*** Independent Studies of Scientology ***
Theta
******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
====================================
Independent Theological and Sociological Studies of Scientology
http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/studies.htm
Personality Changes in Scientologists: Effects of Membership
Michael W. Ross, Ph.D
Dept. of Psychiatry
Flinders University of Southern Australia
Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion
James A. Beckford, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
University of Warwick
United Kingdom
Scientology A Comparison with Religions of the East and West
Per-Arne Berglie
Professor, History of Religion
University of Stockholm
Sweden
Is Scientology A Religion?
Alan W. Black
Associate Professor of Sociology
University of New England
New South Wales
Australia
Is Scientology a Religion?
Gary D. Bouma, Ph.D.
Dept. of Anthropology and Sociology
Monash University, Clayton,
Victoria, Australia
Scientology A New Religion
M. Darrol Bryant, Ph.D.
Professor of Religion and Culture
University of Waterloo
Ontario, Canada
Scientology- A Religion in South Africa
David Chidester
Professor of Comparative Religion
University of Cape Town
South Africa
Religious Toleration and Religious Diversity
Bryan Wilson, Ph.D.
Reader Emeritus
Oxford University
United Kingdom
Scientology: The Now Religion
by George Malko
Delacorte Press, New York
U.S.A.
Scientology: It's Place in History
Bryan Wilson, Ph.D.
Reader Emeritus
Oxford University
United Kingdom
Scientology
Régis Dericquebourg
Professor, Sociology of Religion
University of Lille III
France
Scientology- The Marks of Religion
Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D.
Professor in Religious Studies
Washington University
Saint Louis, Missouri
U.S.A.
Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences
Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
Cathothic University of Argentina
Buenos Aires, Argentina
The Religious Status of Scientology
Irving Hexham, Ph.D.
Professor of Religious Studies
University of Calgary
Scientology - A New Religion
Samuel S. Hill, Ph.D.
Professor of Religion
County of Watauga
North Carolina, U.S.A.
Religious Liberty in Europe
Prof. Massimo Introvigne
Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR)
Turin, Italia
Scientology: Teachings and Practices
Hermann Phillips
former Scientologist
Is Scientology a Religion - A Report of Research
Dean M. Kelley
Counselor on Religious Liberty
National Council of Churches of Christ
U.S.A.
The Religious Nature of Scientology
Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Comparitive Study of Religions
University of London
United Kingdom
The Church of Scientology
Juha Pentikainen, Ph.D.
Marja Pentikainen
MSC Helsinki
Finland
Scientology A New Religion
Herbert Richardson, Ph.D.
Professor of Religious Studies
University of Toronto
Ontario, Canada
Scientology Its Historical & Morphological Frame
Dario Sabbatucci
Professor of History of Religions
University of Rome
Rome, Italy
The Relationship Between Scientology and Other Religions
Mr. Fumio Sawada
Eighth Holder of the Secrets
of Yu-itsu Shinto
Scientology - A Way of Spiritual Self-Identification
Michael A. Sivertsev
Expert Advisor on International Matters
to the Committee of the Russian Federation
Reliability of Apostate Testimony & New Religious Movements
Lonnie Kliever, Ph.D.
Professor of Religious Studies
Southern Methodist University
U.S.A.
A Short Study of the Scientology Religion
J. Gordon Melton
Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion
County of Cook, Illinois
U.S.A.
Apostates and New Religious Movements
Bryan Wilson, Ph.D.
Reader Emeritus
University of Oxford
United Kingdom
Scientology and the New Age
Dr. Josef Wolf
Professor at Charles University in Prague
Czech Republic
Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church
G. C. Oosthuizen, Th.D.
Professor, Dept. of Science of Religion
University of Durban-Westville,
South Africa
L. Ron Hubbard & Scientology
Annotated Bibliographical Survey of Primary & Secondary Literature
Marco Frenschkowski
University of Mainz
Germany
====================================
******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
====================================
mimus
<snip>
All of which are "spiritual" or "sociological" or "psychological"
studies, eg hardly science in any real sense of the word, and not one
of which is a study of the claimed effects of Dianetics auditing upon
intelligence, memory and health, or of the claimed super powers
conferred by Scientology, or of the claimed cosmology and cosmic
history supposedly revealed by Scientological auditing.
Furthermore, where's Stephen Kent, eh?
And Massimo Introvigne? He may be independent, but he's certainly not
objective . . . .
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Phil Scott
>====================================
>******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
>Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
> http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
Ah, theta? The cult has made itself a world wide pariah despite the fact that
it has blackmailed the IRS and much of the rest of the US govt into supporting
them.... the fact remains, the public and dozens of judges around the world who
have seen what the cult is up to have a clue.
the fact that the cult pays off a few starving or senile accademics, with no
clue about scientology, to say something nice is not convincing... especially in
light of their remarks... remarks that demonstrate they do not understand what
the cult of scientology is about.
But thanks for coming out as a cult member and supporter. For a while there
Ithought you were just in the freezone.
Phil Scott
Tilman Hausherr
<18e81488.02010...@posting.google.com>:
>L. Ron Hubbard & Scientology
>Annotated Bibliographical Survey of Primary & Secondary Literature
This is quite obviously not a "study of scientology".
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.xenu.de
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html
Mike O'Connor
th...@btinternet.com (Theta) wrote:
[...]
> Independent Theological and Sociological Studies of Scientology
> http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/studies.htm
"Independent" as in denies a connection to Scientology? I doubt even
that. These reports certainly aren't unbiased or objective, as people
who follow your link and read some of the articles can see. Perhaps they
were written so cult people could point to them and say "look we really
are a religion?" That's what all these papers are mostly about.
You know, in the USA you are a religion and always were. The way you get
to be a religion in the USA is to say "we're a religion." That's all it
takes! [Tax free status is something else.] So, you're a religion. Big
deal. The huffle ruffle here is not about religion, it's about abuse of
people and the law.
People shouldn't be debating if it's a religion so much. They should be
debating if it abuses people and the law. Now _that_ is something I
doubt you'll be posting links to independent papers on.
--
LYING IS A SCIENTOLOGY SACRAMENT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Mike O'Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>
Tom Padgett
author of this needs to word clear "independent"....it's a sad political
SPIN reflective of the "reasonable" Bernie Page
approach to "soften" the FACTS of a terroristic
cult that wants to "Clear the Planet" of suspected (and declared) SPs
and PTSs otherwise known as those critical of Dianetics
WHICH HAS ZIP/SQUAT TO DO WITH
religion.
Tom
------------------------------
http://www.FairGamed.Org
roger gonnet
"Theta" <th...@btinternet.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
18e81488.02010...@posting.google.com...
> ====================================
> ******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
> Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
> http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
> ====================================
>
> Independent Theological and Sociological Studies of Scientology
> http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/studies.htm
>
>
> Mr. Fumio Sawada
> Eighth Holder of the Secrets
> of Yu-itsu Shinto
This one is almost unexisting as a professor, totally unknown, and certainly
not able to show any secret!
You forgot to announce the totally inexisting professor president of the
vatican, the famous unexisting one here:
http://home.worldnet.fr/gonnet/trouslard.htm
roger
CL
Hash: SHA1
phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott) wrote:
>Ah, theta? The cult has made itself a world wide pariah despite the
>fact that it has blackmailed the IRS and much of the rest of the US
>govt into supporting them....
Ah, Phil Scott?
Post ONE--~ONE~, Phil; UNO, SINGULAR--documented FACT supporting your
insane, paranoid assertion that any Scientology-related organization or
individual (and evidence of WHO, ~exactly~, did it) ~EVER~ "blackmailed
the IRS and much of the rest of the US govt into supporting them."
Give us ONE ~fucking~ piece of evidence to support your maniacal
hallucination--which, by the way, you share with similar loons like
Keith Henson and the drooling desert-rat Rice Bros. Come on, Phil: I
~know~ you can do it. All I'm asking for is ONE FUCKING documented piece
of actual EVIDENCE!
Now, DON'T throw some idiotic fucking Google search string at me that's
going to regurgitate 10,000 irrelevancies. That's not what I'm asking
for, Phil: I ~know~ how to do research--I've proven that; I don't NEED
your insane "research" advice.
No no: YOU back up your insane assertion with any SHRED of EVIDENCE that
is DOCUMENTED. And make goddamned sure that it includes the blackmail of
the DOJ Tax Division, because ~they~ are the ones who were handling the
litigation of Scientology organizations and individuals.
Oh, you're also going to have to post some evidence of how "they"
(whoever the fuck your implied "they" were) also blackmailed Meade
Emory, Leon Misterek, Stephen Lenske, Sherman Lenske, Lawrence E.
Heller, and Norton S. Karno, because THOSE are the NON-SCIENTOLOGY fucks
who made it all happen FROM THE INSIDE, didn't they, asshole?
Of course, you ~could~, instead, post evidence that the high-school
drop-out idiot David Miscavige wrote the "AUTHOR'S FAMILY TRUST"
documents, the Wills, all the corporate papers, and the Tax Compliance
Manual. Then you wouldn't ~have~ to prove that Meade Emory, Leon
Misterek, Stephen Lenske, Sherman Lenske, Lawrence E. Heller and Norton
S. Karno were ALL "blackmailed" into it. Would you prefer to go ~that~
route, Phil?
Well, whichever way you want to spin around trying to get out of the
fucking box you've put yourself in, either POST the fucking ~EVIDENCE~,
you moron, or RETRACT your LIES that there was ~any~ blackmail of "the
IRS and much of the rest of the US govt." You ~fucking~ loon.
I noticed you haven't answered the pages of EVIDENCE I posted that
completely annihilated your equally-lunatic apoligist whine about your
hero-figures, the proven liars Gerry Armstrong and Stacy Brooks Young,
who first worked the scam from the inside WITH the attornies above, then
went out into the cold to provide COVER for those same fucking
attornies. I posted documented fact after fact after fact, and you got
real, real quiet on that subject all of a sudden.
And, BTW: I want you to realize that I am ~equally~ prepared to do
~exactly~ the same thing on this latest insane song you're singing.
Wanna' dance?
CL
==================================SIG==================================
The so-called "A.R.S. Week In Review" is a white-washed propaganda rag
whose excuse for an "editor"--Rod Keller--uses extreme socio-political
censorship to hide important material facts from anyone relying on it.
Keller is in a deep state of denial on the existence and power of the
corporation known as "Church of Spiritual Technology" (CST--doing
business as the "L. Ron Hubbard Library), and the three tax lawyers who
control it: Sherman Lenske, Stephen Lenske, and Lawrence E. Heller. CST
is the owner of all Scientology-related intellectual property, and is
the senior and most powerful corporation in all of Scientology. Keller
"sanitizes" his publication, keeping out of it of all mention of CST and
the non-Scientologist attorneys running it. Anyone in pursuit or support
of truth and integrity should boycott "A.R.S. Week in Review." Read the
newsgroup alt.religion.scientology for yourself and learn the truth.
=======================================================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBPDUXF9AKsx0v8qcvEQJo6QCdGwGunBt1BWJqwfDDXXp1A6Gyd84An2xo
pAv1CAoDqfpRVF5aJPtzySTb
=2p28
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Plakos
CL wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott) wrote:
>
> >Ah, theta? The cult has made itself a world wide pariah despite the
> >fact that it has blackmailed the IRS and much of the rest of the US
> >govt into supporting them....
>
> Ah, Phil Scott?
>
> Post ONE--~ONE~, Phil; UNO, SINGULAR--documented FACT supporting your
> insane, paranoid assertion that any Scientology-related organization or
> individual (and evidence of WHO, ~exactly~, did it) ~EVER~ "blackmailed
> the IRS and much of the rest of the US govt into supporting them."
There isn't any evidence. I would make one proviso however, I spent many
years working in the political arena and it is a truism in politics that
says "if there is no public interest there will be no public action." In
order to take any effective action against the Cof$ will require the full
weight of the U.S. Federal Government and there is no sign anywhere that the
Fed's are interested. The challenge to critics is to develop one of two
things or both: A. An effective, nationally based campaign against cult
abuse that would include scientology, and, or B. Enlisting the support of a
nationally recognized organization willing to sponsor a powerful campaign
against cult abuse that would include scientology. In politics numbers mean
power. One of the reasons the Cof$ continually bombards politicians with
their press releases is to keep the claim in front of them that they have
millions of members. No one is bombarding Members of Congress with the
truth.
Steve
Steve Plakos
Why hasn't your cult sponsored even *one* authentic university level study of
your vaunted technology? Here are two challenges for you:
1. I will underwrite the entire expense of a nationally recognized university
to conduct a true scientific study of LRH's tech, dianetics, and scientology.
Will you get your cult to participate?
2. Name one scientifically verifiable fact ever discovered by or originated by
L. Ron Hubbard, dianetics, or scientology. Just one.
I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.
Steve
Jack Craver
"Steve Plakos" <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3C35D4F1...@concentric.net...
>
> Why hasn't your cult sponsored even *one* authentic university level
study of
> your vaunted technology? Here are two challenges for you:
>
> 1. I will underwrite the entire expense of a nationally recognized
university
> to conduct a true scientific study of LRH's tech, dianetics, and
scientology.
> Will you get your cult to participate?
>
How about the freezone? I think this is a wonderful idea. An idea whose
time has come. And i give you a lot of credit for putting your money
where your mouth is.
> 2. Name one scientifically verifiable fact ever discovered by or
originated by
> L. Ron Hubbard, dianetics, or scientology. Just one.
>
I think you're confusing religion with science...so do scientologists.
> I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.
>
> Steve
>
best of luck
jack
Hartley Patterson
> th...@btinternet.com (Theta) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> All of which are "spiritual" or "sociological" or "psychological"
> studies, eg hardly science in any real sense of the word, and not one
> of which is a study of the claimed effects of Dianetics auditing upon
> intelligence, memory and health, or of the claimed super powers
> conferred by Scientology, or of the claimed cosmology and cosmic
> history supposedly revealed by Scientological auditing.
>
> Furthermore, where's Stephen Kent, eh?
He writes about the Church of Scientology, not Scientology as a belief
system. None of the articles Theta lists deal with criticism of the
secular activities of the CoS.
There is no reason why the articles should examine the validity of
scientology. All religions are after all false, except possibly for one.
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and how to outrun
Thread. PGP ID 0xC27CDDDC
Heffer
>====================================
>******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
>Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
> http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
>====================================
>
>Independent Theological and Sociological Studies of Scientology
>http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/studies.htm
What a load of crap. None of these people had access to
high level materials that are allegedly religious, and
that, for starters, makes these studies nothing more
than veneer shiners for the cult.
That, plus getting in contact with these so-called
expert study writers has been somewhere between
sparse and nil.
Heffer
Revd. Norle Enturbulata
before you typed this, clambot?
"CL" <c...@canyonlycanthrope.moon> wrote in message
news:VMH49RL43726...@anonymous.poster...
Revd. Norle Enturbulata
"Jack Craver" <cra...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:volZ7.365886$er5.9...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
So why would the FZ be any different in this regard? They think the
crackpot pseudo-science used to brainwash them in $cientology in the first
place "works", though in which regard it's impossible to tell from either
end of this ufo nut-cult spectrum.
Phil Scott
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott) wrote:
>
>>Ah, theta? The cult has made itself a world wide pariah despite the
>>fact that it has blackmailed the IRS and much of the rest of the US
>>govt into supporting them....
>
>Ah, Phil Scott?
>
>Post ONE--~ONE~, Phil; UNO, SINGULAR--documented FACT supporting your
>insane, paranoid assertion that any Scientology-related organization or
>individual (and evidence of WHO, ~exactly~, did it) ~EVER~ "blackmailed
>the IRS and much of the rest of the US govt into supporting them."
all I have is my recall, over a period of 10 years of full page news paper adds
the cult ran asking for anyone with dirt on the IRS to come to the CoS with
it... that request was to both the general citizenry who might have been abused
and to any IRS whistle blowers that might wish to come forward.
Most old time scns, probably it seems yourself included, would remember those
adds, I did not take the time to scan any of them ... most were in the 80's and
early 90's, when good sized scanners were not common, certainly not cheap.
(and the IRS does have plenty of dirt to hide, I don't suppose you wish to
contest that point. The last congressional investigation, 1990 or 2000 I
believe was pretty damning)
To me, that was ample evidence of an effort to collect blackmail information on
the IRS, and its agents and top management. Then per the cults own report,
Miscavige walked into the commissioners office, and the next day all IRS charges
against the CoS were dropped. How good is this evidence? dont know, but
the results are interesting.
That is what I am basing my remarks on for better or worse. Was this smoke to
cover for the US govt take over of the cult? Could be... but it doesnt look
that way.
I have not managed to parse the issues of obvious US govt intelligence
involvement and the CST or reconcile the IRS situation ... the cults original
infiltration, and now the IRS supporting the cult.
My *speculation is that various branches of the govt and US intelligence are at
odds (there is some historical track record on that).. and that the situation
has been changing over time.
>
>Give us ONE ~fucking~ piece of evidence to support your maniacal
>hallucination--which, by the way, you share with similar loons like
>Keith Henson and the drooling desert-rat Rice Bros. Come on, Phil: I
>~know~ you can do it. All I'm asking for is ONE FUCKING documented piece
>of actual EVIDENCE!
see the remarks above... thats all I have, along with similar observations...
with me all of this is at the data gathering stage and I simply voice
considerations based on what I have so far.
>
>Now, DON'T throw some idiotic fucking Google search string at me that's
>going to regurgitate 10,000 irrelevancies. That's not what I'm asking
>for, Phil: I ~know~ how to do research--I've proven that; I don't NEED
>your insane "research" advice.
You do very very good research.... thank you very much. But you too seem
prone to making statements that cannot be well supported, such as claiming that
Stacy Young and Gerry Armstrong are govt agents. thats possible of course.
Your evidence that Stacy for instance helped arrange legal assistance though is
not conclusive at all.... any staff in the area at the time would have done the
same as ordered by the senior management.
I think you are bit weak in that area. Abuse in a discussion is never
warranted. Its usually a tactic used to hide or obfuscate issues. Although I
dont feel in your case that you are trying to hide much. I just think the
evidence you present against these two and Henson for instance is a bit ...er...
thin.
(feel free to mock my use of vernacular grammar)
>
>No no: YOU back up your insane assertion with any SHRED of EVIDENCE that
>is DOCUMENTED. And make goddamned sure that it includes the blackmail of
>the DOJ Tax Division, because ~they~ are the ones who were handling the
>litigation of Scientology organizations and individuals.
I'm sure that is correct, although I havent seen that evidence yet.
>
>Oh, you're also going to have to post some evidence of how "they"
>(whoever the fuck your implied "they" were) also blackmailed Meade
>Emory, Leon Misterek, Stephen Lenske, Sherman Lenske, Lawrence E.
>Heller, and Norton S. Karno,
I do not maintain these people were blackmailed... I think they are part of a
group that has taken over the cult...and thats an opinion based only on the data
Ive read to date, and my own observations of irregularities inside the cult.
> because THOSE are the NON-SCIENTOLOGY fucks
>who made it all happen FROM THE INSIDE, didn't they, asshole?
Ive always maintained that it was an inside job. Your abusive language and
unfamiliarity with my oft stated opinion only serve to discredit you... I don't
think it serves you well. For the record, from my perspective, you and I are
on the same page... except for the Stacy Young. Keith Henson and Gerry Armstrong
issues. Im not sure, but I think you lack evidence in those areas... you
present only incidental evidences. ... and no, I don't have time to cease with
my career, log and colate this stuff so i can respond in detail....you are doing
a good job of that imho.
>
>Of course, you ~could~, instead, post evidence that the high-school
>drop-out idiot David Miscavige wrote the "AUTHOR'S FAMILY TRUST"
>documents, the Wills, all the corporate papers, and the Tax Compliance
>Manual.
Its quite obvious that he was still in knee pants when much of this take over
was in progress, the early 70's.... I too think he is a junior level flunkie to
the controlling interests...you apparently dont read my posts. Just a few, then
jump to conclusions. then you become abusive. Thats not the best way to stay
objective.
>Then you wouldn't ~have~ to prove that Meade Emory, Leon
>Misterek, Stephen Lenske, Sherman Lenske, Lawrence E. Heller and Norton
>S. Karno were ALL "blackmailed" into it. Would you prefer to go ~that~
>route, Phil?
Why do you put those words into my mouth... I have never ever said or aluded
that the cult blackmailed Emmory and crew.... I think the oposite sort of
arrangement is the case, the govt has taken over the cult from the inside, and
ive been saying that since 1994 on this NG in thousands of posts....
I have only said that by the evidence I think the cult blackmailed the IRS....
and that is a bit thin in light of the higher level influence (that you address)
that should have made blackmailing the IRS unnecessary. I have not reconciled
that discrepancy yet.
>
>Well, whichever way you want to spin around trying to get out of the
>fucking box you've put yourself in, either POST the fucking ~EVIDENCE~,
>you moron, or RETRACT your LIES that there was ~any~ blackmail of "the
>IRS and much of the rest of the US govt." You ~fucking~ loon.
For some reason you seem to have lost your cutting edge with the english
language you so often eloquently display... and resorted to this sort of
completely ill founded abuse.
>
>I noticed you haven't answered the pages of EVIDENCE I posted that
>completely annihilated your equally-lunatic apoligist whine about your
>hero-figures, the proven liars Gerry Armstrong and Stacy Brooks Young,
>who first worked the scam from the inside WITH the attornies above, then
>went out into the cold to provide COVER for those same fucking
>attornies. I posted documented fact after fact after fact, and you got
>real, real quiet on that subject all of a sudden.
I have maintained a neutral position of these issues as the data comes in,
meantime I support anyone in picketing the cult, or who produces expose about
the cult. You would though have to show me where Stacy, Keith or Gerry lied
though.... so far from you on that issue what I see is your assertion that they
lied, sometimes very ill founded, such as in your accusations above.
You apparently are completely unfamiliar with my views even though Ive posted to
this NG since it had 2 posts a day in 1994
>And, BTW: I want you to realize that I am ~equally~ prepared to do
>~exactly~ the same thing on this latest insane song you're singing.
>
>Wanna' dance?
Be my guest. I suggest you do a bit of review first though, and no Im not
going to spend my life digging up documents to try and prove my opinions.... I
have a business to run... but you can.
and again. With some rare exceptions, I think you are doing a very good job
of what you do, and I wish you the best in the future gathering and documenting
more. I will be paying close attention. But if you try to force your agenda
that someone is deliberately lying, just because they have been at some
subservient level in the cult as the take over was set up.... well, I think
thats possibly stretching it.
Dont you?
Phil Scott, who does his own dance.
(415) 927 7573 give me a call sometime.
You can do it untraceably any number of ways.
Phil Scott
>
>
>CL wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott) wrote:
>>
>> >Ah, theta? The cult has made itself a world wide pariah despite the
>> >fact that it has blackmailed the IRS and much of the rest of the US
>> >govt into supporting them....
>>
>> Ah, Phil Scott?
>>
>> Post ONE--~ONE~, Phil; UNO, SINGULAR--documented FACT supporting your
>> insane, paranoid assertion that any Scientology-related organization or
>> individual (and evidence of WHO, ~exactly~, did it) ~EVER~ "blackmailed
>> the IRS and much of the rest of the US govt into supporting them."
>
>There isn't any evidence.
Well the cult did spend 10 years or so running full page adds in major US papers
asking for IRS whistleblowers and abused tax payers to come to them with the
dirt. thats a matter of record. and no, I didnt scan that stuff, I dont
think anyone did. But most ex's can attest to the ads, it was a major
campaign.
Now what would the cult do with dirt on the IRS..... lemme guess? Write them
an chit :). Connecting a few dots never hurts.
Phil Scott
mimus
>mimus:
>> th...@btinternet.com (Theta) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> All of which are "spiritual" or "sociological" or "psychological"
>> studies, eg hardly science in any real sense of the word, and not one
>> of which is a study of the claimed effects of Dianetics auditing upon
>> intelligence, memory and health, or of the claimed super powers
>> conferred by Scientology, or of the claimed cosmology and cosmic
>> history supposedly revealed by Scientological auditing.
>>
>> Furthermore, where's Stephen Kent, eh?
>
>He writes about the Church of Scientology, not Scientology as a belief
>system. None of the articles Theta lists deal with criticism of the
>secular activities of the CoS.
You mean "ethics", the "RPF" and "Fair Game" aren't part of
"Scientology's belief system", they're just "secular activities" of
the "Church" which Elron just taught and practiced and they just teach
and practice?
Such pseudodistinction may be of immense use to clam propaganda, but
it's nonsense.
Phil Scott
<noteart...@norhotmail.com> wrote:
>Did you stand in front of the mirror and scream WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES???
>before you typed this, clambot?
I dont think CL is a clam... but a person still taken with Hubbard, who does not
see that he was a bit off the rails from the start. CL does imho do a very
good job of documenting what is fully apparent to me as a US govt intelligence
community take over of the cult. (not for the brainwash either, CL gives no
motive). I think they did it to stop any further public research into human
ability, valid or not, they saw as a threat to thier own research (SRI and the
Star fire projects, well documented in several books)...and to take advantage of
the cults espionage and intelligence and money laundering aparatus....
....that to make it clear is my *current _opinion..... that view will no doubt
change as more of the mess is uncovered.
Phil Scott
Phil Scott
Many are in thier 80's now, and senile...when they are dead, thier conn will
still go on. Not much of a legacy. It seems a person could do better than
that. Some may have been approached years ago before most people had a clue
about the criminal nature of the cult.
Phil Scott
Harold Pekteno
<snip rant>
And who are you? Another cultist? Or just a general nut?
--
Harold Pekteno, SP1
Steve Plakos
Jack Craver wrote:
> "Steve Plakos" <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:3C35D4F1...@concentric.net...
> >
> > Why hasn't your cult sponsored even *one* authentic university level
> study of
> > your vaunted technology? Here are two challenges for you:
> >
> > 1. I will underwrite the entire expense of a nationally recognized
> university
> > to conduct a true scientific study of LRH's tech, dianetics, and
> scientology.
> > Will you get your cult to participate?
> >
>
> How about the freezone? I think this is a wonderful idea. An idea whose
> time has come. And i give you a lot of credit for putting your money
> where your mouth is.
I've issued this challenge to numerous FZ'ers with no takers. No surprise
though, they don't wish to be disabused of their belief in a mythical tech
and the Cof$ already knows it doesn't work. Consider this, if it could be
scientifically proven to work why hasn't the Cof$ paid for the study
themselves? They would put the results every newspaper on the planet, they
would give demonstrations on every talk show in every language on the
planet; if it really worked just imagine the publicity and the headlines.
>
>
> > 2. Name one scientifically verifiable fact ever discovered by or
> originated by
> > L. Ron Hubbard, dianetics, or scientology. Just one.
> >
>
> I think you're confusing religion with science...so do scientologists.
Not at all, I'm not the one claiming that scientology has a technology that
"works." They are claiming to be a religion based upon the scientific
research of LRH. LRH was a liar and a dilettante, but a very good con man.
Steve
Steve Plakos
"Revd. Norle Enturbulata" wrote:
> "Jack Craver" <cra...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:volZ7.365886$er5.9...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> >
> > "Steve Plakos" <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C35D4F1...@concentric.net...
> > >
> > > Why hasn't your cult sponsored even *one* authentic university level
> > study of
> > > your vaunted technology? Here are two challenges for you:
> > >
> > > 1. I will underwrite the entire expense of a nationally recognized
> > university
> > > to conduct a true scientific study of LRH's tech, dianetics, and
> > scientology.
> > > Will you get your cult to participate?
> > >
> >
> > How about the freezone? I think this is a wonderful idea. An idea whose
> > time has come. And i give you a lot of credit for putting your money
> > where your mouth is.
> >
> > > 2. Name one scientifically verifiable fact ever discovered by or
> > originated by
> > > L. Ron Hubbard, dianetics, or scientology. Just one.
> > >
> >
> > I think you're confusing religion with science...so do scientologists.
>
> So why would the FZ be any different in this regard?
They're not, they are terrified of having conclusive proof that the tech is a
sack of shit. This explains why they don't want it tested any more than the
cult does.
Steve
Anonymous
<3C35D4F1...@concentric.net>:
>Why hasn't your cult sponsored even *one* authentic university level
>study of your vaunted technology? Here are two challenges for you:
>
>1. I will underwrite the entire expense of a nationally recognized
>university to conduct a true scientific study of LRH's tech, dianetics,
>and scientology.
>Will you get your cult to participate?
I don't belong to a "cult" but I'll answer you.
Your demands for such "proof" only serve to demonstrate how little you
know and understand about both the history and the philosophies of
Dianetics and Scientology--which I suppose explains why you feel
compelled to discuss the subject at all, the level of knowledge being
inversely proportional to the level of criticism in most cases.
There was just such a scientific study done in 1950, conducted at the
Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation by three degreed and licensed
psychologists. When the results of the tests came back proving dramatic
improvement in the study subjects, the psychiatric, medical, and
intelligence communities, using the press, then did everything they
could to suppress the test results, and to attempt to discredit Hubbard
and Dianetics (the keynote of which was to call it all a "cult," knowing
how the not-too-bright segment of the populace loved to have a mindless
derogatory buzz-word to put in their mouths) even though the tests used
were standard state-of-the-art psychometry tests for 1951, and even
though the examining psychometrists were all psychologists: Gordon
Southon, Peggy Southon and Dalmyra Ibanez, Ph.D., Ed D. In fact,
Hubbard's intended inclusion of these test results in the 1951 edition
of "Science of Survival" sparked a tremendous campaign to smear him and
the subject.
Just as with the vested interests and suppressive elements of 1950, you
and the rest of the pack here can be predicted to rant about, find fault
with, and attempt to discredit the results, too, if you even bother to
read the excerpts from the test results I'm enclosing below. I doubt
that you'll want to, because it will render your uninformed position
extremely uncomfortable, whereas if you remain in ignorance, you can
comfortably go on calling it all a "cult" (which wasn't even very
original 52 years ago) and claiming that the study never was done--even
though it was.
If you manage to get through the report of the tests, below, I have also
enclosed exerpted references after which make clear--possibly even to
you, though I doubt it--why it was the last such study of its kind, and
why Hubbard forbade any organization ever bothering with any further
such efforts at "proof," and why people like you and your bombastic
demands for "scientific studies" are viewed by knowledgeable
Scientologists somewhat on the same order as someone watching a baboon
scream and howl and leap about and rattle the bars in a cage. Including
the sentiment of, "Well, I know I could just lift the latch and let it
out... But, why bother?"
Here is the write-up regarding the 1951 study, from an early edition of
"Science of Survival." I can't enclose the graphs, which show
significant improvement in the test group in all areas of the
psychometric tests, and I've been told that the "L. Ron Hubbard Library"
(CST) has ordered the removal of this information from their later
editions of "Science of Survival," but I don't have a later edition to
verify that. Maybe somebody can or will bother to provide you binaries
of the graphs. I won't.
******************FROM FOREMATTER TO "SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL":
"The advent of Dianetics into a lethargic society last May, 1950,
created a stir which spread around the world. There were those who
believed Dianetics implicitly and to whose searching minds it seemed the
final answer both for their personal problems and for the problems of
the entire world. To those who did not share this hearty acceptance of
its revolutionary tenets it was a fad, a cult, or even a blasphemy.
Loudly this faction clamored for 'validation,' demanding that Dianetics
prove its startling claims. It did not matter to them that never, before
Dianetics, had any claims concerning 'cures' or remissions of mental
illnesses been validated, or that no formal attempt by any psychotherapy
had ever been made toward this end. They sought, for one reason or
another, to make Dianetics either prove its claims of what to them were
fantastic cures of psychoses, or to withdraw once and for all into the
obscurity of admitted defeat.
"Dianetics accepted the challenge. The ardent enthusiasts and
practitioners of the new science provided a fertile field for obtaining
the demanded 'validation.' Prospective students, flocking to the
Foundation and its branches from all walks of life and all levels of
mental and physical health, were required to take psychometry before
attending classes. Those who appeared at the Foundation for clinical
processing were likewise given psychometry both before processing began
and after processing was completed. The psychometry given one and all
was the standard testing of established schools of psychology under the
direction of fully qualified psychologists. Dianetics had not yet
developed its own batteries of tests; but even had this been
accomplished at that time, it would not have been acceptable to those
who sought to discredit the budding science. They would have shouted
that anyone could pass a test of his own making. Thus, in one more way,
did Dianetics meet its critics on their own level.
"The Minnesota Multiphasic Test is well known among psychometrists,
college and industrial personnel. It has specific advantages and
disadvantages, as have all modes of mental testing, but it is popular
because of its simplicity and ease of scoring, and because of the
relative ease of picturing the mental state of the testee which it
affords. Therefore, in picking a 'scientific' standard psychometric
test, the Foundations chose as one of its tests the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
"Among professional people the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale
stands in high esteem, since it reveals more about the pattern of an
individual's mental functioning than do similar tests. Originally, it
was designed because its author felt that other tests existing at the
time were more fitting for children. Early in the war the War Department
requested that this test be used for channelling recruits into the
services, and the particular Wechsler-Bellevue which was used became
known as Form B. Its special characteristics include the Point Scale as
contrasted to others using an I.Q. scale; each item is credited with a
certain number of points, and the total points determine the score. The
Wechsler-Bellevue is divided into eleven sub-tests, and it affords
separate scoring of eleven types of behavior. Sub-tests are grouped into
two series, one yielding a 'Verbal I.Q.' and the other a 'Performance
I.Q.' This feature alone makes the Wechsler (pronounced 'wex-ler') of
outstanding value in the measuring of rises in mental performance and
activity.
"In the field of testing itself a favorite method of 'validating' a
mental test is simply by correlation with other tests. Dianetics has
undertaken to give a broad picture of the improvement afforded in human
behavior by using more than one test. Thus, it is impossible to level a
finger of criticism at a specific test in order to belittle the
unprecedented improvement which is brought about in an individual by
dianetic processing. It must be remembered however that testing takes up
a lot of valuable time. Except for this reason hundreds of tests might
have been given these 88 testees, to satisfy each and every one of the
critics of Dianetics. Those who are not satisfied with the results
obtained from the tests which were chosen are cordially invited to set
up a testing programme of their own; to send for a Hubbard Dianetic
Auditor to audit the chosen preclears, and to draw their own conclusions
from the results which accrue.
[NOTE: Not anymore. See references that follow.]
"The results of the 'befores' were quite within keeping of the general
average results any psychometrist would expect from a cross-section of
the population. But the results of the 'afters' were completely
bewildering to those dyed-in-the wool doubters who hesitate to believe
evidence seen with their own eyes. The signatures of the examining
psychometrists Gordon Southon, Peggy Southon and Dalmyra Ibanez, Ph.D.,
Ed D., are affixed to each bank of tests, and witnessed. These
psychometrists are registered professional personnel whose honesty and
standing in the field of psychology is above question.
"In past comparative testing, it has been quite within the keeping of
those conducting mental research to choose about five persons for
examination, retaining an equal number as a 'control' group. Dianetics
has built this particular validation programme around 88 persons. Never
before has such an astounding number participated in tests to show
improvement in mental health, specifically in the testing of increase in
mental ability and reduction of psychoses and psychosomatic illnesses.
"A vast backlog of psychometry has since been accumulated, many times
outnumbering this original 88. Dianetics is now in a position to do the
challenging, and the following charts are submitted as proof of the
efficacious results of processing.
"Dianetics was challenged to prove the claim of increased I.Q. and that
dianetic processing has as two of its by-products the relief of
psychoses and psychosomatic illnesses. Had the challengers any idea that
this proof could be presented they might not have been so blatant in
their demands, and had they any inkling that the results would be so
completely in Dianetics' favor they might have withheld them completely.
However, Dianetics has met the challenge. Herewith, in graphic form, is
a cross-section of the results.
"SUMMARY OF GAIN IN INTELLIGENCE SCORES after Dianetic processing
[GRAPHICS INSERTED HERE]
"This bar represents I.Q. score of each of the 88 persons on the first
test
[GRAPHICS INSERTED HERE]
"Each vertical bar represents one individual
"The arbitrary measure of human intelligence popularly known as the
individual's 'I.Q.' is not a measure of how well a person remembers.
Neither is it a measure of how much he has learned over a period of a
lifetime. I.Q. ratings are a measure of an individual's capacity for
learning something new; they are scales based upon how old in years a
person has become compared to how 'old' he is mentally. One might be 30
years of age and yet have an equivalent mental capacity of an average
15-year-old school boy. On the other hand, a particularly adept pupil of
grade school, perhaps 8 years of age, might have a mental capacity
equivalent to someone ten years his senior.
"It has become a cliche that an individual's I.Q. rating does not change
throughout his lifetime. Indeed, until Dianetics, a gain in I.Q. scoring
from one test to another was greeted with astonishment and an immediate
assertion that a mistake had been made by the psychometrist scoring the
tests.
"When Dianetics made the statement that a person's Intelligence Quotient
(I.Q.) increased remarkably following a few hours of dianetic
processing, the clamor for 'proof' began. The Foundation has this proof,
in abundance. As shown on the bar graph one group of 88 persons was
given standard I.Q. tests, and their scores plotted along the horizontal
bar, regardless of whether these particular scores were 50 I.Q. or 150
I.Q. One month passed, a month in which the preclears received about 60
hours of dianetic processing. Then they were given a second I.Q. test.
The score on the second test was then plotted on the vertical bar at the
point which represents the points of gain or loss.
"Let's call the vertical bar on the extreme right of the graph by the
name John Smith. John appeared at the Foundation for training in
Dianetic Auditing, and before being permitted to attend classes, was
given a group of tests, among which was an 'I.Q.' test. He was found to
have, according to the standards set forth by the originators of the
test, an I.Q. of 125. He went to class, learned dianetic theory, learned
to audit effectively, and during the course received 65 hours of
dianetic processing from classmates. On Certification Day, he was given
a second block of tests containing a standard follow-up of the I.Q. test
he had taken a month before. His rating on the second test was 151.
Thus, John Smith gained 26 points in I.Q in a period of one month, and
these 26 points are plotted on the graph as a vertical bar.
"Summary of Average Percentile Scores On California Test of Personality
Based on Average Percentile Scores of 76 Cases For Each Category
"SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT SELF ADJUSTMENT
"[GRAPHICS INSERTED HERE]
"Pre-test After-Processing Test
"Among the tests in the block taken by John Smith was the California
Test of Personality. Various aspects of his social and individual
personality were determined by use of this test. One of his most marked
improvements was in his occupational relations (he had lost job after
job because he couldn't get along with his boss and fellow workers). His
second greatest personality change was in his feeling of personal worth;
prior to his processing he had considered himself as incapable of
handling a foreman's position, or of leading a group. The
after-processing test showed that he had acquired a much deeper feeling
of personal worth, and that he would rate highly with his fellow
workers.
"The Summary of Average Percentile Scores as shown on the Personality
Bar Graph is a display of the results showing increases in the twelve
categories listed. Seventy-six individuals were given
before-and-after-psychometry which included the California Test of
Personality, and their average is displayed in graphic form. To obtain
the 'average' score of all 76 persons, it is necessary to total their
scores and divide the result by 76. The average scores of the 76
individuals on the first test are shown by the height of the shaded
bars. The average scores of the 76 persons after they had received
dianetic processing of about 60 hours each is shown by the height of the
solid bars. In each case, there is an evident increase.
"Two graphs display the results obtained with use of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory test. As in the preceding graph, these
show the averaged scores of a number of individuals, divided into two
displays: 21 cases, all male, and 7 cases, all female.
"The graphs are marked off in arbitrary scale form, beginning with 40
and ending with 100, and the averaged results of the first tests taken
by the individual concerned are locatedwhere the dotted line crosses
each sub-title line. The averaged results of the second tests taken
after the persons had received about 60 hours of dianetic processing are
located where the solid black line crosses each sub-title line.
"RESULTS FROM MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY
"AVERAGED RAW SCORES (Plus K FACTOR) 21 CASES ALL MALE
"BEFORE - - - - - AFTER -----------
"Normal Moderate Severe Range Maladjustment Maladjustment
"40 60 70 100 Manic Tendencies Schizoid Tendencies Obsess-Compul
Tendencies Delusions of Self Reference Masculine-Fem Imbalance
Anti-Social Tendencies Psychosomatic Symptoms Depressive Tendencies
Undue Bodily concern Technical Criteria of Test
[GRAPHICS INSERTED HERE]
"RESULTS FROM MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY
"AVERAGED RAW SCORES (Plus K FACTOR) 7 CASES ALL FEMALE
"BEFORE - - - - - AFTER ----------
"Normal Moderate Severe Range Maladjustment Maladjustment
"40 60 70 100 Manic Tendencies Schizoid Tendencies Obsess-Compul
Tendencies Delusions of Self Reference Masculine-Fem Imbalance
Anti-Social Tendencies Psychosomatic Symptoms Depressive Tendencies
Undue Bodily concern Technical Criteria of Test
[GRAPHICS INSERTED HERE]
"The first sub-title, 'Manic Tendencies,' means that a person is to a
measurable degree influenced by compulsions which cause him to feel, for
example, that he has to conquer the world, as Napoleon or Alexander set
out to do. The averages of both the before and the after-processing
tests came out practically at the same point on the scale, about 59.
Although this indicates that as a group there was no decrease in
maladjustment, a few individuals within the group may have adjusted
remarkably in this category.
"The second sub-title, 'Schizoid Tendencies,' means roughly that a
person might be suffering from what Dianetics defines as a valence shift
or the assumption of a second or third personality which is not
inherently the individual's own. The average for the group in the
pre-test was about 76 toward maladjustment. The after-processing test
shows that the group as an average decreased in maladjustment or, in
other words, adjusted toward gaining and recognizing their own
personality.
"Under the sub-title 'Obsessive-Compulsive Tendencies' might be placed
those who 'just have to wash their hands' after every tiny chore, or
those who, before they turn a written page they have just completed, are
compelled to dot every 'i' or else be completely unable to continue
writing. Persons in this category are compelled to carry out some
routine, idiotic or otherwise, regardless of what might be more
important at the moment.
"The remainder of the sub-titles refer to various conditions evident in
individuals, such as the feeling that 'everybody's against me' and the
tendency for a man to feel somewhat feminine, as well as the extreme
anti-socialness of hermits and pyromaniacs. Psychosomatic symptoms are
evidences of bodily discomfort or disease which have no physical origin,
while the Undue Bodily concern category represents the degree of
obsession regarding sickness, referred to by the medical profession as
'hypochondria.'
"Although there are hundreds of individual cases to choose from, the
test results of the individual displayed in the graph entitled Typical
Test Results of One Individual are average, hence typical. Case No. 446
from the California files shows that according to the results obtained
from the California Test of Personality this person became very much
better adjusted than he had been before processing. His social
adjustment, or the manner in which he gets along with groups, became
more acceptable. The third bar in the first section of the graph merely
shows the average of the previous two factors and is entitled Total
Adjustment.
"As shown by the Mental Health Analysis test, he adjusted his
liabilities toward usefulness, and increased his assets. His total
adjustment is shown on the third bar column.
"In the third test, the Johnson Temperament Analysis Profile, there are
nine categories of test results, graded on a scale of Excellent,
Satisfactory, Fair and Poor. The greatest improvement shown on this test
was in the energy he evidenced in the tackling of a problem, and in his
congeniality among people. His relaxation and buoyancy categories
already satisfactory when he took the first test, increased to a rating
of Excellent.
"When this man first came to the Foundation, he was not particularly
liked by his classmates and others who came in contact with him. He was
often morose, sullen, uncommunicative and, as one classmate put it,
'downright unfriendly.' A noticeable change in his social awareness came
about within the first week of his processing, and by the time he had
finished his training he had reached an overall adjustment to an extent
that he was congenial to everyone, and was well liked in return.
"TYPICAL TEST RESULTS ONE INDIVIDUAL
"Name Age 33 Birthday 10-4-17 Sex M Case No. 445
"Address City San Diego State Calif.
"TEST: CALIFORNIA TEST OF PERSONALITY TEST: MENTAL HEALTH ANALYSIS
"99 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1
[GRAPHICS INSERTED HERE]
"TEST: JOHNSON TEMPERAMENT ANALYSIS PROFILE
"exc sat fair poor
[GRAPHICS INSERTED HERE]
..
"Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, 1951"
******************
Now here are just some of the references from Hubbard himself concerning
why your demands for "proof" are so laughable to a Scientologist. Not
that I seriously believe you will understand them. But many people
reading this will.
******************
"Now, people who come around and say, 'You got to prove it to me!' or
'If you can do anything for me, it'll mean a lot to you! I mean uh...'
so on. Now if you fall for this you're in for trouble, because he's got
doubt--have to prove it to him. Well, so, that's tough."
L. Ron Hubbard
5 MARCH 1952
HCL-5 THOUGHT AND PRECLEARS
"[T]he motto of this universe could be, amongst all other mottos that it
has, 'Prove It!'"
L. Ron Hubbard
10 DECEMBER 1952
FLOWS: BASIC AGREEMENT AND PROVE IT!
"[A]ny time you think you have to go below the level of cause in action,
you're going to fall on your face. You're cause. And the second you
start squirming around, apologizing and trying to 'prove it' to
somebody, and being all upset because he got worse or something of this
sort, you're just making a big, dramatic statement: 'I'm not cause.'"
L. Ron Hubbard
13 DECEMBER 1952
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP)
"Now the first time the postulates start to get very set, and matter
begins to be unmovable, and people become to be very unhappy, and the
game stops being a game and becomes very, very hard work is when
everybody has to 'prove it' all the time. They're proving something that
isn't true, no matter what they're trying to prove."
L. Ron Hubbard
13 DECEMBER 1952
SOP: ASSESSMENT
"[T]his 'being convinced' is the handiest little mechanism for
aberration of which you're ever heard. A thoroughly gorgeous piece of
nonsense. There's only one thing you can do, really, and that is, know
on the highest level of your own beingness and capability. And the day
that you have to ask somebody to convince you that you are, you're
practically done from there on.
"That's why I say when people come around and tell you that you
should prove something to them about this subject, go ahead and prove
it. Zap them, drown them, throw 'em into birth, but don't bother proving
it. If we were operating simply with a conviction or a convincedness, we
could talk about anything here: I can prove to you completely that black
is white and pink is blue. I'm the best handy little jim-dandy
convincifier you ever heard of. Any fellow who has been through
engineering--to prove this and to prove that is the essence of
engineering. And any fellow who has been through writing is doing
nothing but setting up 'convincedness'. The reader is convinced the
story is true. The odd part of it is, and all it is, is just a chain of
probabilities which are so put together and usually interwoven with
aesthetics, that one achieves at the end a belief that something has
occurred.
"Of course that's a pretense. That is a complete pretense. You step
off the level of your own knowingness into 'conviction' and you'll get
into the same situation an individual is in who is demanding to be
hypnotized, who is demanding to be drugged, who is demanding to be
operated on. He's just trying to say, 'Convince me it's real.' That's
all he's interested in. He wants to be told that it's real. He wants to
be convinced because basically, of course, it is not real, and he is
dwindling out down the bottom on being convinced instead of knowing; and
knowingness could be said to be, itself and within oneself, and at best,
a capability for truth--just a capability for truth. It is not data. All
the data you run into anyplace, unless it tends to place you back up
into a capability where you yourself have knowingness, is false data.
Any route that you follow that returns to you your capability of
knowingness or returns to the preclear that certainty of knowingness is
a road to knowledge. If it contains data, it contains it solely to
communicate. So that an individual can perceive, in these steps, the
eradication of those barriers which intervene between himself and
himself. Between himself and his actual capabilities. And if we have
data, it is the data in those barriers, and we know it to remove it."
L. Ron Hubbard
15 DECEMBER 1952
PDC-47: SOP ISSUE 5
"The only place where you will bog down is trying to go out here to Mr.
Zilch and Mr. Blow and convince him of some of these things which are
contained in Scientology. And he will give you no admiration like mad.
He'll give you no admiration by the barrelful, hogsheads. And you'll
find yourself under the gun of trying to prove, prove, prove, prove,
prove. What are you trying to prove it to him for?"
L. Ron Hubbard
10 JANUARY 1953
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, HOW TO GROUP PROCESS (continued)
"You don't have to prove him there are Clears, or that he can get Clear,
or that he can get released. You don't have to prove to him that
Scientology works. You don't have to prove anything to him. Got it?
'Prove' is one of the basic games of the thetan. And people are always--
On the whole track, thetans have been running around telling others to
prove it. And a PC can get this games condition very early. ...I never
Q-and-A with whether it works or not. I wouldn't discuss for three
seconds with anybody whether Dianetics or Scientelogy work. And I would
never audit anybody to get a result that will electrify the community."
L. Ron Hubbard
31 AUGUST 1961
WHAT IS AUDITING?
"Anybody would know anything that was going on if he didn't have to
prove it. Proof, conviction, is itself a very early level of aberration.
As soon as you have to start proving things and convincing people of
things, why then you have to get into agreement with them and in order
to do this--you have to Alter-is. You have to have something persist
long enough for them to see it, so that they can then understand what it
is. So in order for them to really understand what it is you can't
possibly put up something that they understand what is, because if they
saw completely what it was it would disappear, so you would not have
been able to have proven it."
L. Ron Hubbard
THE PHOENIX LECTURES
CHAPTER FIVE:
CONSIDERATION AND ISNESS
"AXIOM ELEVEN: THE CONSIDERATIONS RESULTING IN CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE
ARE FOURFOLD.
"And here they are in exact axiom form:
"(a) AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation without
persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the
moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from
other considerations in that it does not contain survival.
"(b) ALTER-IS-NESS is the consideration which introduces change and
therefore time and persistence into an AS-IS-NESS to obtain persistency.
"(c) IS-NESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the
continuous alteration of an AS-IS-NESS. This is called, when agreed
upon, Reality.
"(d) NOT-IS-NESS is the effort to handle IS-NESS by reducing its
condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot
entirely vanquish an IS-NESS.
"...AXIOM THIRTY-THREE: ANY AS-IS-NESS WHICH IS ALTERED BY
NOT-IS-NESS (BY FORCE) TENDS TO PERSIST.
"AXIOM THIRTY-FOUR: ANY IS-NESS, WHEN ALTERED BY FORCE TENDS TO
PERSIST.
"AXIOM THIRTY-FIVE: THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC.
"A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time,
no location in space, no space.
"This has the technical name of 'Basic Truth.'
"AXIOM THIRTY-SIX: A LIE IS A SECOND POSTULATE, STATEMENT OR
CONDITION DESIGNED TO MASK A PRIMARY POSTULATE WHICH IS PERMITTED TO
REMAIN."
L. Ron Hubbard
THE PHOENIX LECTURES
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
AXIOMS (Part 1)
"Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity
exist for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble.
"These persons can be grouped under 'Threatening Sources'. They
include:
"...(f) Persons who 'want to be processed to see if Scientology
works' as their only reason for being audited have never been known to
make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this
category. They should not be audited.
"...(h) Persons who 'have an open mind' but no personal hopes or
desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really
don't have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about
things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone's
efforts 'to convince them'.
"...6) Persons attempting to sit in judgement on Scientology in
hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no
undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any
way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine
writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing
beneficial as their first idea is a firm 'I don't know' and this usually
ends with an equally firm 'I don't know'. If a person can't see for
himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient
powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal
matters, only take the obvious effective steps--carry on no crusades in
court. In the matter of reporters, etc, it is not worth while to give
them any time contrary to popular belief. They are given their story
before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what
they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication
line that sways much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.
"...Scientology works. You don't have to prove it to everyone.
People don't deserve to have Scientology as a divine right, you know.
They have to earn it. This has been true in every philosophy that sought
to better man."
L. Ron Hubbard
HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1964
POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY
AND "TROUBLESOME SOURCES"
"This medical doctor--I almost laughed in his face last night. I
actually did. I smiled--I went on talking to him but I almost roared in
his face. He had the cast-iron nerve to ask me to prove the workability
of Scientology and actually my jaw dropped, you know? Now, of course
these guys are in the dark on this sort of thing, and so forth, and all
that, and we can understand all that. But nobody's done that to me for
years. ...Well, the day passed a long time ago--long, long ago--about
'proof.' And the public and so forth that suddenly starts telling you
that you should prove to them it works and so forth--well, at least be
up to a reality where you feel like laughing at them. Because it's all
they deserve. Now, anything that's been in existence and been shot at
this hard for a period of fourteen years must have been workable all the
way along the line to some degree or another--must have been more
workable than other areas and zones of work--so the comparison must have
been pretty good; and anything that went up from a few hectograph copies
of a little tiny book to organizations on every continent with comm
lines that reach from here to the moon, certainly is not an unworkable
activity.
"If it were a totally fraudulent activity, the government would
have shot us down long before. They still try, but they flub. They miss.
They're missing all the time. They can't make it. We couldn't ever stand
up to any attacks if we were that way. And yet we just stand up to them
all and sooner or later they all blow over.
L. Ron Hubbard
2 MARCH 1965
TECHNOLOGY AND HIDDEN STANDARDS
Mike O'Connor
Anonymous <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote:
> "It has become a cliche that an individual's I.Q. rating does not change
> throughout his lifetime. Indeed, until Dianetics, a gain in I.Q. scoring
> from one test to another was greeted with astonishment and an immediate
> assertion that a mistake had been made by the psychometrist scoring the
> tests.
>
> "When Dianetics made the statement that a person's Intelligence Quotient
> (I.Q.) increased remarkably following a few hours of dianetic
> processing, the clamor for 'proof' began. The Foundation has this proof,
> in abundance. As shown on the bar graph one group of 88 persons was
> given standard I.Q. tests, and their scores plotted along the horizontal
> bar, regardless of whether these particular scores were 50 I.Q. or 150
> I.Q. One month passed, a month in which the preclears received about 60
> hours of dianetic processing. Then they were given a second I.Q. test.
> The score on the second test was then plotted on the vertical bar at the
> point which represents the points of gain or loss.
...and then REAL people of science immediately asserted that a mistake
had been made by giving the same IQ test only four weeks later, by not
using a control group, by not having indebendent double blind testers,
on and on. Right? No mention of it in this little paper though.
Virtually everyone scores higher when given a repeat IQ test so soon. It
would be obvious if a scientific method was used. A control group would
have also had a higher score.
"In past comparative testing, it has been quite within the keeping of
those conducting mental research to choose about five persons for
examination, retaining an equal number as a 'control' group. Dianetics
has built this particular validation programme around 88 persons. Never
before has such an astounding number participated in tests to show
improvement in mental health, specifically in the testing of increase in
mental ability and reduction of psychoses and psychosomatic illnesses."
Look, the paper mentions that normally a control group is used, yet one
was NOT used.
This repeat testing scam, often used to con new members into thinking
the cult is making them smarter, is so universally known that you should
be embarrassed trying to hold it out as some kind of scientific
procedure, much less "abundant proof". Maybe nonsense like this flew
back in the fifties. You're in the twenty first century now.
As for your quotes of sacred scripture, they speak for themselves. I
can't believe you think these help your case! First you give this
fatally flawed "study" as "abundant proof", and immediately follow that
junk with quotes saying never give proof, tell them "that's tough."
Utter nonsense, perhaps you should have you head examined. Let's read
your selected scripture again:
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
"Now, people who come around and say, 'You got to prove it to me!' or
'If you can do anything for me, it'll mean a lot to you! I mean uh...'
so on. Now if you fall for this you're in for trouble, because he's got
doubt--have to prove it to him. Well, so, that's tough."
L. Ron Hubbard
5 MARCH 1952
HCL-5 THOUGHT AND PRECLEARS
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
"[T]he motto of this universe could be, amongst all other mottos that it
has, 'Prove It!'"
L. Ron Hubbard
10 DECEMBER 1952
FLOWS: BASIC AGREEMENT AND PROVE IT!
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
"[A]ny time you think you have to go below the level of cause in action,
you're going to fall on your face. You're cause. And the second you
start squirming around, apologizing and trying to 'prove it' to
somebody, and being all upset because he got worse or something of this
sort, you're just making a big, dramatic statement: 'I'm not cause.'"
L. Ron Hubbard
13 DECEMBER 1952
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP)
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
"Now the first time the postulates start to get very set, and matter
begins to be unmovable, and people become to be very unhappy, and the
game stops being a game and becomes very, very hard work is when
everybody has to 'prove it' all the time. They're proving something that
isn't true, no matter what they're trying to prove."
L. Ron Hubbard
13 DECEMBER 1952
SOP: ASSESSMENT
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
"The only place where you will bog down is trying to go out here to Mr.
Zilch and Mr. Blow and convince him of some of these things which are
contained in Scientology. And he will give you no admiration like mad.
He'll give you no admiration by the barrelful, hogsheads. And you'll
find yourself under the gun of trying to prove, prove, prove, prove,
prove. What are you trying to prove it to him for?"
L. Ron Hubbard
10 JANUARY 1953
EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, HOW TO GROUP PROCESS (continued)
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
"You don't have to prove him there are Clears, or that he can get Clear,
or that he can get released. You don't have to prove to him that
Scientology works. You don't have to prove anything to him. Got it?
'Prove' is one of the basic games of the thetan. And people are always--
On the whole track, thetans have been running around telling others to
prove it. And a PC can get this games condition very early. ...I never
Q-and-A with whether it works or not. I wouldn't discuss for three
seconds with anybody whether Dianetics or Scientelogy work. And I would
never audit anybody to get a result that will electrify the community."
L. Ron Hubbard
31 AUGUST 1961
WHAT IS AUDITING?
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
"Anybody would know anything that was going on if he didn't have to
prove it. Proof, conviction, is itself a very early level of aberration.
As soon as you have to start proving things and convincing people of
things, why then you have to get into agreement with them and in order
to do this--you have to Alter-is. You have to have something persist
long enough for them to see it, so that they can then understand what it
is. So in order for them to really understand what it is you can't
possibly put up something that they understand what is, because if they
saw completely what it was it would disappear, so you would not have
been able to have proven it."
L. Ron Hubbard
THE PHOENIX LECTURES
CHAPTER FIVE:
CONSIDERATION AND ISNESS
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Revd. Norle Enturbulata
news:dcf61069c067e2dc...@paranoici.org...
> On 4 Jan 2002Steve Plakos <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> <3C35D4F1...@concentric.net>:
>
> >Why hasn't your cult sponsored even *one* authentic university level
> >study of your vaunted technology? Here are two challenges for you:
> >
> >1. I will underwrite the entire expense of a nationally recognized
> >university to conduct a true scientific study of LRH's tech, dianetics,
> >and scientology.
> >Will you get your cult to participate?
>
> I don't belong to a "cult" but I'll answer you.
Hm, but an anonymous post nonetheless. Ennnh, you must think that
$cientology is a "religion", which it only claims as a tax dodge and for
those so gullible that they'll accept anything from Co$.
<clam rebut snipped>
> There was just such a scientific study done in 1950, conducted at the
> Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation by three degreed and licensed
> psychologists.
Documentation would be good, well, required for this whopper! Keywords,
clambot: REAL STUDY. Not one conducted by the nut-cult with all of the
validity of Nelson's ravings.
You'd be better spending your time reading a LEGITIMATE study of
"Dianetics", so does someone have the link to the truly independent
statements made about it in 1951, by a REAL scientist? Thanks in advance.
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
Comedy Saves!
$cientology Enslaves!
ptsc
wrote:
The "study" in question is copyrighted by L. Ron Hubbard.
ptsc
Steve Plakos
in ages. We have had some loons, trolls, and even, I'm sorry to say, a
murderer post their drivel, but YOU get a special prize. The report you
referenced has been seen here *many* times before. It is of not much more
value than toilet paper. It has been thoroughly debunked. Having said this
let me give you a more than fair challenge to your "I'm not a cult member
claim."
If you're not a scientologist and have never been a scientologist and do not
know me and the *only* thing you know is I've challenged the cult to accept
my offer to spend my money to test their technology, how do you know that
*you* know more about scientology than I do? How much scientology, and, or,
dianetics have you studied? How many times did you meet the old drunk
himself?
Since you've nothing to hide tell us who you are.
Steve
Hartley Patterson
[referring to Stephen Kent]
> >He writes about the Church of Scientology, not Scientology as a belief
> >system. None of the articles Theta lists deal with criticism of the
> >secular activities of the CoS.
>
> You mean "ethics", the "RPF" and "Fair Game" aren't part of
> "Scientology's belief system", they're just "secular activities" of
> the "Church" which Elron just taught and practiced and they just teach
> and practice?
Religious experts look at a claimed religion as it is said to be
constituted by a religious organization and its members. This method is
fine in most cases, but collapses when faced with a group like the CoS
which tells barefaced lies. The experts don't consider the crimes of the
CoS because they, er, don't exist according to the CoS.
mimus
>mimus:
>[referring to Stephen Kent]
>
>> >He writes about the Church of Scientology, not Scientology as a belief
>> >system. None of the articles Theta lists deal with criticism of the
>> >secular activities of the CoS.
>>
>> You mean "ethics", the "RPF" and "Fair Game" aren't part of
>> "Scientology's belief system", they're just "secular activities" of
>> the "Church" which Elron just taught and practiced and they just teach
>> and practice?
>
>Religious experts look at a claimed religion as it is said to be
>constituted by a religious organization and its members. This method is
>fine in most cases, but collapses when faced with a group like the CoS
>which tells barefaced lies. The experts don't consider the crimes of the
>CoS because they, er, don't exist according to the CoS.
By the same token, no totalitarianism has ever committed a crime
anywhere, according to such "expertise"-- there's always a "shore
story".
Jack Craver
>
>
> Jack Craver wrote:
>
> > "Steve Plakos" <stav...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C35D4F1...@concentric.net...
> > >
> I've issued this challenge to numerous FZ'ers with no takers. No
surprise
> though, they don't wish to be disabused of their belief in a mythical
tech
> and the Cof$ already knows it doesn't work. Consider this, if it
could be
> scientifically proven to work why hasn't the Cof$ paid for the study
> themselves? They would put the results every newspaper on the planet,
they
> would give demonstrations on every talk show in every language on the
> planet; if it really worked just imagine the publicity and the
headlines.
>
The world would beat a path to scn's door. Extrapolating such a
scenario...scn would be under heavy public pressure to lose its cultic
identity.
If there were no beneficial results to scn processing, then the doors to
scn could close quickly. A big risk for them, but an inevitable one.
Sooner or later, there will be scientific testing, and it would be in
the best interest of scn to be involved.
I personally feel that real testing would indeed turn up beneficial
results, though not on a par with what scn claims. As someone said on
this forum long ago, "they promise you a mercedes, but deliver a
volkswagon". Even so, it would be interesting to audit a group of people
to the level of clear, with appropiate psychological testing along the
way. CoS may not go along with this, but maybe the freezone.....
> >
> >
> > > 2. Name one scientifically verifiable fact ever discovered by or
> > originated by
> > > L. Ron Hubbard, dianetics, or scientology. Just one.
> > >
> >
> > I think you're confusing religion with science...so do
scientologists.
>
> Not at all, I'm not the one claiming that scientology has a technology
that
> "works." They are claiming to be a religion based upon the scientific
> research of LRH.
True, but the people making the claim believe themselves to be thetans
with a cosmology and a life after death belief.
> LRH was a liar and a dilettante, but a very good con man.
LRH may have been Satan incarnate, still no reason not to at least
listen....and then maybe test.
Martin Hunt
> Scientology: The Now Religion
> by George Malko
> Delacorte Press, New York
> U.S.A.
Interesting that you're citing Malko's Now Religion; you
may want to re-think that, as he says many entheta things
about Scientology, including:
"Of course all this struck me as being insane garbage. While the
wordy repostulations of affinity, reality, and communications, and
the cycles of action and the dynamics were all something I could
swallow simply because they were primarily the taking of existing
concepts or notions or even relationships and rewording them,
giving them new names, so that you would see them *his* way,
the Goals struck me as being pure science fiction."
Malko also covers some of your cults' murders:
""Whatever his negative actions may or may not have been, they could
have had no significance whatsoever if there had not been vast
fields of fertile soil for them to grow in." What McMaster treats
with such delicate circumspection is the wild rumor extant in
Scientology circles at Walter had been called to a meeting with
Hubbard when one of the ships was anchored off Cadiz. He had flown
over, had been piped aboard with pomp and ceremony, and had then
been seized, shackled, and thrown below decks where, the tale
continues, he lingers even yet. Concerning the brutal killings of
the two Scientologists, McMaster writes: "These last two ghastly
murders of our students near ASHO in Los Angeles, one of whom is
Clear, need never have happened, if we hadn't been mocking up Enemy
so solidly." To interpret that as simply as possible, Scientology
teaches its followers to deal with that which represents an Enemy
by in effect giving it substance, a tangible reality - tiny clay
figurines, for example - and then dealing with these mock-ups
decisively. The only shattering conclusion to be drawn from what
McMasters says is that these two had come to represent the Enemy so
solidly for someone that they were dealt with too decisively. The
casual possibility of this makes the blood run cold."
Malko discusses Scientology's notorious policy of attacking
enemies, called "suppressives":
"Jerry liked what he found in Amprinistics and for a while he
taught it. He had met Monica by this time and she allowed him to
use her apartment for his sessions. Scientology, not content with
declaring him a "suppressive," harassed him as well. "It was known
that I was teaching the course in New York," he says. "The phone
was ringing day and night. Nobody'd answer. I have the feeling that
they put Monica's name and number on a Men's Room wall because she
got a lot of terrible calls from men.""
Malko covers many of Scientology's worst aspects, including
kidnapping, and this bit about how Scientology was basically
for making L. Ron hubbard rich:
"There are few legal maneuvers left open to Scientology. After
losing the appeal in Washington, the church moved for a rehearing,
asking the court to be good enough to look at what they did all
over again. If that fails, they will certainly go to the Supreme
Court and ask for a review of the case. My personal opinion is
that it will be extremely difficult for The Founding Church of
Scientology to have its case reviewed because the weight of the
Court of Claims decision in the summer of 1969 rested on the
enormous sums of money L. Ron Hubbard and his family have taken
out of Scientology's operation."
So, do you still want to cite a book which calls your nasty
little cult "insane garbage" and accuses your retarded cult
of being a bunch of money-grubbing, kidnapping, abusive,
murderous thugs? An opinion I'm sure all reasoning people
can agree with.
Maybe you should re-write your little list. Better yet, why
don't you actually read some of the materials you cite.
I have a few other titles that should be added as independent
studies of Scientology:
A Piece of Blue Sky - Jon Atack
Bare-Faced Messiah - Russell Miller
Messiah or Madman? - Bent Corydon
Religion Inc. - Stewart Lamont
Cults of Unreason - Christopher Evans
Inside Scientology - Robert Kaufman
The Mindbenders - Cyril Vosper
The Scandal of Scientology - Paulette Cooper
The Road to Total Freedon - Roy Wallis
Happy 2002, all you suppressive motherfuckers! Oh, and for you
cultie brainwashed OSA drones forced to read a.r.s., make this
the year to free what little is left of your mind!
--
martin hunt
cogito, ergo sum.
Heffer
<cra...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>CoS may not go along with this, but maybe the freezone.....
The freezone is Scientology's "Shrunken Head" tribe of
primitive Scientologists trying to come to terms with
their voluntary or involuntary separation from unnatural
Hubbardian society.
Heffer
ptsc
>Happy 2002, all you suppressive motherfuckers! Oh, and for you
>cultie brainwashed OSA drones forced to read a.r.s., make this
>the year to free what little is left of your mind!
Well, fuck me! If it isn't Martin Hunt.
Nice to see you around again. Happy New Year.
ptsc
Ed
Ed
Boudewijn van Ingen
That "volkswagon" has no wheels and no engine. There is no 'level of clear'.
>> > > 2. Name one scientifically verifiable fact ever discovered by or
>> > originated by
>> > > L. Ron Hubbard, dianetics, or scientology. Just one.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I think you're confusing religion with science...so do
>scientologists.
>>
>> Not at all, I'm not the one claiming that scientology has a technology
>that
>> "works." They are claiming to be a religion based upon the scientific
>> research of LRH.
>
>True, but the people making the claim believe themselves to be thetans
>with a cosmology and a life after death belief.
That is not an excuse for them that allows them to make silly claims.
>> LRH was a liar and a dilettante, but a very good con man.
>
>LRH may have been Satan incarnate, still no reason not to at least
>listen....and then maybe test.
Anyone that really 'listen's to all the information that is available on
Hubbard and his complete life, knows that there is nothing to test.
>> Steve
>
> best of luck
>
>jack
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
"Faith doesn't move mountains: it levels buildings." -- David Rice
Gerry Armstrong
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>
>phils...@hotmail.com (Phil Scott) wrote:
>
>
>I noticed you haven't answered the pages of EVIDENCE I posted that
>completely annihilated your equally-lunatic apoligist whine about your
>hero-figures, the proven liars Gerry Armstrong and Stacy Brooks Young,
I'm the Gerry Armstrong you're talking about. I say you're an
operative for $cientology run by the Miscavige regime. But that's not
the subject of this post.
>who first worked the scam from the inside WITH the attornies above,
Precisely what scam you are accusing me of working or working in from
the inside?
Precisely what attorneys do you accuse me of working that scam with
inside the cult?
> then
>went out into the cold to provide COVER
Precisely what COVER do you accuse me of providing?
> for those same fucking
>attornies.
Precisely what attorneys, and on which dates?
> I posted documented fact after fact after fact, and you got
>real, real quiet on that subject all of a sudden.
Well now you have the opportunity to do it again. You are a liar about
me, and you know it beyond a doubt. It's a job you have to wring out
of this op, which was busted when you blew your own cover back right
after you took it public. For me that was a Godsend.
But I have never read one fact from you which has lead me to accept
one word of what you've said about me here (pretty well anywhere, but
certainly here). So please post it.
And finally, present your facts which lead you to the conclusion that
you, of all people, are in a position to sensibly call me a proven
liar.
I know that you are a proven liar, in fact I'm the guy who proves you
a liar, in no small part because I'm the guy you're mainly lying
about, but you aren't the guy who proves me a liar, certainly not in
the "case" you've built against me on a.r.s. that I've seen. In any
event, just post all these "facts" which lead you to call me a proven
liar. I understand that I'll be getting these facts from a proven
liar, but at least they'll be in one place.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
>
>CL
>
Keith Henson
wrote:
snip
>Happy 2002, all you suppressive motherfuckers! Oh, and for you
>cultie brainwashed OSA drones forced to read a.r.s., make this
>the year to free what little is left of your mind!
Wow! Great to see you back Martin. Keith Henson
Zinj
says...
Tch Keith... Martin hasn't picketed in *ages* :)
What chance does *he* have to be a 'legitimate critic'?
Zinj
Doctor C
> ====================================
> ******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
> Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
> http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
> ====================================
>
> Independent Theological and Sociological Studies of Scientology
> http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/studies.htm
>
> Michael W. Ross, Ph.D
> Dept. of Psychiatry
> Flinders University of Southern Australia
>
> Scientology, Social Science and the Definition of Religion
> James A. Beckford, Ph.D.
> Professor of Sociology
> University of Warwick
> United Kingdom
>
> Scientology A Comparison with Religions of the East and West
> Per-Arne Berglie
> Professor, History of Religion
> University of Stockholm
> Sweden
>
> Is Scientology A Religion?
> Alan W. Black
> Associate Professor of Sociology
> University of New England
> New South Wales
> Australia
>
> Is Scientology a Religion?
> Gary D. Bouma, Ph.D.
> Dept. of Anthropology and Sociology
> Monash University, Clayton,
> Victoria, Australia
>
> Scientology A New Religion
> M. Darrol Bryant, Ph.D.
> Professor of Religion and Culture
> University of Waterloo
> Ontario, Canada
>
> Scientology- A Religion in South Africa
> David Chidester
> Professor of Comparative Religion
> University of Cape Town
> South Africa
>
> Religious Toleration and Religious Diversity
> Bryan Wilson, Ph.D.
> Reader Emeritus
> Oxford University
> United Kingdom
>
> Scientology: The Now Religion
> by George Malko
> Delacorte Press, New York
> U.S.A.
>
> Bryan Wilson, Ph.D.
> Reader Emeritus
> Oxford University
> United Kingdom
>
> Scientology
> Régis Dericquebourg
> Professor, Sociology of Religion
> University of Lille III
> France
>
> Scientology- The Marks of Religion
> Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D.
> Professor in Religious Studies
> Washington University
> Saint Louis, Missouri
> U.S.A.
>
> Scientology and Contemporary Definitions of Religion in the Social Sciences
> Alejandro Frigerio, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Sociology
> Cathothic University of Argentina
> Buenos Aires, Argentina
>
> The Religious Status of Scientology
> Irving Hexham, Ph.D.
> Professor of Religious Studies
> University of Calgary
>
> Scientology - A New Religion
> Samuel S. Hill, Ph.D.
> Professor of Religion
> County of Watauga
> North Carolina, U.S.A.
>
> Religious Liberty in Europe
> Prof. Massimo Introvigne
> Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR)
> Turin, Italia
>
> Scientology: Teachings and Practices
> Hermann Phillips
> former Scientologist
>
> Is Scientology a Religion - A Report of Research
> Dean M. Kelley
> Counselor on Religious Liberty
> National Council of Churches of Christ
> U.S.A.
>
> The Religious Nature of Scientology
> Geoffrey Parrinder, Ph.D.
> Professor Emeritus, Comparitive Study of Religions
> University of London
> United Kingdom
>
> The Church of Scientology
> Juha Pentikainen, Ph.D.
> Marja Pentikainen
> MSC Helsinki
> Finland
>
> Scientology A New Religion
> Herbert Richardson, Ph.D.
> Professor of Religious Studies
> University of Toronto
> Ontario, Canada
>
> Scientology Its Historical & Morphological Frame
> Dario Sabbatucci
> Professor of History of Religions
> University of Rome
> Rome, Italy
>
> The Relationship Between Scientology and Other Religions
> Mr. Fumio Sawada
> Eighth Holder of the Secrets
> of Yu-itsu Shinto
>
> Scientology - A Way of Spiritual Self-Identification
> Michael A. Sivertsev
> Expert Advisor on International Matters
> to the Committee of the Russian Federation
>
> Reliability of Apostate Testimony & New Religious Movements
> Lonnie Kliever, Ph.D.
> Professor of Religious Studies
> Southern Methodist University
> U.S.A.
>
> A Short Study of the Scientology Religion
> J. Gordon Melton
> Director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion
> County of Cook, Illinois
> U.S.A.
>
> Apostates and New Religious Movements
> Bryan Wilson, Ph.D.
> Reader Emeritus
> University of Oxford
> United Kingdom
>
> Scientology and the New Age
> Dr. Josef Wolf
> Professor at Charles University in Prague
> Czech Republic
>
> Religious Philosophy, Religion and Church
> G. C. Oosthuizen, Th.D.
> Professor, Dept. of Science of Religion
> University of Durban-Westville,
> South Africa
>
> L. Ron Hubbard & Scientology
> Annotated Bibliographical Survey of Primary & Secondary Literature
> Marco Frenschkowski
> University of Mainz
> Germany
> ====================================
> ******** INTOLERANCE ONLINE ********
> Decoding Anti-Scientology Propaganda
> http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk
> ====================================
Whoa! Hold on! Did I just see a reference to a psych here??? I did! I
did!
> Personality Changes in Scientologists: Effects of Membership
> Michael W. Ross, Ph.D
> Dept. of Psychiatry
> Flinders University of Southern Australia
I thought that the psychs were out to get you and your little
religion! Did a psych write something positive about your little
group??? But I thought that they promoted hatred about your church
because of all the good it does!