HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation revisited, Just for Bill.
Date: 19 Nov 1992 00:24:00 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca


Please forgive me but Bill Hardman seems to have missed one of my articles
and I was forced to imply that he was fibbing about not bailing out,
so I must repost the article in question.

	I will start with the article in which Bill claims his newsreader
missed my article, following that will be the unaltered repost of the
article in question and then my signature.

In article <DJ9DuB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>

[ker-snip!]

>> [deleted: A discussion of the "equation", between myself and Bill
>>  	  Hardman, where Bill demonstrates that he hasn't a clue
>> 	  what units of measurment are]

[ker-snip!]

Gisle says:
>> >> I final question:
>> >> Bill, why it is worth your time entering all these discussions, only
>> >> to bail out every time you meet some real opposition?  You seem to
>> >> have a more imaginative range of excuses (the "out-gradient" was the
>> >> best so far) than the cheese salesman in the Monty Phyton "Cheese
>> >> Shop" skit!

Bill replies:
>> >        When did I use the term out-gradient?

Nit Pick! (my origional comment, that Bill selectively edited)

>> >        As usual, your observations are flawed.  I have never
>> >"bailed out" of any discussion.  I have not seen any "real"
>> >opposition in this newsgroup.

to which I said:
>> 	Where's your response to my post (article 2045; dated: 11 Nov 1992
>> 00:27:21 GMT)?  Face up to your "real" opposition baby! 


Bill claims:
>The post was never received at this site.

I continued, w.r.t his assertion that he had not bailed out, using
terms that he has batted others around with!
>> 	You are _not_ current.  You _have_ bailed out.  _Your_ assertion 
>> is a bald lie!

	My remarks are *still* valid, as Bill has selectively responded
to many other posts!  That is, he responds only to the questions
he can answer and then deletes the others without responding, even
if they were directed at him!  

>If it was received, it was replied to.  That would define current.
>Where is the lie Richard?

	I have explained myself in this and previous posts.

>Bill Hardman
>If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!

My ARC is so HIGH I could MIRV'ed ICBM vomit!

	Anyway here is the unedited post, exactly as it was on 
the fateful day that it didn't reach Bills' newsreader

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% repost starts %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
From ph36 Tue Nov 10 19:53:12 PST 1992
Article: 2045 of alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:32:19 GMT

Some religions do have a sense of humor, and it doesn't seem to do them
any harm.  S.r.christian currently has a thread going about 'jokes
about Christianity and Christians'.  And there is a wonderful story in
Starhawk's book _Truth or Dare_ about how infighting in a witches'
rally was defused by a parody ritual involving toilet paper.

It's healthy to be able to laugh, sometimes even at yourself.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:30:30 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

Okay, Phil, if I've understood you correctly you want proof from an
independent source as to the validity of the results from the use of
Scientology tech which are being claimed by Scn.

However, Scn cannot offer the proof because it is not an independent source.

But, you cannot understand why Scn doesn't offer you proof which you are
willing to accept (independent source).

But you still want this proof.

Since Scn cannot be its own independent source, I recommend (again) that
you get some people who are interested and set up your own research
project to determine the results of Scn tech.  This would be an independent
source and would follow any special research guidelines that you care to
establish.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: It's True For You (LONG)
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:32:55 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

Quick question, Don: do you have as much attention on alt.satanism and
alt.out-of-body as you do on Scientology?  

Jonathon
Barbera
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:51:29 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov15.234727.8581@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.051739.15689@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>Tell you what. Why don't you tell me the page that will give me the
>>>official Scientology policy about other religions. I will go to my
>>>local B. Daltons and read *that*. I am willing to read up to 10
>>>pages of material.
>>>
>>
>>Re: view of other religions
>>
>>The Way to Happiness by L. Ron Hubbard -- section 18
>>OEC Volume 0, pg 152-153: HCO PL 20 OCT 1961RB, NON-SCIENTOLOGY STAFF
>>The Phoenix Lectures by L. Ron Hubbard (the book) -- chapters 1-3
>>The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard -- chapter 8 (outline
>>   of The Phoenix Lectures 1-3) and chapter 4
>
>Does that come out to 10 pages, Jonathon? Are you sure it's not 15?
>
>Prune it down. 10 pages. That's it. And it has to be something that I
>can find at a reasonably-sized bookstore. Otherwise, I won't play.
>
>If LRH can't say it in 10 pages, then it's way too complicated for me to
>understand anyhow.

The references I gave aren't available at bookstores outside of Scientology
churches.  My only other suggestion is to periodically check your local
library for the new edition of What is Scientology? and look up the
appropriate ten pages of information from there (there will probably be
a very detailed index as in other books).

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: PV equation
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:13:19 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <V5uJuB2w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>> Stop waffling.  You said you could to it if I made it worth your time.
>> I have made you an offer that should make it worth your time.
>> I'm pretty tired playing the Monty Phyton Cheese Shop skit with you.
> Get over it.
>> If time is an issue, I'm willing to grant you any reasonable time to
>> put together your proof.  How much time do you need?
> Since I am leaving on the third, and won't be back until 9 Jan. 93,
> it will have to wait until then.
If this proof is as trivial as you've claimed earlier in this discussion,
you should have no problem getting that post together before the 3rd.

Postponing it until 1993 looks to me like just another of your silly
excuses -- as you can hope that everybody has forgotten everything
about it by then.

If you can't do it, I think you would appeared as a much more honest
man if you've admitted so, instead of this long string of excuses.
--
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@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.093218.5349@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>I tell him that what he's given me is not enough. The dealer's response: if
>>*I* can't trust what he says, then it's my problem. After all, *he* already
>>knows that Fords are the best cars out there; it's clearly a problem with me
>>that I can't see that for myself. He suggests that I set up my own research
>>project to investigate Fords....
>>
>>Is that what the Ford dealership would do, Jonathon? Why or why not?
>>Question: is it possible for the Ford dealership to provide independent
>>research about Fords that they themselves didn't control?
>>(Semi-non-sequitor: could I even find such research at a B. Dalton's?)
>
>I understood Phil's analogy.  The Ford dealership would probably suggest
>that the customer take the car for a test drive (a common practice --
>similiar to the free introductory auditing).

You think you understand the analogy, but there are nuances that currently
escape your model. You're looking at what you already know, Jonathon. The
point of the Ford analogy is to have you think in a new way. The B. Dalton
reference was intended as a clue....

To continue the analogy, I wouldn't even step into a Ford dealership for
a test drive until I knew something about Fords. Until I asked a friend.
Or perhaps until I picked up something in a B. Daltons that told me something
about Fords.

>However, the prerequisite for the Church of Scientology to do this is to
>first have access to an independent company which would be willing and able
>to have their people trained as auditors and case supervisors and then
>conduct the necessary research.  Are there companies out there which could do
>this?  (Phil or Rogue Agent can answer.)  What companies?  Are they totally
>independent and unbiased?

Surely you already know the answer to your last question. After all, any
organization whose technology has been tested with a rigor only approached by
physics and chemistry would know the kinds of safeguards one puts in place to
minimize observational errors.

Right?

Scientology might have to hire organizations to gather and analyze data.
Provide access to the names of people who have participated in auditing, and
ensure that the samples have no intentional bias.

The onus is on Scientology to provide this. No individual could do it even
if he had the cooperation of Scientology.

Ford is welcome to be uncooperative in facilitating independent evaluations of
their automobiles. That's fine. But Ford knows that many people are not even
going to cross the threshold of their dealerships unless they can find
independent sources of information -- in the equivalent of their local B.
Dalton's -- about their cars.

Did you read the sci.skeptic FAQ?

--phil
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn
Date: 15 Nov 92 16:10:33 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Why is it
>so unbelievable that there have been over 10,000 PC's in Scn's history?

It isn't unbelievable. Of course Scn has audited a lot of people.

>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?

He asks *because* he is a serious person. First, you didn't offer the
data *in* 10,000 case histories, you offered to prove *their
existence*. In terms of actual data, you only offered 42 case
histories. All of these 42 are pre-selected, and in a book which is
probably 30 years old [could you give us the first publication
date?].  Preselection is a no-no to a serious researcher, plus, it is
probably impossible by now to track down the actual people involved
and verify the data. So, a serious scientist has to consider these 42
case histories as badly flawed evidence.

Why would a serious scientist want raw case histories, and want to
verify them? Because that's utterly essential to a reputable study.
Is that what you were asked for? No. You were asked for a reputable
study. It's nice that you responded with what you have, but really,
if what you had was better, it would be the raw materials, not the
result.

This newsgroup's tradition is to end posts with a plea to read,
or look up a word. OK, the thing to look up is:

	"anecdotal evidence"
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Going exterior / OOBE
Date: 16 Nov 92 02:01:41 GMT
	<1992Nov13.070934.2775@lds-az.loral.com>
	<1992Nov15.130302.4086@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no


In article <1992Nov15.130302.4086@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

> Usually I just go exterior by deciding to go exterior.

For those interested in this phenomena (also known as OOBE -- Out of
the Body Experience), there is currently a good discussion on this
over in sci.skeptic.

The weight of the evidence (and there are people there who refer to
actual double blind experiments) is that the phenomena is REAL.
People are really having these experiences.

But while the experience of an OOBE is definitely "real," the tests
also show that none of the persons "going exterior" from their bodies
were able to reliably describe anything it would have required them
to leave their bodies to observe.

So to me, it looks like exteriorizing is just some very realistic
hallucination that some people have learnt to induce in themselves
at will.
--
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: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Squirrels
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:36:33 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <By6MLr.uM@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.092614.5123@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>>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.
>>
>>EST (now The Forum) is a squirrel group (and openly admits it).  Free Zone,
>>if I understood correctly, is also a squirrel group.  There are several
>>tech bulletins which illustrate squirreling and its danger.  I am not
>>an expert in this field so I can not detail this more.
>
>Could you tell me who I could contact to find within these organizations who
>will openly admit that they are "Squirrel" groups?  What phone number should I
>call? Who should I ask for? What is the question that I should ask them?

There is EST literature which states that it had borrowed from things like
Buddhism and Scientology (as major sources).  This is openly admitting it.

Free Zone, as I've understood from past articles here, also appear to
have based some of their stuff on Scientology.  In a recent article, Gisle
states that Free Zone'rs in the past have posted here stating that they
consider themselves the holders of "pure" Scn tech.  But as this indicates
that they differ from Scientology, they are squirrels.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Childs game
Date: 24 Nov 1992 02:46:24 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <NFmmuB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>Richards post id#
>
>Message-ID: <1ee1ctINNlb3@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
>Richard,
>        I will give you until tomorrow to re-edit you post, or be
>placed in the systems killfile.
>Bill Hardman

Fine.

ps: I can email the article to you if you like.  But I'd
rather be in your kill file.


-- 
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: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:28:17 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <raz.722141943@syzygy> raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz) writes:
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>>Come to Phoenix.  I'll take you to the Phx Org and Phx Mission and have them
>>let you glance at the covers of a few PC folders (browsing through the folders
>>themself would, of course, be unethical as they contain private information).
>
>Oh perfect. I love it. We aren't allowed to examine the data to 
>establish proof or disproof of your claims because it would be
>unethical. This is brilliant. You can literally claim WHATEVER

PC folders contain private information about the PC.  If it wasn't against
policy for others to browse through it, there'd probably be a few people
out there who'd refrain from ever being auditted.

As someone else mentioned to me, medical and psych patient records tend
to be just as confidential for similiar reasons.

>>>	You do that Jonathon, but think about this:  If scn has made you
>>>such a free thinker, why are you tied to the books?
>
>>It's policy not to interpret Scn tech for others.  That's called verbal tech.
>
>Ah! Debate is forbidden. This is called censorship in some countries :-)

Debate isn't forbidden.  Interpreting Scn tech for someone instead of
directing them to the appropriate reference is off-policy.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:24:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.170849.18689@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.085129.2274@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>Does that come out to 10 pages, Jonathon? Are you sure it's not 15?
>>>
>>>Prune it down. 10 pages. That's it. And it has to be something that I
>>>can find at a reasonably-sized bookstore. Otherwise, I won't play.
>>>
>>>If LRH can't say it in 10 pages, then it's way too complicated for me to
>>>understand anyhow.
>>
>>The references I gave aren't available at bookstores outside of Scientology
>>churches.  My only other suggestion is to periodically check your local
>>library for the new edition of What is Scientology? and look up the
>>appropriate ten pages of information from there (there will probably be
>>a very detailed index as in other books).
>
>We're getting warmer here....
>
>Jonathon: Say the full title of the book. Say its ISBN number. Say the name
>of the publisher. And say the 10 pages that you want me to read. Be precise
>and exact. Clue: I want real page numbers. For extra credit, tell me whether
>or not this edition is listed in _Books in Print_.

Unfortunately, I have not yet seen the new edition.  So all I can tell you
until I do is that the title is What is Scientology? and it is published
by Bridge Publications.  

>
>If you want to play, those are the rules.

Your rules keep getting stricter.  I get the feeling that you really don't
want to look up the information.

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: _PV_ According to Jon
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:21:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.055620.20271@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>I didn't say that the equation wasn't workable.  I said that I read the
>equation to as something to show relevancies between concepts.  As there
>is a big debate on units and numbers, I proposed this.  However, that
>is not to say units and numbers could not be used...

Then answer these questions:

1. Should units *always* be used with the equation?
2. Are the units that we use for each of the terms more or less important
   than the equation itself?

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn revisited
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Nov23.071512.4160@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
	<1992Nov23.094308.5771@lds-az.loral.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:04:26 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Nov23.094308.5771@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>   In article <1992Nov23.071512.4160@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov22.001242.21768@lds-az.loral.com>

>>>>>>>	Has the church of scientology published _any_ unsuccessful stories?
>>>I said, no: they don't publish the unsuccess until it is a success after
>>                                              ^^^^^
>>'Until'?  This implies that every case is eventually a success.  Or
>>did you mean 'unless'?

> Every case is eventually a success unless the person quits in the middle.

And if the person quits, it is the person himself that is to blame for
the failure, and not Scientology, right?

I can understand that by this line of reasoning, Scientology cannot
_possibly_ fail.  Now, in my books there is something fundamentally
wrong with reasoning where one quite possible outcome is excluded by
defintion.

Actually, I find your knee-jerk response to this a bit frightening,
because it sounds like you've aquired a frame of mind where you define
things in a way that makes it impossible for you to even consider a
scenario where Scientology is unsuccessful -- remind me of Orwell's
novel "1984" and the properties of "newspeak".

--
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: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:17:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.082430.1236@lds-az.loral.com>
jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
[...]
>I was like that once.  Ethics got rough and I didn't like it.  However,
>since then I've stepped back and viewed the whole and how this ethics
>system can keep things going without trouble, etc.

Could you describe how 'ethics got rough', why you didn't like it, and
how your opinion changed?

	RA

rogue@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