Crazee Stuff from CAT'S WHISKER

THE CAT'S WHISKER

You are welcome here. If you choose to offer negative comments or argue and flame, you will be asked to leave. If you refuse you WILL be EDITED or BLOCKED. This forum is for those who love life,who celebrate it and live for the joy of it. If you are unhappy, dispirited or angry, stick around and read. Life is like a pendulum. :)

Note: This series of posts has been reproduced in their entirety, completely in context. No effort has been made to embarass the author through any trickery or deceit. This is presented plainly. The purpose of archiving these posts made on public forums or bulletin boards is for educational purposes related to the ongoing discussions between premies (aka followers or devotees) and ex-followers of Guru Maharaji (aka Prem Rawat). The presentation of these posts is to show the extreme difficulty in communicating with hardcore premies.

The brief history of these series of posts is the author, Carlos Harden, is claiming an apparent change of mind and has retracted his original post and has replaced it with a claim of exclusive copyright (see 2nd post) on a free forum provided by Hotboards.

It should be noted that this particular public forum freely provided by Hotboards is not password protected and is available to the anyone with an Internet connection.

There has been nothing done that could be deemed illegal in acquiring the original post made by Carlos Harden. There was no theft or database break-in. If this information that Carlos Harden posted was meant to be private then surely Carlos Harden should have used private email to voice his concerns to friends.

Furthermore, and most importantly, it should be noted that posters on a puplic bulletin board or forum have the sole discretion over whether they post or not. No one is ever forcing them to write things they don't want to write. By posting on a public forum posters should have no expectations of privacy.

Claiming copyright after the fact is a sham and an obvious preemptive attempt at abuse of process.

Carlos has admitted that he was pressured by other catbox posters to change his post. And in his first post to me, dated 10/26/2003, 09:26:57, Carlos says the following:

I really did, voluntarily, delete that post. I was asked to by Deb and by the person/people reporting to us...

Later in a post to me, dated 10/27/2003, 06:10:29, Carlos says this:

There was NO pressure. There were 2 expressions of concern that someone would use my words, taken out of context, to make points against M or the premies. You reacted to my own deletion of the post and its replacement in a way that shows there worry was not paranoia.

Come on, Carlos. There was no pressure? What don't you understand about the concept of "plain meaning"?

This cohersion is clearly an attempt by "catweasel" to censor forum posters and to control the content of the forum for purposes of furthering and protecting Maharaji and his organization. As for the Cat's Whisker being "A Funky little spot for anyone feeling free and easy", it is NOT.

The information herein that I am presenting is clearly in the public interest as a "right to know" and the information was publicly available to anyone with an Internet connection.

Posted: Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 18:32:02 (EST)
Posted by: Carlos

Subject: To the Plaintiffs: Please read; urgent.

Message:

Using the threat of civil suit, or actually providing authorities with information about criminal actions of Macgregor that you know about can't hurt M or his work. But please find a way to be detached as you do it, or it could be harmful to your spirit, to your residing in the land of answers even as you respond to the calumnies of a person whom I don't doubt has harmed you and who has sought to harm M and his work.

If you actually bring him into court on a civil matter it will give him a forum for his assertions about our teacher unless you are very, very careful about how you proceed. If you choose to ignore my advice that you let the silly bugger get himself deep in s**t without any help from you. please, please, be sure to do so in a way that doesn't lead to damage to your souls or M's efforts in Oz.

I know your decision to do whatever you choose to do is solely your business, and none of mine. I feel OK about suggesting things to you in connection with it only because you are posting it here, on a semi-public forum. I reached the opinions I am expressing to you, about the possible danger to your souls and to M's work because I, too, once considered finding ways to bring low various of the EPOites (as I call activists promoting the EPO anti-M agenda) thru legal means. I was willing to go so far as spending substantial sums to have investigators to find skeletons in their closets that would have no connection to M or anybody ever involved with him or his work, in order to alleviate that concern. But in considering that course I soon came to understand that it would not be 'right action', that it would be unethical and dangerous for my soul. I prefer to leave immorality to M's opponents.

Has Been Replaced With This Post

Posted: Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 07:58:09 (EST)
Posted by: Carlos

Subject: To the Plaintiffs: Please read; urgent.

Message:

Deleted by the author. Full copyright protection to this and all other posts published on this forum by Carlos Harden are hereby asserted by him. The Owner of this forum is recognized by Mr. Harden to have equal copyright entitlements and protections. Anyone copying any posts protected by this assertion agree, by their action in copying said posts without written prior permission from either Mr. Harden or the Owner of this forum, to pay a Royalty of $1 million (USD) per day that this post is published on any electronic medium on the web, or in any newspaper, book, magazine or any other printed material. Except where such preemptive royalty agreements are prohibited by law, if any such jurisdiction exists, the party who copies this protected materials agrees to hold Mr. Harden and the Owner of this forum harmless should either of them separately, or both of them together, choose to exercise their copyrights and/or pursue their royalties under this Copyright Notification and Royalty Agreement. The costs of exercising these copyrights or enforcing the Royalties due under this Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement, if any are encountered by Mr. Harden or the Owner of this forum, shall be the full responsibility of the party who copies this work. Non-enforcement of any part of these enumerated protections and rights, by either Mr. Harden or by the Owner of this forum, shall not be construed as a waiver of these protections and rights.

The following was posted in the Anything Goes forum by Carlos

Posted: 10/26/2003, 09:26:57
Posted by: Carlos

Subject: To the Plaintiffs: Please read; urgent.

Message:

Roger, I really would like you to understand that I really did, voluntarily, delete that post. I was asked to by Deb and by the person/people reporting to us about Macgregor's apparent civil, and possibly criminal, problems.

I know by your standards having Deb for a friend seems off. But consider, till she proclaimed the possibility of being an ex ex she was praised by many of the staunchest of your EPOite chums. One reason is because she is loyal. Oh, if I mistreated her she might stop giving me the loyalty she has extended to me, but I don't intend to do so and thus don't need to fret about it. And she only snarls and bites at those she's pissed at. Since it sank into her awareness the first time she and I "talked" that I wasn't launching unjustified attacks at Jim but was "pulling his covers" about various circular logic spins and verbal abuses he was subjecting people too, and then I followed it up with a call when she had foolishly published her phone number, not to be a nasty anti-EPO premie but with concern for her, well, we've been buds ever since. And I often do things just cause a friend asks.

And I was offended by Macgregor's articles, along with many other premies. So when those posts showed up by the guys chronicling him enjoying the predictable consequences of his actions, and they were concerned about my words being taken out of context and used against me or us later, I respected their wishes, that's all. I didn't know which part they were concerned with the potential for mis-use, so I deleted it all. That felt a little strange, so I put in a parody. Hell, with all of your webs having parody elements to them, I'm amazed you thought Cat wrote it. It isn't anything even remotely like his style.

As to the "Royalties". You are wrong about items on the web being public domain if posted. Books can be put on a photocopier; that doesn't put them in a public domain status, now does it? When one reads a post one is doing what the owner of the BB has put it there to enable you to do. Cutting and pasting without permission is a different thing. It is entering a data base in order to make an unauthorized use of data stored there. This has been discussed on several BBs I participate on, and relevant portions of the law of several countries has been produced.

And there are a great many examples of contracts that are triggered by an action. The old one about paying part of a debt and getting the rest cancelled by having a note on a check saying that if the check is endorsed it indicates the acceptance of that check as payment in full is myth. But the case law on it makes it clear this is because there is no good faith meeting of the minds in that situation, and hence no valid contract. Whereas if a person, such as you, copied and pasted a document on a BB placed there with a Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement such as mine, it could be argued that if you published my document without my consent, as it would be after an illegal taking in the first place, that your doing so in the full knowledge of my assertion that we would be bound by a Royalty Agreement if you did copy it could be taken to be a meeting of the minds. If a court ruled on it that way, if I took it to court, they would most likely find we had a valid contract.

Now in most cases I couldn't even hope to grandfather it, but in this case you have provided clear evidence that you knew of my assertion by posting both the original version and the one I had intended to be a parody. Since your copying it would be an illegal taking under US law, and I posted it from a PC in the US, there is a real possibility that they would ignore your protestations that Cat had written it as self-serving attempts to protect yourself from liability. In which case they might very well rule I had an enforceable Royalty Contract in place with you. Unlike most situations, your being in a foreign domicile wouldn't protect you much, either. You aren't very well liked by a rather large number of my friends, because of the contempt you display for one we love. I don't feel as they do. When you are in those moods I pity you. You seem to me to be coming from some very deep emotional wounds. I don't know you, really. So I can't say that for sure. But you remind me of a premie I know who was emotionally scarred by her physically abusive father and her alcoholic mother. But, anyway, I don't feel as my friends do about you. But because they do it would be easy to mount a case in court where you live, set up a trust if I won, and place liens on any property you ever hoped to own, and got attachments against all earnings above what you needed to survive, until you had paid off the court stipulated debt. Which would likely be as defined in the Royalty Agreement if I won, $1,000,000 (USD) per day.

Now, as I've said I don't feel about you as my friends do. I rather like the pleasant you and pity the raging you and the shrill you. Plus I didn't expect anyone to do as you did, and give me a legitimate way to grandfather it. So I was thinking of it in terms of a parody and as a rough draft of a Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement I am going to start using. So, because I wish you no harm so long as you do me no harm, if you will remove my 2 posts you obtained illegally from the Hotboards BB known as "The Cat's Whiskers" from the web, give me a written commitment to never republish them without my prior written permission, and apologize to Cat for accusing him of deleting a post of mine that was within his guidelines (which he would never do), then i8n exchange for this I shall voluntarily release you from any financial obligations you might otherwise have arising from your illegal taking of my 2 posts.

Now, we'll still have to figure out a way to exchange the written documents. We'll have to exchange versions until we come up with language we can both live with. But you'll have to go most of the bending. You are the one who has placed himself in a vulnerable position, not me, by your illegal acts. I won't try and screw you, but I will build in strong protections against your getting my release from liability and then turning around and republishing it, such as a clause in my release, which you will have to countersign and return a copy of to me for it to take effect, having the debt being reinstated if you ever were to republish either of these 2 pages again. But I won't look to make you apologize more than once to Cat, I won't ask you to apologize to me, and I won't seek to collect one cent of the Royalties you may legally owe me at this point if we agree to settle this matter between us in accordance with the terms I have described above.

In addition I hereby demand that you cease and desist the publication of my 2 posts you obtained illegally, without the consent of either myself or the Owner of the Hotboards BB called the Cat's Whisker. The URL where you have been publishing it is: www . oz . net / drek /best/carlos_this_has_been_copyrighted_and_censored_by_catweasel.html

( The copyright symbol belongs here, and is here on the originol file I have at home. Anyboards printed it as a ?)Full copyright protection to this post is hereby asserted by its Author and Owner, Carlos Harden. The Owner of this forum is recognized by Mr. Harden to have limited copyright entitlements and protections. He may copy this document in his Bulletin Board's archives, should he maintain any. He may not copy them elsewhere without the prior written consent of the Author, nor may he authorize any 3rd party to copy this document. So long as he abstains from these 2 actions the Author shall hold him harmless should any 3rd parties violate this Copyright. The party who publishes material on the web under the alias of Roger eDrek is granted limited rights to copy this document. He may do so for the purpose of storing it in his files in the event he feels the need to present it to an attorney, or to present it to an attorney. Any other person copying this document agrees, by their action in copying this document without written prior permission from the Author, to pay a Royalty of $1 million (USD) per day that this document is published on any electronic medium on the web, or in any newspaper, book, magazine or any other printed material. Except where such preemptive royalty agreements are prohibited by law, if any such jurisdiction exists, the party who copies this protected materials agrees to hold Mr. Harden harmless should he choose to exercise any protections he may be entitled to under copyright laws in the various jurisdictions involved, and/or pursue any royalties he might be entitled to, under this Copyright Notification and Royalty Agreement. The costs of exercising these copyrights or enforcing the Royalties due under this Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement, if any are encountered by the Author, shall be the full responsibility of the party who copies this work. Non-enforcement of any part of these enumerated protections and rights, by the Author, shall not be construed as a waiver of these protections and rights.

And now this gem posted in the Anything Goes forum by Carlos

10/27/2003, 06:10:29
Posted by: Carlos

Subject: Except that isn't how it is, Roger.

Message:

There was NO pressure. There were 2 expressions of concern that someone would use my words, taken out of context, to make points against M or the premies. You reacted to my own deletion of the post and its replacement in a way that shows there worry was not paranoia. You didn't take them out of context, exactly. But instead of inquiring of me you decided on your own to claim it was written by Cat, and used that FALSE ASSUMPTION to try and make premies look bad. They were pretty close.

Question for you, Roger. When a premie or a non-anti M ex says something not quite in line with the consensual position I've never seen that person get jumped on by even as many as 3 mildly dissenting premies. When an ex strays from the party line it is common to see 5, 6, as many as a round dozen exes jump them. Or jump a premie they disagree with. That is what got me into going at people like Jim, gerry, even you sometimes. That is why TomR1, who would vastly prefer someone come to Jesus than to M prefers our BB, the Whiskers, as his BB to hang out in for friendly discourse. You know what I've just said is true. That being so, how can you talk as if it is us, instead of your chums, who exert peer pressure, or attempt to?

Leaving that aside for a moment. You say you respect me, yet you publish reprints of something I made plain I DO NOT want reprinted. If this is how you treat people you respect, what do you do to those you disrespect?

And what is this "Public forums, Fair use" crap about. If you think some catch phrase grants you safety from the use of material clearly and plainly marked as copyrighted? Hotboards is not a library, where a post is equivalent to a book you can check out at will. With language like I wrote into my post starting this thread it is more like a book store that allows folks to read but requires them to pay if they leave the store with it.

Roger, I don't have the time to wish to pursue this even if I wished you ill, which I don't. But I am as bullheaded as was my father before me, who told me one time about spending $2,500 bucks and an extra 30 hours getting a traffic court Judge thrown off of the bench and disbarred as an attorney for violating his constitutional right in a traffic citation offense. The Judge had levied a $50 fine.

I also plainly demanded that you cease and desist the publication of reprints of any writings of mine on any of your Webster. I point out to you again that my publishing them on a Bulletin Board, especially when I publish them with a copyright notice, does not give you permission to recopy them. The Owner of the BB, if he indicates he has an archive, as Sir D has indicated he has for this BB by having a link labeled "Archives" clearly makes it plain to posters that reprinting to the Archives is policy of this BB. I might have a problem if I deemed that was blocked by my Assertion of Copyright, but I have not done so. I recognize his limited right to copy my work, and I so state in my Notice of Copyright and Royalty Agreement.

Roger, you might have been able to prevail in court, should this go that far, before. It was at least a bit dicey for you, since by reprinting both my original post and its replacement you demonstrated a clear awareness of my stated claim that I asserted copyright protection. Your claim that you believed Cat had rewritten it would not be a strong defense. But even that defense you lack as this 3rd of my works that you have reprinted has the Copyright Notice and Royalties Agreement still there, in the body of the text of your reprint!

Roger, give it up. Take the damn things down and I won't do anything else. Leave them up and all I promise you is I will do nothing illegal as I seek to protect my intellectual property.

Full copyright protection to this post is hereby asserted by its Author and Owner, Carlos Harden. The Owner of this forum is recognized by Mr. Harden to have limited copyright entitlements and protections. He may copy this document in his Bulletin Board's archives, should he maintain any. He may not copy them elsewhere without the prior written consent of the Author, nor may he authorize any 3rd party to copy this document. So long as he abstains from these 2 actions the Author shall hold him harmless should any 3rd parties violate this Copyright. The party who publishes material on the web under the alias of Roger eDrek is granted limited rights to copy this document. He may do so for the purpose of storing it in his files in the event he feels the need to present it to an attorney, or to present it to an attorney. These limited rights, however, are not a license to publish the written works of Mr. Harden, in oart or in full, on the web or on print or in any way whatsoever. Any such use by the person who publishes on the web using the name Roger Edrek shall waive any exclusion from the terms of the Royalty Agreement contained wityin this Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement he might otherwise have enjoyed. Any person copying this document agrees, by their action in copying this document without written prior permission from the Author, to pay a Royalty of $1 million (USD) per day that this document is published on any electronic medium on the web, or in any newspaper, book, magazine or any other printed material. Except where such preemptive royalty agreements are prohibited by law, if any such jurisdiction exists, the party who copies this protected materials agrees to hold Mr. Harden harmless should he choose to exercise any protections he may be entitled to under copyright laws in the various jurisdictions involved, and/or pursue any royalties he might be entitled to, under this Copyright Notification and Royalty Agreement. The costs of exercising these copyrights or enforcing the Royalties due under this Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement, if any are encountered by the Author, shall be the full responsibility of the party who copies this work. Non-enforcement of any part of these enumerated protections and rights, by the Author, shall not be construed as a waiver of these protections and rights.

And now this posted in the Anything Goes forum by Carlos

10/29/2003, 00:11:48
Posted by: Carlos

Subject: To Roger

Message:

In your most recent addition of reprints of my writings to a web page you are now calling an "archive", you claim, in a very prominent position, that I have admitted to having been pressured into removing the post I replaced with my 1st version of my "Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement" (CNRA). As I have informed you twice before, in my 3rd and 4th posts in this dialogue (this despite my demand that you cease and desist copying and publicly displaying them), I can only conclude that you are a liar.

Further, you use rather weak reasoning to attempt to support your case. You say that by my posting on a public forum with few or no limits to public access that I give up any reasonable expectation of privacy as to my writing in that post, and hence any entitlement to copyright protection. Every word published in written form in a book sold to public libraries equally loses any reasonable expectation to privacy of the author's words. Yet there is no question of the author having forfeited copyright.

You also uttered a 2nd lie, clearly demonstrated by the very posts you published against my will and without my permission. You claimed I somehow "changed my mind" about the 1st post, and presumably that would then be why I replaced it with my 1st version of my CNRA. This is in complete contradiction to your claim that I withdrew it due to pressure, which you somehow seem not to have noticed, but let's not go there.

Another thing you ignore is that I have never made any claim or inference that you have sought to embarrass me by these reprints. That you are ignoring this is indicated by the fact you felt a disclaimer asserting you had done no such thing a needed item of your prologues. There are two issues here, and only two, in my opinion. The first is, do I retain, at least in writings asserting copyright within them, copyright protection on writings in which I do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as I maintain, or do I lose the protection of copyright in such cases, as you assert. The 2nd issue is, can a party, such as yourself, who reprints and displays publicly a document containing a Royalty Agreement that plainly states that if you do so you will be entering into the Agreement be legally compelled to honor said Royalty Agreement, as I maintain, or does such an agreement lack one of the elements needed for a valid contract, as is implied by your actions in ignoring it.

You also claim that your reprinting my posts in a publicly visible fashion is protected as in the public interest in a sentence where you point out that the public already had access to it before you reprinted it. This I don't characterize as a lie, as you also talk about the public's "right to know" in the same sentence. This indicates to me you have the same lack of understanding many people do of certain rights asserted by the United States for her citizens within her boundaries. There are many things a person may keep private. So if such a "right to know" existed it would certainly be restricted, and could not be as broadly asserted as you attempt to do. And, again, would be moot in this instance as you were publishing for public display something already on public display!

You also assert that you are innocent of any crime in taking those documents from the Hotboards data base and reprinting them for public display. If a court of competent standing has ruled in similar cases, or if I take you into such a court and they rule in your favor, you could be shown to be right. But it is my opinion, and this is the basis for the legal theory I am operating under, that Hotboards gives access to their data base(s) for posting on their Bulletin Boards for uses enumerated in the Agreements they have with the Bullitin Board's owners, and has never authorized any other use. In a case where the Bulletin Board's owner has not given permission for 3rd parties to create or maintain an archive, or to otherwise republish what he is using Hotboard's data bases to publish, the intent which caused you to enter their data base would determine if it was an authorized entry, which would therefor be legal, or an unauthorized entry, which is a crime under US law. I don't say there is no case law supporting your legal theory. But if I knew of any my attitude and approach would be vastly different.

I grow weary of seeking to communicate with you. I again demand that you cease and desist publicly displaying any and all writings authored by me, as you know that such display is against my will and without my consent, and in some cases in defiance of assertions of copyright made within the very document you are reprinting for public display. I do not intend to communicate with you regarding this matter again outside of a court of law. As a courtesy I inform you that if you do not remove the offending reprints from public display in short order I will follow up on assertions as to your identity made in the past, and intimations as to where you reside, and seek to cause you to be served with such papers as may be useful in seeking to compel you to honor the Royalty Agreement I believe we have entered into due to your completion of your part of its terms.

I also assure you that the assertion of fear that I might seek you out in order to do some bodily harm to you is groundless; you can safely let go of that fear. That has been a needless fear, about me, for anyone since I was 13 years old. And regardless of the outcome of our suit, should matters go that far, I also assure you that you need fear nothing from me save financial harm should you ignore my reasonable request. Also, so if you ignore me your crows of delight when you aren't served within a week will be rendered hollow, it will be some time before I can free up the time to prosecute such a suit ... but I will be able to do so within 1 year of the last day the offending reprints are being published, which is the amount of time the law allows me in matters such as this. And it is my firm and unshakable intent to do so if you do not satisfy me forthwith.

Full copyright protection to this post is hereby asserted by its Author and Owner, Carlos Harden. The Owner of this forum is recognized by Mr. Harden to have limited copyright entitlements and protections. He may copy this document in his Bulletin Board's archives, should he maintain any. He may not copy them elsewhere without the prior written consent of the Author, nor may he authorize any 3rd party to copy this document. So long as he abstains from these 2 actions the Author shall hold him harmless should any 3rd parties violate this Copyright. The party who publishes material on the web under the alias of Roger eDrek is granted limited rights to copy this document. He may do so for the purpose of storing it in his files in the event he feels the need to present it to an attorney, or to present it to an attorney. These limited rights, however, are not a license to publish the written works of Mr. Harden, in part or in full, on the web or in print or in any way whatsoever. Any such use by the person who publishes on the web using the name Roger eDrek shall waive any exclusion from the terms of the Royalty Agreement contained within this Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement he might otherwise have enjoyed. Any person copying this document agrees, by their action in copying this document without written prior permission from the Author, to pay a Royalty of $1 million (USD) per day that this document is published on any electronic medium on the web, or in any newspaper, book, magazine or any other printed material. Except where such preemptive royalty agreements are prohibited by law, if any such jurisdiction exists, the party who copies this protected materials agrees to hold Mr. Harden harmless should he choose to exercise any protections he may be entitled to under copyright laws in the various jurisdictions involved, and/or pursue any royalties he might be entitled to under this Copyright Notification and Royalty Agreement. The costs of exercising these copyrights or enforcing the Royalties due under this Copyright Notice and Royalty Agreement, if any are encountered by the Author, shall be the full responsibility of the party who copies this work. Non-enforcement of any part of these enumerated protections and rights, by the Author, shall not be construed as a waiver of these protections and rights.

Finally, Carlos returns to his good natured self and allows the re-posting of his words in this gentle reminder to Gerry that it is always best to go to a Doctor to get any medical complaint looked at even if it shaking and feeling uneasy caused by astral projecting as a result of meditation. Well, maybe one should see a qualified Guru for that condition.

You know, a Guru who actually has meditated once or twice and not some phony baloney alcoholic playboy Guru.

And, thanks, Carlos, for lightening up on the Copyright restrictions. (See below)

Posted: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 09:33:25 (EST)
Posted by: Carlos

Subject: gerry's dangerous medical advice

Message:

gerry is telling an ex who said he is having convulsions, which he believes are caused by his doing the techniques of Knowledge, that he should ignore my advice and just stop practicing. My advice had been that the guy should go to a doctor because if it wasn't from him practicing but was something physical it could be something serious, from epilepsy to brain tumors.

I'm no doctor, so I didn't try to diagnose the guy on the web. gerry is no doctor, but he did diagnose the guy as not being in danger. He may not have intended it to be a diagnosis, he may not have intended to effectively tell the guy not to go to a doctor. But for either of those possibilities to be true gerry would have to be capable of either very stupid or very immoral behavior. Such as not reading what he advised him to ignore. He also took what the guy called convulsions and called them 'shaking from meditation'. Dangerous assumption, gerry. You weren't there any more than I was. Convulsions can be way more serious than shaking. Why'd you minimize his symptom, gerry? It sure as hell wasn't from knowing enough about the guy to have any reason to believe you were giving him harmless advice?

This post, if reprinted in its entirety, I have no objections whatsoever to it being copied and reprinted. This request as to how I would wish it to be reprinted, i.e., in its entirety, I ask be part of any reprint. The only limit I request people honor as to where they might reprint it is that I do not want it to be reprinted for commercial purposes.

THE CAT'S WHISKER - A Funky little spot for anyone feeling free and easy

10 A million dollars (USD) per day!  Whip me, beat me, sue me!
9 Royalties...
8 Jurisdiction...
7 Preemptive royalty agreements...
6 Prior Permission...
5 Full copyright protection...
4 Unethical and dangerous for my soul...
3 Ok, I was wrong, catweasel was not the author of the Copyright post
2 How much do you think I owe you now?
1 Carlos, you are the Energizer Bunny when it comes to posting
0 censorship is part and parcel to Maharaji's way of life - if only they knew the truth
Additional Comments