From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gradient
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:33:03 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov11.081256.1421@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.141348.24284@u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>>Please, please, can we have English and not so much Scientology-speak?

	I wouldn't mind the Scn-speak if proper explanations were 
given when asked for.

>>I originally assumed Jonathon's comment about 'out-gradient' meant that
>>he didn't want to discuss private matters about his friends in a public
>>forum--which I would agree with totally.  But after dozens of postings
>>and a lot of wasted effort on all sides, it appears he means that the
>>ideas are too advanced for beginners--a completely different idea.

	Precisely.

>>Jonathon, if you mean 'This is too advanced for you' the concept is
>>quite easy to get across in English.  Using Scn jargon just slows down
>>the conversation dreadfully and leads to lots of misunderstandings--
>>surely not the purpose of either Usenet or Scientology.

>Yes, I did make a mistake thinking that people understood the word gradient
>in its common English definition.  

	Well, the common english definition turned out to be different
than your definition, and the only mistake you made was the assumption
that we would take your word on  the wins, that you were achieving.


>                                    The only thing that made it a Scientology
>term was putting the prefix "out" in front of the word.

	And, of course, changing the meaning.
  
>                                                         I assumed people
>who understood the two words would get the jist,

	Slapping two words together does not necesarily "sum" the words.
In the case of "out-gradient", and in the context of the use, its' meaning
was ambiguous.  You could have stopped this thread a long time  ago
by defining YOUR definition.

>                                                  but I suppose that
>dictionaries aren't too popular in the wog (not Scientology) world.

	Dictionaries are useful, but, in my opinion, they are not
the best way to learn about the meanings of words.  One of the best
ways to learn the meaning of words you don't know is to examine the 
context that the word is used in.  

	This assumes that the writer is competant.  The passage
where the new word is introduced should, must, be clear in context.  
This doesn't mean the author should use the  new word in a sentence
and then, in the next sentence, rewrite the sentence using words she
knows the reader will understand.  On the contrary, it means that the 
authour has set up the passage in such a way that the context, the
environment, is understood.

	Concerning this quote from the late grate L Ron Hubbard:

"The only reason a person gives up study or becomes confused or
unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a word that
was not understood"

If the work of an authour hinges so strongly on ONE word, then 
that authour has not done his job properly.


Richard Nistuk
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca