HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Chip's little dance (was E-meters, and CULTS in general)
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:46:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.113950.4554@memstvx1.memst.edu>
isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: 
>In article <1992Dec11.064445.22995@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>,
>rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes: 
>> Can someone authoritatively confirm or deny whether the use of jargon
>> without explaining it when speaking to the public is squirrel
>> activity?
>> 
>   Its not squirrel activity, but it is discouraged. 

Someone recently mentioned that it was, this is why I ask.  Whoever
said that, please restate this, and include a source for that fact.

	RA

rogue@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu (The Rogue Agent)
--------------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: What Scientologists will not say in public
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:01:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I got some curious e-mail recently.  Given the threats I've received in
the past, I hesitate to reply via e-mail.  If these crazies get out of hand
I want it all out in the open.  Scientologists and trouble-makers like Chip
are invited to NOT send me e-mail.  Just post you opinions for all to see.


Well, the first thing I wonder, is why is Judith C Brown writing to me:

>From:	IN%"ISDS11990012@memstvx1.memst.EDU"  "BROWN JUDITH C" 17-DEC-1992 04:03:38.34
>Subj:	RE: I Have *No* Integrity!

>From: BROWN JUDITH C <ISDS11990012@memstvx1.memst.EDU>
>Subject: RE: I Have *No* Integrity!
>To: aabst5 <aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
>X-News: msuvx1 alt.religion.scientology:3281

The I realize that this is out buddy John, who is just USING Judith's 
account.  I wonder if she or Memphis State knows about this?  Nothing like
"borrowing" an account, is there?

Anyway John writes:

>   Why don't you provide some evidence that someone in Scientology is
>living "high on the hog"?  Because it doesn't exist.

Of course it exists.  You've seen it several times.  You and your Scientology
buddies have already admitted to the "six digit" figures that some of the
recruiters are raking in.


>>In short: Scientology is a CULT.

>   No.  Its a RELIGION.  Notice the name of this newsgroup
>alt.RELIGION.Scientology.

I see!  What quaint "scientific" reasoning!  Your "religion" is a cult.
Go to your library and pick up some books on cults.  Compare what you
read about cults to what you see happening in your own "church".   Since
Scientologists often say "get LRH's book blah-blah-blah" you should have
no problem with going to the library! ;-)

>   I don't see how you can live with yourself.  I mean, I try very hard
>not to react in an ugly manner towards you, but you just continue to
>throw the word cult around and attack my religion.  

It's ok to threaten me with hate mail and "exposing" my HIDDEN CRIMES,
but it's wrong form me to call your "religion" a cult.

I calls-em-as-I-sees-em.  You've been sucked into a cult.

>   I and the other Scientologists do not like for you to attack our
>religion this way.  We are sincere, and frankly it hurts my feelings.
>Delibrately doing things to hurt other people is frowned upon by all
>religions and is generally viewed as not nice.  Didn't your mother
>teach you better?

My mother didn't raise any fools.  She knew a scam when she saw one too.

>   I know that your probably just laughing at me for saying that, but
>that's okay.  It just prooves that I am a better person than you.

>This is true.
>-John Holifield

It just "prooves" that your spelling is almost as bad as mine.  If you want
to spend you life making money for someone else that's your business.  Just
don't think that it gives you the right to tell me not to think you a fool
for doing it.

THIS is true.
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Date: 18 Dec 92 00:15:11 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Dec18.004858.18342@u.washington.edu>, mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
> Let me try rephrasing what I think Scientologists are saying the PV=ID^x
> equation means.  Perhaps a third party can add some clarity to this
> discussion.
> 
> PV "potential value"
> I  "intelligence"
> D^x "intensity of survival on dynamic x"
> 
> (Not, as many readers including myself initially assumed, D to the xth
> power, but something more usually expressed as D sub x.)
> 
> There is also apparently another factor which can be positive or
> negative depending on whether the individual is "aberrated" or not.
> Also, this is a proportionality, not an equation; it is meant to 
> suggest a general trend, not give numerical results.
> 
> A paraphrase, then, would be:
> 
> "An individual's potential, whether for good or evil, is proportional to
> the product of his/her intelligence and the efforts which s/he makes
> towards survival, whether of self, kin, organization or species."
> 
> Any Scientologists out there care to rephrase or correct this, if I've
> made a mistake?
>

   Not me.  I think you did a very good job.
 
> (I will comment that I feel the equation is a very poor way to express
> the above idea, if indeed that is what it is meant to express.  The
> question of 'potential for what?' also remains open.)
>

   Potential for survival.  I agree that it could be more clearly expressed.
Its explained in much more detail and in less confusing terms in the chapter
called "The Goal of Man".
 
> Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu

-John Holifield
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:42:14 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>   This whole argument is so stupid because how can I ever proove that
>its NOT a secret teaching? 

The fact that a negative can't be proved, is one of the staples over
on talk.origins. Yes, it could be that *all* the references to Xenu
are somehow wrong, and that there is no such teaching. You're rather
more certain on this point than I am. I guess we agree to disagree.

>   What could the Church possibly have to gain by keeping the Xemu
>story a secret if they openly sell books and tapes that describe much
>weirder things such as implants, the GE, the Marcab Confederacy, etc?

I hadn't heard of the GE or the Marcab Confederacy. What are they? Are
they side issues, or integral in some way?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Shannon-Weaver Comm Model
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<GISLE.92Dec10175051@gyda.ifi.uio.no><1992Dec10.163559.4521@memstvx1.memst.edu>
	<GISLE.92Dec11153401@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
	<1992Dec12.115454.4556@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:47:21 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Dec12.115454.4556@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> In article <GISLE.92Dec11153401@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>> If the "Intro to Psychoticism" textbook used on your campus led you to
>> believe that Shannon and Weaver was" psychs", and perhaps is
>> responsible for making you believe that the above _is_ the Shannon
>> Weaver "Communication Theory" -- then that's sad.  Could it be that
>> you read past a misunderstood word when you read that passage :-) .

> No MUs, just false information.

Not that I doubt your word, your comprehension, or your spelling --
but I'm unable to locate any book with a title like "Intro to
Psychoticism".

Do you mind providing the proper reference to the textbook you claim
contains this false information (author, title, publisher).

You see, I'd like to find this out for myself.
--
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: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Evaluation Frame
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:43:45 GMT

I thought that since I've referred to Bonewits' criteria for evaluating
groups, I ought to post them.  I'd like to stress that applying these
criteria to a group is *not* an insult to the group.  I consider them
when joining or working with any organization, fringe or mainstream.

--

reprinted without permission from _Drawing Down the Moon_, first
published in _Real Magic_, copyright P.E.I. Bonewits:

Cult Danger Evaluation Frame

1.  Internal Control, amount of internal political power exercised by
leader(s) over members.
2. Wisdom Claimed by leaders(s); amount of infallibility declared about
decisions.
3.  Wisdom Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in
decisions made by leader(s).
4. Dogma, rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal
inflexibility.
5. Recruiting, emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of
proselytizing.
6. Front Groups, number of subsidiary groups using different names from
that of main group.
7. Wealth, amount of money and/or property desired or obtained; emphasis
on members' donations.
8. Political Power, amount of external political influence desired or
obtained.
9. Sexual Manipulation of members by leaders; amount of control over sex
lives of members.
10. Censorship, amount of control over members' access to outside
opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).
11. Dropout Control, intensity of efforts directed at preventing or
returning dropouts.
12. Endorsement of Violence when used by or for the group or its
leader(s).
13. Paranoia, amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies,
perceived power of opponents.
14. Grimness, amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group,
its doctrines, or leader(s).

--

Bonewits suggests ranking the group on a scale of 1 to 10 on each of the
14 points, but does not offer interpretations of the results except to
say that, in general, the higher the score (on any point or overall) the
more likely the group is to be dangerous.

I find this scale useful in helping to set policy for the pagan group
I belong to; it gives some guidelines about things to avoid.  The big
risk factors for pagan groups seem to be #1-#4 and especially #13 
(Paranoia).  When you get into the "everyone is out to get us" mindset 
you waste your efforts and energies, and often create enemies
where there weren't any before (e.g. by pre-emptive strikes at imaginary
opposition).

Bonewits is a Druid and ritual magickian, so this scale definitely does
not come out of a fundamentalist Christian mindset or world view.

Hope this provides food for thought.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:09:29 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec12.111853.4552@memstvx1.memst.edu>, isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>    OTIII materials are confidential because the processes are
> dangerous if used incorrectly or at the wrong time.  

If you read about this before you've been brain-washed you'll not be fooled?

Get real.  These are "confidential" because they are bullshit.  Even LRH
knew that.  Cults live and die by their "secrets".

This is true.
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and the Physical Universe
Date: 12 Dec 92 12:07:10 GMT
	<1992Dec10.182222.4524@memstvx1.memst.edu> <Bz41oH.2Dn@csn.org>
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <Bz41oH.2Dn@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
> John Holifield wrote:
>> ARC, KRC, Tone scale to name a few.  
> ARC? The "equation" that nobody can name the units for? Does that meet
> your criteria for rigor?

No, ARC is the "triangle" of "Affinity", "Reality" and "Communication",
and is a theory about how to win friends and influence people (the BIG
SECRET is that you should be nice to them).  There is no algebra involved.

The equation is called "PV" for "Potential Value".
--
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: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Scientology and the Physical Universe
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:08:20 GMT

Apologies if this gets double-posted: something glitched on me.


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>  Basically because the idea of a time(?) when there was no universe
>doesn't make any sense at all.
>  No I don't have any rigirous physical evidence, but scientists have
>no rigirous evidence either.


Are you arguing that the universe must have existed forever, just
because the alternative puzzles you? There are four standard answers:

1) There's some rather elegant math about this: many scientists and
   mathematicians have started to find the idea pleasing.
2) "The universe is as it is, not as you want it to be."
3) To say that puzzlement is evidence, is to say that no one else will
   ever be smarter and more knowledgable than you currently are.
4) We have evidence.

A considerable amount of genuine scientific rigor has been put into
that last part. We have evidence that the solar system had a
beginning, and we know when. We have evidence that our galaxy had a
beginning. We know that the galaxies of long ago differed from the
ones seen now. Our current theory of how elements were created (in
the Big Bang, and subsequently, in stars) correctly predicts the
relative proportions of elements, as seen now.

Not that Science deals in Final Truths, or that we're satisfied with
the state of our knowledge on the point. But on this subject, science
is one heck of a long way from navel-gazing.



-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: S-Meter Progress Report
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:43:55 GMT

	The Houle Squirrelometer is a cheap GSR instrument,  which the
Scientologists would call an E-meter.  Anyway,  I read some interesting things
about biofeedback and GSR,  and also heard some interesting claims about
things that could be down with E-meters,  so I thought I would build
myself one,  since I'm not going to shell out $3000 for one.  Anyway,  I
hope this will also prove that the $3000 price is unjustified;  I expect
my expenses to be under $10 -- but I have a well-equipped junk box and all
I will need to buy is a relatively sensitive meter with a zero center.  Make
it $20 to do it totally from scratch,  which means buying a few resistors,
a spool of wire and either a 100K or 1M pot. (Haven't decided yet -- maybe
I'll use both).  A professional version of this could be sold in a fairly
nice case for $200.

	Anyway,  last night I emptied out two cans of welfare applesauce and
wrapped them in cross-connect wire and hooked them to my $22 (on sale) 
multimeter from radio shack.  I then held onto the cans and found I had
something like 50 kOhm of resistance,  which later dropped into the 20s.
My girlfriend showed up later on and I had her hold onto the cans and she read
out at about 80 kOhm,  but I didn't notice any needle deflections when,
say,  recalling painful memories or when lying.  For now I am presuming that
I actually do need to set up a wheatstone bridge and that what I have is
not sensitive enough.  The only time when I did get an event-driven needle
shift (other than changing grip on cans) was when I sneezed and I dropped
from maybe 60 kOhm to 50 kOhm.  Also tried me holding onto a can,
my girlfriend holding onto the other and us holding hands and we got maybe
100 kOhm.  (Maybe good technology for the church of appliantology -- proves
that sexual gratification can only be had by the use of machines :-)  Anyway,
when I get this to work I will post schematics and detailed plans for
building your own S-meter for under $20.






-- 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:36:48 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
 
[PV=ID^x]

>> A paraphrase, then, would be:
 
>> "An individual's potential, whether for good or evil, is proportional to
>> the product of his/her intelligence and the efforts which s/he makes
>> towards survival, whether of self, kin, organization or species."
 
>> The question of 'potential for what?' also remains open.

>   Potential for survival.

>-John Holifield

I have some problems with this idea, now that we finally seem to have
pinned it down.

(a)  I will live longer, on the average, than men of my intelligence and
determination, because as a woman I am less prone to cardiovascular
disease.  It appears that this proportionality leaves out physical and
environmental factors completely, including innate ones like gender.
Why doesn't 'potential survival value' take these factors into account?

(b)  _Scientology 8008_ says that thetans--human spirits or souls, as
far as I can make out--are immortal.  Why does an immortal being care
about survival?  What meaning does survival have to something that
cannot be destroyed?

(c)  As a biologist I know that among animals and plants, contribution
to species survival is based mainly on number of surviving offspring,
which does not always increase with increasing intelligence, and in some
cases decreases (i.e. some smart breeds of dogs are rather infertile).
Does this equation apply to non-humans?  How about humans under unusual
circumstances?  What are its limits supposed to be?  It's clearly not a
universal truth.

(d)  LRH talkes about 'potential value' as if it were related to the
moral value of a person.  I don't see tendency to survive as any
particular kind of moral virtue, myself.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:13:23 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec13.024212.27909@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>, rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:

> Could you give us your slant on what happened when the Xe[mn]u
> material was released to the public as part of a Scn trial in Calif
> several years ago, and Scn'ers flooded the records office to keep the
> info from becoming public?  Did this event happen?  Did any of the
> info get into the hands of the public?  Did they die 37 days after
> reading it? 

Of course, that *couldn't* have happened! ;-)  I saw it on the news, with
Scientologists lined up waiting to get the copies, but it didn't really
happen! ;-)

> So they didn't flood the records office with requests to copy the
> material, in order to keep it from getting out?

Naa.  That was the NEWS MEDIA.  They didn't want it to get out. ;-)

What do you bet that the scientologists don't "see" your posting?
From: jjs40@cd.amdahl.com (John Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: I Have *No* Integrity!
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:20:10 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Dec15.183143.4634@memstvx1.memst.edu>, writes:
>   I can experiment with Scientology teachings and verify them for myself
>anyone can.  If your not willing to do that Fine, but I don't owe you any
>obligation to prove anything to you.
>
>-John

Please describe an experiment you have personally conducted to verify a
particular tenet of Scientology.  You should write it up in a format similar
to one that might be used for a Freshman-level Physics laboratory course.
This will help us better understand your method, results, and conclusions.

Scientists generally don't have a problem accepting well-documented 
experimental results (but not necessarily conclusions) without performing 
the experiments themselves.  Your effort in documenting your own experiments
will help all of the readers of this news group in evaluating your arguments.

-- 
John Sullivan, Engineer/Computer Development.      Email: jjs40@cd.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA.                  Phone: (408)746-4688
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Ending scientology
Date: 12 Dec 92 10:50:34 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <schafmei.724038030@sfu.ca>, schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:
> I've pretty much come to the conclusion that 
> scientology like many other cults is an 'evil'
> organization that preys on people who are
> ignorant of the cult or confused.
>

  We've noticed.
 
> I think that cults like this eventually die
> of their own accord just to be replaced by others.
> 
> 
> As an open question to non-scientologists:
> 
> What kinds of laws or programs could be created
> that would limit the damage done to society by these
> cults?
> 
> My own ideas are the following:
> 
> Cults need a constant influx of mostly young people.
> Older people are probably wiser or too set in their ways
> to be seduced by glitzy advertising.
> They need an influx of people because the longer
> a person is in a cult, the less money they are able to get
> a-hold off.
> Also, most people who work within cults should eventually
> learn that they aren't getting anything worthwile and
> drop out or they become too poor to continue.
> 
> No law that restricted peoples right to choose religion
> would ever get off the ground.
> 
> Maybe if a law were created that prevented religious
> organizations from contacting ex-members,
> ex-members might be more willing to speak up against
> cults.
> This might accelerate the dissolution of the cult.
> 
> Or perhaps we need a 'Better Religion Bureau' where
> complaints can be made against religious organizations
> the same way people can complain about businesses,
> doctors, police, etc.
> 
> Anybody else have ideas?
> 
> .Chris.


  Okay, I'm a Scientologist, so I didn't answer any of those questions
since you invited everyone else to but a Scientologist.
  It just shocks me that you'd actually have the stomach to post crap
like that.  You're ideas are truly dangerous and have no place in a 
free society.

-John Holifield
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:39:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.111853.4552@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>What I am saying is that while we might debate the workability of
>Scientology, there can be no debate about this clear fact.  The Xemu
>story is NOT a Scientology teaching.

Can you say categorically that, to the best of your knowledge, Scientology
does not teach that there ever was a non-human civilization on Earth -- that
you've never, ever heard about earlier civilizations on Earth in any of your
interactions with Scientology?

>-John Holifield

BTW, John, you did not have a "This is true," on your posting.

--phil