From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Proving the Validity of Scn
Keywords: tongue pulled
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:31:28 GMT

>>Sure.  As long as the reason why a person considers a failure a failure
>>is taken into consideration.  For instance, if the person stops in the
>>middle of a rundown, the reason for the failure is obvious: incomplete.
>
>Ah!   So we *are* blaming the PC here.  It's *never* the fault of Scn.

The auditor may be at fault.  For that matter, the case supervisor could
have been at fault.  This is why there is a push to get Class VIII case
supervisors in all churches of Scientology: to have trained C/S'es who don't
make mistakes in C/S'ing.

>
>>                         Above I refer to the fact that people aren't
>>disciplined because things like past lives aren't real to them.  I was
>>assigned a doubt condition for something in a different context.
>
>I belive the *idea* is the same.  We are talking about how
>the CoS treats its' people aren't we?

No.  We were talking about how Scientology does not force people to
have things real to them ("believe them").  No one is disciplined for
not "believing" in past lives or other spiritual things.

>
>>My belief in past lives or spiritual things were not in question.
>
>O.K.  But people *are* disciplined, aren't they?

Not for beliefs.  Ethics is applied to handle out-ethics situations.

>>>>>>>>"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!
>
>>It isn't true ... for you.  If it were, I wouldn't invalidate you on it.
>
>I said "IF".  I have shown an example where the statement "What's true f
>or you is true." doesn't work.

Incorrect.  Something can be real for someone which isn't real for someone
else.  Likewise, someone can have something real for them that isn't real
in the common reality which we all share.  The example of the glass would
probably never be an issue.  However, there are things which can come up
regarding someone's beliefs (what is real to them).  Invalidation is not
used for this reason: because something can be real to someone else which
isn't real to you.

>>>>>>                                                  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).
>
>>Clarify: By organization is meant Scn organizations.
>
>I meant Scn as well.  Of course, many other organizations
>don't give a fig about people.

Where do you get these generalizations about Scn?

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology