From: rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical)
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn revisited
Keywords: tongue pulled
Organization: College of CS, Northeastern U
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:15:12 GMT

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:
[...]
[not sure who said this, the attrib has been lost]
>>>>>>	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
                                              ^^^^^
'Until'?  This implies that every case is eventually a success.  Or
did you mean 'unless'?

>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.)...
[...]
>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.
[...]
[A discussion of procedural review in other situations accidentally deleted]
>Do people's private lives get reviewed in depth?  Otherwise, it doesn't
>compare.

I am unfamiliar with how psychiatric outfits are reviewed, but would
assume the answer to this is 'yes'.  Could someone back me up on this?

[...]
>>	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?

Jon - you missed this question.  I just want to point it out.  If your
answer is 'no', please tell us why one needs to become a trained
Scientologist in order to learn whether Scn is good or not (as I
believe you have indicated).

>>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).

Here is the information I was looking for earlier, which gives us a
good foundation for discussing whether Scn would allow rigorous
investigation of its methods.  Jon - would a group of Field Auditors
be able/allowed to conduct research in this manner?  Which parts would
be objectionable, and why?

	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