From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Technology of Contradictions (Was: Scientology: It's just "a joke".)
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:50:36 GMT

pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:

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

I respond: I strongly suspect that some of the Scientologists are being
coached on how to respond to this newsgroup.  It would be very consistant
with my observations of the use of the media by Scientologists.  There is
an office to write to in the CoS about questions concerning tech and policy.
If the questions refer to actual quotes by LRH that can be found, this
office will write back and tell where the quote can be found.  If the
question refers to bridging another field of study with Scientology in
order to answer the question often restudy, word-clearing or "false
data stripping" will be ordered for the student.  My guess is that Chip
is saying what he was coached to say and somebody is still trying to find
the answers.

>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?

Well Scientology is very hierarchal.  And the rules can be kind of vague and
confusing so the natural thing is to always look to someone higher up in rank
or experience for how to deal with something.  I sure Chip would like to answer
the FAQ in a way that makes his chosen religion look good, but he may have
made his assertion before he figured out the answers.  What Scientology
teaches is a) only think in Scientology terms b) don't talk about other
subjects (unless it's to show how Scientology is superior).  It's not so
much a technology of contradictions and a technology of doing what your
told.  And if nobody can tell you what to do, you won't be able to function
in fuzzy areas like answering the FAQ.

>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?

He may be trying to earn points (and I mean literally earn points) or trying
to work through some lowered ethics condition.  This would be fullfilled by
pumping up Scientology in some forum and making the enemies of Scientology
look bad (strike a blow for Scientology).  Scientologists are very much on
a production basis.  You can go into a lower ethics condition for not making
enough points.  No excuses are accepted; the limitations of a bad day,
uncontrollable events or other people not holding up their share are not
acceptable excuses.  You can raise your ethics condition by taking on a
project like writing pro-Scn stuff in this forum, distributing leaflets or
getting people into the CoS and paying for services etc...

>Demonstrable Claim + Absence of Evidence = Scientologist

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.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.santaism,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc,poly.club.atheists