HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 03:50:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.234729.20750@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>To continue the Ford analogy: I ask my Ford dealer why I should buy a Ford.
>>He produces lots of testimonials about people who *love* Fords. Some of them
>>are even published in a book.  But I don't trust him. I'm a skeptical person.
>>
>>I tell him that what he's given me is not enough. The dealer's response: if
>>*I* can't trust what he says, then it's my problem. After all, *he* already
>>knows that Fords are the best cars out there; it's clearly a problem with me
>>that I can't see that for myself. He suggests that I set up my own research
>>project to investigate Fords....
>>
>>Is that what the Ford dealership would do, Jonathon? Why or why not?

Jonathon! You *always* miss the interesting questions! You might understand
something about the non-Scientologist community if you would look at this
question....

Could you please answer it?

>>Question: is it possible for the Ford dealership to provide independent
>>research about Fords that they themselves didn't control? (Semi-non-sequitor:
>>could I even find such research at a B. Dalton's?)

...and this one, too?

>>>No other subjects on Earth except physics and chemistry have had such
>>>grueling testing.
>>
>>That aroused my interest. If you could prove *that*, I believe I'd be
>>interested in this religion. Unfortunately, any and all requests for
>
>Unfortunately, I can not provide this data because I am not tech trained
>and can only refer to the books (not the tech references).

Do *you* personally understand what it means (even though you can't tell us)?
Do you personally accept the "grueling testing" statement as the Truth? Or
do you accept it as a religious dogma?

>But, I can point out that if one would compare modern Scn to Scn since 1952,
>one would find a very large number of changes made as new research was done.
>There have been many tech bulletins revised over the years.  Doesn't this at
>least indicate that something like research was being done?

Was the "grueling testing" statement made in 1952? And there's *no*
straightforward way to explain what it means to non-scientologists? Oh, my.

--phil
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:43:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Bill Hardman (hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org) wrote:
: [bet specifics deleted to save bandwidth]
: 
: > Do we have a bet?
: 
: Due to time constraints, I won't be able to put that together during
: this week.  It would be easier for you (as well as cheaper) to go
: into an org, and take the Dianetics Course.

But it would not answer his question.  The Dianetics Course does not
explain the PV=ID^x equation, and neither does DMSMH.

Dave Decot
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<By5IE8.7rz@csn.org> <1992Nov23.085813.4125@lds-az.loral.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:17:30 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Nov23.085813.4125@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

> Because an independent study of Fords doesn't require two years of full
> time tech training to produce auditors and case supervisors needed to
> audit and measure auditing effectiveness.  If I understood by independent
> source, the auditors and C/S'es used couldn't be Scn staff.

I am under the impression that the people who make a living doing
independent studies of Fords are usually fully qualified mechanical
engineers or auto mechanics.  At least, I am not qualified to make
the measurements of compression rates, cylinder wear and residue that
appear in the consumer reports on cars I have seen, so the level
of expertise they display must come from some sort of training
program.

In Norway, it will take you two years of full time study to become an
auto mechanic, and four years to become an engineer.


> What was discovered was published.  However, you aren't interested in the
> Scn books.  I'm sorry that Scn data hasn't been published in scientific
> journals.  Maybe things were submitted back in the 50's and they weren't
> published because of editor decision.  Regardless, Scn books contain the
> research data.

No, Jonathon, they don't (at least not those I've read).  They contain
the _results_ of what is claimed to be an incredible amount of research,
but nothing about controls, scientific method, investigations of alternative 
explanations -- in short, anything resembling research data.
--
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: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:46:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.043030.17277@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Okay, Phil, if I've understood you correctly you want proof from an
>independent source as to the validity of the results from the use of
>Scientology tech which are being claimed by Scn.
>
>However, Scn cannot offer the proof because it is not an independent source.
>
>But, you cannot understand why Scn doesn't offer you proof which you are
>willing to accept (independent source).
>
>But you still want this proof.
>
>Since Scn cannot be its own independent source, I recommend (again) that you
>get some people who are interested and set up your own research project to
>determine the results of Scn tech.  This would be an independent source and
>would follow any special research guidelines that you care to establish.

To continue the Ford analogy: I ask my Ford dealer why I should buy a Ford.
He produces lots of testimonials about people who *love* Fords. Some of them
are even published in a book.  But I don't trust him. I'm a skeptical person.

I tell him that what he's given me is not enough. The dealer's response: if
*I* can't trust what he says, then it's my problem. After all, *he* already
knows that Fords are the best cars out there; it's clearly a problem with me
that I can't see that for myself. He suggests that I set up my own research
project to investigate Fords....

Is that what the Ford dealership would do, Jonathon? Why or why not?

Question: is it possible for the Ford dealership to provide independent
research about Fords that they themselves didn't control? (Semi-non-sequitor:
could I even find such research at a B. Dalton's?)

One other thing: I would be very alert to any claims that the Ford dealership
made -- that's the first thing that I'd ask him to back up with facts. To get
back to Scientology, when you posted in your "FAQ":

>No other subjects on Earth except physics and chemistry have had such
>grueling testing.

That aroused my interest. If you could prove *that*, I believe I'd be
interested in this religion. Unfortunately, any and all requests for
clarification -- documentation, etc. -- on this point have been completely
ignored. I'm now at the point that I believe the claim is simply an assertion
that has no basis in reality. That's how I'll hold it until I receive some
substance to the claim. I also have some question about someone who would
just accept this claim as truth. It looks like religious dogma, but *it's
about science*. The validity of Scientology is asserted as if it has the
rigor of a Scientific theory. And it does not.

>Jonathon Barbera

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:13:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.235702.21184@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>Just as I said originally.  Get some people, get them trained, and have
>>>them audit people.  Then use the research stuff to research the results.
>>
>>Would it have Scientific rigor?
>>
>>I'm betting not: how Scientology has been represented so far in this group
>>is with no scientific rigor whatsoever. I have never before heard of an
>>equation that works no matter what units you apply to it. That's not
>>rigor.
>
>*YOU* would supply the scientific rigor.

Jonathon: you have not cognited the Ford metaphor. Please re-read it. Here's
the question: should I do the same research before I buy a Ford?

>>>>Different question: can you think of any reason why the church *wouldn't*
>>>>want it to be done?
>>>
>>>Policy allows for field auditors and field groups.
>>
>>Can you explain how that answers the question: why wouldn't Scientology want
>>rigorous measurment done of its effectiveness?
>
>I am not familiar with any policy stating such.  Therefore, I refuse to
>guess.

What I want you to notice is that your first answer was a total non-sequitor.
It's almost as if you weren't listening to what was asked...

>>You see -- I'm not sure you fathom what it would *mean* for someone to
>>research Scientology with rigor. It ain't some individual diving in and
>>checking it out. It's an impartial team observer objectively observing what
>>it sees. And constantly being on the lookout to ensure that they remain
>>objective. It's not a trivial thing to do. It's very difficult.
>
>Maybe that's why other "independent sources" are also unavailable.

Why is it that we *are* able to find independent sources about Fords?

If Scientology *has* investigated itself with a rigor only approached by
Physics and Chemistry, then why are they keeping it to themselves? Do you have
a clue about how many man-years of research goes into Chemistry and Physics in
a year? Even if you only considered the amount of research in the US in 1952,
you've got a massive amount of research. 

How many man-years of research has been done into Scientology? Did none of
these rigirous researchers ever get a clue to actually publish something about
what they discovered in those man-years? Or did they just think that telling
the world that they *had* done the research was good enough?

That's a very interesting kind of research being done....

--phil
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:53:01 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <Bxz9vv.LG@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov19.042416.16980@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>Jonathon: Say the full title of the book. Say its ISBN number. Say the name
>>>of the publisher. And say the 10 pages that you want me to read. Be precise
>>>and exact. Clue: I want real page numbers. For extra credit, tell me whether
>>>or not this edition is listed in _Books in Print_.
>>
>>Unfortunately, I have not yet seen the new edition.  So all I can tell you
>>until I do is that the title is What is Scientology? and it is published
>>by Bridge Publications.
>>
>>>If you want to play, those are the rules.
>>
>>Your rules keep getting stricter.  I get the feeling that you really don't
>>want to look up the information.
>
>Bullshit. Jonathon: here's *exactly* what my first request was:
>
>(from <1992Nov13.205236.29744@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>):
>$Tell you what.  Why don't you tell me the page that will give me the official
>$Scientology policy about other religions. I will go to my local B.  Daltons
>$and read *that*. I am willing to read up to 10 pages of material.

Wouldn't you consider the new request for publisher and ISBN number a
change in the rules?  Compare your two statements and see who is reading
what.

>Now, Jonathon, I don't intend for you to go catatonic like John Holifield when
>we noticed that *he* was telling less than the truth in his postings, but I do
>want you to realize something: you don't listen to what people say. You make
>up stuff. You may have *thought* that my requests were some sort of
>ever-constricting set of demands, but THEY WERE CLEARLY NOT. I judge your
>claim that I'm changing the rules as yet another attempt to deflect the
>question.

ISBN?  Come on.  That's a newer, more constricting rule.

>Here we go, one more time: from a religion that claims to have the inside
>track on what it means "to know," you're doing a damn poor job explaining
>what is that you do know. And you're not granting yourself or Scientology any
>credibility when you lie to this newsgroup.

Lie?  Please clarify, Phil.  (And it better be good.)

Jonathon                                             
Barbera
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:10:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.102445.25369@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.084801.2093@lds-az.loral.com>
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>[...]
>>If the word of Scn cannot be accepted, then someone else will need to take
>>the responsibility of getting some people trained up as auditors and
>>case supervisors and auditing people according whatever research methods
>>were needed.
>
>Jon - do you believe such a group could take Scn training, leave the
>Church, and begin collecting independant data, without being sued &
>harrassed to death by the Church?  Or are you suggesting they stay
>within the Church and attempt this?  Again, do you believe the Church
>would allow themto do this?

First, if someone is at a Scn org receiving auditor training as a public,
they are not "in" the church as staff or something.  They are public.

So, yes, a person or group could get tech training and go out into the
field and audit people.  The name for these people is "field auditor" or
"field group" and there are a lot of them already.

What's the problem then?

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:53:53 GMT

In article <oHZeuB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>> Could you apply some rigor to the PV equation, please? We're looking for
>> the kind of rigor, say, that one would find in physics or chemistry. And
>> I have *never ever* seen an equation in either of those fields of science
>> that did not include the units for each component of the equation.
>> 
>> Bill: do you accept or decline this request?
>
>See future posts.

Could you actually just accept or decline the request?

I'm not committed to have this discussion drag on forever. I'm interested in
seeing what sort of rigor can be brought to the PV equation. I'm not
interested in a knock-down drag-out discussion. I just want to hear what
you have to say about the theory and application of this equation. With rigor.

>Bill Hardman

You can accept or decline the request. But I ask that you do one of these.

Thanks, Bill

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:50:15 GMT
Organization: Make a Wish Foundation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

The Inimitable Raz (raz@socs.uts.edu.au) wrote:
: Unfortunately I've yet to find anything else in Scientology that I
: consider good and worthwhile. The conversation here is leaving me 
: less receptive to Scn than I was when I first subscribed!

Perhaps the E-meter is a worthwhile addition, since it can be used
to help find painful subject matter which would be beneficially discussed.

Dave Decot
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn revisited
Keywords: tongue pulled
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:56:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.094308.5771@lds-az.loral.com>
jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>In article <1992Nov23.071512.4160@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes: 
[...]
[err, someone writes...]
>>>>O.K. here would be _some_ of what research _may_ entail:
>>>>
>>>>	a detailed disection of the CoS.  This would include
>>>>looking at every aspect of the church individualy to asses the
>>>>viability.  Here an INDEPENDANT, TRAINED research TEAM would look
>>>>at:
>>>>	the CoSs' finances and business practices
>>>>	each training course
>>>>	each piece of Scn tech: E-meters, etc...
>>>>	each Scn "medical type" treatment ie: the purification rundown
>>>> 	(please add more...)
>>>>
>>>>as well another team could do a statistical study of, say, three
>>>>groups of people:
>>>>
>>>>	people who are taking Scn courses
>>>>	people who are taking other self help courses
>>>>	people who would rather have their tongues pulled than
>>>>take a self help course.  (a control group, if you will).
>>
>>Here is the information I was looking for earlier, which gives us a
>>good foundation for discussing whether Scn would allow rigorous
>>investigation of its methods.  Jon - would a group of Field Auditors
>>be able/allowed to conduct research in this manner?  Which parts would
>>be objectionable, and why?
>
>The above is regarding looking into the Church.  The second is
>regarding courses.  Neither are applicable to a field auditor who is
>auditing people.

So, if I wanted to conduct an investigation along these lines,
becoming a Field Auditor would not be the route to go.  Ok, how would
you suggest we go about it?  How do we get the Church to allow us to
do this?  Do you feel that such a project is worthwhile?

	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.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:42:22 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Nov19.041019.16253@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.102445.25369@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.084801.2093@lds-az.loral.com>
>>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>>[...]
>>Jon - do you believe such a group could take Scn training, leave the
>>Church, and begin collecting independant data, without being sued &
>>harrassed to death by the Church?  Or are you suggesting they stay
>>within the Church and attempt this?  Again, do you believe the Church
>>would allow themto do this?
>
>First, if someone is at a Scn org receiving auditor training as a public,
>they are not "in" the church as staff or something.  They are public.
>
>So, yes, a person or group could get tech training and go out into the
>field and audit people.  The name for these people is "field auditor" or
>"field group" and there are a lot of them already.
>
Almost, Jonathan, The field auditors are church via I HELP.
They are registared and licenced to practice from RTC just like 
the rest of the church.  You could even make an argument for the
students as they need a course completion certificate to practice
what they learned or to be in a co-audit course.

Eric Hill


>What's the problem then?
>
>Jonathon
>Barbera
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 20 Nov 1992 09:42:31 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov19.050807.18654@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.233132.5689@u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

[deleted:  Mary Kuhner and Jonathon Barberra discuss the rights
of the PC to leave, or lack thereof.  And how Scn would stop
PC's from leaving]


Jonathon says:
>>>However, criticising a person's beliefs (as you must have experienced in
>>>a somewhat controversial belief-system) is suppressive and can create
>>>turmoil for the person: having them question their beliefs without
>>>necessarily giving them up, but weakening their involvement and enthusiasm.

Mary says:
>>I notice that Scientologists are quite willing to criticize other
>>peoples' belief systems (for example, those who believe in psychiatry).
>>Why is this not bad, if criticism is bad in general?  Why is it wrong
>>for psychiatrists' organizations to challenge Scientology, if it is
>>right for Scientology to challenge psychiatry?  Shouldn't ethics work in
>>both directions?  I wouldn't want to trust someone who had one set of
>>rules for himself, and another set for other people.

Jonathon responds:
>In the various campaigns against psychiatry, evidence (from independent
>sources such as past reports made within psychiatry itself) were presented
>to reveal some of psychiatry's more controversial nature.

As is done by skeptics in this very newsgroup.

Well, you could do that to physics as well, there have been many
questionable reports put out.  The thing is, however, what about
the good reports?  Are there as many questionable reports as there
are good reports?  Do the CoS "experts" even know how to identify
these reports?  What are thier qualifications?

It looks as though Hubbard decided he needed something to focus
his followers on a common enemy, if you will.  The campaigns
launched by the CoS on psychiatry, look to me, to be very poorly
waged.  They seem to focus on extremely small parts of psychiatry,
some of which are openly criticised by psychiatrists themselves,
and not on the whole.  The scientologists say:  "Here you go,
here is ONE bad thing about psychiatry" and then they say
"this is proof that ALL of psychiatry is bad".  hmmmm, who else
in history has brought people together using a scapegoat?

[deleted: I have deleted the rest of this conversation,  It
is realy interesting, of course, but I have other stuff to do.]


>Jonathon
>Barbera                


-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca