HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Tech Bulletins
Date: 22 Nov 1992 01:01:47 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov21.234729.20750@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>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

[deleted: Phil Earnhardts' discussion on why skeptics aren't obligated
          to dash off and conduct research by taking scientology courses.
          His argument has been augmented by the, very apt, Ford dealer-
          ship analogy]
 


>>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

	As would I.  I would love to see the reports!
  
[aside:    Believe it or not, I would be *extremely* happy
if I could exteriorize.  I would be ecstatic!  But, I don't believe
it is possible, I don't see _why_ it should be possible.  No one has
_ever_ given solid proof that it happens.]

>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 you work at a CoS Org!  Can you ask a tech trained 
person to give you the data?  If not,  why not?  
 
>                                                           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.

     But the major changes seem to be aimed at removing references
to the more fantastic sections of the origional books.  ie the Xenu
space opera stuff.  This doesn't seem to require a lot of new research,
other than that done by an advertising company.  In short, the changes
just seem to tame Scn down, just a bit, to make it more palatable
to the masses.

>There have been many tech bulletins revised over the years.  Doesn't
>this at least indicate that something like research was being done?

	Not neccesarily.  Jonathon, have _you_ seen any of this new
research?  Have you seen teams of researchers in labs doing this
research?  Have you seen the technical reports?  Have you seen anything
published in the proper journals?  In fact have you seen anything at 
all resembling evidence of research?

	BTW, could you please post a tech bulletin?  Or part of one?

>Jonathon
>Barbera
-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:23:00 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Nov16.082430.1236@lds-az.loral.com>, 
   jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>>>mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>>I subscribed to this newsgroup with a fairly high opinion of the one
>>Scientologist whom I'd met, and because of her, of her practices.  But
>>the reading I've been doing (in Scientology books only) has been very 
>>distressing.
> 
> The only book you've mentioned which you had doubts about was ISE.
> Believe it or not, there are people out there who became discouraged with
> Scn not because they disliked the tech (most still hold it up in awe and
> use it), but because they didn't fully understand the ethics system.
> 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 Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but Jonathon is right.  Scn
Ethics can seem pretty rough when you are on the receiving end of it.  I
spent almost my first entire year as a Scientologist in and out of ethics.
(grin....)  So, as someone who has been through PLENTY of ethics handling,
I can tell you that it is sometimes uncomfortable.

    It always turns out for the better though.  In fact, some of the biggest
wins I have ever gotten from Scn were ethics handlings.

    If you still have access to a copy of ISE, please re-read a chapter 
called The Purpose of Ethics, or something like that.  It explains that
ethics are only used to get a PC in shape to be audited.  Scn Tech handles 
everything, but sometimes ethics have to be used in order to give the
tech a chance to "bite".

    One other point that I might mention is that Scientology Ethics are
about your survival.  The Scn ethics system isn't a moral code, it is just
a way for you to increase your survival along eight dynamics.

-Much Love,
John Holifield

ps.  everyone is a Scientologist, some just haven't cognited yet!
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: "Scandal of Scientology"
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 02:28:52 GMT

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

>In article <1992Nov12.010128.3342@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>In article <1dqfhfINNhr8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov10.221753.18672@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>>>rjk7m@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Richard John Kwiatkowski) writes:
>>>>   I find it very interesting that the majority of the
>>>>pro-scientology books available have been written by L.Ron Hubbard,
>>>
>>>  More interesting, I think, is the fact that he authoured a lot of the
>>>books _after_ he died!
>>>
>>
>>Nope.  He wrote all of the books before *he* died.  If he's written any since
>>then it'd be big news to everyone (LRH returns).
>>
>>Jonathon
>>Barbera
>>

>(Ignore previous article with typo.)

Interesting. Who wrote the 1986 edition of Dianetics? (sp?)
Are there any words in this book NOT written by LRH? If not then
why is it a new edition (rather than a re-print)? 
If so, who wrote it?


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:40:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.041731.16568@lds-az.loral.com>
jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>In article <1992Nov16.160555.18066@stortek.com>
pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes: 
[...]
>As I stated to Free Radical: anyone can go into a Scn org (Class V org) and
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
I know what my GECOS says...but my .sig gives the preferred
form...we've all started calling you Jonathon...could you extend the
courtesy?  Thanks.  

>get trained as an auditor up to Class V.  Then the person can go to their
>nearest Saint Hill org or Advanced Org and train up to Class VIII.

OK, I'll buy (literally, I guess) that I have to pay through the nose
to get your 'trade secrets' (although the orginal Buddha gave his info
away!)...

>After the person has been trained, he/she can become a field auditor.
>There are currently a lot of field auditors.  They audit people outside of
>churches or missions.  This is okay.  LRH set it up so this can be done.

OK, so I've gone all the way through all the courses, paid for it all,
& now I'm a Field Auditor (tm)...how independant am I?  Do I now get
to use the Tech (tm) in any way I see fit?  Am I answerable in any way
to the Church (tm)?  How much control can the Church (tm) exert over
my actions?

Here's another question to throw at you - what's the difference
between a Field Auditor (tm) and a Squirrel (tm)?

ps - Jonathon...note the .sig

	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: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 10:03:28 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <g6c0TB2w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> 
> > gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> >> In article <ykD5TB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidone
> >>> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
> >>>> on the result.  So again, EXACTLY WHY DOES THIS PARTICULAR RANGE OF
> >>>> VALUES MAKE MORE SENSE THAN ANY OTHER RANGE ONE MAY HAPPEN TO THINK
> >>> OF?
> >>> I'll help you answer this yourself.  What are you trying to
> >>> discover?
> >> Thanks, Bill, I appreciate your help!
> >> I am trying to discover how to apply this equation.
> > You've mis-understood the question.  What are you trying to discover
> > with the equation?
> >> Now, that I have answered your question, can you please answer mine?
> > You haven't answered the question.  Read it slowly this time.
> 
> Sure, Bill (( muttering Bill's revised question slowly to himself,
> thinking: "Perhaps Bill wants me to say that I want to discover my PV
> (potential value), but NO -- that's too stupid -- an equation is
> really just a very compact way of expressing a theory about the
> relationship between measurable quantities, enabling us to veryfy the
> theory experimentally.  Heck -- that one is sure hard."  Flash of
> insight appear above head )).
> 
> You see Bill, I'm not really trying to discover anything _with_ the
> the equation, because at the moment I'm quite convinced that this
> equation doesn't make sense algebraically or physically -- and was in
> fact concocted by a charlatan who wanted his mindless ramblings (yeah,
> I'm talking about "Dianetics -- the Modern Science of Mental Health")
> to appear "scientific" to an audience who also didn't know the first
> thing about algebra and physics.
> 
> So I can't see the point in trying to discover anything _with_ the
> equation until someone, with better training and more understanding
> of these matters (that's you) has managed to explain to me how to
> make sense of this equation in the first place.

Fair enough.  Now could we agree that using an I.Q. test, done with
standard testing practices could be used for the value of "I" in the
equation?

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]

            h      mM    gs
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 19 Nov 92 05:14:12 GMT

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

>There are occasional local policies (Executive Directives, etc.) which
>are issued from time to time by areheads.  However, in the case of
>ED's, they are automatically cancelled after one year.  And these policies
>concern themselves with minor issues such as dress codes, etc.

You're doing it again! What on Earth is an arehead? (Is this a typo?)


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Childs game
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 21:58:10 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

Richards post id#



Richard,
        I will give you until tomorrow to re-edit you post, or be
placed in the systems killfile.

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]

            h      mM    gs
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Nov22.005128.23076@lds-az.loral.com>
	<1992Nov23.042948.3318@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
	<1992Nov23.083434.3377@lds-az.loral.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 11:50:09 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Nov23.083434.3377@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
> Up & up: Phx Org sends 10% of its income up to, I think, FOLO West US.
> This is a management organization that has no other income.  FOLO, in
> turn, sends a small percentage up to another organization.  Etc.
> This money is turned into TV and magazine ads which benefit PHX Org.
> Also, other materials are made available to benefit PHX Org.  Plus,
> the management organizations depend on a fraction of the 10% for
> their organizational expenses.

Whatever percentage of their income the Phx sends up is not very
interesting.

The main income of the CoS is from the sale of ridicilously
overpriced religious artifacts such as the E-meter ($10 in
parts for $3000), courses ($8750 for KtL) and books (most
of them cost more than $30).  Most of the income from these
items doesn't go to the local orgs, but directly to David
Miscavige and his croonies.

--
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
------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Validity of E-Meter
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:44:25 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1ei4ljINN20h@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
> In article <BxzGnr.Lp2@cup.hp.com> decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
>>The Inimitable Raz (raz@socs.uts.edu.au) wrote:

>>> 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!

>> Perhaps the E-meter is a worthwhile addition, since it can be used
>> to help find painful subject matter which would be beneficially discussed.

> Hmmm...  That's odd, the E-meter doesn't _do_ anything, sure,
> it says right here on page vi of "Dianetics:A Handbook of Dianetics(R)
> Procedure":
>
>	   "The Hubbard(R) Electrometer, or E-Meter(TM), is a device
>	    sometimes used in Dianetics technology.  In, itself, the
>	    E-Meter does nothing.  It is not intended or effective for
>	    the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any desease, or
>	    for the improvement of health or any bodily function."
>
> But it _does_ cost ~ $3000.00, go figure!  'nuff said!

The disclaimer is of course a result of some authority (FDA or some
health board?) once upon a time required something resembling a
scientific study documenting the magical properties originally claimed
for the E-meter.  Rather than complying, or telling the truth about
what effect the E-meter actually did -- the CoS quickly backed away
from their claim that the meter was a scientific instrument, and
recast it as a religious artifact.

However -- the E-meter is actually a badly redesigned polygraph (aka.
"lie detector").  Therefore, I can belive that the meter gives
significant readings when the auditor touches painful subject matter.
I think it quite reasonable that it may have some predictable
therapautic effect in skilled hands.

Why can't the CoS tell the truth about what the meter is and how it
works?  My guess is that most patients would object strongly and
prehaps even feel intimidated by their tharapist if they believed that
their therapist attached them to a _lie_detector_ during therapy -- so
all the mumbo-jumbo (i.e. lies) about what an E-meter is and how it
works in the CoS literature may be for the "best" -- i.e. ensuring
that the necessary level of trust exists between the therapist
(auditor) and patient (PC).

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).
--
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: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:56:31 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Nov16.000833.8955@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.043152.25227@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>This is the way that people are: they are skeptical. They are fundamentally
>untrusting, particularly when they feel something is being sold to them. They
>like to either have someone they know and trust tell them about something, or
>consult some independently verifiable source of information.
>
>In all of the discussions here, you are providing neither of these to people.
>You don't give me a warm fuzzy feeling to trust what you say; and you have
>*never ever* quoted an independent source of information about Scientology.
>
[Ford stuff ommitted.]

>
>One more time: from a religion that claims some mastery of what it means "to
>know," it astonishes me that this fundamental principle of humanity is beyond
>your understanding.

This was something I previously tried to stress: don't view me as
representational of Scientologists or Scientology.  (So don't be astonished.)

Second, this concept wasn't beyond my understanding.  However, I prefer
the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to things.

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:46:32 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

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:
>>>Mary Kuhner writes:
>>
>>if it means they may die, and I agree with this law.  There are some
>>decisions you just have to make for yourself.
>
>Again: auditing is optional.  Even staff members (who receive auditing
>free) are not obligated to receive it.

Another lie!  Or you just havent bothered to find out what may 
be done to you or what you are responsible for.  Just look in
the ISE or in OEC volume 0, and read the misdemeanors and crimes.

It does say that a staff member may be ordered to auditing and
punished for refusing.  

Or maybe the CoS is just very selective about its application
of its policy.  Just use it when they want someone to shut up
but ignore it the rest of the time or give it lip service.

>
>As far as stepping back and viewing the whole: anyone could do this
>for any form of organization or group.  Determine how an effort to do
>something can be assisted even when some of the participants start having
>out-ethics problems.  Then compare with the ethics system used within
>Scientology.  Be honest regarding workability and effectiveness.

Regular business practice in the USA is MUCH better than Scn.
>
ethics.  A person can just do the work.  If they bring  problems
to work, or create problems, they recieve warnings.  If they
persist they are fired.  

In Scientology, they may be ordered to auditing, subjected to 
psudo-science/psych or told that they are the effect of
thier past lives/subconsious/a supressive person  (boogyman),
and other unfounded and inappropriate meddling in thier
private lives.

>Jonathon
>Barbera                

Eric Hill

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:47:27 GMT
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO

In article <1992Nov14.051739.15689@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Tell you what. Why don't you tell me the page that will give me the
>>official Scientology policy about other religions. I will go to my
>>local B. Daltons and read *that*. I am willing to read up to 10
>>pages of material.
>>
>
>Re: view of other religions
>
>The Way to Happiness by L. Ron Hubbard -- section 18
>OEC Volume 0, pg 152-153: HCO PL 20 OCT 1961RB, NON-SCIENTOLOGY STAFF
>The Phoenix Lectures by L. Ron Hubbard (the book) -- chapters 1-3
>The Creation of Human Ability by L. Ron Hubbard -- chapter 8 (outline
>   of The Phoenix Lectures 1-3) and chapter 4

Does that come out to 10 pages, Jonathon? Are you sure it's not 15?

Prune it down. 10 pages. That's it. And it has to be something that I
can find at a reasonably-sized bookstore. Otherwise, I won't play.

If LRH can't say it in 10 pages, then it's way too complicated for me to
understand anyhow.

--phil
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:49:42 GMT
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO

In article <1992Nov15.104321.5845@lds-az.loral.com> 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.)

Jonathon, if you have an Id of "Jerry" and your "human" name is listed as "J
Barbara", then you should just expect people to address you as "Jerry." Even
if you consistently signed your messages (which you do not), you cannot
reasonably expect all readers to find that one cue.

I suggest 3 options:

1. Have your "human" name updated to "Jonathon Barbera" rather than "J Barbera"
2. Change your userid from "jerry" to "jonathon"
3. Completely ignore it when people refer to you as Jerry 

If the misunderstanding is something you're willing to put up with, then put
up with it. If you're not willing to put up with it, then change it. But don't
blame other people for it.

>Harmed by Scn?  What kind of harm have these people you know received?
>Be specific.

Oh. So you *do* understand that you should be able to get access to *specific
information* in order for you to make an assessment of the validity of a claim
of harm by Scientology. Does the inverse apply, too?

>>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?

Perhaps he's making an attempt at humor. This is another good thing "to know"
that people do from time to time.

--phil