HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: AABST5 Revealed!
Date: 19 Dec 1992 03:58:13 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

So Annette, why are you posting to this newsgroup?
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology makes you stupid.
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:03:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

OK.  Today's the day.  Dec 18th.  We were promised a "surprise" by the mighty
Scientologists.

Where did Elvis make his appearance?
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and the Physical Universe
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:29:51 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Dec10.182222.4524@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>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.

Well, we could launch into a discussion of just what the physical evidence
is, but I don't think there's much point in such a discussion. 

I'm just wondering how you came to your conclusion. Are you saying that
cosmologists have no evidence for their theories? Does this extend to other
sciences?

Are you questioning all of science here, or just cosmology?

Could you explain why *other* Scientists don't attack cosmology? Why wouldn't
those Chemists and Physicists, who LRH seems to hold in high regard, would
dispute the physical evidence that cosmologists have presented?

The Universe awaits your answers...

--phil
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Chip's little dance (was E-meters, and CULTS in general)
Date: 13 Dec 92 14:02:13 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1992Dec13.024634.27964@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>, rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
> In article <1992Dec12.113950.4554@memstvx1.memst.edu>
> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes: 
>>In article <1992Dec11.064445.22995@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>,
>>rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes: 
>>> Can someone authoritatively confirm or deny whether the use of jargon
>>> without explaining it when speaking to the public is squirrel
>>> activity?
>>> 
>>   Its not squirrel activity, but it is discouraged. 
> 
> Someone recently mentioned that it was, this is why I ask.  Whoever
> said that, please restate this, and include a source for that fact.
>

   Actually, I can think of several references where Scientology
discourages using jargon when addressing the public.  The only reference
I can think of that might support the argument that its squirrely is
where squirrel activitys are defined as altering Scientology or
engaging in off-beat practices.

   Wether its squirrely or not--It's clearly discouraged and against
policy.  

-John Holifield
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Ending scientology
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:26:02 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>> What kinds of laws or programs could be created
>> that would limit the damage done to society by these
>> cults?
>
>If you're thinking about laws targeted specifically against these
>"cults" freedom to exist and express themselves, my answer would
>be: None whatsoever!

Agreed. Freedom of speech is more important.

It might be nice if religions weren't exempt from (say) the financial
reporting laws that apply to public corporations.  Large
organizations bring in auditors because it's prudent: so I don't see
any great argument that such a law would be burdensome. It's having
the auditor's report public that I'd kinda like. Some Christian
denominations do this already, and it certainly gives a good picture
of what they are and aren't.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: another question
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:40:22 GMT

Okay, another thing that's puzzling me:

I've heard two statements repeatedly from Scientologists:

1.  It's not good to continually criticize someone; it is bad for them,
and usually indicates that you mean them harm.

2.  What is true for you is true.

How are these statements reconciled with the public criticism of
psychology and psychiatry by Scientology?  Surely, if Scientology
precepts are true because they are believed by Scientologists, then
psychiatric precepts are also true, because they are believed by
psychiatrists?

If criticism of Scientology is bad because it turns people away from
Scientology, depresses and upsets practicioners, and is destructive
rather than constructive, isn't criticism of other groups equally bad?

I am confused by the apparent contradiction here.

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:21:18 GMT

mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

>Let me try rephrasing what I think Scientologists are saying the PV=ID^x
>equation means.  Perhaps a third party can add some clarity to this
>discussion.

>PV "potential value"
>I  "intelligence"
>D^x "intensity of survival on dynamic x"

>(Not, as many readers including myself initially assumed, D to the xth
>power, but something more usually expressed as D sub x.)

>There is also apparently another factor which can be positive or
>negative depending on whether the individual is "aberrated" or not.
>Also, this is a proportionality, not an equation; it is meant to 
>suggest a general trend, not give numerical results.

>A paraphrase, then, would be:

>"An individual's potential, whether for good or evil, is proportional to
>the product of his/her intelligence and the efforts which s/he makes
>towards survival, whether of self, kin, organization or species."

>Any Scientologists out there care to rephrase or correct this, if I've
>made a mistake?

>(I will comment that I feel the equation is a very poor way to express
>the above idea, if indeed that is what it is meant to express.  The
>question of 'potential for what?' also remains open.)

>Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu

The scientologists are just as confused about this equation
as the rest of us.
And it is an equation because it relates the quantities
'PV' to 'I' and 'D^x' however they are measured/defined.
If LRH understood anything about mathematics/science
(and he should he was a Sci-Fi writer),
he would have known better than to write an equation 
when he wanted to express a vague concept.

The difference is that scientologists have been trained to appear 
to understand what L Ron Hubbard meant while at the same time
directing the questioner back to the original confusing text 
of L. Ron Hubbard.
They are protected from giving their interpretation
of LRH words by the explicit ban on 'verbal tech'.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to bait anyone, this has been my
            observation within this newsgroup.

.Chris.



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: National Sales Tax, the AMA/FDA connection, and more...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:22:49 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

[establish a 16% sales tax in place of current taxes]

>   Consider what this means to middle income America.  If your family
>makes 100,000 per year, in the US you pay about 30,000 in income tax.
>If there was a sales tax instead, you'd only pay 16,000 if you spent
>all your money.  So you see, you'd pay LESS taxes and the government
>would collect the same amount of revenue. 

>This is true,
>John Holifield

I don't see how you can reconcile the two statements:

1.  People would pay less taxes;
2.  The government would collect the same amount of revenue.

These seem logically incompatible to me.  Where is the government
revenue coming from, if people are paying less?

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: FAQ for alt.religion.scientology
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:00:37 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Dec10.203840.3988@u.washington.edu> mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:
>The claim that est imitated some parts of Scientology is also made by Jon
>Atack in _A Piece of Blue Sky_, though without documentation.  I personally
>have no trouble believing that other groups have imitated parts of the COS
>operations, as it has been financially quite successful.

I have no trouble that there are many ideas that look similar to each other.

The issue with Scientology is that making a claim like this with no substance
is not particularly meaningful. It's basiclly whining.

If they have a claim, they should pursue it through appropriate legal channels.

>I think a section on "how much does it cost" would be very appropriate.

The observant reader will note that I created most of the FAQ from News
traffic through the last 2 months. If you wish to provide the question and the
"answer" to a question on this (or any other subject), I'll be happy to do it.

It is interesting that the Scientologists have categorically ignored the
FAQ. Should we make a note of this in the FAQ?

>Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu

--phil
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Read this before getting involved in Scientology
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:00:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <GISLE.92Dec14114220@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> Well, John should of course answer this himself, but in case he
> doesn't:  SO members sign a contact promising "a billion years"
> of loyal service.  

Loyalty oaths.  What religions need them.  Four letter ones:

C	U	L	T
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Is Scientology a CULT?  You decide.  It's YOUR life, afterall.
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:56:55 GMT

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.

>  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.

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'.

	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: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: THIS IS TRUE
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:53:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec13.235957.4587@memstvx1.memst.edu>, isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>   Duh....

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

Jesus!  LRH! (Take the expletive of your choice)

Scientology must have NOTHING to do with SCIENCE if his posting was full
of "Jargon".

Scientology may be full of vocabulary, but this is to keep the PC from
becoming upstat about the true nature of LRH's WOF and BB.
From: axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: I Have *No* Integrity!
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:58:08 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.56.5.23

In article <1992Dec7.181525.4438@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <Byv2x4.I19@csn.org>, pae@teal.csn.org 
>    (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec6.160658.4415@memstvx1.memst.edu> 
>         isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>>>The Church doesn't have to proove anything to you.  Any research LRH did was
>>>his own research, and you have no "right" at all to see it.
>> 
>> LRH can do his own research. He can come to his own conclusions. 
>> However, when he says in a book:
>> 
>> LRH>No other subjects on Earth except physics and chemistry have had such
>> LRH>grueling testing.
>> 
>> Then the CoS is "making public" this claim. Jonathon's actions were consistent
>> with this: he put it in a "FAQ" for this newsgroup.
>>
>
>    LRH says that in Scientology books.  These books are considered to be
>the "Holy Scriptures" of the Scientology religion (in a sense).  The CoS
>has no more obligation to prove this than Christian Churches have to prove
>ideas such as virgin birth.
>
WRONG PAL!!!! The basis of your religion is on verifiable proof. The basis 
of Christianity is faith. You can not prove faith. On the other hand it is 
claimed by you and your church and LRH that he has proof for what he 
believes. OKAY. Show us. Gee... I hope you were not naive enough to join
this group of yours on the faith that proof existed?


Ashraf 

This is a hell of lot more truthful than anything you have ever said on this 
net




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

Ashraf Ghebranious                           axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
                                      Australian National University
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.kibology,alt.slack,alt.alien.visitors
From: dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com (DWT)
Subject: Re: DECEMBER 18,1992
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:50:13 GMT
Organization: Contributor Account at ddsw1, Chicago, Illinois  60657

kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) wrote in <ByxI4o.4Lq@world.std.com>:

| [from alt.religion.scientology]
| In article <SaN=ws+@engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell)
| writes:
| >A suprise is coming on Dec 18, 1992.
| 
| Big fat hairy deal.  With Kibology, every day is a surprise.  Every day
| is equally different in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY!  Enjoy Kibology, and you
| won't believe how low you level of disbelief can be.

Is there some connection between Bonnell's "suprise" and Parry's "you level"?
Kibo drops the R at the end of a syllable because he's from Boston, but how
did Bonnell get into that habit in Ann Ahba -- er, Ann Arbor?

David W. Tamkin   Box 59297   Northtown Station, Illinois  60659-0297
dattier@ddsw1.mcs.com    CompuServe: 73720,1570    MCI Mail: 426-1818
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Rehabilitation
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:31:57 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <schafmei.724372130@sfu.ca> schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:
>erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill) writes:
>>If you decline to go, do so in a public place or step out into
>>public within seconds of doing so.  s.o. buildings come with
>>security guards who are also s.o. and do what they are ordered
>
>This hints of something very sinister.
>It sounds like you are suggesting that scientology might
>hold people against their will.
>Is there any evidence of this?
>Has anyone you know ever had trouble like this?
>
>.Chris.
>

I have known individuals in the s.o. who would do this.  Usualy
they try to talk one into doing what they want.  Reported 
examples can be found in the books by ex-scientologists.  I believe
those by Russell Miller, Jon Atack, and Bent Corydon contain
examples.  Paulette Cooper's book tells of a threat to one
of her family members with a gun.  I find these accounts to
be believable in light of my experience with the s.o. and
ethics officers (scn political officers).


Earlier another posted refering to an individual who had 
gone to narconon (scn drug rehab) who felt he was held 
against his will and had a search party hunt him when he
did excape.

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: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: XEMU Revisited
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:17:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu wrote:

:    Also, if the Xemu story WERE true, I'm sure RTC would have a 
: copyright on it and you would never see it reprinted.

People have reprinted excerpts of copyrighted material when, for
instance, reviewing it.

:    No, they did flood the records office with requests, but what you
: have read as a report is FALSE.  Its not a church teaching.  Anyone
: who knows basic Scientology theory will notice several things about
: the Xemu story that contradict the basic points of Scientology.

OK, I know basic Scientology theory.  Please list at least 3 points
of theory along with things about the Xemu story that contradict them.

Dave Decot
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Read this before getting involved in Scientology
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:21:19 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

[Re: Eric Hill]

>   I'm glad you quit the SO.  I'm surprised they didn't kick you out.
>Also, your violation of a sworn contract to the SO that you signed
>of your own free will makes you a coward and liar.  The SO doesn't

Given that you are discussing this in public, would you care to fill
us in: What was the nature of hi contractual violation?

>need panty-waist like you.  You make me sick.

!! Having a rough day? :-) Please define "panty-waist".

>This is true.
>-John Holifield

Ahem, does this mean that panty-waist is a church sanctioned term? :-)

--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: I Have *No* Integrity!
Reply-To: raz@sleeper.apana.org.au
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 15 Dec 92 22:50:49 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <Byv2x4.I19@csn.org>, pae@teal.csn.org 
>    (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>> In article <1992Dec6.160658.4415@memstvx1.memst.edu> 
>         isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>>>The Church doesn't have to proove anything to you.  Any research LRH did was
>>>his own research, and you have no "right" at all to see it.
>> 
>> LRH can do his own research. He can come to his own conclusions. 
>> However, when he says in a book:
>> 
>> LRH>No other subjects on Earth except physics and chemistry have had such
>> LRH>grueling testing.
>> 
>> Then the CoS is "making public" this claim. Jonathon's actions were consistent
>> with this: he put it in a "FAQ" for this newsgroup.
>>

>    LRH says that in Scientology books.  These books are considered to be
>the "Holy Scriptures" of the Scientology religion (in a sense).  The CoS
>has no more obligation to prove this than Christian Churches have to prove
>ideas such as virgin birth.

John, I (and perhaps other readers) have now forgotten what the above 
quote refers to. Whatever it was, the comparison to Science and 
Chemistry implies that he was talking about a well tested concept(s)
that are provable. That is the apparent implication of this comparison.

Even if they have been labelled Holy Scripture, whether for legal or
other reasons, they CLAIM to be provable in a Scientific sense. 
Christian Churches do not make the same claim about Virgin Birth. 
COS does have an obligation to back its claim of provability because
COS made it! Christian churches have no such obligation because they
make no such claim.

It follows therefore that the COS DOES have more obligation than 
Christian Churches to prove their ideas. (Specifically the ideas that
were the subject of the quoted claim.)


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: e-meter
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:09:58 GMT


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

>In article <Bz7zM9.FHI.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>> 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. 

I respond: This is what I have been saying about resistance.
But not in the case of current or voltage.
If the current had no other meaningful component
than the vector parallel to the two hand leads, how come a 12 lead 
electrocardiogram has 12 unique voltage deflections in three dimensions.
Could you please consult a cardiologist to explain to you what I am
talking about so that you understand it before you casually dismiss it.

>> 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.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology