HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:49:10 GMT

In article <BxrM9n.D7w.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Why is it
>>so unbelievable that there have been over 10,000 PC's in Scn's history?
>
>It isn't unbelievable. Of course Scn has audited a lot of people.
>
>>I offer case histories and you dismiss them without a glance.  You ask
>>for this data ("proof") and then refuse to confront it.  How am I suppose
>>to take you seriously?
>
>He asks *because* he is a serious person. First, you didn't offer the
>data *in* 10,000 case histories, you offered to prove *their
>existence*. In terms of actual data, you only offered 42 case

He started by questioning their mere existence.

>histories. All of these 42 are pre-selected, and in a book which is
>probably 30 years old [could you give us the first publication
>date?].  Preselection is a no-no to a serious researcher, plus, it is
>probably impossible by now to track down the actual people involved
>and verify the data. So, a serious scientist has to consider these 42
>case histories as badly flawed evidence.

Those 42 case histories were mentioned because they are available in the form
that they are in.  Success stories aren't quite case histories but do offer
a little data on the results of various courses and services.

>
>Why would a serious scientist want raw case histories, and want to
>verify them? Because that's utterly essential to a reputable study.
>Is that what you were asked for? No. You were asked for a reputable
>study. It's nice that you responded with what you have, but really,
>if what you had was better, it would be the raw materials, not the
>result.

Ah!  I see now what is needed.  Well, since some of you don't intend to
trust the Church of Scientology's claims of the results of their services,
then there is one other solution.  Why doesn't someone like Richard get
some high-level auditor training (Class VI at least) and go out and conduct
some thorough research.  This way, the case histories will be available and
the overall results can be measured.

Otherwise, if someone isn't willing to do that, then you're all going to
have to accept the "proof" in the success stories and books.

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: It's True For You (LONG)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:39:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Donald Lindsay (lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu) wrote:

: I understand that some auditing sessions involve relaxation
: techniques, and hence are related to hypnotism. [I'd appreciate input
: on this point.] I know that Hubbard studied hypnotism and
: self-hypnotism in the 1940's.

What do you mean by "relaxation techniques"?  There is nothing termed
that in Scientology or Dianetics auditing.  The state of "reverie"
described in DMSMH (the well-publicized Dianetics book) is simply
the person relaxing with their eyes closed.

Processes exist to accomplish particular goals, and "relaxation" may
be a possible side effect if the condition being addressed was
causing tension.

Dave Decot
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:12:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.103159.5467@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
[...]
>It's okay for something not to be real to someone.  I know a Scientologist
>in particular who mentioned this to me ... he's been on staff for about
>twelve years and there are some whole track (past life memories) which
>aren't real to him.  That's okay.  No one is disciplined or pressured to
>believe something like this.
>
>"What's true for you is true."

Except for Incident 2.  That happened.  Ron said so.  If you don't
believe in Incident 2, and the Wall of Fire, you're not being On
Source.  Next thing you know, you'll be Declared, or assigned to RPF
or something.  And we'd all hate to see that happen.  So get On
Source, and believe in Incident 2!*

'What's true for Ron is true.'

*ps - does anyone know what Incident 1 was?

	RA

rogue@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.
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:32:18 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov23.062521.3888@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.234729.20750@lds-az.loral.com>
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>In article <BxzAxo.2nE@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>[...]
>>>To continue the Ford analogy: I ask my Ford dealer why I should buy a Ford.
>>>He produces lots of testimonials about people who *love* Fords. Some of them
>>>are even published in a book.  But I don't trust him. I'm a skeptical person.
>>>
>>>I tell him that what he's given me is not enough. The dealer's response: if
>>>*I* can't trust what he says, then it's my problem. After all, *he* already
>>>knows that Fords are the best cars out there; it's clearly a problem with me
>>>that I can't see that for myself. He suggests that I set up my own research
>>>project to investigate Fords....
>>>
>>>Is that what the Ford dealership would do, Jonathon? Why or why not?
>>>
>>>Question: is it possible for the Ford dealership to provide independent
>>>research about Fords that they themselves didn't control? (Semi-non-sequitor:
>>>could I even find such research at a B. Dalton's?)
>
>Jon - you seemed to have forgotten to include your answers to these
>questions.  I'm reposting them to give you a fair chance to answer
>now.  I know I didn't aske them, but I'm very interested in hearing
>the answers.  Thanks.

I understood Phil's analogy.  The Ford dealership would probably suggest
that the customer take the car for a test drive (a common practice --
similiar to the free introductory auditing).  As for independent
research, I suppose Ford could invest in this.  However, the
prerequisite for the Church of Scientology to do this is to first have
access to an independent company which would be willing and able to
have their people trained as auditors and case supervisors and then
conduct the necessary research.  Are there companies out there which
could do this?  (Phil or Rogue Agent can answer.)  What companies?
Are they totally independent and unbiased?

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.085129.2274@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Does that come out to 10 pages, Jonathon? Are you sure it's not 15?
>>
>>Prune it down. 10 pages. That's it. And it has to be something that I
>>can find at a reasonably-sized bookstore. Otherwise, I won't play.
>>
>>If LRH can't say it in 10 pages, then it's way too complicated for me to
>>understand anyhow.
>
>The references I gave aren't available at bookstores outside of Scientology
>churches.  My only other suggestion is to periodically check your local
>library for the new edition of What is Scientology? and look up the
>appropriate ten pages of information from there (there will probably be
>a very detailed index as in other books).

We're getting warmer here....

Jonathon: Say the full title of the book. Say its ISBN number. Say the name
of the publisher. And say the 10 pages that you want me to read. Be precise
and exact. Clue: I want real page numbers. For extra credit, tell me whether
or not this edition is listed in _Books in Print_.

If you want to play, those are the rules.

>Jonathon
>Barbera

By the way, when are you going to post the Org structure? (BTW, that
*is* something useful to put in a FAQ!) Can you promise to post it by
the end of the month?
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Scientology Joke.  
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:41:33 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Nov16.203219.22740@u.washington.edu>,
     mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

> Some religions do have a sense of humor, and it doesn't seem to do them
> any harm.  S.r.christian currently has a thread going about 'jokes
> about Christianity and Christians'.  And there is a wonderful story in
> Starhawk's book _Truth or Dare_ about how infighting in a witches'
> rally was defused by a parody ritual involving toilet paper.
> 
> It's healthy to be able to laugh, sometimes even at yourself.
> 
> Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu

    Okay Mary I'll bite.  Here is a good Scn joke.  I almost decided not
to put this in here, because some of you might not get it.  But I decided,
"What the hell??"  

     A scientologist died one day, and went to heaven.  St. Peter met him
at the gates, and said "Come on in my friend"

     The scientologists says "Wow!  I'm in heaven!  This is neat!  Do you
think I could meet God?"

      "Well, Gods pretty busy these days, but if you want to see him, go down
the hall and turn left.  Its the first door you come to."

      The scientologist walked down to Gods office and let himself in.  
There sat LRH at a big desk.  The scientologist says, "Wow, I knew it was you!"

      LRH looked up from what he was doing and says, "Sorry, Gods not here.
He's in Qual."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I love that joke.  Sorry if it ofended anybody.

-ARC,

John Holifield
ps.  everyone is a scientologist, some just haven't cognited yet!
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:59:03 GMT

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

>Come to Phoenix.  I'll take you to the Phx Org and Phx Mission and have them
>let you glance at the covers of a few PC folders (browsing through the folders
>themself would, of course, be unethical as they contain private information).

Oh perfect. I love it. We aren't allowed to examine the data to 
establish proof or disproof of your claims because it would be
unethical. This is brilliant. You can literally claim WHATEVER
you like (or be told whatever Scn wants you to here) and NEVER give
ANY data to back it up because it's UNETHICAL! (I'm barely managing 
to contain my laughter. This is better than attempting to gether 
data in churches and around fortune tellers! In a church, God will 
strike you down or fail to save you if you test him because doing
so is displaying a lack of faith and as such God isn't interested 
in you and considers you a second class citizen (raw-meat is your
term I believe), whilst around an oracle you are threatened with 
a fate worse than death if you don't belive. 

The Scientology approach is truly original. "Unethical!" I love it!

>>	So I call the local "Org", and they say that they have x number 
>>of case histories, what's to say that they're not lying??  To quote my 

>Lying?  Sounds like you're already taking a bad view of Scientologists.  How
>something ever be proven to you if you refuse to accept it?

Guess what? This is a REQUIREMENT of anything that claims to be 
factual. Science that depends on faith at all is dismissed out of hand
by "scientists" simply because faith (== acceptance) is NOT the 
basis of knowledge. 

If you can't see this, you are in real trouble. Anyone could show you
anything, incorporate pleasurable experience and then convince you 
that you have just seen whatever they want you to think it is. If 
you're not careful an evil organisation known as CoS will do EXACTLY
this to you :-)

>>	You do that Jonathon, but think about this:  If scn has made you
>>such a free thinker, why are you tied to the books?

>It's policy not to interpret Scn tech for others.  That's called verbal tech.

Ah! Debate is forbidden. This is called censorship in some countries :-)

>The problem with it is someone will pass on their misunderstoods or incomplete
>data to others and the others will get a false impression of the tech.
>To avoid this, Scn books are always consulted when someone needs data.
>In a Scn org, this would mean that the person answering the question would
>find the book, find the page, and hand it to the questioner so they can get
>it from source.

This is fair enough. Why are you failing to provide us with page references?

--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:17:53 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov19.043030.17277@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Okay, Phil, if I've understood you correctly you want proof from an
>independent source as to the validity of the results from the use of
>Scientology tech which are being claimed by Scn.

>However, Scn cannot offer the proof because it is not an independent source.

By Jove!  I think he's got it!

>But, you cannot understand why Scn doesn't offer you proof which you are
>willing to accept (independent source).

	Oh Oh!  We're losing reception, picture's fuzzy.  :0

>But you still want this proof.

	reception's a bit clearer now.


>Since Scn cannot be its own independent source, I recommend (again) that
>you get some people who are interested and set up your own research
>project to determine the results of Scn tech.  This would be an independent
>source and would follow any special research guidelines that you care to
>establish.

	Shit!  lost the signal!

>Jonathon
>Barbera

	But seriously Jonathon.  I want the proof *BEFORE* I
give the CoS my student loan.  An as I have outlined in previous
posts, not speaking for Phill of course, I am NOT qualified
to do the type of research you are speaking of.  In a previous
post I talk about how a REAL research effort might be run.  I
hope people can add to what I have said!




-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:58:13 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

>>>>>Different question: can you think of any reason why the church *wouldn't*
>>>>>want it to be done?
>>>>
>>>>Policy allows for field auditors and field groups.
>>>
>>>Can you explain how that answers the question: why wouldn't Scientology want
>>>rigorous measurment done of its effectiveness?
>>
>>I am not familiar with any policy stating such.  Therefore, I refuse to
>>guess.
>
>What I want you to notice is that your first answer was a total non-sequitor.
>It's almost as if you weren't listening to what was asked...

You were asking what *I* thought (opinion).  I stated in the second response
that I refuse to guess.  As far as I know, auditing in the field is
okay with policy and therefore independent research could also be done.
Therefore, rigorous measurement of effectiveness of auditing done in
the field by an independent group is okay with policy.

>
>>>You see -- I'm not sure you fathom what it would *mean* for someone to
>>>research Scientology with rigor. It ain't some individual diving in and
>>>checking it out. It's an impartial team observer objectively observing what
>>>it sees. And constantly being on the lookout to ensure that they remain
>>>objective. It's not a trivial thing to do. It's very difficult.
>>
>>Maybe that's why other "independent sources" are also unavailable.
>
>Why is it that we *are* able to find independent sources about Fords?

Because an independent study of Fords doesn't require two years of full
time tech training to produce auditors and case supervisors needed to
audit and measure auditing effectiveness.  If I understood by independent
source, the auditors and C/S'es used couldn't be Scn staff.

>How many man-years of research has been done into Scientology? Did none of
>these rigirous researchers ever get a clue to actually publish something about
>what they discovered in those man-years? Or did they just think that telling
>the world that they *had* done the research was good enough?

What was discovered was published.  However, you aren't interested in the
Scn books.  I'm sorry that Scn data hasn't been published in scientific
journals.  Maybe things were submitted back in the 50's and they weren't
published because of editor decision.  Regardless, Scn books contain the
research data.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:57:02 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <BxzCGF.5uH@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.041731.16568@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>[...]: what I'm asking about is the effectiveness of Scientology.  Some sort
>>>of surveying of participants with statistical controls.  Something
>>>resembling *scientific* research.
>>
>>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.
>
>What has this got to do with rigorous, *scientific* research?
>
>>>Can you think of any way that that could be done, Jonathon?
>>
>>Just as I said originally.  Get some people, get them trained, and have
>>them audit people.  Then use the research stuff to research the results.
>
>Would it have Scientific rigor?
>
>I'm betting not: how Scientology has been represented so far in this group
>is with no scientific rigor whatsoever. I have never before heard of an
>equation that works no matter what units you apply to it. That's not
>rigor.

*YOU* would supply the scientific rigor.

>>>Different question: can you think of any reason why the church *wouldn't*
>>>want it to be done?
>>
>>Policy allows for field auditors and field groups.
>
>Can you explain how that answers the question: why wouldn't Scientology want
>rigorous measurment done of its effectiveness?

I am not familiar with any policy stating such.  Therefore, I refuse to
guess.

>>>If you feel incapable or unqualified to answer this request, then say so.  If
>>>you feel there's categorically no way for the CoS to satisfy this request,
>>>then say that. But don't dance around and say nonsense like I'm "disputing
>>>Scn's results." What I'm disputing is the presence of independently
>>>verifiable results. So far, you have not provided *any* of them.
>>
>>If you and others out there want "independently verifiable results" you might
>>want to get them through your own research.  Right?  Isn't that proof?
>
>I'm asking Scientology to provide independent research. So far, you think
>that that's an impossibility. It is not.
>
>To answer your question, no -- me doing my own thing would not be rigorous,
>scientific research. I am not trained to do that kind of research, and I'm
>unwilling to spend the massive amounts of time that it would take to do
>satisfactory work in this area.
>
>You see -- I'm not sure you fathom what it would *mean* for someone to
>research Scientology with rigor. It ain't some individual diving in and
>checking it out. It's an impartial team observer objectively observing what it
>sees. And constantly being on the lookout to ensure that they remain
>objective. It's not a trivial thing to do. It's very difficult.
>

Maybe that's why other "independent sources" are also unavailable.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology Joke.
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:29:02 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

Re: God in Qual

That was a pretty good one.  I only know one Scn joke:

There were three Scientologists at a coffee shop.  A new guy, a cognited
Scientologist, and an OT.

They were drinking coffee.  One of them wanted some cream.  They see the
waitress at the other end of the coffee shop.

The new guy says, "Watch this.  When the waitress comes by, I'll postulate
her to stop and give us some cream."

The waitress walks by ... the new guy postulates ... nothing happens.

The cognited Scientologist says, "Okay, let me try."

The waitress walks by ... the cognited Scientologist postulates ...
nothing happens.

Then the OT laughs, "Let me."

The waitress walks by and the OT says, "Excuse me, could we get some cream?"

(Boy, those postulates in action!)

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:54:53 GMT

In article <BxqCzH.DE5@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.045858.14979@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>   You're questioning the fact that there are tens of thousands of Scn case
>   histories?  Call up your local Church of Scientology and ask them how many
>   people in the past ten years they've audited.  Multiply that number by
>   450 (total number of orgs and missions).  This will give you the number of
>   case histories for just the past ten years.
>
>Last week, while moving at a snails pace on a
>certain Public Transportation System Vehicle, I noticed a number
>scrawled on the train:
>
>"If you have been harmed by Scientology, call this number."
>
>(Number omitted, because it might be different in your city!)
>
>The guy at the other end took my
>information, and then I asked him how many people have called with
>case histories of Scientology Caused Damage. He said 'Thousands'. I
>said "WOW!".
>
>So, Jerry, just multiply that number by the number of public
>transportation vehicles in the whole wide world, and you have a much,
>*MUCH*, bigger number. Oh, sorry, actually *you* have a much smaller
>number. *I* have the bigger number, it makes your tiny little number
>pale into insignificance.

Um, Scott, hate to disagree with you but I think you made a little jump 
in your conclusions.  Since many public transportation vehicles would
actually have the same phone # on it, a more accurate multiplier would
be the total number of area codes, not the number of public transportation
vehicles.

Keep up the good work.  I just know you're the criminal that's going to
condemn all mankind ;-)
-- 
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: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:21:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.170103.18607@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>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.

Do Scn public count as independent?  If not, you'll have to do your own
research to get these independent sources as I do not have access to any 
at this time.

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology