From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: A Technology of Contradictions
Summary: The CoS *encourages* people to investigate it? Really???
Keywords: Claims without evidence, verbal tech, squirreling, Conspiracy Theory
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:28:40 GMT
Expires: Mon, 1 Feb 1993 02:24:37 GMT

In article <ISDS11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu> <ISDS11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu>
(John Holifield using the account of "BROWN JUDITH C") writes:
>At first, when I got involved I thought Scn was probably just a good joke
>that LRH played on everyone.  Much of what he wrote made sense and I could
>see how it was true, and how it applied, but a lot of it was just to far-out.
>BTW, I'm still skeptical about a lot in Scientology, but I prefer to
>investigate it for myself and find out if its true for me.  

Really? Could you give some examples of your investigations:

	What stuff in the Church have you investigated?
	What methodologies did you use?
	What conclusions arose from your investigations?

Does the CoS teach that there have been other civilizations in the Universe?
Have you ever intestigated this claim? What conclusions did you come to?

In an earlier message, you said:

>>In other words, are you just a Guy in a Bar -- someone expressing an
>>opinion about the physical universe with no rigirous physical evidence
>>to support your opionion? Why should I respect what you have to say more
>>than, say, Steven Hawking when he talks about cosmology?
>
>No I don't have any rigirous physical evidence, but scientists have no
>rigirous evidence either.

Is your claim that there is no rigirous physical evidence [about the origins
of the Universe] something that the CoS taught you, or something that you
concluded on your own? In either case, what sort of investigation did you
launch to come to this conclusion?

I assert that, WRT your claim of "investigating" Scientology, the
Scientologist Equation again applies:

        Demonstrable Claim + Absence of Evidence = Scientologist

I'll be pleased if you're able to prove me wrong...

>This is what the Church encourages.
 ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

This may qualify as the biggest smoldering pile you've laid on this group yet.
*Absolutely nothing* I've heard of Scientology supports this claim:

1. Look at what Chris had to say in <6622@pdxgate.UUCP>:

>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.

2. The definition of verbal tech, by its nature, actively discourages any sort
   of questioning about Scientology. (And yes, John, I looked up the
   definition in the 1978 edition of _What is Scientology_.)

3. The claim that individuals/organizations have "squirreled" the technology
   of Scientology has never been substantiated. If individuals/organizations
   have indeed stolen intellectual property from the CoS, then there exist
   laws for the CoS to seek remedy.

   Does the CoS copyright its intellectual property? If not, why not?  If the
   CoS finds someone infringing on these copyrights, what does it do? Does it
   sue the individuals or parties that have "stolen" the intellectual
   property? If not, why not? The CoS does have lawyers, right?

   I assert that that this myth of "squirreling" is around for some purpose
   other than protecting the "technology" of Scientology.

   Boys and girls, can we all say: C*O*N*S*P*I*R*A*C*Y T*H*E*O*R*Y*. Very
   good!

From what I've seen in the past few months, I'm tending to agree with Gisle's
theory about Scientology (from <GISLE.92Dec17152357@gyda.ifi.uio.no>:

>   Active participation in Scientology makes you stupid.

...which is based on what we've observed in this group. It's not true; it's
just the best available theory on the data that you've given us so far.

Could you provide us some evidence to dispose of this theory?

Thanks,

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology