HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:41:25 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bz9v4B.54r@cup.hp.com>, decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
> :    What I am saying is that while we might debate the workability of
> : Scientology, there can be no debate about this clear fact.  The
> : Xemu story is NOT a Scientology teaching.  
> : 
> : -John Holifield
> :    
> 
> If I told you that OT III involved the solo auditor running
> his "body thetans" through an incident involving frozen thetans,
> exploding volcanoes, and evil galactic rulers, would you find that
> ridiculous?  That thetans were held imprisoned in Hawaii (even though
> at that time in the history of the earth, there was nothing there but
> ocean)?
>

  This is just speculation about what OTIII may contain.  I have asked
people who have actually been through OTIII what was on it and everyone
has told me that its in Scientology Books.  I've even asked if they could
tell me that XEMU was NOT a part of OTIII, and I've been told it isn't.
They've also told me that what IS on OTIII is so much more far-out that
I'd never guess it.
 
> I presume that this means that if you get to OT III and discover that
> its materials do contain substantially the same story as stated here,
> that you will agree that this story is ridiculous and quit Scientology?
> 

  No, It would depend on what happened when I did the process.  Actually
XEMU seems much less strange to me than other things in Scientology.
The GE for example.  The idea of a GE gives me the creeps.


> Dave Decot
> 

John Holifield


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:51:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.174125.4629@memstvx1.memst.edu>
isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: 
>In article <Bz9v4B.54r@cup.hp.com>, decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
[...]
>> I presume that this means that if you get to OT III and discover that
>> its materials do contain substantially the same story as stated here,
>> that you will agree that this story is ridiculous and quit Scientology?
>
>  No, It would depend on what happened when I did the process.  Actually
>XEMU seems much less strange to me than other things in Scientology.
>The GE for example.  The idea of a GE gives me the creeps.

OK, let me get this straight.  The Xemu material clearly contradicts
Scn doctrine, so it is not possible that it is Scn doctrine.
However, if it _is_ in the OTIII material, you would accept it without
question?  You would accept two teachings that directly contradict
each other?  We've been trying to discuss logic and skepticism with
you?!

(way too weird for me...)

	RA

rogue@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu (The Rogue Agent)
--------------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:35:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.135527.4572@memstvx1.memst.edu>
isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: 
>In article <1992Dec13.024212.27909@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>,
>rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes: 
>> In article <1992Dec12.111853.4552@memstvx1.memst.edu>
>> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: 
>>>In article <Bz2JBp.HFI.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald
>>>Lindsay) writes: 
>>>> 
>>>> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
[...]
[the 'it' in the next sentence refers to the Xemu material]
>>>   Perhaps it could be true that something like that is a part of
>>>the OTIII materials.  However, EVERYTHING that I have ever read about
>>>this story has had SEVERE inconsistency with what is known to be
>>>Church teachings.
>> 
>> Could you expand on this a bit?  Everything I've read seems quite
>> consistent.  
>
>   Consistent with other false reports.  Its inconsistent with A LOT
>of teachings of the church.
>
>   I don't doubt that the Xemu story is consistent with other accounts
>of the Xemu story you may have read.  But, its not consistent with
>Scientology books and tapes that you haven't read.

OK - so give us some examples of how Xemu is inconsistent with Scn.
If possible, don't say 'page 435 of obscure book X which costs $150 at
your local org.'

Oh - and does Scn have any ideas on who started the Xemu thing and
why?  (aside from wanting to hurt Scn - more specifically)

[...]
>> Could you give us your slant on what happened when the Xe[mn]u
>> material was released to the public as part of a Scn trial in Calif
>> several years ago, and Scn'ers flooded the records office to keep the
>> info from becoming public?  Did this event happen?  Did any of the
>> info get into the hands of the public?  Did they die 37 days after
>> reading it? 
>
>   Friends of mine that were there report that many scientologists
>stood in line at the court house to keep the reports out of the news.
>Evidently this did happen.  Some of the info must have gotten into
>public hands, and as far as I know nobody died from reading it.  But
>what you read from the LA Times, and books critical of Scientology
>can't be actual teachings of the church.  

_Why_ can't they be actual teachings of Scn?  Where's the
contradiction?  And which materials _are_ accurate?  What I hear you
saying is that the material did leak, but what we've seen was not it,
but something someone maliciously released, claiming it was the
material.  Is this correct?  Here's another thought - is the material
currently available from the court office?  If so the whole thing
could be cleared up rather easily.  We _do_ agree that what the court
had was the real thing?  

	RA

rogue@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu (The Rogue Agent)
--------------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: I Have *No* Integrity!
Date: 16 Dec 92 00:31:43 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <axg708.249.724460288@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>, axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious) writes:
> In article <1992Dec7.181525.4438@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> 
>>In article <Byv2x4.I19@csn.org>, pae@teal.csn.org 
>>    (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec6.160658.4415@memstvx1.memst.edu> 
>>         isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>>>>The Church doesn't have to proove anything to you.  Any research LRH did was
>>>>his own research, and you have no "right" at all to see it.
>>> 
>>> LRH can do his own research. He can come to his own conclusions. 
>>> However, when he says in a book:
>>> 
>>> LRH>No other subjects on Earth except physics and chemistry have had such
>>> LRH>grueling testing.
>>> 
>>> Then the CoS is "making public" this claim. Jonathon's actions were consistent
>>> with this: he put it in a "FAQ" for this newsgroup.
>>>
>>
>>    LRH says that in Scientology books.  These books are considered to be
>>the "Holy Scriptures" of the Scientology religion (in a sense).  The CoS
>>has no more obligation to prove this than Christian Churches have to prove
>>ideas such as virgin birth.
>>
> WRONG PAL!!!! The basis of your religion is on verifiable proof. The basis 
> of Christianity is faith. You can not prove faith. On the other hand it is 
> claimed by you and your church and LRH that he has proof for what he 
> believes. OKAY. Show us. Gee... I hope you were not naive enough to join
> this group of yours on the faith that proof existed?
> 

   I can experiment with Scientology teachings and verify them for myself
anyone can.  If your not willing to do that Fine, but I don't owe you any
obligation to prove anything to you.

-John
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: THIS IS TRUE
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:44:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec16.065914.24685@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>, rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
> In article <670@blue.cis.pitt.edu> aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:

>>Scientology may be full of vocabulary, but this is to keep the PC from
>>becoming upstat about the true nature of LRH's WOF and BB.

> OK, fun's fun (I chuckled too) - now what the fuck does this mean?

Oh, I *am* sorry, but we can't reveal the TRUE MEANING to you at this time
for it would damage you to understand the meaning of our words until you
are properly prepared.  Give us $10,000?  OK.  Now you are prepared:

	PC - Some think this means Pre-clear.  Not true.  It means PERSONAL
	     COMPUTER or Politically Correct.  We change it's meaning every
	     other invocation.

	LRH - Sorry, you have to ask Xuemu about this one.

	Upstat -  An abbreviation for UpState New York.

	WOF - Wall of Fire.  Or the sound that my dog makes.

	BB  - "Broken Back" or "Bat Boy" or "Broken Bat".  You have to get
	      to Schmuck V before you know for sure.

Now take ":-)" and raise (or raze) it to the billionth power to get the
true meaning of my message.

Scientology is full of bogus jargon to try to convince it's "customers"
that it's Scientific and perhaps just a bit mysterious.  All the while
fleecing the pocket books and bank accounts of said "customers".  (How
many religions call their congregation "customers"?  Let's face it:
Scientology is a "religion" in name only.  In all other respects, it's
as religious as AMWAY).

Lenny Bruce was right.  Don't trust any preacher who owns more than two suits.
From: schaf@socrates.ucsf.edu (Chris Schafmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Ending scientology
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:03:36 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:

>gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>>> What kinds of laws or programs could be created
>>> that would limit the damage done to society by these
>>> cults?
>>
>>If you're thinking about laws targeted specifically against these
>>"cults" freedom to exist and express themselves, my answer would
>>be: None whatsoever!

>Agreed. Freedom of speech is more important.

>It might be nice if religions weren't exempt from (say) the financial
>reporting laws that apply to public corporations.  Large
>organizations bring in auditors because it's prudent: so I don't see
>any great argument that such a law would be burdensome. It's having
>the auditor's report public that I'd kinda like. Some Christian
>denominations do this already, and it certainly gives a good picture
>of what they are and aren't.
>-- 
>Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

I'm against restrictions on freedom of speech of any kind.
I didn't state this in my original posting.

What I'm interested in is what kinds of laws could be created
that would prevent irresponsible religious organizations
from bleeding society for the gain of their leaders.

I don't want my tax dollars going to support
parasitic organizations like scientology.

I think I will create a new law, sort of like Murphy's Law
(only not as widely applicable) and call it Schafmeister's Law
(Why not? I created it)

Schafmeister's Law: "Parasites will overrun any nurturing environment"

Okay, its not very good, but it contains the essence;
the free-ride that religions enjoy is
being abused by parasitic organizations like Scientology and
other cults.  I'd include some TV-evangelists but that's
not what this forum is about.

The leaders of these organizations have taken advantage of
their tax-free status to provide themselves with a very confortable
living.

Is it reasonable to ask for some kind of legal machinery that
would prevent this kind of abuse?

.Chris.
schaf@cgl.ucsf.edu
-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christian E.A.F. Schafmeister               Biophysics graduate student
University of California, San Francisco      UUCP: ucbvax!ucsfcgl!schaf
"Biophysics . . . THE future."             INTERNET: schaf@cgl.ucsf.edu
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: XEMU Revisited
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:18:53 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bz2JBp.HFI.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
> 
> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>    Other "secret teachings" of Scientology include a ridiculous story
>>about volcanoes, atom bombs, and body thetans.  Nothing even resembling
>>this can be found anywhere in Scientology.  This can't be verified 
>>not because its a secret, but because these teachings DO NOT EXIST.
> 
> I've heard the Xenu thing from too many sources, with too much
> consistency, for me to agree. In fact, someone posted just recently,
> mentioning "incident two", which is a reference to Xenu.
>

   Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.  In fact, if you believed
everything just because you heard something similar from a different
source, you'd have joined Scientology a long time ago.

   Perhaps it could be true that something like that is a part of
the OTIII materials.  However, EVERYTHING that I have ever read about
this story has had SEVERE inconsistency with what is known to be
Church teachings.

   Also, I've never heard this story directly from LRH books or tapes.
I've looked and have found lots of equally if not more strange ideas
than Xemu and volcanoes.  Much of this stuff that is known to be LRH
teachings is STRANGE sounding but NONE of it is a secret.

   What could the Church possibly have to gain by keeping the Xemu
story a secret if they openly sell books and tapes that describe much
weirder things such as implants, the GE, the Marcab Confederacy, etc?
 
> As I've heard it, the Church says that you shouldn't be told this
> "ridiculous story" until OT III. Could you explain why you are so
> sure that the Church does *not* have things that are kept until high
> levels? We've certainly heard the phrase "out-gradient" a few times,
> right here on this newsgroup.
>

   OTIII materials are confidential because the processes are
dangerous if used incorrectly or at the wrong time.  It's not
Out-Gradient because it's harmful to read about Atomic-volcanoes
and evil galactic rulers.   Has any harm come to us from discussing
it?

   This whole argument is so stupid because how can I ever proove that
its NOT a secret teaching?  How would you ever prove that you aren't
a CIA agent?

   Don't you see how weak that line of reasoning is?

   You are presenting the case that the Xemu story is a teaching of
Scientology.  The only evidence you provide is a few references to
books and magazines that have many demonstratable falsehoods.  They
aren't reliable sources of information concerning Scientology.

   What I am saying is that while we might debate the workability of
Scientology, there can be no debate about this clear fact.  The
Xemu story is NOT a Scientology teaching.  

-John Holifield
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: e-meter
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:46:24 GMT


Quotes are From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:41:41 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

"If you build a U shaped circuit with three resistors
and measure resistance across the tips of the U the resistance 
will be the sum of all three resistances;
not just the resistance of the one resistor at the
bottom (which is the only resistor parallel to
the vector between the tips of the U).

I respond: I agree with your resistor model of the body and the
explanation for the irrelevancy of the vector model of resistance.
But I included the notion of a three dimensional vector description
for *voltage* and *current* because in the case of these last two
characteristics, they *do* have 3 different simultaneous components
in the human body.  The E-Meter only measures resistance, it does
not even measure impedance.  Why do I keep talking about voltage
and current then?  Because during the auditing session the 
characteristics of the needle behavior on the E-Meter are
most likely to be caused by voltage or current flow according
to the theory of Scientology.  Here's why.  The purpose of 
auditing is to get "charge" off.  When you get charge off something
there is a change in voltage and
current.  But remember that voltage and current are 3-D vectors
in the body.  Well in auditing, the size of the needle response
is used by the auditor to make decisions.  But if the actual
magnitude of the current vector couldn't be known then how could
the auditor make the correct decisions about the needle response?

"This discussion would be better suited to sci.physics."

I respond: Well if I discussed this in sci.physics no one would
have understood the Scientology part.
I've just bridged the gap between electrophysiologic measurement
and how the E-Meter is used in my letters on this subject.  Any one
who knows how the E-Meter is intended to be used and 
has knowledge or a resource person in electrophysiologic measurement
may start thinking about these things too.  Can the E-Meter really
do what it is intended to do even in theory?  Never mind the
testing, they're never going to let you do that.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: PV equation revisited
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<GISLE.92Dec16161900@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
	<1992Dec17.023948.4656@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:18:08 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Dec17.023948.4656@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

[ John's explanation of the PV equation deleted. ]

> Maybe you should read DMSMH over and pay special attention to the
> first Chapter where LRH states very clearly that He is not using the
> terminology of other subjects, and that the book was written to
> communicate with regular people, not scientists.

Thanks for the explanation, John.  I'm afraid that I must report that
read it again looking up all the words and I just felt extremely
silly.

Btw. I just _love_ the way you capitalize the word 'He'!
How many times do I need to reread The Book before I too
will refer to LRH in that way?

--
Meta-disclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
 
- 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: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Is Scientology a CULT?  You decide.  It's YOUR life, afterall.
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:43:01 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Dec11.085014.23935@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>, rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
> In article <Bz2JBp.HFI.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald
> Lindsay) writes:
 
>>As I've heard it, the Church says that you shouldn't be told this
>>"ridiculous story" until OT III. Could you explain why you are so
>>sure that the Church does *not* have things that are kept until high
>>levels? We've certainly heard the phrase "out-gradient" a few times,
>>right here on this newsgroup.
> 
> One of the other Scn'ers recently mentioned that Ron 'broke his back'
> passing through the 'Wall of Fire'.  I assumed this referred to what
> you (Jon) claim never happened.  Which of you is correct?  Or does the
> 'Wall of Fire' not refer to Xe[nm]u and Incident 2?  I invite comment
> from the person I am quoting as well (I forget who it was, sorry).
> 

  Correct that Ron broke his back passing through the wall of fire
on OTIII.  Incorrect that this concerns Xemu.

  What is incident 2?

John Holifield
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, the AMA/FDA connection, and more...
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:03:59 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Dec14.202249.5278@u.washington.edu>, mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> 
> [establish a 16% sales tax in place of current taxes]
> 
>>   Consider what this means to middle income America.  If your family
>>makes 100,000 per year, in the US you pay about 30,000 in income tax.
>>If there was a sales tax instead, you'd only pay 16,000 if you spent
>>all your money.  So you see, you'd pay LESS taxes and the government
>>would collect the same amount of revenue. 
> 
>>This is true,
>>John Holifield
> 
> I don't see how you can reconcile the two statements:
> 
> 1.  People would pay less taxes;
> 2.  The government would collect the same amount of revenue.
> 
> These seem logically incompatible to me.  Where is the government
> revenue coming from, if people are paying less?
> 
> Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu


   Sorry, I could have said that a lot more clearly.  I don't have the
actual figures to hand, but if you eliminate the income tax it requires
about 16% of national retail consumption to replace what was lost.
Some low income people would appear to pay more tax because they don't
pay 16% in income tax.  To make it fair on them, you'd eliminate tax on 
food and housing.  So you could eliminate capital gains tax and personal
and corporate income tax and make the same amount of money with a 16%
tax on retail consumption.

   The large majority of individuals would pay less tax, but more people
will be paying taxes as well.  It collects taxes on revenue that goes
unreported.  And collects taxes from people who might not ordinarily
pay taxes in the US.

Sincerely,
John Holifield


  
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:12:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

:    What I am saying is that while we might debate the workability of
: Scientology, there can be no debate about this clear fact.  The
: Xemu story is NOT a Scientology teaching.  
: 
: -John Holifield
:    

If I told you that OT III involved the solo auditor running
his "body thetans" through an incident involving frozen thetans,
exploding volcanoes, and evil galactic rulers, would you find that
ridiculous?  That thetans were held imprisoned in Hawaii (even though
at that time in the history of the earth, there was nothing there but
ocean)?

I presume that this means that if you get to OT III and discover that
its materials do contain substantially the same story as stated here,
that you will agree that this story is ridiculous and quit Scientology?

Dave Decot

Scientology and OT are trademarks and servicemarks owned by RTC and
are used with its permission.
From: au500@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda Zinn)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: E-meters, and CULTS in general
Date: 15 Dec 1992 06:02:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu (whoever he/she is) says:

     "Mainstream religions don't have a need to fleece their flock
     or sell "products" to their members."

To which I say, "HA!" Or perhaps my reply should be "BINGO!"

This is certainly *not* said in defense of Scientology...but hey, aabst5@vms.
pitt.edu, I mean really! Maybe they have no need to fleece, but they
sure have a knack for it.

Linda Zinn
au500.cwru.edu
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology