HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:55:13 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <GISLE.92Nov20171901@gyda.ifi.uio.no>,
    gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> 
> But that doesn't mean that there aren't independent investigations of
> the some of the claims of Scientologists.  In one such investigation(*)
> carried out by the Oklahoma State Board of Mental Health, and
> published in the report: 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on
> the Narconon Chilocco Application for Certification' (1991), available
> from the Oklahoma State Board of Mental Health (excerpts posted to
> this newsgroup two months ago by Scott Ballantyne) clearly concludes
> that there is absolutely no substance in the many claims put forward
> by the Scientology front group Narconon about the safety and
> effectiveness of Scientology tech when applied to drug rehabilitation.
> 
> So -- we have _one_ independent study that say, in effect, that
> Scientology tech doesn't work as claimed.  That's not very much, but
> it's exactly one more than you've got to back your claims that it
> work.
> 

    This report was written by psychs who were only interested in
preventing Narconon from being established in Ok.  Narconon is now
licensed by the national agency in charge of such things, and the 
psych who led the State Mental Health Board's attack has been forced
to resign because of problems of a legal nature.  Surely they wouldn't
write a damning report of Narconon just because they had a financial
interest in Psychiatric drug treatments?

-John Holifield
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:36:52 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov19.144004.4689@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.041731.16568@lds-az.loral.com>
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.160555.18066@stortek.com>
>pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>[...]
>>As I stated to Free Radical: anyone can go into a Scn org (Class V org) and
>>get trained as an auditor up to Class V.  Then the person can go to their
>>nearest Saint Hill org or Advanced Org and train up to Class VIII.
>
>OK, I'll buy (literally, I guess) that I have to pay through the nose
>to get your 'trade secrets' (although the orginal Buddha gave his info
>away!)...

Public would pay for the courses.  See my Scientology Questions & Answers
for why things cost money.

>>After the person has been trained, he/she can become a field auditor.
>>There are currently a lot of field auditors.  They audit people outside of
>>churches or missions.  This is okay.  LRH set it up so this can be done.
>
>OK, so I've gone all the way through all the courses, paid for it all,
>& now I'm a Field Auditor (tm)...how independant am I?  Do I now get
>to use the Tech (tm) in any way I see fit?  Am I answerable in any way
>to the Church (tm)?  How much control can the Church (tm) exert over
>my actions?

You are very independent.  However, you would have to apply Scn tech
standardly (otherwise you would be a squirrel).  You're not answerable
to the Church per se unless you begin squirrelling.  The Church wouldn't
exert any control over you other than seeing that you apply standard tech
and a couple of policies for field auditors relating to same.

>Here's another question to throw at you - what's the difference
>between a Field Auditor (tm) and a Squirrel (tm)?

A squirrel would be altering the tech.  A field auditor would use standard
tech.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: _PV_ According to Jon
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:03:02 GMT
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:

> In article <1992Nov15.041703.24772@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
> (J Barbera) writes:

> >As far as the equation debate: it was my impression when I first read it tha
> >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.
> 
> 	That's silly for two reasons(that I can think of off hand):
> 
> 	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
> be experimentally tested?  Would Ron just heave some letters together
> and say "here ya go! This is the way it is!".  Not even theorists(physics)
> do that!  What about all those years Ron spent testing his ideas?

The answer to that question, Richard, would be did LRH say that you
"can" determine the PV, or "may" determine the PV?  What would the
implications of interchanging those words have?

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:01:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.090313.2752@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>The inverse does apply.  For the helpfulness of various services and courses,
>there are several references which detail what the end product is.
>
>I previously posted something with some of this information.  Are you
>requesting a re-post?

I saw no independent sources of information. If you did indeed post some
independent sources of information, do re-post.

>>Perhaps he's making an attempt at humor. This is another good thing "to know"
>>that people do from time to time.
>
>However, I think humor concerning Scn or its founder objectionable.

Damn. I've got a Dictionary and Thesaurus here, but no Bartlett's. Does anyone
have access to one? There's got to be at least one good quote about
organizations (maybe even religions) that have no tolerance for humor.

Jonathon: I raise a red flag with any individual/group/organization that
doesn't have any tolerance for humor.

>Isn't there a rec.humor or something for general humor?  I dunno, but I feel
>such humor is in bad taste on a newsgroup about Scn.

No. Humor has its place in all newsgroups. You could even call my first
sentence in this reply an attempt at humor. However, it's so dry that you
probably didn't even notice.

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: It's True For You (LONG)
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:32:48 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> [John Holifield - if I'm not in your kill file - could you try, while
>> exteriorized, to learn a fact that wouldn't be known to your body?
>
>     Now, I haven't done any kind of tests that you might call scientific
>or anything.  But, I have been able to experience and percieve space 
>independent of my body on many occasions.  
>
>     I already told you about the mailbox.  Here is another example:  I
>was talking to my girlfriend on the phone one evening while she was studying.
>I went exterior and went in to her house.

OK, I accept that you had/have these experiences. I also accept that
you don't plan to do scientific tests. It's your life.

However, it would be nice if you could try, one of these times, to
come up with some informal verification of the objective reality of
the experience. We'd like to hear how it goes.

Note, I'm not asking that you hire a notary public, a
parapsychologist, two stage magicians, and a clown.  Just - well, the
next time you watch your girlfriend remotely, and notice the page
number she's reading:  phone her. *Ask* her if that's the correct
page number. In your post, you mentioned knowing the number - but you
didn't mention *checking* to see if your girlfriend's knowledge
matched yours.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:40:53 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <BoX7TB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>> PS: I am of course looking forward to your next attempt to explain
>>     the application of the PV equation, now that you've learnt about
>>     the role of units in standard algebra.  Or have you decided to
>>     to let that subject rest?
>
>I never did decide to "let it rest".  That proved to be another
>assumption of yours based on the mis-application of a single answer
>to a specific question.  Your mistake.

Well, I just saw your latest response. It appears to the rest of us that
you're just playing semantic games.

Could you apply some rigor to the PV equation, please? We're looking for
the kind of rigor, say, that one would find in physics or chemistry. And
I have *never ever* seen an equation in either of those fields of science
that did not include the units for each component of the equation.

Bill: do you accept or decline this request?

>Bill Hardman

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: A breakthrough on PV
Keywords: bald lies
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:59:14 GMT

In article <okVJuB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org>
hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes: 
>nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
[...]
>> Bill, you said:
>> 
>> >> >Please note that you assigned the unit.  You assigned meters, and
>> >> >seconds as the unit measures.  
>> 
>> this is my reponse:
>> 
>> >> 	No, PHYSICS assigned the meters and seconds as the units
>> >> of measure, _standard_ grade 10 algebra assigned the units.
>> >> So what?  Sure, Gisle could have substituted inches for meters
>> >> and picoseconds for seconds, a conversion factor is all that's 
>> >> required.  What's your point Bill?
>
>>       This is where you should have responded, Bill!
>
>The unit of measurement is assigned by the person doing the
>equation, usually the units that the person is familiar with.

I think I've made a breakthrough in my understanding of this
'equation'!  Your 'PV' is not an absolute number, to be compared with
the absolute PV of somebody else...unless they use the same units you
do.  I'm not entirely sure what the implications of this are, but
there it is.  Anyone care to take it from here?

	RA

rogue@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu (The Rogue Agent)
--------------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:44:50 GMT

jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>In article <1992Nov14.235705.28612@u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>>support their own organizations, churches and goverments.  That all men
>>have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely
>>their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of
>>others. (p. 47)
>>
>>These passages seem to state very clearly and strongly that freedom
>>of choice, speech and association is a right.

>This is true.

>>
>>However, there are many passages which seem to me to contradict this
>>directly:
>>
>>0-8, The Auditor's Code:
>>
>>I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism (p.
>>39).

>This is part of auditing tech.  It could have bad reprecussions to allow
>a pc to control the session.  That's why these types of auditing sessions
>have an auditor.  Otherwise, the pc would come across something he didn't
>want to confront and not confront it.  In Scn tech, people confront things
>and get better.  The pc's betterment is at stake so naturally the auditor
>must not allow him to run away before something has been gotten through.

Why is it "natural" to ignore a person's "inalienable rights" for his 
betterment? Doing so is in fact rendering his inalianable rights 
not so inalianable!

>>
>>0-8, The Supervisor's Code:
>>
>>When a Supervisor lets a student control, give orders to, or handle the
>>Supervisor in any way [...] the Supervisor should always put the student
>>back under his control. (p. 50)

>Otherwise, a lot of people wouldn't get the full gains of courses and
>would eventually come to a course, get bogged down (misunderstood words
>skipped), and stop studying altogether.  As this would be contra-survival,
>the Supervisor must keep control over the course room and make sure people
>are making progress.

This is more or less reasonable (IMHO), however to allow it, the above
statement about inalienability of human rights would have to be qualified
with a climiting the individual's rights where expression of them 
would create problems for other individuals. Is it just possible that the
inclusion of the term "inalienable rights" was SPECIFICALLY to elicit a
positive response from US citizens? (Presumably the initial targets of 
Scientology.)

>Supressive speech and association is discouraged.  However, the person
>can still do want they want to do.  Being a Supressive Person is your
>right.  However, don't be upset when you're penalized for it.

Garbage. How can you possibly believe that it makes sense to punish an
individual for excercising his rights?!

--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Jokes
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:45:48 GMT

[Jokes ommitted.]

Although I did find some of the jokes questionable, I did enjoy the
last where the reporter reported that LRH couldn't swim.  

Thanks.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 10:13:18 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <2w0DuB4w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> 
> > gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> > Due to time constraints, I won't be able to put that together during
> > this week.  It would be easier for you (as well as cheaper) to go
> > into an org, and take the Dianetics Course.
> 
> Stop waffling.  You said you could to it if I made it worth your time.
> I have made you an offer that should make it worth your time.
> I'm pretty tired playing the Monty Phyton Cheese Shop skit with you.

Get over it.

> If time is an issue, I'm willing to grant you any reasonable time to
> put together your proof.  How much time do you need?

Since I am leaving on the third, and won't be back until 9 Jan. 93,
it will have to wait until then.

> Put up or shut up!

Very droll.

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]

            h      mM    gs
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 18:08:51 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <ykD5TB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> > gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> >> In article <Z8yXTB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidone
> 
> >> [[ About the equation PV=I*D^x, in response to Richard Nistuk;s request
> >>    for what range to use for "x": ]]
> >> 
> >> But since it appearently makes perfect sense -- please, oh please
> >> explain _why_ a value of 1 to 10 why are the range any sensible person
> >> would use for to measure the magnitude on which the person is
> >> surviving on the dynamic .  Since this appears as a power in the
> >> equation, the whole equation becomes extremely sensitive to whatever
> >> range you use for x.  A small error in x will have immense influence
> >> on the result.  So again, EXACTLY WHY DOES THIS PARTICULAR RANGE OF
> >> VALUES MAKE MORE SENSE THAN ANY OTHER RANGE ONE MAY HAPPEN TO THINK
> >> OF?
> 
> > I'll help you answer this yourself.  What are you trying to
> > discover?
> 
> Thanks, Bill, I appreciate your help!
> 
> I am trying to discover how to apply this equation.

You've mis-understood the question.  What are you trying to discover
with the equation?

> Now, that I have answered your question, can you please answer mine?

You haven't answered the question.  Read it slowly this time.

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: _PV_ According to Jon
Date: 16 Nov 1992 09:36:13 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

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]

>>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?).
>
>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.

	O.K. explain the difference 'tween tech and admin training.  And
where are all these "tech" guys anyway?  Don't they know that this is
where the action is?
>
>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.

	That's silly for two reasons(that I can think of off hand):

	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
be experimentally tested?  Would Ron just heave some letters together
and say "here ya go! This is the way it is!".  Not even theorists(physics)
do that!  What about all those years Ron spent testing his ideas?

	2.  Bill says that he has "...observed 500 people wi a
simple high school education work the equation to their complete 
understanding...".  Gotta believe what Bill says ;)



>Jonathon
>Barbera


Richard Nistuk
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:36:09 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov23.064715.4014@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.234043.20394@lds-az.loral.com>
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>>In article <1992Nov19.153359.5244@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
>>rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes: 
>[...]
>>>What is involved in being assigned a condition of Doubt?  I gather you
>>>said something like 'I'm not sure I want to be on staff at the PHX
>>>Org.'  What was the response?  How do you act, and how are you
>>>treated,  differently when you are in Doubt than when you are not?
>>
>>I had started the procedure to route-off from staff.  The doubt condition
>>was between me and the ethics officer.  I had to apply the formula for
>>doubt (see Introduction to Scientology Ethics).  It's rather therapeutic.
>
>I gather this may mean you were considering becomming 'public' again.
>If so, were you reminded of the debt that would be payable
>immediately?  What effect did this have on you?  If this is not what
>heppened, please consider how it _would_ affect you if you _did_ want
>to leave, and tell us your thoughts on it.

The debt was never mentioned.  It is not payable immediately as I know
from leaving staff elsewhere.  The procedure goes: person requests to
leave, they are asked why, they answer, if it is not something simple
to handle (doesn't like another person, has personal problem, etc.),
then routing-off begins.  No threats.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:58:07 GMT

In article <GISLE.92Nov23221759@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.092614.5123@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>> EST (now The Forum) is a squirrel group (and openly admits it).
>
>I would be interested in seeing your source for this.

I've at least two books which describe various human potential movements
which include est.  In both of these, it is mentioned that Erhard based
a lot of his program on Buddhism and Scientology.  I do not recall the
titles off-hand.  I recommend refering to any books that cover several
such groups which include est.

>
>I've participated in two Forum seminars and has read some of Erhard's
>books -- and nowhere in the material I've read or the activities I've
>participated in was it mentioned that est is associated with
>Scientology/Dianetics.  This does not exclude the possibility, there
>is a lot of est/Forum material I've never seen -- but I would like to
>know your source for this.

I am only familiar with material about est/Forum in the books mentioned
above.  Erhard may have written this previously and had it removed to
distance itself from Scientology.  I do not know.

>
>I know that Werner Erhard knew L. Ron Hubbard personally, and they may
>have talked shop from time to time -- but it's long way from there to
>stating that est/Forum openly admits that their methods is derived
>from Dianetics or Scientlogy!

Actually, this comment seems rather far-fetched as est is viewed as
dangerous in Scn and there is even an est Repair Rundown for victims
of est.

Can you give some reference or vagueness of a reference (as I gave)?

(I am curious about this.)

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology