HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A question or 2 about "science"
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:33:47 GMT
Organization: Make a Wish Foundation
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

: I would like to ask a few questions. 
: 
: If I observe something for myself and see that it is the way LRH says,
: why doesn't this make it true?  I mean, I concede that some of what LRH
: wrote can seem sort of off the wall at times, but if it works, then
: it works, period.  What is wrong with that?

The fact that Earth looks flat to observers on it does not mean that
it is flat.  Just believing in something does not make it true, no matter
how "much" you believe it.

Because both you and LRH could have been fooled that it is indeed that way.
Sometimes are not the way they seem.  If I believe that wrapping trees
in Saran Wrap keeps elephants away, I can "observe that it works", by
noting that elephants do not appear.  But that does not mean that
Saran Wrap has any particular effect upon elephants.

Something can be true or false independently of whether you or LRH
believe it.  Otherwise, each of us lives in a delusional dream world
where "reality" is whatever we happen to believe.

: Also, I still don't understand why something has to be independently
: verified in order to qualify for a "science" as you define it.   I say
: that Scientology can be independently verified at anytime, and you
: tell me that It can't because it is the Church's responsibility to
: do the verification.  But then If I give you some type of verification,
: you will say that its unacceptable because it comes from the Church
: and not an independent source.  What gives here?

The Church should not make the claim that Scientology is a "science"
if no body of statistical data from experiments can be provided to
others that supports the idea that any particular Scientology theory is
correct.  If the Church wants to claim Scientology is a science, the Church
should cause such statistical data to exist, either by assisting others
to design and conduct the unbiased experiments, or designing unbiased
experiments and conducting such experiments themselves *and making
the statistical results available*.

Otherwise, making the claim is unsubstantiated scientifically.

As a side issue, most Scientologists also seem to think that either
all of Scientology is "true", or it "isn't".  After finding out three
or four things LRH says that do happen to be true (usually they are
things obvious to any person), they seem to then conclude that everything
LRH says must be absolutely and irrefutably true, no matter how
extraordinary the claim might be.

Just because I believe in the (patently obvious) "Theory of ARC" does
not mean that I therefore accept LRH's extraordinary claim that all
human beings have been around for longer than 76,000,000,000 years.

Dave Decot
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Two questions...
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Oct6.194617.27978@nmt.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:45:01 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Oct6.194617.27978@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>   Actually,  I was reading an article in People magazine (OK,  I
>  admit it!) about Tom Cruise's latest movie Far and Away,  and it said
>  that both Tom Cruise and his wife are members of the COS and that they
>  insisted that the movie be recorded on some special sound gear that
>  was designed or provided by the COS.  Is this called "clearsound"?

Yes.

Btw, the film is a turkey.  Stupid, sentimental and at the bottom of
the barrel as far as acting, directing and storyline is concerned.
The sound quality is good, but _not_ (to me at least) noticable better
than any competent Hollywood production.  Strangely, the technical
quality of the _photography_ is excellent -- above average.
--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- 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)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Introduction.
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:27:11 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <Bvv8wv.Cyn.2@cs.cmu.edu> lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>
>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>I've also read the
>>books by Corydon and Miller although I've since encountered the way things
>>are within the church and can easily diregard much of their material.
>
>Would you care explain?
> - which material do you disregard?
> - because it's lies, or because it's ancient history, or because ???

Well, I won't take time to skim through the books and give exact occurences
which I disagree with ... but as to your second question: I'm willing to
disregard material which is no longer pertinent ... accurate or not in the
past, it is no longer the way things are.

>For that matter, why not post a book review?

I can't.  Don't have summaries from the publishers of those books :-)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Dianetics books.
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Oct7.043438.29900@lds-az.loral.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:56:45 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Oct7.043438.29900@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

> This is a Scientology newsgroup.  As such lists of Scientology books are
> relevant.  As relevant if not more than Lindsay's anti-Scientology book
> list.

Lindsay is posting a compilation of _reviews_, written by various people
and posted to the net at different times.

You are not posting reviews, but sales hype from the publisher.  I
wouldn't object if you (or other people on the net) compiled a book
list where you included your own and other's favourable opinion of
those books (and you are of course welcome to include my own review
of L. Ron Hubbard's "The Way to Happiness" -- posted a few week's
back :-).

But verbatim parroting of the publisher's sales hype is at odds with
the non-commercial nature of Usenet.

--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- 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: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Introduction.
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:00:43 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

Hi!  I'd thought I'd introduce myself.  My name is Jonathon (the J in 
J Barbera).  I've been involved with Scientology since 1990.  I've been
on staff at the Phoenix Mission, Phoenix Org, and Flag Bureaux.  I'm not
an expert on Scientology nor am I an official representative of the
religion or the church.  My knowledge of Scientology comes from various
books I've read and many staff courses I've taken.  I've also read the
books by Corydon and Miller although I've since encountered the way things
are within the church and can easily diregard much of their material.

I like Scientology.  I've benefited from Scientology.  I believe that
(1) Scientology as a science and religion is beneficial and that (2)
the church is effective in carrying on Scientology.

Note: all of these statements are written by me.  Nothing here has been
quoted or suggested to me.  I'm a free-thinking individual who happens to
be pro-Scientology.

-----

Now that I've introduced myself, I'd really enjoy reading some introductions
by the others active here.  (Don't be shy ... and please don't be rude.)
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Narconon secular?
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:26:59 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.133010.23634@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.  It can be applied to
>church activities.  It can be applied to secular activities.
>
>I know this is too radical of a concept for many, but I hope some of you
>will begin to understand...

Actually, it appears as if it's Scientology participants that may be lacking
in the understanding. John Holifield has abundantly demonstrated that there is
a fundamental lack of understanding about why Scientology is not a Science.
There's also a demonstrated lack of understanding of the nature of religion
and philosophy (e.g. "This is true.").

If this is the kind of "enlightenment" that Scientology promises, then it
is indeed a far too radical concept for me to even attempt to understand.

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:42:53 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>    Perhaps you don't understand just how much time, and how many people
>it takes to deliver an hour of auditing.
>    How would the org ever survive if auditing was free.

I have before me a lovely chart from 1980 entitled "Consumer's Guide
to Conciousness Raising". Quoting from the prices column:

Est 				- 2 weekends, $350.
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh 		- $1-$3/hr but they encourage you to take
					an expensive trip to Poona, India.
Hippocrates Health Institute 	- 2 weeks at healing center.
Loving Relationships Training 	- 3 days, $300
TM 				- 7 hours for $200
Actualizations 			- 60 hrs, $350
Arica Institute 		- 1 to 40 days
Rolfing 			- 10 sessions at $50 each
Eckankar 			- $75/year plus 5 texts
Siddha Yoga Dham America 	- 2 days for $75

Admittedly, some of the above want you to worship for life. TM wants
you to meditate for life, and Siddha Yoga want you to practice for
life. 

And some good advice from a Living Master:  "When these so-called
gurus are giving knowledge... see if they accept it themselves. See
if a person is following what he teaches." - Baba Muktananda.

Two comments:
- These prices aren't too high.

- More importantly, none of these Paths want you to take expensive
  courses for life. Some (like Rolfing) are finished with you. Others
  want you to take personal responsibility for your own further study.
  Scientology's "total freedom" doesn't seem to involve becoming free
  of expensive courses.

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Narconon secular?
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:30:10 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <Bw4qrz.4M9@ssr.com> sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.011540.5506@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>   Narconon is a secular organization which uses technology developed by
>   L. Ron Hubbard.  The same technology is used within Scientology.
>   However, not all Scientology technology is used by Narconon.
>
>   No one is trying to hide any connection.  But the connection is limited
>   to specific tech.
>
>Hah! I doubt it --- hiding connections is apparently a large part of
>the whole game. Back when the entire Narcono Chilocco mess started
>ABLE sent Rena Weinberg to Chilocco to present Narconon and the
>Chilocco Development Authority with a $200,000 check to help establish
>the Narconon Chilocco facility.  Apparently ABLE was *real* impressed
>with Narconon.
>
>Of course, nobody at either Narconon or ABLE thought it appropriate to
>mention that both Narconon and ABLE have the exactt same address (down
>to the suite number) as each other. But of course, they are
>*COMPLETELY* independent organizations, right? Of course!
>
>Later in the game, when the state mental board and assorted Oklahoma
>psychiatrists criticized the Narconon program guess what happened?
>All of a sudden the Citizens Commission on Human Rights showed up
>and started charging the state Mental Health Department with alleged
>abuses. Interesting that Scientology has been around for 40 years or
>so, and Oklahoma even longer, but it's just coincidence that the CCHR
>decided to make these charges against the Oklahoma Mental Health
>Department at the exact same time as they were turning in unfavorable
>opinions on Narconon.
>
>Of course it *has* to be just a coincidence, because ABLE, Narconon
>and CCHR are all unconnected from each other, and have only the most
>tenuous connection to the Church of Scientology. Right.
>
>sdb
>---
>sdb@ssr.com

Again, I must state that no one is trying hide any connection between
Scientology, ABLE, and Narconon.

There is a chart available in any Scientology org which lists all of the
various organizations and where they are in the command channels.  Go
to your local org and take a look at this chart.  No secrets.

However, there is something many people haven't cognited on yet: there is
Scientology (the whole), there are church organizations (churches), and
there are secular organizations.  Everything falls under Scientology the
field or area of knowledge.  Only church stuff falls under church
organizations.  The church stuff is not over secular organizations.

Narconon is a secular organization which uses Scientology tech.

Churches of Scientology are church organizations which use Scientology tech.

The connection is Scientology tech.

Scientology is an applied religious philosophy.  It can be applied to
church activities.  It can be applied to secular activities.

I know this is too radical of a concept for many, but I hope some of you
will begin to understand...
From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some definitions and Comments
Summary: Let's see those experiments!
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:43:08 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.205800.3706@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>I'm not assuming that you are using the word the same way that I am.  I
>realize that words have more meanings than one.  Certainly, you aren't using
>the word science as Scientology defines it.  More on this later...

What was the point of bringing out the Scientology definitions of these
words? Why all the typing? What purpose does it serve?

John, if you're going to demonstrate that Scientology is a science, you should
not be using a Scientology definition of the word. If you use the Scientology
definition, you won't be proving the point we think you're trying to prove.

>You are a scientist right?  I'm a student and sales rep.  The people I meet
>and associate with are much more "average" public, than you and your
>scientist buddies.

I am not a Scientist. I am someone who will critically examine issues. You'll
find quite a few critical thinkers on the net.

On the other hand, if you're saying that the "average" public generally
doesn't think critically, I won't disagree.

>> Could you post some more of your "experiments" and see if we can find
>> one that we agree is Science?
>> 
>
>    Not today, but sometime soon I'll try.

To risk understatement, this is, by far, the most fruitful place to be
spending your time. If you are actually are able to demonstrate Scientology
Science to us, you'll astonish a lot of people. You would silence me in this
discussion. You may even silence Gisle, which would be an accomplishment.

I do suggest that you read the sci.skeptic FAQ before making your postings.
At the very least, it will give you an idea of the background into which you
are making your presentation. (Do you get the group at your site? Would you
like me to e-mail you a copy?)

>Still don't really get what your asking, but religion or science or whatever,
>you have to look to know, and you have to be willing to look in order to
>look.

Religion or science or whatever? WHATEVER! Oh, my.

Science is not something to believe. It's not the truth. It's just the best
means we have of explaining the world today. And you can bet your bottom
dollar that some of those models of explanaition will be refined tomorrow.

Let's agree to disagree on this one until you provide your credible
Scientology experiments.

>John Holifield

--phil
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>and more of same
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:03:20 GMT
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine

In article <1992Oct13.115915.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu>, chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
> Why bother debating scientology?
> 1. You're not going to deprogram the "faithful" or manipulative people who 
> use it to serve their own ends. ( Question to Mr. Holifield: which are you, 
> and how do you prove it?)
> 
> 2. The people who you really want to prevent from joining this quasi-
> religious pseudoscientific cult are not the ones who would honestly debate 
> over the wires, but those who for whatever reason are easy prey for these 
> purveyors of quick-fix religion.
> 
> 3. These opinions are mine, not OSU-COM's and if you try to sue me you'll 
> find out I'm broke
> 
> 4. Scientology will be gone in a few years anyway and everyone has a legal 
> right to make a fool out of themselves.

I meant what I said, scientology will be gone in a few years, in the same 
way as Coueeism and phrenology are gone. I did make that point specifically 
to aggravate the scientological faithful, since they deserve it.
	In a few years, there will within the ranks of scientology, arise a 
new messiah, claiming some direct descent from LRH who will have further 
insight/Knowledge/better technology. This messiah will split the camp, 
dividing the faithful from the truly faithful. The science will split into 
the Latter-day Scientologists and Reformed Scientologists, and there will be 
camps within debating over the original intent of LRH in dianetics and the 
correct use of the E-meter. If somebody saves just a portion of this text, 
who knows, I might even be revered as one foretelling the future. 
	A prophet of Scientology!!!!! wow!!!!!

Anyone out there ever read " A Canticle for Leibovitz"?

Anyway, Scientology currently is perceived by some as dangerous, which is 
exciting for some of its members, because it gives them a power trip.
Likewise those who dabble in the occult.
Within one (maybe two) generations, Scientology will be perceived 
by most as tiresome psychotwaddle, and the adherents will be received like 
Jehovah's Witnesses.

		Thus spake the prophet, and having spake, he rent his 
garments. ( If you want to be a prophet, you can rent your garments from 
the same place I rent mine )

Go on Mr. Holifield, flame me, I dare you.

David N. Chorley. My opinions, only mine.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Dianetic experiment to try and use
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:08:20 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <Bw4z8A.F0D@cup.hp.com> decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot) writes:
> A clarification:  the procedure for a Contact Assist which Leny described
> is not the same as a Touch Assist, which is a completely different
> procedure.  Gisle's followup would tend to confuse the two procedures.

I assume that your point is that the soothing feeling I felt in the
control experiment could be credited to the "touch assist" procedure,
instead of the mechanical explanation I offered.

Yeah, that's a possible source of error -- I never said that
experimental design was easy.  However, I've just conducted a third
experiment (I am starting to look like a junkie) and have found out
that pressing an ice cube to the wound _also_ soothes the pain.  I
don't think there is any LRH procedures that involves ice cubes :-) .

--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- 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: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Introduction.
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:09:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Oct8.040043.14928@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>I like Scientology.  I've benefited from Scientology.  I believe that
>(1) Scientology as a science and religion is beneficial [...]

Can you explain how Scientology is a science?

What are the scientific principles behind Scientology? What scientific
journals have explained these principles?

--phil
From: chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: <None>
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:59:15 GMT
Organization: OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine

Why bother debating scientology?
1. You're not going to deprogram the "faithful" or manipulative people who 
use it to serve their own ends. ( Question to Mr. Holifield: which are you, 
and how do you prove it?)

2. The people who you really want to prevent from joining this quasi-
religious pseudoscientific cult are not the ones who would honestly debate 
over the wires, but those who for whatever reason are easy prey for these 
purveyors of quick-fix religion.

3. These opinions are mine, not OSU-COM's and if you try to sue me you'll 
find out I'm broke

4. Scientology will be gone in a few years anyway and everyone has a legal 
right to make a fool out of themselves.
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>none none nada
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:32:09 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

In article <1992Oct15.121434.1@vms.ocom.okstate.edu> chorley@vms.ocom.okstate.edu writes:
>
>Isn't it jolly how the faithful have to make sure everyone uses the correct
>buzzwords. My current body,as is my opinion, my only one and mine alone.
>Answer me this question though:
>		If I could clone myself, who would be using my other body?

It wasn't "the faithful" who enforced the more specific term.

Anyhow, if you were a big-time being, I suppose you could use both bodies.
Otherwise, another being would use it.
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: WHATTHEHEY
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:05:59 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.


	

Why all the sudden cativity in this group?  Is Scn on the rise again?  ;-)
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)
Subject: Re: Dianetic experiment to try and use
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:12:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

A clarification:  the procedure for a Contact Assist which Leny described
is not the same as a Touch Assist, which is a completely different
procedure.  Gisle's followup would tend to confuse the two procedures.

Dave
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Dianetics books.
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:47:40 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

Re: posting book reviews         

Okay, I understand what you mean.

However, would it be valid then to include quotes from the book or other
comments about the book within my own book review?  And would a book review
be similiar to a summary of the book?  Or would personal opinion be the
main part of a book review?

Thank you.