HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Summary: Why can't Scientology take responsibility for validating Scientology
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:50:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.084801.2093@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Do you see a fundamental distinction between the CoS giving me a number over
>>the telephone and an organization *completely independent* of Scientology
>>gathering and producing *written* reports on the effectiveness of SCN?
>>
>>What you're suggesting is similar to calling a particular computer company
>>and asking if they have the best computers. And believing what they say.
>
>If the word of Scn cannot be accepted, then someone else will need to take
>the responsibility of getting some people trained up as auditors and case
>supervisors and auditing people according whatever research methods were
>needed.

Ignoring the question of whether or not Scn would sue your a** off if someone
actually did this, there's another fascinating issue here: why is it that a
Scientologist feels that it should be the responsibility for someone outside
of Scientology to take responsibility for validating Scientology? To say this
a few other ways:

1. Why can't Scientology produce some evidence for the rigor which of its
technology? Remember, according to LRH, the rigor of the science Scientology
is only challenged by Physics or Chemistry. (I *still* am dying to find out
what this means? I have *never ever* heard anyone claim that physics and
chemistry are the most rigorous Sciences. Jonathon (or any other
Scientologists): *Please* tell me what this is all about!!).

2. Why is there no independent documentation of the results of Scientology?

3. Why do the practitioners of Scientology eventually end up discussions with
"Read the book" or one-liner put downs or just drop out/ignore the questions
being asked? Why does one get the feeling that even asking the questions is
viewed as a put-down of Scientology?

In other words, why can't Scientology take responsibility *itself* for
presenting objective evidence of its own legitimacy? Why do Scientologists
feel that this should come from outside of Scientology?

There's something fundamental about Scientology in this question; it seems
related to the question that John Holifield asked: Why do [Scientologists]
feel that the non-Scientologists on this group think that Scientology is
an evil fraud?

Why does Scientology have such a strong component of Conspiracy Theory?

>Jonathon
>Barbera

BTW, what's the story with John Holifield? Will he not communicate with the
rest of us? Is he not going to show us any more examples of Scientology
Science?

As near as I can tell, all we're seeing now is an e-mail session between John
and Jonathon....

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rjk7m@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Richard John Kwiatkowski)
Subject: Dianetics vs Scientology
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:50:10 GMT

Here's a question :
   If I follow the Dianetics procedures as outlined in :
"Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health",(1987) by LRH
will I be able to audit someone (Like a relative) and in time
clear them? What I want to know is whether the book is sufficient
to train an auditor (as the book appears to suggest after having read it)
and the total $ cost to me will be minimal (about $5 US).
-Or, is it necessary to go to an org and be audited by a Scn?
-In other words, would I have to be a genius to audit effectively,
or (as the book suggests) only be someone who follows the auditor's code?

  The reason I ask is, I think the only way I'll be convinced of Dianetic's
value is to try it. But does this mean I have to go to an org? The above
mentioned book doesn't suggest so. (In fact I didn't even know that
Scientology and Dianetics were related before I read "the Scandal of
Scientology".

-Just wondering,
Rick Kwiatkowski.
From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: !(free intro. auditing --> Validitiy of Scn)
Date: 22 Nov 1992 04:51:26 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Summary: C++ for free intro auditing doesn't imply validity of Scn

In article <1992Nov22.002343.22289@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1eiag1INN2b1@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov19.043030.17277@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>
>>	But seriously Jonathon.  I want the proof *BEFORE* I
>>give the CoS my student loan.  An as I have outlined in previous

>How about some free introductory auditing?

Jonathon, I thought we had gotten past this!  At least in your article
of 22  Nov 92 00:12:42 GMT entitled "re: Validity of Scn revisted".
Please re-read my posts on this subject and the posts of other
skeptics.  We have made it immensly clear that this approach does not
constitute proof.  In fact, some of the reasons are outlined 
below.

>>posts, not speaking for Phill of course, I am NOT qualified
>>to do the type of research you are speaking of.  In a previous
>>post I talk about how a REAL research effort might be run.  I
>>hope people can add to what I have said!

     Introductory auditing sessions may indeed answers _some_
of my questions about Scn.  But they would not be enough to
show to me, or other skeptics that Scn practices are valid,
useful or ethical, for that matter.

>Jonathon
>Barbera

-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tech Bulletins
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:00:59 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

>>Unfortunately, I can not provide this data because I am not tech trained
>>and can only refer to the books (not the tech references).
>
>	But you work at a CoS Org!  Can you ask a tech trained
>person to give you the data?  If not,  why not?

You misunderstood something.  I am not currently on staff at a Scientology
organization.  This will change by January, but is not currently the case.

>
>>                                                           But, I can
>>point out that if one would compare modern Scn to Scn since 1952, one would
>>find a very large number of changes made as new research was done.
>
>     But the major changes seem to be aimed at removing references
>to the more fantastic sections of the origional books.  ie the Xenu
>space opera stuff.  This doesn't seem to require a lot of new research,
>other than that done by an advertising company.  In short, the changes
>just seem to tame Scn down, just a bit, to make it more palatable
>to the masses.

Wrong.  No references to such have been removed from books.  First, there
are still a number of materials containing whole track data which to an
outsider would be possibly unpalatable.  Nothing has been changed for this
reason.  The changes have been in the tech and its application.  One of
the first auditor's handbooks was The Creation of Human Ability which is
still available.  However, this book is not used now as a guide to
auditing.  Another example was that a refinement of Dianetics at one time
was Expanded Dianetics which, in 1978, was "replaced" by New Era Dianetics.
Book One (Dianetics: MSMH) auditing is primarily used as a form of
introductory auditing now.  It is not used to clear people in its
original form.  There have been several other changes regarding auditing
steps and when they are used.  Also, the content of two or more (?)
advanced courses were very revised at one point because of newer data
revealed by additional research.

>
>>There have been many tech bulletins revised over the years.  Doesn't
>>this at least indicate that something like research was being done?
>
>	Not neccesarily.  Jonathon, have _you_ seen any of this new
>research?  Have you seen teams of researchers in labs doing this
>research?  Have you seen the technical reports?  Have you seen anything
>published in the proper journals?  In fact have you seen anything at
>all resembling evidence of research?
>

I have seen the fact that older tech bulletins have been revised.  Comparing
the previous Tech Vol 1 to the newer Tech Vol 1 would illustrate this.
Newer discoveries have been made since 1952 and have been implemented
at one time or another.

>	BTW, could you please post a tech bulletin?  Or part of one?
>

I only have copies of a couple of tech bulletins.  Maybe in the near
future I'll type one up and post it.

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: churchwell@vms.ocom.okstate.edu (Kimberly B. Churchwell)
Subject: Re: Definitions.
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:00:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.100956.6582@lds-az.loral.com>, jerry@lds-az.loral.com
(J Barbera) writes:
> [numerous terms and definitions deleted]

Jonathon, I found it interesting that your list of terms included
"Scientology" but not "Dianetics."  There's apparently a very close link
between the two, as evidenced by the following excerpts from your list:

> auditing: the application of Dianetics or Scientology processes...
>
> Hubbard, L. Ron (LRH, Ron): Founder and Source of Dianetics and Scientology.
>
> org: (Scientology slang) an organization that delivers Dianetics and
> Scientology training and processing.
>
> organization: (often shortened in Scientology to org) a church of Scientology.
> Most Scientology and Dianetics activities are carried on at either Scientology
> organizations (churches) or Scientology missions.  A church (org) is
> authorized to deliver higher levels of Scientology and Dianetics services
> than a mission.  (see also mission)

Could you explain the relationship between Dianetics and Scientology? 
Did Dianetics "evolve" into Scientology?  What little reading I've done
indicates that Dianetics pre-dates Scientology, but it seems to me that
it should have been _replaced_ by Scientology.  What does Scientology
offer that Dianetics does not, and vice-versa?
-- 
Kimberly B. Churchwell, Prog./Analyst, Okla. State U.  | TANSTAAFL, but
Osteopathic College--churchwell@vms.ocom.okstate.edu   | even so, I never
BIX--kchurchwell  AOL--KChurchwel  CIS--72170,1552     | quit hoping.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:13:53 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <By5LJw.E5I@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.235301.20990@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Your rules keep getting stricter.  I get the feeling that you really don't
>>want to look up the information.
>
>...and Jonathon has described "keep getting stricter" as asking for the ISBN
>number.
>
>Actually, it's exactly the opposite! I can't think of any way to *aid* someone
>in listing the information than by providing the book's ISBN number. It's how
>I can find a clear, unambibuous reference to a book--it's how I can endure
>that Jonathon and I are talking about exactly the same book. It's how I can
>find out if my local B.Daltons or my local library has a copy in stock. In
>short, it's how I can ensure that the reference that Jonathon provides is the
>reference that I look up.

Sure, the ISBN makes things easier for you.
I have no problem with the general idea.  However, the point was that you
added two requirements between articles and then called me a liar for
saying that the rules were getting stricter.  To me adding two
requirements indicates something.  If I had not noted this, you may,
as far as I know, continued adding requirements in order to avoid actually
refering to the book.

>It's clear Jonathon will dispute that this is indeed a stricter request. He's
>welcome to do that. However, what appears to be happening is that Jonathon is
>again failing to provide the answer to the question: what makes Scientology
>different from other religions. Jonathon claims that it's an "applied"
>religious technology; I feel that this is a null statement: most religions
>are indeed about "applying" their belief systems on the world.
>
>Jonathon could provide no statement whatsoever on how the CoS views itself as
>distinct from other religions. And when I say I'm willing to go to a
>bookstore/library and read (up to 10 pages) myself, he's unwilling to provide
>me with references available in bookstores. The best he's able to do is
>claim that asking for an ISBN number means that I "keep getting stricter" in
>my demands.

There are, to my knowledge, only four books currently available in non-Scn
bookstores:

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
Self Analysis
Clear Body, Clear Mind
Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought

Only the last is even about Scientology.  It does not go into detail on
how Scn views other religions.  There are other books and recorded
lectures that go into greater detail.  Unfortunately, they are not
widely available.  I am not avoiding the request.  I am telling you that
the requirement of the book being in a public bookstore cannot be
fulfilled.

>Jonathon: provide me with the page numbers! Now!

The $1 booklet, The Way to Happiness: pages 69-71.  
ISBN 0-88404-412-2

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Nov19.144004.4689@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
	<1992Nov21.233652.20206@lds-az.loral.com>
	<1992Nov23.062014.3810@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:45:10 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Nov23.062014.3810@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>   In article <1992Nov21.233652.20206@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 

>>> Here's another question to throw at you - what's the difference
>>> between a Field Auditor (tm) and a Squirrel (tm)?

>> A squirrel would be altering the tech.  A field auditor would use standard
>> tech.

> Please give us some examples of how Squirrels commonly alter the Tech,
> if you know.  Any Squirrels out there willing to identify yourselves,
> please respond here as well, or e-mail me & I will repost or summarize.

We had some "squirrels" (they called themselves "Free Zoners) posting
to this group earlier.  They seemed extremely preoccupied with keeping
the faith (sorry -- "tech") pure and authentic. I think that one of
the major gripes they had woth CoS was that the current bunch of
Church leaders was those who had done the altering and no that
therefore no longer adhered to the sacred word of Ron.  One of them
(Electra I think -- I haven't saved the posts) went as far as stating
that all meters built according to a design that had been finalized
after Ron lost control of the Church was faulty.  Her words was
something like "If I come across a Mark <something> I destroy it --
and consider it my good deed for the day". (Squirrels manufacture
their own E-Meters -- at a cost considerable below that charged by the
CoS -- and claim that _their_ meters are according to Hubbards
original design, while the Church "official" meters are not).

To me, it looks like the squirrel groups are a result of some serious
power struggles inside the CoS following the death of founder L. Ron
Hubbard, when a faction led by David Miscavige managed to topple
Hubbard's appointed successor, David Mayo.  For an outside observer,
it looked like a real coup de etat, with the considerable riches in
the CoS coffers being handed to the winner.  The struggle between
Stalin and Trotskij following the death of Lenin comes to mind. 
--
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: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Summary: Maybe people aren't attacking Sceintology; maybe they're just skeptical
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:08:33 GMT
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO

In article <1992Nov15.043152.25227@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>	So I call the local "Org", and they say that they have x number 
>>of case histories, what's to say that they're not lying??  To quote my 
>
>Lying?  Sounds like you're already taking a bad view of Scientologists.  How
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>something ever be proven to you if you refuse to accept it?

Why is it that you listen to people as if what they're saying is always something
personal or particluar about Scientology?

This is the way that people are: they are skeptical. They are fundamentally
untrusting, particularly when they feel something is being sold to them. They
like to either have someone they know and trust tell them about something, or
consult some independently verifiable source of information.

In all of the discussions here, you are providing neither of these to people.
You don't give me a warm fuzzy feeling to trust what you say; and you have
*never ever* quoted an independent source of information about Scientology.

Jonathon: this has nothing to do with Scientology. It's the way people are
about everything. I would not buy a Ford simply because my local Ford dealer
had dozens of reports on file on people happy with Fords. I would look in some
sort of consumer-oriented publication to see what they thought of the models I
was interested in. Or I would ask an auto-enthusiast friend that I knew and
trusted.

And I would think it *amazingly weird* if the Ford dealer accused me of
"taking a bad view of Ford dealerships" simply because I didn't believe what
he personally had to say about Fords.

One more time: from a religion that claims some mastery of what it means "to
know," it astonishes me that this fundamental principle of humanity is beyond
your understanding.

--phil
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:43:00 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov19.165844.15377@u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>>So, yes, a person or group could get tech training and go out into the
>>field and audit people.  The name for these people is "field auditor" or
>>"field group" and there are a lot of them already.
>
>But according to ISE, such people are forbidden to do a long list of
>things, including varying the procedures (certainly a necessity in a
>good scientific study of Scientology tech), and if they publish
>findings which are critical or unsupportive of Scientology they will
>become Enemies and be subject to penalties.

It's not quite a long list.  However, squirrelling is forbidden.  In fact,
it should be noted that squirrelling is potentially dangerous to the PC.

Plus, if someone had critical things to publish about Scn, I doubt they'd
care about ISE.

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:59:23 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:

> In article <BoX7TB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> >gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> >> PS: I am of course looking forward to your next attempt to explain
> >>     the application of the PV equation, now that you've learnt about
> >>     the role of units in standard algebra.  Or have you decided to
> >>     to let that subject rest?
> >
> >I never did decide to "let it rest".  That proved to be another
> >assumption of yours based on the mis-application of a single answer
> >to a specific question.  Your mistake.
> 
> Well, I just saw your latest response. It appears to the rest of us that
> you're just playing semantic games.

The rest of us?  Are you now the voice of many, or is it just a case
of demonic posession? :)

> Could you apply some rigor to the PV equation, please? We're looking for
> the kind of rigor, say, that one would find in physics or chemistry. And
> I have *never ever* seen an equation in either of those fields of science
> that did not include the units for each component of the equation.
> 
> Bill: do you accept or decline this request?

See future posts.

Bill Hardman


------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]

            h      mM    gs
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Wins, Questions, and Comments
Date: 15 Nov 92 13:03:02 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Nov13.070934.2775@lds-az.loral.com>,
   jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
> 
> Where will your mission be?

   It will be here in Memphis Tennessee USA.  I just want to put the mission
here so that Scientology will be available in the area.  I just want to
work it long enough that it can become a Class V org.

> {I wrote...}
>>Have you ever noticed, that if you are exterior and you look at your
>>body it feels... well (sickening?)  I seem to remember LRH writing
>>somewhere that auditors should not make the PC put his attention on the
>>body while exterior.  Anyone know the exact reference for this?  Also, any
>>source data on why it occurs would be especially apprecited.
> 
> I recall the reference.  I've been looking for it, but still haven't
> found it.  I read it in Creation of Human Ability pertaining to what
> to do when the pc does exteriorize.  The same data should also be in
> Scientology 8-8008 and possibly Dianetics 55!
> 
> [interesting experience omitted]
> 
> How do you go exterior?  I have a friend who has and whenever he begins
> explaining the experience and drawing little diagrams, I feel like I'm
> beginning to exteriorize (this has happened on three occasions).
> 
   
    Usually I just go exterior by deciding to go exterior.  Sometimes I
can't do it, because I'm still near the bottom of the bridge, but it really
isn't mysterious or anything like that.  Sorry I can't help you more, but
mostly I go out by going out.  I don't think there is anyway it could hurt
you as long as you're moving up the bridge.

    Personally I think the best way to get out is to go up the bridge.  I'm
very actively pursuing this, and I hope you are to.  I've heard of KTL
completions going exterior after reading the Factors.  I tried doing some
clay demos of the Factors, and had some cool cognitions.

Much Love,
-John Holifield

ps.  Everyone is a scientologist, some just haven't cognitied yet.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology