HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: e-meter
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:41:41 GMT

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


>[text deleted]

>>> That's why *all* ohmmeters and multimeters (not just Scientology
>>> E-Meters) have a scalar readout.
>>> -- 
>>> Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

>I respond: Yes ohmmeters have scalar readouts, but electrophysiologic
>monitoring has multiple simultaneous readouts, signal strength for
>radio transmission is measured in three dimensions.  Ohmmeters are not
>the only way to measure things.

>Quotes are From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
>Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

>"I don't understand what you are talking about....
>....It doesn't matter anyway."

>I respond: Please don't take this attitude with me.  I have
>put some careful thought into these ideas.  I wish that you
>would reread them or talk to somebody who some backround in
>the different concepts I have been using to explain my ideas.
>I think you are expressing your dismissal a little hastily.

No offence intended, it is simply that I don't understand.
If you build a U shaped circuit with three resistors
and measure resistance across the tips of the U the resistance 
will be the sum of all three resistances;
not just the resistance of the one resistor at the
bottom (which is the only resistor parallel to
the vector between the tips of the U).

This discussion would be better suited to sci.physics.

.Chris.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle)
Subject: Re: Shannon-Weaver Comm Model
Organization: New Mexico Tech
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:29:46 GMT

	Actually,  I would doubt very much that intention is deliberately
needed for communications to take place.  For instance,  suppose I am
playing poker and I have a royal flush or four diamonds or some kind of
really good hand.  Now,  I don't want anyone to find out that I am very
excited and happy about this,  so I have a definite intention not to
communicate.  Of course,  the other players are looking for nonverbal
cues about my emotional state and I might end up communicating my
emotional state even if I don't want to.

	Although attention can be very good for communications,  there is
quite a bit of evidence showing that people can assimilate information
without concious attention.  For instance,  a person's actions can be
changed by giving signs of approval (a nod),  and disapproval (a grunt) -
and the subject will not be aware that there was any pattern to the
approval or that his actions had changed in a particular way.  (For instance,
a subject might be asked to say random words,  and approval might be
expressed every time he says a verb and disapproval every time he says
anything else).


-- 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: No definition for 'verbal tech'
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:32:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Chris Schafmeister (schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca) wrote:
: There was no mention of the term 'verbal tech' in
: the dictionary or any of the other books.

It may be in the other ("Admin") dictionary, which is entitled
_Modern Management Technology [sic] Defined_.

: Oh, now if anybody has questions about scientology terms just post
: a message with heading 'CHRIS: Definition of xxxxxxxxxx'
: If I have time I will post the definition and my interpretation
: of what it means.

Same here.  I have *both* dictionaries!!

: I am now 'ON SOURCE'!

My sympathies.

: .Chris.

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Scientology makes you stupid.
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<GISLE.92Dec16161900@gyda.ifi.uio.no>
	<1992Dec17.023948.4656@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:23:57 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Dec17.023948.4656@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> In article <GISLE.92Dec16161900@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

>> All this is starting to make me think that Scientology is based upon
>> more sophisticated mind control techniques than I thought.

> Damn!  Found us out... :-)
> Conspiracy theory anyone?

John, I guess you still haven't got around to reading the sci.skeptic
FAQ, where there is a good explanation what a conspiracy theory is?

Don't worry. I'll summarize: A conspiracy theory is a belief that
there exists some incredible powerful and cunning organization that is
conspiring to take over the world.

And that is _not_ what my theory is about.

First, I should state that my theory is not idle speculation.  It is
founded upon a long term observation of seveal Scientologists in this
Newsgroup (well -- one shouldn't generalize so let me say that my
theory is based upon observation of David Bonnell, Bill Hardman, and
John Holifield).  And the theory is as follows:

   Active participation in Scientology makes you stupid.

It should be clear -- even to you -- that whatever this theory is, it
is _not_ a conspiracy theory.  A organization based upon stupidity
cannot be powerful and cunning.

So, having observed that these Scientologists are stupid, the obvious
question is of course: "_Why_ are these Scientologists so stupid?"
The obvious solution (that stupid people are attracted to Scientology)
had to be rejected.  The high cost of participating in Scientology
would be prohibitive to most naturally stupid people.  So the logical
conclusion is that the stupidity we can observe in Scientologists
is an aquired trait.  How did they aquire it?  Well, I cannot see any
other explanation than this: It is the _practices_ of Scientology that
turn the minds of these people into mush.

And it is in that context you should read my theory on LRH's quirky
writing style and his obsession strange words, non-standard usage,
footnotes and dictionaries.  I'm beginning to think it works as a mind
control technique, distrupting the ablity to think clearly and
logically for those who take it seriously.

So John, this is not a conspiracy theory, but a honest attempt to give
a plausible explanation of why some Scientologists are so incredibly
stupid.

This is true. :-)
--
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
------------------------------------------------
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: AABST5 Revealed!
Keywords: finger, hiding, exposure, fear
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:17:43 GMT

In article <1gjeanINNa7l@mirror.digex.com> chipg@access.digex.com
(Chip Gallo) writes: 
>Since the challenge was so clearly made, I too looked up the public
>info on AABST5@VMS.CIS.PITT. The posts were so vitriolic and biased,

Vitriolic?  I must've missed all the personal attacks - could you
repost them for us?  Thanks.

>the two misquotes attributed to me by this person were so
>transparent ... People who write in any public forum are accountable
>for what they say about others. 

Again, I must've missed these - repost?

>I apologize to Margaret Singer for incorrectly referencing her as the
>possible source for AABST5's posts. The person's actual info, as gotten
>by the "finger" command with the address AABST5@BLUE.CIS.PITT.EDU is
>as follows:
[annette's finger info deleted - go get it yourself, you lazy
Scientologist! :-)]

Why did it take you people so long to figure out how to do this?

>Now we can refer to Annette by her Real Name.

Now if you could only do the same for me (don't bother).

	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.
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Verbal Tech
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:40:32 GMT

I am Chris De Voir.  I am responsible originating the discussion on  
vectors and E-Meters.  There is also a Chris Schafmeister who has been
responding to my letters.  Could anybody clarify which Chris you are
referring to when in the above posts?

How does what I am saying about E-Meters differ from what any of
the Scientologists say about Scientology?  I have seen extremely
few references made by them to actual page numbers in texts.  By
their demonstration I assumed this was acceptable practice in this
group.

I noticed no direct responses to my assertions about the E-Meter
from the Scientologists.  No Scientologist said, " Look buddy, what it
says here in the Tech Dictionary, or this Hubbard Communications
Bulletin or the E-Meter Drills Handbook on page X is this...."
No.  Just clamp me down by labelling my posts as verbal tech.

In Scn verbal tech is a High Crime.  The consequence of labelling
me as giving verbal tech can be heavy.  I believe that if I continue to
discuss my ideas openly, I can even be listed as an SP (a Suppressive
Person is not entitled to the regard due to a Scientologist or even a
regular human being).  A zealotous Scientologist can do anything to an
SP to help the Scientologist get out of a lower ethics condition.  You
know "strike a blow for Scientology".  By the way a regular human being
is derogatorily referred to as a "WOG" in Scientology.  The word Wog was
used by white people in the colonial East to refer derogatorily to their
little brown brothers.  The Scientologists who are smiling in your face
trying to build ARC with you are also calling you WOGs behind your back.

I am not a Scientologist.  I am a citizen of
the United States of America.  I am entitled to the practice of free
speech and religion.  I choose to speak what I want here and I choose
to NOT practice Scientology.  So your mind numbing tunnel visioned
verbal tech rule DOES NOT APPLY TO ME.
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: e-meter
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:59:57 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bz7zM9.FHI.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
> In article <6559@pdxgate.UUCP> sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir) writes:
>>"The net resistance between your hands will be a complicated
>>sum of resistances throughout your body 
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>they can be broken down into vector components
> 
> Not easily. The skin is a 3-D surface, not a line. The muscles underneath
> are even more complicated. Resistance is a bulk property, and the
> body is highly structured.
> 
>>even numerous
>>complexly related smaller vectors have vector sum or "mean vector".
> 
> Very numerous, but yes.
> 
>>This mean vector can be broken down into the three component vectors
>>and only the vector parallel to the leads will cause a positive or
>>negative component.
> 
> Yes, but uninteresting, because the non-parallel components have
> exactly zero strength. Resistance is considered to be scalar, because
> (assuming no other electrical activity in the room) the vector is
> just from one lead to the other, and all the current just goes from
> one lead to the other. 
> 
> That's why *all* ohmmeters and multimeters (not just Scientology
> E-Meters) have a scalar readout.
> -- 
> Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science


  Duh....
 
  What was that?   (And you think Scientologists are bad about using
jargon....)  :-)

-John Holifield

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Is Scientology a CULT?  You decide.  It's YOUR life, afterall.
Date: 13 Dec 92 14:13:19 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Dec13.025655.28025@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>, rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
> In article <1992Dec12.114301.4555@memstvx1.memst.edu>
> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: 
> [...]
>>  Correct that Ron broke his back passing through the wall of fire
>>on OTIII.  Incorrect that this concerns Xemu.
> 
> John - you've seen the OTIII material, and can categorically state
> this?  I'm not asking you to reveal what _is_ there, as it is
> confidential and I'd hate to see you get punished.  But please tell us
> Xe[mn]u is _not_ there.
>

   I haven't seen it so I can't PROVE its not there.  BUT the Xemu story
as I've heard it from LA Slimes, GRIME magazine, and other books is
a load of crap.  There is PLENTY out of these storys that is against
known teachings of the church, so I'm left with no other conclusion but
to dismiss it as NOT church doctrine.
 
>>  What is incident 2?
> 
> Incident 2, as I understand it, is where Xe[mn]u blew up the
> volcanoes.  Oh, a thought - why _does_ Scn use volcanoes in the ads?
> My reading indicates it's because Ron said the image would have a
> subconscious effect on people, forcing them to buy it without even
> knowing why.  Apparently this is an aftereffect of Incident 2.
>

   I doubt it.  Dianetics has been using a volcanoe since the early fifties.
The wall of fire, which is where the Xemu story supposedly comes from,
wasn't researched and discovered untill 1967.
 
> Another thought - what is a Loyal Officer?  My reading indicates it is
> a person who (among other things, perhaps) opposed Xe[mn]u, or rather
> the reincarnation of such.  Sorta like Shirley McClaine saying she was
> someone famous, you could say 'I was a Loyal Officer'.
> 

   I can't really say.  The term doesn't appear in any of the Scientology
or Dianetics dictionarys.  Not even in the glossarys of tapes that talk
about "whole track" and past civilizations.

-John Holifield
From: axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Ending scientology
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:09:41 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.56.5.23

In article <1992Dec11.160909.11230@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:


>historically.  Think of the Christians burning the library of Alexandria,
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>or all of the hate between different factions of muslims.

Gee, history must be a little different in your world. The Library of 
Alexandria was burnt by the moslims, not the christians. Likewise for 
further reference, Jesus was betrayed by Judas not all Jews. John F Kennedy 
was shot, not knifed.

Ashraf 

**********************************************************************
"Jesus woman! I dont give a f___!" Rhett Butler (slighty paraphrased)

Ashraf Ghebranious                           axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
                                      Australian National University
**********************************************************************
From: chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Verbal Tech
Date: 20 Dec 1992 19:08:13 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Expires: 15 Jan 93
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Summary: Specific terms are necessary

In article <1992Dec18.084246.6144@beaver.cs.washington.edu> tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang) writes:

>The correct thing to is NOT TO USE SCIENTOLOGY DEFINITIONS AT ALL.
>Surely your years of Scientology haven't "cleared your mind" (this is
>the GENERAL definition of 'clear' here) of the normal definitions of
>words?
>
>By using Scientology's definitions for words that have DIFFERENT, NORMAL
>meanings (whether in general English usage, or in the widely-understood
>nomenclature of mathematics and the sciences), John Hollifeld and other
>Scientologists *cause* the misunderstandings that are probably half the
>flamage in the newsgroup.
>

Much of the initial study in a subject, be it Scientology or physics
or any discipline, is spent becoming familiar with the terminology.
For example, I bought several books on TCP/IP in order to learn that
subject; looking up the specific definitions of words in the glossaries
is critical to understanding the material. 

A beginning dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology can be bought for
less than $10. You can probably find a used copy of the larger Technical
Dictionary for not much more. The current paperback edition of DIANETICS
has definitions at the bottom of each page. So finding the definitions
isn't a major obstacle for actual students, i.e., people who read and
ask questions here in order to learn about Dianetics or Scientology.

I agree that it isn't a good habit to use complex terminology (in any
subject) in a forum where many readers are new to the subject. Out of
several hundred Scn terms that are specific to the subject, less than
a dozen have appeared in articles that I have read here.

>-- 
>Donald Tsang                    "Ho!  Haha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!
>tsang@june.cs.washington.edu     Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"

Have a happy and enjoyable holiday season!

<Chip>



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Roland's disconnection from this group!
Reply-To: raz@sleeper.apana.org.au
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:02:49 GMT

Oh no, disaster has struck! An end of year account purge is 
occuring on Friday, and my account will dissapear. The earliest that I
can hope to have it reinstated in late January!

(The sysadmin is taking a week's holiday, then the place shuts down
for two weeks, then it may be another 2 weeks work to get the system
working again. (The /usr/spool/mail filesystem died yesterday so we
have no mail, /users is looking flaky...))

A partial solution has come up, a friend's BBS on which I've had an
account for a couple of years has just joined Usenet via a UUCP link.
Thus netmail and news are possible, if slow. (48 hours minimum reply to
E-Mail) Naturally a.r.s. (and both of the other groups I regularly
read) are not yet carried there, but perhaps Real Soon Now. Further, 
I am likely to have a mail alias set up so that my old address
(raz@socs.uts.edu.au) will forward all mail to raz@sleeper.apana.org.au
(my new home), maybe, perhaps, if the phase of the moon is right :-)

Given how slow news is to reach me, I am unlikely to see followups. 
E-Mail replies may or may not reach me somewhere or other. 

For the time being, farewell!

Bye for some considerable time.
                                - Raz.

raz@sleeper.apana.org.au  (Roland Turner)  (OH) 61 2 319 5700
--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Is Scientology a CULT? You decide. It's YOUR life, afterall.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:12:35 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.56.5.23

>>>  Michael Rokos, the
>>>former president of CAN accepted probabtion before conviction for 
>>>soliciting lewdness from an undercover police officer and resisting
>>>arrest.  Rokos told the undercover officer, "I want you to tie me up,
>>>put clothespins on my nipples, and make me suck your dick"  Clearly,
>>>these are not exactly objective sources to report on the religious
>>>beliefs of anyone.

The above excerpt is from a posting from John Hollifield. I must have missed 
it before. He later went on to say that CAN deals with criminals therefore 
is an uncredible source. 

Surely the same argument could be used against Scientologists!!!

Also, I dont know much about criminal law, but he says that Mister Rokos was 
not convicted, therefore can not be a criminal can he? Then he points out 
what the officier said! Surely this is what is alleged to have been said. If 
the man was not convicted, it was not proven that he said this!

On top of all this, instead of argueing against the allegations made by Mr 
Behar, the churches attacks the CAN group. This does not destroy the 
original point raised by Mr Behar, nor does it dampen the information he 
published. Why do Scientologists try to defame the arguer instead of the 
argument?

Ashraf
**********************************************************************
"Jesus woman! I dont give a f___!" Rhett Butler (slighty paraphrased)

Ashraf Ghebranious                           axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
                                      Australian National University
**********************************************************************
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, the AMA/FDA connection, and more...
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:47:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec15.182618.12058@u.washington.edu>, mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

> But perhaps this is on the wrong newsgroup?  Maybe talk.politics.misc?

No, you have the correct newsgroup!  Think about WHY Scientology wants a
national sales tax and the aboloshment of the IRS.  Being a religion, they
would be exempt from sales tax because, after all, they are "selling" anything.
They are accepting "donations" during a religious service.

Scientology doesn't care what a national sales tax might do to/for the economy.
They just want the IRS off their back.
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Baa Baa Black Sheep
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:21:52 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <661@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:

> In article <1992Dec12.104418.4550@memstvx1.memst.edu>, 
   isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>> Okay, so if those of us who are in Scientology are being willingly
>> fleeced.  Will someone PLEASE reveal who is doing the fleecing?  Sounds
>> like conspiracy theory to me :-)
> 
> You are doing the fleecing and being fleeced at the same time.  You fleece
> your "customers" with fradulent counseling.   The people who get the "cut"
> from your donations are the winners.  Check out the "boat" in the TIME
> article.  Ask yourself who get's to use it and the other "benefits" of
> Scientology.  There's your "winners".   What does that make you?
> 

   I don't know if you just dodged that question, or if you didn't understand
it.  Allow me to rephrase it:

   Who is getting the "cut" from the donations?

   BTW, the "boat" is the Freewinds.  Its a Sea Org ship, and anyone can
use it.  Its not a pleasure craft for upper Scientology management, no
matter what TIME magazine says.

   Scientology doesn't fleece its "customers" with fraudulent counseling.
Its a religious practice, and is never represented as anything other than
that.  This might not be acceptable to you, but it is true.

   I think thats kind of disgusting they way you pronounce a religion
to be fradulent.  I've been in the CoS for about four years, and I've
seen it up close and in person.  I feel I'm in a much better position
to judge Scientology than you are.  I can't help it if you disagree with
my church's intention to help other people.  And it does Help people.
But you should find something more socially valuable to do than denouncing
a religion as a fraud.

   Maybe some Scientologists have behaved badly in the past.  I know I
certainly have.  Perhaps you should take a look at what you have done to
provoke us.  I'm sure you'll see that in back of it all, your not lilly
white yourself.

John Holifield