From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: SP
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:15:14 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Jul22.223838.6191@samba.oit.unc.edu> Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.101634.15103@microsoft.com> erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.212245.2521@samba.oit.unc.edu> Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:
>>>.... Suppresives who haven't "owned up
>>>an' apologized" to the satisfaction of their victims are not allowed
>>>auditing, and other Scient. aren't allowed to talk to them or hang
>>>around them. 
>>
>>So, the church is in the business of tracking who hurt who, who
>>apologised, and who you can talk to.  Who needs the bill of Rights?
>>We have a church to handle all of these funtions for us. :(
>
>A-yup, you got it right.  Of course, if you *want* to hang around
>someone, that's your business. Just don't hang around with people who
>would rather have a stable, fairly up-beat emotional state. I *have*
>hung around someone who I strongly suspect was suppressive, and you know
>what, I'm a hell of a lot happier now that I'm 2000 miles away!
>
>Of course, if you like emotional roller-coasters, I'm sure that's your
>business. You're not a Scientologist, I assume, so it really doesn't
>matter.  (Hm. I appear to have a hot button here. Sorry 'bout that; I
>didn't realize it was that strong.)
>  
"Grumpy" Hill: Sorry, Liz, but your wrong.  I was a sea org member
and have watched scientology destroy lives and marriages with
its policies and interferance in personal lives.  Including my
first marriage. 
>>I would like to suggest that this "church" is interfering
>>in the private lives of individuals. 
>
>What church (with or without quotes) doesn't? Even Discordians dislike
>the Minions of GrayFace.  If you don't agree with a group, don't hang
>around with that group. (Or use your killfile extensively. :-) )
>
There is a differance between preaching a viewpoint and 
conviening "courts" to try individuals and then label them 
as evil (sp) or incompetant (pts) and yes I know the tech
definition and theory of pts.
>> It labels people and
>>tells its members what to think (with the threat of being
>>labeled an SP if you do not agree).
>
>There is a potential for abuse of the term, yes. I don't have any
>evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) on the extent of abuse that actually
>happens. And again, any group does that to a certain extent, with the
>most crude example being "mob mentality." 
>
Liz, how shocking - you generalize, one of the supposed traits
of the famous sp.  Other groups trample the rights of the idividual
so the cos is not so bad!?  Would you like specific cases of 
cos interferance so that you can at least be specific on that topic? 
>Is the government any better? We're told Russians are/were bad guys, the
>dangers of hackers justifies raiding an innocent game company, and that
>freedom of religion is a great thing. If you don't believe things, you
>run a risk of getting labled something nasty.
>
I really am suprised that you want to compare scn to gov't.
But then the "clear the planet" goal assumes scn presiding
over the entire (actualy ~99%) population of the planet.
-a very scary thought-,
>--EM
>
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology