HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Re: Creed.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:41:15 GMT


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Also, I think there is no doubt among the readers of this newsgroup that
>Scientology auditing is effective.  The disagreement seems to be wether
>or not it is as effective or not compared to other forms of treatment.
>People have been cured.  Cured by auditing.  Psychiatry has never cured
>anyone of anything.

This is ignorant. It is also an offensive, odious insult to the
hard working, ethical people who most surely do exist out there.
It is also an obscenity into the face of the patients who have publicly
thanked the psychiatric profession for the help they recieved. 
Let me guess: you got all this out of a forty year old pamphlet.

>ECT makes you lose parts of your memory and gives you brain damage.

GROAN. I thought we went through that one is _excruciating_ detail.
There is decent scientific evidence that ECT, as practiced today,
does no such thing. Really now. If you can't produce evidence - UP TO
DATE, PLEASE - then stop making assertions contrary to the evidence.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: exteriorization
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:31:59 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

I have a question for Don.

A few posts ago in a discussion of exteriorization and wether or
not it could/should be proven to the traditional scientific community
you gave several examples of things that might be mistaken for 
exteriorization.  Then, you said that these things were no reason to 
trash modern physics.  I would like to know why, in your opinion, 
exteriorization and the scientific laws that govern the phenomena
are contrary to modern physics.

On a somewhat related note:  If Psychiatry seeks to define consciousness
in terms of the physical universe, why is it unreasonable for 
Scientology to define the physical universe in terms of consciousness?

Also, I would like to try to explain the phenomena of exteriorization
because many people who have been participating in this discussion
don't have a clear idea of what Scientology teaches about
exteriorization.

In scientology we are studying theta (thought, life, consciousness, etc..)
Theta has many capabilitys, one of which is being aware that it is
aware.  This "awareness of awareness" can't be physically measured because
it isn't an object.  We call the "awareness of awareness" a thetan, the
Scientology word for soul or spirit.  Since theta isn't an object,
you can't locate a thetan in the physical universe.

In fact, a thetan only feels that he is located in the physical universe
because he considers himself to be located.  The consideration that
the thetan is making is what keeps him trapped.  There is nothing wrong
with existing in the physical universe and playing games, but to be
unable to leave is to be forced to play a game that you don't want to
play.  No matter how loudly a thetan says he likes it, he is still being
forced to play the game because he CAN'T LEAVE.

Before I go on, I would like to define a word that I am about to use a
lot.  MEST--It means Matter, Energy, Space, Time.  It is a word that we
use to mean the physical universe or a part of it.  Any of the four
parts of MEST can't exist without the other three.  I am sure you will
agree with that.

A thetan creates MEST by considerations and postulates.  Other thetans
create MEST.  The agreement that is reached between the thetans appears
solid, and the only reason that it is solid is because we agree that it
is.  If you were able to change your considerations about MEST, you
would be able to create your own universe.  This is true.

If you were able to change your considerations about being located, 
you could choose a new position and view MEST from that point. 

This is real to me.  I have observed for myself that this is true.  I
am not telling you to believe it, I just wanted to clarify what 
Scientologists are talking about, and give you that point of view on
the subject.

ARC,

John Holifield
From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: CHILOCCO WINS RECOGNITION TO OPERATE IN OKLAMHOMA
Date: 28 Sep 1992 20:52:27 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <KPx--RC@engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes:
>                                    ... Scientology is just like to Energizer
>Bunny.  It just keeps on going and going and going. ...

You mean that it's a parody of itself?

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"When the cells are talking, you have to listen to them..."
                            - Liz Yoder, UCSD Neuroscience graduate student
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Dianetics books.
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:01:18 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Oct2.081854.4420@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>   Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health -- Acclaimed as the most
>effective self-help book ever published.

By whom? Can you please provide references? What were the next 5 most
effective self-help books? What was the index of effectiveness for each book?

It certainly wins the prize as the most advertised book of time (or perhaps
#2, depending on what you consider advertising for The Bible). 

There was also some interesting information about _Dianetics_ in the Time
article about Scientology. B. Dalton employees got confused because the books
they were getting in *already* had price tags on them. It turned out that the
books were getting bought and "recycled" to jack up the sales figures.

This gives the phase "juggling the books" an entirely new meaning!

>Dianetics technology has helped millions reach new heights of freedom and
>ability.

Ahem. One more time: how is this known? Were there any sort of surveys done?
By whom? How can we see the data?

>Millions of copies are sold every year!

...and some copies are sold again again and again. 

>Discover the source of mental barriers that prevent you from achieving your
>goals -- and how to handle them!

Does it give us any insight in to why Scientology keeps making claims but
will never ever back them up with hard data? Scientology is an oxymoron.

--phil
From: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: Creed.
Organization: Me
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:47:26 GMT


>We of the Church believe:
> 
>That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and
>   their performance.
 
     Except for squirrels who are fair game.

>That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist and support
>   their own organizations, churches and governments.
 
     Unless of course they are non Scientology organizations.

>That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, 
>to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to 
>counter or utter or write upon the
>opinions of others.
 
     As long as it is pro Church of course.

>> 
>And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid Man:
> 
>To destroy his own kind
>To destroy the sanity of another
 
     Unless her name is Paulette Cooper.

> 
>That the spirit alone may save or heal the body.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     For a price, eh?

     Was this put out by the G.O. or what?
 
     Homer
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: Medical Science
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:17:00 GMT


>
>However, the post you were mis-remembering was also correct.  The fat
>in your fat cells in fact turns over every two to three weeks; the
>fat stored in my tissues today is not the same fat that was there
>last month. There is an active recycling mechanism - not of cells,
>but of the chemical that those cells store.
 
     Don,
 
     Does this mean that IF drugs residues were stored in the
fat cells, that they too would be recycled or washed away
every two or three weeks, or could they stay behind?
 
     Seems like the scientific side of this shouldn't be all
that hard to determine one way or another.
 
     Homer
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Scn Books (2).
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:06:16 GMT

The Advanced Scientology Library
 
   Scientology 8-8008 -- Get the basic truths about your nature as a spiritual
being and your relationship to the physical universe around you.  Here,
L. Ron Hubbard describes procedures designed to increase your abilities to
heights previously only dreamed of.
 
   Scientology 8-80 -- What are the laws of life?  We are all familiar with
physical laws such as the law of gravity, but what laws govern life and
thought?  L. Ron Hubbard answers the riddles of life and its goals in the
physical universe.
 
   Scientology: A History of Man -- A fascinating look at the history of the
human race -- revolutionary concepts guaranteed to intrigue you and challenge
many basic assumptions about man's true power, potential and abilities.
 
   The Phoenix Lectures -- An in-depth look at the roots of Scientology
religious philosophy and how it was developed is contained in this work.  The
influence of earlier great philosophies and religious leaders is covered in
detail.  This is followed by a complete discussion of the nature of existence
and reality, and exactly how man interacts with his environment.  An
enlightening look at the infinite potentialities of man.
 
   The Creation of Human Ability -- Improve your life, and the lives of
others, far beyond current expectations.  Learn simple yet powerful techniques
you can use to help somebody increase his ability and operate more
successfully in life.
 
   Handbook for Preclears -- This personal workbook contains easily done
exercises to help you improve your life and find greater happiness.
 
   Advanced Procedure and Axioms -- For the first time the basics of thought
and the physical universe have been codified into a set of fundamental laws,
signaling an entire new way to view and approach the subjects of man, the
physical universe and even life itself.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: ABLE
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<38759@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> <GISLE.92Sep30091047@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:24:07 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <GISLE.92Sep30091047@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> There was quite an interesting discussion in "alt.alien.visitors"
> about 6 months back where some new-age person had managed to receive
> UN sponsorship for her project centered upon "channeling" her
> conversations with extraterrestrials.  The messages from the
> extraterrestrials was printed upon UN stationary, and they even had
> some meetings in the UN building.

To avoid a possible misunderstanding: The "they" participating in
meetings refers to the channeler and other persons of earthly origin
-- no ET's had suffiscient funding to make the trip to New York (or
being unfamiliar with local customs, they were mugged before they
got there).

--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- 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: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: Harkin Amendment
Organization: Me
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:45:07 GMT



 
  
                                                 09/30/92 02:57am
 
     Dear Senator Harkin,
 
     I urge you to resist as strongly as humanly possible any efforts to
remove your Alternative Health Care amendment from the Labor
Appropriations bill, along with the Hatch moratorium amendment on
dietary supplements.
 
     I understand the need to have health care in the hands of competent
professionals.  However we must avoid at all costs the danger of our
health care system being monopolized by entrenched vested interests and
a limited one track view of the causes and cures of human suffering.
 
     To allow one group, with one philosophy, total control over our
health, disease prevention and disease cure, is to invite disaster as it
limits us to the narrow vision of a few, disbarring the research and
genius of others who do not tread the beaten path.
 
     Personally I would be dead if it were not for the free availability
of Niacin, B complex, and Minerals.  My needs were special, but
completely unrecognized by the medical establishment at large, and if I
had followed their recommendations I would probably be permanently
damaged by their invasive surgical techniques.
 
     I can not stress strongly enough how important it is that vitamins,
Niacin, minerals, and alternative health care including the use of mind
devices and biofeed back machines, remain generally available to the
public and those doing serious alternative research into human health
and well being.
 
     Thank you for devoting your time to this matter.
 
     Homer Wilson Smith
From: achorn@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (Brett Achorn)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:21:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Oct1.183024.3485@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>To  :  Scientology Critics
>From:  John Holifield
>
>    Why have you spent so much of your time trying to make Scientology
>and L. Ron Hubbard look like an evil fraud?  

  This is too good to pass up.

  THE TOP 10 REASONS TO MAKE SCIENTOLOGY LOOK LIKE AN EVIL FRAUD

  10. Feeling edgy after missing the day's dose of Prozac

   9. Electrocuted by an E-meter as a child

   8. Couldn't finish _Battlefield Earth_ and suffering from suppressed
         feelings of inferiority
    
   7. Can't spell ARC

   6. Cockroaches whisper "Suppress Scientology and feed us Ho-Hos" in
         our ears each night
 
   5. Our teachers in elementary school were all psychiatrists

   4. Nothing else to do, since we don't exist in objective reality

   3. We were visited by the ghost of engrams past

   2. We're all paid agents of Xemu, the largest pharmaceutical company in
         the galaxy.

   1. A terminal sense of humor

   Humor is the ultimate weapon               achorn@gradient.cis.upenn.edu
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: A Question for Critics.
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:30:24 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University


To  :  Scientology Critics
From:  John Holifield

    Why have you spent so much of your time trying to make Scientology
and L. Ron Hubbard look like an evil fraud?  


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:55:39 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.183024.3485@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>To  :  Scientology Critics
>From:  John Holifield
>
>    Why have you spent so much of your time trying to make Scientology
>and L. Ron Hubbard look like an evil fraud?  
>
>
To  :  Scientologists
From:  Keith Schauer

     Why have you spent so much of your time trying to make psychiartry and
psychology look like an evil fraud?


-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Medical Science
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:54:39 GMT


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>convential
>medical science is filled with contradictions and disreprencys.  Wether
>medicine agrees with the purif or not depends entirely on which doctor
>you ask.
>   For example, before I did my purification program I had to get a 
>physical and medical approval to participate.  I asked my doctor about
>someone's post that said that the body's fat cells were recycled every
>twenty-one days (I hope I got that correct)  I was told that it
>was not correct.  My doctor said that by the time your body reaches
>maturity, you have all the fat cells that you will ever have.  You don't
>grow more or lose more, although the existing cells may get larger or 
>smaller.

Your doctor is correct. Largely, an adult's fat cells aren't being
created or destroyed.

However, the post you were mis-remembering was also correct.  The fat
in your fat cells in fact turns over every two to three weeks; the
fat stored in my tissues today is not the same fat that was there
last month. There is an active recycling mechanism - not of cells,
but of the chemical that those cells store.

Was that the only discrepancy, or do you have others?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Summary: Can we initiate a critical discussion of Scienology here?
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:29:42 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Oct1.183024.3485@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>To  :  Scientology Critics
>From:  John Holifield
>
>Why have you spent so much of your time trying to make Scientology and L. Ron
>Hubbard look like an evil fraud?

One general question: What is the purpose of Scientologists making postings
on this group? Are they attempting others to try Scientology? Do they just
want an "insider" group to communicate to each other? What is the purpose?

I've got some different questions: Why is it that questions about the
relationship between Scientology and science go completely unanswered [by the
Scientologists] here? Why is it that Scientology cannot objectively, clearly
demonstrate to us here what *makes* Scientology a science? Why is it that none
of the claims which Scientology makes are ever backed up by the quoting of
objective, independent sources?

When posts are made to a USENET group, they are read with an attitude of
skepticism. That comes with the territory -- there's nothing particulary
special about alt.religion.scientology in that respect. In order for the
Scientologists to be effective in communicating with the rest of us on this
group, they should realize that. If you want to communicate effectively, *back
up what you say with independently verifiable facts.* That's what works in
other News groups.

Also, within a USENET group, you will receive responses that you may think are
rude and crude. Again, that comes with the territory -- it's nothing specific
to this group. Don't take it personally.

The discussions alt.religion.scientology are littered with Frequently
Unanswered Questions.  Questions are asked, asked again, and never ever
answered by the Scientologists. If you're interested in influencing the
readers of this group, this is the thing you should pay attention to.

I ask you, John Holifield, is Scientology a science? If so, what scientific
proof can you provide?

To address your initial question, my dictionary defines fraud:

	A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or
	unlawful gain [...] one who assumes a false pose; imposter.

As it stands in this newsgroup, Scientology has not demonstrated that it is
actually a science; I have seen nothing which would indicate that Scientology
is a valid science. I don't expect to, but I'm willing to be suprised.

Does that answer your question?

--phil
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ABLE
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:44:04 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <BvD0BI.8BA.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu
      (Donald Lindsay) writes:
> 
> sboswell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Xianity is stupid) writes:
>>According to a news article I saw posted in the San Diego org (from a
>>standard newspaper too, not a Church publication), the Purification Rundown
>>has been validated by the World Health Organization, among others.
>>
>>Is the WHO reputable enough for you?
> 
> Yes. However, you are giving me a report of what a journalist
> thought.  In my experience, reports of reports of reports do not
> often resemble the original.
> 

    Good Point Don.  I wonder though why you don't apply the same
logic to the Xemu article you post every week.  (grin...)

ARC,

John Holifield
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:52:07 GMT


paulr@bts.com (Paul Raulerson) writes:
>I think the time spent debunking Scientology would be a lot better
>spent getting people to think for themselves, which, to some 
>extent Scientology does. (Or at least claims to do, seems that it
>does to me.) 

The idea that "it's true if it's true for you" works to suppress
thinking. This encourages people to _not_ object when something
incorrect comes up, or when something comes up that needs evidence to
be believable.

It also encourages the idea that anecdotal evidence is an acceptable
substitute for scientific evidence: not the clarity of thought one
would hope for.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: double blind
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:45:03 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. @ NU

In article <1992Sep28.141429.16567@tc.cornell.edu>
homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes: 
[...]
>     Nor do I fall for the 'well you reported it to be true, so
>you had better prove it is true to us or else...'  
>To them I would say 'I should you what to prove, go prove it for
>yourself.'

Except the Church routinely sues & harrasses anyone who tries to do
this, outside the auspices of the Holy Church.

[...]
>>But why don't you take the obvious step, and really try to find out?
>>It should be simple to collect some of the sweat from a rundown, take
>>it to a lab and get it analyzed for abnormal levels of toxins and
>>radiation.  
>
>     This is an absolutely incredibly good idea, has anyone
>brought it up before?

Again, they'd sue & harrass.  It's just not worth it.

>>But no Scientologist has ever been willing to do this.  It
>>is as if the "find it out for yourself" doctrine has limits that
>>cannot be overstepped.
> 
>     So this would not speak well of them, eh?  So why
>don't YOU go do the experiment?  Or get others to do it for them.
>It would easy enough to get someone doing drugs into
>a sauna and collect his sweat and see what's in it.

But the Church would say that sitting in a sauna is not all that
happens, and won't say what _does_ happen, so you have to go to them,
and they'd refuse you & sue you to death.

	RA

rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu
--------------------------
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