From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: _PV_ According to Jon
Keywords: flatulence
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:20:48 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1ei9rsINN2a3@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.035603.15581@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>In article <1e7q2dINN8hg@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov15.041703.24772@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
>>>(J Barbera) writes:
>>>>In article <GISLE.92Nov14095234@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no
>>>>(Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>
>>>[snip]
>
>Gisle says:
>>>>>I find it quite interesting that none of advanced scientologists that
>>>>>posts in this group seems to be able to answer some very basic
>>>>>questions about this equation (like: what are the units?).
>
>Jonathon replies:
>>>>There are no "advanced" Scientologists posting here.  The Scientologists
>>>>posting here (gathering from previous introductions) have more admin
>>>>training than tech training.  No one here (that I know of) has a lot of
>>>>tech training.
>
>	Dave Decot says he is an exception, and he seems *extremely*
>critical of Scn.

Acutally, to me, he seems half critical, half-Scientologist.  Plus,
for those who are unfamiliar with auditor training, Dave is a Class IV.
While Class IV is valid tech training, it definitely lacks a complete
understanding of the non-confidential Scn tech (as a Class VI would have)
or a very advanced understanding as a Class VIII would have.

This not to invalidate Dave's training, but to clarify that his training
is limited compared to the extent of Scn tech.

>I ask:
>>>where are all these "tech" guys anyway?  Don't they know that this is
>>>where the action is?
>
>>The tech people are either on staff at a Scn organization and do not have
>>access to USENET or are doing something else and do not have access to
>>USENET or knowledge of this newsgroup.
>
>	Well, Jonathon, maybe you should bring this up with them.
>Tell them about USENET, and how they can join the fun too!  Tell
>them that they have a huge audience just waiting for conversion. :)

One the other hand, they may know better than to argue Scn to people
like yourself who would need more than an explanation of Scn tech to
satisfy.

>
>Jonathon continues:
>>>>As far as the equation debate: it was my impression when I first read it that
>>>>it dealt more with abstract concept *relevancies* than plugging in numbers.
>>>>That is, the relation between the parts of the equation to each other and
>>>>the other overall.
>
>>>	1.  IF the equation (PV=I*D^x) dealt with abstract concepts
>>>then why bother creating an equation for them?  And how could the equation
>
>>I've seen at least one other Scn equation and it would be quite useful to
>>apply the other one I have in mind by using approximate quantities to
>>other approximate quantites.  Sort of like a recipe: one part A for every
>>two parts B...
>
>	ONE other equation Jonathon?  Is is the "danger equation"?
>Please tell us about this one!

I've only read one other.  It was in Scientology 8-80.

Jonathon
Barbera