HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:24:45 GMT

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?

>Why dispute Scn's results and still ask for evidence from *them*?

Because they sue & harrass to death anybody that tries to do what you
suggest. 

	RA

rogue@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: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:55:00 GMT

jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>First, stop calling me Jerry.  If you'd read to the end of my messages,
>you'd know my name was Jonathon.  (The other usual posters know this.)

Yo dude - check your logname. You are most definitely called jerry!

>Second, tens of hundreds of thousands would be millions.
>In the next paragraph you say that the guy you called said "thousands".
>Which is it?

Had you bothered to read the remainder of the article you would note that
he proceeded to multiply this figure by the number of public transport
vehicles in the world. The reasoning's a little shaky I'll admit.

>>No need!  Ron called me just a minute ago and here's what he told me:

>Either you've lost contact with reality or you're lying.  Why should I
>listen to anything you say as your communication is liable to be
>false?

Incorrect. He is incorporating levity into his posts! If you are unable to 
tell the difference, perhaps your local org can find you a humour appreciation
course.


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:47:29 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <BxzAxo.2nE@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>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

Unfortunately, I can not provide this data because I am not tech trained
and can only refer to the books (not the tech references).  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?

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang)
Subject: Re: Definitions.
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 11:56:59 GMT

In article <> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Small Selection of Scientology Definitions
>-----
>Definitions quoted verbatim from the glossaries of several Scientology books
>and other Scientology literature.  (Note: italics ommitted.)
>-----
>Clear: the name of a state achieved through auditing or an individual
>who has achieved this state.  A Clear is a being who no longer has his
>own reactive mind.  [...]
>
>reactive mind: that portion of a person's mind which works on a totally
>stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which
>exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts,
>body and actions.  The reactive mind is where engrams are stored.
>-----

Given these definitions (thanks to Jonathan for this list, BTW), I have
a few questions:

(1) Are instincts part of the "reactive mind"?  If a true "Clear"
    touches a hot stove, does he pull back reactively, or does his
    mind go through a fast deductive process that determines that
    the best course of action is to pull the hand away?

    If the latter, this would be a rather good explaination of why
    high-grade Scientologists may test at a very high IQ level, but yet
    not seem smarter than the average person: wasted brain cycles.

(2) I'm a musician (I play the violin).  I'm pretty sure that I do
    a lot of things under stimulus-response while I'm playing.  In
    fact, much of rote training (fingering notes on a violin, playing
    scales on a piano, typing on a computer keyboard, etc) seem to
    involve no actual 'thought' at all, but rather some keyed response
    to stimulus from the brain.

    I may be mis-parsing the description (perhaps volitional control
    includes brain->brain stimulus), but wouldn't this imply that
    Clears can no longer act this way?  Wouldn't there have to be a lot
    of un-training in order for a "Clear" to function in normal
    society?

(3) Lots of Science Fiction has been written about the elimination of
    hate, fear, envy, greed, etc. also obliterating creativity, love,
    and the rest of the 'positive' emotions too.  "There can be no Good
    without Evil," the authors claim.  If one takes this as somewhat
    close to the truth, how should one rationally treat Scientology, or
    any 'religion' that purports to enhance one's life by 'clearing'
    one's mind (in one way or another)?

I guess the basic thrust of the line of questioning is:
  "Is a reactive mind such a bad thing after all, as long as it's not
  very big/powerful?"


-- 
Donald Tsang                    "Ho!  Haha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!
tsang@june.cs.washington.edu     Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"
..!uw-beaver!june!tsang                       -- Robin Hood Daffy
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:05:34 GMT

pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.090313.2752@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>However, I think humor concerning Scn or its founder objectionable.

>Damn. I've got a Dictionary and Thesaurus here, but no Bartlett's. Does anyone
>have access to one? There's got to be at least one good quote about
>organizations (maybe even religions) that have no tolerance for humor.

How about W.R.Inge (1860-1954) Dean of St Paul's London:
"I have never understood why it should be considered derogatory to the Creator
to suppose that he has a sense of humour."

(Slightly off topic I know, but certainly related. Used without permission from
the Microsoft Bookshelf's rendering of the Concise Columbia Dictionary of 
Quotations.)

--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Gradient
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:12:30 GMT

jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>In article <GISLE.92Nov8161338@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov8.060709.26106@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>
>>excuse yourself from answering by stating that it would be
>>"out-gradient" to continue the discussion.  I guess you can use

>Or maybe I could be honest and say something would be out-gradient when it
>really would be out-gradient?
Why not do both? What's to stop you from telling us that the answer
to the question is (IN YOUR OPINION) out-gradient for "us" or other 
readers, but answer anyway?


>>Thinking about the implications, it struck me that this is really an
>those for you.  But THAT'D be out-gradient for many people reading the
>newsgroup.  So, what should I do?  Confuse people with data without the
>appropriate background data?

Why is it that EVERY time a non-scientologist starts attempting
to analyse something that has been put forward and starts asking
what may be described as searching questions (read: trying to 
understand) you guys (scientologists) respond "that;s out-gradient"
or "go and read book x - it'll explain" or begin constructing a
line of argument and, after arguing it for a week or so claim that 
it is your personal opinion and not neccessarily representative
of scientological veiws, thus relieving any burden oproving or
even backing up your veiws (sp?).

If someone asks a question, it usually means that they haven't
understood a comment, concept or word and are TRYING to understand.
This appears to me to be one of the holy precepts for scientological
and dianetical??) learning!

Instead of answering in one of the above modes, why not give ALL 
information at your disposal in your reply. Maybe some of us will
begin to understand rather than having our obstructionist veiw (sp?)
of scientology reinforced? Further, make certain that you know when
you START discussing something whether you are discussing church 
veiws or your own and if they are in fact your own, clearly mark
them "IMHO".

I'll stop raving now.


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Nov16.185013.19945@stortek.com>
	<1992Nov19.043030.17277@lds-az.loral.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:19:01 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

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.

I don't know of many scientists who would want to waste his time, grant
money or tenure position by spending time and money in trying to verify
the claims of Tractor Beamers, Perpetum Mobile Inventors, Pleiadian
Chaneller's, Flat Earthers, Holocaust Revisionists and the Church of
Scientology.  There are too many bogus claims out there, and too little
time.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't independent investigations of
the some of the claims of Scientologists.  In one such investigation(*)
carried out by the Oklahoma State Board of Mental Health, and
published in the report: 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on
the Narconon Chilocco Application for Certification' (1991), available
from the Oklahoma State Board of Mental Health (excerpts posted to
this newsgroup two months ago by Scott Ballantyne) clearly concludes
that there is absolutely no substance in the many claims put forward
by the Scientology front group Narconon about the safety and
effectiveness of Scientology tech when applied to drug rehabilitation.

So -- we have _one_ independent study that say, in effect, that
Scientology tech doesn't work as claimed.  That's not very much, but
it's exactly one more than you've got to back your claims that it
work.

-----------
(*) I know of others, but haven't got good references, and I know that
    you -- quite justly -- will insist that I give references.  I'll
    post the other's when/if I manage to track down proper citation.
--
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: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Wins, Questions, and Comments
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:26:10 GMT
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>Hi Guys!

Greetings.

>2.  Doing very well in business, and I fully expect to make a quarter
>million in '93!  Scientology Tech almost makes it to easy!

Intriguing. I hope for your sake that you do. May I enquire as to 
the nature of your business?

>Don't you think its interesting that the people who complain the most
>about the cost, are the people who need Scientology the most?  Their 
>havingness is so low!  There is no way they could ever confront the donation
>for Key to Life, so they just insist that it must be a rip-off.  Also,

Indeed. Just how much ($US is fine) is the Key to Life contribution?
Naturally it is those who are endlessly worried about their money that
have least (typically anyway).

>their evil purposes prevent them from being able to confront the idea that
>man might go free!  (Read a HCOPL or HCOB called Jokers and Degraders)

How so?

--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:25:42 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <By4q5v.9Ho.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:

>Scientology does have an interesting contractual clause that no other
>religion (that I know of) has. If a staff member quits, then they owe
>the Church the value of all that "free" auditing.  My understanding
>is that this can come to tens of thousands of dollars.

In the early days of Scn, people were going on staff, getting a lot of
auditing and then quitting.  The contract (usually 2.5 year) is set up
to discourage a person from quitting after getting what they want.
However, (1) if a person leaves after contract expiration, then is no
debt and (2) the debt is only to be paid if the person wants further
auditing or training.  No one has been required to pay this debt against
their own determinism.

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:33:59 GMT

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: 
[a whole lot]
>>>I was like that once.  Ethics got rough and I didn't like it.  However,
>>>since then I've stepped back and viewed the whole and how this ethics
>>>system can keep things going without trouble, etc.
>>
>>I would be very interested in hearing about this, if that's okay.
>
>I've only been assigned a condition once and that was Doubt when I
>had doubts about being on staff at the PHX Org.  So I worked up from
>Doubt.  In the end I decided to stay on staff.  Not because anyone
>forced me to or because I was afraid of what would happen if I didn't,
>I benefited from the Doubt formula and having worked back up from Doubt.

What is involved in being assigned a condition of Doubt?  I gather you
said something like 'I'm not sure I want to be on staff at the PHX
Org.'  What was the response?  How do you act, and how are you
treated,  differently when you are in Doubt than when you are not?

	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: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Validity of E-Meter
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:42:41 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <GISLE.92Nov20184425@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, 
    gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

   [ranting and raving about e-meters deleted]

> But I don't feel very comfortable by the ethics of this (i.e.
> the CoS totally bogus story about what makes the meter "work",
> ant the ridiculous overpricing).

   Fine.  I can accept that you might feel that an e-meter wouldn't be
a wise purchase for you.  I can see how you might think its overpriced.
But you don't have to buy one.  In fact, nobody wants to sell you one.
If you think its overpriced or a bargain depends only on your own 
considerations.  

   Just because you feel that it wouldn't be wise to buy one doesn't mean
that its overpriced or anything else.  People will pay $3000-$4000 for the
meter because they get 3-4Gs worth of utility from one.

> --
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------

-John Holifield
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 24 Nov 92 01:06:22 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

Gisle, does this mean that Free Zone is ran by David Mayo?

(Just curious.)

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:57:10 GMT

ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.043152.25227@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Is this enough information yet?  After you've read these, I recommend
>>getting some free introductory auditing to see what it's like first-hand.


>	I don't know.  That may be a good idea, has any skeptic
>out there tried this?

Yep. To the extent of verifying that talking to someone else about
my problems does indeed help to alleviate them and that repeatedly 
re-experiencing something (oh no - scientology jargon has crept in 
already! re-experiencing means (IMHO) something similar to 
remembering but, damn... I can't qualify the difference - it's
like remembering events plus sensations. Any scientologists care
to tackle this?) painful will rapidly reduce the unpleasantness of the
memory and any inhibitive effects that the event may be having on 
your life. These things I knew already which is what initially 
prompted me to look a little more deeply into Scientology.

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!



--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: It's True For You (LONG)
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:03:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.205441.4107@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>    Last spring I wrote to this newsgroup and said that I had looked into 
>the mailbox before opening it, and had been able to see the contents.
>The anti-scientology camp really loved that, many people posted that I
>must be on drugs, was delusional, was a compulsive liar, etc...
>
>     It seems to me that the majority of the anti-scientology posters here
>have no intention at all of finding out if scn has anything to offer.
>Mostly they only intend to:
>
>A.  Expose Scn as an incredible and dangerous hoax.  
>
>B.  Have some fun taking pot shots at other peoples religious beliefs.

Or C. Question why a religion tries to claim that it's a science, and fails
      to provide any sort or rigor whatsoever to back up the claim.

      John, you yourself said that you'd produce some hard evidence of
      this Scientology Science. So far, you've failed to deliver.

Or D. Wonder why Scientology seems to dwell in Conspiracy Theory.

>     Now, I haven't done any kind of tests that you might call scientific
>or anything.  But, I have been able to experience and percieve space 
>independent of my body on many occasions.  

Can you comment on Gisle's recent posting: that OOB experiences appear to
be real, but that the people who have had OOB experiences can never ever
reliably describe anything that it would have required them to leave their
bodies to observe? Are your OOB experiments consistent with this, or are
you actually able to [verifyably] observe things OOB?

>     I already told you about the mailbox.  Here is another example:  I
>was talking to my girlfriend on the phone one evening while she was studying.
>I went exterior and went in to her house.  I could clearly percieve the
>books and things that she was using to study.  I also knew what page she
>was on, what the words on the page were, etc.  On one occasion, I even
>knew what words she was reading at a particular instance.

Can you verifyably do this? If so, The Amazing Randi has $100,000 waiting
for you. Unless Conspiracy Theory keeps you from coming forward...

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology