HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: I Have *No* Integrity!
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:37:54 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <raz.724048639@syzygy>, raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz) writes:
> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>>   This passes for science at Memphis State University.  There are equally
>>strange things in most any humanity you choose.  Scientology is at least
>>as much a science as these things are regardless of wether anyone ever
>>verified Ron's research or not.
> 
> Wrong. Scn has never been exposed to peer reveiw. It is not science. 
>

  It has no peers :-)
 
This is true...
-John Holifield
From: axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au (Ashraf Ghebranious)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Science Experiment for Phil from John
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:25:45 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.56.5.23

>In article <1992Dec3.211626.4346@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.

memst.edu writes:>>

>>I say do a survey of people who have completed any Scientology course or
>>auditing action and find out if they have subjectively achieved the
>>end phenomena.  I predict that you will be able to determine objecctively
>>that 100% of the people will have a subjective reality that they have
>>achieved a gain of some type.  This is the essence of Scientology's
>>workability as I now see it.
>>

That is absolutely right! They will tell you if the course helped them or 
not. Either way they will have a "subjective reality" of the fact that they 
have been conned or not. Paying $4000 for a $100 time management course is 
not my idea of fun. 

Yes, I suppose you can claim 100% because of those people who take it heart 
would be applauding the course and the rest would be booing it. The people 
who boo would acheive a gain of some kind .... never to fall for that crap 
again. At least one hopes.

ashraf

**********************************************************************
"Jesus woman! I dont give a f___!" Rhett Butler (slighty paraphrased)

Ashraf Ghebranious                           axg708@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
                                      Australian National University
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 14 Dec 92 04:20:45 GMT

jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

[ Wholesale deletion of text to save bandwidth. As usual, please E-Mail
me if you have a problem.
Was a discussion about the apparent dollar-only motivation of the 
Org staff member who interveiwed myself after I did a Free Personality
Test.]

>The "numbers" reflect the satisfaction of the org's public.

This is somewhat naive. The numbers reflect the effectiveness of the
Org's selling. This is only PARTIALLY dependant upon public satisfaction.

>  Not all stats
>are directly dealing with public themselves, but in a service org, there
>are quite a few which would always be downstat if the public were unhappy
>or felt jipped or whatever the like by that org.

Again, this appears to assume that the average public perception matches
that of all the public who come into contact. This is obviously false.

>Jonathon
>Barbera
--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
From: sol@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (chris s de voir)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: e-meter
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:25:44 GMT


Quote is From tsang@cs.washington.edu Thu Dec 17 02:57:19 1992
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 02:57:27 -0800
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

"Doesn't an "E-Meter" have just two leads (cans), one for each hand?"

I respond: Yes, the E-Meter has only two leads.  And it measures the
resistance of the entire body through the hands.  This resistance is
a lumped resistance and there is no way to break down resistances into
X, Y and Z axes.  My assertion is that the theoretical change in the
structure of the mind of the person receiving auditing that accompanies
needle reactions on the E-Meter would most likely be current flow
and a change in voltage.  Current and voltage can be broken down into
X, Y and Z axes in the human body.  And the only way to uniquely 
identify each change in current or voltage is to monitor it in a
minimum of three pairs of leads.  The E-Meter doesn't do this.  So
when a needle reaction occurs on the E-Meter that has the same
magnitude of deflection and rate of fall, is it the same read or
is it some different reaction with the same APPARENT deflection and
fall?  Measurement of resistance alone and measurement with two leads
that is one dimension only, cannot definitively identify unique
reactions in the person receiving auditing.  An early model of the
E-Meter included three pairs of leads but it was abandoned.  Why?
What electrical characteristic did it measure?  Was it because the
technology at the time could not integrate three simultaneous
measurements?  Does anyone know?
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: I Have *No* Integrity!
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:25:37 GMT

I wrote:
>isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>   ARC, KRC, Tone scale to name a few.  They have as much right to be called
>>science as much of psychology does 
>
>I've lost track of how many times I've asked: why is the tone scale
>reasonable? (Much less, scientific.) 

I've been asked to expand that question.

The tone scale puts things like serenity, grief and anger in
a row - that is, it sorts them into an order.

Why is that order the correct order? On what basis was it
sorted into *that* order?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: THIS IS TRUE
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:59:14 GMT

In article <670@blue.cis.pitt.edu> aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.235957.4587@memstvx1.memst.edu>,
[...]
>Scientology may be full of vocabulary, but this is to keep the PC from
>becoming upstat about the true nature of LRH's WOF and BB.

OK, fun's fun (I chuckled too) - now what the fuck does this mean?

	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: erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill)
Subject: Re: Is Scientology a CULT?  You decide.  It's YOUR life, afterall.
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:33:27 GMT
Organization: MICROSOFT MFG, 

In article <1992Dec13.141319.4575@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>
>   I haven't seen it so I can't PROVE its not there.  BUT the Xemu story
>as I've heard it from LA Slimes, GRIME magazine, and other books is
>a load of crap.  There is PLENTY out of these storys that is against
>known teachings of the church, so I'm left with no other conclusion but
>to dismiss it as NOT church doctrine.
> 
>-John Holifield


John, you have learned your reteric well.  This is just about 
verbatim from any random speech made by Heber, the president
of CoS.  He is also the public figure head for the office of 
special affairs (OSA) which is just the renamed gaurdians office.
The function is the same: overprotect the church through legal
and PR by any means legal or illegal, truthful or decietfull.

Why not form your own opinion and use your own words?

Eric Hill


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Views expressed in this article are the individual author's
and in no way refect the views of Microsoft, etc. ad nausium
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: LRH Christmas Message
Date: 20 Dec 1992 19:33:49 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com


     [My wife got the following in the mail from a staff member in
New York.]

     Here is a very theta [theta is thought, life force, the
spirit, the soul] message containing LRH's message about Christmas.
I thought it was so beautiful, I wanted to send it to each one of
you.

     The spirit of Scientology is the spirit of Christmas. As LRH
says:             

        "The spirit of Christmas lives with us. We are the        
         protectors of the real tradition of Christmas - peace on 
         earth and goodwill to all. We are the hope of man - the  
         only hope. Mankind's salvation lies within our hands.    
         With our tech and ability we can create here on earth a  
         real heaven where men can be free. In our hands lies the 
         power to restore to man his determinism and all that he  
         finds good in himself - his honesty, his integrity,      
         and the thrill of being of real help to others. A very   
         merry Christmas to you all and a bright friendly New     
         Year." - LRH (Orders of the Day of 25 December 1976)     
        
     Have a really good holiday season!

                         Love,

[end of relayed message]
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister)
Subject: >Verbal tech
Summary: >Verbal tech
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:56:24 GMT


isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>Hi Gang,

>   It just occured to me that several of you don't understand what
>Verbal Tech is.  I suspected this after reading that PV thread from
>Gisle, but after reading Chris' last post I'm afraid its worse than
>I thought.

>   You should really find out what verbal tech means before you go
>around talking about it, because it really makes you look dumb.

>   The same also goes for the rest of the Dianetics and Scientology
>words that you misuse.  You should at least learn the basics of the
>subject such as the vocabulary before you try to discuss it, much less
>before you try to criticize it.  

>   Its fine to be skeptical, but at the very least get a clue about
>what your being skeptical of.

>-John Holifield

>   ps.  One other thing, I'm not trying to be mean or be a smart-ass.  
>I'm just trying to make the discussion go a little easier.  Try doing
>your part.

I'm not discussing the subject of scientology,
it's almost futile these days.

I'm making observations about its adherants.

I remember the good-old days when we had scientologists,
like Elizabeth (I'm pretty sure that was her name, she was born
into scientology), who would try and answer questions.

When scientologists continually use new terms without
defining them, I am left to discern the meaning from the
context of the scientologists statements.
It's like what a baby does when it first learns language.
A baby can attain a complete grasp of a language from just
listening to other people, without ever seeing a dictionary.
This can happen because human languages (vs computer/mathematical) 
are extreemly redundant.

If you want to know what I understand 'verbal tech' to mean,
I suggest that you go back and read most of the scientologists
postings within this news-group for the last year.

.Chris.
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:35:19 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <schafmei.724641678@sfu.ca>, schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:

> If LRH understood anything about mathematics/science
> (and he should he was a Sci-Fi writer),
> he would have known better than to write an equation 
> when he wanted to express a vague concept.

LRH wanted to give a Scientific "feel" to his "religion".  He knew quite
well what he was doing.  Those without any training in "science" can pretend
that what they are doing is "science".

> They are protected from giving their interpretation
> of LRH words by the explicit ban on 'verbal tech'.

Of course!  LRH knew that it's better to be thought a fool and be silent,
rather than opening one's mouth and removing all doubt.  That's why they are
"forbidden" to discuss these things.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner)
Subject: Re: PV equation (was Re: e-meter)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:48:58 GMT

Let me try rephrasing what I think Scientologists are saying the PV=ID^x
equation means.  Perhaps a third party can add some clarity to this
discussion.

PV "potential value"
I  "intelligence"
D^x "intensity of survival on dynamic x"

(Not, as many readers including myself initially assumed, D to the xth
power, but something more usually expressed as D sub x.)

There is also apparently another factor which can be positive or
negative depending on whether the individual is "aberrated" or not.
Also, this is a proportionality, not an equation; it is meant to 
suggest a general trend, not give numerical results.

A paraphrase, then, would be:

"An individual's potential, whether for good or evil, is proportional to
the product of his/her intelligence and the efforts which s/he makes
towards survival, whether of self, kin, organization or species."

Any Scientologists out there care to rephrase or correct this, if I've
made a mistake?

(I will comment that I feel the equation is a very poor way to express
the above idea, if indeed that is what it is meant to express.  The
question of 'potential for what?' also remains open.)

Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@genetics.washington.edu
From: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Baa Baa Black Sheep
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:05:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec14.182153.4613@memstvx1.memst.edu>, isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>    I don't know if you just dodged that question, or if you didn't understand
> it.  Allow me to rephrase it:

>    Who is getting the "cut" from the donations?

When people are recruited, a percentage of all money that comes in from the
recruit goes to the recruiter?  No?  You Scientologists have said that it
does in this forum.  Some are making 6 digit figures from these people.
No?  You Scientologists have said that in this forum.

>    Maybe some Scientologists have behaved badly in the past.  I know I
> certainly have.  Perhaps you should take a look at what you have done to
> provoke us.  I'm sure you'll see that in back of it all, your not lilly
> white yourself.


This is a recurring theme in Scientology.  BEWARE or I'll reveal your
HIDDEN CRIMES!  The first time I posted, I received e-mail from Scientologists
warning that they were about to reveal my HIDDEN CRIMES.

Either admit that you don't have a clue and that Scientology is a fraud or
REVEAL MY HIDDEN CRIMES.  Come on, go OOB, stop the rain, and tell EVERYBODY
about my HIDDEN CRIMES.

You fools couldn't even guess my name.  It took a fool from digex, (who claims
that he isn't a Scientologist -- he's just trying to find "pawns" to abuse)
to reveal my name.  Why?  Because Scientology dulls the mind.  It fills it
with so much BS that you've forgotten how to think.  When presented with
challenges to demonstrate your claims (at LRH said that HE could do) you all
run away.  Why?  Because Scientology dulls the mind.  You ENJOY following.
Try LEADING.  Just once.  Of course, watch out for what Scientology does to
you for doing that.

This is the DEFINITION of a CULT: Fleece the members, control them, get them
to generate new members to fleece, persecute the defectors.  Scientology.

This is true.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Verbal Tech
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 09:24:22 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Dec18.010910.4686@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

> Hi Gang,
>
> It just occured to me that several of you don't understand what
> Verbal Tech is.  I suspected this after reading that PV thread from
> Gisle, but after reading Chris' last post I'm afraid its worse than
> I thought.
>
> You should really find out what verbal tech means before you go
> around talking about it, because it really makes you look dumb.
>
> The same also goes for the rest of the Dianetics and Scientology
> words that you misuse.  You should at least learn the basics of the
> subject such as the vocabulary before you try to discuss it, much less
> before you try to criticize it.  
>
> Its fine to be skeptical, but at the very least get a clue about
> what your being skeptical of.
>
> -John Holifield
>
> ps.  One other thing, I'm not trying to be mean or be a smart-ass.  
> I'm just trying to make the discussion go a little easier.  Try doing
> your part.

You're wrong. I know perfectly well what "Verbal Tech" is -- or
rather -- what's implied by the CoS's ban against practicing it.
I could be snotty and say that this how _I_ interprete LRH's
ramblings -- because I've got just as much right to have my very
own version of reality as you (What's true is what's true to you,
and all that crap...)

But I've got better evidenve than that:

The basis for this opinion is that most of the Scientologists I've
come across -- and you're one of them -- answer most questions
by directing the questoneer to re-read the ramblings of one of the
most confused "philosophers" of the 20th century.

If you've read Chris post, you'd discovered that it is the same
observation that forms the basis of Chris' opinion.  He concludes
by stating:
>> Disclaimer: I'm not trying to bait anyone, this has been my
>>             observation within this newsgroup.

So it doesn't matter what it says in "The Book" -- your actions speak
for themself.  And if you're wondering what sort of "actions" I'm
talking about re-read _your_own_ post quoted above.  You are not
trying to explain what "Verbal Tech" is or what I have misunderstood.
You're just telling me to re-read LRH holy scriptures.

This is silly.
--
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: aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Don't get involved with Scientology
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:59:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec12.065407.217@microsoft.com>, erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill) writes:

> A person can be recalled from the RPF as the treasury chief
> smi int was.  Or you can be there for many years like Colan Kee
> from smi int, and chris morrisette (I don't remember which org).

> If you decline to go, do so in a public place or step out into
> public within seconds of doing so.  s.o. buildings come with
> security guards who are also s.o. and do what they are ordered

> Running a person around in small circles is a specialty of the
> s.o..  Especialy if they are trying to change your mind.

This is probably the most telling posting I've seen here.  If anyone is
considering getting involved with this cult, they would do well to speak
with FORMER members of Scientology rather than current ones.

Don't get mixed up with these people.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Criticizing a religion is valid.
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:44:18 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bz2HsB.FrG.2@cs.cmu.edu>, lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
> 
> In article <396@blue.cis.pitt.edu> aabst5@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>>In article <gj156879.723879711@cunews>, gj156879@alfred.carleton.ca ( gj student 156879) writes:
>>> "Would you like to see a free movie?" I am asked at least twice a
>>> month.  I once walked by saying "I read the Time article" and was
>>> answered with "asshole".
>>
>>This is fairly telling isn't it?  Instead of trying to use the TIME article
>>as a way to explain their "side" of the argument, they figure that now that
>>you know the truth, you'll not be fleeced.
> 
> I don't think that's fair. Assume for the moment that Scientology is
> a monetary scam. Would the people in the street, selling flowers -
> pardon me, offering free movies - be the ones who knew it was a scam?
> No. They would be the ones being willingly fleeced.
> 

Okay, so if those of us who are in Scientology are being willingly
fleeced.  Will someone PLEASE reveal who is doing the fleecing?  Sounds
like conspiracy theory to me :-)

ARC,
John Holifield
From: schaf@socrates.ucsf.edu (Chris Schafmeister)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Ending scientology
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:16:06 GMT
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <schafmei.724038030@sfu.ca>, schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:
>> I've pretty much come to the conclusion that 
>> scientology like many other cults is an 'evil'
>> organization that preys on people who are
>> ignorant of the cult or confused.
>>

>  We've noticed.
> 
>> [text deleted]


>  Okay, I'm a Scientologist, so I didn't answer any of those questions
>since you invited everyone else to but a Scientologist.
>  It just shocks me that you'd actually have the stomach to post crap
>like that.  You're ideas are truly dangerous and have no place in a 
>free society.

>-John Holifield

I hope that everyone appreciates the contradiction in John's last sentence.

.Chris.
schaf@cgl.ucsf.edu
-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Christian E.A.F. Schafmeister               Biophysics graduate student
University of California, San Francisco      UUCP: ucbvax!ucsfcgl!schaf
"Biophysics . . . THE future."             INTERNET: schaf@cgl.ucsf.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Ending scientology
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:36:07 GMT

isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>In article <schafmei.724038030@sfu.ca>, schafmei@fraser.sfu.ca (Chris Schafmeister) writes:

[Chris's article deleted.]

>  Okay, I'm a Scientologist, so I didn't answer any of those questions
>since you invited everyone else to but a Scientologist.
>  It just shocks me that you'd actually have the stomach to post crap
>like that.  You're ideas are truly dangerous and have no place in a 
>free society.

On the contrary John, he is part of society and DOES have the right to
state his opinion and DOES have a place in a free society. The ONLY
society in which such remarks have no place is a suppresive one. Examples
that spring to mind are Facism, Communism (as it was practised by the 
USSR) and of course Scientology. (No offense intended, just calling
it how I see it.)

>-John Holifield
--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 319 5700
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology