HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: ScotSoft Research
	<Bx2J8I.qM@ssr.com> <1992Nov3.070718.1434@lds-az.loral.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:25:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.070718.1434@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

   They use Scn tech.  But discussing Narconon (not the tech) would be
   round-about.

Perhaps you missed it, but I posted a lengthy scientific investigation
of the Narconon *tech*, which is also an investigation of the
Purification Rundown (since one is the same as the other).  There is
nothing roundabout about that.

   sdb:
   >
   >Furthermore Heber Jentzsh himself was in Oklahoma defending Narconon,
   >and as I pointed out, made absolutely outlandish statements in support
   >of it.

   Barbera:
   Discussing the President of CSI would also be round-about.

The President of CSI's comments on Narconon, including his own
personal experiences undergoing the rundown is not round about. You
are simply dodging unpleasant facts here.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: 11 Nov 1992 20:29:25 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <PqF3TB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> 
hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:


>...  I have worked for a number of research
>labs, following up on flawed independent tests that have cost my
>clients in the form of suits.

	Holy!  You have worked for research labs?
	Which ones?
	In what capacity?

	I find it hard to beleive that you could be any sort of
lab technician, considering the lack of technical knowledge you have
shown in previous posts.

[snip!]

>...  Only a fool would take someone elses word, without exerting
>first-hand observation into the area.  


	Excellent!  Show us the results of _your_ "first-hand 
observation" into the area of scientology.

[ snip!]

gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) referring to a Scn book writes:
>>I've ordered it through our library.  I'll report back when I've
>>read it.  I assume the author is LRH.

>Assuming again Gisle?  Now, Now... :)

	But it's the only thing we can do.  You havn't provided
us with data.  Did LRH authour the book... from the grave?

>Bill Hardman

>------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
>   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
>                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
>                        *A Secret Cult*
>If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!

	Still an excellent way to improve ARC!



Richard Nistuk
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca





Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 23:05:46 GMT

In article <> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>In order for a policy, or practice to be valid, it can only be
>written by LRH, and an issue that is in effect, as some early
>policies have been cancelled and re-written.

Uhh, pardon my ignorance, but isn't L. Ron Hubbard dead?

Hasn't he been dead for about a decade?  Are people channelling him
(err, letting him externalize in their bodies)?  Clearly, there have
been new policies made, and old policies cancelled...

Or is "LRH" now a Scientology/legal term for something else now?

-- 
Donald Tsang                    "Ho!  Haha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!
tsang@june.cs.washington.edu     Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"
..!uw-beaver!june!tsang                       -- Robin Hood Daffy
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:10:43 GMT


hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>The result is known from 42 years of testing and statistical
>analysis.

I think you misspoke. Surely, what LRH claimed was that he did
testing 42 years ago, not *across* 42 years.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Gradient
Date: 8 Nov 92 15:13:38 GMT
	<1dhgspINNrag@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<1992Nov8.060709.26106@lds-az.loral.com>
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Nov8.060709.26106@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

> I was asked to describe some concepts which I believe would be out-gradient
> for the participants of this newsgroup.
>
> (Out-gradient, as in skipping more fundamental information (levels) and
> not allowing a gradual approach to what I consider higher level conepts.)

Oh, how convenient.

So whenever you find yourself stuck for a good answer, you can just
excuse yourself from answering by stating that it would be
"out-gradient" to continue the discussion.  I guess you can use
this excuse within the church too:

   PC: Oh, mighty OT III, please explain this Lord Xemu stuff.
       Is this space-opera sillyness really part of my religion?
   OT: Why, my child, it would be "out-gradient" for you to know
       about these things.

Thinking about the implications, it struck me that this is really an
incredible powerful principle!  It gives those in authority absolute
powers to censor "undesirable" opinions and discussions within the
appropriate organizational framework, simply by declaring the
unfortunate topics "out-gradient".  Perhaps the correspondents in this
newsgroup who has some experience from inside the CoS would care to
share with us how the "out-gradient" concept is applied within the
CoS.

But, Jonathon, don't expect to get away with such antics on Usenet.
Your actions has made it pretty to clear to me what the meaning of
"out-gradient" is.  It means that you're positioned yourself out on a
slippery slope, and are dropping out of a discussion you can't handle.
--
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: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.225834.19743@beaver.cs.washington.edu> tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang) writes:
>In article <> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Scientology FAQ
>>-----
>>The following questions are answered:
>>[list of questions, answers deleted]
>
>That's funny... I thought FAQ lists were answers to Frequently-Asked
>Questions, specifically, those questions that are asked frequently
>_ON THE NEWSGROUP_!  Some of these questions have never been asked
>here...

You're right.  These are general Frequently-Asked-Questions beyond those
asked in this newsgroup.  However, many of these questions & answers have
come up in discussion in one form or another (that is, other than questions).

>Also, the answers should *generally* be the ones given by multiple
>sources, not just single individual (especially not a deceased
>individual, like L. Ron Hubbard, no matter how deified he may be).  One

L. Ron Hubbard is the founder of Scientology and as this newsgroup is about
Scientology, it would seem appropriate for him to answer the questions.
He knows more about the subject than anyone.  

>of the most important features of a FAQ file is that, when a difference
>of opinion exists, all sides are represented.  Thus, when the Xemu FAQ
>is posted, opinions and facts from all sides are solicited.  Same with
>the "Books about Scientology, et. al." FAQ.

I've seen these FAQ's and didn't feel they represented *both* sides very
well.  My FAQ article is information on Scientology by Scientology's
founder.  Not opinions.

>I'd be appreciative if you (Mr. Barbera) would follow the standard
>Usenet protocols and definitions... the word "FAQ" has a specific
>meaning, and whether or not you use Scientological definitions
>elsewhere, you *shouldn't* use nonstandard definitions of USENET
>terms on alt.religion.scientology...

Okay, when I re-post this article, I will remove the letters "FAQ" from it.

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Followup-To: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.kibology,alt.postmodern
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:49:17 GMT

In <1992Nov8.060259.25888@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>The Creation of Human Ability

Perhaps some loyal Scientologists out there can explain this to me...

I have an old copy of "The Creation of Human Ability" (back before L. Ron 
"dropped his body").  It's a joy to read, especially the note about
the infamous and instantaneous R2-.45.

But, see, the dust jacket has this picture of a woman sitting in a chair
on a stage.  She is wearing a bear costume and eating what appears to be a
raw pork chop.  (Shades of Woody Allen's "Everything You Always Wanted
To Know About Sex", in which Rabbi Baumel's wife eats a porck chop.)

Kindly explain the cover.

							-- K.

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Off source...
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date:  6 Nov 92 08:57:18 GMT

fiorino12@wharton.upenn.edu writes:

>Is it me, or am I observing a whole shit-load of whitholds occuring on this
>net?  I mean, come on people.  Let's get ON SOURCE.  We need to get our 
>wins up, and get OT9 released!  

Huh? Would you care to re-post in plain English?

Has it not occurred to you guys that there are at least SOME readers
who have not aquired Scientological jargon in its entirity yet?


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 906 4681
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 17:18:24 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:

> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
> >I have worked for a number of research labs,
> 
> >If independent testing is routine,
> >which company validated the findings of the:
> >
> >        Catholic Church
> >        Mormon Church
> >        Buddism
> 
> These organizations prudently don't publish equations, or use use
> words like "data" and "technology". If they did, their "data" would
> certainly get scrutiny. In fact, the Jehovah's Witnesses (as part of
> predicting the End of the World) do publish technical material.  They
> have made claims about (for instance) the frequency of earthquakes,
> and those claims have been attacked by geologists.  Various Christian
> Creationist organizations advance scientific arguments, and again,
> these forays are then fair game for scientists.

Excellent excuse.  You haven't answered the question.

> >What was the research group responsible for the independent testing
> >of the mental health practices like:
> >
> >        lobotomy
> >        ECT
> >        Transorbital Leukotomy
> >        Freudian Analysis
> >
> >All that was required to implement these "cures" was to have some
> >Phd say it's so, no testing, just case studies.
> 
> That's a remarkably ignorant statement. There is a considerable
> technical literature, back and forth on these matters, and the
> fact that you haven't read it does not make it nonexistant.
> I guess you weren't reading this newsgroup during the ECT wars:
> would you like me to repost some of it?

It would be pointless, as again, you missed the crux.

Bill Hardman


------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 03:09:01 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:

> where _PV_ is the "potential value of an individual or group", _I_ is the 
> "intelligence" and _D_ is the "Dynamic".   

>       What is x?  

        As explained in the book, x stands for the magnitude on
which the person is surviving on the dynamic.

>       What are the units of _PV_,_I_,_D_ and _x_? 

        Re-read the chapter.  It's self-explanitory.

>       How do you measure them?   

        With widely accepted testing.

>       What ranges of values are normally seen?  

        Below average.

>       How do you apply the equation?

        Insert the known factors and use standard algebra.

>       What experimental evidence is there to show that it works?

        Do it and find out.  Why take someone elses word?

>       Can someone suggest an experiment?

        Apply it to yourself.

>       Could someone e-mail me the experimental data?

        Why, it's simple to do.  I have observed over 500 people
with a simple high school education work the equation to their
complete understanding.  The only help they required was making sure
that they fully understood the words used.

>       Is the origional experiment reproducable?

        Yep.

> The first part of the book left me with many, many questions, such as 
> these, about Dianetics.  But, I thought I'd best start small.

        "The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes
confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a
word that was not understood." LRH

Bill Hardman


------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: Gradient
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:43:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.060709.26106@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>(Out-gradient, as in skipping more fundamental information (levels) and
>not allowing a gradual approach to what I consider higher level conepts.)
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Scott, under the haze of a Phil Dick influence, likes to point out that
I actually *live* in a higher-level conapt.  It has a wonderful view of the 
seedy side of the opera house.  I can also see the Combat Zone from the
balcony...

						-- K.
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 17:10:28 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:

> In article <PqF3TB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> 
> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
> 
> 
> >...  I have worked for a number of research
> >labs, following up on flawed independent tests that have cost my
> >clients in the form of suits.
> 
> 	Holy!  You have worked for research labs?
        Yes.

>       Which ones?
        Kodak, Drewry, Hughes to name a few.

> 	In what capacity?
        Research analysis & statistical engineer.

>       I find it hard to beleive that you could be any sort of
> lab technician, considering the lack of technical knowledge you have
> shown in previous posts.

        I have noticed that you find quite a few things hard to
believe, that doesn't suprize me at all.

> [snip!]
> 
> >...  Only a fool would take someone elses word, without exerting
> >first-hand observation into the area.  
> 
> 
> 	Excellent!  Show us the results of _your_ "first-hand 
> observation" into the area of scientology.

        No, I have a better idea.  Go into a church and publish your
"first-hand observations".  Again I stress, why take someone elses
word?

> [ snip!]
> 
> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) referring to a Scn book writes:
> >>I've ordered it through our library.  I'll report back when I've
> >>read it.  I assume the author is LRH.
> 
> >Assuming again Gisle?  Now, Now... :)
> 
> 	But it's the only thing we can do.  You havn't provided
> us with data.  Did LRH authour the book... from the grave?

Get it, and find out.

> >------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
> >   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
> >                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
> >                        *A Secret Cult*
> >If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
> 
>       Still an excellent way to improve ARC!
> 
        Where was it ever stated that I wanted to improve ARC with
the likes of you?

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:01:09 GMT
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO

In article <1992Nov5.050313.13510@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Am *I* being ambiguous?  Please stop me whenever this happens and ask for
>specific clarifications.  I don't want you or anyone here to end up with
>misunderstoods.

There were two questions I asked in the last posting; your answers were
hopelessly ambiguous.

>>You didn't respond to this. I'll ask again: do you claim there's a
>>distinction between Scientology and other religions that "apply" their
>>"truth" (or maybe "Truth") to the world around them? If so, what is that
>>distinction?
>
>I personally might claim this, but it's not representational of the views of
>Scientology, the Church of Scientology, or Scientologists.

Are you saying there is a distinction or not? If so, what is the distinction?
I'm asking for your personal opinion on this.

Also, I'm somewhat suprised that you don't feel you can represent Scientology
on this question. It seems to me to be a fairly fundamental question. If there
is indeed a religion that asserts to be all about what it means "to know,"
this is something I darn well would want to know about it.

Can one of the other Scientologists in the group address this question?

>>Does Scn make it impossible for you to answer yes-or-no to the question:
>>Is LRH ever ambiguous in his writings and/or tapes?
>
>No, Scn doesn't make it impossible.  In fact, Scn increases an individual's
>certainty on things.

OK. Great. Can you answer the question: In what you have read/listened to, has
LRH ever been ambiguous or contradictory? If *at all* possible, I request a
yes-or-no answer to the question.

--phil
Xref: sparky alt.religion.scientology:2472 alt.religion.kibology:4503
From: echeverr@scf.usc.edu (5150)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Off source...
Date: 5 Nov 1992 01:25:48 -0800
Organization: <censored>
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu

In article <Bx8DtB.KzJ@world.std.com> kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry) writes:
>Isn't "Shitload O' Whitholds" a great name for a band?  They could play
>Scientological Rock.   And thousands of Scientologists would buy each
>album over and over and over and listen to them until their ears bled
>money.

Another name for Matt Welsh's (scientological?) rock band:

Operating Thetans From Hell


5150


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:02:59 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1dhcp9INNr6n@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.070358.1297@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>In article <1d225bINNje7@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov1.214705.10664@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>>In article <1cuo1nINN6bd@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>>>>In article <1992Oct31.124541.9787@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>>>>It'd be somewhat out-gradient for me to get into that.  I've been working
>>>>with these friends of mine for quite some time now.  Although one has already
>>>>had a lot of cognitions, the other night was a very interesting one for the
>>>>other who is normally very closed-minded about such things.

>	O.K. is "Dianetics: The modern Science of Mental Health" the
>book I should read?  Nuts! I paid $1.99 for "Dianetics".  :)

There are several books with "Dianetics" in the title.  Dianetics: The Modern
Science of Mental Health is the most widely-known one with over 15,000,000
copies sold, etc.

>
>	I might try giving the local orgs a call.
>

Good idea.

>>>	BTW, the terms "out-gradient" and "congition" are not
>>>defined in the glossary of the book "Dianetics", from the context
>>>of your post I assume "cognition" means realisation and "out-
>>>gradient" is refering to some "auditor-patient" privledge.  Am
>>>I correct?  Please elaborate...

>>Those are common Scientology terms.  They should be defined in the basic
>>Dianetics & Scientology dictionary.  (I don't have anything to quote
>>from on these, sorry.)
>>A standard dictionary gives a fairly good definition for gradient.
>>Out-gradient would simply be where a gradient is not followed.

[gradient stuff deleted]

>
>	Please give me YOUR definition of gradient, Jon!

It was posted a couple of articles ago.

>
>	Now on to "cognition".  My "Concise Oxford" says:
>
>	cognition n. (Philos.) action or faculty of knowing.
>	perceiving, conceiving, as opposed to emotion and
>	volition; a perception, sensation, notion or intuition;
>	hence or cogn. ...
>
>Pretty close to what I said... realisation, wouldn't have been easier
>to agree with me on this one!

Cognition or realization would apply to my original article.

>>>>>>Everything else aside, Scientology is usable and will produce good results
>>>>>>when applied correctly.

>>Specifically, you are refering to Dianetics.  There is a distinction.  The
>>kinds of things I was mentioning as to why I believe Scientology is good
>>are not found in Dianetics books.
>
>	In which books are they found?

Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought
The Phoenix Lectures
Scientology 8-8008
Introduction to Scientology Ethics
The Creation of Human Ability

and a few recorded lectures

>Richard Nistuk      Fourth year physics student at U.B.C.
>ph36@unixg.ubc.ca  (soon to be nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca)

Jonathon
Barbera