From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:57:01 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Dec13.223559.13777@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>, rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
> In article <1992Dec13.135527.4572@memstvx1.memst.edu>
> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: 
>>In article <1992Dec13.024212.27909@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>,
>>rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes: 
>>> In article <1992Dec12.111853.4552@memstvx1.memst.edu>
>>> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: 
>>>>In article <Bz2JBp.HFI.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald
>>>>Lindsay) writes: 
>>>>> 
>>>>> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> [...]
> [the 'it' in the next sentence refers to the Xemu material]
>>>>   Perhaps it could be true that something like that is a part of
>>>>the OTIII materials.  However, EVERYTHING that I have ever read about
>>>>this story has had SEVERE inconsistency with what is known to be
>>>>Church teachings.
>>> 
>>> Could you expand on this a bit?  Everything I've read seems quite
>>> consistent.  
>>
>>   Consistent with other false reports.  Its inconsistent with A LOT
>>of teachings of the church.
>>
>>   I don't doubt that the Xemu story is consistent with other accounts
>>of the Xemu story you may have read.  But, its not consistent with
>>Scientology books and tapes that you haven't read.
> 
> OK - so give us some examples of how Xemu is inconsistent with Scn.
> If possible, don't say 'page 435 of obscure book X which costs $150 at
> your local org.'
>

   I'm sure any day now Don will post the text of the Xemu story.  If
someone will post it, I'll show which parts are in contradiction to
Scientology.
 
> Oh - and does Scn have any ideas on who started the Xemu thing and
> why?  (aside from wanting to hurt Scn - more specifically)
>

   I'm sure someone has this data, but I don't.  I believe that a
reporter from the LA Times actually obtained the document that was
reported to be teachings of the Church.  The document does describe
the Xemu story.

   The document was illegally obtained and was presented as evidence
by an attorney who has a a documented history of encouraging ex-scientologists
to sue the Church.  It was admitted into evidence, despite protests
from the scientology lawyers.  Scientology's efforts to prevent the
publication of the document were unsuccessful for two days, at which
time the judge ruled that the document was irrelevant and ordered it
returned to the CoS.  Unfortunately, during those two days, a reporter
from the LA Times obtained the document despite the efforts of Scinetology
to prevent the document from being made public.

   Whatever the document was, or whatever context it should be taken in,
it isn't a teaching of the church.  Maybe it was part of someone's
PC file who knows.

> [...]
>>> Could you give us your slant on what happened when the Xe[mn]u
>>> material was released to the public as part of a Scn trial in Calif
>>> several years ago, and Scn'ers flooded the records office to keep the
>>> info from becoming public?  Did this event happen?  Did any of the
>>> info get into the hands of the public?  Did they die 37 days after
>>> reading it? 
>>
>>   Friends of mine that were there report that many scientologists
>>stood in line at the court house to keep the reports out of the news.
>>Evidently this did happen.  Some of the info must have gotten into
>>public hands, and as far as I know nobody died from reading it.  But
>>what you read from the LA Times, and books critical of Scientology
>>can't be actual teachings of the church.  
> 
> _Why_ can't they be actual teachings of Scn?  Where's the
> contradiction?

   I'll show the contradictions the next time Don Posts the text
of the Xemu article.  If I know him at all, he'll be doing that
anyday now.

> And which materials _are_ accurate?

  Recently RTC underwent a large project to get all LRH materials
verified as being correct and 100% on source (exactly what LRH intended)
Only materials which have been verified by RTC are 100% accurate.

> What I hear you
> saying is that the material did leak, but what we've seen was not it,
> but something someone maliciously released, claiming it was the
> material.  Is this correct?

  What I'm saying is that something was leaked.  Whatever it was that
leaked, it WASN'T a teaching of the Church, though obviously it came
from the Church.  I don't know what it was, but obviously it wasn't 
Scientology Technology.

> Here's another thought - is the material
> currently available from the court office?  If so the whole thing
> could be cleared up rather easily.  We _do_ agree that what the court
> had was the real thing?  
>

   No, its not available.  I do agree that the court was in possession
of a document that came from the CoS.  Wether or not the document was
reported accurately on, I can't say.  What I can say is that what was
reported does not reflect Scientology teachings.

   This is purely speculation, but a popular theory about the Xemu
story is that it was seized squirrel data.  I can't prove it, but there
is a good argument for that point.

-John Holifield


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology