HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Psychiatry
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:26:24 GMT

In article <920727232643.22e4627a@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>
>Patients would be better off keeping their memory intact, and their
>senses unclouded. If a person is dangerous to others, that's one thing.
>But if Uncle Joe has been fighting severe depression, then I don't
>think treating Uncle Joe as though he were a lab animal by giving him
>psycho-active drugs is going to do the trick for him. It might dull or
>change his senses enough so that the world doesn't come across so
>vividly, but it's not going to address the real problem: Joe's depression.
>
From your comments, I really can't believe that you have ever seen anyone in
a severe depression.  Am I wrong?  I really don't think you understand the
illness of depression.  '..treating Uncle Joe as though he were a lab animal
by giving him psycho-active drugs..'  A bit melodramatic?  Do you know someone
on psycho-active drugs?  What is your definition of psycho-active drugs?

It may give Uncle Joe a stable base to start working on the psychological 
aspects of his depression.  It may allow him to communicate rationally.  It may
allow him to function as a 'normal' human being.  Ever have a conversation with
a severely depressed person.  A long conversation, trying to communicate
rationally?  Again, I don't think so from your comments.  Severe depression is
not something trivial.  It is an enormous, so-to-speak, cross to bear.  It 
takes alot from the depressed individual and their loved ones.  It is not
something to be lightly dismissed.  It hurts.  

Grow up a little Brian.  The CoS does not have all the answers.  I would love
to see case histories of severely depressed individuals being helped by
only auditing.  And remember, we're talking severe depression, typically termed
clinical depression.  Any help with manic-depression?  Educate me.

-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 03:32:22 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>Is this an admission that the psychiatrists that use ECT don't let
>their patients know what will be done to them? Or perhaps these psy-
>chiatrists are in the habit of lying, so the description they give
>their patients can't be considered factual.

Is this an admission that you think that _all_ psychiatrists are
habitual liars?

You protested recently that you weren't paranoid. Naturally, you
suggested the above because you have evidence?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:12:39 GMT

In article <920728100150.22e3d533@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.155731.3453@balrog.dseg.ti.com>
>keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
>
>>I must say, you gathered a completely different idea from Brian's remark
>>than I did.  Brian was posting along the lines of "psychiatrists either
>>don't tell the patient the truth about the ECT treatment, or they lie about
>>it".
>
>Brian was posting along the lines of "I hope, having just finished a few
>days of discussion about our views of psychiatry's use of ECT, I can make
>a couple of not-to-be-taken-entirely-serious statements without using the
><sarcasm> additive." And boy was I wrong!

Sorry I misunderstood.  After a vigorous discussion, the sudden switch to
sarcasm mode was missed.

-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Studies
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 03:40:19 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>Trying to use psychological/psychiatric-established testing methods
>on Scientology auditing's efficacy, is a little like using the earth-
>is-flat theory to understand Newton's Law of Gravity. It can be done,
>but will be misunderstood.

I've said many times that auditing is often of value. I say it
because I think that auditing is a form of counselling, and _all_
forms of counselling are often of value.

Forms of counselling are *often* measured by studies, and it would
please me if Scientology would go with the flow.

I fail to see why the result would be misunderstood.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Subject: Re: Who died?  (was Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's))
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:24:49 GMT

In article <920723100505.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>Scott Ballantyne wrote regarding the Purification Rundown:
[snip]
[snip]
>
>Who died Scott? You're getting so good at lying, maybe psychiatrists

Can that, Brian.  We're not living in the '50s anymore, no matter what
some of the policy letters say, and this is the Net, not TV, radio,
newspapers, or preaching in the streets.  Calling someone a liar (no
matter whether it's true or not) is NOT a Good Idea. If they're part of
the CoS, write it up that they're spreading misinformation. If they're
not, then politely suggest that you think they're misinformed or
somewhat overstating their case.

On the net, starting a flame war does *not* give a good impression of
Scientologists, and I don't really care to have you here on
alt.religion.scientology, where each and every one of us is a
representitive of the Church (disclaimers aren't going to work here, I
fear), making *my* life more difficult.

I don't really give a damn whether people believe my religion or not; I
believe in reincarnation, and I believe that my religion is the most
accurate thing around, so as long as Scientologists have kids, we'll get
*everyone* in the end. So there's no reason to go getting people mad at
me by telling them they're wrong. *Nobody's* going to convert *that*
way! 

If you think that Scott's 1.1, you can try Antago on him in *Email*,
because the people above Antago who read here are going to see you as a
flaming twit.

I'm on parade, and I want people to think of Scientologists as a group
that may or may not have funny ideas, but is at *least* polite and
willing to let someone have hir own ideas when it's obvious that trying
to change them will only result in broken, trampled, and mangled ARC.

--EM, *Born* Scientologist in 1971.
Apologies for jargon.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: SP
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:22:54 GMT

>So, the church is in the business of tracking who hurt who, who
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In the business of? How about "makes a realistic assessment of
those characteristics which are damaging to the vast majority
of individuals".

And how about pointing out that the Church of Scientology recog-
nizes that *all* individuals are basically good, and that any
individual considered suppressive can, on his own-determinism,
become very UN-suppressive.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Date: 27 Jul 92 22:53:42 GMT

Lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>>Is this an admission that the psychiatrists that use ECT don't let
>>their patients know what will be done to them? Or perhaps these psy-
>>chiatrists are in the habit of lying, so the description they give
>>their patients can't be considered factual.
>Is this an admission that you think that _all_ psychiatrists are
>habitual liars?

"_All_ psychiatrists"? Certainly not. Some? Well, those that were
referred to in the article that Raul posted (the one on the 1992
Congressional hearings) seem to be.

>You protested recently that you weren't paranoid. Naturally, you
>suggested the above because you have evidence?

No, I suggested it because individuals who choose to perform ECT and
then pass it off as "merely making someone's toes wiggle", should not
be trusted. I never said that _all_ psychiatrists do that.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: ECT References (BW's)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 21:10:28 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>But I really am getting bored with this thread. Let us finish
>off by saying that we both had some informative things to say about
>modern ECT.

Scott's postings informed me about ECT. Your postings, on the other
hand, informed me about how misinformed you were.

As for the Purification Rundown, I rank it close to cottage cheese
diets and tanning parlors: things which, done once, have very little
chance of harming or helping the average person. Like kosher, the
major benefit is the awareness of having performed a ritual.

>Scott, you lied.

No, he didn't, and he didn't even come close. I count this the fourth
time you've called him a liar, and my opinion of you has nosedived.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rpadawer@utkvx1.utk.edu (Padawer, Justin Randall)
Subject: WANT TO BUY: Jon Atack's "Piece of Blue Sky" book
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:27:00 GMT

Does anyone have a copy of Jon Atack's "Piece of Blue Sky" book
that they have finished and would sell?

Email, and thanks.

Randy Padawer
RPADAWER@UTKVX.UTK.EDU


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:32:30 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Jul23.121243.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> bwenger@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.143222.1670@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
>clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider) writes:
>>
>>Thanks, Brian, for illustrating once again a common Scientologist tactic:
>>"When you can't refute the data, insult the person whose data you can't 
>>refute." One reason I appreciate Ballantyne's work is that Scientology,
>>like any other cult, sucks in a lot of people whose ability to think
>>logically and to discriminate between plausible lies and hard truths is
>>not very well developed. If Scientology's lies are repeatedly refuted, 
>>eventually some people will realize the lies they have been force-fed.
>>Chris Weider
>
>Oh really? That's odd, I could have sworn Scott Ballantyne lied -- said
>a side affect of Niacin (as used by Scientologists on the Purification
>Rundown) is DEATH.
>
>Scientology is *about* becoming more adept at discriminating between
>plausible lies and hard truths.  It happens to be a "plausible lie"
>that it's not.
>
please repost the alleged lie and the proof that it is a  lie, I
missed it.

Scn does force feed its version of truth, one modles the data as
presented but does not ever discuss the data vs other modles or 
viewpoints.  A very one sided presentation.
 
>-----
>Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
>Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
>Central Connecticut State Univ.
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Who died?  (was Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's))
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:05:05 GMT

Scott Ballantyne wrote regarding the Purification Rundown:
>                                                           some of
>      these side effects are mild, some are more serious (including
>      death).

Raul wrote:
>   First off, who died?  First time I heard about this.

Who died Scott? You're getting so good at lying, maybe psychiatrists
should ask you to describe ECT to their patients -- you know "Your
toes will wiggle a little."

Scott Ballantyne later wrote in the same message:
>Case closed.

Sorry, you can't snake your way out of this one.

----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Who died?  (was Re: ECT References (Brian Wenger's))
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:12:57 GMT


In article <920723100505.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:

   Who died Scott? You're getting so good at lying, maybe psychiatrists
   should ask you to describe ECT to their patients -- you know "Your
   toes will wiggle a little."

   Scott Ballantyne later wrote in the same message:
   >Case closed.

   Sorry, you can't snake your way out of this one.

And this from the man who has admitted that he will not criticize
Scientology in public (an attitude that is demonstrably not shared by
the psychiatrists he criticizes - who are more than willing to
criticize their own profession, thank goodness!).

It has been a simple matter for me to refute the charges of CCHR and
Mr. Wenger about ECT -- I simply presented the facts of the matter,
with the benefits and the risks clearly spelled out, as well as an
accurate and up to date description of the procedure. Mr. Wenger has
not been able to refute these.

You would think that it should have been a simple matter for Mr.
Wenger to return the favor, and simply present the facts of the
matter, with the benefits and risks of the Purif clearly spelled out
in peer reviewed studies that we could all examine and decide for
ourselves.

Rather than press his own case, Mr. Wenger has prefered to attack my
character.

Case closed.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: ECT - Some conclusions
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:57:31 GMT

In article <ROCKWELL.92Jul26181708@socrates.umd.edu> rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell) writes:
>Scott Ballantyne:
>   >It is obvious that the patient being under deep anesthesia would
>   >not be able to describe any of the process that either of us
>   >included.
>
>Brian Wenger:
>   >Is this an admission that the psychiatrists that use ECT don't let
>   >their patients know what will be done to them? Or perhaps these
>   >psychiatrists are in the habit of lying, so the description they
>   >give their patients can't be considered factual.
>
>Donald Lindsay:
>   Is this an admission that you think that _all_ psychiatrists are
>   habitual liars?
>
>Heavy.
>
>My suspicions:
>
>Scott was posting along the lines of "someone under anesthesia has no
>experiences of that time to report".
>
>Brian was posting along the lines of "anesthesia doesn't prevent
>experience, just makes it more difficult to access."

I must say, you gathered a completely different idea from Brian's remark
than I did.  Brian was posting along the lines of "psychiatrists either
don't tell the patient the truth about the ECT treatment, or they lie about it".

>
>Donald was posting in support of Scott.
>
>Donald Lindsay:
>   You protested recently that you weren't paranoid. Naturally, you
>   suggested the above because you have evidence?
>
>I'd suspect that psychiatrists do not trust their patients to describe
>ECT.  I fail to see how such a suspicion is paranoid.  I don't think
>that an expression of such a suspicion is completely out of line --
>though, maybe it should be recognized as nothing more than a
>suspicion.

I'd suspect that you are right.  Psychiatrists do not trust people under
anesthesia to describe their experiences.  Do you?  I think you have not
captured Brian's idea.  He was saying that he does not trust psychiatrists to
adequately explain ECT to their patients, not the other way around!

>
>Also, it looks *real* bad to use "psychiatric diagnosis" on a person
>in a discussion of psychiatry as a subject.  This says that you do not
>care to discuss the facts and that you'd prefer to discredit the
>individual.
>
>-- 
>Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell                   <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>


-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: ECT References (BW's)
Date: 31 Jul 92 09:20:14 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Jul29.023817.2353@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Rogue Agent) writes:
>
>	Now I already know what the response is gonna be - the Church cannot
>be responsible for the opinions of its members, he's misinformed (no shit!),
>etc.  That's the problem - whenever somebody says something unfavorable,
>or has information putting scn in a bad light, it's 'just an isolated incident,
>I've never heard anyone say that, and it's not policy'.  But it happens so 
>often, that it might as well be policy.
>
>	Responses?
>
You have stated exactly what I have seen and the scn response in ~95%
of all the scn I have met.  The remaining % are the few who are
willing to say that the cos needs improvement in its admin
practices ("ethics" and "admin"). 
>	RA


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
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
Subject: Re: Three more ECT References
From: bwenger@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:12:43 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

In article <1992Jul23.143222.1670@terminator.cc.umich.edu>
clw@home.merit.edu (Chris Weider) writes:
>
>Thanks, Brian, for illustrating once again a common Scientologist tactic:
>"When you can't refute the data, insult the person whose data you can't 
>refute." One reason I appreciate Ballantyne's work is that Scientology,
>like any other cult, sucks in a lot of people whose ability to think
>logically and to discriminate between plausible lies and hard truths is
>not very well developed. If Scientology's lies are repeatedly refuted, 
>eventually some people will realize the lies they have been force-fed.
>Chris Weider

Oh really? That's odd, I could have sworn Scott Ballantyne lied -- said
a side affect of Niacin (as used by Scientologists on the Purification
Rundown) is DEATH.

Scientology is *about* becoming more adept at discriminating between
plausible lies and hard truths.  It happens to be a "plausible lie"
that it's not.

-----
Brian Wenger   (wengerb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu)    Scientologist since 1981
Asst. Dir. Info. Systems
Central Connecticut State Univ.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Elizabeth.Mccoy@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Elizabeth Mccoy)
Subject: Re: Who died?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 22:05:43 GMT

In article <920723161353.22e43d36@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU> WENGERB@CCSUA.CTSTATEU.EDU (Brian Wenger, Asst Dir, Info Systems, CCSU) writes:
>
>When I have gotten so much from Scientology, it is disheartening to
>see it misleadingly described as something that it is not.

Believe me, I understand that! But how do you tell people that your
religion contributes to sensible-ness when there are things like that
first "refutation" to the Time magazine article? It's a rock and a hard
place, but it's fairly necessary to cope as rationally as possible.
*sigh* 
 
> But I did
>over-react. You are right. (And if I may...Welcome Back to the
>Newsgroup! :-)

Thank you. Interesting to be back. :-)

--EM

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell)
Subject: Re: SP
Organization: Traveller
	<1992Jul21.101634.15103@microsoft.com>
	<1992Jul22.223838.6191@samba.oit.unc.edu>
	<1992Jul24.081514.2468@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 23:42:12 GMT

Elizabeth McCoy:
   >There is a potential for abuse of the term, yes. I don't have any
   >evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) on the extent of abuse that
   >actually happens. And again, any group does that to a certain
   >extent, with the most crude example being "mob mentality."

Eric Hill:
   Liz, how shocking - you generalize, one of the supposed traits of
   the famous sp.  Other groups trample the rights of the idividual so
   the cos is not so bad!?  Would you like specific cases of cos
   interferance so that you can at least be specific on that topic?

Oh, cool, an actual discussion of scientology!

Ok, I've read something about this, and it was my understanding that
generalization of unkind concepts was supposed to be a characteristic
of both social persons and suppressive persons.  The impression I was
left with was that no one is perfect [and I suppose this applies to
groups too].  And, that it's not worth considering a person [who
exhibits characteristics of both extremes] suppressive unless they're
really blatant about it.

Also, I seem to remember that "it really doesn't matter what a
suppressive person thinks, so just treat them nice."  You probably
ought to care about the negative feelings of your friends [and most
strangers] but it's just not worth the bother with some people.

   >Is the government any better? We're told Russians are/were bad
   >guys, the dangers of hackers justifies raiding an innocent game
   >company, and that freedom of religion is a great thing. If you
   >don't believe things, you run a risk of getting labled something
   >nasty.

   I really am suprised that you want to compare scn to gov't.  But
   then the "clear the planet" goal assumes scn presiding over the
   entire (actualy ~99%) population of the planet.  -a very scary
   thought-

So, like, I should worry that my great, great, great grandchildren
will inherit souls which have been "cleared" by scientologists?  What?

-- 
Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell                   <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>