From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: Scientology: It's just "a joke".
Keywords: PT BARNUM A FOOL AND HIS MONEY
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:59:11 GMT

chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo) writes:

>In article <schafmei.725090316@sfu.ca> schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:
>>chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo) writes:
>>
>>>So Annette, why are you posting to this newsgroup?
>>
>>><Chip>
>>
>>For that matter, why are you?
>>

>I'm glad you asked me that, Chris. I am following the Code of a
>Scientologist, point #1:

>To keep Scientologists, the public and the press accurately informed
>concerning Scientology, the world of mental health and society.

>This Code can be found in its entirety in THE CREATION OF HUMAN
>ABILITY by L. Ron Hubbard.

>Let me note that I make no profit from a person who buys a book or
>gets auditing (counseling). I volunteer my time to read and reply
>to articles where the writer seems interested in learning or
>gaining some ability. 

>You and Annette, among others, don't seem to me to care about
>studying Scientology. I have told you why I post here. It truly
>makes little difference to me whether you and others who fear
>Scientology and the imagined dangers of the subject answer the
>question. I personally do consider Annette's comments to be a form
>of baiting or harassment but a public forum is hardly the place
>to attempt to get her (or you for that matter) to give an honest
>reply. 

Your right, I'm not interested in studying scientology,
I am attacted to its adherants, I find them to be quite bizarre.
I find it quite interesting how you can delude yourself so
thoroughly.  

You shouldn't assume that I (and others) am/are afraid.
I avoid direct contact with hard-sell religious 
organizations like scientology
because I view them as dangerous and malevolent.

Scientologists as individuals strike me as being both amusing and 
kind of sad. Sad because they are enthusiastic and intense people, kind of
how I view myself, but their efforts are directed into
useless and destructive avenues.

I like to think of myself as being quite rational.
When I was little I was extreemly interested in psychic phenomena.
I built pyramids, did Kirlian photography, built psychotronic generators,
played with crystals, esp, telekinesis, orgone generators... the works.
At 12 I wanted to dedicate my life to becoming a parapsychologist;
because I thought that if there was even a grain of truth to all this
stuff then it was the most powerful thing in the universe.
Funny thing was, I never really got anything to work
(except the Kirlian photography).
In grade 10 I discovered computers, and in university I discovered
biochemistry/genetics, and there has been no looking back.

What I learned was that it's amazingly easy to believe
in almost anything.

I believe in science now because it is so beautiful and fits 
together so nicely.
I believe in it because what I have learned is confirmed
almost everyday.  It is hard not to believe in atoms, X-Rays,
diffraction etc. when you put a crystal in an X-Ray beam
and see the pattern of spots that are produced.
It's real stuff, stuff that you could see as easily as I can.
None of this 'If its true for you...' bullshit.

>On another online service I saw a similar progression. Very soon
>after a few people quoted the TIME article and attacked Hubbard,
>Church management and sincere Scientologists at length, the
>Scientologists stopped posting to the forum. Because they were
>only there to help by answering questions and referring people
>to LRH material, when the noise and disruption became loud enough,
>they left. Just as no one forces you to read this newsgroup, no
>one forces us to participate.

I think your kind of wrong about this one.
Several scientologists have dropped in and out over the last year.
I don't know if it was just attrition, or they got tired of
the pointed questions.
Some people will invariably drop out when things get too noisy or heated.
But I think that, in general, scientologists are compelled to communicate within
this forum.  Scientologists, being what they are, could never
sit back and watch non-scientologists discussing their religion.

As a religion it is too agressive for that.

Too much religious-testosterone flowing in your collective veins.

Thats whats so interesting about this news group.


>As a side note, the perported FAQ is loaded with false, 
>negative and biased material. It would be interesting if the
>copyright and trademark holders of terms such as "Scientology,"
>"Dianetics" etc. took legal action. There are clear, concise
>answers available from the Church with documentation; a continued
>distribution of demonstrably false and damaging material could be
>construed as intentionally malicious. Just my 'umble opinion.

Huh?

The FAQ contains mostly just unanswered questions and quotes from
scientologists.
Anyway, it is owned by the group as a whole, if you have a specific
problem, state it and if there is general agreement then
it will be changed.

You're humble opinion is worth as much as anybodies, just state it
more clearly than 'loaded with false, negative and biased material'.

Malicious?  For crying out loud.

We are people, not character actors!

I am not a silent movie villain to your virginal heroine(sp?)

I don't fear and hate scientologists, I just don't like the organization 
called scientology and I think that scientologists have 
alot of goofy ideas.

>>Questions, questions, questions.
>>
>>.Chris.
>>
>>P.S. Thanks for the E-mail Chip, it was good for a laugh.
>>

>As I recall, after I hit "R" rather than "F" on my reader,
>you tersely replied that you didn't want to carry on a private
>discussion. Glad you finally laughed; that will be $500 (ha ha).

><Chip>

Thanks, but I'm not interested in PRIVATE discussion about scientology.

.Chris.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology