From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn revisited
Keywords: tongue pulled
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:43:08 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov23.071512.4160@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.001242.21768@lds-az.loral.com>
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>>In article <1ei0ctINN1p1@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca
>>(Richard Nistuk) writes: 
>>>In article <1992Nov19.040649.16011@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
>>>(J Barbera) writes:
>[...]
>[not sure who said this, the attrib has been lost]
>>>>>>>	Has the church of scientology published _any_ unsuccessful stories?
>>>
>>>	J (can I call you that?), buddy!  Here you should have "just
>>>said NO"!  Instead you go nuts and say:
>>
>>I said, no: they don't publish the unsuccess until it is a success after
>                                              ^^^^^
>'Until'?  This implies that every case is eventually a success.  Or
>did you mean 'unless'?

Every case is eventually a success unless the person quits in the middle.

>
>>the following:
>>>>>>If someone was dissatisfied, the source of the dissatisfaction is
>>>>>>found and 
>>>>>>handled.  It doesn't happen too often, but when it does there are several
>>>>>>things that they check (the Case Supervisor can double-check the PC folder
>>>>>>to see if anything was missed, etc.)...
>[...]
>>There would be a review of the auditing to see if the auditor missed
>>something or whatever.  On the other hand, a problem would arise if
>>the PC was PTS (various types).  Again, the PC isn't blamed.  This
>>is merely something that would need handling before auditing would
>>be beneficial.
>[...]
>[A discussion of procedural review in other situations accidentally deleted]
>>Do people's private lives get reviewed in depth?  Otherwise, it doesn't
>>compare.
>
>I am unfamiliar with how psychiatric outfits are reviewed, but would
>assume the answer to this is 'yes'.  Could someone back me up on this?

The patient files of psychiatrists are private, yes?

In any case, Richard was comparing it to a business being reviewed.

>
>[...]
>>>	This is certainly not research!  To carry the car dealer analogy
>>>a bit further:  Do I need to become a Ford dealer to learn how good a car
>>>is?
>
>Jon - you missed this question.  I just want to point it out.  If your
>answer is 'no', please tell us why one needs to become a trained
>Scientologist in order to learn whether Scn is good or not (as I
>believe you have indicated).

I stated that if someone out there wanted to research Scn tech, then
becoming trained would be a natural requirement.  However, finding
out if Scn is good can be determined from merely reading books or
receiving auditing.

>
>>>O.K. here would be _some_ of what research _may_ entail:
>>>
>>>	a detailed disection of the CoS.  This would include
>>>looking at every aspect of the church individualy to asses the
>>>viability.  Here an INDEPENDANT, TRAINED research TEAM would look
>>>at:
>>>	the CoSs' finances and business practices
>>>	each training course
>>>	each piece of Scn tech: E-meters, etc...
>>>	each Scn "medical type" treatment ie: the purification rundown
>>> 	(please add more...)
>>>
>>>as well another team could do a statistical study of, say, three
>>>groups of people:
>>>
>>>	people who are taking Scn courses
>>>	people who are taking other self help courses
>>>	people who would rather have their tongues pulled than
>>>take a self help course.  (a control group, if you will).
>
>Here is the information I was looking for earlier, which gives us a
>good foundation for discussing whether Scn would allow rigorous
>investigation of its methods.  Jon - would a group of Field Auditors
>be able/allowed to conduct research in this manner?  Which parts would
>be objectionable, and why?

The above is regarding looking into the Church.  The second is
regarding courses.  Neither are applicable to a field auditor who is
auditing people.

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology