HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some people never learn
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:02:51 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <_P-=#W_@engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes:

>Cut from a Ballantyne message
>-----------
>Could this be the end of alt.religion.scientology? John's gone, David
>Bonnell is gone, Elektra is gone, Elvis is dead, even Brian has
>stopped trying to sell us books. All the greats - gone!. Even Don Allen
>has stopped trying to stir business here.
>-----------

>I'm gone.

>Keep that in mind.  

>Especially when you take a look at the crimes
>you are hiding.  

What?

>None of the people who have left this newsgroup are gone.

Let's speak in terms of "Reality" here.  Whether or not they are gone from 
your universe, they certainly have disappeared from this one.

>They are all moving up the Bridge to Total Freedom and if they want someday
>they might come back.

Then they will be back.  So what?

>What if just maybe you were being personally responsible for pushing man into
>darkness and misery for all enternity? 

What?  Non-sequitur, I think.

>You are a thetan and you know what Scientology and Dianetics are.

Oh really?  You are a C++ programmer and you know what Polymorphic 
Objects and Multiple Inheritance are!

>Watch what you say and what you do.

Comment your code heavily, sir, for someone may have to debug it later.

>We just might be watching.

>dave
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                ! PEROT IN '96 !
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pearnhar@nyx.cs.du.edu (Philip A. Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 13:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.063700.13445@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.225834.19743@beaver.cs.washington.edu> tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang) writes:
>You're right.  These are general Frequently-Asked-Questions beyond those
>asked in this newsgroup.  However, many of these questions & answers have
>come up in discussion in one form or another (that is, other than questions).

My main issue is that you excluded many questions that *have* been asked
in this Newsgroup. Your "FAQ" looked like what a computer manufacturer's
marketing department would make up for a comp. group that discussed that
kind of computer. It's not necessarily useless information; it's just not
the kind of information that we read News for.

>>of the most important features of a FAQ file is that, when a difference
>>of opinion exists, all sides are represented.  Thus, when the Xemu FAQ
>>is posted, opinions and facts from all sides are solicited.  Same with
>>the "Books about Scientology, et. al." FAQ.
>
>I've seen these FAQ's and didn't feel they represented *both* sides very
>well.

Some do; some don't. So what? Given the choice, wouldn't you rather give
readers of this group a balanced view of Scientology?

>My FAQ article is information on Scientology by Scientology's founder.  Not
>opinions.

Ahem. If they weren't opinions, what were they? Or are you making a
distinction between undocumented claims and opinions?

Suggestion: to your next FAQ, add the question: Why are none of the claims of
Scientology ever backed up with references to studies or access to the data
that was used to make the claims? What does LRH have to say about that?  (To
ask a meta-question: why do I suspect that you'll ignore the question again?)

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Gradient
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:12:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.141348.24284@u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>Please, please, can we have English and not so much Scientology-speak?
>I originally assumed Jonathon's comment about 'out-gradient' meant that
>he didn't want to discuss private matters about his friends in a public
>forum--which I would agree with totally.  But after dozens of postings
>and a lot of wasted effort on all sides, it appears he means that the
>ideas are too advanced for beginners--a completely different idea.
>
>Jonathon, if you mean 'This is too advanced for you' the concept is
>quite easy to get across in English.  Using Scn jargon just slows down
>the conversation dreadfully and leads to lots of misunderstandings--
>surely not the purpose of either Usenet or Scientology.

Yes, I did make a mistake thinking that people understood the word gradient
in its common English definition.  The only thing that made it a Scientology
term was putting the prefix "out" in front of the word.  I assumed people
who understood the two words would get the jist, but I suppose that
dictionaries aren't too popular in the wog (not Scientology) world.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: ckeroack@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: FAQ? (to private e-mail, please...)
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:24:35 GMT

		Could someone forward me a FAQ from this list? I'd like to see
a concise explanation of what scientology is.
 
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Submissions (w/SASE)[]<--------- UpComing, The Magazine of Speculative Fiction
UpComing,Box 566,   []"He couldn't hit the broad side of an M-Class planet
Hampshire College,  [] with 10 photon torpedoes... he should be demoted 
Amherst,MA.,01002.  [] to janitor 3rd class..." - a net.wag, about Worf
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{[[ Inquiries about UpComing to jlmiller@hamp.hampshire.edu
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Refunds
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:12:07 GMT
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <HuPqTB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:

> The result is known from 42 years of testing and statistical
> analysis.

Can you give a source where I can read some of the results from the
42 years of testing and statistical analysis?

I should emphasise that I am talking about the actual data and the
accompanying statististics -- not unsubstantiated claims about heaps
of "research".

I've asked this question before, but I've never received anything
resembling a straight answer.  If you can not supply an actual
reference -- you can save yourself a lot of effort by simply answering
"no".

--
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
------------------------------------------------
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 16:57:27 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:

> : > stats have dropped on, among other things.  I recall the book says somthi
> : > like "get it honest and straight" as one of the steps of fixing a Danger 
> : > condition.
> : 
> : False.  Your recollection is flawed.  The condition for one of
> : the steps in danger reads:
> 
> The following is indeed, "something like" the above, so it's not "FALSE".

"Something Like" doesn't cut it in Scientology.  You defined a step
in the emergency formula.  By mis-applying a step in a condition,
you reap failure, and fall to the next lower condition.  It has to
be applied exactly as written.  Therefore, as stated before, your
post of "get honest, get straight" is FALSE for the condition of
danger, and would be mis-applying the condition.

> : "Get in your own 'personal ethics' by finding what you are doing
> : that is out-ethics and use self-discipline to correct it and get
> : honest and straight"
> 
> :> Apparantly John thought he was committing an "overt" (intentionally harmfu
> :> act by participating.
> : 
> : You don't have to commit any overt's (acts of omission or comission
> : which do the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most
> : harm to the greatest number of dynamics.) to have a danger
> : condition, although that helps.
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example of how one can be "out-ethics" without
> committing overts?  The Danger condition formula requires one to
> "find out what you are doing that is out-ethics" and correct it.

Example: Entering into an area of discussion and becoming
overwhelmed due to lack of training, would cause other areas of life
to do poorly.  The person would be trying to do the "greatest good
for the greatest number".  This would not be an overt.  Finding out
that he/she needs more experience and persisting in the indevor,
would be an overt.  Withdrawing from the area to handle the lowered
conditions brought about by undue stress would demonstrate that no
overt was commited, but prove correct application of the conditions.
> 
> Isn't this asking the person to locate overts?

Being untrained is not an overt.  Normally, you would look for an
overt.  Not finding any, you would look for contact with anti-social
personalities.  Being found in the persence of anti-social
personalities is not an overt.  Continuing the contact without
trying to correct the anti-social personality could be an overt.
That would now be two examples ofhow you could be out-ethics
without committing an overt.

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Some people never learn  
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:04:58 GMT

In article <_P-=#W_@engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes:

   >>Cut from a Ballantyne message
   >>-----------
   >>Could this be the end of alt.religion.scientology? John's gone, David
   >>Bonnell is gone, Elektra is gone, Elvis is dead, even Brian has
   >>stopped trying to sell us books. All the greats - gone!. Even Don Allen
   >>has stopped trying to stir business here.
   >>-----------

   >I'm gone.

   >Keep that in mind.  

   >Especially when you take a look at the crimes
   >you are hiding.  

You might refer to an earlier essay of mine on the Sociology of
Scientology, where I used you as my example for a class 'F'
scientologist.  (You remember: hostile, incoherent, sexually
dysfunctional. See the earlier essay for more details).

   >None of the people who have left this newsgroup are gone.

Except for you. You said so yourself, Davey boy, remember? About three
lines up. Gotta love that increased attention span your exhibiting
here.

   They are all moving up the Bridge to Total Freedom and if they want someday
   they might come back.

You mean they are leaving the land of Usenet for the land of "Total
Freedom"? Nobody comes to Usenet willingly, we are sentenced to post
here as penance for our hidden crimes.

   >What if just maybe you were being personally responsible for
   >pushing man into darkness and misery for all enternity? 

Gosh! I guess I would feel, well, *POWERFUL*. Thank you!

   You are a thetan and you know what Scientology and Dianetics are.

Thanks!  I can use this quote the next time some Scientologist tells
me I don't know anything about Scientology.

   Watch what you say and what you do.

Okie dokie.

   We just might be watching.

Well, I'll be watching back (but only if I get the really important
stuff done first, like my daily belch).

Thanks Dave! I haven't laughed that hard in days!

Thanks again,
sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gradient
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:21:31 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Yes, I did make a mistake thinking that people understood the word gradient
>in its common English definition.  The only thing that made it a Scientology
>term was putting the prefix "out" in front of the word.  I assumed people
>who understood the two words would get the jist, but I suppose that
>dictionaries aren't too popular in the wog (not Scientology) world.

I own quite a few dictionaries, and it's spelled "gist" :-)

You seem to be saying that the common English definition, and the
Scientology usage, are so close that the Scientology meaning is
obvious. I don't agree, and Mary's confusion is evidence.

In general, if something can be easily phrased in standard English,
then it should be. Why say "misunderstoods" when you could say
"misunderstandings" ?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: "Scandal of Scientology"
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:26:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.010533.3592@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>(Ignore previous article with typo.)

Note: the Uncertainty Principle applies to Usenet: within an appropriately
small time interval, there's no way of knowing which message will be previous
and next at any particular site. It's part of Usenet Science.

>>Nope.  He wrote all of the books before *he* died.

Well, I was much more amused by how you said it in your other posting:

>Nope.  He wrote all of the books before I died.  

We call this a Freudian slip. In your language, they usually have their roots
in some sort of Withhold. Are you going to come clean, Jonathon?

--phil


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Nov07.062345.5063@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:12:29 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Nov07.062345.5063@microsoft.com> erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill) writes:

> considered "ethics bait" and are then punished in accord with
> "scientology ethics tech".  Which starts with the individual
> having to write up thier private life for thier company.  
> That creates conflict of interest for the groups management
> and gives emotional and sometimes legal leverage to 
> scientology over the individual.  This is an inherantly 
> corrupt system.

Hey!  This may explain why I've gotten a number of personal letters
from scientologist David Bonnell urging me to confess to him my
"hidden crimes".

I guess he's sane enough to recognize that this is a long shot, but I
think it's very creative of him to try to apply scientology ethics
tech to a non-scientologist.

... but even when it's 100% standard tech,  it doesn't really work
    invariably, does it?  In any case -- I'm proud David choose me
    me for this job: To provide the educational counter-example...
--
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: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Some people never learn
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date:  6 Nov 92 08:44:31 GMT

aparker@neumann.une.edu.au (Tony Parker,,,) writes:


>  are putting Scientology down.  What is right for me is right for me
>  and Scientology is something that I care about so please keep the
>  emotional and human response to a minimum.  I don't read this group
>  for the `open-mindedness' of the non-scientologists anyway.

Be assured that I will in future be EXCEPTIONALLY careful to conceal
any trace of my being human. 

WAKE UP!


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 906 4681
From: fiorino12@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Fools gold and the Tidy Bowl Man
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:45:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I once stopped to take a shit at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in downtown Clearwater,
FL.  For those of you who done know the significance of the Fort Harrison, it
is a major religious centre for the CoS.  Anyway, I must look back on the 
experience with much pain--for the bathrooms were the filthiest I'VE ever seen!

I just wish that some of those SeaOrg members could've cleaned up, or
something!  It just pisses me off.  That experience left a sour taste in my
mouth re the CoS.  Call me a supressive person.  I DON'T CARE!


Fio
"Looping and withholding all information"
From: fiorino12@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: New Tech from FioOrg!
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:44:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

I started solo auditing, with one can over my "Willie", and the other can
up my "kazoo."


******************************************************************************
*********** I HAVE BEEN WINNING EVER SINCE !!!! ******************************
******************************************************************************

Next question on Bob Swerski's Quiz Masters:

	LRH v. Xenu?

Correct answer:
	LRH Tone Scale 0
	Xenu Tone Scale 10

-Fio
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: x551_017@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Joining
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:31:56 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin

I want to join, take me, take me.
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gradient
Date: 7 Nov 1992 22:44:41 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov7.014330.9566@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>gradient: a gradual approach to something, taken step by step, level by level,
>each step or level being, of itself, easily surmountable -- so that, finally,
>quite complicated and difficult acitivites or high states of being can be
>achieved with relative ease.  This principle is applied to both Scientology
>processing and training.
>
>Out-gradient would be skipping one or more steps or levels.
>

	Which has nothing to do with the original discussion.


Richard Nistuk  Fourth year physics student at U.B.C.

ph36@unixg.ubc.ca   (soon nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca)






Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Gradient
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:07:02 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Nov11.081256.1421@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Yes, I did make a mistake thinking that people understood the word gradient
>in its common English definition.  The only thing that made it a Scientology
>term was putting the prefix "out" in front of the word.  I assumed people
>who understood the two words would get the jist, but I suppose that
>dictionaries aren't too popular in the wog (not Scientology) world.
>

Jonathan, why be insulting?
wog and other words such as raw meat are insults.

LRH defines wog as Worthy Oriental Gentalman or garden
variety human, and raw meat is scientologese for someone
who has not been introduced to scientology.  Both terms
defined in scientology dictionaries.

The amazing part is that scientology accuses the
fields of psychology and psychiatry of treating pe
people as animals and then they characterize people
as meat or as vegtables.

Erichill
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 18:59:05 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> 1) is a blatant violation of standard scientific procedure -- that a
> moderator with a vested interest in the outcome should be allowed full
> control of the testing.

This is a blatant false assertion.  Many "scientific" research
organizations conduct testing on their procedures within their own
organizations, and do not rely on external testing agencies to
review their findings.  Standard scientific procedure varies from
lab to lab.

> 2) is a blatant violation of one of the most basic rules for admini-
> strating IQ tests.  It is well known that it is easy to improve one's
> IQ score -- just by doing a lot of IQ-tests.  This drill improves the
> special reasoning and problem solving skills tested by IQ tests (but
> doesn't do an iota for one's real life reasoning powers and problem
> solving skills -- which is one of the reason it has been argued that
> IQ tests doesn't measure intelligence).  Getting exactly the same test
> over and over again optimizes this learning process for the particular
> test and makes the result meaningless.
> 
> Is the CoS practice of giving the same test over and over to the same
> subject just incompetence, or is its something more sinister?  It is
> difficult to say, but given the non-trivial amounts of money the
> Church charges for its intelligence-enhancing courses I certainly
> wouldn't rule out concious deception in this case.

The Chruch uses a number of different tests.  It is not the same
test given over and over.  If this occurs, it is against standard
Chruch practices.

Bill Hardman


------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: Gradient
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:13:48 GMT

Please, please, can we have English and not so much Scientology-speak?
I originally assumed Jonathon's comment about 'out-gradient' meant that
he didn't want to discuss private matters about his friends in a public
forum--which I would agree with totally.  But after dozens of postings
and a lot of wasted effort on all sides, it appears he means that the
ideas are too advanced for beginners--a completely different idea.

Jonathon, if you mean 'This is too advanced for you' the concept is
quite easy to get across in English.  Using Scn jargon just slows down
the conversation dreadfully and leads to lots of misunderstandings--
surely not the purpose of either Usenet or Scientology.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology