From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Who died?
Date: 28 Jul 92 02:40:11 GMT

In article <BrzD5L.HI2@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>In article <920723100505.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU>
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info
>Systems, CCSU) writes:
>   Who died Scott? You're getting so good at lying, maybe psychiatrists
>   should ask you to describe ECT to their patients -- you know "Your
>   toes will wiggle a little."
>   Scott Ballantyne later wrote in the same message:
>   >Case closed.
>   Sorry, you can't snake your way out of this one.

>And this from the man who has admitted that he will not criticize
>Scientology in public (an attitude that is demonstrably not shared by
>the psychiatrists he criticizes - who are more than willing to
>criticize their own profession, thank goodness!).

Most non-Scientologists have much too much to learn about the _subject_
of Scientology before criticisms of the Church would make any sense.
But just so you know, "on the inside" Scientologists are very much
expected to report misuses or abuses of Scientology policies or audit-
ing procedures. Those that do "misuse or abuse" are taught the proper
policy or auditing technique, in a way that improves the situation,
and doesn't just leave the person feeling guilty.

>It has been a simple matter for me to refute the charges of CCHR and
>Mr. Wenger about ECT -- I simply presented the facts of the matter,
>with the benefits and the risks clearly spelled out, as well as an
>accurate and up to date description of the procedure. Mr. Wenger has
>not been able to refute these.

I was hoping that we could end this ECT topic. Scott, your references
were very informative. Thank you. I hope my references were informative
as well. My overall opinion of the treatment has not changed, but I am
glad that psychiatrists use it more and more infrequently.

>You would think that it should have been a simple matter for Mr.
>Wenger to return the favor, and simply present the facts of the
>matter, with the benefits and risks of the Purif clearly spelled out
>in peer reviewed studies that we could all examine and decide for
>ourselves.

That would be nice, and there may have been (or are being) studies
done of the Purif's safety and efficacy (i.e. besides the studies
done by LRH). But I think the fact that an informed medical
approval as a pre-requisite for the Purif is a sufficient safety
precaution for now. Don't you?

>Rather than press his own case, Mr. Wenger has prefered to attack my
>character.
>Case closed.

Please. Your attacks on peoples' characters could probably fill a
40Meg harddisk. I think it is about time that you treated individuals
on this newsgroup that happen to have gotten benefit from Scien-
tology, with a little more tolerance and respect.

If you want to learn about Scientology and have questions, then fire
away. But how about knocking-off the under-handed insults to people who 
have found a philosophy that they feel is helping them do better in life.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology