From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:06:49 GMT

>	I _believe_ that people have been audited, I beleive that 10,000
>people have been audited.  Hell, I'd beleive that 1,000,000 people were
>audited if that's what you said.  What I want to know is this:
>
>	Why should I beleive that these x number of people are any better
>for the auditing?  Why should I beleive that these people regularly
>perform "miracles", such as the ones that Holifield claims.
>

There are *a lot* of personal success stories published and made available to
the public.  These are attests to the workability and positive results of
Scientology courses and services.  Your local Scn church will have some these
posted on a bulletin board.  Others have been published in various materials
such as the new edition of What is Scientology?

>>>	Has the church of scientology published _any_ unsuccessful stories?
>
>>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.)...
>
>>>Why should I believe what's on a bulletin board?   It seems to me that
>>>a scientologist has a lot to lose if she goes against what the church
>>>says.  If she starts to question the existance of "souls" or the
>>>believability of exterorization when she can't do it she could be
>>>disciplined.  Whereas if she says yes I just exteriorized, she is
>>>accepted by here other scn freinds and auditors.  ie Peer pressure.
>
>>Ha ha ha!  No one is ever disciplined because something like exteriorization
>>or the existence of "spirits" (souls?  huh?) isn't real to them.
>
>>It's okay for something not to be real to someone.  I know a Scientologist
>>in particular who mentioned this to me ... he's been on staff for about
>>twelve years and there are some whole track (past life memories) which
>>aren't real to him.  That's okay.  No one is disciplined or pressured to
>>believe something like this.
>
>>"What's true for you is true."
>
>from above :
>">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.)..."
>
>	"handled"?  Sounds pretty ominous to me.
>
>	It sounds a lot like the blame would be put on the PC for any
>dissatisfaction.

No.  Nothing ominous and the PC is being blamed.  As I stated a couple
paragraphs back, the Case Supervisor double-checks the PC folder to see
if the auditor missed anything or if something was improperly handled.
Once the problem is found, it is handled by a little more auditing.

The end result: the PC is satisfied with the service.

>>I offer case histories and you dismiss them without a glance.  You ask
>>for this data ("proof") and then refuse to confront it.  How am I suppose
>>to take you seriously?
>
>
>	_Selected_ case studies are not proof!
>
>

What do you need as proof then?  Did you want to browse through someone's
confidential PC folders?  Or if selection is the only problem, why not
find some people who have received a lot of auditing and ask them what
they thought of it all.  Or do some research thing: train as an auditor and
audit people.

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology