HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: "Scandal of Scientology"
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:07:16 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <raz.722140132@syzygy> raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz) writes:
>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?

The main text was reprinted.  There may have been changes in the back
where it lists organizations, the glossary, the index, about the author,
and a list of other books.

These were provided by the editors/publishers (Bridge Publications).

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Nov21.233652.20206@lds-az.loral.com>
	<1992Nov23.062014.3810@random.ccs.northeastern.edu>
	<1992Nov23.092614.5123@lds-az.loral.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:17:58 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Nov23.092614.5123@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

> EST (now The Forum) is a squirrel group (and openly admits it).

I would be interested in seeing your source for this.

I've participated in two Forum seminars and has read some of Erhard's
books -- and nowhere in the material I've read or the activities I've
participated in was it mentioned that est is associated with
Scientology/Dianetics.  This does not exclude the possibility, there
is a lot of est/Forum material I've never seen -- but I would like to
know your source for this.

I know that Werner Erhard knew L. Ron Hubbard personally, and they may
have talked shop from time to time -- but it's long way from there to
stating that est/Forum openly admits that their methods is derived
from Dianetics or Scientlogy!
--
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: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: It's True For You
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:02:19 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <By14yy.s3.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
> 
> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>> [John Holifield - if I'm not in your kill file - could you try, while
>>> exteriorized, to learn a fact that wouldn't be known to your body?
>>
>>     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.  
>>
>>     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.
> 
> OK, I accept that you had/have these experiences. I also accept that
> you don't plan to do scientific tests. It's your life.
> 
> However, it would be nice if you could try, one of these times, to
> come up with some informal verification of the objective reality of
> the experience. We'd like to hear how it goes.
> 
> Note, I'm not asking that you hire a notary public, a
> parapsychologist, two stage magicians, and a clown.  Just - well, the
> next time you watch your girlfriend remotely, and notice the page
> number she's reading:  phone her. *Ask* her if that's the correct
> page number. In your post, you mentioned knowing the number - but you
> didn't mention *checking* to see if your girlfriend's knowledge
> matched yours.

   Sorry I didn't make that more clear.  I did ask and it was correct.
She sometimes doesn't like it when I do that but she's gotten used to it.

ARC,
-John Holifield
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:34:34 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

>>>I was lucky; not all pagans have it so easy.  I do appreciate the kind
>>>of problems you get when your family doesn't approve.  But I don't see
>>>how ISE addresses those problems.  Suppose my family had been critical
>>>of my decision.  Would attempting to silence them have helped me?  I
>>>think it would have convinced them that something was really wrong.
>>
>>There is a lot of data available on handling PTS'ness.  Silencing them
>>is not the proper handling.  Doing things like you did (discussing it, etc.)
>>is described in detail.
>
>Guess I missed something here...please define "PTS'ness".

This was directed to Mary who had read ISE which covers PTS'ness.  Please
refer to the book for a definition as it would be lengthy for me to type
it up.

>
>[...]
>>>The occultist Isaac Bonewits made a list of 14 danger signs to consider
>>>when joining an organization.  Scientology, according to what I've read
>>>in its own publications, rings several of those warning bells:  attempt
>>>to control communication, intolerance of criticism, lack of humor,
>>>obsession with money, emphasis on the leader, claims of infallibility.
>>
>>Obsession with money?  The money is needed for organization survival.
>>The obsession is with survival if anything.
>
>Do you believe Scn as a whole needs more money?  Does most of the
>money taken in go towards upkeep and 'organization survival', or does
>it head Up & Up until it disappears?  Maybe we should start a new
>thread, and try to estimate the Church's financial situation.  Make
>some assumptions, plug in some figures, see what turns up.  Maybe my
>hunch is wrong, but I think the Church takes in _far_ more than is
>needed to keep it afloat.  Let's play with some numbers, & see.

The Phx Org, where I was on staff, does need more money.  The buidling,
for instance, is very old and rather unsuitable.  The air conditioning
had been broken for a year (remember this is Phoenix, AZ where 110's F
weather is normal in the summer).  Running low on supplies is common.

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.

I dare you to play with some numbers.  Then you would see.

Jonathon
Barbera
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Summary: Stricter rules? I think not.
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.042416.16980@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Jonathon: Say the full title of the book. Say its ISBN number. Say the name
>>of the publisher. And say the 10 pages that you want me to read. Be precise
>>and exact. Clue: I want real page numbers. For extra credit, tell me whether
>>or not this edition is listed in _Books in Print_.
>
>Unfortunately, I have not yet seen the new edition.  So all I can tell you
>until I do is that the title is What is Scientology? and it is published
>by Bridge Publications.  
>
>>If you want to play, those are the rules.
>
>Your rules keep getting stricter.  I get the feeling that you really don't
>want to look up the information.

Bullshit. Jonathon: here's *exactly* what my first request was:

(from <1992Nov13.205236.29744@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>):
$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.

Now, Jonathon, I don't intend for you to go catatonic like John Holifield when
we noticed that *he* was telling less than the truth in his postings, but I do
want you to realize something: you don't listen to what people say. You make
up stuff. You may have *thought* that my requests were some sort of
ever-constricting set of demands, but THEY WERE CLEARLY NOT. I judge your
claim that I'm changing the rules as yet another attempt to deflect the
question.

Here we go, one more time: from a religion that claims to have the inside
track on what it means "to know," you're doing a damn poor job explaining
what is that you do know. And you're not granting yourself or Scientology any
credibility when you lie to this newsgroup.

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Wins, Questions, and Comments
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:10:49 GMT

In article <raz.722150770@syzygy> raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable
Raz) writes: 
[...]
>>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
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I love how Scn takes something you don't really want to do (give them
money (as if they need it)) and turn it into a challenge!  Sort of Tom
Sawyer-esqe, I like it!  (They are not alone in this - Moonies have a
thing called 'determination', which is a quota you set before heading
out to sell flowers...the larger determination, the more devoted you
are.  So members regularly compete for the highest determination,
setting outlandish quotas for themselves, & then working themselves to
death to make it - but I digress).

>>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)
               ^^^^
Free my ass...you pay through the nose and you know it.

	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.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:34:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

: ">If someone was dissatisfied, the source of the dissatisfaction is found and
:  >handled.  It doesn't happen too often, but when it does there are several
:  >things that they check (the Case Supervisor can double-check the PC folder
:  >to see if anything was missed, etc.)..."
: 
: 	"handled"?  Sounds pretty ominous to me.
: 
: 	It sounds a lot like the blame would be put on the PC for any
: dissatisfaction.  

Not only the blame, but the cost.  "Double checking the PC folder to see if
anything was missed" is termed doing a "Folder Error Summary".  When a
case fails to progress, the C/S can order an FES.  Time spent doing an FES
is billed against the person's prepaid AUDITING time, as if the person
were actually receiving service.  Current price for auditing time is
over $3000 for 12.5 hours.

Also, it is well-established technical Scientology dogma that every
person making critical comments about someone *invariably* has done undisclosed
bad things to that someone.  Consider what this means to being critical
about Scientology.  It ordinarily results in an investigation of your past
to find out what "crimes" you are hiding.  You have to pay for the time
spent on this, and you have to do it before you are allowed to continue
with the service you wanted, and paid for, in the first place.

Therefore, if you have a lousy auditor, you not only get bad auditing,
you get screwed financially for FES's, review auditing, repair, etc.
And if you complain about it, it just gets worse for you.

Scientologists quickly learn to suppress critical thoughts or redirect any
critical attitudes they have against themselves.  Because of these policies,
it costs far too much to argue.

I am speaking from first hand experience here.

Dave Decot
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: _PV_ According to Jon
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:56:03 GMT

In article <1e7q2dINN8hg@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.041703.24772@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
>(J Barbera) writes:
>>
>>In article <GISLE.92Nov14095234@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no 
>>(Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>>>
>[snip]
>
>>>I find it quite interesting that none of advanced scientologists that
>>>posts in this group seems to be able to answer some very basic
>>>questions about this equation (like: what are the units?).
>>
>>There are no "advanced" Scientologists posting here.  The Scientologists
>>posting here (gathering from previous introductions) have more admin
>>training than tech training.  No one here (that I know of) has a lot of
>>tech training.
>
>	O.K. explain the difference 'tween tech and admin training.  And

People with tech training are trained as auditors, case supervisors, or
for other tech jobs.  The training consists of studying HCOB's which make
up Scientology's technical data.

Admin [administrative] training consists of HCO PL's which make up
Scientology's organizational (management) technology.  I personally have
had a reasonable amount of admin training, but am not advanced in this
are either.

>where are all these "tech" guys anyway?  Don't they know that this is
>where the action is?

The tech people are either on staff at a Scn organization and do not have
access to USENET or are doing something else and do not have access to
USENET or knowledge of this newsgroup.

>>As far as the equation debate: it was my impression when I first read it that
>>it dealt more with abstract concept *relevancies* than plugging in numbers.
>>That is, the relation between the parts of the equation to each other and
>>the other overall.
>
>	1.  IF the equation (PV=I*D^x) dealt with abstract concepts
>then why bother creating an equation for them?  And how could the equation

I've seen at least one other Scn equation and it would be quite useful to
apply the other one I have in mind by using approximate quantities to
other approximate quantites.  Sort of like a recipe: one part A for every
two parts B...

Jonathon
Barbera
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:29:56 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <raz.722150052@syzygy> raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz) writes:
>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?)

Sorry, line noise.  It should be area head.

Jonathon
Barbera
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:17:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.160555.18066@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>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.
>
>Well, this is an improvement.
>
>It's still missing the boat, however: there's not a snowball's chance in hell
>that Scn would permit someone else other than the church to permit non-Scn
>people to start doing Interviews-with-Ohmmeters. It really misses the 	point,
>too: what I'm asking about is the effectiveness of Scientology. Some sort of
>surveying of participants with statistical controls. Something resembling 
>*scientific* research.

As I stated to Free Radical: anyone can go into a Scn org (Class V org) and
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.

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.

>
>Can you think of any way that that could be done, Jonathon?
>

Just as I said originally.  Get some people, get them trained, and have
them audit people.  Then use the research stuff to research the results.

>Different question: can you think of any reason why the church *wouldn't*
>want it to be done.

Policy allows for field auditors and field groups.

>Jonathon, in this entire discussion, there has not been a single time when I
>have disputed the results of Scientology. The *kinds* of results that I would
>even consider appropriate for evaluation have *never been produced*. I keep
>asking for objective results and you keep deflecting the requests. Part of the
>way you deflect the requests are by claiming that we're disputing the results
>or criticizing the religion. I am not. I am asking how it is that one can
>critically, objectively evaluate the effectiveness of this "applied religious
>technology".
>
>If you feel incapable or unqualified to answer this request, then say so.  If
>you feel there's categorically no way for the CoS to satisfy this request,
>then say that. But don't dance around and say nonsense like I'm "disputing
>Scn's results." What I'm disputing is the presence of independently
>verifiable results. So far, you have not provided *any* of them.

If you and others out there want "independently verifiable results" you
might want to get them through your own research.  Right?  Isn't that
proof?
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech, choice and association
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:03:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill) writes:
> 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.  

If staff get free auditing, then this forced auditing is free, I
assume?

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.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Definitions.
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:44:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Definitions quoted verbatim from the glossaries of several Scientology books
>and other Scientology literature.  (Note: italics ommitted.)

Great stuff. Particularly,

>machines: actual machines in the mind (like ordinary machinery), constructed
>out of mental mass and energy, that have been made by the individual to do
>work for him, usually having been set up so as to come into operation
>automatically under certain predetermined circumstances.

Mental mass???

>ridges: solid accumulations of old, inactive energy suspended in space and
>time.  They are generated by opposing energy flows which hit one another
>and continue to exist long after the energy flows have ceased.
>static: an actuality of no mass, no wavelength, no position in space or
>relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or
>energy, of locating itself or creating space, and in rerelating time.

destroying mass? Inactive energy suspeneded in space?

>theta trap: a means used to trap a thetan.  All theta traps have one thing
>in common: they use electronic force to knock the thetan into forgetting,
>into unknowingness, into effect.

Has anyone built such a thing? What is it like to walk near it?

>Tone Scale: a scale which shows the emotional tones of a person.  These,
>ranged from the highest to lowest, are, in part, serenity (the highest
>level), enthusiasm (as we proceed downward), conservatism, boredom,
>antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, apathy.

This again. I've asked politely a number of times, but no one ever
explains just how they decided that (say) conservatism is higher than
fear.

As for the "mental mass" ... I'm a scientist. If anyone mistook this
bad science fiction for actual science, I would be offended.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology