Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Ellison and TERMINATOR
Message-ID: <69@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Jun-85 15:55:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtp47.69
Posted: Fri Jun 14 15:55:18 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 02:31:20 EDT
References: <826@mtgzz.UUCP> <15041@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 33

> The court will then decide strictly on the merits of
> the stories whether plagiarism has occurred or Ellison is just being
> a litiginous swine.  Since I respect Ellison, I hope it will be the
> former, but time will tell.
>                               Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo

I basically agree with Jim, but would like to expand a little on his
points and request some information.

I think that regarding Ellison as a litiginous swine rests on the
assumption that his basis for suit was in fact the Outer Limits episodes
mentioned in earlier postings.  Having seen these episodes, I'd have to
say that *if* Ellison based an action on those episodes *then* he is a
litiginous swine.  Ellison's position in the Brillo afair is (it seems
to me) more respectable.

If, as in the Brillo case, Ellison was hired to work on The Terminator
in some capacity, and was fired under somewhat unjust circumstances, I'd
have more sympathy with his position.

Therefore: Does anyone out there in netland have information on either
of these two points:

    Was Harlan Ellison hired in any capacity during production of or
    planning for The Terminator?

    If not, does anyone know for (fairly) certain the grounds the
    Destroyer Lawyer (hmpf!) was planning to base his case?

Since I lack information on these two points, I don't have an opinion on
Ellison's litiginousness or swinehood.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw