From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn revisited
Keywords: tongue pulled
Date: 22 Nov 92 00:12:42 GMT
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona

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:
>>
>[deleted: I said that I believed that 10000 people have be audited,
>and that I would believe that 1000000 peopl have been audited.  BUT...]
>>>	Why should I beleive that these x number of people are any better
>>>for the auditing?  Why should I beleive that these people regularly
>>>perform "miracles", such as the ones that Holifield claims.
>Jonathon says:
>>There are *a lot* of personal success stories published and made available to
>>the public.  These are attests to the workability and positive results of
>>Scientology courses and services.  Your local Scn church will have some these
>>posted on a bulletin board.  Others have been published in various materials
>>such as the new edition of What is Scientology?
>
>Jonathon, Jonny, Jon, Jo, J... :-)  What must I do to get through!
>
>"*a lot* of personal success stories" don't cut it.  Publications
>from the CoS don't cut it.  In one of my previous posts I show
>that it was perfectly possible for the CoS to have HUNDREDS OF
>THOUSANDS of personal success stories, but the CoS only CLAIMS
>tens of thousands,  that's ONE order of magnitude out!  Only a
>TEN PERCENT success rate!  I certainly wouldn't go to a doctor
>that has a ten percent success rate!  Here is my logic:
>
>	the church claims tens of thousands of success stories.

LRH wrote that in the, I think, early 70's (may have been earlier).

>say 50000 cases
>	the CoS has 450 orgs worldwide.
>	Jonathon, you bring up a figure of ten years in a previous
>post
>	cases/year/org = 50,000 cases / 10 years / 450 orgs
>        cases/year/org = 11 cases / year / org
>
>That's only 1 case per month, Jonathon!  With a whole month off!
>If this is the amount of successful cases then Scn better shut
>down a few Orgs!
>
>	You *must* get my point now!  The CoS must produce _ALL_ of
>the cases, not just the successes.  I want to see all of the screwed
>up cases, all of the complaints, all of the unhappy customers.  In short
>the whole thing!  Not _just_ the successes that have been filtered out!

Okay, I understand.

>>>>>	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
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.)...
>
>Jonathon says:
>>>>Ha ha ha!  No one is ever disciplined because something like exteriorization
>>>>or the existence of "spirits" (souls?  huh?) isn't real to them.
>
>
>
>>>>It's okay for something not to be real to someone.  I know a Scientologist
>>>>in particular who mentioned this to me ... he's been on staff for about
>>>>twelve years and there are some whole track (past life memories) which
>>>>aren't real to him.  That's okay.  No one is disciplined or pressured to
>>>>believe something like this.
>
>	Well, others have travelled this ground better than I, and have
>given evidence to cause me to doubt the truth of this.

Please provide specific examples.  (Remember: my statement relates to the
person believing in various concepts and does not apply to policy.)

>>>>"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!

>>>from above :
>>>">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.)..."
>>>
>>>	"handled"?  Sounds pretty ominous to me.
>>>
>>>	It sounds a lot like the blame would be put on the PC for any
>>>dissatisfaction.
>
>>No.  Nothing ominous and the PC is being blamed.
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>     Is it _ALWAYS_ the PC's fault?  Of course it must be, because
>Scn is NEVER wrong!  :)

Sorry, that would be a typo.  To clarify: the PC wouldn't be blamed.
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.

>
>>                                                  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.
However, this does not imply that the PC is forced to be satisfied.

>>>>I offer case histories and you dismiss them without a glance.  You ask
>>>>for this data ("proof") and then refuse to confront it.  How am I suppose
>>>>to take you seriously?
>>>
>>>	_Selected_ case studies are not proof!
>>>
>>What do you need as proof then?  Did you want to browse through someone's
>>confidential PC folders?
>
>	_I_ am the wrong person to do this.  _I_ have as much training
>in this field as, Oh I don't know, L RON HUBBARD, that is to say little
>to none!  I would want a TEAM of professionals to browse through _ALL_
>the "confidential PC folders".  Needless to say, they would have to
>be independant from the Church.

Well, I for one would be wary of outsiders browsing through my PC folder.
This'd be more so for others who have had extensive auditing and have a lot
of very private information in their folders.

>	This is quite a common practice, the place where my wife works
>is being reviewed at this moment by an provincial review team.  It
>seems to me that the CoS would not be to happy if they were subject
>to such reviews.

Do people's private lives get reviewed in depth?  Otherwise, it doesn't
compare.

>
>>                           Or if selection is the only problem, why not
>>find some people who have received a lot of auditing and ask them what
>>they thought of it all.
>
>	Again(sigh), anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it.  These
>people may be afraid to say bad things about the CoS!

I'm getting an impression that you think Scientologists are a bunch
of cowering zombies or something.  Scientologists tend to be very
out-spoken and very direct.

>
>>                         Or do some research thing: train as an auditor and
>>audit people.
>
>	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?
>
>
>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).
>

Jonathon
Barbera