From: raz@sleeper.apana.org.au (Roland Turner)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Sigh, how boring
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 10:02:38 GMT
Organization: Desolation Road Railfan BBS

davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes:

>Here is a message I received
>   Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 09:14:23 -0500
>   From: David Bonnell <davidb@engin.umich.edu>
[I assume that Dave Bonell wrote the following, the attributions are 
unclear. - Roland]

>   The problem is that you feel that a Scientologist must ANSWER your
>   questions.

I'm interjecting here because my attitude is similar (IMHO) to Phil's and
I would like to understand yours.

>  To be very frank it is a waste of my time to answer
>   questions for people who really don't want to know what Scientology
>   is. 

And what about people who do, whether or not you perceive their scepticism and
analysis to indicate an apparent lack of interest?

>   You can read the What is Scientology book and find out for
>   yourself. 

If a person tells me that a thing is true and hat he knows this thing to be
true, then I feel that it is entirely reasonable for me to ask that person
for an explanation and to expect a clear answer. If that person says "I don't
know how to explain this to you" or "Go and read item X (I don't know how to
explain this to you)" or "Get stuffed (I don't know how to explain this to 
you)" or "It's out-gradient (I don't know how to explain this to you)" I am
led to assume that in fact that person does NOT have a clear handle on the 
reality or otherwise and basis of his claim(s). As myself and others have
mentioned before, this canned response from Scnists is both common and 
annoying. IMHO it betrays a deep inhibition carried by most Scnists about 
analysing what they are told to believe. By not hinking about it and getting
their veiws and beliefs to a point of sufficient clarity to discuss them 
lucidly, they (Scnists) avoid the risk (risk is to Cos rather than to Scnists)
of discovering that some part of their belief is inconsistent, unreasonable
or just plain wrong and the consequent "difficult" behaviour.

What really stops you from discussin ou beliefs? If you have a clear
understanding of beliefs, you would have no difficulty discussing them in 
detail. If you don't, then please allow me to advise you most strongly to
examine and analyse your beliefs and then make certain that they are 
reasonable.

>   to answer questions.  The only way a person will ever think anything
>   is really true is if it is true for them.

This remark is ambiguous and its context is misleading. 

I don't see any problem with a person thinking a thing true if it is not
true for them. You assumption is tantamount to assuming that an individual
cannot simultaneously hold multiple conflicting veiwpoints.

The contextual problem is that it is reminiscent (sp?) of john Holifield's
litany "If it's true for you, it's true." and thus it appears that you are 
trying to lend credence to John's litany by reversing the sentence to yield
something that is (almost) reasonable.

>   Scientology is not a
>   body of knowledge to be rotely memorized and not used.

Has anyone here suggested that it is? (Read: Are you answering unasked
questions to appear responsive?)

>  It is the
>   body of knowledge that describes how life works.

It is A body of knowledge (belief) that describes how life works.

>   One learns some
>   of it,  Goes out and trys it and sees that it works and then uses
>   it.  If it doesn't work for them then it doesn't.

These remaks are accurate, however:
	(1) This is NOT the only way to learn something. Several others
exist.
	(2) Whether or no a thing (belief, procedure, etc.) works is not
the same thing as whether or not it is true.

>   Your FAQ list
>   is a total joke.

HARDLY! It is a list of things that SEVERAL people reading and posting here 
ACTUALLY WANT to know about your beliefs which despite endless rephrasing
and reasking have STILL not been answered. It is not a joke, it is a list of
things that you (who claims to belive Scn and to KNOW) are UNABLE to tell
us (those asking) about your beliefs.

>   It is like making a list of KKK books on
>   blacks and then passing it around.  Total stupidity.  But then
>   look at the people who are creating it.

But it is not a list of prejudiced publications, it is a list of things
that people want to know, things you claim to know and yet refuse (and I
presume are unable) to discuss.

Re: The people creating it.

Making sweeping derogatory remarks about those who are are enturbulating you
belies the presence of a restimulated service facsimile. Get it handled, fast.


>If I see someone throwing trash on the highway I report it.  Your rantings
>about my trying to cut your "intelligent" communication are silly.   This is
>not my intention neither stated nor implied.  I have said that you are doing
>something wrong and I am reporting it.  That I have done.  I have never said
>you should not say something.

If not to stop his current and recent communication, why did you report it?

>It scares me to think that people that are that ignorant still exist.

This belies your lack of understanding and or intelligence. The majority of
the species is spectacularly ignorant of Scn - I am not talking about just
over 50%, I am talking well in excess of 90%.

[I assume Phil wrote the following 2 lines - Roland]

>"David, if you're not going to participate in our discussion, please cease and
>desist from posting your Infomercials to this group."

>It actually is quite humorous to me.  You accuse me of doing something I never
>did and in your super intelligent manor you do that same thing.  And I'm the
>stupid one.  You need some Scientology Auditing very badly.  It will raise
>your IQ and make you better able to handle life.

Did you or did you not post the info on Scn books? How on Earth is Phil 
doing something even remotely similar?

What would be the advantage of him receiving bad auditing ? :-)

>If your so bright maybe you could read some KKK propaganda and you could
>start an alt.black newsgroup? 

What an odd suggestion. What would it achieve?

>A very big suprise is coming very soon.

This is getting silly. Didn't you make this same claim for Dec 18, 1992 on or
about 6 Dec, 1992. Are you serious or just posting lies?


-- 
Bye for now.
        - Raz.

raz@sleeper.apana.org.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology