HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paulr@bts.com (Paul Raulerson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gradient
Date: 11 Nov 92 12:59:25 GMT
Organization: Bux Technical Services -- Doylestown, PA

In article <1992Nov10.073337.12595@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <GISLE.92Nov8161338@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov8.060709.26106@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>
>>> I was asked to describe some concepts which I believe would be out-gradient
>>> for the participants of this newsgroup.
>>>
>>> (Out-gradient, as in skipping more fundamental information (levels) and
>>> not allowing a gradual approach to what I consider higher level conepts.)
>>
>>Oh, how convenient.
>
>Already an attitude is forming.
>
>>So whenever you find yourself stuck for a good answer, you can just
>>excuse yourself from answering by stating that it would be
>>"out-gradient" to continue the discussion.  I guess you can use
>
>Or maybe I could be honest and say something would be out-gradient when it
>really would be out-gradient?
>


Grrrr.......


Now that really torques my jaw *all* out of shape. Don't you get the feeling 
that you're arrogant attitude is not only somewhat inappropriate, but also
indefensible? In short, the most prominent "attitude" formed in this 
discussion is yours. <grrrr> 

Or to put it another way, I decide what is and is not approriate information
for me to handle, and I am also fully capable of recognizing both information
I do not understand and "information" which is total garbage. I am sure that
the same applies to 99.99% of all participants in this newsgroup; so 
it is very simple:

Put up or shut up. 


Please. 


-Paul
Paul Raulerson
paulr@ls.com
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:58:14 GMT
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO

In article <1992Nov10.075535.13302@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>>Are you saying there is a distinction [between SCN and other "applied
>>religious technologies] or not? If so, what is the distinction?  I'm asking
>>for your personal opinion on this.
>
>Yes, *I* (not Scn) would make this distinction.  The distinction *I* would
>make would be: ease of application of Scn, potential understanding of Scn in
>order to apply it, the potential effect of Scn application being greater and
>more useful, etc.

This is a broad and sweeping statement. Do you care to defend it, or should we
just file it away in the Assertive but Unsubstantiated Claims file? I should
warn you that that folder is already pretty full...

>>Also, I'm somewhat suprised that you don't feel you can represent Scientology
>>on this question. It seems to me to be a fairly fundamental question. If there
>
>I'm not a representative of Scientology, the Church of Scientology, or
>Scientologists.  I represent myself on this newsgroup.  
>
>>is indeed a religion that asserts to be all about what it means "to know,"
>>this is something I darn well would want to know about it.
>
>Read some of the Scientology books.  Then you'd know more about it.

I'm not sure what your message is here, Jonathon. You say that you can't
represent Scn on these questions, but you *have* read all the books you're
asking me to read. Yet, when I ask you some fundamental questions about this
"applied religious technology," you can't give me anything at all that
indicates that *you* are clear about the issue.

I am not willing to read those books and *still* not be clear about how
Scientology represents itself in the world.

>>[...]In what you have read/listened to, has LRH ever been ambiguous or
>>contradictory?
>
>Okay, no, he hasn't.

You may not realize the magnitude of how distressing this is. Someone who has
written as much as LRH has never been ambiguous or contradicted himself? Not
even a teensy weensy little ambiguity? The inconsistencies that have been
described in this newsgroup over the past month are quite stark. Or have they
all been "misunderstoods?"

There's something terribly wrong here.

--phil
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: E-meter (was: A deep inner desire...)
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:32:56 GMT
	<1992Nov4.035834.23170@nmt.edu>
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Nov4.035834.23170@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>   Actually I've been thinking about throwing one together myself -
>   just snag some parts from the physics lab (like a 1 M pot) to set up
>   a bridge circuit for zero suppression and read-out on my voltmeter.  Only
>   problem is figuring out what to make the cans out of.  (Maybe I'll cut
>   segments out of a pipe or something.

The "cans" of the original E-meter was actually cans (the things that
conserved peas come in).  In honour of tradition, I think you should
use that.

--
Meta-disclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 01:19:15 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 <3NXXTB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> 
> > HAVING TO WRITE UP THEIR PRIVATE LIFE FOR THEIR COMPANY IS A TOTAL
> > LIE!
> >
> > Where did you read that piece of garbage?  The action that you
> > have discribed is not a Scientology practice, and never will be.
> > For the purpose of honesty and truth, please post your reference,
> > hearsay evidence is not admissable.
> 
> This is from the Free Zone: (Editor's Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of
> the Free Zone.  Redistribution Rights Granted.)  Of particular
> relevance to point under discussion are items 1 and 2 in the section
> headed "OPERATING TARGETS".
> 
> Explanations of Scientology jargon and editors notes are in double
> square brackets [[like this]].  Starred words were illegible in the
> original Xerox.
>  
> ======================================================================== 
>                          GUARDIAN ORDER 121669
>                     Mary Sue Hubbard, Dec. 16, 1969
>  
>                     CASE C420153  DEPT EXH. NO. AAA
>                           ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE
>                              Date: 5-30-84
>                      John J. Corcoran, County Clerk
>                           By: R. Hart, Deputy
>  
>                              GUARDIAN ORDER
>  
> GO 121669 MSH                                        December 16, 1969
> [[Guardian's Office 121669 Mary Sue Hubbard]]
>  
> ========================================================================
[Body of issue deleted due to the fact that it was too long to
provide a follow-up with the text first posted]

This issue has long since been cancelled.

This is not standard policy for the Church.  This was a branch of
the Church that was disbanded quite some time ago (the exact date
eludes me now) due to operations and practices that were against
Church policy.  The issue was not written by LRH, and was only
applicable in the Guardian's Office.

This is not a practice used by any company using LRH Management
Tech.

This is not a practice used by any Church on it's public.

Not unlike other religions, the practice of a full-confession in
order to be a staff member is used, although not always applied.

In order for a policy, or practice to be valid, it can only be
written by LRH, and an issue that is in effect, as some early
policies have been cancelled and re-written.

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: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gradient
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:07:09 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1dhgspINNrag@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.014330.9566@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>gradient: a gradual approach to something, taken step by step, level by level,
>>each step or level being, of itself, easily surmountable -- so that, finally,
>>quite complicated and difficult acitivites or high states of being can be
>>achieved with relative ease.  This principle is applied to both Scientology
>>processing and training.
>>
>>Out-gradient would be skipping one or more steps or levels.
>>
>
>	Which has nothing to do with the original discussion.

I was asked to describe some concepts which I believe would be out-gradient
for the participants of this newsgroup.

(Out-gradient, as in skipping more fundamental information (levels) and
not allowing a gradual approach to what I consider higher level conepts.)

Jonathon
Barbera
From: aparker@neumann.une.edu.au (Tony Parker,,,)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some people never learn
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:19:37 GMT
Reply-To: aparker@neumann.une.edu.au
Originator: aparker@neumann.une.edu.au

From article <_P-=#W_@engin.umich.edu>, by davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell):
> Cut from a Ballantyne message

> None of the people who have left this newsgroup are gone.
> 
> They are all moving up the Bridge to Total Freedom and if they want someday
> they might come back.
> 
> You are a thetan and you know what Scientology and Dianetics are.
> 
> dave

	Well said.  I appreciate the fact that Scn thetans cut from
  entheta but don't disconnect.  I find that many of the postings
  from the non-scientologists of this group `get me down' because they
  are putting Scientology down.  What is right for me is right for me
  and Scientology is something that I care about so please keep the
  emotional and human response to a minimum.  I don't read this group
  for the `open-mindedness' of the non-scientologists anyway.

  Big Tone
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.fan.warlord,talk.bizarre,alt.slack
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:49:14 GMT

In article <Z8yXTB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>Anyone with a grain of sence would use a value of one to ten to
>measure the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
>dynamic.  That should say enough.

This is mt favorite quote of the week, especially the one nonsence word.

[with no less than ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT blank lines in a row at the
end of the article!  Wow!  Such clearness!]

							-- K.
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gradient
Date: 8 Nov 1992 17:58:09 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov8.060709.26106@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1dhgspINNrag@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov7.014330.9566@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
[...scn dictionary definition of gradient deleted...]

>>>Out-gradient would be skipping one or more steps or levels.
>>	Which has nothing to do with the original discussion.
>I was asked to describe some concepts which I believe would be out-gradient
>for the participants of this newsgroup.

	You could have cleared this up at the time.  The context of the
use of "out-gradient" was ambiguous.

>(Out-gradient, as in skipping more fundamental information (levels) and
>not allowing a gradual approach to what I consider higher level conepts.)

	That's a wee bit of a cop-out, Jon.  Especially since one of your
patients was non-scn, why can he handle it, but we can't?  Tell us, what 
concepts would be too difficult to handle?  I think it would be perfectly 
legitimate to explain a "win" and then answer any questions we had on it.

>Jonathon
>Barbera

	I accept YOUR definition of out-gradient.  It is a big stretch
from what my definition of it would be.  This seems to be another case 
where scn has taken a word and attached a new definition to it.  There 
is no law against this, hell, physicists do it all the time, look at QED
(quantum dynamics) and QCD (quantum chromodynamics).  The key difference
being that, normally, physicists are willing to explain THEIR definitions.


Richard Nistuk
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca    (soon nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca)



 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Wins, Questions, and Comments
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:09:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.105237.4055@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Hi Guys!
>
>Guess what?  I JUST GOT MY FIRST E-METER!!!
>
>I'm so excited!  I can hardly wait to learn to audit someone with it.
>Many other big wins since I last posted here...
>
>1.  I'm now back on study, and on Objectives @ CC Nashville!!
>
>2.  Doing very well in business, and I fully expect to make a quarter
>million in '93!  Scientology Tech almost makes it to easy!
>
>3.  I also expect my SMI mission starter package to be delivered in
>a few days!  (Know anyone who would like to go on staff?)

Where will your mission be?

>One other question, I would like to ask the scientologists...
>
>Have you ever noticed, that if you are exterior and you look at your
>body it feels... well (sickening?)  I seem to remember LRH writing
>somewhere that auditors should not make the PC put his attention on the
>body while exterior.  Anyone know the exact reference for this?  Also, any
>source data on why it occurs would be especially apprecited.

I recall the reference.  I've been looking for it, but still haven't
found it.  I read it in Creation of Human Ability pertaining to what
to do when the pc does exteriorize.  The same data should also be in
Scientology 8-8008 and possibly Dianetics 55!

[interesting experience omitted]

How do you go exterior?  I have a friend who has and whenever he begins
explaining the experience and drawing little diagrams, I feel like I'm
beginning to exteriorize (this has happened on three occasions).

>Go up the bridge!! Survive!!
> 
>ARC,
>-John Holifield
>
>ps.  Everyone is a Scientologist, some just haven't cognited yet!!

I've cognited and am glad for it!

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: "Scandal of Scientology"
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:06:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.221753.18672@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rjk7m@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Richard John Kwiatkowski) writes:
>   I find it very interesting that the majority of the
>pro-scientology books available have been written by L.Ron Hubbard,
>whereas a number of different people have written books (which are available)
>which could be classified as con-scientology or con-dianetics. For example:
>
>   "The Scandal of Scientology" by Paulette Cooper (Tower Publications)
>   "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics" by Dr. J. A Winter 
>   "The Hidden Story of Scientology" by Omar V Garrison

If you haven't read the last two references, how can can you be sure that
they are anti-Scientology?

I've flipped through the last and it didn't look very anti-Scientology to
me.  Maybe I didn't read enough, but maybe I did.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: magnus@bark-fddi.ii.uib.no (Magnus Alvestad)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.kibology,alt.magnus.and.ketil
Subject: Re: Off source...
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:24:26 GMT
Reply-To: magnus@ii.uib.no
Organization: UVBS -> SFK/T-DSA / SOPS - HOS / RNoN

>>>>> On 5 Nov 92 06:53:35 GMT, kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) said:

	Kibo> Isn't "Shitload O' Whitholds" a great name for a band?
	Kibo> They could play Scientological Rock.  And thousands of

Hmm.. how about;

'The toilets are clean,
 the beer is good,
 the band plays music,
 and it's not too loud,
 lots of nice girls.'

Would be nice for advertising..

-Magnus
 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Gradient
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 07:33:37 GMT

In article <GISLE.92Nov8161338@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.060709.26106@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>> I was asked to describe some concepts which I believe would be out-gradient
>> for the participants of this newsgroup.
>>
>> (Out-gradient, as in skipping more fundamental information (levels) and
>> not allowing a gradual approach to what I consider higher level conepts.)
>
>Oh, how convenient.

Already an attitude is forming.

>So whenever you find yourself stuck for a good answer, you can just
>excuse yourself from answering by stating that it would be
>"out-gradient" to continue the discussion.  I guess you can use

Or maybe I could be honest and say something would be out-gradient when it
really would be out-gradient?

>Thinking about the implications, it struck me that this is really an
>incredible powerful principle!  It gives those in authority absolute
>powers to censor "undesirable" opinions and discussions within the
>appropriate organizational framework, simply by declaring the
>unfortunate topics "out-gradient".  Perhaps the correspondents in this
>newsgroup who has some experience from inside the CoS would care to
>share with us how the "out-gradient" concept is applied within the
>CoS.

I've been "inside" CoS and this isn't done.  Out-gradient is a concept
introduced in study courses to help a student to realize that data must
be addressed gradiently.  That is, basic math before algebra, etc.

>But, Jonathon, don't expect to get away with such antics on Usenet.
>Your actions has made it pretty to clear to me what the meaning of
>"out-gradient" is.  It means that you're positioned yourself out on a
>slippery slope, and are dropping out of a discussion you can't handle.

How is that how things are in your universe, eh?  I guess you don't recall
how this discussion of the word out-gradient got started: someone requested
specific information on a friend's cognitions.  Well, sure, I could detail
those for you.  But THAT'D be out-gradient for many people reading the
newsgroup.  So, what should I do?  Confuse people with data without the
appropriate background data?

>--
>Meta-disclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
>
>- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
>  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
>         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
>  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
>  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
>------------------------------------------------

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: "Scandal of Scientology"
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:05:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.010128.3342@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1dqfhfINNhr8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.221753.18672@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>>rjk7m@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Richard John Kwiatkowski) writes:
>>>   I find it very interesting that the majority of the
>>>pro-scientology books available have been written by L.Ron Hubbard,
>>
>>  More interesting, I think, is the fact that he authoured a lot of the
>>books _after_ he died!
>>
>
>Nope.  He wrote all of the books before *he* died.  If he's written any since
>then it'd be big news to everyone (LRH returns).
>
>Jonathon
>Barbera
>

(Ignore previous article with typo.)

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Gradient
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:43:30 GMT

gradient: a gradual approach to something, taken step by step, level by level,
each step or level being, of itself, easily surmountable -- so that, finally,
quite complicated and difficult acitivites or high states of being can be
achieved with relative ease.  This principle is applied to both Scientology
processing and training.

Out-gradient would be skipping one or more steps or levels.
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:42:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.230546.20009@beaver.cs.washington.edu> tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang) writes:
>In article <> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>>In order for a policy, or practice to be valid, it can only be
>>written by LRH, and an issue that is in effect, as some early
>>policies have been cancelled and re-written.
>
>Uhh, pardon my ignorance, but isn't L. Ron Hubbard dead?
>
>Hasn't he been dead for about a decade?  Are people channelling him
>(err, letting him externalize in their bodies)?  Clearly, there have
>been new policies made, and old policies cancelled...

Incorrect.  All policies as they currently stand (HCOB's, HCO PL's, and
LRH's FO's) were written by LRH and have been issued according to his
wishes prior to 1986.  None of these can be modified or cancelled by
anyone other than LRH.

There are occasional local policies (Executive Directives, etc.) which
are issued from time to time by areheads.  However, in the case of
ED's, they are automatically cancelled after one year.  And these policies
concern themselves with minor issues such as dress codes, etc.

>Or is "LRH" now a Scientology/legal term for something else now?

No.  LRH means LRH.

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: A deep inner desire...
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 03:58:34 GMT


>> Another nice feature is that the cans, or electrodes, come in a variety
>> of sizes.  This is another feature that really makes me want one.
>
>Are you serious?  This makes me think you must be joking.
>
>> I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really want an E-Meter.  Would
>> anyone like to give me one?  I feel the need to introduce Standard Tech
>> into my life so that I can start the trip over the bridge, through clear
>> all the way to OT IX!  I sure as shit hope that they release it soon.
>> I'm just itching.

	Actually I've been thinking about throwing one together myself -
just snag some parts from the physics lab (like a 1 M pot) to set up
a bridge circuit for zero suppression and read-out on my voltmeter.  Only
problem is figuring out what to make the cans out of.  (Maybe I'll cut
segments out of a pipe or something.


-- 
Hungry and out of work?  Eat a republican.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology