HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thomas@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Thomas Plass)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.emacs
Subject: Re: hypertext in emacs
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:43:49 GMT
Reply-To: thomas@uk.ac.ed.cogsci
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh
In-reply-to: fly@acsu.buffalo.edu's message of 8 Oct 92 00:06:04 GMT

In article <Bvs0A5.FI6@acsu.buffalo.edu> fly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul D. Fly) writes:

| Hi all.  Question.  I was under the impression one could create hypertext-
| type documents in emacs.  But upon reading the manual, I can't find any-

Hmmm.  I assume you read a hard-copy version of the manual.  Try the
on-line manual (C-h i) which is as close as Emacs gets to creating
hypertext type documents.

th.
--
Thomas Plass                                    | University of Edinburgh
Fax:   +44 31 650 4587                          | Centre for Cognitive Science
ARPA:  thomas%cogsci.ed.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk| 2 Buccleuch Place
JANET: thomas@uk.ac.ed.cogsci                   | Edinburgh EH8 9LW Scotland
Newsgroups: alt.religion.sabaean,alt.pagan,alt.mythology,alt.magick
From: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark Peterson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.sabaean,alt.pagan,alt.mythology,alt.magick
Subject: Re: re: OPHIOLATRY/re:serpent
Date: 13 Oct 1992 15:29:19 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <1687EE865.UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, by UC525655@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Mark Eaton):
> In article <Bvznns.GEy@ddsw1.mcs.com>
> eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun) writes:
>  

[wonderful bit of Latin omitted...]


>>The question posed is, what does the serpent mean? Why is it that
>>this symbol haunts us apparently in *every* religion? 


Don't forget about Thuban.  Drop back 4000 years and look north.  


hiho
-- 
mark ce peterson   | uw-washington county  | hiho@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
dept of philosophy | west bend, wi.  53095 | (414) 335-5200        

     The shorter the tether, the sooner the goat starves.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Introduction.
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:24:55 GMT

As you can tell, I am Keith Schauer.  I knew nothing about Scientology and
couldn't care less about it until they started taking out ads against the
drug Prozac.  A family member of mine suffers from depression and takes
Prozac.  That's how I became aware of Scientology.

When I ran into the newsgroup, I became interested and started to follow it.
I have been absolutely amazed by some of the things I've read.  The lack of
logic in the postings has been astounding.  I concluded that Scientology is
something to fear.  Ramblings & Madmen not knowing about what they are talking
about or what impact they can have on other people's lives.

I think that the claim of Scientology being a science is ludicrous.  I have 
not seen anything to back up that claim so far.  They talk about auditing
curing what ails you, but when questioned on case histories about auditing
working during accute depressive episodes, they remain quiet.  I don't think
auditing can cure atypical or manic/depression, yet they want to take away
a drug that can help.  The scientologists that I have 'met' on the net so
far are ignorant of what depression is and how it can affect somebody.

That's who I am and why I follow alt.religion.scientology.

PS.  I am grateful for some of the more informative postings about Scientology,
     its definitions, claims, and procedures.  I am also grateful for some
     of the well researched postings from both camps.  At this point in time
     I'm in the counter-camp, but will continue to try to learn.  Educate me.

-- 
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: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:00:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

: >The only standard I would like to see Scientology held to is "Does it
: >accomplish what it claims?"  I know that it does, but then I have
: >investigated it for myself and I know that I can apply the data and get a
: >result.  This is what Scientology means by calling itself a science.  I know
: >that it works.
: 
: This is not how Science is understood in the world. In the agreed-upon
: definition of Science, Scientology is an oxymoron.

I think one problem is that many people in Scientology confuse the three terms
"technology", "applied science", and "science".

"These methods and theories seem to work to produce a desired result"
indicates TECHNOLOGY.

"We did these controlled, reviewed, independently reproducible studies,
and here is what we found out about these particular theories" indicates
SCIENCE.

"Through controlled, reviewed, independently reproducible studies, we
have been able to support these theories and have derived these methods
and they seem to work" indicates APPLIED SCIENCE.

Applied science often results in technology, but not all technology
comes from applied science.  Generally, technology that comes from
applied science is more reliable that technology which does not.

Most people in Scientology believe that Scientology is all three.  I contend
that it is, at most, technology ONLY.  Sometimes Scientology followers who
merely apply the technology, such as being an auditor or some other staff
member, think they are practicing "science".  The fact that there
was only one person involved in developing the technology means that
there was really at most one "Research Scientologist" doing "science".

The rest are simply applying the technology developed.  It is unclear
whether there was at least one, but since there is no record of any
real science done during LRH's development, I would venture to say that
there was never anyone engaged in "Research Scientology".

All that is required to make it a science is controlled, reviewed,
independently reproducible studies.  If through this process
they enable us to modify the technology for the better, I think that
would be wonderful.  Scientology followers believe that any modification of
the technology is evil, dangerous, and stupid.

What Scientology is for certain, is a trademark owned by RTC and used
with its permission.

Dave Decot
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: double blind
Organization: ScotSoft Research
	<1992Sep26.111512.3400@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:42:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.111512.3400@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

   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.

I see Donald Lindsay has corrected the most greivious error in your
post. However, I feel that I should correct you on a point of
Scientology doctrine. According to HCO Bulletin of 6 February 1978RC,
Purification Rundown Series 1, the official position of the Church of
Scientology is that there is no such thing as a fat cell.  I guess
you'll have to try and find a doctor who doesn't think there are any
fat cells. Good luck.

I hope I have spared you a visit from some Scientology Hall Monitor.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: lfreeman@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Leny Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Dianetic experiment to try and use
Date: 13 Oct 1992 21:38:22 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: phad.hsc.usc.edu

Here's another experiment for all to try.  Its a basic Dianetic
assist called a Contact Assist.

It comes from the principle that if you view something exactly as
it occurred, it will vanish.  Without elaborating on the
underlying principle it works thusly:

The next time to experience a minor injury (bang head, stub toe
etc.) immediately re-create the exact occurrence (without the
impact) duplicating body position, angle etc.  If the injury is a
burn from a hot object, cool the object first.

It may take a few tries to get it duplicated but when you do, you
will experience an increase in the pain just before it just
before it reduces substantially or blows altogether.  The degree
of pain reduction depends upon the severity of the painful injury
and how accurately this assist is carried.  Many times healing is
accelerated after a good contact assist.

Keep in mind that an assist DOES NOT replace first aid.  It is
only an assist to follow medical treatment.
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:59:13 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Oct14.171428.20917@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.045649.16529@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.115915.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>>>4. Scientology will be gone in a few years anyway and everyone has a legal 
>>
>>I've heard a lot of strange things on this newsgroup ... but that is most
>>certainly one of the strangest.  Scientology will outlive you.
>
>Undoubtably it was unintentional, but I *really* wish you had used other
>words to express your sentiments. Perhaps "Scientology will last forever"
>would have worked.
>
>--phil

You are right, Phil.  I had intended this statement to refer to his
current life (i.e. current body).  I'm sorry for making this unclear.

Corrected statement: "Scientology will outlive your current body."
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Narconon secular?
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:39:56 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <Bw6Gp3.G9L@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.133010.23634@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.  It can be applied to
>>church activities.  It can be applied to secular activities.
>>
>>I know this is too radical of a concept for many, but I hope some of you
>>will begin to understand...
>
>Actually, it appears as if it's Scientology participants that may be lacking
>in the understanding. John Holifield has abundantly demonstrated that there is
>a fundamental lack of understanding about why Scientology is not a Science.
>There's also a demonstrated lack of understanding of the nature of religion
>and philosophy (e.g. "This is true.").

My non-Scn dictionary says:

religion: "2. a specific system of belief or worship, etc. built around God, a
code of ethics, a philosophy of life, etc."

philosophy: "1. study of the principles underlying conduct, thought, and the
nature of the universe."

Where was a lack of understanding of these demonstrated?
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: exteriorization
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:58:17 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <GISLE.92Oct6104646@gyda.ifi.uio.no>,
 gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <1992Oct5.181626.3533@memstvx1.memst.edu> 
>     isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>> All the mechanics of the physical universe are the result of
>> considerations made by a thetan and agreement between thetans.  Anyone
>> who truly wants to know the truth can walk this path called Scientology
>> and find out for himself.  
> 
> Or they can read the works of any modern idealist philosopher, where
> the same ideas is expressed with much greater clearity of thought and
> logic.  Recommended starting points: George Berkeley (1685-1753) and
> Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).

   I know that this is only your opinion....
> --
> Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
>  

   But how do you know they are expressed with GREATER clarity, logic, etc.
Did you ever study what LRH wrote?  If you haven't, then its kind of
irresponsible of you to say they said it better....   If you have ever
read Scientology 8:8008 or studied one of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course
lectures I humbly appologize.

   By the way, I HAVE read Berkeley and Schopenhauer.

   But there is really no sense in me being mean about it.  The difference
is that LRH PROOVED it, and developed a technology to take advantage of it.
Regardless of which one of the three (or anyone else) wrote about it, only
one, as far as I know ever was able to use the data.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Scientology Business Ethics (was Re: WINS!!!)
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:34:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.132653.3403@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

   Also, by carefully applying Scientology Ethics my income has continued
   to rise month after month!!!  A very great win that I am grateful
   to LRH for making possible.

Here's an excerpt from the Newkirk Herald Journal (in Oklahoma), that
describes some of the business style ethics that Scientologists employ
to increase their income. This is from 'Harold's Journal' which is the
editors column, written in September 1990:

"Empire Plumbing Supply is the first firm we know of to take legal
action. They're suing Narconon for $21,471.03 in plumbing supplies for
which they haven't been paid. It's case number C-90-220 at the court
house.

Monday morning, an air conditioning contractor in Arkansas City called
us saying he was near bankruptcy because he hasn't been paid for labor
or supplies used trying to get Narconon in shape for their Grand
Opening bash last June 30.

Monday afternoon, a sign painter in Arkansas CIty called saying
someone should wanr the public about that "wonderful, caring
organization that's trying to help people" just north of us at
Chilocco. He hasn't been paid either, he said.

An Arkansas CIty appliance dealer says he hasn't been paid for renting
an air conditioner and refrigerator to Narconon "for Barbara
Mandrell's" appearance during the Grand Opening 3 months ago. Narconon
wanted to buy television sets and air conditioners on credit, he
added, saying he refused to go along with the economic boom.

Another Ark City merchant, not affected by Narconon's credit buying
spree, says friends of his in the furniture business are wondering
when they'll get paid. A ceramic tile supplier is wondering the same
thing. So is the gas company. So are a bunch of motels in the area,
which housed all of those big shots brought in to witness the GO Show.

Word is the indian tribes haven't been paid for equipment they have
been renting to Narconon, either. Last Friday, tribal workmen going
through town said they were headed to Narconon to confiscate the
equipment and lock it up in the armory out there.

Barbara Mandrell reportedly took home over $60,0000 for her 2 hour
performance. Quite a gold mine. The merchants who provided the
materials and performed the labor to get the Con-anon Show ready got
what was left.

The shaft."

Is this typical Scientology business ethics?  I can certainly see how
my income could be increased if I only paid Barbara Mandell when I
hired her, and didn't bother with any of my other bills. Of course, I
could make an immense savings, since I don't plan on hiring Mandell!

I'll have to go to my dictionary and look up the word 'ethics' again.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: double blind
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:06:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.141429.16567@tc.cornell.edu>
homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:

   Gisle wrote: [At least I think it was Gisle, I wish Homer wouldn't
   trim the attributions from the quotes. It would be nice if he could
   find some software that doesn't trash the References: line too. sdb]
   >>
   >>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?

Probably. Excretion of drugs into sweat (and saliva and tears and
hair) is quantitatively unimportant.  It's been measured, if you had
to rely on sweating to eliminate waste and drugs you would die. A good
reference for sort of thing is Goodman and Gillman 'The
Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics', 8th edition or later.

   >>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.

Gisle doesn't have to do it, because it has already been done.
Repeatedly. With the same results.

   >	Since no one has done this, no one has the right to 
   >say its false, now do they.  And if they HAVE done it, and they
   >can find not a single drug metabolite in the sweat or any other
   >excretion of the body increased because of the sauna, then
   >Ron's theory is plumb wrong.

There are microscopic quantities of wastes found in sweat (and hair
and saliva). It depends on pH, but even under the most favorable
conditions I probably eliminate more waste in one trip to the bathroom
any graduate of the Purif did through sweat in all the weeks they
spent sweating.  Heck, I probably eliminate more waste in my trip to
the bathroom than all of the graduates of the Purif sweated out last
year.

	This does not invalidate the Purification Rundown, it
   only invalidates the explanation as to why it works, if it does.

It might not invalidate the PURIF in toto. It does invalidate the use
of saunas (saunafication?).

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jondr@sco.COM (Karen Silkwood's car)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:21:31 GMT


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Anyone who investigates Scientology for himself will
>find that it is a completely workable technology.  

The problem I have with your statement is that you seem to define
"investigating Scientology" as "taking enough courses and reading enough
books until you believe that it works."  If anyone reads a few books or
watches the videos or whatever and comes away thinking it's a crock of crap,
you (and others like you) just say, "you haven't investigated it *enough*."
When *is* it enough, John?  I've read Dianetics and Scientology and I think
the subject is a complete load of toilet water.  But you don't think my
opinion counts for anything, do you.  What would I have to do to make my
opinion valid in your mind?

>     Do you see what I mean?  Critics try to say that Scientology doesn't
>work and that auditing is an expensive rip-off.  Some even suggest that
>auditing should be free.  If it was, Scientology could never survive but
>that is just what the critics have in mind.  Scientology services are the
>most valuable things in existence at this time, and would be worth the
>money if the donation was 10x higher.

Ever hear of Fool's Gold?  There are plenty of people who think that scn
services are quite worthless.

>     I am convinced that certain people who post to this newsgroup have
>the intention of harming the Curch.  For reasons unknown, these people
>are opposed to the Church of Scientology as they would be to any group
>who was effectively handling suppression on planet Earth.  

I am opposed to the CoS because it claims to be something it isn't, takes
money without delivering on its promises, and alienates people from their
friends and family.  If they truly did good works, I wouldn't be opposed to
their existence.

-- 
Jon Drukman (God's personal DJ)                 uunet!sco!jondr   jondr@sco.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:59:18 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1992Oct12.190846.3630@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>    The only standard I would like to see Scientology held to is "Does
>it accomplish what it claims?"  

There is another question, which is "do Scientologists follow their own
credo?"  This is as important as the above.

>     The people who are critical of Scientology pretend to only want to
>know if it works, but actually they will never study the material or
>apply it.  

That's a pretty serious generalisation.  I tend to be suspicious, because
right away you are guilty if you are critical.

>Why?  Because they are only interested in proving to everyone
>else that Scientology is a scam.  If they were sincere in wanting to know,
>they could easily find out but that is not what they have in mind.  

What if they do in fact find this out, though?

>> *That's what the "critics" are asking for, John!* Tell us these scientific
>> principles. Give us a foundation of rigor in examining them on our own.
>> That's what comes with the territory when Scientology is claimed to be a
>> science.
>>

>     Scientology books are available from every Scientology Org.  They
>contain the data you need to examine the principles.  Those who are truly
>interested in examining them will.

Yes, he cannot give you "verbal data".

>>>Anyone who investigates Scientology for himself will find that it is a
>>>completely workable technology.

Or what if they don't, just for grinnies?

>    I disagree.  Scientology as a science works invaribly.  

I don't know where you've been, but nothing I've found since I arrived on
this dirtball works invariably.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se