HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Other Services.
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:17:57 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Sep28.091749.15731@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

> Hubbard Key to Life Course.  1990 saw the long-awaited release of the
> monumental Hubbard Key to Life Course.  Years in preparation, the final
> course materials consist of 13 illustrated books, with a total of 2,200
> pages and almost 4,000 paintings, illustrations and photographs.

4,000 pictures in 2,200 pages, hmmm...

This must be targeted especially for those who has gone through
the famous Church of Scientology IQ enhancement program, yes?
--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Two questions...
Date: 6 Oct 92 07:57:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

> 1. What exactly is 'Clearsound'?

It's the amazing new sound technology that's the most astounding
completely original discovery made by L. Ron Hubbard since the
phonograph!  It apparently has something to do with recording
on tape, but the details are of course, based on hundreds of hours
of OT auditing research and can't be released...

> 2. What ever happened to Lafayette Ron Hubbard?

At least 76 trillion years of misadventures.

Dave Decot :-)
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Thetan.
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:14:47 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

thetan: the person himself -- not his body or his name, the physical
universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware;
the identity which is the individual.  The term was coined to eliminate any
possible confusion with older, invalid concepts.  It comes from the Greek
letter Theta, which the Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit,
to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create
words in engineering.  It is also (theta-symbol with subscript n), or
"theta to the nth degree," meaning unlimited or vast.

theta: the life force, life energy, divine energy, elan vital, or any other
name, the energy peculiar to life which acts upon the physical universe and
animates it and changes it.

(quoted from the glossary of The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard.)
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Subject: Re: double blind
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Society for the Prevention of National Mudding Associations
	<GISLE.92Sep28122035@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
	<1992Sep28.181941.3425@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:20:15 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>Later in the afternoon I helped to clean up the sauna.  Each day
>there was about two tablespoons of dark-gray gritty substance on the
>tile floor that comes out in your sweat.  Like I said, I don't know
>what it was, but It couldn't have been dirt because I was clean when
>I got in there and the sauna was clean when I got in.  Also I took
>several showers between the beginning and end of the session.

Probably dead skin flakes.  Showering doesn't generally remove very
much dead skin (unless you are really vigorous with a brush, loofah,
or similar implement), but the long-term sweating will probably loosen
a good amount of it, leaving it behind where ever skin touches other
surfaces (especially if abrasion occurs).

Other possibilities are crystallized salts from sweat combined with
dirt (taking a shower isn't going to get anywhere near all the dirt
off of you) and dried sebum (skin oils).

--
The US has a vital interest in that area of the country.
		-- Vice President Dan Quayle, referring to Latin America.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Dianetics books.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 15:38:01 GMT


jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>   Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science -- It is estimated that we use less
>than ten percent of our mind's potential.  What stops us from developing and
>using the full potential of our minds?

The "ten percent" idea shows up regularly on newsgroups like
sci.skeptic and talk.origins. [Someone there probably has a FAQ.] It
is an urban legend, and not true.  Or, to be more precise, there was
once someone who suggested that; but he was just guessing, and his
guess has never been accepted by the scientific community.

Does this book actually say that? If so, does it give evidence, or a
reference? 
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: 2 Oct 1992 14:17:19 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: szechuan.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Oct2.011600.24839@unixg.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312)) writes:
>If we can stop people from being sucked into the COS and
>losing thier lives (meant literaly and figuratively
>ie:Noah Lotticks) then the time spent IS WORTH IT.  ...

The Book of the SubGenius, paraphrased from memory, says "this book
may drive you crazy.  Scientology may drive you crazy.  Catholicism,
junk food, television, the Trilateral Commission, and the Illuminati
have all driven people crazy.  Some people drive themselves crazy."

Dwell on that last sentence, if you please.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Re: Creed.
Date: 30 Sep 1992 21:18:24 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Sep30.202327.678@balrog.dseg.ti.com> keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.131245.3402@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> Little Joey is a bright young third grader who is bored and frustrated with 
>>what laughably passes for education in grade schools controlled by 
>>Psychologists.  
>
>Paranoia anyone?  I didn't know that my son's 4th grade was run by 
>psychologists.

Psychologists or "educators."  In many cases it amounts to the same
thing. 

>>He is noisey, disrupts class, and is generally to active
>>for the teacher who likes the class room nice and quiet.  The teacher
>>knows he should be quiet because she learned about it in school in a class
>>called "The Psychology of Pre-Adolescent Human Learning".   
>
>And instead the teacher was supposed to spend her time trying to keep Joey
>quiet so the other students could learn, but since that was extremely time
>consuming she was unable to spend any time teaching the other children.

Or instead of spending her/his time creating a learning environment
that's interesting and stimulating.  Good heavens, we wouldn't want to
actually allow creativity or individuality.  That's "disruptive" and
dangerous to the status quo.

>>So what happens?
>>The school Counselor (a psychologists) refers Joey to a psychiatrists who
>>prescribes him a drug for his "hyper-activity". 
>>
>Now, Joey can control himself, does not disrupt the classroom environment, and
>the rest of the class and Joey can learn to survive in today's society.  
>Sounds like a win-win situation.

Yes, the teacher wins a nice, quiet, subservient classroom, the drug
company wins a new customer, probably for life.  The only one that
loses is Joey because he's lost the ability to be creative and think
for himself.  But who cares, as long as when he is finally excreted by
the educational system he goes to work every day, comes home, sits in
front of the tube, and buys whatever the box tells him to buy?

Wholesale, indiscriminate drugging of children isn't the answer to
anything.

What this has to do with the charter of this group is beyond me.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:01:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.183024.3485@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>To  :  Scientology Critics
>From:  John Holifield
>
>    Why have you spent so much of your time trying to make Scientology
>and L. Ron Hubbard look like an evil fraud?  

	I don't think that the people who are criticizing Scientology are
people who have anything personal against LRH.  I think that many of them are
people who sincerely believe that the COS causes hurt to people and who want
to prevent others from being hurt.  Some of them are people who have had
friends hurt by the COS,  and others are people who have been hurt themselves.
I really don't know how much time they spend,  but I doubt that any of the
people who post about it on the net are spending more than a few minutes a
day.

	I can tell you about my own reason for participating in this newsgroup.
Part of it is sheer entertainment;  some of the people here post stuff that
is really hilareous.  The other part is that I am interested in the COS as a
model for the consensual hallucination reality grid that our culture creates.
How the hallucinating can lead the hallucinating.  How George Bush can lead
America.  As such,  much of my interest in the COS is mostly on an academic
level -- I don't have animosity towards it.

	So far as my feelings about Hubbard,  I believe that he was a very
intellegent man with a very active imagination.  He was a third-rate science
fiction writer.  I also believe that he was insane;  I feel compassion for
him.  I don't feel that Hubbard was just "an evil fraud" and I don't think
that he should be perceived as such.

	As such,  I think that you're making a very definite value judgement
in asking the question you do above -- it goes without saying that this
is a rhetorical question.  You probably don't care what any "SP" thinks
(Translation to english:  Anyone who is not 100% absolutely delighted and
satisfied with the COS)...  You are just trying to present your own framing
of other people's motives.  Nice rhetorical device.  Too bad it was around
for 2300 years before LRH discovered it.



-- 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: WINS!!!
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:05:14 GMT
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Sep26.132653.3403@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> Here is an interesting Win I had from the purification rundown.
> I did the Purif in May of '92.  Last night (9/25/92) my girlfriend's
> mother who is not a Scientologist and is in fact somewhat antagonistic
> to the religion commented that before I did the purif, my skin had
> a grey cast to it.  She said that now I had nice rosey cheeks and
> good skin color!!!
>
> Not exactly scientific evidence, but a nice win just the same.

Incredible!!!

And I am happy to report that I've had this win also!  At the end of
winter, my skin was really pale and had a sort of grayish cast.  Now
(9/27/92) we're at the end of a beautiful summer and my complexion has
definetively improved -- rosey cheeks and all.

Could it be that I read "Battleship Earth" by L. Ron Hubbard on the
beach this summer, while working on my tan?
yes - Yes - YES --- THAT MUST BE IT!!!




--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------
From: 06zonker@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Drugs in the Classroom  (Was - Re: Re: Creed.)
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:49:33 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1ahsiqINNmit@network.ucsd.edu>, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes:


   (delete, delete, erase, snuff, snuff)


>>Would you rather have a society that tried to use drugs to help people, or 
>>would you prefer the prior methods of either doing nothing, so some peoples'
>>lives were living hell, or locking them up and forgetting about them?
> 
> I think I answered this in my last posting but just to clarify:  No,
> of course I don't entirely disapprove of the use of drugs/medicines.
> If I did, I certainly wouldn't be working where I'm working.  But
> that's not the point we're discussing.  The point, as I understand it,
> is whether or not we should resort to drugging problem children as a
> first, rather than a last resort.
> 
> Sometimes people's lives are living hell, even *with* drugs.
> Sometimes, people are drugged simply because they're a pain in the ass
> to deal with (there are numerous documented cases of just this taking
> place in mental hospitals around the country).
> 
***   try writing it this way:

 Sometimes people's lives are living hell, even *with* religion.
 Sometimes, people are indocrinated simply because they're a pain in the ass
 to deal with (there are numerous documented cases of just this taking
 place in churches around the country)

****


> When I think about the mis-uses that psychiatry was put to in the
> former-Soviet Union, and the abuses, both potential and real, here, I
> get just a little nervous and sceptical about the use of drugs to
> control problem children.
> 
> The answer is just *too* easy.
> 

*** and this:

 When I think about the misuses that religion was put to (sic) in the
 former [present and future] Soviet Union/ Americas/Asia/Africa/Australia/
 Antarctica, and the abuses, both potential and real, here, I get just a little
 nervous and sceptical about the use of sermons/confessionals/dianetics books/
 e-meters/narconon to control non-problem (preferably moneyed) adults. 


 Scientology's answers are just *too* sleazy. 

> 							spl
>
***

                                             imr
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: double blind
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:28:08 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:
> The Scientologists were busted
>for raiding the FBI offices and such looking for evidence that they
>had on the them.  Presumably if these guys could exteriorize as they
>say they can, then 

There was testimony at the trial that they overall aim of Project
Snow White was *not* to look for evidence, but to remove documents.
(The idea being that any large organization "remembers" on paper, and
if you extract that, then a few years later you are snow white.)
So, the FBI incident isn't so relevant as it might seem.

>     Why is it so strange to you that a person could feel endangered
>by demonstrating such powers.

It don't find it strange at all. People are entitled to feel what they
like.

What I find strange, is not that *one* *person* is unwilling to come
forward. The strange thing is that *no* *one* has. Scientology claims
to 
 - have "tech" that never fails.
 - have taught hundreds of thousands or maybe millions.
 - have been around for forty years.
and one notices that
 - people differ.
 - some people have left Scientology for the Free Zone.
 - some people have left Scientology in anger and spoken out.
 - the original Dianetics is still around in Los Angeles and was
	never part of Scientology.
 - some people have left Scientology and/or Dianetics and founded 
	their own religions.
 - various groups have been claiming for a century that they could
	exteriorize.
 - Church staff report that they are under heavy pressure to find ways
	to bring in new recruits.

Well, not to belabor the point. It's just that that's a pretty large
and longstanding group of diverse people, with diverse goals. You
are arguing for unanimity.


-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Medical Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:15:18 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:
>>However, the post you were mis-remembering was also correct.  The fat
>>in your fat cells in fact turns over every two to three weeks; the
>>fat stored in my tissues today is not the same fat that was there
>>last month. There is an active recycling mechanism - not of cells,
>>but of the chemical that those cells store.
> 
>     Does this mean that IF drugs residues were stored in the
>fat cells, that they too would be recycled or washed away
>every two or three weeks, or could they stay behind?

No, it doesn't mean that everything in those cells gets recycled.
The only way to do that, 100% reliably, would be to trash the cells
and grow new ones.

There are indeed fat-soluble chemicals (some of them toxins). My wife
hears that a fat woman who loses her ovaries will get estrogen from
her fat for up to several years.  I also recall hearing that DDT can
be retained for several years. [I'd like to find out if that's still
considered true.]

However, descriptions of the Purif keep bringing in things that
aren't fat soluble, and/or leave *no* known residue in the body.  My
Merck (14th edition, 1982) doesn't mention storage in its sections on
addiction to opiates, barbiturates, cocaine, amphetamines, PCPs,
solvents, nitrites, and alcohol. It does mention that "metabolic
products of marijuana are retained in the tissues for as long as 8
days".  Concerning LSD, "the mechanisms that produce flashbacks are
not known, but they tend to subside over a period of 6 months to a
year". LSD isn't fat soluble, BTW.

In particular, the Church descriptions of the Purif mention it
"running out radiation". It's unclear if that's referring to
 1- radioactive poisions,
 2- radiation damage, or
 3- radiation itself.
(A recent quote from the head of the Church implied the first.)

The Purif should not be effective for any of these three. Item (3) is
physically impossible; item (2) disagrees with the findings of the
people who *really* *want* to find cures for radiation damage.  Item
(1) is stupid because long-term retention of radiactive material is
typically in your bones.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: double blind
Organization: Me
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:02:23 GMT

>
>There was testimony at the trial that they overall aim of Project
>Snow White was *not* to look for evidence, but to remove documents.
>(The idea being that any large organization "remembers" on paper, and
>if you extract that, then a few years later you are snow white.)
>So, the FBI incident isn't so relevant as it might seem.

     There was a long period of time when the Church operatives 
spent their evenings and such merely xeroxing everything in sight,
during the IRS case.  They did not want to steal papers which would
immediately let others know something was up, they merely wanted
to know what the IRS knew or thought, and what it was planning.
 
     They felt that if they knew how the enemy was going to attack
that they would be better prepared to defend.  The raiding of the
IRS offices went on for ages due to the careful copying and returning
of all documents.

     It was after Meisner and company got busted that the FBI
decided to raid the FCDC.  This from memory so I might have it
wrong...

     This is all very well documented in some of the very books
that you have in your faq list, you have read them all, right?


>>     Why is it so strange to you that a person could feel endangered
>>by demonstrating such powers.
>
>It don't find it strange at all. People are entitled to feel what they
>like.
>
>What I find strange, is not that *one* *person* is unwilling to come
>forward. The strange thing is that *no* *one* has. 
 
     This is my view of exteriorization.  I have known a number of
people who claim to have gone out side of their bodies for short times.
They invariably said it was scary as hell and went right back in.
Sometimes they find themselves over in the other corner looking on
at the room, and then they realize they are out, and bang they
go back in again.
 
     It is one thing the be out of your body, 3 feet back of your head
as Hubbard is always saying, and guite another to be FREE of the body
and go wandering where ever you will.  It is doubtful that
many people have attained this state stabily, and if they have
I am sure they have little interest in proving it to anyone.
 
     Maybe there have been demonstrations and you were busy
doing something else that day.  
 
     The idea that if people could do this kind of thing that you
and the whole world would know about it the next day is frivolous
and demonstrates a lack of grasp on the ramifications of such a thing.
 
     Homer
From: 06zonker@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Medical Science
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:17:54 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Sep27.151700.15630@tc.cornell.edu>, homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:
> 
>>
>>However, the post you were mis-remembering was also correct.  The fat
>>in your fat cells in fact turns over every two to three weeks; the
>>fat stored in my tissues today is not the same fat that was there
>>last month. There is an active recycling mechanism - not of cells,
>>but of the chemical that those cells store.
>  
>      Don,
>  
>      Does this mean that IF drugs residues were stored in the
> fat cells, that they too would be recycled or washed away
> every two or three weeks, or could they stay behind?
>  
>      Seems like the scientific side of this shouldn't be all
> that hard to determine one way or another.
>  
>      Homer

#####################################################################

  Easy, eh?   The cheap pseudo-philosophy you've been impinging on our
poor abused neurons was hard enough to take, but this is too much...
Good scientific research is NEVER easy, never "one way or the other", and
very seldom applicable to all drugs/conditions/subjects/et cetera...

 For such a self-professed genius, you seem too inebriated by the fulgence
of your own prose;  to impress the rest of us, put some thought into it,
and as a gratuitous tip, learn how to spell.

Love and peace, 

I.R.




Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology