HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 16:28:40 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

> keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:

> In article <gPZmTB5w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> >
> >There is the fact that if you run a process in Dianetics, you will
> >get a known result.  
> 
> I thought I read that Scientology has money back policies for when it doesn't
> work.  Are you not saying that it will always work?

Yes.  There are conditions that must be met for a process to work.
If one of these conditions is not met, the value of the process is
decreased proportionatly to the failure of the condition required.

The policy for refund is for people that don't have the ethics
presence or ability to confront the process.

> Or how is the known
> result known?  How can the result always be known if it doesn't work for
> everyone?  If Scientology already knows it won't work for a person, why does
> it bother with them?  Do they say "Scientology has already concluded that it
> won't work for you, so let's go ahead anyway and then when it doesn't you
> can get your money back"?

The result is known from 42 years of testing and statistical
analysis.  The result is the same for every case that meets
the conditions of the process.  The Church does not say that a
process will not work for everyone.  It says that there are
instances where an individual must handle ethics areas in his/her
life for the process to be effective.  The refund policy is there
for those individuals that will not take the responsibility for their
actions and do not wish to continue.

Bill Hardman



------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:51:14 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>I have worked for a number of research labs,

>If independent testing is routine,
>which company validated the findings of the:
>
>        Catholic Church
>        Mormon Church
>        Buddism

These organizations prudently don't publish equations, or use use
words like "data" and "technology". If they did, their "data" would
certainly get scrutiny. In fact, the Jehovah's Witnesses (as part of
predicting the End of the World) do publish technical material.  They
have made claims about (for instance) the frequency of earthquakes,
and those claims have been attacked by geologists.  Various Christian
Creationist organizations advance scientific arguments, and again,
these forays are then fair game for scientists.

>What was the research group responsible for the independent testing
>of the mental health practices like:
>
>        lobotomy
>        ECT
>        Transorbital Leukotomy
>        Freudian Analysis
>
>All that was required to implement these "cures" was to have some
>Phd say it's so, no testing, just case studies.

That's a remarkably ignorant statement. There is a considerable
technical literature, back and forth on these matters, and the
fact that you haven't read it does not make it nonexistant.
I guess you weren't reading this newsgroup during the ECT wars:
would you like me to repost some of it?
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 92 16:46:06 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

> keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:

> In article <024mTB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
>>
>>An ethical transgression is an individual originated viewpoint.  It
>>is not subject to agreement, or dis-agreement by any group.  It all
>>depends on the awareness of the individual at the moment that the
>>non-optimum situation is/has occured.
>>
> Then why are there ethics officers and ethics organizations if ethics is
> completely self defined?  Would that mean that ethics are not reality ?
> (reality being the agreement of thetans, of course).  

This answer is self-explanitory.  There are levels of ethics
awarness.  If a person is able to correctly identify the area that
there is a problem in, there is no need for an ethics officer.  If
that person has mis-applied, or failed to correctly identify the
source of the area, then the ethics officer is used for guidance and
intervention in area of conflict.  An ethics officer is not an
'enforcer' in the context that they go around 'slapping hands' and
looking for situations of transgression.  They are councelors in a
specialized field.

Bill Hardman

------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Gradient
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:11:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.090702.23918@microsoft.com> erichill@microsoft.com (Eric Hill) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.081256.1421@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>Yes, I did make a mistake thinking that people understood the word gradient
>>in its common English definition.  The only thing that made it a Scientology
>>term was putting the prefix "out" in front of the word.  I assumed people
>>who understood the two words would get the jist, but I suppose that
>>dictionaries aren't too popular in the wog (not Scientology) world.
>>
>
>Jonathan, why be insulting?
>wog and other words such as raw meat are insults.

I don't use the term "raw meat".  I use the term wog.  It isn't too much of
an insult it means, in Scientology, a non-Scientologist.

Jonathon
Barbera

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: PV equation
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:26:53 GMT

In article <GISLE.92Nov10000102@gyda.ifi.uio.no> gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>
>
>So -- it looks like the "Potential Value" of the guy with an IQ in the
>70'ies is more than FOUR TIMES that of the guy with an IQ in the
>genius range.  That's probably the political correct thing to believe
>these days, but I guess that the moron will have a darn hard time
>realizing that incredible potential to the extent that he actually
>becomes four times as sucessful as the genious.
>
>Honestly, it really looks like this theory can need a bit more work...

I think it works perfectly.  If you wanted people to pay for your training,
wouldn't it be great to be able to prove to morons that they can be 4 times
more intelligent than so-called geniuses?  Would make it really easy to 
recruit morons wouldn't it?
-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: raz@socs.uts.edu.au (The Inimitable Raz)
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Keywords: out-gradient, cognitions, [P]ersonal [V]alue, [I]ntelligence, [D]ynamic, less-mature
Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
Date:  6 Nov 92 08:49:48 GMT

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

>>>It'd be somewhat out-gradient for me to get into that.  I've been working


>>	BTW, the terms "out-gradient" and "congition" are not
>>defined in the glossary of the book "Dianetics", from the context
>>of your post I assume "cognition" means realisation and "out-
>>gradient" is refering to some "auditor-patient" privledge.  Am
>>I correct?  Please elaborate...

>Those are common Scientology terms.  They should be defined in the basic
>Dianetics & Scientology dictionary.  (I don't have anything to quote
>from on these, sorry.)

>A standard dictionary gives a fairly good definition for gradient.
>Out-gradient would simply be where a gradient is not followed.

My Macquarie dictionary defines gradient as degree of inclination or
rate of change. Are you saying that answering the original question
would fail to follow the degree of inclination or rate of change?

Would you PLEASE give a plain English definition of the term, or 
in fact paraphrase the entire original sentence without using the 
words out or gradient?

Further, my original post appears to have gone walkabout. Would those
of you who are utilising Scientology jargon define it as you use it?
(Either parenthetically or in footnotes.) 


--
Bye for now.
         - Raz           

raz@socs.uts.edu.au   (Roland Turner)   (OH) 61 2 906 4681
From: fiorino12@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Abortion and Scientology
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:16:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

It's funny...

You read through some of the LRH writings re: pre-birth experiences, and how

they affect the fetus for the rest of its life.  One thing I came across were

case studies in which the subject was subjected to multiple (and repeated!
)
ABORTION ATTEMPTS by the mother.  And this isn't just one case, it's a whole

lot of cases...  Is is me, or does that sound like five pounds of shit in a

two pound sack?  Come ON.  It seems as if women everywhere are punching them-

selves in the abdomen while pregnant.  Ther're doing belly-flops and playing

football.  All this, of course, in the world of Dianetics et.al.  It all

sounds fishy to me. 


But, enough negativity.  For an example of true results coming from CoS, read

my missive entitled "New Tech from FioOrg!".  In this brief but telling post, I

relay to the world the secret in the application of Religious Technology.  Like

the post says, I HAVE BEEN WINNING EVER SINCE!  My stats are phenominal!  My

wins are limitless...  I've been ARCing through the Wall of Fire and kicking
ass

all the way there!  So FUCK YOU all non-believers!  Just FUCK YOU!


Fio
OT XXVI
Class MCMXIV Auditor
From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: PV equation
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:24:26 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <Z8yXTB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:

[[ About the equation PV=I*D^x, in response to Richard Nistuk;s request
   for what range to use for "x": ]]

> Anyone with a grain of sence would use a value of one to ten to
> measure the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
> dynamic.  That should say enough.

No, I don't think it says enough.

But since it appearently makes perfect sense -- please, oh please
explain _why_ a value of 1 to 10 why are the range any sensible person
would use for to measure the magnitude on which the person is
surviving on the dynamic .  Since this appears as a power in the
equation, the whole equation becomes extremely sensitive to whatever
range you use for x.  A small error in x will have immense influence
on the result.  So again, EXACTLY WHY DOES THIS PARTICULAR RANGE OF
VALUES MAKE MORE SENSE THAN ANY OTHER RANGE ONE MAY HAPPEN TO THINK
OF?

--
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: mamacdonald@mta.ca
Subject: Re: Joining
Reply-To: mamacdonald@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:28:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.183157.49865@ccvax.ucd.ie>, x551_017@ccvax.ucd.ie writes:
>I want to join, take me, take me.
From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: PV equation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:30:09 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

> In article <Z8yXTB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
> 
> [[ About the equation PV=I*D^x, in response to Richard Nistuk;s request
>    for what range to use for "x": ]]
> 
> > Anyone with a grain of sence would use a value of one to ten to
> > measure the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
> > dynamic.  That should say enough.
> 
> No, I don't think it says enough.
> 
> But since it appearently makes perfect sense -- please, oh please
> explain _why_ a value of 1 to 10 why are the range any sensible person
> would use for to measure the magnitude on which the person is
> surviving on the dynamic .  Since this appears as a power in the
> equation, the whole equation becomes extremely sensitive to whatever
> range you use for x.  A small error in x will have immense influence
> on the result.  So again, EXACTLY WHY DOES THIS PARTICULAR RANGE OF
> VALUES MAKE MORE SENSE THAN ANY OTHER RANGE ONE MAY HAPPEN TO THINK
> OF?

I'll help you answer this yourself.  What are you trying to
discover?

Bill Hardman


------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Summary: What this group really needs is a Frequently Unanswered Questions list
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:25:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.091842.3266@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Scientology FAQ
> [...] 
>All text quoted from the following books by L. Ron Hubbard:

>1. What is Scientology?
> 
> [...]
> 
>   It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact sciences.

A precise and exact science!?! If so, it's never been shown on this newsgroup.

Demonstrate what this means!

>3. Is Scientology valid?
> 
>   Tens of thousands of case histories, all sworn to, are in the possession
>of the organizations of Scientology.

This goes into that ever-increasing folder of Claims Asserted but not Proven.
Show us the data!

>No other subjects on Earth except physics and chemistry have had such
>grueling testing.

What does this mean? Is the quoting of two valid sciences intended to give
Scientology credibility?

What testing of chemistry and physics is LRH referring to? What is the
corresponding testing of Scientology?

>6. What special use does Scientology have?
> 
> [...]
> It increases their intelligence.  

Prove it! Show independent research which has demonstrated this!

[...]

>Questions/Answers 7-25 were quoted from articles originally posted by
>David Bonnell (davidb@engin.umich.edu) on alt.religion.scientology
>with minor changes made in spacing.
> 
>Other text quoted directly from the books mentioned at the beginning of
>this FAQ.

I agree with the previous comments: This "FAQ" does not have the quality of a
FAQ. It is not composed of questions that were actually asked here, and the
answers are not provided by posters of the group. It also skips a whole bunch
of questions which *are* asked in this group...but never answered:

1. Is this a science or is it not? If it is a science, what are the
   independent means that one would demonstrate that it is a science? If it is
   not a science, why does LRH claim that it is?

2. Why is there no documentation ever provided of published research that
   demonstrates the claims made by Scientology? Why are such requests for
   documentation always ignored?

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: tsang@cs.washington.edu (Donald Tsang)
Subject: Re: Scientology FAQ.
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:58:34 GMT

In article <> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>Scientology FAQ
>-----
>The following questions are answered:
>[list of questions, answers deleted]

That's funny... I thought FAQ lists were answers to Frequently-Asked
Questions, specifically, those questions that are asked frequently
_ON THE NEWSGROUP_!  Some of these questions have never been asked
here...

Also, the answers should *generally* be the ones given by multiple
sources, not just single individual (especially not a deceased
individual, like L. Ron Hubbard, no matter how deified he may be).  One
of the most important features of a FAQ file is that, when a difference
of opinion exists, all sides are represented.  Thus, when the Xemu FAQ
is posted, opinions and facts from all sides are solicited.  Same with
the "Books about Scientology, et. al." FAQ.

I'd be appreciative if you (Mr. Barbera) would follow the standard
Usenet protocols and definitions... the word "FAQ" has a specific
meaning, and whether or not you use Scientological definitions
elsewhere, you *shouldn't* use nonstandard definitions of USENET
terms on alt.religion.scientology...


-- 
Donald Tsang                    "Ho!  Haha!  Guard!  Turn!  Parry!  Dodge!
tsang@june.cs.washington.edu     Spin!  Ha!  Thrust!"
..!uw-beaver!june!tsang                       -- Robin Hood Daffy
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: u1097bz@vms.ucc.okstate.edu
Subject: "PHILISTIN TEMPLE OF DRAGON +_+_+_+_+_
Organization: Oklahoma State University Computer Center
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:20:41 GMT

Hi
	Can anyone help me for answering this question

	Who destroyed PHILISTIN TEMPLE of DRAGON at GAZA ?

	Thanking in advance for the reply

	Velu Pillai

	vpillai@vms.ucc.okstate.edu

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.005814.4437@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.075535.13302@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>>>Are you saying there is a distinction [between SCN and other "applied
>>>religious technologies] or not? If so, what is the distinction?  I'm asking
>>>for your personal opinion on this.
>>
>>Yes, *I* (not Scn) would make this distinction.  The distinction *I* would
>>make would be: ease of application of Scn, potential understanding of Scn in
>>order to apply it, the potential effect of Scn application being greater and
>>more useful, etc.
>
>This is a broad and sweeping statement. Do you care to defend it, or should we
>just file it away in the Assertive but Unsubstantiated Claims file? I should
>warn you that that folder is already pretty full...

It's my personal opinion.  It's based on various observations I have made
about some other religions.  No intricate research was done.  This is merely
my opinion (you asked for it).

>>I'm not a representative of Scientology, the Church of Scientology, or
>>Scientologists.  I represent myself on this newsgroup.
>>
>>>is indeed a religion that asserts to be all about what it means "to know,"
>>>this is something I darn well would want to know about it.
>>
>>Read some of the Scientology books.  Then you'd know more about it.
>
>I'm not sure what your message is here, Jonathon. You say that you can't
>represent Scn on these questions, but you *have* read all the books you're
>asking me to read. Yet, when I ask you some fundamental questions about this
>"applied religious technology," you can't give me anything at all that
>indicates that *you* are clear about the issue.

I have a very good understanding of this topic.  However, either you aren't
asking the right questions or are not understanding my replies.

It is highly recommended to not get your Scn tech from me.  Get it from
source.  Read the books.  Then you can decide for yourself what it's all
about.

>I am not willing to read those books and *still* not be clear about how
>Scientology represents itself in the world.

Read the books.  Find out for yourself.

It takes me less than a week to read each.  You might be able to read them
faster.  (And don't forget to look up misunderstood words in a dictionary!)

Jonathon
Barbera
From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: "Scandal of Scientology"
Date: 11 Nov 1992 08:16:47 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov10.221753.18672@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
rjk7m@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Richard John Kwiatkowski) writes:
>   I find it very interesting that the majority of the
>pro-scientology books available have been written by L.Ron Hubbard,

  More interesting, I think, is the fact that he authoured a lot of the
books _after_ he died!

>rjk7m@virginia.edu (Rick Kwiatkowski (just a guy))

Richard Nistuk

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:44:14 GMT


hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:
>> where _PV_ is the "potential value of an individual or group", _I_ is the 
>> "intelligence" and _D_ is the "Dynamic".   
>        As explained in the book, x stands for the magnitude on
>which the person is surviving on the dynamic.
>        Why, it's simple to do.  I have observed over 500 people
>with a simple high school education work the equation to their
>complete understanding.  The only help they required was making sure
>that they fully understood the words used.

Speaking as a scientist: this "equation" is moronic.

I apologize for using an emotionally loaded word. I do not apologize
for the statement, since it is accurate.

[For starters, an equation requires that all variables be:
 - well defined
 - objectively quantifiable
 - have linear metrics
]
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: pearnhar@nyx.cs.du.edu (Philip A. Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Wins, Questions, and Comments
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 11:49:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.105237.4055@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>Hi Guys!

Hi, John. Welcome back. Stay a little longer this time.

>Everyone is a Scientologist, some just haven't cognited yet!!

Those of us who are lower on the cognition food chain have a question:

Earlier, you claimed you had read the book _Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternial
Golden Braid_. After telling us you read this book, you questioned the nature
of Science and Truth in a fashion that abundantly indicated that you had
either not read the book or had totally failed to understand the its central
theme. Could you let us know which it is?

--phil