From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: scientology-faq
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:01:47 GMT

In article <1jt2gbINNa8j@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes:
>What is Scientology?
>ISBN 0-88404-633-8

Did you claim earlier that this was now available in over half the libraries
in America? So far, it hasn't appeared locally.

Considering that Boulder has local Scientology offices listed in the phone
book, this sounds inconsistent.

>Answers: What is Scientology? Chapter 1,2,3,4,5,6,17,18,27,31,37, [...] the
>whole book, [and various page references].

Chip claimed that "clear, concise" ansers exist to the FAQ. Was he incorrect?
Does "clear, concise" mean something different to Scientologists than the
rest of the world? Do you think it qualifies as "concise" to tell us to read
all of this ($80? $90?) book?

If this book does indeed contain answers, I'd expect you to point to a
paragraph, or, at most, 2 pages that addresses the questions. And I would
expect that there are some questions that the book does not address at all.
Finally, to competently answer the questions, you'd have to explain the
apparent inconsistencies between the book's answers and the answers that
Scientologists have already volunteered here. See below...

>4. How do scientifically-oriented Scientistologists deal with these
>   contradictions of Scientology?
>Answer: ??? contradictions?  If it is true it is true.  Much of modern science
>isn't that great.  

Isn't all that great? What does that mean? Consistency is the essence of
Science -- Scientists strive to form theories that consistently explain the
Universe.

It seems as if LRH gives Physics and Chemistry a lot of credit. Are you
disagreeing with this?

>9. Do Scientologists view Science as a religion?
>Answer: ??? No this is a silly question

One would think. However, the actions of the Scientologists, as noted in
the FAQ's answer to this question, do indeed imply that.

>15. Why would Scientology permit someone to "squirrel" its technology?
>Answer: They wouldn't

What does this mean? Jonathon told us that EST/Erhard squirreled Scientology
technology and "openly admits" it. Faithful to the pattern, he provided no
evidence, but he *did* make the claim.

Was Jonathon incorrect? Are you incorrect? Which is it?

Would the real Scientologist please stand up?

>16. Is Scientology Successful?
>Answer: See questions 2 and 6 and the entire What is Scientology book.

No. What you need to do is to address the questions raised in this entry
in the FAQ.

>17. Is Narcanon Successful?
>Answer: What is Scientology? P 406 - 417

Does this address the issues raised in the FAQ?

>There is also a section of questions and answers in the book which
>includes questions like:

We call these "straw man" questions. They are the least interesting ones.

>These and scores more and answered in the book.

Personally, I'd be happy if you can just address the questions asked
in the FAQ. Billiyons and billiyons of answers to questions that nobody
ever asked are not tremendously interesting.

>There are currently two major lawsuits pending.  One against
>the IRS and other against TIME and Behar.  There are several booklets
>published by the Church of Scientology to handle various minor problems

Which lawsuits has Scientology lost? 

>It's sort of scary how easily the press is controlled.

This is one media that is *not* controlled. I repeat: if you provide clear,
concise answers to the questions in the FAQ, they will be included. Neither I
(nor, presumably, Bridge Publications) would be pleased if we published the
entire text of their book in this medium.

In short, if you want to claim that you're answering the questions in the FAQ,
you actually have to provide the (clear, concise) answers. Assertion without
substance will simply fortify the claims of those (EVIL!) critics of
Scientology.

--phil