HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: <None>
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:54:25 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

Hello,

My name is John Holifield.  As most of you who subscribe to this news
group know, I am a Scientologist.  I am twenty-three years old and a student
at Memphis State University, where I major in Information Systems and 
Decision Sciences.  I will graduate in May of 93.

I think Scientology is effective, especially for anyone who has to deal
with people.  I run my own sales company entirely on LRH Management
technology.  I sell skin care products and a service package.  I also am the
mission holder for the Church of Scientology Mission of Memphis.

Mainly, I only subscribe to this newsgroup because I sort of enjoy
messing around with computers and Scientology is more interesting to read
about than the other newsgroups.  Usually, I just log on and play for a
few minutes while I wait for a class to start.

I hope that the rest of you decide to followup on this introduction thread
because I would love to know what you do for a living, especially some
of you who claim to be scientists.  What exactly do you study?

What a good idea this was, why didn't anyone think of it sooner?


Later...
John Holifield
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Narconon not drug free treatment.
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:03:55 GMT

Reading along here in this mass of information I have here about
Narconon Chilocco, I see that Narconon medical director Dr. Ray
Stowers testified that he prescribes Valium and sedatives by phone to
patients going through difficult withdrawals. Isn't that interesting?

Futher along here, I see that Dr. Stowers (remember, he's a
Narconon-ite) agreed that the center's program is not actually
'drug-free' as its literature claims.

Interesting indeed!

The above is from a newspaper clipping I was sent, looks like
Associated Press, the first line reads: OKLAHOMA CITY(AP), Oct.24,
1991.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: A question or 2 about "science"
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:15:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.212305.3675@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>If I observe something for myself and see that it is the way LRH says,
>why doesn't this make it true?  

First off, how about substituting "that is the way LRH says" with "that
matches a rule." How is it that one can know when they see a set of things
that match a rule whether or not that rule is true? How can we critically,
objectively, determine the validity of rules in the world?

This is the question that Science looks at!
 
>I mean, I concede that some of what LRH wrote can seem sort of off the wall
>at times, but if it works, then it works, period.  What is wrong with that?

What may be wrong is whether or not the person examing the "truth" of a rule
is more committed to "proving" that the rule is "true" than giving up the rule
for another rule that may model "truth" more closely.

>Also, I still don't understand why something has to be independently verified
>in order to qualify for a "science" as you define it.

To minimize (and, hopefully, eliminate) any variance caused by the observer.

>But then If I give you some type of verification, you will say that its
>unacceptable because it comes from the Church and not an independent source.
>What gives here?

This is an excellent question and I applaud you for looking at it. Asking
such questions indicates that you're thinking critically about what people
are discussing here.

What you're really asking is what is the nature of scientific thought. One
place you can go to get an informal sense of this is by reading the FAQ for
sci.skeptic. Does your newsfeed include this group? Do you have access to
the FAQ? If not, would you like me to e-mail you a copy?

I believe some books about the nature of science have been listed here, too.
That would be a good place to look for a more in-depth survey of this quesiton.

>John Holifield

--phil
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Narconon secular?
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:21:35 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Narconon is a secular organization which uses Scientology tech.
>Churches of Scientology are church organizations which use Scientology tech.
>The connection is Scientology tech.
>I know this is too radical of a concept for many, but I hope some of you
>will begin to understand...

You seem to be stating that the tech is the *only* connection. That
is, none of these give orders to each other, and the bank accounts
aren't in common.

Why have you not bothered to explain away the evidence to the
contrary that was just posted? 

There was testimony at one of the various trials, to the effect that
the "separate" pieces in fact took orders. Now, that was a decade or
so back, but it's an awfully reasonable conclusion that that's the
way things run now. 



-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Some definitions and Comments
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 16 Oct 92 10:47:36 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>All of this arguing about the definition of science is
>not really getting us anywhere.  I agree that Scientology
>isn't a science as Phil, Don, and Gisle define Science, but
>I still think other definitions apply.

	[Extensive text deleted]

John, 
	I believe that clarifying definitions when discussing data,
information or knowledge is of paramount importance. I refer you to
Logic 5 as uoted by yourself. Contrary to your remarks, it IS 
important that we use a clear and consistent definition of "science"
and it DOES matter that the meaning you intend when communicating 
with non-scientologists is at variance with their own interpretation
of the term. The meaning put forward by yourself (quoting LRH) does
NOT match common usage. Common usage regards (IMHO) science to be 
that body of knowledge which can be regarded as being true and well
tested, thus likely to be true in all environments. (Sorry for not
elucidating this properly, it's late. My point is that Science is
not veiwed as what someone else says/believes is true, it is veiwed
as what IS true. The way of reaching these two bodies of knowledge
is very different.)

Reffering to what LRH has (in your quote) defined as science as
science in conversation with non-scientologists is unreasonable and
misleading. 

The meaning is not even similar. 

--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 906 4681
From: lfreeman@phad.hsc.usc.edu (Leny Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Introduction.
Date: 10 Oct 1992 08:11:57 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phad.hsc.usc.edu

In article <Bvsxso.It3@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.040043.14928@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>I like Scientology.  I've benefited from Scientology.  I believe that
>>(1) Scientology as a science and religion is beneficial [...]
>
>Can you explain how Scientology is a science?
>
>What are the scientific principles behind Scientology? What scientific
>journals have explained these principles?
>
>--phil
>

Sorry Jonathan,

I've been a Scientologist for 20 years and I must say that it is NOT a
science.  Not a true science by todays definition.  It is a religion
that is founded on facts that were obtained by scientific type methods
and not 'faith' or 'word of God'.  Let's get that straight.
But don't let it be said that LRH never did his research.

It is a religion that has worked very well and I have every intention
of staying.

BTW my training level is class IV, FPRD auditor
Processing level is new OT5.
Current course KTL to complete this weekend.
IAS level 'almost a sponsor'

Just so you don't get the idea I'm some out ethics sleaze running amok
on the net :-)

ARC

Leny
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: scn compensation
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 09:12:02 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Oct10.052249.5499@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

> Yes, many orgs are barely making it.  However, in the end they do make (not
> break).  This point is why I get quite annoyed by anti-Scientologists which
> suggest that the orgs and their staff are getting rich off of the public.

I believe you are mis-representing the anti-Scientologist position here.
None of us have ever suggested that "orgs and their staff are getting rich
off the public" -- at least not in my recollection.

What we commonly suggests when describing the CoS as a con game, is that
_RTC_ top level executives is getting rich by milking the lower level orgs,
their staff and their membership.  (By paying staff poverty wages, by selling
$25 in parts equipment for some fantastic price, and by overcharging for books,
lectures, auditing, etc.).

Yeah -- I know the party line -- that all the monies goes into building the
organization, developing the tech, research and expanding the CoS.  There
is of course no way of knowing -- the books are not available.

But you guys should know how much (circa) the typical Scientologist spend
on his or her religion each year.  Multiply this with the number of
Scientologists in the world, and you should have the ballpark figure for
CoS annual income.

Then consider the rate of expansion of the CoS, new tech, research, etc.
Do you think that the membership is getting good value for the monies it
pays?

--
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
------------------------------------------------
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: A question or 2 about "science"
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:23:05 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

I would like to ask a few questions. 

If I observe something for myself and see that it is the way LRH says,
why doesn't this make it true?  I mean, I concede that some of what LRH
wrote can seem sort of off the wall at times, but if it works, then
it works, period.  What is wrong with that?

Also, I still don't understand why something has to be independently
verified in order to qualify for a "science" as you define it.   I say
that Scientology can be independently verified at anytime, and you
tell me that It can't because it is the Church's responsibility to
do the verification.  But then If I give you some type of verification,
you will say that its unacceptable because it comes from the Church
and not an independent source.  What gives here?


Just some things I was curious about....

John Holifield
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

              Please answer these 9 questions and return.

1.) Do you think equal rights for men and women is generally a good idea?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

2.) Are you pro choice?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

3.) Are you in favor of adoption?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

4.) Do you think men should be allowed to legally terminate their parental
rights and responsibilities before fetal viability?
Yes                  [ ]
Sometimes            [ ]
No                   [ ]
Haven't heard enough [ ]
Other                [ ]

5.) What sex are you?
Male               [ ]
Female             [ ]

6.) How old are you?
Under 18           [ ]
19 to 65           [ ]
Over 65            [ ]

7.) What religion are you?
Protestant         [ ]
Catholic           [ ]
Jewish             [ ]
Other              [ ]

8.) What political party are you affiliated with?
Democratic         [ ]
Republican         [ ]
Other              [ ]

9.) How many years of education have you completed?
Grade School       [ ]
High School        [ ]
College            [ ]
More               [ ]
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology/illegal activities
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:56:53 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>>Any organization that harrasses reporters (even to the extent of
>>using "doubles" to achieve indictment of anti-Scientology
>>individuals) and is convicted of spying on police departments has GOT
>>to be bad news.

>Could you cite a few sources?  Otherwise, these statements belong in a very
>old pile of rumors which anti-Scientologists have been pulling from for
>years...

Oh, come ON. You yourself posted only a few days ago, saying that
you'd read "Bare Faced Messiah". You know quite well that Mary Sue
Hubbard was "convicted of spying on police departments", or close
equivalent. The reference to "doubles" would be talking about
Paulette Cooper. Seized church documents showed that a bomb threat
had been made in her name, to get her in trouble.

You've got a lot of gall asking for a reference that you've already
read. It's also inaccurate (and verging on worse) to use the
word "rumor".






-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Introduction.
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:05:18 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>I've also read the
>books by Corydon and Miller although I've since encountered the way things
>are within the church and can easily diregard much of their material.

Would you care explain?
 - which material do you disregard?
 - because it's lies, or because it's ancient history, or because ???

For that matter, why not post a book review?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:42:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

Oops! My apologies for posting my previous "Please Help" survey to this
group. It was an honest mistake and won't happen again.

Kingsley
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jan_b@lysator.liu.se (Jan Besehanic)
Subject: Re: Introduction.
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:03:45 GMT

jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>Hi!  I'd thought I'd introduce myself.  My name is Jonathon (the J in 
>J Barbera).  I've been involved with Scientology since 1990.  I've been
>on staff at the Phoenix Mission, Phoenix Org, and Flag Bureaux.  I'm not
>an expert on Scientology nor am I an official representative of the
>religion or the church.  My knowledge of Scientology comes from various
>books I've read and many staff courses I've taken.  I've also read the
>books by Corydon and Miller although I've since encountered the way things
>are within the church and can easily diregard much of their material.

>I like Scientology.  I've benefited from Scientology.  I believe that
>(1) Scientology as a science and religion is beneficial and that (2)
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A religion cannot be a science and a science cannot be a religion.
Communists (remember them?) used to claim that their vision of a better
world was not wishful thinking but based on scientific facts.
In a sense, they were like scientologists, claiming that their superstitions
and beliefs were based on scientific facts. 
 
>the church is effective in carrying on Scientology.

>Note: all of these statements are written by me.  Nothing here has been
>quoted or suggested to me.  I'm a free-thinking individual who happens to
>be pro-Scientology.

I think that you should watch "Life of Brian" and when you've watched it,
you should watch it again and again and again...
>-----

>Now that I've introduced myself, I'd really enjoy reading some introductions
>by the others active here.  (Don't be shy ... and please don't be rude.)

Gosh, am I on NetNews now? Gee Whiz, this is kinda neat. (Sarcasm mode off)

/Jan

--
Jan Besehanic
email: jan_b@lysator.liu.se
New, improved .sig-file under construction.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Narconon secular?
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:09:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.011540.5506@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
   Narconon is a secular organization which uses technology developed by
   L. Ron Hubbard.  The same technology is used within Scientology.
   However, not all Scientology technology is used by Narconon.

   No one is trying to hide any connection.  But the connection is limited
   to specific tech.

Hah! I doubt it --- hiding connections is apparently a large part of
the whole game. Back when the entire Narcono Chilocco mess started
ABLE sent Rena Weinberg to Chilocco to present Narconon and the
Chilocco Development Authority with a $200,000 check to help establish
the Narconon Chilocco facility.  Apparently ABLE was *real* impressed
with Narconon.

Of course, nobody at either Narconon or ABLE thought it appropriate to
mention that both Narconon and ABLE have the exactt same address (down
to the suite number) as each other. But of course, they are
*COMPLETELY* independent organizations, right? Of course!

Later in the game, when the state mental board and assorted Oklahoma
psychiatrists criticized the Narconon program guess what happened?
All of a sudden the Citizens Commission on Human Rights showed up
and started charging the state Mental Health Department with alleged
abuses. Interesting that Scientology has been around for 40 years or
so, and Oklahoma even longer, but it's just coincidence that the CCHR
decided to make these charges against the Oklahoma Mental Health
Department at the exact same time as they were turning in unfavorable
opinions on Narconon.

Of course it *has* to be just a coincidence, because ABLE, Narconon
and CCHR are all unconnected from each other, and have only the most
tenuous connection to the Church of Scientology. Right.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: schaf@socrates.ucsf.edu (Chris Schafmeister%Kollman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:07:00 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <Bvtp20.IIt@csn.org>, pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) 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?  
>> 
>> Well, John Holifield, you asked your question. You received a whole bunch of
>> answers: some thoughtful, some not-so-thoughtful, some downright funny.
>> 
>> Now, we have a question for you:
>> 
>> To  :  John Holifield
>> From:  alt.religion.scientology readers
>> 
>>     What was the point in your posting? Were you interested in discussion of
>> your question? Why haven't you responded at all to the follow-ups? Did you
>> actually read the follow-ups, or was your message simply rhetoric?
>> 
>> --phil


>     The reason I made that post is because I really want to know why
>someone would spend so much time being critical of Scientology.  I first
>read this newsgroup in Janurary and the same people have been posting the
>same critical comments about the Church since.  For almost a year they
>have continued to attack this church.  So I just want to know what is their
>motivation for doing this.  I mean, "Do they just enjoy suppressing religion,
>or do they have some other vested interest that we don't know about?"
>It doesn't make sense to think that professional scientists don't have
>SOMETHING more important to do than this.

There is a basic need that all people have,
to feel that we have the TRUTH.  The way some of us express
this need is by convincing others to subscribe to our
TRUTH.  It is the reason why you argue so strongly for
scientology and others argue so strongly against it.

I personally don't believe in any 'religion'; they are too much
trouble.  I believe that we live in an objective physical universe
(this explains why I am studying science), and a subjective
mental universe.  We can believe anything we want to: God/s,
demons, souls, engrams, etc.  We can think whatever we please,
it just isn't healthy to think things that are at odds with
the physical universe.  

You'll break your nose if you confuse imaginary walls with real ones.


.Chris Schafmeister.
-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chris Schafmeister                          Biophysics graduate student
University of California, San Francisco      UUCP: ucbvax!ucsfcgl!schaf
"Biophysics . . . THE future."           INTERNET: schaf@cgl.ucsf.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Narconon secular?
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:16:05 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Oct15.133010.23634@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <Bw4qrz.4M9@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.011540.5506@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>   Narconon is a secular organization which uses technology developed by
>>   L. Ron Hubbard.  The same technology is used within Scientology.
>>   However, not all Scientology technology is used by Narconon.
>>
>
>Again, I must state that no one is trying hide any connection between
>Scientology, ABLE, and Narconon.
>
>There is a chart available in any Scientology org which lists all of the
>various organizations and where they are in the command channels.  Go
>to your local org and take a look at this chart.  No secrets.
>
>However, there is something many people haven't cognited on yet: there is
>Scientology (the whole), there are church organizations (churches), and
>there are secular organizations.  Everything falls under Scientology the
>field or area of knowledge.  Only church stuff falls under church
>organizations.  The church stuff is not over secular organizations.
>
>Narconon is a secular organization which uses Scientology tech.
>
>Churches of Scientology are church organizations which use Scientology tech.
>
>The connection is Scientology tech.
>
Are you realy trying to say that the Wise and Able organizations
do not use HCO Policy Letters or have the S.O. handle them per
the Flag Orders?  All the recocgnized policy and practices
are based on just these three sets of documents:
HCO Bullitens all written by LRH for the "auditing tech",
HCO Policy Letters all written by LRH for the administrative 
policy of all of scientology,
and the Sea Org Flag Orders for the S.O.  who run the show
from the top down to the continental organizations or lower.

If the Narconon organizations are using anything else,
what are  they using?

Eric Hill


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------