HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:54:26 GMT

In article <920727204723.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   >   Then there's the fact that psychiatrists, as a general rule, would
   >   not consider using ECT on themselves or their co-workers when they
   >   become suicidally depressed.

   sdb:
   >That's what you call a fact? 

   As far as I know, it is. But if you have statistics that show psychia-
   trists, as a general rule, use ECT on themselves for suicidal depression,
   when and if their drugs don't do the trick, I'd be interested in hearing
   about it.

Sorry - you brought the charge, *you* had better substantiate it.
It's up to the person bringing the allegation to provide the evidence,
at least in polite society.

sdb

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:54:43 GMT

In article <920723095324.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   Scott Ballantyne wrote:
   >                                             It is obvious that the
   >patient being under deep anesthesia would not be able to describe any
   >of the process that either of us included.

   Is this an admission that the psychiatrists that use ECT don't let
   their patients know what will be done to them? Or perhaps these psy-
   chiatrists are in the habit of lying, so the description they give
   their patients can't be considered factual.

No it is not, Mr. Wenger, I stand by the lengthy passage on consent I
posted earlier (and which you have apparently not read). I will admit
that anesthesia makes puts patients to sleep - there, you have forced
it out of me :-) Would you care to tell me what part of your
description could be provided by someone under deep anesthesia?

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Studies
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.155850.3543@balrog.dseg.ti.com>
keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
>>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
>>writes:
>>Trying to use psychological/psychiatric-established testing methods
>>on Scientology auditing's efficacy, is a little like using the earth-
>>is-flat theory to understand Newton's Law of Gravity. It can be done,
>>but will be misunderstood.

>I have always thought that gravity dealt with mass and distance, not shape.

So if someone thinks the Earth is flat, they'd have a little trouble under-
standing gravity wouldn't they?

But then again, I think gravity has more to do with the curvature of 3-D
space. (A good topic for a different newsgroup -- unless you'd like to
get into Scientology's definition of space.)

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

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: SP
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:09:46 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

Liz:
>   >Is the government any better? We're told Russians are/were bad
>   >guys, the dangers of hackers justifies raiding an innocent game
>   >company, and that freedom of religion is a great thing. If you
>   >don't believe things, you run a risk of getting labled something
>   >nasty.
>
Eric:
>   I really am suprised that you want to compare scn to gov't.  But
>   then the "clear the planet" goal assumes scn presiding over the
>   entire (actualy ~99%) population of the planet.  -a very scary
>   thought-
>
>So, like, I should worry that my great, great, great grandchildren
>will inherit souls which have been "cleared" by scientologists?  What?
>
Like I was commenting on scn as mgmt/gov't (admin) not
on the psych service to our kids (tech).
>-- 
>Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell                   <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:01:04 GMT

In article <920723102806.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   Scott Ballantyne wrote:
   >You have not established that ECT is unsafe.

   The fact that psychiatrists would love to find an alternative to
   ECT, demonstrates their own opinion of the treatment. 

No. The peer reviewed studies and consensus paper I provided here
demonstrates their own opinion of the treatment. That they would like
to find better therapies demonstrates their dedication to improving
treatments for the mentally ill.

   Then there's the fact that psychiatrists, as a general rule, would
   not consider using ECT on themselves or their co-workers when they
   become suicidally depressed.

That's what you call a fact? 

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Psychiatry (was Re: ECT References (BW's))
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 18:16:22 GMT

In article <920723094730.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   But I would guess that in the vast number of cases, "Pernicious Cat-
   atonia" occurs *after* drug-therapy failed to work. What was this
   individual like before the drug-therapy and before the restraints?
   I argue that if a drug approach were the very *last* resort,
   instead of the very *first*, when it comes to treating the mind,
   many resultant mental illnesses might be avoided.

I'll guess that you guess wrong, how about that?  Donald Lindsays
description said exactly what the patient was like before the disease
onset.

   If a heart surgeon carefully cut open a human body, carefully put
   on a blind-fold, and in a completely sterile and orderly fashion,
   slashed around with a scalpel hoping to unclog an artery, we would
   not stand for it. Analogously, electro-convulsive therapy and even
   psycho-active drugs do the same thing, on a different order of magni-
   tude.

ECT is unspecific, but recent drugs have a very specific effect -
Prozac works by affecting serotonin levels, hardly the same thing as
randomly slashing around with a scalpel.

   I recognize and empathize with the desperation and frustration that
   psychiatrists feel. But treating the human mind as though it were
   an object will never solve the affected individual's problem, and
   quite frankly, will never solve society's problem.

And patients with severe disorders would be better off turning to the
unproven procedures of Scientology? I don't think so.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Subject: Re: SP
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:38:38 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.101634.15103@microsoft.com> erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.212245.2521@samba.oit.unc.edu> Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:
>>.... Suppresives who haven't "owned up
>>an' apologized" to the satisfaction of their victims are not allowed
>>auditing, and other Scient. aren't allowed to talk to them or hang
>>around them. 
>
>So, the church is in the business of tracking who hurt who, who
>apologised, and who you can talk to.  Who needs the bill of Rights?
>We have a church to handle all of these funtions for us. :(

A-yup, you got it right.  Of course, if you *want* to hang around
someone, that's your business. Just don't hang around with people who
would rather have a stable, fairly up-beat emotional state. I *have*
hung around someone who I strongly suspect was suppressive, and you know
what, I'm a hell of a lot happier now that I'm 2000 miles away!

Of course, if you like emotional roller-coasters, I'm sure that's your
business. You're not a Scientologist, I assume, so it really doesn't
matter.  (Hm. I appear to have a hot button here. Sorry 'bout that; I
didn't realize it was that strong.)
  
>I would like to suggest that this "church" is interfering
>in the private lives of individuals. 

What church (with or without quotes) doesn't? Even Discordians dislike
the Minions of GrayFace.  If you don't agree with a group, don't hang
around with that group. (Or use your killfile extensively. :-) )

> It labels people and
>tells its members what to think (with the threat of being
>labeled an SP if you do not agree).

There is a potential for abuse of the term, yes. I don't have any
evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) on the extent of abuse that actually
happens. And again, any group does that to a certain extent, with the
most crude example being "mob mentality." 

Is the government any better? We're told Russians are/were bad guys, the
dangers of hackers justifies raiding an innocent game company, and that
freedom of religion is a great thing. If you don't believe things, you
run a risk of getting labled something nasty.

--EM

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Who died?
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:13:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.172449.19763@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy) writes:
>In article <920723100505.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU>
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems,
>CCSU) writes:
>>Scott Ballantyne wrote regarding the Purification Rundown:
>[snip]
>[snip]
>>
>>Who died Scott? You're getting so good at lying, maybe psychiatrists

>Can that, Brian.  We're not living in the '50s anymore, no matter what
>some of the policy letters say, and this is the Net, not TV, radio,
>newspapers, or preaching in the streets.  Calling someone a liar (no
>matter whether it's true or not) is NOT a Good Idea. If they're part of
>the CoS, write it up that they're spreading misinformation. If they're
>not, then politely suggest that you think they're misinformed or
>somewhat overstating their case.
>--EM, *Born* Scientologist in 1971.

You are so right....

I take back and apologize for the "getting good at lying" bit that
I directed at Scott Ballantyne.

When I have gotten so much from Scientology, it is disheartening to
see it misleadingly described as something that it is not. But I did
over-react. You are right. (And if I may...Welcome Back to the
Newsgroup! :-)

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Studies
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.223528.94052@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu
(Donald Lindsay) writes:
>In article <920720163025.22e3425d@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU>
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>>>A double standard isn't fair.
>>
>>I think there *are* two standards. One has to do with treatments
>>that _directly_ affect the body. The other has to do with treatments
>>that don't. A psychiatrist helping a severely depressed individual
>>with physically safe methods, is not the same as a psychiatrist using
>>ECT.

>Your dividing line might be well-chosen if we were talking about
>(say) informed consent. Since we were talking about statistical
>studies, the dividing line should be based on how the data is
>collected, not on how the patient is treated.

>Specifically, on one side of the line, the "before" and "after" are
>physical measurements such as blood sugar levels.  On the other side
>of the line, they are measurements of behavior. Behavior is hard to
>quantify and it is hard to get different patients measured against
>identical standards. This does not mean that it's hopeless: there are
>written tests, there are objective measures such as "was the patient
>subsequently readmitted", there are normalizations and other
>statistical methods.

>This dividing line puts ECT and auditing in the same camp. That is,
>their efficacy is equally measurable, except for the small detail
>that it is different behaviors that get a person into one or the
>other.

I think the dividing line goes beyond informed consent. If a par-
ticular field, such as psychiatry, wants to perform statistical
tests to determine if someone is happier, then they are certainly
entitled to. If another field, such as Scientology, tests its
results in different ways, such as an e-meter check, then it should
be entitled to. The personal results are what count, but let's
not be too evaluative of those results (from either side of the
fence) since they are subjective.

That which we can all agree on are the physical results in both
fields. And those particular treatments in both fields which dir-
ectly affect the body are especially at issue.

Trying to use psychological/psychiatric-established testing methods
on Scientology auditing's efficacy, is a little like using the earth-
is-flat theory to understand Newton's Law of Gravity. It can be done,
but will be misunderstood.

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

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Criticizing Psychiatry
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:25:19 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Summary: Wenger avoided the point, classically.


WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>>>you'll rarely see the Church *publicly* criticizing
>>>non-physical psychiatric/psychological methods.
>>	Would this include the Scientologist I met tonight outside the Fenway,
>>handing out flyers espousing the Purif?  He seemed to think all psychiatrists
>>are involved in a massive conspiracy to destroy Scientology.

>>That's the problem - whenever somebody says something unfavorable,
>>or has information putting scn in a bad light, it's 'just an isolated incident,
>>I've never heard anyone say that, and it's not policy'.  But it happens so 
>>often, that it might as well be policy.
>>	Responses?

It's - it's - it's ONLY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE! Yeah, that's it!   :-)


>That's an excellent point!

Good response so far, Brian.

	[ ...Several paragraphs suggesting you read massive amounts
	  of Hubbard's books...]

Hmmm. You've been on Church staff. Let me guess: it's policy to end
all discussions with some hard sell on the books?  But didn't you
leave out the discussion part?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider)
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Organization: Merit Network, Inc.  Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 14:32:22 GMT

In article <920723101037.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>>Besides, this group is often read by newcomers to Scientology, people
>>who are trying to decide whether or not to get involved --- I get
>>mail from them all the time.
>
>Why do I have a hard time believing that anyone would go to you
>for information on Scientology?
>
>-----
>Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
>Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
>Central Connecticut State Univ.
>
>

Thanks, Brian, for illustrating once again a common Scientologist tactic:
"When you can't refute the data, insult the person whose data you can't 
refute." One reason I appreciate Ballantyne's work is that Scientology,
like any other cult, sucks in a lot of people whose ability to think
logically and to discriminate between plausible lies and hard truths is
not very well developed. If Scientology's lies are repeatedly refuted, 
eventually some people will realize the lies they have been force-fed.
Chris Weider


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:35:33 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.121243.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> bwenger@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:

   Oh really? That's odd, I could have sworn Scott Ballantyne lied -- said
   a side affect of Niacin (as used by Scientologists on the Purification
   Rundown) is DEATH.

   Scientology is *about* becoming more adept at discriminating between
   plausible lies and hard truths.  It happens to be a "plausible lie"
   that it's not.

Interesting comments, Mr. Wenger. Here's a little test for you to
exercise those trained discriminatory powers of yours. Can you tell
the difference between this sentence:

   a side affect of Niacin (as used by Scientologists on the Purification
   Rundown) is DEATH.

and the original sentence:

"There is some risk involved - roughly 17% of individuals experience side
effects from niacin which is used in the rundown, some of these side
effects are mild, some are more serious (including death)."

(Here's a hint. If I had
actually said what you claim I did, my own sentence would have read:

"There is some risk involved - roughly 17% of individuals in the Purif
experience side effects from the niacin used, some of these side
effects are mild, some are more serious (including death)."

I do not know if anyone has died from taking the rundown. Even if they
have not, these does not mean the risk of death is zero.)

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:26:58 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <920723101037.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>>Besides, this group is often read by newcomers to Scientology, people
>>who are trying to decide whether or not to get involved --- I get
>>mail from them all the time.
>
>Why do I have a hard time believing that anyone would go to you
>for information on Scientology?
>
>-----
>Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
>Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
>Central Connecticut State Univ.
>
I have been in scn, and I still have learned much from 
Scott relavant to scn and its activities. 
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's)
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:00:58 GMT

Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>  including references that show that the description provided by
>the Scientology group CCHR (via Mr. Wenger) is a tissue of lies.

Hmmm... "tissue of lies" ...that's strange. It seemed to me that
my description of ECT gave many more details than yours did. It
was based on only one reference by CCHR, and also based on indi-
viduals who witnessed it -- including one reporter who described
in detail exactly what it looked like.

>Well, first of all --- no one has to die to have a risk of death that
>is greater than zero --- use your noggin. But more to the point....

"More to the point", huh? I thought the point was that you said one 
of the side-effects of Niacin as used on the Purif was DEATH. Getting
caught in a deliberate lie is not fun, is it?  I might even overlook
it if you weren't so blatantly attacking my religion.

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

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: ECT References (BW's)
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:30:54 GMT

In article <920727213915.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   Scott Ballantyne:
   >Am I attacking your religion? I certainly am asking it to judge itself
   >by the same standards it judges others.  Scientology has made quite a
   >lot of allegations about ECT, Prozac and other treatments used by
   >Psychiatry, and has demanded that standards of safety and efficacy
   >should be demonstrated.

   Safety? Yes. Efficacy? Not really. Although the CoS in general
   thinks that current psychiatric and psychological methods could stand
   some improvement, you'll rarely see the Church *publicly* criticizing
   non-physical psychiatric/psychological methods.

Gracious, now there's a load of baloney.  Any reader of this group has
seen countless articles from Scientologists like yourself attacking
various psychiatric practices.  Reverend Jentzsch and David Miscavige
both criticized the psych professions on the Niteline interview -
Miscavige brought along a little excerpt to read on the air. Purhaps
the individuals that post here are not 'the Church' but Miscavige and
Jentzsch certainly are...

   Please do. My gripe is more with the way you treat some individuals
   with ridicule, insults and belittlement. If you were honestly trying
   to get Scientologists to "understand the 'true' nature of Scientology",
   you'd show respect for their ability to think and observe for them-
   selves. I can repost some of your past statements if you'd like. But
   I'd much prefer that you own up to what you have been doing.

I admit it, I'm not a very nice person.

   >Finally, I'm really pretty tired of you scientologists calling me a
   >liar. I think you owe me an apology.

   No, Scott, it is you who owes the apology.

Ok. I'm sorry I'm not a very nice person.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Date: 28 Jul 92 00:25:06 GMT

In article <Brz9J7.H5L@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>In article <920723095324.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU>
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
>writes:

>   Scott Ballantyne wrote:
>   >                                             It is obvious that the
>   >patient being under deep anesthesia would not be able to describe any
>   >of the process that either of us included.

>   Is this an admission that the psychiatrists that use ECT don't let
>   their patients know what will be done to them? Or perhaps these psy-
>   chiatrists are in the habit of lying, so the description they give
>   their patients can't be considered factual.

>No it is not, Mr. Wenger, I stand by the lengthy passage on consent I
>posted earlier (and which you have apparently not read). I will admit
>that anesthesia makes puts patients to sleep - there, you have forced
>it out of me :-) Would you care to tell me what part of your
>description could be provided by someone under deep anesthesia?

I suppose under dianetic auditing (or hypnosis) someone could recover
unconscious or forgotten memories. 

But back to the point. I'm glad you stand by your lengthy posting;
it was very informative -- thank you. And let's hope that psychiatrists
come up with an alternate (safer) method soon!

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