From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Proving the Validity of Scn
Date: 22 Nov 1992 04:11:58 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Summary: nothin yet, but Jon's starting to catch on.
Keywords: tongue pulled

In article <1992Nov22.001242.21768@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1ei0ctINN1p1@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov19.040649.16011@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
>>(J Barbera) writes:
>>>
>>[deleted: I said that I believed that 10000 people have be audited,
>>and that I would believe that 1000000 peopl have been audited.  BUT...]

[ deleted: my "crock of shit" argument w.r.t. Why should I believe that
           Scn works?]

>>Jonathon says:
>>>There are *a lot* of personal success stories published and made available to
>>>the public.  These are attests to the workability and positive results of
>>>Scientology courses and services.  Your local Scn church will have some these
>>>posted on a bulletin board.  Others have been published in various materials
>>>such as the new edition of What is Scientology?

[deleted: my guess that the CoS has a TEN percent success rate]

I begin to explain my logic:
>>	the church claims tens of thousands of success stories.

Jon says:
>LRH wrote that in the, I think, early 70's (may have been earlier).

	But you put it in the FAQ!  Why do you put out-of-date 
information in the FAQ?  What other information is out-of-date?
Can we trust _any_ information in the FAQ?

Can you give a current figure, for the past ten years, with
the documentation to back you up?

[deleted: my "back o' the envelope" calculation showing that 50000 
success stories only accounts for about 1 PC/org/month]

     Please note, Jonathon, that 50000 success cases was a
reasonable estimate, given the information you have posted.  I
even follow your own logic in the calculation.  In a previous
post you suggested that we phone our local org and ask 
them how many success stories they had in the past ten years
and multiply that by 450 Orgs.  If you don't believe me I
will dig up the article.

	I will call the local orgs and ask them.  I will post
my results in a future article.  It would be nice if
other people in other cities did the same.  We could get
some reasonable stats. 

But back to my point.  I had shown that the CoS could have easily
handled TEN times as many PCs' as it claims which only gives a TEN 
percent success rate.  Can I assume that you agree with this since you
haven't questioned it, Jonathon?

Anyway I continue:
>>	You *must* get my point now!  The CoS must produce _ALL_ of
>>the cases, not just the successes.  I want to see all of the screwed
>>up cases, all of the complaints, all of the unhappy customers.  In short
>>the whole thing!  Not _just_ the successes that have been filtered out!

>Okay, I understand.

Good, you understand that _just_ the successes aren't proof.  
Am I correct?

>>>>>>	Has the church of scientology published _any_ unsuccessful stories?

>>	J (can I call you that?), buddy!  Here you should have "just
>>said NO"!  Instead you go nuts and say:

>I said, no: they don't publish the unsuccess until it is a success after
>the following:

>>>>>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.)...

In that case why doesn't the CoS claim millions of successes?  
What about the cases that this procedure doesn't work for, surely
people must just get sick of all the bullshit and leave?

>>Jonathon says:
>>>>>Ha ha ha!  No one is ever disciplined because something like exteriorization
>>>>>or the existence of "spirits" (souls?  huh?) isn't real to them.
>>>>>It's okay for something not to be real to someone.  I know a Scientologist
>>>>>in particular who mentioned this to me ... he's been on staff for about
>>>>>twelve years and there are some whole track (past life memories) which
>>>>>aren't real to him.  That's okay.  No one is disciplined or pressured to
>>>>>believe something like this.

     In some posts following this comment you say that you have
been disciplined.  Given the "doubt condition" I believe.  Isn't
this a setback, a lowering of status, thus a punishment?

>>	Well, others have travelled this ground better than I, and have
>>given evidence to cause me to doubt the truth of this.

>Please provide specific examples.  (Remember: my statement relates to the
>person believing in various concepts and does not apply to policy.)

     I was, of course, refering to Mary Kuhners'(I hope I got the name
right this time) treatment of Scn ethics as applied to the PC.  And
Dave Decots' confirmation of her worries.

>>>>>"What's true for you is true."
>>	IMHO, this is not true!  If this were true I could get 100% on
>>_ALL_ of my physics exams!
>Okay, if that's true for you, that's true!

     Very cute! :-)  But if I were to say that the taller 5 ounce
glass holds more water than the short 5 ounce glass, that would be
true for me, right?  BUT IT IS NOT TRUE!

>>>>from above :
>>>>">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.

     This was confirmed by Dave.

>>>No.  Nothing ominous and the PC is being blamed.

>>     Is it _ALWAYS_ the PC's fault?  Of course it must be, because
>>Scn is NEVER wrong!  :)

>Sorry, that would be a typo.

     Some would say Freudian slip.   :)

>                             To clarify: the PC wouldn't be blamed.
>There would be a review of the auditing to see if the auditor missed
>something or whatever.  On the other hand, a problem would arise if
>the PC was PTS (various types).  Again, the PC isn't blamed.  This
>is merely something that would need handling before auditing would
>be beneficial.

      If, of course, auditing was benificial!  And this is _one_ of
the things I would want to know, via some sort of professional
examination.

>>>                                                  As I stated a couple
>>>paragraphs back, the Case Supervisor double-checks the PC folder to see
>>>if the auditor missed anything or if something was improperly handled.
>>>Once the problem is found, it is handled by a little more auditing.
>>>The end result: the PC is satisfied with the service.
>>read: "The end result: the PC is _made_ satisfied"

>Sure.  People's satisfaction is a concern of every organization.

Not true.   There are many organizations who couldn't give a fig
about satisfying people(I believe the CoS to be one such example).

>However, this does not imply that the PC is forced to be satisfied.

>>>>>I offer case histories and you dismiss them without a glance.  You ask
>>>>>for this data ("proof") and then refuse to confront it.  How am I suppose
>>>>>to take you seriously?
>>>>	_Selected_ case studies are not proof!
>>>What do you need as proof then?  Did you want to browse through someone's
>>>confidential PC folders?
>>	_I_ am the wrong person to do this.  _I_ have as much training
>>in this field as, Oh I don't know, L RON HUBBARD, that is to say little
>>to none!  I would want a TEAM of professionals to browse through _ALL_
>>the "confidential PC folders".  Needless to say, they would have to
>>be independant from the Church.

>Well, I for one would be wary of outsiders browsing through my PC folder.
>This'd be more so for others who have had extensive auditing and have a lot
>of very private information in their folders.

>>	This is quite a common practice, the place where my wife works
>>is being reviewed at this moment by an provincial review team.  It
>>seems to me that the CoS would not be to happy if they were subject
>>to such reviews.

>Do people's private lives get reviewed in depth?  Otherwise, it doesn't
>compare.

	Of course.  The private lives of the clients, the thing is 
the private lives are never made public, save in generalizations
where statistics are applied.  And that's what I ask!  A statistical
evaluation of the cases, of every aspect of the cases.  This is done
at hospitals, care homes, dental offices, psychiatric offices, to name
just a few places.

>>>                           Or if selection is the only problem, why not
>>>find some people who have received a lot of auditing and ask them what
>>>they thought of it all.

>>	Again(sigh), anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it.  These
>>people may be afraid to say bad things about the CoS!

>I'm getting an impression that you think Scientologists are a bunch
>of cowering zombies or something.  Scientologists tend to be very
>out-spoken and very direct.

     In fact, you'll find that many people hold this view.  People
can cower to an organization that "controls" them and then turn
around and defend the same organization to the death if necessary,
depending on how well the organization controls said people.  This
would be a fine definition for fanaticism, would it not?  The Jonestown
massacre comes to mind.

Jonathon suggests:
>>>                         Or do some research thing: train as an auditor and
>>>audit people.
I reply:
>>	This is certainly not research!  To carry the car dealer analogy
>>a bit further:  Do I need to become a Ford dealer to learn how good a car
>>is?

     Does your silence here indicate that you agree with my
assertion?

>>O.K. here would be _some_ of what research _may_ entail:
>>
>>	a detailed disection of the CoS.  This would include
>>looking at every aspect of the church individualy to asses the
>>viability.  Here an INDEPENDANT, TRAINED research TEAM would look
>>at:
>>	the CoSs' finances and business practices
>>	each training course
>>	each piece of Scn tech: E-meters, etc...
>>	each Scn "medical type" treatment ie: the purification rundown
>> 	(please add more...)
>>
>>as well another team could do a statistical study of, say, three
>>groups of people:
>>
>>	people who are taking Scn courses
>>	people who are taking other self help courses
>>	people who would rather have their tongues pulled than
>>take a self help course.  (a control group, if you will).

	Please Jon, speak to the viability of this approach.

>Jonathon
>Barbera


-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca