HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:42:12 GMT

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:
>>>    Other "secret teachings" of Scientology include a ridiculous story
>>>about volcanoes, atom bombs, and body thetans.  Nothing even resembling
>>>this can be found anywhere in Scientology.  This can't be verified 
>>>not because its a secret, but because these teachings DO NOT EXIST.
>> 
>> I've heard the Xenu thing from too many sources, with too much
>> consistency, for me to agree. In fact, someone posted just recently,
>> mentioning "incident two", which is a reference to Xenu.
>>
>
>   Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.  In fact, if you believed
>everything just because you heard something similar from a different
>source, you'd have joined Scientology a long time ago.

OK, Xe[mn]u isn't a teaching of Scn.  So what's the Wall of Fire
about? 

>   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.  

>   Also, I've never heard this story directly from LRH books or tapes.
>I've looked and have found lots of equally if not more strange ideas
>than Xemu and volcanoes.  Much of this stuff that is known to be LRH
>teachings is STRANGE sounding but NONE of it is a secret.

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? 

>   What could the Church possibly have to gain by keeping the Xemu
>story a secret if they openly sell books and tapes that describe much
>weirder things such as implants, the GE, the Marcab Confederacy, etc?

So they didn't flood the records office with requests to copy the
material, in order to keep it from getting out?

	RA

rogue@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu (The Rogue Agent)
--------------------------------------------------
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Verbal Tech
Date: 18 Dec 92 01:09:10 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

Hi Gang,

   It just occured to me that several of you don't understand what
Verbal Tech is.  I suspected this after reading that PV thread from
Gisle, but after reading Chris' last post I'm afraid its worse than
I thought.

   You should really find out what verbal tech means before you go
around talking about it, because it really makes you look dumb.

   The same also goes for the rest of the Dianetics and Scientology
words that you misuse.  You should at least learn the basics of the
subject such as the vocabulary before you try to discuss it, much less
before you try to criticize it.  

   Its fine to be skeptical, but at the very least get a clue about
what your being skeptical of.

-John Holifield

   ps.  One other thing, I'm not trying to be mean or be a smart-ass.  
I'm just trying to make the discussion go a little easier.  Try doing
your part.
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Squirrels revisited
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:54:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Dec10.183230.4527@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>You want to prove to me that Scientology views EST as a squirrel group?
>>That would not be tremendously interesting. You and Jonathon have already
>>demonstrated that this is what Scientology thinks.
>>
>>If you could provide some raw data why you think this is the case, that
>>would be interesting.
>
>Nothing other than there are Scientology references which define EST as
>squirrel.  I don't really think you'd be interested in that anyway.

As I said: perhaps squirreliness is in the eye of the beholder.

>>The FAQ has a question about this:
>> 
>>14. Why would Scientology permit someone to "squirrel" its technology?
>> 
>>If Erhard/EST did indeed "borrow" materials from Scientology, how was he
>>able to do this? Did he have permission? Did he do it illegally? If so, did
>>Scientology sue? If so, did they win? If not, what happened?
>> 
>>This is the most interesting question you could answer on the subject.
>> [...]
>> 
>> Have you read the sci.skeptic FAQ, John?
>
>Time Out.  I answered these questions in E-mail to you yesterday.  Have you
>not received it?

No. I've received mail from others, though -- my mailbox works just fine.

Why don't you post it, John? I can guarantee that there are many interested
in your answers.

>BTW, I read the sci.skeptic FAQ the last time you posted it here.

I posted an *excerpt* from the FAQ. Not the FAQ.

Would you like me to send the FAQ to you?

>Also you should remember that I have a limited amount of time to answer your
>questions here.  I answer the ones I feel interested in talking about.

Then don't mail stuff to me personally. Send it to the whole group.

>John Holifield

Thanks, John.

--phil
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Chip's little dance (was E-meters, and CULTS in general)
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:39:50 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Dec11.064445.22995@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>, rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
> In article <341@blue.cis.pitt.edu> aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>>This is yet another symptom of a cult:  The use of "secret" words and phrases.
>>This is to reinforce the "US vs THEM"-ness of the cult.
> 
> Can someone authoritatively confirm or deny whether the use of jargon
> without explaining it when speaking to the public is squirrel
> activity?
> 

   Its not squirrel activity, but it is discouraged. 

John Holifield


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: No definition for 'verbal tech'
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:42:00 GMT

decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:

>Chris Schafmeister (schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
>: There was no mention of the term 'verbal tech' in
>: the dictionary or any of the other books.

>It may be in the other ("Admin") dictionary, which is entitled
>_Modern Management Technology [sic] Defined_.

>: Oh, now if anybody has questions about scientology terms just post
>: a message with heading 'CHRIS: Definition of xxxxxxxxxx'
>: If I have time I will post the definition and my interpretation
>: of what it means.

>Same here.  I have *both* dictionaries!!

>: I am now 'ON SOURCE'!

>My sympathies.

>: .Chris.

>Dave

Dave, I owe you a debt of politeness.
I was rude to you when I first posted to this group, 
and it was uncalled for... I apologize.

.Chris.
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: I Have *No* Integrity!
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:25:06 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> What parts of Scientology do you think are Science? By what criteria do you
>> categorize them as Science?
>
>   ARC, KRC, Tone scale to name a few.  They have as much right to be called
>science as much of psychology does 

I've lost track of how many times I've asked: why is the tone scale
reasonable? (Much less, scientific.) 

>   Another thing you might not be aware of, is that Ron broke his back
>trying to discover the way through the wall of fire.  Certainly sounds
>grueling to me  :-)

The description in Miller's book doesn't mention a broken back.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:14:42 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <schafmei.724373174@sfu.ca>, schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:
> 
> We still haven't had a clear definition of the 'PV' equation.
> 
> .Chris.
> 

  It's fairly well explained right in the book you took it from.  I read
the thread and was completely confused after reading your ideas about
what is supposedly meant.  If you'll reread the entire section over and
clear the words you'll find that the PV equation says basically:

  The Potential Value of an individual is a product of the individuals
intelligence and their active pursuit of existence.

-John

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: S-Meter progress report
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:54:02 GMT

	Anyway,  I'm heading out for the end of the semester,  just drank
all the beer in the fridge and I won't have news access for about a
month.  I was playing around with my meter prototype and actually was able
to get some interesting responses,  providing that I don't grip the cans
very tightly.  I've found that resistance seems to be a function that
saturates out when you squeeze relatively hard.  Past a certain pressure,
changes in pressure cause no visible change in resistance.  If I grip the
cans in what seems a "natural" pressure,  I notice that it is rather
sensitive to changes in grip and also is sensitive to mental state.  That
is,  I grabbed the cans and thought of something that happened to me
recently that is fairly awful (63 out of 100 on a commonly published
stress scale) and the needle jumped towards lower resistance as expected.
I noticed a kind of "ratchet effect" where it seemed to move quickly
to that level and take a long time to go back down.  I also bit myself
on the arm (can't use the standard pinch since both my hands are busy
on the cans and can't use somebody else since my girlfriend just took
off for home yesterday) and found a massive meter jump.  I think I will
look at my responses while drunk and see if those are any different.
 
      Since my hometown does have both a decent public and a decent
university library and I will have access to a car,  I probably will go
read some real scientific papers about GSR and maybe see if I can find
out anything about LRH's std. tech for using an E-meter to see if I
can get anything interesting.  My ex-SO friend says that the meter can
be used to recall anything that has been forgotten.  Since I have a lost
copy of the ~Princeton Problem in Physics~ that is probably in my room,
I might see if I can use my S-meter (Squirrelometer) to find it with
his help.  Anyway,  I hope all of you have a good holiday season (And
my ex-SO friend who is now into astrology says that a significant event
will happen Dec 24-28,  so it probably will).  Maybe my mom will leave
some empty cans around and I can fish out enough stuff at the surplus
shop to build a really nice S-meter over there.  Anyway,  once I make
myself a Mark I prototype,  I'll post detailed plans so that all the
kiddies can build S-meters for high-school projects.  If I ever actually
care,  I might make a Mark II version that runs on a computer and
dynamically adjusts the tone arm...  Should be very good for self,  or
maybe even computerized auditing!  I'm too drunk to type now,  so I'll
sign off for now.



-- 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: Rehabilitation
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:28:50 GMT

erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill) writes:

>In article <Bz2I4D.G7u.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>>I'd like to know more about the RPF. You both agree it exists, and
>>that people can be sent to it. Is this a place, these days? What's it
>>like, and how long are people there? Can people decline to go?
>>-- 
>>Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

>An RPF exists at each major S.O. location.  Examples: flag land
>base in clearwater florida, pacific base (pac) in hollywood, and 
>'int' somewher in california for commodores messengers and the rest
>of the top organizations.

>I have not read the criteria for being assigned to the RPF.

>[Text deleted]

>If you decline to go, do so in a public place or step out into
>public within seconds of doing so.  s.o. buildings come with
>security guards who are also s.o. and do what they are ordered

This hints of something very sinister.
It sounds like you are suggesting that scientology might
hold people against their will.
Is there any evidence of this?
Has anyone you know ever had trouble like this?

>Running a person around in small circles is a specialty of the
>s.o..  Especialy if they are trying to change your mind.

>Eric Hill

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

.Chris.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Source of qualms
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:04:41 GMT

I think there's a point being missed in some of these discussions:

The statements made against Scientology by non-Scientologists would not,
by themselves, impress me very much.  I am a member of a fringe
religion and I'm used to hearing virulent attacks on my own faith, many 
of which are completely false.

But the statements made *by Scientologists* (both on this net and in the
books I've read) scare me a lot, and have pretty much convinced me that
I should stay away from Scientology.  As far as I can tell, the COS
works under policies that are paternalistic ("we know best"), selfish
("our survival is paramount") and coercive ("it's our right to
punish those who criticize us").  It attacks those who disagree with it
and harrasses those who leave it.  At least, this is certainly the
impression I've gotten from postings here, and from the books of LRH's
I've read.

Rather than worrying about outside critics, maybe net.scientologists
need to rethink their own approach?

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: E-meters, worth $3000.00?
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:29:49 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <1flbtuINNhrn@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca>, nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca
>   (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>> 
>> Oh, please don't I *love* "enturbulating" you.  Damn! I *love* that word,
>> So much so, I think I'm going to use it as much as I can today!  Thanks,
>> Jonathon!
>> 

>And Later...

>Jonathon writes:
>>> Other wise:
>>>You're just making wild accusations to enturbulate myself and others.
>> 
>> Well put!
>> 

>    Notice how much pleasure Richard takes in enturbulating (causing an
>upset) other people.  It demonstrates that his only intention in posting
>here is to sow chaos.  He even freely admits it!  He will say anything
>without regard for its truthfulness, because his actions are calculated
>to cause upset.

Apologies to all for quoting al of this, I want to avoid being accused
of applying my opinion to deleted text :-)

Wake up John. Richard was amusing himself and others by mis-applying
a word (which admittedly has a nice feel to it) that was introduced
by Jonathon without explanation!

>    One of the characteristics of the anti-social personality is that
>they will readily admit the most alarming crimes, but will feel no sense
>of remorse or responsibility for doing so.  Clearly Richard fits this
>description.

Cleary Richard does NOT fit this description. The remarks were clearly
humourous in intent (Richard: Please confirm this for John's benefit).
You are over-reacting again and (apparently) attempting to invalidate
someone simply because he was being a little flippant!


>This is true.
>-John Holifield

NOT! (IMHO)


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: AABST5 Revealed!
Followup-To: alt.religion.scientology
Date: 15 Dec 1992 02:01:59 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Summary: Margaret Singer NOT!
Keywords: finger, hiding, exposure, fear

Since the challenge was so clearly made, I too looked up the public
info on AABST5@VMS.CIS.PITT. The posts were so vitriolic and biased,
the two misquotes attributed to me by this person were so
transparent ... People who write in any public forum are accountable
for what they say about others. 

I apologize to Margaret Singer for incorrectly referencing her as the
possible source for AABST5's posts. The person's actual info, as gotten
by the "finger" command with the address AABST5@BLUE.CIS.PITT.EDU is
as follows:

Login name: aabst5			In real life: Annette A Baft
Address mail to: aabst5+@pitt.edu
Affiliation: Universal Student Computing [Provost]
Account used on Sun Feb 23, 1992.
One new message, which arrived Wed Dec 9 21:00 (4 days 23 hours ago).
No Plan.

Now we can refer to Annette by her Real Name.

Chip
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Why isn't there a soc.religion.scientology?
Keywords: Hubbard, Islam, Gilligans island, Eurovisionsschlagerfestivalen
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:13:46 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <2101@lysator.liu.se> jan_b@lysator.liu.se (Jan Besehanic) writes:
>Why isn't there a soc.religion.scientology?  Isn't scientology regarded as a
>religion but rather as a cult?

Have you read the news.announce.newusers FAQs? Have you read the "What is
USENET" posting?

USENET is NOT a commercial system. There are no professional administrators.
Stuff that happens is purely on the motivation of individuals. In other words,
the location of any particular group, particular alt groups, is more or less
chaotic.

There are different criteria for the creation of alt and soc groups. If *you*
want to spearhead the creation of a soc group, you have my permission
(whatever that implies...). Typically, people who ask questions like this
don't have what it takes to actually be the champion of a new newsgroup.

That's the general answer. Now, in the context of alt.religion.scientology:
how exactly would you expect the Scientologists to respond to a posting like
this? I would dismiss or ignore messages that had this kind of attacking
tone. Heck, the FAQ I posted this week was fairly mellow, and *even that*
was ignored. If you want Scientologists to converse with you here, you
should cool it in your postings.

>If I want to convert to Xtianity, Islam or Buddhism then it will cost me very
>little and it's not because the above mentioned religions have accumulated
>wealth during the centuries.

If cost is very important to you, than you probably should choose a religion
other that Scientology.

>The other above mentioned religions are also similar in that after their
>founders deceased/teleported/left their bodies/transmogrified into some
>slinky underwear that only a prostitute would wear/etc., their followers went
>all over the world and began preaching and those who wanted to join them
>could do it for free!!  Yes, they didn't charge you by the hour, they didn't
>try to sell you Ohm-meters for 10,000$+ and you didn't even have to read, let
>alone buy their litterature.

My feeling: let individuals look at stuff for themselves. Rationally tell
people what Scientology is presenting. Let them see the attitudes of
Scientologists *in their own words*.

In short, develop and post a FAQ. And, hopefully, keep expanding it. Cross
post to news.answers after we have reasonable agreement that it represents
our group. (And, yes, in case any Scientologists are reading now: saying
nothing about the FAQ implies acquiescence.)

>I eagerly await your responses,

If you're interested in a discussion, mellow out your postings. If you're
interested in shouting from a soap box, continue to make postings like your
first one. Realize, though, that there's not a great possibility of meaningful
discussion...

>Jan Besehanic

--phil
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: e-meter
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<Bz7zM9.FHI.2@cs.cmu.edu> <1992Dec13.235957.4587@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:32:55 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Dec13.235957.4587@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

> Duh....
>
> What was that?   (And you think Scientologists are bad about using
> jargon....)  :-)

That was an engineer (Don) talking about Ohm-meters.
Made perfect sense to me.

Not too sure about the other guy, tho'...

--
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
------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Tax dollars
Summary: How scn costs non-scientologists tax money
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:48:38 GMT

I had some e-mail from someone who wasnt clear on
how tax money is being spent on Scientology.

It isn't directly. Except for court cases.

Indirectly it is.  Religions don't pay taxes on
money they take in and I don't think they pay taxes on
land they own.  These resources (money,land) would,
in the absence of religions, be used by tax-paying
enterprizes/people.

So it can be thought that tax dollars are being spent
to make up for non-taxpaying religions.

.Chris.


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jan_b@lysator.liu.se (Jan Besehanic)
Subject: Why isn't there a soc.religion.scientology?
Summary: Battlefield Earth is telling us the truth.
Keywords: Hubbard, Islam, Gilligans island, Eurovisionsschlagerfestivalen
Organization: Lysator Academic Computer Society, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:03:44 GMT

Hi there,
just some simple questions:

Why isn't there a soc.religion.scientology?
Isn't scientology regarded as a religion but rather as a cult?

Another important question that has bothered me is why the CoS
charges so much for its courses, litterature etc.

If I want to convert to Xtianity, Islam or Buddhism then
it will cost me very little and it's not because the above mentioned religions
have accumulated wealth during the centuries.

If you wanted to convert to Xtianity during the time of the Roman Empire
then it wouldn't cost you anything, except for the risk of being turned into 
a lions lunch, that is.

The other above mentioned religions are also similar in that after their
founders deceased/teleported/left their bodies/transmogrified into some
slinky underwear that only a prostitute would wear/etc., 
their followers went all over the world and began preaching and those who
wanted to join them could do it for free!!
Yes, they didn't charge you by the hour, they didn't try to sell you
Ohm-meters for 10,000$+ and you didn't even have to read, let alone buy their
litterature.

I eagerly await your responses,
/Jan.

--
Jan Besehanic
email: jan_b@lysator.liu.se
Violence breeds children.