Serpent Race Versus Adamic Race_ include many sources that are much
younger than the New Testament, and claims of archeological findings. There
are no archeological findings that can determine whether Jesus existed, let
alone what he said.
I don't mind the interpretation and inspiration one can draw from the
Christian Bible as Tani does, but I do mind if it's presented as fact.
- wolf - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
- wolf -
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
"People's Commissar" <satanicreds@www.com> wrote in message
news:f4c223d9.0308072007.5ffed5c2@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | 1. Professor Price teaching the Eastern Esoteric Tradition in
University of North Carolina had to ask me 3 specific things since NO
Lama would explain it and academic texts he had were WORTHLESS.
|
Professor in *theology* Robert Price.
| Quote: | So what little missy from Denmark studying from books has to say is
worthless crap. Meaningless.
|
It's not just "lille missy from Denmark," but also leading experts that
study religious groups, not religion, who don't view your group from a
theological (faith-based) point of view. Those people have knowledge about
religious groups that, unlike theology, is based on facts rather than faith.
| Quote: | Ole has to deny what he used to know, at
least from the doctrines, and what used to make SENSE to him
|
*Makes* sense to me, dear. The difference between us, among others, is that
I don't use the stuff religiously.
- wolf - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kori Houghton
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
satanicreds@www.com (People's Commissar) wrote in message news:<f4c223d9.0308072007.5ffed5c2@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | Blah blah freaking blah.
VERBATIM. I'm not a Lama because I do not 1. dress like one and
2. act as one or want to. But otherwise..... the shoe fits.
|
No, dear. Not Lama. Llama. L*L*A*M*A. Like that. As in "The Dork
Doctrines Farted Out the Llama's Ass!"
| Quote: | "People's Commissar" <satanicreds@www.com> wrote in message
news:f4c223d9.0308050126.4737897f@posting.google.com...
snip snip snip Un-animal's bs.
|
Sez llama Tani. Now TeeVee. Which means in another language "go suck
off your remote".
Kori H. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
- wolf -
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2003 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Abortion and the CoS |
|
|
"Kori Houghton" <korihoughton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6db9a636.0308080831.156860ce@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | No, dear. Not Lama. Llama. L*L*A*M*A. Like that.
|
Be careful. The Turanian killer llamas are known to be particularly fierce
and will spit and hiss at anything. A rare photograph of a Turanian steppe
llama (Lat: taniorum hystericus) can be found here:
http://home19.inet.tele.dk/angles/lama.jpg.
- wolf - |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
