From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Proving the Validity of Scn
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:15:48 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Keywords: tongue pulled

In article <1992Nov23.082029.2834@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>But back to my point.  I had shown that the CoS could have easily
>>handled TEN times as many PCs' as it claims which only gives a TEN
>>percent success rate.  Can I assume that you agree with this since you
>>haven't questioned it, Jonathon?

>I question it.  A 10% success is ridiculous.  100% is much more likely.

     O.K.  Please post the the TOTAL number of people who have benifited
from Scn, and the TOTAL number of people who have quit Scn, ie the failures.
You can even catagorize the failures if you like.  Please give a time 
frame, ten years, say, and the number of organisations involve. Could
be just your own.
 
>>Anyway I continue:
>>>>	You *must* get my point now!  The CoS must produce _ALL_ of
>>>>the cases, not just the successes.  I want to see all of the screwed
>>>>up cases, all of the complaints, all of the unhappy customers.  In short
>>>>the whole thing!  Not _just_ the successes that have been filtered out!

>>>Okay, I understand.

>>Good, you understand that _just_ the successes aren't proof.
>>Am I correct?

>Sure.  As long as the reason why a person considers a failure a failure
>is taken into consideration.  For instance, if the person stops in the
>middle of a rundown, the reason for the failure is obvious: incomplete.

Ah!   So we *are* blaming the PC here.  It's *never* the fault of Scn.

[deleted: Jonathon say nobody is disciplined for "trivial"[my interpretation]
stuff]

>>     In some posts following this comment 

refering to Jonathons' statement that no one is disciplined for 
not believing in stuff like "spirits" or exteriorization.

>>                                           you say that you have
>>been disciplined.  Given the "doubt condition" I believe.  Isn't
>>this a setback, a lowering of status, thus a punishment?

>You're not duplicating.  

But you said that ypou had to "work back up" from the doubt condition.

>                         Above I refer to the fact that people aren't
>disciplined because things like past lives aren't real to them.  I was
>assigned a doubt condition for something in a different context.

I belive the *idea* is the same.  We are talking about how
the CoS treats its' people aren't we?

>My belief in past lives or spiritual things were not in question.

O.K.  But people *are* disciplined, aren't they?

>>>>	Well, others have travelled this ground better than I, and have
>>>>given evidence to cause me to doubt the truth of this.

>>>Please provide specific examples.  (Remember: my statement relates to the
>>>person believing in various concepts and does not apply to policy.)

>>     I was, of course, refering to Mary Kuhners'(I hope I got the name
>>right this time) treatment of Scn ethics as applied to the PC.  And
>>Dave Decots' confirmation of her worries.

>You've misunderstood something.  Ethics is not in use regarding people
>who things like past lives are not real to.  Ethics is a different
>subject.  People are not forced to believe something in Scientology.

Not even the word of LRH?  What if someone wanted to question
that?  Maybe even publish their own interpretation of what he said?

>>>>>>>"What's true for you is true."
>>>>	IMHO, this is not true!  If this were true I could get 100% on
>>>>_ALL_ of my physics exams!

>>>Okay, if that's true for you, that's true!

>>     Very cute! :-)  But if I were to say that the taller 5 ounce
>>glass holds more water than the short 5 ounce glass, that would be
>>true for me, right?  BUT IT IS NOT TRUE!

>It isn't true ... for you.  If it were, I wouldn't invalidate you on it.

I said "IF".  I have shown an example where the statement "What's true f
or you is true." doesn't work.

>>>>>>from above :
>>>>>>">If someone was dissatisfied, the source of the dissatisfaction is found and
>>>>>> >handled.  It doesn't happen too often, but when it does there are several
>>>>>> >things that they check (the Case Supervisor can double-check the PC folder
>>>>>> >to see if anything was missed, etc.)..."
>>>>>>	"handled"?  Sounds pretty ominous to me.
>>>>>>	It sounds a lot like the blame would be put on the PC for any
>>>>>>dissatisfaction.

>>     This was confirmed by Dave.

>>>>>No.  Nothing ominous and the PC is being blamed.

>>>>     Is it _ALWAYS_ the PC's fault?  Of course it must be, because
>>>>Scn is NEVER wrong!  :)

>>>Sorry, that would be a typo.

>>     Some would say Freudian slip.   :)

>>>                             To clarify: the PC wouldn't be blamed.
>>>There would be a review of the auditing to see if the auditor missed
>>>something or whatever.  On the other hand, a problem would arise if
>>>the PC was PTS (various types).  Again, the PC isn't blamed.  This
>>>is merely something that would need handling before auditing would
>>>be beneficial.

>>      If, of course, auditing was benificial!  And this is _one_ of
>>the things I would want to know, via some sort of professional
>>examination.

>Oddly enough, the beneficial effect of Scn auditing is rarely questioned
>by ex-Scientologists (and even a few non-Scientologists).  The biggest
>disagreement tends to be about the Church.

Oh.  I would still like to see a study done, by professionals,
before I tried it.  Just to be sure.

>>>>>                                                  As I stated a couple
>>>>>paragraphs back, the Case Supervisor double-checks the PC folder to see
>>>>>if the auditor missed anything or if something was improperly handled.
>>>>>Once the problem is found, it is handled by a little more auditing.
>>>>>The end result: the PC is satisfied with the service.

>>>>read: "The end result: the PC is _made_ satisfied"

>>>Sure.  People's satisfaction is a concern of every organization.

>>Not true.   There are many organizations who couldn't give a fig
>>about satisfying people(I believe the CoS to be one such example).

>Clarify: By organization is meant Scn organizations.

I meant Scn as well.  Of course, many other organizations
don't give a fig about people.

[Jonathon deleted some stuff]

>>	Of course.  The private lives of the clients, the thing is
>>the private lives are never made public, save in generalizations
>>where statistics are applied.  And that's what I ask!  A statistical
>>evaluation of the cases, of every aspect of the cases.  This is done
>>at hospitals, care homes, dental offices, psychiatric offices, to name
>>just a few places.

>Oh!  If statistics are all you want,

Well... Statistics are *not* all I want.  

>                                      take a look at the new edition of
>What is Scientology? which contains statistics (even pie charts) regarding
>Scientologists.

That's fine, but they *must* neccessarily be verifiable.  I don't believe
the CoS takes kindly to verification. 

>Jonathon
>Barbera
-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology