From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:07:49 GMT

Bill (Hardman), I have been reading this group for a while and note that
generally your articles contain something that (to a currently non-
scientologist such as myself) appears to be well schooled (bad choice
of words, I know) Scientology. The following comments surprised me
by their utter lack of interesting content and occasional (apparent)
personal attacks:

hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:

>>>>       What are the units of _PV_,_I_,_D_ and _x_?
>>>        Re-read the chapter.  It's self-explanitory.
>>
>>      No its not.  Nowhere in part 1 of "Dianetics" is there a
>>discussion of the units.  If anybody knows, please tell me!

>How many dynamics were discussed in the first chapter?
>How does society measure intellegence?
>To keep it simple for you, try using units of 1 to 10.

It is apparent that you do NOT understand the term "units". ALL 
measurements are in terms of the four basic physical units:
	kilogram	(gram actually - but all constants are on kg)
	metre
	second
	(I've forgotten the fourth, it's rather obscure and rarely
	discussed in my experience)

This is something covered in the FIRST lesson in high school physics.
It's pretty fundamental to ALL applications of mathematics (note the 
the formula in question is algebraic and being applied to real world
phenomena (sp?), thus definition of units is of enormous importance.)

>>>>       What ranges of values are normally seen?
>>>       Below average.
>>
>>      By RANGES I mean, give me values, give me the
>>upper and lower bounds, the most common values AND the
>>average value.  Or make it easy and just send me some data.

>It would depend on what ranges you decided to apply to "x".

It would NOT!  Richard is trying to ascertain what range of values 
(ie numeric measurements) are commonly found, stated in whatever 
units are usually used by Scientologists. The answer to his 
question would not depend upon ANYTHING he did, he is attempting to 
find out what units, values and ranges of values you typically use and
encounter. 

(An apology - I am using "he" to refer to Richard Nistuk and I am 
making unverified claims as to what Richard is trying to do and what 
he believes. Richard - please correct me if you feel it appropriate.)

>I can see that you will never make it in the private sector.  It is
>obvious that you were asleep during your high school education.

NASTY! (Has it not occurred to you that Richard may be actually trying
to understand your apparrently shrouded explanations and that others 
reading MIGHT also be interested in understanding. Do you have a full
understanding of what you are discussing or are you wasting your time
and ours. No personal attack intended here.)

>Wrong.  The unit is between 1 and 4.

Impossible, a unit is expressed as a product of the physical  quantities
mentioned above.

>Anyone with a grain of sence would use a value of one to ten to
>measure the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
>dynamic.  That should say enough.

Given that Richard has reasonably treated x as a probability, the range
that would be used by "anyone with a grain of sense" is actually
0 to 1.

>Not as much as you do.

>>      O.K. help me out here, Bill, explain the words!!!

>It's not worth my time.

Manners!

>>      Good.  Post the description of the original(now that I have
>>my dictionary) experiment.  And the data, if there actually was an
>>experiment.
>>

>Read "Science of Survival".

This is an exceptionally unhelpful response, apparently employed by
several of the Scientologists posting here. it strikes as being
something akin to "I don't really know, so I'll give an apparently 
authoratative answer" or "I'm not going to give you a straight
answer because it'll give you something concrete to argue."
Had I replaced my earlier explanation of what units are with "read a 
high school physics text", my post would not have helped understanding
(consider ARC) and would in fact have been a waste of bandwidth. 

This habbit (of replying "read x") annoys the hell out of me.

>>>        "The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes
>>>confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a
>>>word that was not understood." LRH
>>
>>Yup, I read that.  I don't feel that it's always applicable.

>You have proved it is.

Have you not considered that case where the person giving up study
has, for instance, just had his head cut off? :-)


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700