From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: _PV_ According to Jon
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:07:08 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Keywords: flatulence

In article <1992Nov19.035603.15581@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1e7q2dINN8hg@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.041703.24772@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
>>(J Barbera) writes:
>>>In article <GISLE.92Nov14095234@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no 
>>>(Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

>>[snip]

Gisle says:
>>>>I find it quite interesting that none of advanced scientologists that
>>>>posts in this group seems to be able to answer some very basic
>>>>questions about this equation (like: what are the units?).

Jonathon replies:
>>>There are no "advanced" Scientologists posting here.  The Scientologists
>>>posting here (gathering from previous introductions) have more admin
>>>training than tech training.  No one here (that I know of) has a lot of
>>>tech training.

	Dave Decot says he is an exception, and he seems *extremely*
critical of Scn.

>>	O.K. explain the difference 'tween tech and admin training.  And


[digested: Jonathons explanations of tech and Admin]

	thanks Jonathon!

I ask:
>>where are all these "tech" guys anyway?  Don't they know that this is
>>where the action is?

>The tech people are either on staff at a Scn organization and do not have
>access to USENET or are doing something else and do not have access to
>USENET or knowledge of this newsgroup.

	Well, Jonathon, maybe you should bring this up with them.  
Tell them about USENET, and how they can join the fun too!  Tell
them that they have a huge audience just waiting for conversion. :)

Jonathon continues:
>>>As far as the equation debate: it was my impression when I first read it that
>>>it dealt more with abstract concept *relevancies* than plugging in numbers.
>>>That is, the relation between the parts of the equation to each other and
>>>the other overall.

>>	1.  IF the equation (PV=I*D^x) dealt with abstract concepts
>>then why bother creating an equation for them?  And how could the equation

>I've seen at least one other Scn equation and it would be quite useful to
>apply the other one I have in mind by using approximate quantities to
>other approximate quantites.  Sort of like a recipe: one part A for every
>two parts B...

	ONE other equation Jonathon?  Is is the "danger equation"?
Please tell us about this one!

	Really!  Two equations seems a bit sparse for a religion/science/
technology that claims:

	"no other subject on Earth except physics and chemistry
	 have had such grueling testing"

This, of course, from your own FAQ, Jonathon.  BTW, I checked the
UBC library computer, just for fun, and found a lot of books on
flatulence!  More books and papers than LRH _ever_ published.
But that's for another thread!

     And what's all this shit about "using approximate quantities to
other approximate quantites",  very poor grammer.  But anyway what
I guess you are saying is that you know about an equation that 
can approximate quantities(the amount of danger,say) from other
approximate quantities(the amount of risks?).  What's all this
shit about approximation?  In your FAQ you/Scn make the claim:

	"It [Scn] is a precise and exact science, designed for
	 an age of exact sciences."

So what's all this crap about approximation?

>Jonathon
>Barbera


-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca