HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: For the record...
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:57:06 GMT

sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:

>sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:

>>by the Scientologist.  You just haven't been under control yet.  That's
>>why Scientologists can't communicate with you."
>>>It's probably not a tremendously fertile environment for recruiting new
>>>Scientologists...

>>>--phil

>Due to an emergency system shutdown the last lines didn't get properly
>edited.  To continue:

>The Scientologist is sent out into the Wog world, that is outside of the
>physical confines of the CoS, to use these and other techniques to bully
>unsuspecting genrally good-natured polite people into the CoS.  Success
>at this is supposed to demonstrate to student correct application of tech-
>nique.  Failure is followed by additional training.  It should also be
>said here that Success of Application of technique is implied to be
>accompanied by absolution for the Scientologist for whatever grief he
>may bring to the Wog or pre-clear by implimenting these methods.

>I don't think the Scientologists will ever really tell you much because
>of the policy of "verbal tech" and "out-gradient".  These policys are
>accompanied by spiritual and implicit physical threat.  By physical
>threat I mean the policy of "Fairgame" on Suppressives.  Fairgame has
>all the implied threat of Mafia retribution action.  Additionally,
>R2-45 (45 is caliber) is a procedure with a very "high gradient" but
>I'm sure its effectiveness is quite high.

>Also, sorry to say, you guys have been mostly talking about material
>low on "the bridge".  It is mostly introductory bait, low gradient
>stuff to get people into the CoS.  What really happens in the courseroom
>in the auditing rooms and how much it costs, this is where Scientology
>is happening.  I have a great respect for the excellent analysis of
>this introductory material.  The Hubbard.sources faq exceeded my
>meager attempt, though I got different sources, mostly because I
>was looking at Scientology not Dianetics.  I am afraid though that
>Dianetics Modern Science of Mental Health is somewhat of
>a read herring and is not what is really going on.


You speak quite knowlegably, where did you learn all this stuff?

.Chris.
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Can anyone help me?
Date: 1 Jan 93 21:20:19 GMT

cg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles J. Goldstein) writes:

>How do I get the "church of scientology" to stop sending me literature?

>I wrote to this bboard before but I just started getting mail again.

>- Charlie

Hah, hah.  I have been trying to do the same thing for years.  At one
point, the central organization in LA knew my name I called them
every time I got mail from them.  They got so down about it.  I have
a suggestion that will work.  Move.  Leave no forwarding address with
the post office, they know how to access it.  And it will stop.  I
just haven't been able to do it that way yet.
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Background
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:30:51 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <BzoxzC.Is3@csn.org>, pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:

> In article <6603@pdxgate.UUCP> sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:
>>But as this forum is actively read by Scientologists who make threats to
>>suppress free speech, I am hesitant to state my conclusions.

It seems that anyone who posts here, for the first time, is "greeted" with
threats from both Chip and David.  Perhaps this should go into the FAQ file
so that newcomers are aware that this will happen.  Perhaps putting it in
the file will discourage these threats.

> There are Internet servers which will allow anonymous posting to newsgroups.
> Over the past n months, a few messages to this newsgroup have popped up
> that used such anonymous servers.

I think you are correct in you conconclusions about the anonymous services
and their effect on Scientologists.  Since they were unable to figure out how
to use finger, I'd have to assume that they'd go truely bonkers over the 
anonymous posting service.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jgpaillo@ens-lyon.fr (Jean-Gerard Pailloncy)
Subject:  Statut of Scientology church
Reply-To: jgpaillo@ens-lyon.fr
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:04:43 GMT

I am french

I just have on contact whith a menber of the french scientology church, and what he says don't appears me coherent or rigorous. ( perharps the trems says a different think in english). I can't make my own opinion on one witness.

The French News (paper) speaks about the scientology church only on illegal money fund, problems of liberty of menber, etc...

What is The Statut of the scientology church in USA? and how the press speaks about?

Thanks Geepie (FRANCE)
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Can anyone help me?
Date: 31 Dec 1992 16:31:34 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: phylo.genetics.washington.edu

In article <0fEd2vK00WDGMcZUhG@andrew.cmu.edu> cg1v+@andrew.cmu.edu (Charles J. Goldstein) writes:

>How do I get the "church of scientology" to stop sending me literature?

>- Charlie

You might try keeping copies of your letters asking them to stop, and
going to the local Better Business Bureau with the copies if they don't
stop.  The BBB has little real power, but a complaint on a spiffy
official form might impress the COS.  

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: schaf@socrates.ucsf.edu (Chris Schafmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology: It's just "a joke".
Date: 2 Jan 93 01:16:13 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:

>lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:


>>In article <6622@pdxgate.UUCP> sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:
>>>I think the poor, undereducated and
>>>sub-normal and other sorts of losers drift into Scientology paritally
>>>by mistake and partially in desperation.  It is common practice to
>>>"ruin" someone as part of the process of induction into the CoS.

>>I don't think I understand your use of the word "ruin". Could
>>you explain, please?
>>-- 
>>Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

>By ruining somebody you run a little black psychoanalysis on them.
>If you are trained on the Levels there is plenty of stuff there to
>stir up in people.  You basically get people bummed out about their
>lives after having gotten into some kind of communication with them.
>You can get them to talk about breakdowns in relationships, betrayals
>disagreements, wrongs done against them (not the other way around
>until later) or maybe the general state of disintegration of society,
>the enviroment or education.  Failed goals etc...  Then you tell them
>did you know that someone figured it out (the something that was very important
>to them).  And they will naturally want to know more.   They will reach.
>You show them what a wreck their life is, what a disappointment and then
>you tell them it's been solved.  And they reach.  And then you steer
>their body into the CoS.  Job done.

How much of your training involved learning how
to draw other people into the church?


.Chris.

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christian E.A.F. Schafmeister               Biophysics graduate student
University of California, San Francisco      UUCP: ucbvax!ucsfcgl!schaf
"Biophysics . . . THE future."             INTERNET: schaf@cgl.ucsf.edu
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: For the record...
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:43:36 GMT

pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:

>Would any other Scientologist care to attempt the communication test? Or
>should we just file away Mr. Sidlo's claim into the Asserted but
>Unproven/Undemonstrated File folder?

If I may be of assistance.  Simply repeating the question over and over may
help.  It is something Scientologists understand as TR4.  Repeat the question
until you get it answered.  But there is a problem.  If the Scientologists
considers himself to be in control of the the interaction you are having
with him, he may ignore everything you ask or comment on as mere "bullbaiting"
and will only recognize statements you make about yourself.  This
emphasizes who is in control in the communication cycle and is also
part of TR4.  TR4 and other numbered Training Routines are the drills
for learning communication Scientology style.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Hi guys
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:57:26 GMT

In article <TdV=KwA@engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes:
>
>There was an insert in the fall of 1991 in USA Today
>called The Story that Time Couldn't Tell that exposed the true source of
>the article and why it mysteriously appeared after the Church started
>actively attacking Ely Lilly's Prozac.  

And who, pray tell, was this insert written & paid by?  CCHR?

>Psychologists are the largest
>drug pushers on the planet.  I might even post some stuff about that
>too.

That would be interesting.  Because at least down here in Texas, and I believe
anywhere in the US, its not true.  Guaranteed.

Contest open to Scientologists only.  What is wrong with David's assertion?


-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: A Technology of Contradictions (Was: Scientology: It's just "a joke".)
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:00:09 GMT

In article <6622@pdxgate.UUCP> sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:
>1. Most Scientologists do not have the intellectual capacity to deal
>with many of the questions in the FAQ. [...]
>
>2. The rules of "verbal tech" and "out-gradient" serve to severely
>restrict the freedom of speech by the Scientologist both in his
>interactions outside the CoS and within it.  [...]

Understood. However, Chip claimed in his last posting:

>There are clear, concise answers available [for the questions answered in the
>FAQ] from the Church with documentation [...]

Does Scientology train its participants to claim that there are answers to
questions even though none exist? Is this some sort of Technology of
Contradictions?

What's Chip's point in making such a claim but failing to produce any of the
documentation? Why does he make a claim that could be trivially demonstrated
if he did provide the information? In short, what is the point of Chip's
claiming something like this then never backing up what he says?

Demonstrable Claim + Absence of Evidence = Scientologist

--phil
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology: It's just "a joke".
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:40:46 GMT

I would like to contribute these observations about why the Scientologists
are not responding as desired to the FAQ:

1. Most Scientologists do not have the intellectual capacity to deal with
many of the questions in the FAQ.  When I have talked to more intellegent
Scientologists about why it is so difficult to get into an intellegent
conversation with a run-of-the-mill Scientologist they give me the
rationalization "Scientology still increases I.Q., just consider where
these poor b*st*rds were before they joined Scientology."  I don't
consider this a convincing argument.  I think the poor, undereducated and
sub-normal and other sorts of losers drift into Scientology paritally
by mistake and partially in desperation.  It is common practice to
"ruin" someone as part of the process of induction into the CoS.

2. The rules of "verbal tech" and "out-gradient" serve to severely
restrict the freedom of speech by the Scientologist both in his
interactions outside the CoS and within it.  When I would ask my
complicated questions of the course supervisor, I was usually not
even understood and therefore IGNORED (see explanation at 1.) but
when I was understood I was verbally counseled to not engage in
"altering tech" or "verbal tech".  Sometimes I was sent back for retraining
or a "knowledge report" was filed on me to punish me.
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology: It's just "a joke".
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:36:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <schafmei.725090316@sfu.ca>, schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:
> chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo) writes:

>>So Annette, why are you posting to this newsgroup?

>><Chip>

> For that matter, why are you?

> Or any of us?

> Questions, questions, questions.

> .Chris.

Well, if it's questions like this we are after, let's find out why some
Scientologists, like John, are posting from pirated accounts.  That's the
"burning issue" I'd like to know about.  Then <Chip>, who claims to NOT
be a Scientologist, but just a USENET flamemaker, can tell us why HE posts
to this group.

> P.S. Thanks for the E-mail Chip, it was good for a laugh.

What did Chipeer send you?  He likes to send me gobs and gobs of bytes
about what he's doing with his e-meter.  In his home.  All alone!

The longer you read this group, the better you "understand" the true nature
of Scientology.  It all becomes "clear".  No auditing required.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: "The Fastest Growing Religion"
Summary: Rigor! Rigor! Rigor!
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 00:08:06 GMT

In <TdV=KwA@engin.umich.edu> David Bonnell writes:

>As a Scientologist for two years now I find that most people have no clue what
>Scientology is how it works or why it is the fastest growing religion in the
>world.

Before we get to why, we should address what.

By what metric do you claim that Scientology is the fastest-growing religion?
If you know that it's the fastest, you must also know what religion is the
second-fastest-growing. Which religion is that? What are the top-10
fastest-growing religions? And the amount of growth of each (and the time
period that was used for measurment).

And, as always, what are your sources?

--phil
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Background
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:27:45 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:


>Is the scientology movement acknowledging ties to dianetics and general
>semantics yet?  When I last checked that tie-ins were, in spite of the obvious
>connections, being denied.

Dianetics was originated by Hubbard.  He later developed Scientology to
get people more prepared for Dianetics.  In auditing there are about four
levels of Scientology auditing before Dianetics auditing is addressed.
Hubbard's justification was that humanity had gone downhill since the 1950s
and needed more preparation prior to Dianetics auditing.  I don't think
that Scientologists will deny association with Dianetics because it's all
part of the same thing.  Generally, people are first introduced to Scn
through the book on Dianetics sold in bookstores.  Then later they are
told before they can go Clear on Dianetics auditing they will need to
go through these four Scientology levels first.  And you know what 
auditing costs per hour, I think about $350-500 dollars.  And you can't
buy a single hour, you have to buy it in a 15 hour block.  See what I
mean?

Hubbard does credit Korzybski (originator of General Semantics) with some
useful ideas.  General Semantics was later championed by Senator Hayakawa.
They are two separate movements.

This information was provided to you by W.F.T.A.S. (Wogs for Truthfulness
About Scientology).
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Background
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:34:04 GMT

m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:

>Why are there many instances in which Hubbard claimed to originate ideas which
>originated decades earlier in GS in material that Hubbard had access to?

In "Science of Survival" by Hubbard on one of the front leaves Hubbard
credits a whole list of famous names from Socrates to Freud.  I actually
checked this list extensively to see what aspects of "Science of Survival"
or any other of Hubbard's Dianetics and Scientology books actually use
some application of this list of philosophers works.  I also examined
the works of others.  I drew a conclusion about where Hubbard actually
got the bulk of his ideas.  But as this forum is actively read by
Scientologists who make threats to suppress free speech, I am hesitant
to state my conclusions.

I know of only one reference where Hubbard claims to have used the 
philosophy of Korzyski.  But yes, General Semantics predated Dianetics
and Scientology.  And Hubbard did have an interesting attitude toward
ownership of ideas.  Any idea that comes from somewhere else, as long
as you reproduce it in your own form, becomes yours.
From: tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology: It's just "a joke".
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:08:23 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <6645@pdxgate.UUCP> sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:
>By the way "God" in Scn is "the R-6 god".  That is the God of the monotheistic
>religions of the world is considered an implant.  An implant is a
>false picture attached to a thetan by the evil overlords.

Errr.... huh?  "evil overlords"?

Please tell us more.  Is this part of the Scientologists' "Creation Myth"?

obMU: by Creation Myth, I mean a story (often with little or no documented
scientific evidence in direct support) describing one or more aspects
of the creation of the human race, or of its progenitors.


-- 
Donald Tsang                    "Ho!  Haha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!
tsang@june.cs.washington.edu     Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"
..!uw-beaver!june!tsang                       -- Robin Hood Daffy
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Statut of Scientology church
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:07:03 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

Since no one else answered:

In article <BzroFv.Ez2@ens-lyon.fr> jgpaillo@ens-lyon.fr writes:
>I am french

Your English is better than my French. Feel free to use us for
practice.

>What is The Statut of the scientology church in USA? and how the
>press speaks about?

The Church spread throughout the US, decades ago, and is still
widespread. I don't know of any reliable statistics. The Church
speaks (without numbers) of its rapid worldwide growth, but in the
US, I believe that any growth or shrinkage is quite slow.

The press rarely mentions the Church, so it was a surprise to me to
see it on the cover of Time magazine, last year. When the Church is
mentioned by the mainstream press, it is usually described as a cult.
The last major coverage happened when L. Ron Hubbard died, and then
posthumously filled the bookstores with science fiction novels.

To the average person here, the major activity of the Church is to
advertise the book "Dianetics" on television, and to put Hubbard's
science fiction into bookstores. I'm not sure that the average person
would recognize the word "scientology", since it's not used in the TV
ad, or on the science fiction.

I'm sure that the Church has ongoing lawsuits and IRS (Federal tax
bureau) difficulties, but this don't get reported much, so it's hard
to follow. 
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: A Technology of Contradictions (Was: Scientology: It's just "a joke".)
Reply-To: scg@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Gender Anarchists United
	<C01BGD.vx@csn.org> <6632@pdxgate.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:14:04 GMT

sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:

>It is constantly emphasized that LRH is the model Scientologist and
>that you should be like him.  On the Saint Hill Special Briefing
>Course an auditor must attest that he can "duplicate perfectly LRHs
>auditing" style.  The run-of-the-mill Scientologist can be no better
>than this mighty example of scientific accountability.

i find this curious, considering in my reading i ran across a comment
(forget by who) that LRH was a terrible auditor.
--
"My TA was about as kind and helpful as a pit-bull on speed."
	-- Comment on a course evaluation form, Brown University
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Background
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:45:36 GMT


In article <6601@pdxgate.UUCP> sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:
>Hubbard does credit Korzybski (originator of General Semantics) with some
>useful ideas.  General Semantics was later championed by Senator Hayakawa.

Your post implies (perhaps by accident) that Hayakawa therefore has
agreement with Hubbard's ideas. A cruise through my files for Hayakawa
references came up with:

|S.I. Hayakawa put it well in his review of Dianetics:  "The
|appalling thing revealed by dianetics about our culture is that it
|takes a 452-page book full of balderdash to get some people to sit
|down and seriously listen to each other!"'
|	S.I. Hayakawa, "From Science-fiction to Fiction-science", 
|	A Review of General Semantics, 1951 Vol. 8 (4) 280-293. p. 293.
|--Jeff Jacobsen.

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Hi guys
Summary: Compare E-meters to VCRs.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:34:30 GMT

In article <TdV=KwA@engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes:
>Also for those of you who complain about $3000 for an E-meter you are right
>that this is a lot of money.  A Mark 7 E-Meter is only necessary for auditing
>above the level of clear.  There is a Mark 5 E-Meter which runs for $500
>retail and up to 40% off with various specials.  This is the meter most use
>for auditing to Clear as in the Dianetics book. By the time you are Clear
>$3000 won't look to intimidating.  $300 may still be more that a radio-shack
>meter but every meter is hand made and tested and a lot of pride goes into
>each one.  Scientology technology when exactly applied always works.  Just
>like 2+2=4.  Operating a meter is the same.  There are courses which take a
>few weeks at most that fully train one to use a meter.

What is the nature of the improvements from a Mark 5 to a Mark 7? Is it
enhanced resolution of the changes in resistance? Something else?

In short, the question is why, in an age when the cost of performing virtually
all signal-processing functions in the world -- both analog and digital -- are
dramatically plumetting, is the price of an e-meter so high?

Could you provide some comparisons between a Mark 7 and a low-end VHS VCR: Are
the electronics more or less sophisticated than a VCR? Would a Mark 7 have
more or less problems with calibration over time than a VCR? Would it be more
difficult for you to manufacture and test a Mark 7 than a VCR?

What makes a Mark 7 more sophisticated than an electronic device that I can
purchase for $169.99 at my local retailer?

>-dave

Is an e-meter a Scientific device? Or a religious device? Does its $3000 price
have a justification that a Scientist or engineer -- or even a subscriber
to Consumer Reports -- would find acceptable?

--phil