HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Two questions...
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:29:25 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <Bvvnx1.2Kq@cup.hp.com> decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
>: Actually, I think it has something to do with the digitizing process used to
>: restore some of the older LRH lectures from the 50's and 60's.  At a 
>: briefing I was at, they [people who use Clearsound in Scn] demonstrated
>: a before Clearsound (muffled) and an after (very clear).
>
>That would explain why it was used in that new movie.  Very interesting.
>
>The soundtrack must actually be derived from muffled LRH lectures from
>the 50's and 60's.

The digitizing/remastering system could be used with any recorded material.
All I meant was that is how it is most often used within Scn.

(My mistake, no problem.)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Hatch Amendment
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:23:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.075244.7920@tc.cornell.edu> homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:

	I guess the forces of evil are closing in, soon Niacin
   will be unavailable and the Church's pet program, the Purification
   Rundown will have to use placebos instead.

The Purification Rundown *is* a placebo.

				NHA FAX UPDATE

[NHA drivel eliminated].

Didn't you forget to mention that the NHA is just a big alliance of
manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and retailers interested in
protecting their profits?  You almost make it sound like they are
interested in protecting the public.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Dianetics books.
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:29:31 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <GISLE.92Oct7105645@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.043438.29900@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>> This is a Scientology newsgroup.  As such lists of Scientology books are
>> relevant.  As relevant if not more than Lindsay's anti-Scientology book
>> list.
>
>[...] But verbatim parroting of the publisher's sales hype is at odds with
>the non-commercial nature of Usenet.

Besides Gisle's excellent point, there's something more subtle going on.  I'm
interested in the point of views of *individuals* in this group. I'm
interested in how Scientologists think as individuals -- how they respond and
discuss the questions that are raised here.

If I want to get marketing hype about Scientology, I know where to look.
There's always a B. Dalton's somewhere nearby. I'm looking for a different
quality of communications in USENET News.

>- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Creed.
Organization: ScotSoft Research
	<1992Sep26.131245.3402@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:18:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.131245.3402@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

   Also, I think there is no doubt among the readers of this newsgroup that
   Scientology auditing is effective.  The disagreement seems to be wether
   or not it is as effective or not compared to other forms of treatment.
   People have been cured.  Cured by auditing.

I believe there *is* doubt about whether auditing is effective. I
doubt it is effective, I would like to find out whether it is
effective or not. If it makes you feel any better, I have similar
doubts about many of the treatments of clinical psychology.

   Many of these drugs are dangerous.  I think everyone has already heard
   about the dangers of Prozac, but what you probably didn't hear is that
   Eli Lilly, Prozacs manufacturer plead guilty to several counts of 
   withholding evidence from the FDA.  Drug Companys spend millions on
   marketing to position themselves as responsible and ethical and to keep
   things like that hushed up.

Most people have hopefully heard about the dangers AND benefits of
Prozac. I notice you mention the Lilly case, but I guess you forgot to
mention that this case WASN'T about prozac.  I've been keeping a sort
of casual score sheet on legal battles that do Involve Prozac. As of a
couple of months ago out of 11 civil suits against prozac, Lilly won
all of them. There were 26 criminal cases where defendents used the
'Prozac defense' of "Prozac made me do it".  In every case that has
gone to a jury, the person charged with a crime has gone to jail. That
gives the Lilly/prozac team 37 wins, and the opposition 0.  I'm sure
you'll be including this information in your future postings on
Prozac.

   The most expensive service in Scientology (the L Rundowns) cost somewhat
   less than $1000 per hour the last time a saw the price.  By comparison
   Electro-Convulsive Therapy cost $8000 per hour.  

$8000 per hour? Whoa there, John - where did you read that?  Not even
the "totally disconnected from scientology" Citizens Commission on Human
Rights says that. Are you saying the CCHR pamphlet on ECT is wrong?

[Holifield continues with the standard ECT rant].

While you were away, we had an extensive discussion about ECT. At the
end, even the scientologists that were participating withdrew the
inaccurate statements I see you have also made above.  If you like, I
can send you the relevant articles.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,tor.general,ut.general
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Scientologists in Toronto?
Followup-To: Poster
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:40:12 GMT

I'm looking for information about the Church of Scientology conviction
in Toronto, Canada for breach of trust for planting spies in the
offices of the Ontario Provincial Police and Attorney General's Office
and stealing documents from the same.  The conviction was sometime in
June or July, 1992.

Anybody know any details?

Thanks,
sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Introduction.
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:04:52 GMT

>>>I like Scientology.  I've benefited from Scientology.  I believe that
>>>(1) Scientology as a science and religion is beneficial [...]

>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.

Not to argue the point (having been well argued here before), but I'm
curious as to "today's definition" of science.  What is it?

>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'

VWD.

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

No problem.
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Dianetics books.
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:34:38 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <Bvovtv.J07@cup.hp.com> decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
>J Barbera (jerry@lds-az.loral.com) wrote:
>    [hype copied wholesale without permission from the appendix
>    of a copyrighted work owned by L. Ron Hubbard Library, and
>    without any credit or reference as to its Source]
>
>I object to the commercial use of Usenet.  Please stop posting advertising
>for Bridge Publications.

This is a Scientology newsgroup.  As such lists of Scientology books are
relevant.  As relevant if not more than Lindsay's anti-Scientology book list.
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:13:14 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>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?"

Very Scientology of you to think that I'm suppressive. Actually, I'm
reactive. Usenet carries a lot of misinformation, and I have chosen
to resist that. 

>     Also, if you know anything about the subject at all, you will see
>that the skeptics and critics don't know even the most basic principles
>of the science of Scientology.  Every time they refer to a Scientologist
>"sending his thetan" into the next room, I have to laugh.

Then explain it to us. However, you could begin by explaining how, if
Hubbard could visit the Van Allen Belt, he couldn't choose to visit
the next room. You could then move on to explaining why, some months
ago, a believer posted, saying that when he exteriorizes, he
sometimes goes and checks for mail in his mailbox. He was pulling my
leg? Why did all the other Scientologists who were posting, not
correct me (or him) at that time?

I don't recall if he used the word "send", but then, I don't use the
word, either.  The proposed experiment involves *perceiving* or
*learning* - by whatever means.

>The idea that you
>might do this, is very disturbing to the slave makers.

Calling people "slave makers" mostly leaves the impression that your
grip on reality is pretty weak. Shouldn't you leave an organization
that is encouraging you to sound insane?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:56:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.115915.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>4. Scientology will be gone in a few years anyway and everyone has a legal 

I've heard a lot of strange things on this newsgroup ... but that is most
certainly one of the strangest.  Scientology will outlive you.
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Summary: A Question for John.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:58:44 GMT

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
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Two questions...
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:00:29 GMT

In article <GISLE.92Oct7104501@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.194617.27978@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>
>>   Actually,  I was reading an article in People magazine (OK,  I
>>  admit it!) about Tom Cruise's latest movie Far and Away,  and it said
>>  that both Tom Cruise and his wife are members of the COS and that they
>>  insisted that the movie be recorded on some special sound gear that
>>  was designed or provided by the COS.  Is this called "clearsound"?
>
>Yes.

	If that is the case,  is there anything special about it?  Or,
anything that they claim is special.

>Btw, the film is a turkey.  Stupid, sentimental and at the bottom of
>the barrel as far as acting, directing and storyline is concerned.
>The sound quality is good, but _not_ (to me at least) noticable better
>than any competent Hollywood production.  Strangely, the technical
>quality of the _photography_ is excellent -- above average.

	Actually I thought it was an O.K. movie;  I think that the critics
were a little too harsh.  I didn't notice anything at all unusual about the
sound,  and I probably would notice since I do a little amateur sound
engineering myself.



-- 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rimbaud@atlantis.uucp (Tim Hill)
Subject: Scientology/illegal activities
Organization: Atlantis Communications, Edmonton, AB, Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:52:18 GMT

	What I find worrying about Scientology is not the lack of evidence to support its claims - all major religions have large cracks in their supporting evidence - but the illegal activities they take upon themselves in "defence" of their religion.  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.


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Some comments and Narconon?
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:51:02 GMT

In article <Gxt-2-A@engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David
Bonnell) posted a 'Vital News Update' from Narconon International. In
it we read:

	Lord Duncan McNair, a frequent speaker on anti-drug and
   environmental issues in the House of Lords, spoke about the
   formation of Narconon Chilocco and its importance in offering a
   solution to not only the Native Americans but to all people.

Fascinating, I thought. Lord McNair, a frequent speaker on anti-drug
and environmental issues in the House of Lords.  What's the truth?
According to Vachers, Lord Duncan McNair took his seat sometime after
Feb 1990 shortly after his father died (his father was the second
Baron - it's a recent line starting in 1955).

Lord Duncan is not a frequent speaker in the house of Lords - he has
spoken only once. (Everybody check their dictionaries for the
definition of 'frequent'.)

Lord Duncan's one speech was not on health or the environment, it was
on the the closing down of Radio Caroline which he called "An act of
wanton vandalism by the government."

If he *has* spoken on health or the environment (or anything else),
then his words have gone entirely unreported by the Times, Guardian,
Independent, Telegraph, Sunday Times, Observer, FT, Northern Echo,
Today, Sunday Telegraph and Lloyds List (and every Hose of Lords
report published since he took his seat).

What's the story?  Do you guys just make this stuff up, or is this a
grievous error?  If it is an error, is there any reason to believe
that everything else you distribute isn't riddled with the same kind
of mistakes?

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>none none nada
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:14:34 GMT
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine

In article <1992Oct15.125913.22601@lds-az.loral.com>, jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.171428.20917@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.045649.16529@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct13.115915.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>>>>4. Scientology will be gone in a few years anyway and everyone has a legal 
>>>
>>>I've heard a lot of strange things on this newsgroup ... but that is most
>>>certainly one of the strangest.  Scientology will outlive you.
>>
>>Undoubtably it was unintentional, but I *really* wish you had used other
>>words to express your sentiments. Perhaps "Scientology will last forever"
>>would have worked.
>>
>>--phil
> 
> You are right, Phil.  I had intended this statement to refer to his
> current life (i.e. current body).  I'm sorry for making this unclear.
> 
> Corrected statement: "Scientology will outlive your current body."

Isn't it jolly how the faithful have to make sure everyone uses the correct 
buzzwords. My current body,as is my opinion, my only one and mine alone.
Answer me this question though:
		If I could clone myself, who would be using my other body?

David N. Chorley
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Medical Science
Organization: ScotSoft Research
	<1992Sep26.111512.3400@memstvx1.memst.edu> <Bv7ur4.M0K.2@cs.cmu.edu>
	<1992Sep27.151700.15630@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:14:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.151700.15630@tc.cornell.edu> homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:

   Donald Lindsay writes:
   >
   >However, the post you were mis-remembering was also correct.  The fat
   >in your fat cells in fact turns over every two to three weeks; the
   >fat stored in my tissues today is not the same fat that was there
   >last month. There is an active recycling mechanism - not of cells,
   >but of the chemical that those cells store.

	Does this mean that IF drugs residues were stored in the
   fat cells, that they too would be recycled or washed away
   every two or three weeks, or could they stay behind?


Essentially that is what it means - eventually the drugs will be
metabolized and removed from the body. It is possible that fat soluble
drugs can exist in the body longer than the three week fat cycle but
they will eventually be eliminated through the standard metabolic
pathways. That's why people have to keep taking pills if they want the
drugs to continue to work (particularly true for drugs that affect the
central nervous system, which I believe are all fat soluble). Also,
before the drug is eliminated completely, it will be reduced to a
level that is ineffective.

It's interesting to note that megadoses of niacin can *prevent* the
release of fatty acids, both in a resting state and under heavy
exercise (Ref:L. Carlson and L. Oro, Acta Medica Scandinavica, 1962,
172(suppl): 614-645 and D. Jenkins, Lancet, 1965, 1307).

Which makes another strike against Narconon and the Purification
Rundown.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>and more of same
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:14:28 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

From neither side of the debate, just adding an observation:

I have a book on my shelves, Martin Gardner's _Fads and Fallacies in the
Name of Science_, which discusses Scientology among many other things,
and expresses the opinion that it will not last for very long.  The
copyright date is in the 1950's.

Although it is somewhat outdated I do recommend the book.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Narconon secular?
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:18:00 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Oct16.013956.7237@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <Bw6Gp3.G9L@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct15.133010.23634@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>>>Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.  It can be applied to
>>>church activities.  It can be applied to secular activities.
>>>
>>>I know this is too radical of a concept for many, but I hope some of you
>>>will begin to understand...
>>
>>Actually, it appears as if it's Scientology participants that may be lacking
>>in the understanding. John Holifield has abundantly demonstrated that there
>>is a fundamental lack of understanding about why Scientology is not a
>>Science.  There's also a demonstrated lack of understanding of the nature of
>>religion and philosophy (e.g.  "This is true.").
>
>My non-Scn dictionary says:
>
>religion: "2. a specific system of belief or worship, etc. built around God, a
>code of ethics, a philosophy of life, etc."
>
>philosophy: "1. study of the principles underlying conduct, thought, and the
>nature of the universe."
>
>Where was a lack of understanding of these demonstrated?

The mixing of science and religion in John's postings demonstrates a poor
understanding of both.

The "This is true" that John ends his postings with demonstrates a poor
understanding of both science and philosophy. I doubt if John's postings
reflect truth, even for a Scientologist. As your dictionary describes
religion, I believe John is telling us what his beliefs are.

Any other questions?

--phil
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Ignore my previous post.
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:56:23 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

Sorry about duplicating that last post.  It was an accident.

Gotta Go.

-John Holifield
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: scn compensation
Date: 16 Oct 92 08:56:00 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

To: J Barbera
I should have been better at checking the quote.
Sorry about the editing error, I tried to move the text
to word for windows for editing , and then paste it back.
I find editing in vi a real pain, but the "new" method
seems to be worse.

Eric Hill
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Two questions...
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:31:50 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Oct6.194617.27978@nmt.edu>, houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
> In article <BvowrJ.K9y@cup.hp.com> decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
>>> 1. What exactly is 'Clearsound'?
>>
>>It's the amazing new sound technology that's the most astounding
>>completely original discovery made by L. Ron Hubbard since the
>>phonograph!  It apparently has something to do with recording
>>on tape, but the details are of course, based on hundreds of hours
>>of OT auditing research and can't be released...
> 
> 	Actually,  I was reading an article in People magazine (OK,  I
> admit it!) about Tom Cruise's latest movie Far and Away,  and it said
> that both Tom Cruise and his wife are members of the COS and that they
> insisted that the movie be recorded on some special sound gear that
> was designed or provided by the COS.  Is this called "clearsound"?
> Does anybody know anything about it?
> 

  Yes, the movie was recorded in Clearsound.  All Scientology cassettes
are currently recorded using this technology, I don't really know 
exactly how it works but it sounds quieter than DolbyB or C without
dropping of in the highs the way Dolby tends to.

  Sorry that I can't help you more.

John Holifield
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Dianetic experiment to try and use
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:14:18 GMT
Organization: Make a Wish Foundation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Gisle Hannemyr (gisle@ifi.uio.no) wrote:
: In article <Bw4z8A.F0D@cup.hp.com> decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
: > A clarification:  the procedure for a Contact Assist which Leny described
: > is not the same as a Touch Assist, which is a completely different
: > procedure.  Gisle's followup would tend to confuse the two procedures.
: 
: I assume that your point is that the soothing feeling I felt in the
: control experiment could be credited to the "touch assist" procedure,
: instead of the mechanical explanation I offered.

No, my point is that you seemed to be of the impression that
"Contact Assist" == "Touch Assist".  These are not the same.

As far as experimental design, one thing wrong with the experiment is
that the hypothesis is not agreed upon.

The point of a contact assist is to remove the deleterious residual effects
of the injury, not only to stop feeling the pain.  Taking codeine or rubbing
the injury would stop the pain, but a Scientologist (and I) might consider
that these two methods could be suppressing and encapsulating the pain
(which might spring up again later), rather than eliminating it by allowing it
to be fully experienced and thus dissipate.

Dave Decot
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology