HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: double blind
Summary: Is it possible to avoid Conspiracy Theory in this thread?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:38:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.111512.3400@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>To your credit though, I think your idea about the experiment with the
>computer and the sealed room is a good one.  I think you might see something
>like that one day, but I doubt you will find a willing subject until the
>ethics situation on this planet is handled.  I know you probably think I'm
>avoiding the question with this, and I apoligize for frustrating you, but the
>facts are if a scientologist did your experiment today and succeeded their
>life would be over.  It really doesn't take a genius to see that one.  Its
>not that I'm trying to avoid being pinned down on this point or anything, its
>just that this planet is not a safe place to do an experiment like that.
>That is what Scientology is handling.

It's interesting to note that Conspiracy Theory keeps rearing its ugly head in
this discussion. In fact, the sci.skeptic FAQ has a lot of interesting
background material about this whole thread.

In article <1992Sep23.153507.11543@tc.cornell.edu> homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:

>It is also not enough to quote 'authorities' in the field who disagree with
>claims made by Scientology, when the authorities have really no idea what
>they are talking about except the public trust and assumption that they OUGHT
>to know what they are talking about.
>
>A hundred years ago the scientific authorites of the world thought the world
>was flat.  Today they know better.  They still think that consciousness is a
>function of matter though.

(Well, it wasn't a hundred years ago, but I think we get the idea...)

Indeed, there have been times in our history when the agreed-upon scientific
thoughts of the time were blatantly incorrect. In a less enlightened age,
scientists who suggested that what we all knew to be true was incorrect
subjected themselves to ridicule, physical harm, or sometimes even death.
Nontheless, there were a few brave individuals who would not let the dogma of
the day stand between them and the truth: they would go public with their new
data/demonstrations/etc., no matter what the consequences.

Given the committment of Scientology to have their science accepted wide-scale
by the public, it's possible that the proposed "sealed room" experiment could
indeed create a revolution in science that would rival anything we've seen in
the 20th Century. For what would be at stake for Scientology, I would think
that a qualified Scientologist could be found who would be willing to face the
[perceived] risk.

--phil
From: sboswell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Xianity is stupid)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ABLE
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:00:31 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <BuqK0K.33x.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (Jerry Barbera) writes:
>>   L. Ron Hubbard's findings demonstrates that drugs and chemicals stay in the
>>body long after their effects have supposedly "worn off".  They are stored in
>>the fatty tissues of the body.
>
>I don't believe that the Church can produce a reputable scientist
>who would agree with this "fact".

According to a news article I saw posted in the San Diego org (from a
standard newspaper too, not a Church publication), the Purification Rundown
has been validated by the World Health Organization, among others.

Is the WHO reputable enough for you?

Steve Boswell
whatis@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: double blind
Organization: Me
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:33:01 GMT


>Given the committment of Scientology to have their 
>science accepted wide-scale
>by the public, it's possible that the proposed "sealed room" experiment could
>indeed create a revolution in science that would rival anything we've seen in
>the 20th Century. For what would be at stake for Scientology, I would think
>that a qualified Scientologist could be found who 
>would be willing to face the
>[perceived] risk.

     What you think would 'be at stake for Scientology' and what
Scientologists think would be at stake for themselves are two
completely different matters.

     What you claim to be PERCEIVED risk by them, may be UNPERCEIVED
risk by you, eh?
 
     Besides, I doubt that Scientologists like John or Dave think they are
losing their battle to free Earth, and certainly feel little to no
need to prove that Scientology works in the super human arena of
improvement.

     In fact I doubt they really want to get involved with proving
that it works at all to anyone, there are probably lots of
people who gladly will partake of their offerings with a mild
invitation. (Hint, Hint John and Dave.)

     And if they did start to lose the battle I think they would
probably just go ahead and use those alleged powers, if they
have them, and win their war without ever showing anyone what
they were up to.
 
     Even I can see that it would not take a massive world wide public
show of super human power to actually handle the suppression against
me, if I were in their shoes.  I would personally take a very quiet
route, albeit a deadly one to my enemies.
 
     Anyhow me thinks that the Scientologists suffer from a
sort of Prime Directive.  They want others to have power, but they
don't want themselves to be considered Gods.  A demonstration
of power on the order of what you are claiming here, would
seriously upset the entire scientific and RELIGIOUS world.  Nothing would
be sure about anything for a long time.  People would
immediately lose their faith in the government, because the government
DIDN'T HAVE those powers and probably (from my reading of it) don't
have the ethics to get them back either.
 
     Thus any show of powers would place our government in disgrace
in the people's eyes.  Suddenly people, who really did not want
that kind of power themselves, would look to the person
who had it for all the solutions to their problems.
 
     A lot of people who hate the government would be knocking
at your door asking, demanding, forcing, theatening you to help
them take the government down, and the govnerment would be
doing likewise.
 
     Any fool can TALK about powers, and any bigger fool can
believe him and seek such powers themselves, don't you see?
But once you get them and prove it, boy I would think
that is a WHOLE 'nother ball game.
 
     If I were superman I wouldn't even wear my cape under my clothes.
 
     Homer
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: exteriorization
Date: 6 Oct 92 09:46:46 GMT
	<1992Oct5.181626.3533@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Oct5.181626.3533@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

> On the other hand, L. Ron Hubbard has established that
> theta (thought, life, spirit, etc.) creates Matter, Energy, Space, and
> Time by means of considerations. 
>
> All the mechanics of the physical universe are the result of
> considerations made by a thetan and agreement between thetans.  Anyone
> who truly wants to know the truth can walk this path called Scientology
> and find out for himself.  

Or they can read the works of any modern idealist philosopher, where
the same ideas is expressed with much greater clearity of thought and
logic.  Recommended starting points: George Berkeley (1685-1753) and
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860).

The epistemology of the idealists has, by the way, been challenged by
empiricists (and later by logical positivists).  Those interested in
thoughts that go beyond idealism may want to look up the writings of
David Hume (1711-1777) and Rudolf carnap (1891-1970).



--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- 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
------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: ABLE
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<38759@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:10:47 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <38759@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> sboswell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Xianity is stupid) writes:
> According to a news article I saw posted in the San Diego org (from a
> standard newspaper too, not a Church publication), the Purification Rundown
> has been validated by the World Health Organization, among others.
>
> Is the WHO reputable enough for you?

As others have responded -- we need to see the original research in order
to evaluate it, not some journalists interpretation of it.

Did the WHO actually "validate" the PR, or did it just sponsor some
research project that validated it?

Because -- if you can come up with your own funding, it is easy to
get a UN agency "sponsorship" for the weirdest research projects.

There was quite an interesting discussion in "alt.alien.visitors"
about 6 months back where some new-age person had managed to receive
UN sponsorship for her project centered upon "channeling" her
conversations with extraterrestrials.  The messages from the
extraterrestrials was printed upon UN stationary, and they even had
some meetings in the UN building.  Both the use of stationary and the
meeting room use was legitimate, but this did _not_ imply that the UN
had actually "validated" the project.

You see -- research is not part of UN business, and UN agencies have
little funding for research.  They still like to report some research
projects in their annual report, so it is usually easy to convince an
agency to "sponsor" your project if you can come up with your own
funding (I have first hand accounts of this in the case of UNICEF, but
I should imagine that WHO is in a similar situation).  Usually, both
the UN and the researcher wins.  The UN gets some work for free, and
the researcher often gets some political advantages.  But it is
important to realize that this symbiotic relationship does _not_ imply
that the ageny has "validated" the results of the project (whatever
that means outside the world of peer review).

So I conclude (as always) references to the original paper, please.
--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- 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
------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: paulr@bts.com (Paul Raulerson)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: Bux Technical Services -- Doylestown, PA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:08:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.011600.24839@unixg.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312)) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.183024.3485@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>>To  :  Scientology Critics
>>From:  John Holifield
>>
>>    Why have you spent so much of your time trying to make Scientology
>>and L. Ron Hubbard look like an evil fraud?  
>>
>>
>Because the Church of Scientology IS an evil fraud.
>
>If we can stop people from being sucked into the COS and
>losing thier lives (meant literaly and figuratively
>ie:Noah Lotticks) then the time spent IS WORTH IT. 


I think the time spent debunking Scientology would be a lot better
spent getting people to think for themselves, which, to some 
extent Scientology does. (Or at least claims to do, seems that it
does to me.) 

Evil is a purely relative word ya know. Slinging it around in 
association with some group or another, Scientology included
in that, can only be defined as "slander" against that group.

Indeed, the whole idea of "groups" is a problem. At the heart of 
any matter, there are individuals. A few bad ones, a few good ones,
and a majority of "indifferent" ones. Which of the many individuals
associated with this Scientology stuff do you consider evil? 

The founder? He's dead.  
The current leader of the organization, whomever that might be? 
   Who is and why? 

The idea's expressed? That's silly! Ideas are only good and bad, or good 
and evil, in the context of some observer. 

-Paul
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: double blind
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:21:26 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Sep27.153301.16077@tc.cornell.edu> homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:
>>Given the committment of Scientology to have their science accepted
>>wide-scale by the public, it's possible that the proposed "sealed room"
>>experiment could indeed create a revolution in science that would rival
>>anything we've seen in the 20th Century. For what would be at stake for
>>Scientology, I would think that a qualified Scientologist could be found who
>>would be willing to face the [perceived] risk.
>
>What you think would 'be at stake for Scientology' and what Scientologists
>think would be at stake for themselves are two completely different matters.

What I think is completely unimportant. If it is important for the
Scientoligists of the group that Scientology be accepted as science, then I'd
guess that there is something at skate for them. If Scientologists don't care
whether or not anyone accepts Scientology as science, then there's no point
in discussing the issue here at all.

>What you claim to be PERCEIVED risk by them, may be UNPERCEIVED risk by you,
>eh?

Whatever I think about this is unimportant. I'm not a person who has a
committment to demonstrate that Scientology is a science. That's really the
point of this thread: is there a committment to demonstrate that Scientology
is a science?

>Anyhow me thinks that the Scientologists suffer from a sort of Prime
>Directive.  [...]
>[...]
>[...]
>[...]

You could just call it a particular type of Conspiracy Theory. I don't think
you're providing much edification to the group by hashing through it for
paragraph after paragraph. One can already get a very clear picture of
Conspiracy Theory by reading sci.skeptic.

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Re: Creed.
Date: 01 Oct 92 07:57:45 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Sep30.202327.678@balrog.dseg.ti.com> keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.131245.3402@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>>look in the back where hospitals want to hire Psychiatrists.  Notice
>>what the starting salaries are?  $175,000-$250,000!!!!  By comparison
>>a Sea-Org auditor gets an allowance of $27 each week.  They work that
>>cheaply because they know that they are right and they know Scientology
>>works.  Would a Psychiatrist do his job for only $27 a week?  Hell No!!!
>
>If the SO auditor only gets $27 a week, why does auditing cost anything
>more than 67 CENTS an HOUR?
>
The Sea Org could not compete if they had to pay market wages
for thier employees.
>>
>Sound's like a gold mine to me.  What's your income?  What's the average
>income and net worth of Scientologists?
>
>>
John, scientology missions international and flag command bureaux
will be glad to know that you have learned all the acceptable
lines and authoritative gossip almost verbatim.  Please learn
to speak english when addressing non-scientologists.

Ol ron would be thrilled to know that his 1950's opinions are
still being learned by rote and parroted without documentation
or thought.

>>John Holifield
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas

Eric Hill ("grumpy" is back from 3 wks in italy)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Re: Creed.
Date: 2 Oct 92 08:08:02 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

To add to a statement made by John regarding the $27 per week allowance for
Sea Org members:

First of all, the weekly allowance varies depending on training level up to
$30 (the average for most) with something like $22.50 for new members still
receiving basic training (and spending 5 hrs. per day in the course room).

Next, it should be noted that SO members receive clothes, food, and 
berthing (place to sleep) ... all of which adds up when an average SO org
such as AOLA has around two hundred staff.  In addition to buildings,
office supplies, and so forth.

The L rundowns, as John said were the most expensive, are only available at
Flag (FSO).  A percentage of FSO's income goes to support management
organizations such as Flag Bureaux (which oversees all service organizations
internationally) and ITO (International Training Organization) which trains
staff members from around the world on the executive/management courses.
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ABLE
Summary: Document your sources.
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:07:56 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <38759@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> sboswell@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Xianity is stupid) writes:
>In article <BuqK0K.33x.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (Jerry Barbera) writes:

>>>L. Ron Hubbard's findings demonstrates that drugs and chemicals stay in the
>>>body long after their effects have supposedly "worn off".  They are stored
>>>in the fatty tissues of the body.
>>
>>I don't believe that the Church can produce a reputable scientist
>>who would agree with this "fact".
>
>According to a news article I saw posted in the San Diego org (from a
>standard newspaper too, not a Church publication), the Purification Rundown
>has been validated by the World Health Organization, among others.
>
>Is the WHO reputable enough for you?

It depends, Steve. Did the news article you read provide references to an
independent publication where someone could independently verify this
"validation" by the WHO? Do these independent documents mention who else has
"validated" it?  BTW, what exactly does validation mean?

The problem hasn't been a lack of claims. The problem has been that such
claims do not come from independent, verifiable sources.

If you're interested in understanding the type of information Donald is
requesting, I suggest you subscribe to sci.skeptic or at least read the
sci.skeptic FAQ.

>Steve Boswell

--phil
From: paulr@bts.com (Paul Raulerson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:09:26 GMT
Organization: Bux Technical Services -- Doylestown, PA

In article <BvLtEw.GnF.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>
>paulr@bts.com (Paul Raulerson) writes:
>>I think the time spent debunking Scientology would be a lot better
>>spent getting people to think for themselves, which, to some 
>>extent Scientology does. (Or at least claims to do, seems that it
>>does to me.) 
>
>The idea that "it's true if it's true for you" works to suppress
>thinking. This encourages people to _not_ object when something
>incorrect comes up, or when something comes up that needs evidence to
>be believable.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with this one Don. For example, purely subjective,
but easily measured quanitites, like preference for a particular food or
color fit precisely into this catagory. Though I can measure (statistically)
a groups preference for a particular kind of food or particular color, 
the fact of that preference is only true for that group, not any larger
groups, and not necessarily for any subgroups. 

Challenging incorrect information and requesting evidence has little to do with
the matter. All the "evidence" in the world that wild dog stew is delicious
would not get me to eat it. :)                         

>
>It also encourages the idea that anecdotal evidence is an acceptable
>substitute for scientific evidence: not the clarity of thought one
>would hope for.

This we agree on. Problem is, I don't think that my somewhat restricted
view of the universe enables me to place an absolute judgement on this
Scientology stuff. I dont' see where it is materially any different from
the various flavors of Christianity, Buddism, (sp?) or such. I doubt that
it could do as much "evil" as say, the 15th century European Christians did.



-Paul
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: Creed.
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:00:26 GMT


>What I would like explained is "condoned in non-religious fields".
>What is this saying - that non-religions aren't allowed to study the
>mind??
 
     I believe they object to non religions studying the SOUL.
 
     Body, Mind and Soul, remember.
 
     Study of the Body by the Body Doctors, which leads to a study
of the Mind by the Mind Doctors, which leads to a study of the
Soul by the Soul Doctors.

     I can see it, assuming they have what it takes to do
the job themselves.  
 
     I grew up with a Psychiatrist, he belonged in a concentration
camp, as a guard or experimenter.  He surely was one of the least
spiritual people I have ever known, and his solution to
travails of the spirit was drugs and surgery.
 
     Dianetics presumably deals with the Mind, so a Dianetic
Auditor would be a Mind Doctor.  But they claim that Scientology
deals with the part of the person that is above the mind and
earlier than the mind and reponsible for the mind.  The Soul
in otherwords.
 
     So Scientology Auditors are supposedly a breed of Soul Doctors.
 
     Homer

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk (phys 312))
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.183024.3485@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>To  :  Scientology Critics
>From:  John Holifield
>
>    Why have you spent so much of your time trying to make Scientology
>and L. Ron Hubbard look like an evil fraud?  
>
>
Because the Church of Scientology IS an evil fraud.

If we can stop people from being sucked into the COS and
losing thier lives (meant literaly and figuratively
ie:Noah Lotticks) then the time spent IS WORTH IT.  I 
would gladly spend my time handing out copies of the 
TIME article:
 
	"SCIENTOLOGY:the Cult of Greed", May 6, 1991
		By Richard Behar 

(read it, it's very good), or talking to people, or doing 
anything I can to help stop this CULT.

IMHO,John Holifield, the time spent is worth it...

A note on strategy though...It's useless talking the 
fanatics, we've got to talk to the new people, the 
innocent people who are being sucked into the COS with
their talk of miracle cures, and mind enhancement stuff.

Richard Nistuk    ph36@unixg.ubc.ca