One more ex-scientologist.
One Scio
Dear a.r.s.,
I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last week
or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I was
destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that
is Scientology. I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
beings.
Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their
humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection. Real caring is often denounced as
1.1. They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting
suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were really
fighting truth.
I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for myself.
Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories here which
inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their
money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa McPherson.
I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
and the fight!
One (Ex-) Scio
Zinj
In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
says...
Glad to have you here OneXScio
Zinj
--
Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
Inducto
Thanks for your story. Can we call it an arscc "win"?
Here's my question, one that I hope might have some implications for getting
other CoS members to reconsider their continued allegiance to the "church". I
presume, like most of the other individuals of good heart who make up the lower
echelons of CoS, you are an idealistic person with a desire to better yourself,
and contribute to mankind and our future on the planet. It's the motivation
that lures people in, and the justification that CoS uses -- and teaches people
to use -- to discount the organization's questionable activities when they come
to light. Do you have some plan as to how you might continue to express and
work towards such aims outside of CoS, how to satisfy your spiritual
aspirations? Freezone or something else? Or has CoS just left you feeling
like the pursuit of the whole area is pointless?
Best Regards, and Inquiringly,
I.
p/m
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
ExScio
Welcome back to the real world One(X)Scio!!
Isn't it great not to have to worry about stats and
being browbeat by registrars and Ethics and being
able to get on with your life?
Best wishes,
<<<<< ExScio (with the emphasis on EX) - St. Louis area SP >>>>>
/\ndroid <at
One Scio wrote in message
<199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing
with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for
"not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>
<snip>
>
>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for
myself.
>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
>alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories here which
>inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing
their
>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa
McPherson.
>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
>
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the
fun
>and the fight!
>
>
>One (Ex-) Scio
Congratulations on making what had to be a very tough decision. You can
probably do quite a lot here. You're Yet Another ARSCCer who was on the
inside, knows what goes on, and most importantly, hopefully knows what the
people still on the inside will listen to without automatically rejecting it
before thinking about it.
For starters, how about the story of what made you leave?
Another mind freed from The Hamster Wheel to Total Freedom!
/\<.
JimDBB
>E>Subject: One more ex-scientologist.
>From: one...@aol.com (One Scio)
>Date: Wed, May 20, 1998 14:00
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing
>with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>
>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last
>week
>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I
>was
>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
>
Well done and well said. You re going to feel terrific now that you have TOTAL
FREEDOM...from the scientology cult. And you will be free to spend your money
and your time on yourself.
Congraulations and thanks for posting your message.
JimDBB
One Scio
ExScio wrote:
\>
></PRE></HTML>
Thank you for your welcome, and Zinjifar too! It's wonderful to be out!! 2 PM
Thursday is now just another houron the clock...
I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
One (Ex-)Scio
Wulfen
On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:
(SNIP
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
Which town you in? You could come out and play the next time the local
Org is picketed. My idea for your flyer: The story of why you quit on
one side, and your choice of Xenu/$cientology and the law/medical
quackery/etc on the other.
Have a good, $cientology-free day!
----------------------------------------------------------------
SP, Quake/2 addict, amateur rationalist.
-- http://www.total.net/~wulfen/scn --
"Science is a method, not an ideology."
----------------------------------------------------------------
One Scio
Inducto wrote:
>Thanks for your story. Can we call it an arscc "win"?
>
>Here's my question, one that I hope might have some implications for getting
>other CoS members to reconsider their continued allegiance to the "church".
>I
>presume, like most of the other individuals of good heart who make up the
>lower
>echelons of CoS, you are an idealistic person with a desire to better
>yourself,
>and contribute to mankind and our future on the planet. It's the motivation
>that lures people in, and the justification that CoS uses -- and teaches
>people
>to use -- to discount the organization's questionable activities when they
>come
>to light. Do you have some plan as to how you might continue to express and
>work towards such aims outside of CoS, how to satisfy your spiritual
>aspirations? Freezone or something else? Or has CoS just left you feeling
>like the pursuit of the whole area is pointless?
>
I am going to look for something. Right now, I'll be content to follow my own
individual spirituality. I don't want the tech right now. If there's something
good in the tech, the freezone's got it, but right now I'm taking a break from
anything Hubbardian.
Otherwise, I think I'll put my energy into the activism I was doing before CoS.
Most Scientologists had valuable and productive and beneficial lives before
CoS. Their energies become diverted into the CoS and its
affiliates.Scientologists are some of the best people I've met. They're
spiritual, active and concerned. If they'll just step back into the real world,
they'll find their old causes, cares and concerns. But they have to be willing
to take a glance at wogdom first.
One (Ex-) Scio
Just Wog
On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:
:Dear a.r.s.,
:I left Scientology today--for good.
<snip a moving story of leaving SeaOrg>
:I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
:and the fight!
:One (Ex-) Scio
Hi One-X-Scio,
Welcome to your freedom and we all wait for your stories from your cult
experiences.
Regards,
-Bob, just Wog-
--
From the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
-"competent medical advisors recommended that Hubbard be committed
to a private sanitarium for psychiatric observation and
treatment of a mental ailment known as paranoid schizophrenia."
(105-55601-5)-
One Scio
Thanks, Android Cat and Jim DBB for your welcomes. I'm delighted to be here.
Basically, I relized I wanted to get out of my Sea Org contract and went to irc
#scientology for help. I chatted with Arnie Lerma, Frank Oliver, Stacy Young,
Rod Keller, Robet Young and other SPs that I used to hate and fear, and I found
out the truth about the Co$. I went to the Dianetics event May 16 and never
came back. I've been dealing with the Ethics officer the last few days, and now
it's almost over and I'm gone and free forever. Scientology is a betrayal of
all the word freedom means.
All Scientology staff are required to take a test, the "Leadership Survey,"
which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and one
"psychotically wrong". To find out what Scn really thinks of freedom, turn to
question # 13:
"13. Should the head of a government rule
a. single-handedly
b. as a member of a council
c. by the will of the people"
A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic".
No wonder the Germans are worried about them. Sounds like fascism to me.
One (Ex-)Scio
Andreas Heldal-Lund
Welcome "One (Ex-) Scio"! :)
"Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with deeper fangs
than freedom never endangered."
— Cicero
On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:
>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>
>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last week
>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I was
>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
>
>Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that
>is Scientology. I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>beings.
>
>Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their
>humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection. Real caring is often denounced as
>1.1. They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting
>suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were really
>fighting truth.
>
>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for myself.
>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
>alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories here which
>inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their
>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa McPherson.
>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
>
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
>
>
>One (Ex-) Scio
Best wishes, Andreas Heldal-Lund
Operation Clambake: www.xenu.net SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI
_______________________________________________________________
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in
thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which
never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion
and ignorance which does harm." -- Marcus Aurelius
Tilman Hausherr
In <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
(One Scio) wrote:
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
I would like to know how life was in the last year or so - for example,
was there any pressure do to set up "personal" web pages? What did the
org say about the filter? And how did orgs reacts to p*cketing,
especially when p*cketeers were joking 'n degrading, or saying "X*nu"?
Tilman
PS: Will you join the Knights of X*nu?
WESFAGER
Welcome to reality oneXscio, glad to have you out.
Wes Fager
Pign...@worldnet.att.net
one...@aol.com (One Scio) writes:
> Dear a.r.s.,
>
> I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
> the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
> wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
> disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
Congratulations on your decision. That's what makes this newsgroup
worthwhile -- when people are helped to break free of this organization
by the info they get here. Enjoy your freedom!
Monica Pignotti
WHIPPERSNAPPER
What this looks like to me is yet another troll by a "critic."
No verifiable information, no identity and a propagandistic bent that
warps obvious reality. A.r.s or its snarling denizens "caring"?
Delusion! Or PR, take your pick.
In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
Which org? What's the Ethics Officer's name? Post the Declare in writing
when you get it.
>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last week
>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I was
>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
And you were staff for how long?
>Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that
>is Scientology.
And you take issue with none of the obvious falsehoods and viciousness?
>I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>beings.
What an amazing revelation! Were you deprogrammed or "exit counselled,"
by paid operators? It's that or this is a troll. My money's on the
latter.
>Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their
>humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection.
No Scientologist would say this. Affection (affinity) is PART of ARC.
>Real caring is often denounced as 1.1.
Common a.r.s propaganda, never the observation of a Scientologist.
>They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting
>suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were really
>fighting truth.
The usual a.r.s pap. This is SO troll-like.
>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for myself.
Amazing. So you're saying the horrific mental ravages of Scientology are
curable virtually overnight? Just run away and denounce it! Everyone
should try it! This sounds just like the fondest hopes of the Standard
Critic [tm].
>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
>alive--caring, passionate and strong.
Yeah, isn't Barwell a sweetie? And Rob Clark! We all know the bomb thing
was just a gentle jest. And Grady? Well, his cute little whizbangs
aren't the sexually-depraved psychotic ravings they seem. And Roland!
And on and on. Such caring souls... it's humbling, isn't it?
>There are so many stories here which inspired me.
Like where Henson got slapped with half a lifetime of debt he can't escape
even with bankruptcy, because he contrived a stupid excuse for an illegal
PR gambit the court didn't buy? Yeah, he's an icon. Every critic should
be so brave.
Hey, Henson... here's lookin' at ya! [wink] Hope your cryo-storage is
all paid up! Wouldn't it be a shame of they refused to freeze your head
for lack of funds?
>I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their
>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa McPherson.
Amazing how much you've learned in a week! What are some of the names of
those good people? I'll gladly inform them of your fine offer.
>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
Fantastic!! This noble intent and awesome ability would be well applied
to Klemesrud, for one. Get him to tell you *his* lies!
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
How long were you in? What's your case level? Your training?
This is a pile of steaming, fly-infested PR if I ever saw such a thing.
My troll-meter is pegged. If this person is for real, it is the first and
only case of its kind, outside a forced deprogramming, I have ever seen.
You people are really shameless.
- Whippersnapper
"Look! A thermos full of phlegm!" -- Calvin
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>ExScio wrote:
>
>\>
>>Welcome back to the real world One(X)Scio!!
>>
>>Isn't it great not to have to worry about stats and
>>being browbeat by registrars and Ethics and being
>>able to get on with your life?
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>
>
>Thursday is now just another houron the clock...
>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
>people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
>always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
>second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
>craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
>org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
>tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
>
>One (Ex-)Scio
Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
This person isn't just a troll. It is a STUPID troll.
Must be the work of a committee.
- Whippersnapper
"It certifies you as a grade 'A' nimrod." -- Calvin
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <199805202016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>Thanks, Android Cat and Jim DBB for your welcomes. I'm delighted to be here.
>Basically, I relized I wanted to get out of my Sea Org contract and went to irc
>#scientology for help. I chatted with Arnie Lerma, Frank Oliver, Stacy Young,
>Rod Keller, Robet Young and other SPs that I used to hate and fear, and I found
>out the truth about the Co$. I went to the Dianetics event May 16 and never
>came back. I've been dealing with the Ethics officer the last few days, and now
>it's almost over and I'm gone and free forever. Scientology is a betrayal of
>all the word freedom means.
Man, if that's a troll I smell, I'd hate to get stuck in a crowd of 'em.
>All Scientology staff are required to take a test, the "Leadership Survey,"
>which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
>test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and one
>"psychotically wrong". To find out what Scn really thinks of freedom, turn to
>question # 13:
>
>"13. Should the head of a government rule
>a. single-handedly
>b. as a member of a council
>c. by the will of the people"
>
>A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic".
Ah, there is it again! The propaganda angle.
>No wonder the Germans are worried about them. Sounds like fascism to me.
Uh-huh. I'm starting to narrow down who this might be.
Well, the leadership survey thing was attacked here before. But hey! A
new PR lie... the "psychotic answer" thing is real cool!
I've seen the entire test, and I've graded it. There are no "psychotic"
answers. This troll/person is lying.
- Whippersnapper
"I'm off to meet my doom, Mom. See you after school." Calvin
Inducto
>I am going to look for something. Right now, I'll be content to follow my own
>individual spirituality. I don't want the tech right now. If there's
>something
>good in the tech, the freezone's got it, but right now I'm taking a break
>from
>anything Hubbardian.
I was just wondering what, if anything, you were going to do in that area of
your life, not necessarily anything organized -- follow your own spirituality
sounds like the answer. I ask that because I've known people who rejected
spirituality entirely after leaving CoS, and because as I said I think it would
make it easier for CoS members to reevaluate their loyalty to an apparently
disfunctional organization if they had more of a sense of spiritual goals and a
humanitarian mission they could pursue on the "outside".
By the way, I found "Whippersnapper"'s post kind of interesting. I think he's
having trouble grasping the concept that someone could decide to walk away from
CoS, though he raises some interesting questions. It's been pointed out before
by CoS' suporters that a.r.s. participants are sometimes all too quick to
become convinced that a new poster is an OSA troll when they are often wrong,
and it would be amusing to see if the shoe is on the other foot this time.
Would you care to give enough more details that we could all be certain about
your story? I would think that you've said enough about your recent departure
that the CoS could figure out who you are if they wanted to, but don't let
yourself be goaded into giving out details if you think they really can't
identify you and you don't want to be identified. You could hopefully convince
anyone with doubts with a good account of your time inside CoS, which would be
very informative in the process, without giving away any more identifying
details.
Best,
Jim Byrd
In article <199805202016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
says...
>
>All Scientology staff are required to take a test, the "Leadership Survey,"
>which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
>test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and one
>"psychotically wrong
I would like to see a copy of this test. Has it been posted?
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://extra.newsguy.com
Alan Barclay
>which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
>test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and one
It would be a very interesting document to see here, with all the
questions & the various answers.
kwantem mekanik
In article <6jvgdq$r...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>What this looks like to me is yet another troll by a "critic."
>
>No verifiable information, no identity and a propagandistic bent that
>warps obvious reality. A.r.s or its snarling denizens "caring"?
>Delusion! Or PR, take your pick.
Whippersnapper, why don't you post the verifiable information about
Hubbard's research related to Dianetics?
We're _still_ waiting...
**********************************************
* The language of truth *
* is unadorned and always simple. *
* - Ammianus Marcellinus *
* http://burtcom.com/kwantem *
One Scio
Thanks, Wes, Tilman and Andreas..and yes, Tilman, I'd love to be a Knight of
Xenu (the entheta filter doesn't affect aol).
As for WHIPPERSNAPPER, I have a reference for you: Scientometric Testing. And
talk to a few people who blew your org. They're the people who were there all
the time, and that you suddenly stopped seeing. And look at this
newsgroup--people *do* leave Scientology. I've told several people, most of
whom are on a.r.s, more of my story. I have no interest at this time in getting
CoS after me. Maybe in a few days.
I was in Scn six months. I left *yesterday*. I'd ask everyone who wants
"details" to personally email me.
One (Ex-) Scio
kwantem mekanik
In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
>
>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>
>This person isn't just a troll. It is a STUPID troll.
>
>Must be the work of a committee.
>
>
>- Whippersnapper
>
Tsk. tsk, Whippersnapper, I thought your goal was to save the world, not
to save the world in ever-increasing steps.
Martin Hunt
In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:
>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
Good for you on getting out! How long were you in? Take the time
to get well before you jump into battle with Scientology; take the
time to get the weird ideas Scientology instilled into your mind
out, to lose the strange terminology, and get over any other effects
you might be feeling, such as sleeplessness, paranoia toward
psychiatrists, etc.
When you feel you have done the personal work on yourself to
get well and truly over your time in Scientology, carefully
consider if you want to devote any more time to it, or if you'd
rather just chuck it all and move on to something else. People
are often a little vulnerable right after leaving the cult,
and getting involved with ars might be the wrong thing for you
to be doing right now. I know it has caused problems in the past;
it takes a strong, together person to stand up to Scientology
for any length of time, and I wouldn't recommend it as a form
of therapy or for anyone not at their best. :-)
Again, it's great that you got out of the cult (I wonder if you're
the person Stacy was talking about in her exit counselling post?),
and I'm happy you're back into the world of sweet reason and
out of that insane hell-hole of the mind that is Scientology.
>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last week
>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I was
>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
>
>Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that
>is Scientology. I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>beings.
>
>Scientologists--especially staff, especially SO, are weaned away from their
>humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection. Real caring is often denounced as
>1.1. They have no idea what they're really fighting. Thy think they're fighting
>suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were really
>fighting truth.
>
>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think for myself.
>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
>alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories here which
>inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology, losing their
>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa McPherson.
>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so as well.
>
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
>
>One (Ex-) Scio
Opposing Scientology can be extremely stressful...I wouldn't be so
quick to call it "fun". :-)
Again, think of yourself first, and saving the world from Scientology
a distant, distant second.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"If you mention the Holocaust one more time I'm going to break your
face in." - Scientology whore Sandy Rosen to Graham Berry at the
Keith Henson trial.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Eric Bohlman
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
: In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
: One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
: >I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
: >people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
: >always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
: >second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
: >craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
: >org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
: >tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
: >
: >One (Ex-)Scio
: Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
: Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
: just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
I've never seen such ignorance of the nature of variation. Any process
is subject to random fluctuation. Even recruitment of new members to an
organization. There are statistical techniques that can tell whether a
"downturn" is just a random fluctuation or an actual downward shift of
the process (e.g. drop in effectiveness of recruiting efforts).
Scientology, AFAIK, doesn't use them, AFAIK because Hubbard didn't invent
them.
Evaluation systems that set performance goals based on an individual's
peak performance usually result in the individual learning to "game the
system" in order to avoid being held responsible for producing
impossible-to-sustain results. A common form of "gaming the system" is
"banking results"; for example, if a salesman sells more than his quota
during a particular reporting period, he might not report all his sales,
but instead hold onto some of them so that if he's running short in the
next period, he can add the previous sales to his reports.
Seriously, stop and do some arithmetic. If someone brings in 14 people
one week, and any drop from one week to the next is a "downstat," than if
he sticks it out for a year, in order to avoid "downstats" he'd have to
be bringing in 66 people a week after a year. That means he'd have to
have brought in almost 2200 people in that year in order to be "upstat."
Can the Org even handle that many people? What happens when the market
saturates?
James A. Cherry
In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net> WHIPPERSNAPPER
(Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
>In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if
>>you get 14 people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me
>>is an upstat.
[snip]
>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
You imply that a downward change from one data point to the immediately
following one is a bad thing.
In my experience with statistics, I have not found this to be so. With
many real-world quantities, one of the _least_ meaningful ways to look
at a set of statistical data is from one individual point to the next.
That is, the variations on such a minute scale are usually difficult to
tell anything from. Means over a time period and/or regression analyses
are but two examples of techniques that give a much more accurate
overall picture.
My understanding of Scientology's view of "stats" is that if it fell
this week compared to last week, it's a downstat, and that's bad. Such
a view is overly simplistic, in my opinion. It might be simple to
calculate, but I don't think it's very helpful for analyzing trends.
--
James A. Cherry (http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~jac/) "Pretty much..."
Podkayne1
>>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get
14
>>people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
>>always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
>>second week you'd have a total of 26 new people.
>>
>>One (Ex-)Scio
>
>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
>
>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
Excuse me, but that ___Billion Served stat *is cumulative*. Which is what
OneScio wishes Scn stats were.
Is this Scn reading comprehension study tek at work? I'm not impressed.
--
The sum total of Heinleinism is "Think for yourself"
SP3-lite - got an AOL-TOS complaint rescinded
come on, clams - I want a *real* sp3
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>,
Eric Bohlman <eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
>: >people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
>: >always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
>: >craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
>: >org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
>: >tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
>: >
>
>: Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
>
>: Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>: just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>
>is subject to random fluctuation. Even recruitment of new members to an
>organization. There are statistical techniques that can tell whether a
>"downturn" is just a random fluctuation or an actual downward shift of
>the process (e.g. drop in effectiveness of recruiting efforts).
>Scientology, AFAIK, doesn't use them, AFAIK because Hubbard didn't invent
>them.
There are things Hubbard "invented" and things he simply learned and
passed on.
"As far as you know," Eric, isn't very far at all, is it? There is
detailed information on evaluation of statistical trends in Scn policy.
It's not sophisticated math, but simple direct observation of graphs and
their trends, long- and short-term.
It includes information on how to scale a graph, the relative
insignificance of brief leaps and dives, and the concept of cumulative
numbers. And much much more.
Every business or other activity of any size, with few exceptions, uses
statistical information to evaluate its progress and performance. I find
it endlessly hilarious that a.r.sers try to use this as a handle for
ridicule. It requires your level of ignorance of the facts to do so,
Eric.
>Evaluation systems that set performance goals based on an individual's
>peak performance usually result in the individual learning to "game the
>system" in order to avoid being held responsible for producing
>impossible-to-sustain results. A common form of "gaming the system" is
>"banking results"; for example, if a salesman sells more than his quota
>during a particular reporting period, he might not report all his sales,
>but instead hold onto some of them so that if he's running short in the
>next period, he can add the previous sales to his reports.
The approximate concept you describe here is known and expressed in Scn.
I myself have seen abuse and misuse of stats in Scn orgs, sometimes more
or less the sort you suggest here. But it is not an example of proper or
intelligent use of the real "tech."
There is also specific policy on the subject of "suppressive targets" and
misuse or misapplication of stats in management.
>Seriously, stop and do some arithmetic. If someone brings in 14 people
>one week, and any drop from one week to the next is a "downstat," than if
>he sticks it out for a year, in order to avoid "downstats" he'd have to
>be bringing in 66 people a week after a year. That means he'd have to
>have brought in almost 2200 people in that year in order to be "upstat."
>Can the Org even handle that many people? What happens when the market
>saturates?
If you look in Scn policy, you will find a sane answer to this. Some
things measured by stats cannot go up endlessly, of course, so one simply
identifies what is possible and sustainable. A stat which reaches and
remains in a high range, regardless of fluctuations, is recognized as an
"up stat."
Still, a person bent on doing well has no business being complacent. If
it's possible to do more and better, a sane person tries to do so. And
it is, virtually always, possible. So it remains workable, usually even
necessary, to operate on a week-to-week or day-to-day basis with the stat
as a major point of reference, regardless that it has a "ceiling".
- Whippersnapper
"I think my cerebellum just fused!" -- Calvin
WHIPPERSNAPPER
James, you display the same abysmal ignorance as Eric Bohlman.
See my reply to Eric on this thread.
The failing you two apparently share is that you rely on a.r.s as a source
of accurate information, and neither of you has had the sense it takes to
examine anything directly.
It requires nothing but a mindless robot to criticize something you know
nothing about. If you fancy yourself a rational "critic" who is capable
of actual critical thinking, I invite you to do some personal research
next time before you purport to portray Scientology -- or anything at all
for that matter -- on a public newsgroup.
- Whippersnapper
"I'm fine just the way I am! Why should *I* change?" -- Calvin
In article <6jvlnu$cq7$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
James A. Cherry <j...@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net> WHIPPERSNAPPER
>(Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
...
>[snip]
>>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>
Starshadow
In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
one...@aol.com says...
> Dear a.r.s.,
>
> I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
> the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
> wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
> disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>
Welcome, ex. Life outside of groupthink isn't always easy but it is
always an adventure. I'd sure be interested to hear your story...take
care...
--
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In a<199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, One Scio writes:
>
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
And I'm glad you're out. This is the sort of thing I like to read here
(and the CofS __don't__ like to read here!).
--
<__"-$ <__" <__" <__"
:_ : : :_
''''''''._____'-_....'"...-------''''''_ <__'
'. $CIENTOLOGY: ..''--- :.
; _ . . . - '''
. . ' ': ': ':
: .' the bridge to .~~>~~>:~~>:
:.' total madness ~~> ~~>
'
John C. Randolph
WHIPPERSNAPPER may or may not have said:
-> >Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is really
-> >alive--caring, passionate and strong.
->
-> Yeah, isn't Barwell a sweetie? And Rob Clark! We all know the bomb thing
-> was just a gentle jest. And Grady? Well, his cute little whizbangs
-> aren't the sexually-depraved psychotic ravings they seem. And Roland!
-> And on and on. Such caring souls... it's humbling, isn't it?
Yeah, whip: They really are wonderful people, as you will find out when you
leave the clams and need their emotional support. When you're ready to take
back your sanity, I suggest you call Keith first.
-> >There are so many stories here which inspired me.
->
-> Like where Henson got slapped with half a lifetime of debt he can't escape
-> even with bankruptcy, because he contrived a stupid excuse for an illegal
-> PR gambit the court didn't buy? Yeah, he's an icon. Every critic should
-> be so brave.
That wasn't a PR gambit. That was an act of civil disobedience, and he did
it to save others from Lisa MacPherson's fate. If Keith wanted attention,
he's got less arduous ways to get it (like starting the L-5 society.)
-> Fantastic!! This noble intent and awesome ability would be well applied
-> to Klemesrud, for one. Get him to tell you *his* lies!
Oh, blow it out your arse. (Oh wait: You had a clamette try that already,
didn't you?)
BTW, Why did Hubbard lie about his alleged disablities, whip? You wouldn't
want to base your life on the ravings of a LIAR, would you?
-jcr
Wulfen
On 20 May 1998 17:02:50 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
There are parts I'm not responding to from this post, so,
(SNIP)
> If this person is for real, it is the first and only case of its kind, outside a forced
>deprogramming, I have ever seen.
Really? The only person voluntarily leaving $cientology? Then how
about Vaugn and Stacy Young, Roger Gonnet, Dennis Erlich, Martin Hunt,
and all the others who have left $cientology? Do you think they were
deprogrammed?
(SNIP)
----------------------------------------------------------------
SP, Quake/2 addict, amateur rationalist.
-- http://www.total.net/~wulfen/scn --
"Science is a method, not an ideology."
----------------------------------------------------------------
NUKEWASTER
Dear One Scio,
Welcome back to the free world.
Nuke
Zinj
In article <6jvgdq$r...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com says...
>
>What this looks like to me is yet another troll by a "critic."
>
>No verifiable information, no identity and a propagandistic bent that
>warps obvious reality. A.r.s or its snarling denizens "caring"?
>Delusion! Or PR, take your pick.
>
>
>
>One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Dear a.r.s.,
>>
>>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing
with
>>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>
>
>
>>I've spoken to several here, over the telephone and over IRC, in the last
week
>>or so. You gave me the courage and the strength to stand up and get out. I
was
>>destined for the Sea Org at the FLB less than a week ago, and now I am what I
>>wanted from Scientology--a freed--truly freed--being.
>
>
>
save
>>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere
that
>>is Scientology.
>
>
>
>>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>>beings.
>
>by paid operators? It's that or this is a troll. My money's on the
>latter.
>
>
>>humanity, and subsititute ARC for affection.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>suppression. I thought I was fighting suppression--but they and I were
really
>>fighting truth.
>
>
>
myself.
>
>curable virtually overnight? Just run away and denounce it! Everyone
>should try it! This sounds just like the fondest hopes of the Standard
>Critic [tm].
>
>
>
>Yeah, isn't Barwell a sweetie? And Rob Clark! We all know the bomb thing
>
>
>
>
>Hey, Henson... here's lookin' at ya! [wink] Hope your cryo-storage is
>all paid up! Wouldn't it be a shame of they refused to freeze your head
>for lack of funds?
>
>
>>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the countless
>>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa
McPherson.
>
>those good people? I'll gladly inform them of your fine offer.
>
>
>
>
>
fun
>>and the fight!
>
>
>
>This is a pile of steaming, fly-infested PR if I ever saw such a thing.
>only case of its kind, outside a forced deprogramming, I have ever seen.
>
>
>
>- Whippersnapper
>
>"Look! A thermos full of phlegm!" -- Calvin
hehe.. isn't it funny how their fangs drool when there's no catch in them?
(Calvin could have said it)
Zinj
--
Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
Pimoty
Whipper: There are things Hubbard "invented" and things he simply learned and
passed on.>>
"Invented" is the operative word here. From his writings it is obvious that
little was based in physical reality
Whipper: The approximate concept you describe here is known and expressed in
Scn. I myself have seen abuse and misuse of stats in Scn orgs, sometimes more
or less the sort you suggest here. But it is not an example of proper or
intelligent use of the real "tech.">>
How convenient. How come that when it does not work it is not 'proper or
intelligent' use of the 'real' tech ? Perhaps because the "tech" does not work
?
But witholding any pay for not making the 'stats' shows indeed signs of
tyrrany. Not surprising given the fact that the 'teacher' himself did not shy
away from tyrannical behavior.
For additional info:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.entheta.net
Zinj
In article <6jvib6$3...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com says...
>
>In article <199805202016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Thanks, Android Cat and Jim DBB for your welcomes. I'm delighted to be here.
>>Basically, I relized I wanted to get out of my Sea Org contract and went to
irc
>>#scientology for help. I chatted with Arnie Lerma, Frank Oliver, Stacy
Young,
>>Rod Keller, Robet Young and other SPs that I used to hate and fear, and I
found
>>out the truth about the Co$. I went to the Dianetics event May 16 and never
>>came back. I've been dealing with the Ethics officer the last few days, and
now
>>it's almost over and I'm gone and free forever. Scientology is a betrayal of
>>all the word freedom means.
>
>Man, if that's a troll I smell, I'd hate to get stuck in a crowd of 'em.
>
>
>
>>which supposedly measures their leadership ability. It's a multiple choice
>>test, most questions having three answer choices--one right, one wrong and
one
>>question # 13:
>>
>>"13. Should the head of a government rule
>>a. single-handedly
>>b. as a member of a council
>>c. by the will of the people"
>>
>>A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course,
"psychotic".
>
>Ah, there is it again! The propaganda angle.
>
>
>>No wonder the Germans are worried about them. Sounds like fascism to me.
>
>Uh-huh. I'm starting to narrow down who this might be.
>
>Well, the leadership survey thing was attacked here before. But hey! A
>new PR lie... the "psychotic answer" thing is real cool!
>
>I've seen the entire test, and I've graded it. There are no "psychotic"
>answers. This troll/person is lying.
>
>
>- Whippersnapper
>
>"I'm off to meet my doom, Mom. See you after school." Calvin
Poor whip.. so certain that his delusion is reality that it must be the 12
bankers, or the evil psychs or maybe the german OCP..
But never.. never.. a conscious decision to leave the only hope for mankind.
Poor whip
Pimoty
Whipper: The failing you two apparently share is that you rely on a.r.s as a
source
of accurate information, and neither of you has had the sense it takes to
examine anything directly.>>
Another unsupported accusation that ARS does not contain accurate information
eh Whipper ? Do you follow your own advice and examine things directly ? Like
Hubbard's claims about cancer and auditing ? And yet he failed to deliver as
usual when it came to 'fact' ? Hubbard was a failure as a scientist.
Whipper: It requires nothing but a mindless robot to criticize something you
know
nothing about. If you fancy yourself a rational "critic" who is capable
of actual critical thinking, I invite you to do some personal research
next time before you purport to portray Scientology -- or anything at all
for that matter -- on a public newsgroup.>>
Many have done the research and have come to similar conclusions. It's quite
easy actually. Hubbard was a fraud, a liar and poor scientist.
Pimoty
Whipper: But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually
seems
to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy, 2) major patterns
of unethical stuff and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or
family troubles.>>
As far as I know, Hubbard never blew though. I guess unethical behavior is not
a disqualifying factor ?
Pimoty
Whippersnapper: Unethical behavior>>
Translation: Being critical about scientology. Scieno-speak, so revealing...
Zane Thomas
On 20 May 1998 23:53:21 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>James, you display the same abysmal ignorance as Eric Bohlman.
ROFLMAO!
That from someone who believes that an evil space alien chained his
"soul" up in a volcano and nuked it!
Zane
Zane Thomas
On 20 May 1998 17:14:59 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
Oh come on whipper, we all know you've been to an org and seen gross
stupidity up close and personal.
Zane
Zane Thomas
On 20 May 1998 23:21:31 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems
>to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy
So are you telling us that Woody blew?
Zane
Zane Thomas
On 20 May 1998 17:14:59 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
Either you don't know how things work in an org or you're a liar
whipper. My money's on the later. As director of the treasury at
pubs I saw how declines in income resulted in reductions to the
below-survival wages paid to staffers.
Zane
Zane Thomas
On Thu, 21 May 1998 02:19:58 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>You don't even know anything about Scientology.
You don't have to step in dogshit to know that it stinks gertie.
Zane
rgonnet
One Scio wrote:
>
> Dear a.r.s.,
>
> I left Scientology today--for good.
>
> and the fight!
Fine, we are proud to get one more out of the scam!
Please, could you write something explaining the actual
temperature of things in orgs, especially, what are the
stats, in yours or elsewhere, how is the discipline, etc...
Roger
Stephen Jones
In article <6k06jr$r...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems
>to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy, 2) major patterns
>of unethical stuff and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or
>family troubles.
>
>Just my observations, nothing scientific about them.
Damn illiterate, unethical, debtors from troubled homes! Uncanny pattern
spotting, Keith. With the accuracy and insight you've demonstrated, you
might as well call your observations scientific. If it was good enough for
Hubbard.........
In addition to the sassy comment, I have a question: Why would debt matter?
It is interesting that you list debt as a reason one may have for leaving
the CoS. Don't you think the CoS would be better off by offering their
services for free. They could suport themselves with actual donations
instead of fees called donations. Think how this would expand the reach of
the Tech. Is it a good idea?
curious,
Stephen Jones
>
>- Whippersnapper
>
>"I told her to expect you to deny everything." -- Calvin
>
Tilman Hausherr
In <199805202016...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
(One Scio) wrote:
>"psychotically wrong". To find out what Scn really thinks of freedom, turn to
>question # 13:
>
>"13. Should the head of a government rule
>a. single-handedly
>b. as a member of a council
>c. by the will of the people"
>
>A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic".
We should try to get a copy of that (with the solutions) and send it to
a german embassy. The "verfassungsschutz" folks will get an orgasm !!!
LilAlex742
Er, uh, Dennis...
I may be reading this wrong here, but if you are somehow implying that I am, or
have any relation to, Whippersnapper, you are quite wrong.
If you and whipper have had similar posts on similar subject, my apy-oly-ogies.
Maybe you make a lot of references to Clockwork Orange that I don't know
about. Maybe you have also told Whipper, recently, that he is fos, and that is
why you are asking him if that sounds familiar. If not, let me state for the
record, that I have posted only a few messages under another screen name, and
that was several years ago, when I first started posting here.
If you are accusing me of being either whippersnapper, or not otherwise what I
seem, I won't call you paranoid, because I can understand that the entire
weirdness of this newsgroup, and the weirdness that you have experienced in
your life, might lead to the occasional, shall we say, crossed signal.
I am much too old, and have been through too much of my own shit, to play troll
games for any reason. I don't like it when other people do it to me. And, for
personal reasons, I do my best my best, as I pass through my life, not to lie.
In fact, one of the many things that draws me here is that Scientology is a
religion/cult that, I believe, has codified lying and self-deception into its
structure.
Hope this helps, but if it doesn't--piss off (does that sound familiar?) : )
<----------- I generally hate emoticons, maybe because I can't do them well.
That's supposed to be a smilley face.
Posted and Mailed,
LilAlex
13. Should the head of a government rule
a. single-handedly
b. as a member of a council
c. by the will of the people
A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic"
One Scio, about an org Leadership test
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <6k0fgs$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <6k06jr$r...@examiner.concentric.net>,
> Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>
>>But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems
>>to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy, 2) major patterns
>>of unethical stuff and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or
>>family troubles.
>>
>>Just my observations, nothing scientific about them.
>
>Damn illiterate, unethical, debtors from troubled homes! Uncanny pattern
>spotting, Keith.
Uncanny spin on my words! I could say "have a nice day" and you'd find
fault, I suspect.
How about "thanks for taking a moment to mention your views"?
>With the accuracy and insight you've demonstrated, you
>might as well call your observations scientific. If it was good enough for
>Hubbard.........
Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
research material as well.
Like so many others, you just latch onto the lies and run with them,
without a moment of actual observation of your own. Speaking of accuracy
and insight...
>In addition to the sassy comment, I have a question: Why would debt matter?
It matters because it places a person in difficulty. It is one example of
"pressures and problems" not the whole tomato.
>It is interesting that you list debt as a reason one may have for leaving
>the CoS.
That's a misstatement and never my intent. Do you still beat your wife?
>Don't you think the CoS would be better off by offering their
>services for free.
No. I don't.
>They could suport themselves with actual donations
>instead of fees called donations.
Possibly. Are you offering?
But in one form or another, the Church requires money to exist. Shall
those who benefit most directly not provide that support?
>Think how this would expand the reach of
>the Tech. Is it a good idea?
No. Exchange is an honorable principle, not merely a requisite of
commerce. One gives in return for what one receives. And one supports
that which one values.
Scientologists and the Church give much of themselves freely, as do people
of good will everywhere.
>curious,
I think not. I think you seek only to invalidate and you're not curious
at all.
- Whippersnapper
"Let's not be vulgar. You're just jealous." -- Hobbes
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <Pj4Y1Mdl...@islandnet.com>,
>
>>Man, if that's a troll I smell, I'd hate to get stuck in a crowd of 'em.
>
You can't communicate without spewing degraded sexual garbage, can you,
Martin?
I said:
"I've seen the entire test, and I've graded it. There are no "psychotic"
answers. This troll/person is lying."
Martin quoted only:
>>This troll/person is lying.
>
>Prove it. Scan it, web it, post it. Put up or shut up. I've seen
>enough of Tubby Lard's psychotic ramblings against democracy ...
I can't prove a negative, but I can tell you I never once heard or saw any
reference to any answer to the Leadership Survey as being "psychotic" or
indicating psychosis. Just that simple, creep.
As for Hubbard's views of democratic rule as being vulnerable to
irrational "group-think," it is evident to me that his views have been
substantially shared by a good many past and present figures of prominent
historical standing; even some of those we regard as the Founding Fathers
of modern democracy.
He makes many eloquent arguments about the value of individuals and of
individualism; and the broad responsibility of individuals with respect to
their own governance.
By my lights, his views were neither a cozy fit for what most conceive as
the ideal of democracy; *nor* fundamentally anti-democratic.
Hubbard had the courage, even in the paranoid times of McCarthyism, to
voice his opinions. He saw flaws in every political system, and he
pointed them out without fear or hesitation. And he saw in the nature of
humans and their aberrations, pitfalls democracy is incapable of avoiding.
All of which is interesting to debate but is almost irrelevant to
criticism of Scientology itself -- which is avowedly non-political.
- Whippersnapper
"Monsters, Dad. They could be anywhere." -- Calvin
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
WHIPPERSNAPPER (Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
: >might as well call your observations scientific. If it was good enough for
: >Hubbard.........
: Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
: answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
: research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
: research material as well.
Scientific research is a cumulative process. Hubbard comes up with a
theory. Hubbard researches his theory and publishes the results.
OK, so far. We have your word (and most of the secret scriptures) to
prove this initial step of the process.
Next step. Dr. Somethingornother at UCLA sees the publications and goes,
hey, this sounds good, and sets up a double-blind study to see whether or
not Hubbard is on the right track. Three things can happen here: (1) the
research supports Hub's theory, (2) the research shoots down Hub's theory,
(4) research suggests at least part of Hub's theory may be effective.
Step three. Another researcher at, say, University of Bristol in the UK
takes up the study. And so on, and so on, until there is a general
agreement one way or the other about the "science" in Scientology. This
process has successfully given us vaccines, computers, electricity,
sanitation, space travel, etc.
Now - research by one person on a personal theory is fine. Research by
others that confirm that theory lends credence to the original work.
There is, to my knowledge, one study done on Dianetics and it did not
confirm its effectiveness. Why doesn't Scientology attempt to legitimize
its research in this way?
Beck
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
WHIPPERSNAPPER (Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
: No verifiable information, no identity and a propagandistic bent that
: warps obvious reality.
Cute. You've just described the bulk of pro-scientology posters on the
NG.
Beck
Pign...@worldnet.att.net
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) writes: > In article <6k0fgs$q...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
> Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
> answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
> research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
> research material as well.
I think you had better word clear the word "research". LRH's tapes
just don't cut it when it comes to proving anything other than his
grandiosity.
Monica Pignotti
Ted Mayett (KOX)
On 20 May 1998 22:33:34 GMT, j...@doe.carleton.ca (James A. Cherry)
wrote:
>My understanding of Scientology's view of "stats" is that if it fell
>this week compared to last week, it's a downstat, and that's bad.
One week 10 books are sold. The next week it is 2 books and that is
BAD, Downstat. However, if on the third week 4 books are sold then
Stats are up and they get ecstatic. It is really quite sad to
witness.
A good, short essay on Management by Statistics:
http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/essaysandpages/stats.html
> Such
>a view is overly simplistic, in my opinion. It might be simple to
>calculate, but I don't think it's very helpful for analyzing trends.
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
David Gerard
On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:
: I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
:my place to expose the Co$ for what it is.
Tell your story, go picketing, require all CoS asking you to rejoin to
first read a Xemu leaflet ...
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"Over two megabytes of news are posted each day. This is a staggering figure"
- Unix System Administration Handbook, 1989
David Gerard
On 20 May 1998 20:00:16 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) wrote:
:Otherwise, I think I'll put my energy into the activism I was doing before CoS.
:Most Scientologists had valuable and productive and beneficial lives before
:CoS. Their energies become diverted into the CoS and its
:affiliates.Scientologists are some of the best people I've met. They're
:spiritual, active and concerned. If they'll just step back into the real world,
:they'll find their old causes, cares and concerns. But they have to be willing
:to take a glance at wogdom first.
A suggestion:
Write a post, suitable for a leaflet, about why YOU left - something that
would quickly get the point through to someone like your CoS self.
A service for those still in.
You can string a sentence together okay - it shouldn't be too hard.
David Gerard
On Thu, 21 May 1998 07:49:17 +0200, rgonnet <dictio...@hol.fr> wrote:
:One Scio wrote:
:> I left Scientology today--for good.
:Fine, we are proud to get one more out of the scam!
:Please, could you write something explaining the actual
:temperature of things in orgs, especially, what are the
:stats, in yours or elsewhere, how is the discipline, etc...
Oooooh. Yes please. How do things actually feel in the Orgs right now?
James A. Cherry
In article <6k08fh$5...@examiner.concentric.net> WHIPPERSNAPPER
(Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
>See my reply to Eric on this thread.
Done. You wrote (article <6k080a$3...@examiner.concentric.net>):
> There is
>detailed information on evaluation of statistical trends in Scn policy.
>It's not sophisticated math, but simple direct observation of graphs and
>their trends, long- and short-term.
I'd be interested in reading these; is there a specific place you can
refer me to? Nothing I search on the web seems to turn anything up.
I don't recall reading anything that contradicts my original impression
(Scn stats are point to point only), but if I'm wrong, I'd like to read
the truth in Scn policy.
If Scientology really does have detailed info on evaluating statistics,
then this is at odds with what you wrote earlier. OneScio wrote
(article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>):
>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if
>you get 14 people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me
>is an upstat.
You responded (article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>);
>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
You yourself called an instantaneous change downward a "downstat" in a
very derogatory way. Yet your response to Eric Bohlman said:
["It" = Scn policy]
>It includes information on how to scale a graph, the relative
>insignificance of brief leaps and dives, and the concept of cumulative
>numbers.
Why didn't you apply the Scn policy about "the relative insignificance
of brief leaps and dives" to the 14/12 example? To me, 14 one week
to 12 the next is a "brief dive" -- in fact, not even something I'd
go so far as to call a "dive" since it only changes by two people in a
small sample size of 14. Why did you call that a "downstat" so
negatively?
--
James A. Cherry (http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~jac/) "Pretty much..."
Geoffrey V. Bronner
In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>, Eric Bohlman
<eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Evaluation systems that set performance goals based on an individual's
>peak performance usually result in the individual learning to "game the
>system" in order to avoid being held responsible for producing
>impossible-to-sustain results. A common form of "gaming the system" is
>"banking results"; for example, if a salesman sells more than his quota
>during a particular reporting period, he might not report all his sales,
>but instead hold onto some of them so that if he's running short in the
>next period, he can add the previous sales to his reports.
>
I heard a story once during the cold war that a Soviet weight lifter was
told he would get a reward every time he set or beat a world record.
So he did, over and over again, in 1 pound increments. If he needed a new
car, he added a pound, etc. etc. etc.
No idea if it is true but it sounds like a good racket.
-Geoff
--
Internet Systems Developer / Administrator
The Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
kwantem mekanik
In article <6k0nlg$8...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
>answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
>research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
>research material as well.
>
>Like so many others, you just latch onto the lies and run with them,
>without a moment of actual observation of your own. Speaking of accuracy
>and insight...
OK, let's see you put some accuracy into your statement.
Where, exactly, are these reams and reams of research? What building are
they housed in? Can I come and look at 'em? Are they double-blind studies,
or just a collection of nameless anecdotes?
Publish them on the Internet, so that they can be scientifically studied.
C'mon whippersnapper, SHOW ME THE RESEARCH!
**********************************************
* The language of truth *
* is unadorned and always simple. *
* - Ammianus Marcellinus *
* http://burtcom.com/kwantem *
Pimoty
Whipper redefines 'research: But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
research material as well.>>
It's easy to call something 'research materials', it is harder for this to
stand up as such when actually looked at. Hubbard's understanding of science
was very poor and there is no evidence that he has done 'research' to support
his claims. That is 'research' as is commonly defined, not as defined by
Hubbard.
WS: Like so many others, you just latch onto the lies and run with them,
without a moment of actual observation of your own. Speaking of accuracy and
insight...>>
The accuracy and insight of the remark is supported further by Hubbard's own
statements and the lack of data supporting his 'scientific research'. Your
statement while interesting, has little relevance to the fact that Hubbard was
a poor scientist to say the least. Care for some examples ?
Pimoty
Kwante,: Publish them on the Internet, so that they can be scientifically
studied. C'mon whippersnapper, SHOW ME THE RESEARCH!>>
Whipper was not talking about this kind of scientific research, this is
scientology 'research' you fools.
<g>
Archangel
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
> In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>,
> Eric Bohlman <eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >: In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> >: One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
> >: >I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
> >: >people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
> >: >always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
> >: >second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
> >: >craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
> >: >org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
> >: >tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
> >: >
> >: >One (Ex-)Scio
> >
> >: Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
> >
> >: Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
> >: just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
> >
> >is subject to random fluctuation. Even recruitment of new members to an
> >organization. There are statistical techniques that can tell whether a
> >"downturn" is just a random fluctuation or an actual downward shift of
> >the process (e.g. drop in effectiveness of recruiting efforts).
> >Scientology, AFAIK, doesn't use them, AFAIK because Hubbard didn't invent
> >them.
>
> There are things Hubbard "invented" and things he simply learned and
> passed on.
>
> "As far as you know," Eric, isn't very far at all, is it? There is
> detailed information on evaluation of statistical trends in Scn policy.
> It's not sophisticated math, but simple direct observation of graphs and
> their trends, long- and short-term.
>
Wow!
>the relative
> insignificance of brief leaps and dives,
No kidding?
>and the concept of cumulative
> numbers.
Such a deep concept!
>And much much more.
There had damn well better be. What you have given us so far is
worthless.
> Every business or other activity of any size, with few exceptions, uses
> statistical information to evaluate its progress and performance. I find
> it endlessly hilarious that a.r.sers try to use this as a handle for
> ridicule. It requires your level of ignorance of the facts to do so,
> Eric.
Yes, most business use statistics. And the most common correct use of
statistical analysis lies in process control. From what you've stated,
the CoS does not want this, but rather wants the process out of
control. For any trend to have a valid statistical significance
requires SIX points. Point-to point analysis is worthless.
>
> >Evaluation systems that set performance goals based on an individual's
> >peak performance usually result in the individual learning to "game the
> >system" in order to avoid being held responsible for producing
> >impossible-to-sustain results. A common form of "gaming the system" is
> >"banking results"; for example, if a salesman sells more than his quota
> >during a particular reporting period, he might not report all his sales,
> >but instead hold onto some of them so that if he's running short in the
> >next period, he can add the previous sales to his reports.
>
> The approximate concept you describe here is known and expressed in Scn.
> I myself have seen abuse and misuse of stats in Scn orgs, sometimes more
> or less the sort you suggest here. But it is not an example of proper or
> intelligent use of the real "tech."
>
> There is also specific policy on the subject of "suppressive targets" and
> misuse or misapplication of stats in management.
>
> >Seriously, stop and do some arithmetic. If someone brings in 14 people
> >one week, and any drop from one week to the next is a "downstat," than if
> >he sticks it out for a year, in order to avoid "downstats" he'd have to
> >be bringing in 66 people a week after a year. That means he'd have to
> >have brought in almost 2200 people in that year in order to be "upstat."
> >Can the Org even handle that many people? What happens when the market
> >saturates?
>
> If you look in Scn policy, you will find a sane answer to this. Some
> things measured by stats cannot go up endlessly, of course, so one simply
> identifies what is possible and sustainable. A stat which reaches and
> remains in a high range, regardless of fluctuations, is recognized as an
> "up stat."
This would require control charting to be stastically vaild. You have
given no indication that the concept is even known in the church.
Furthermore, to begin such an analysis, (assuming that stats are
compiled weekly) it would take almost a year AFTER it had been decided
that the individual in question had "stratified."
> Still, a person bent on doing well has no business being complacent. If
> it's possible to do more and better, a sane person tries to do so. And
> it is, virtually always, possible. So it remains workable, usually even
> necessary, to operate on a week-to-week or day-to-day basis with the stat
> as a major point of reference, regardless that it has a "ceiling".
COMPLETELY FALSE in any mathematical sense.
Take a few stats courses at an accredited university sometime.
Archangel
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 20 May 1998 18:00:22 GMT, one...@aol.com (One Scio) brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. . .
<snip>
>I'm delighted to be here, to be free to speak, really able to think
for myself.
>Scientology is a dead end. Everyone here I've seen, however, is
really
>alive--caring, passionate and strong. There are so many stories
here which
>inspired me. I know so many good people sucked into Scientology,
losing their
>money and themselves. I want to do what I can--for them, for the
countless
>others in Scientology keeping silent, and for the victims like Lisa
McPherson.
>I've seen through the lies now, and I want to help others to do so
as well.
>
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in
in the fun
>and the fight!
>
>
>One (Ex-) Scio
One Scio, welcome, and thank you for posting this. Every mind freed
from the tyranny of the cult is cause for celebration.
Welcome to ars, and enjoy your hard-regained freedom.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNWRPVKn8flYc1m/ZAQH1hAf+J2xtZM9BQ6NFokaLoF3zxOPlF6VgTC4y
l1PoEC5WIEgjjHzHd12SQ+IgXw7AI5dPnCgyj2zo0e+27LA3IWi+aAGqs2K2gQnW
I6ctldC6vrJH05f6eqa1t96eHxZIoNzCDGe7hXjmVHS2foAo1rEz+Mnun26HGYOL
riMwvu2AdI8Ba3/ey5F5gWZ2w7MYLh8xzoorwnRE3dd8q7DRaU1ykOjSqndSZc7g
4XPXo3opv5XDJHqPRM+zeM1RCsug91xam/uEePDjR9SzV7pPpH47UTVWzZz75RhJ
bA3lkjTJycK1WvaOwb9+Pk52xQnLyAGMsxX0ymkRW06/zKxTlfGVog==
=MlEA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------
"...she hates her life and what she's done to it
There's one more kid that'll never go to school
Never get to fall in love, never get to be cool"
--Neil Young
the above e-mail address remains fictional.
the real one is bc9424@spamTHIS!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
*SP2(:)* KoX
...bc...
bc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 21 May 1998 04:12:32 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER)
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
<snip>
>>With the accuracy and insight you've demonstrated, you
>>might as well call your observations scientific. If it was good
enough for
>>Hubbard.........
>
>Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I
haven't
>answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of
Hubbard's
>research, and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-
recorded
>research material as well.
<snip>
"Reams upon reams" of research? Where? "Tape-recorded research
material"?? Lectures do not equal research, Whippersnapper.
I sat and listened to Elrong ramble on tape for hours while I was in
the cult, Whippersnapper. I read the course materials. I was only
in for a short time, but I never saw a single fucking *shred* of
research. Just bald assertion. This is NOT research.
The scientific method is how we perform research, Whippersnapper.
Hubbard repeatedly claimed scientific veracity. Not one iota of
evidence of this has *EVER* been presented.
You've allegedly seen "reams upon reams of Hubbard's research"--how
about enlightening us as to where this stuff all exists? And why
nobody else on the face of this rock has ever seen it?
Certainly you can confront this?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNWRR/6n8flYc1m/ZAQEsrwf9ERd3uK0munJnPC+a62wR1NrL/1OJjGes
gVYDD16Sd1lFWDCLo2roOuiPbOMjHSKdsxasdxzKFvWgWTEXCf+6Omde1n7LuyZe
giWHRkiXWBHLOjzK2xLlMM9Wh7rJwMn57u/RXdkCypZer0s29xBD8KE453MpUdki
aTJmJDF1Lx10yoF8v4h7fd3vwZSXXHbPh/Eu0zxvUND+znJOlBUvh7vVrgfbXc1Q
8ln3NnTvx/J0aRHE4NFX7xFbO+gSDCcEP5987RbI1jTm9ohoiGBzBKjZ5gep01mi
X7m2EP1ZVq8qFIKdM5eyuvfWvq3ir/JydjKb7ldC3zruocLKNLC+6w==
=sl83
Paul
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
> Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
> answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
> research,
What did this "research" consist of, Keith? Why is it that the neither
Hubbard nor the Church of Scientology[tm] has ever allowed anyone access
to this "research"? Why has none of Hubbard's "research" ever been
successfully duplicated? Why is it that the only time that Hubbard
cooperated in an independent study of his methods, the study
demonstrated conclusively that Hubbard's concept of "engrams" was simply
wrong? Why did Hubbard never publish any of his "research" in a
peer-reviewed journal or conference?
A related question, while I'm at it--if you have truly seen "reams upon
reams of Hubbard's research," then why did Hubbard claim that he never
actually kept records of his research? In a taped lecture, he claimed
that he could either keep records or do the research, not both. And
yet, you claim that you have seen "reams upon reams" of this so-called
"research". Why is that, Keith?
> and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
> research material as well.
What did these "tape-recorded research materials" consist of, Keith?
Hubbard blathering on and on? I don't think you understand the meaning
of the word "research".
> Like so many others, you just latch onto the lies and run with them,
> without a moment of actual observation of your own.
I've tried to locate Hubbard's "research", Keith. I can't find it. Why
is that?
It may or may not be a lie, but after more than 40 years, we still have
seen absolutely no sign that Hubbard did any kind of "research". While
I freely admit that absence of evidence is not the same thing as
evidence of absence, nonetheless, I am free to conclude the following:
a) Many of Hubbard's conclusions on a variety of subjects have been
conclusively shown to be wrong.
b) Hubbard had neither the experience, the education, nor the training
necessary to develop "a new science of the mind."
c) It has been conclusively established that Hubbard lied about a good
many things in his background.
d) After more than 40 years, neither Hubbard nor the Church of
Scientology[tm] has ever made available this "research" that Hubbard
claimed that he did.
Given the above, I maintain that any reasonable man would undoubtedly
conclude that the so-called "research" does not, in fact, exist. It
would be so easy for the Church of Scientology[tm] to prove me wrong.
That they have not done so leads me to the conclusion that they cannot
do so.
If the Church of Scientology[tm] ever does release the "research" that
Hubbard claimed that he did, I will cheerfully admit that I was wrong.
Until then, I do not think it is a "lie" to claim that Hubbard's
"research" existed only in his own mind.
-Paul
Jerod Pore
WHIPPERSNAPPER (Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
: In article <199805202140...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
: Inducto <ind...@aol.com> wrote:
: ...
: >By the way, I found "Whippersnapper"'s post kind of interesting. I think he's
: >having trouble grasping the concept that someone could decide to walk away from
: >CoS, though he raises some interesting questions.
: Not at all. I've seen people walk away from Scn a fair number of times,
: and the concept is neither disturbing nor difficult to fathom. I think it
: worth noting, however, that in three (3) separate instances I watched
: someone leave Scn under near-identical circumstances. Each one was a
: rather serious druggie and reverted to drugs upon departure.
In other words, Scientology failed to replace their addiction to drugs with
an addiction to auditing.
Which is it? Narcannon is 100% effective or people blow because they are
"serious druggies"?
Or did these "serious druggies" smoke a joint with a net.savvy friend or
two who showed them downloaded copies of the Xenu flyer?
: Each one was
: sort of over-enthusiastic and unreal on the subject right from the start.
Unreal on the subject of space-cooties inhabiting their bodies?
Unreal on the subject of Xenu the Galactic tyrrant who sent "thetans" through
a giant brass obscene dog, who had robot gorillas take them on roller coaster
rides, who chained them to Hawai'ian volcanoes (several million years before
such volcanoes broke through the surface of the Pacific) and hit them with
Hydrogen bombs?
Geez-louise, what kind of drugs were these people taking to make them
"unreal" on that? That nicotine must of clouded their minds!!!
Oh, wait. Nicotine is a scientology-approved drug. Something else must
have clouded their minds.
: But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems
: to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy, 2) major patterns
: of unethical stuff and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or
: family troubles.
But, but, isn't $cientology supposed to make you more able? Aren't those big
wins supposed to come fast'n'furious?
Illiteracy - like the justan or Simon5 or woody or rod_fletcher posts?
Unethical stuff - like Operation Snow White?
Serious debt - like the millions of dollars $cientology owes to Larry
Wollersheim.
Whipper - are you saying that the whole Cult of Elron is about to blow????
: "I told her to expect you to deny everything." -- Calvin
Boy, does *that* one sum up $cientology's PR campaign.
--
Jerod Pore - a.k.a. jerod23 at both well.com & netcom.com
Zines FAQ & over 3,000 reviews - http://www.factsheet5.com
Yet another anti-Scientology page - http://www.well.com/user/jerod23/clam.html
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <3564471D...@aol.com>, Archangel <de1...@aol.com> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>>
...
>> detailed information on evaluation of statistical trends in Scn policy.
>> It's not sophisticated math, but simple direct observation of graphs and
>> their trends, long- and short-term.
>>
>
>> statistical information to evaluate its progress and performance. I find
>> it endlessly hilarious that a.r.sers try to use this as a handle for
>> ridicule. It requires your level of ignorance of the facts to do so,
>> Eric.
>
>Yes, most business use statistics. And the most common correct use of
>statistical analysis lies in process control.
What the HELL are you talking about? I'm quite familiar with statistical
process control. It's important to manufacturing quality control, of
course, but you're waaaay off-base to suggest that's "the most common
correct use" of statistics. It a whole nother subject. Go post it to
sci.engineering.
>From what you've stated,
>the CoS does not want this, but rather wants the process out of
>control.
Now you're REALLY babbling.
>For any trend to have a valid statistical significance
>requires SIX points. Point-to point analysis is worthless.
Yeah, since point-to-point ISN'T A TREND. Are you saying this because
*you're* stupid or because you think others are?
You have given no indication you have the slightest clue what is being
discussed. We're talking about management of a human group or activity,
NOT manufacturing processes. Control charting would be of very limited
value and it would be a waste of time to incorporate such complexities
into a subject that succumbs to simple and direct methods.
If an important stat drops, you find out why and get it back up. The
"find out why" part has to be done with intelligence. Maybe the guy was
busy getting *other* important things done. There's value in
point-to-point analysis because people and functions at certain levels are
operating in the right-now.
Management is another matter and of course it evaluates trends, relates
one thing to another and so forth.
Please note, Archangel, I'm saying all this for others' benefit in case
they're interested. I suspect you intend to remain clueless.
>Furthermore, to begin such an analysis, (assuming that stats are
>compiled weekly) it would take almost a year AFTER it had been decided
>that the individual in question had "stratified."
I suspect you don't work in management. If you managed something for me
with this sort of reasoning, I'd fire you. It'd save a lot of statistical
analysis.
>> Still, a person bent on doing well has no business being complacent. If
>> it's possible to do more and better, a sane person tries to do so. And
>> it is, virtually always, possible. So it remains workable, usually even
>> necessary, to operate on a week-to-week or day-to-day basis with the stat
>> as a major point of reference, regardless that it has a "ceiling".
>COMPLETELY FALSE in any mathematical sense.
Your reasoning escapes me. I made no mathematical statements, and I can't
possibly divine what formulas are running thru your head.
What I've said here is certainly not in a human sense, nor in any
mathematical sense. We're talking here about people measuring their own
production. Think of it this way ... they use what measures are available
and work towards whatever increase or improvement they can. It requires
very little math.
You seem to have your attention stuck in a textbook somewhere, and while I
applaud your efforts towards a sort of technical correctness, I must
question your judgment! You're mistaking apples for oranges.
>Take a few stats courses at an accredited university sometime.
Just tell me where you studied so I know which to avoid. You're applying
your presumed studies incorrectly, injecting unnecessary complexity, and
making a general mess of simple and comprehensible things, Arc-angle.
- Whippersnapper
"I let my mind wander and it didn't come back." -- Calvin
Captain Nerd
In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
[snippage]
>
>I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
>and the fight!
>
>
>One (Ex-) Scio
Welcome back to the real world! Or at least, welcome back to
yourself! And welcome to freedom! No one can imprison a free
person, unless that person agrees to be imprisoned. You've
shown that you realize you are free, and that you make the
decisions concerning your own life. That's power, and it
frightens people who don't understand it. It's scary to people
who don't know they're free, too, since being free means taking
on responsibility for your decisions. Some people (vis. the
former USSR) who grew up with someone making decisions for
them, panic when suddenly told "you're free, now, we aren't
going to run your life anymore, and we aren't going to take care
of you if you make mistakes." Don't give up, when things get
hard, you've shown you have the wherewithal to get back up
and push on. Being free is also beautiful, because you get
to see things for yourself, and you can go looking for or
making your own beauty!
Take care,
Cap.
(posted and mailed)
--
===============================================================================
= Mail: cpt...@acces.digex.net Web: http://www.access.digex.net/~cptnerd =
= "By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes" =
===============================================================================
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <6k1l0o$f...@examiner.concentric.net>,
I said:
>What I've said here is certainly not in a human sense, nor in any
>mathematical sense.
I should have said:
What I've said here is certainly not false in a human sense, nor in any
mathematical sense.
- Whippersnapper
"Don't you hate it when your boogers freeze?" -- Calvin
Scott A. McClare
On Thu, 21 May 1998 05:59:13 GMT, Stephen Jones <snj...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Whipposophist:
>>But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems
>>to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy, 2) major patterns
>>of unethical stuff and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or
>>family troubles.
>Damn illiterate, unethical, debtors from troubled homes!
This only leads to the question: Does Scientology:
1) ATTRACT illiterate troublemakers from broken homes; or
2) PRODUCE them?
Scott
--
Scott A. McClare SP4 GGBC#42 "I see you now and then in dreams
cj...@freenet.carleton.ca Your voice sounds just like it used to
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cj871/ I believe I will hear it again
PGP 1024/E7950B29 via finger/keyserver God how I love you" - Mark Heard
Archangel
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
> In article <3564471D...@aol.com>, Archangel <de1...@aol.com> wrote:
> >WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
> >>
> ...
> >> "As far as you know," Eric, isn't very far at all, is it? There is
> >> detailed information on evaluation of statistical trends in Scn policy.
> >> It's not sophisticated math, but simple direct observation of graphs and
> >> their trends, long- and short-term.
> >>
> >
> >> Every business or other activity of any size, with few exceptions, uses
> >> statistical information to evaluate its progress and performance. I find
> >> it endlessly hilarious that a.r.sers try to use this as a handle for
> >> ridicule. It requires your level of ignorance of the facts to do so,
> >> Eric.
> >
> >Yes, most business use statistics. And the most common correct use of
> >statistical analysis lies in process control.
>
> What the HELL are you talking about? I'm quite familiar with statistical
> process control. It's important to manufacturing quality control, of
> course, but you're waaaay off-base to suggest that's "the most common
> correct use" of statistics. It a whole nother subject. Go post it to
> sci.engineering.
Not only manufacturing, for xenu's sake, it's also used in
chemical/physical analyses, ANYTHING quantifyable...but WTH am I telling
you this? You're not interested, as demonstrated later...
> >From what you've stated,
> >the CoS does not want this, but rather wants the process out of
> >control.
>
> Now you're REALLY babbling.
Ahem. Out of control and in control have very definite meanings in
statistics. The CoS wants continuous growth, right? That is OOC. But
of course, you're just pretending to be ignorant right?
> >For any trend to have a valid statistical significance
> >requires SIX points. Point-to point analysis is worthless.
>
> Yeah, since point-to-point ISN'T A TREND. Are you saying this because
> *you're* stupid or because you think others are?
Because YOUR moronic cult makes use of point-to-point comparisons to
determine "upstat" and "downstat." If their "Stats" had any statistical
basis...again, why do I bother trying to explain this?
[snip banking]
> >> If you look in Scn policy, you will find a sane answer to this. Some
> >> things measured by stats cannot go up endlessly, of course, so one simply
> >> identifies what is possible and sustainable. A stat which reaches and
> >> remains in a high range, regardless of fluctuations, is recognized as an
> >> "up stat."
>
> >This would require control charting to be stastically vaild. You have
> >given no indication that the concept is even known in the church.
>
> You have given no indication you have the slightest clue what is being
> discussed. We're talking about management of a human group or activity,
> NOT manufacturing processes. Control charting would be of very limited
> value
Bald-R-Dash. CCing is often used to measure individual's productivity
(when the work is quantifiable, obviously)
>and it would be a waste of time to incorporate such complexities
> into a subject that succumbs to simple and direct methods.
Ah, I see. "Simple and direct methods." Like witholding pay. Like
overboarding. Now I see where we differ. I was interested in showing
that the CoS's "stats" were not a fair method of evaluating
performance. You're only interested in ""simple and direct." Yep,
those whips ARE effective, aren't they?
> If an important stat drops, you find out why and get it back up. The
> "find out why" part has to be done with intelligence.
No. First you have to decide if the drop is even relevant. If it's
not, then the "Why" is irrelevant.
>Maybe the guy was
> busy getting *other* important things done.
Or maybe it was normal statistical variation. Even machines don't do
the same thing every time. How can you expect people to?
>There's value in
> point-to-point analysis because people and functions at certain levels are
> operating in the right-now.
No, there is NO point in point-to-point analysis. There is value in
determining what is wrong if a point falls outside your control limits,
but this has NOTHING to do with the points on either side. You really
should know this already, but I'll give you the canonical example
anyway:
There's an old tradition (now obsolete) among flight instructors about
not complementing good maneuvers, but criticizing harshly poorly
executed ones. This happened because the instructors noticed that
landings got worse after a compliment and improved after criticism.
They rationalized this pattern on the basis of complacency. However,
there is NO LOGICAL BASIS for this belief. Through normal distribution
patterns (which apply just as much to throwing curveballs as to
manufacturing) You should expect a poorer landing ater an exceptionaly
good one, or a better landing after a bad one. It's what you'd expect
from sheer randomness. Yes, trends do exist. So does random variation.
> Management is another matter and of course it evaluates trends, relates
> one thing to another and so forth.
>
> Please note, Archangel, I'm saying all this for others' benefit in case
> they're interested. I suspect you intend to remain clueless.
If you mean disagree with your pseudoscience, you're probably right. I
don't recognize your authority as a statistics teacher. However, if you
jog my memory about something i've forgotten...I'll admit I'm wrong.
How about you? Still deny that continued growth is OOC?
> >Furthermore, to begin such an analysis, (assuming that stats are
> >compiled weekly) it would take almost a year AFTER it had been decided
> >that the individual in question had "stratified."
>
> I suspect you don't work in management. If you managed something for me
> with this sort of reasoning, I'd fire you. It'd save a lot of statistical
> analysis.
Yep, it would. Of course you'd never get your A2LA accreditation, or
your ISO9000, but you're not interested in "fair" or "right," you're
only interested in "simple and direct" and "make money, make more
money." Or, if you were a good manager, you might wonder about
collecting stats mor eoften, or even if they were relevant in the first
place.
See, unlike your cult, I realize when stats are appropriate, and when
they are inappropiate. I know how to use them as a tool for
productivity, consistency, and accuracy. Your cult uses them as a tool
for intimidation.
> >> Still, a person bent on doing well has no business being complacent. If
> >> it's possible to do more and better, a sane person tries to do so. And
> >> it is, virtually always, possible. So it remains workable, usually even
> >> necessary, to operate on a week-to-week or day-to-day basis with the stat
> >> as a major point of reference, regardless that it has a "ceiling".
>
> >COMPLETELY FALSE in any mathematical sense.
>
> Your reasoning escapes me. I made no mathematical statements, and I can't
> possibly divine what formulas are running thru your head.
My reasoning is this: Your cult compiles "stats," tries to quantify
everything, and uses these "stats" as a basis for punishment or reward.
The methods employed are mathematically bankrupt, and their application
questionable at best. Much like everything else in your cult, there's
no science here. Just a thin veneer in a desparate attempt at
credibility.
> What I've said here is certainly not in a human sense, nor in any
> mathematical sense.
Then what sense is it? Nonsense?
>We're talking here about people measuring their own
> production. Think of it this way ... they use what measures are available
> and work towards whatever increase or improvement they can. It requires
> very little math.
If you are "measuring" something, you'd better have your math straight,
regardless of how much is required.
> You seem to have your attention stuck in a textbook somewhere, and while I
> applaud your efforts towards a sort of technical correctness, I must
> question your judgment! You're mistaking apples for oranges.
No, I mistook a cult's tool for coersion for a legitimate mathematical
science. Mea culpa.
> >Take a few stats courses at an accredited university sometime.
>
> Just tell me where you studied so I know which to avoid.
ACS rated a hell of a lot higher than the Delphi academy or Sequoia U.
>You're applying
> your presumed studies incorrectly, injecting unnecessary complexity, and
> making a general mess of simple and comprehensible things, Arc-angle.
Simple because your understanding is simplistic. Comprehensible because
you miscomprehend. Applied improperly for your purposes, surely, but
for the rest of the world...nope.
Archangel
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <35645272.282B@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>,
Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote:
>WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>>
>> Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I haven't
>> answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of Hubbard's
>> research,
>
>What did this "research" consist of, Keith?
Auditing, mostly. What else? Things tried and discarded, things revised
and re-tried. Early on, Hubbard did most of it himself. Later, he used
teams of auditors and groups of subjects.
>Why is it that the neither
>Hubbard nor the Church of Scientology[tm] has ever allowed anyone access
>to this "research"?
A large part of it is available to anyone who does the training. Most of
the details are to be found in vast numbers of individual pc folders,
which are themselves regarded as privileged information.
>Why has none of Hubbard's "research" ever been
>successfully duplicated?
It's duplicated every day by thousands of auditors.
>Why is it that the only time that Hubbard
>cooperated in an independent study of his methods, the study
>demonstrated conclusively that Hubbard's concept of "engrams" was simply
>wrong?
I am unaware of any such study. Who conducted it?
>Why did Hubbard never publish any of his "research" in a
>peer-reviewed journal or conference?
He published it. If he had any peers, I don't know who they were. He was
alone in his line of work, and he required no one's permission or approval
to do it.
>A related question, while I'm at it--if you have truly seen "reams upon
>reams of Hubbard's research," then why did Hubbard claim that he never
>actually kept records of his research? In a taped lecture, he claimed
>that he could either keep records or do the research, not both.
I'd like to see the exact quote... but assuming he said such a thing, he
had a point of sorts. When I design electronic devices, often they are
complex enough to require extensive testing. In some cases however, if I
were to keep exhaustive records for anyone else's benefit, I would be
wasting a huge amount of time. Only rarely have I needed to do such
things at a client's request, and when I'm trying to get things done I can
tell you it sometimes rankles. I've spent hours cataloguing data on
routine tests and minor revisions (and re-tests) that had no bearing on
the final product and no value except as a most exceedingly boring sort of
history. (I tend to charge rather viciously for time so spent.)
Results, in short, speak for themselves. I've taken products from concept
all the way to market (including process control, Arc-Angle) with a
minimum of paperwork. Schematics with revisions untracked, initial
circuit designs done on breadboards without any schematic at all. I can
tell you every rationale for what I did and I can show you a finished
product that works beautifully but there's no paper trail and no "peer
review" possible except in the obvious physical existence of the product
itself.
Electronics, granted, is based upon theories already tested widely. But
my point is that TIME is a limited resource. More people and
facilities might have helped, but Hubbard was neither fabulously wealthy
nor physically immortal. I find I like the way he chose to spend his
time and his assets.
>And yet, you claim that you have seen "reams upon reams" of this
>so-called "research". Why is that, Keith?
What I saw mostly applied to "Expanded Dianetics" and was research Hubbard
conducted using a team of auditors. It included blow-by-blows on
particular sessions, pcs and auditors and so forth.
Also I was aware of a project which I believe retrieved (and copied and
replaced) large numbers of Ron's handwritten C/Ses from pc folders. I
understand the volume was huge. Depending upon context, much of that
would represent research.
>> and hundreds -- probably thousands -- of hours of tape-recorded
>> research material as well.
>
>What did these "tape-recorded research materials" consist of, Keith?
>Hubbard blathering on and on?
Nope. Auditing sessions. Hours upon hours upon hours, clearly labelled
as research. Many of them transcribed into reams of text. I'm not sure
how many will have been published.
>I don't think you understand the meaning
>of the word "research".
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "effrontery."
>> Like so many others, you just latch onto the lies and run with them,
>> without a moment of actual observation of your own.
>
>I've tried to locate Hubbard's "research", Keith. I can't find it. Why
>is that?
Because you *haven't* tried. You haven't studied and you haven't looked
and you haven't tested anything and you haven't acknowledged vast evidence
of results.
>It may or may not be a lie, but after more than 40 years, we still have
>seen absolutely no sign that Hubbard did any kind of "research".
Who's "we," white man?
- Whippersnapper
"I say just punch him then and there." -- Calvin
Archangel
> >mathematical sense.
>
>
> What I've said here is certainly not false in a human sense, nor in any
> mathematical sense.
Sorry I didn't see it until after my response. I retract the thinko
flame.
However, using a single point as a statistical measuring tool is most
definitely incorrect. Therefore, claming that a point-by-point analysis
is helpful and often necessary is mathematically false.
Archangel
Enzo Piccone
Tilman Hausherr wrote:
>
> In <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, one...@aol.com
> (One Scio) wrote:
>
> >I'm glad to be out and glad to be here..and I can't wait to join in in the fun
> >and the fight!
>
> was there any pressure do to set up "personal" web pages? What did the
> org say about the filter? And how did orgs reacts to p*cketing,
> especially when p*cketeers were joking 'n degrading, or saying "X*nu"?
I don't know why you bother to ask, B.T.: 1) she's a troll; 2) you
already know the answers to these questions.
And knowing you, I know these answers too! :)
So, there's terrific pressure to set up "personal" web pages, but it's
just a turning up of the volume of the usual brainwashing. The "org
said" a person would probably die without the filter -- to which I would
add, of course, or commit suicide. And orgs have just kept folding up,
one after the other, in response to p*cketing, especially when
p*cketeers were joking 'n degrading, or saying "X*nu."
Simple, B.T..
> PS: Will you join the Knights of X*nu?
Let's have some more fun and pretend for a moment that our troll,
onescio (previously DeadElRon) isn't one.
How much pressure are you and other a.r.s. culties, including Stacy
Young, going to put on her to do so? Does she understand that becoming
a "Knight" will include maintaining her "integrity" filter (also known
as bigotry) to ignore anything positive (wdne) about Scn? Is she also
required to picket, joke 'n degrade, say "X*nu", and otherwise behave
like an irresponsible clown?
And most importantly, how long would she have to be a Knight of X*nu
before she could graduate and become a Knight of P*pu (pronounced
"Poopoo") like yourself?
E
PS: That some of Minton's Minions post under their own names less and
less often these days is the only point of interest in this continuing,
and otherwise unimaginative, wave of trolling. <yawn>
Tilman Hausherr
>> PS: Will you join the Knights of X*nu?
>
>Let's have some more fun and pretend for a moment that our troll,
>onescio (previously DeadElRon) isn't one.
>
>How much pressure are you and other a.r.s. culties, including Stacy
>Young, going to put on her to do so?
1. I don't think we are "culties" (if yes - what definition do you use
for a "cult", and why do you think scientology isn't one?), 2. None at
all. Note that Stacy Young and RVY are not a Knights of Xenu. I never
asked her. I have asked publicly on ars, and usually not in e-mail. I
try not to use the scientology registrar techniques (except when I
notice that someone hasn't submitted any blocks for a week :-))
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Your computer needs a hobby! Join the distributed RC5-64 decryption!
http://www.distributed.net/rc5/
(Download, Install, Configure, Run, View your own stats 1 day later,
then join team #3504 - "The Knights of Xenu")
Lisa Chabot
In article <6k0pq3$b...@examiner.concentric.net>,
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>As for Hubbard's views of democratic rule as being vulnerable to
>irrational "group-think," it is evident to me that his views have been
>substantially shared by a good many past and present figures of prominent
>historical standing; even some of those we regard as the Founding Fathers
>of modern democracy.
Which ones? Please cite specific examples.
(Not that I mean to presume, but just in case, please don't equate
'tyranny of the majority' with 'income-taxing artists into creative slumps.')
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
Me and my trenchant mouth. --Homer Simpson
WHIPPERSNAPPER
You know, Arc-Angle, this whole thread began with the "ex-scio" troll's
inane comment that a down stat was really up.
It's interesting to note that you're operating on as much presumption,
prejudice and ignorance as that person was.
You say:
>See, unlike your cult, I realize when stats are appropriate, and when
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>they are inappropiate.
"unlike your cult"? You're a religious bigot, obviously, *and* full of
presumptions based upon nothing at all.
>I know how to use them as a tool for
>productivity, consistency, and accuracy.
Do you? You're applying manufacturing process control and airy-fairy
theories to things you know nothing about! You're taking extreme
simplicity and mis-applying math that would have you taking a year to
decide whether someone was doing his job!
>Your cult uses them as a tool for intimidation.
Here you reveal yourself. Your motivation for all the sophistry is
brilliantly clear.
My CHURCH uses statistics in an effort to be fair, productive and
sensible, in which it largely succeeds. You've shown your total
ignorance and willful contempt, and THAT is the problem. Not your
imaginings about the Church's practices and not your premise that its
use of stats is somehow invalid.
You would portray yourself as knowledgeable. But you're both ignorant
and biased. Example:
>Because YOUR moronic cult makes use of point-to-point comparisons to
>determine "upstat" and "downstat." If their "Stats" had any statistical
>basis...again, why do I bother trying to explain this?
The truth is, my CHURCH uses stats in BOTH immediate terms (this week
compared to last, today to yesterday, etc., which I presume is the sort
of thing you mean by point-to-point) and in terms of trends. Both are
valid approaches, depending upon your purpose and position.
Today right now, the guy placing the widgets on the gadgets tries to
place more widgets than he did yesterday. It's elementary for him and in
many instances, depending of course on the nature of the work, intensely
sensible. There's nothing sinister or unusual about this. It was done
when I was a kid picking strawberries.
The manager however, doesn't care about just-today compared to
just-yesterday. He wants to know if there's more (or enough) getting
done overall. He looks at a longer-term graph and if it's bad, he looks
for why with a mind to remedy. If it's good (high and/or rising) he may
also look for why and reinforce that.
A lot of very simple good sense applies, as do the sometimes-complex
interrelations of reality to numbers, of stats to one another and so
forth. But on the whole, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to use stats
to good effect and for one basis of sane and humane management.
In Scn materials there's a whole body of data and methods that apply to
this subject, which -- if you had the slightest familiarity with it,
WHICH YOU DO NOT -- would for the most part conflict with nothing you
hold so dear about statistics, but for its pointed omission of abstruse
math.
Your biggest problem, Arc-Angle, is that you are operating on false and
unverified assumptions about Scientology practices; and attempting, on
that rickety framework, to support the notion that your superior
knowledge of statistical analysis makes those largely-imaginary
practices invalid. A lesser but significant problem is your evident
assumption that without a lot of highly involved mathematics with which
YOU happen to be familiar, no one could possibly use statistics
sensibly. Well, that sort of thing is a common symptom amongst
half-educated and snobbish academics.
As for your arguments about random variation... within limits, this sort
of thing IS acknowledged in Scientology. But when you have a person who
directly controls most or all aspects of his job, "random" variation is
nowhere near the factor that his own skill, comprehension and efforts
will be. If the guy's work is dependent on factors outside his control,
Lo and Behold! it is acknowledged. If the limits of his time make it
necessary to drop one thing to do another, Viola! it is recognized.
Although there are horror stories -- I've witnessed some of them -- of
people misapplying the broad concept of stat-based management or failing
to use simple good sense or principle, a complete knowledge of the
subject -- as found in just the materials of Scientology, without
reference to arcane math or engineering theory -- leads one to just the
sort of sensible analysis you pretend is absent from the Scn approach.
And yes, my poor slavish student, it is possible to do to the benefit of
all concerned, without complex math, without an alphabet-soup of
acronyms, and most of all without narrow-mindedness, ignorance or bitter
religious prejudice.
- Whippersnapper
"So, who *else* do I add to my list of total jerks?" -- Calvin
WHIPPERSNAPPER
In article <6k19v8$mj4$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
James A. Cherry <j...@doe.carleton.ca> wrote:
>In article <6k08fh$5...@examiner.concentric.net> WHIPPERSNAPPER
>(Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
>
>>See my reply to Eric on this thread.
>
>Done. You wrote (article <6k080a$3...@examiner.concentric.net>):
>
>>detailed information on evaluation of statistical trends in Scn policy.
>>It's not sophisticated math, but simple direct observation of graphs and
>>their trends, long- and short-term.
>
>refer me to? Nothing I search on the web seems to turn anything up.
It's in the green volumes, some of the better references I believe are not
in the earliest editions.
>I don't recall reading anything that contradicts my original impression
>(Scn stats are point to point only), but if I'm wrong, I'd like to read
>the truth in Scn policy.
Your impression was based upon the ravings of a.r.sholes. It's an
impression not of Scn but of such persons' imaginings. The responsibility
for accepting this crap and attempting to proceed upon its basis is yours
and yours alone.
>If Scientology really does have detailed info on evaluating statistics,
>then this is at odds with what you wrote earlier.
No. It isn't, and your example shows no such thing. Shall we add "can't
think logically" to "listens only to false anti-Scn rants"?
>OneScio wrote
>(article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>):
>
>>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if
>>you get 14 people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me
>>is an upstat.
>
>You responded (article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>);
>
>>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>
>You yourself called an instantaneous change downward a "downstat" in a
>very derogatory way.
No. I referred to the use of a cumulative number as "upstat" -- when it
will grow despite whether things improve or decline -- as ludicrous.
>Yet your response to Eric Bohlman said:
>
>["It" = Scn policy]
>>It includes information on how to scale a graph, the relative
>>insignificance of brief leaps and dives, and the concept of cumulative
>>numbers.
>
>Why didn't you apply the Scn policy about "the relative insignificance
>of brief leaps and dives" to the 14/12 example? To me, 14 one week
>to 12 the next is a "brief dive" -- in fact, not even something I'd
>go so far as to call a "dive" since it only changes by two people in a
>small sample size of 14. Why did you call that a "downstat" so
>negatively?
In fact, I would regard it more or less as you say here. My disagreement
was with the assertion of an idiotic principle. I saw no point splitting
hairs about the example used to assert it, then or now.
I remain virtually certain "ex-scio" is a troll. His/her purported six
months of involvement in Scn was more than enough to read and understand
the perfectly sensible policies on the subject.
- Whippersnapper
"To the inattentive and brainless layman, yes." -- Calvin
LilAlex742
The Rev tells me my signals are crossed, which I am very glad to hear, then
asks:
> This the is second post to ars that was also mailed, where I never
>received the email. To what address are you sending things to?
>
>
Being an AOL simpleton, I just check the "CC author" slot, which means that the
one I'm sending now should be going to:
I haven't gotten anything back from the other posts, which means that my crippy
mail service thinks that they have been received.
I'm very glad to hear that I misread your letter to whipper. From your quoting
of Clockwork Orange in other posts, you know the film/book quite well.
(tortures of the damned!
P&Med (let's see if this works)
LilAlex
13. Should the head of a government rule
a. single-handedly
b. as a member of a council
c. by the will of the people
A is correct. B is wrong. And C--classic democracy is, of course, "psychotic"
One Scio, about an org Leadership test
Eric Bohlman
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
: You have given no indication you have the slightest clue what is being
: discussed. We're talking about management of a human group or activity,
: NOT manufacturing processes. Control charting would be of very limited
: value and it would be a waste of time to incorporate such complexities
: into a subject that succumbs to simple and direct methods.
: If an important stat drops, you find out why and get it back up. The
: "find out why" part has to be done with intelligence. Maybe the guy was
: busy getting *other* important things done. There's value in
: point-to-point analysis because people and functions at certain levels are
: operating in the right-now.
And how, in the absence of control charting or something similar, are you
going to know whether a momentary "drop" in an "important stat" is the
result of a special cause (in which some form of corrective action is
necessary) or common-cause process variation ("normal ups and downs" which
*cannot* be compensated for by people working harder at doing the same
thing, only by changing the process itself)? Assuming that all
fluctuations are the result of special causes (or, as Shewhart originally
called them, "assignable causes") results in lots of wild-goose chases at
best, and witch-hunts at worst. It's a great way to waste effort.
If you don't believe that SPC is applicable outside manufacturing, read
W. Edwards Deming's _Out of the Crisis_ or _The New Economics_ or any
book based on Deming's work.
Michael T. Richter
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote in article
<6k20b6$5...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>> I don't recall reading anything that contradicts my original impression
>> (Scn stats are point to point only), but if I'm wrong, I'd like to read
>> the truth in Scn policy.
> Your impression was based upon the ravings of a.r.sholes. It's an
> impression not of Scn but of such persons' imaginings. The
responsibility
> for accepting this crap and attempting to proceed upon its basis is yours
> and yours alone.
Actually, _An Introduction to Scientology Ethics_ very clearly states that
the stats are measured point-to-point. Is that book considered part of the
infallible tech? If so, does it contradict the books you cited? If so,
how can two infallible pieces of tech contradict each other?
--
Michael T. Richter
m...@ottawa.com
http://www.igs.net/~mtr
Paper Tiger
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In Message-ID: <6k1vdp$3...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
[snip]
>My CHURCH uses statistics in an effort to be fair, productive and
>sensible, in which it largely succeeds.
'In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his
statistic is up and can't sneeze without a chop if it's down. To do
otherwise is to permit some suppressive person to simply Ethics chit
every producer in the org out of existence. When people do start
reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate
is the person who turned in the report.'
HCOPL 1 September 1965, "Ethics Protection"
Does that sound fair to you, Whipp?
** Paper Tiger (SP3, KBM, LFDoX)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBNWSWnYCmc8kif9MJAQHqPQQAmerXbcF4HlIOmeK6MzCx+l3eU5BwJ2cR
8GJFjz4yoCchCkudGXAYp0tE4eodDaJ5ffrHjl1payJbMh/mL6kBhgbCBll6psFt
yvYZH8i917zbxbIVDEOjkExfehBm98U7bdRSJ4mBjOB1mn6T+bUp4ZqiNlq44N85
Snnn3q8c61I=
=OAy3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
In article <356bfbec...@enews.newsguy.com>, te...@skylink.net (Ted
Mayett (KOX)) wrote:
>>My understanding of Scientology's view of "stats" is that if it fell
>>this week compared to last week, it's a downstat, and that's bad.
>
>One week 10 books are sold. The next week it is 2 books and that is
>BAD, Downstat. However, if on the third week 4 books are sold then
>Stats are up and they get ecstatic. It is really quite sad to
>witness.
The ruthless Hubbard management by statistics system is unworkable. Nobody
can always be "upstat". That is an impossibility. It's a nice
contradiction too, how can suckotology claim to make ppl more free and
at the same time calculate and reward them to their worth in points?
Btw, I've heard that Hubbard claimed that his system is far superior to
anything else and that it is (gasp) something from before the existence
of this universe. Can someone confirm that and give a reference (haven't
had the time to dig through the tek vols on this)?
>A good, short essay on Management by Statistics:
>http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/essaysandpages/stats.html
Mike (Free Church of Scientology natural Clear (Z sayz so..))
--
Deaths at Flag - http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/deaths.html
Child Abuse and Neglect? - http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/childabuse.html
Shortcut to FACTNet files - http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/factnet.html
Michael 'Mike' Gormez
Glad that you're free again. If I were you I would follow the advice of
Martin Hunt, get out of ARS and get your life back on the track. That is
your first priority. Fight the cult when and if you're ready. Plenty of
time to do so later. Btw, I don't want to frighten you but you'll probably
go through a emotional dip in the near future. Once it dawns on a person
just how manipulated they've been it angers them and can make you
doubting your own judgment re: why was I suckerd in etc..
Don't be too harsh on yourself, every single person can be recruited.
Remember that you can talk with ppl if you're experiencing a difficult
time. In this world it is allowed to discuss "case".
Best,
Mike
Archangel
WHIPPERSNAPPER wrote:
>
> You know, Arc-Angle, this whole thread began with the "ex-scio" troll's
> inane comment that a down stat was really up.
>
> It's interesting to note that you're operating on as much presumption,
> prejudice and ignorance as that person was.
>
> You say:
>
> >See, unlike your cult, I realize when stats are appropriate, and when
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >they are inappropiate.
>
> "unlike your cult"? You're a religious bigot, obviously, *and* full of
> presumptions based upon nothing at all.
Last time I checked, a cult was a small religious group devoted to a
very specific doctrine (unlike buddhism, which encompases a variety of
doctrines). Do you deny that scentology fits this description, or that
you are not a scientologist?
> >I know how to use them as a tool for
> >productivity, consistency, and accuracy.
>
> Do you? You're applying manufacturing process control and airy-fairy
> theories to things you know nothing about!
If you are calling statistical math "airy-fairy" and are claiming that
controlling to standards applies only to industrial processes, then it
is YOU who know nothing of the theories.
>You're taking extreme
> simplicity and mis-applying math that would have you taking a year to
> decide whether someone was doing his job!
Bosh. It it you who do not understand. I was pointing out that for the
punishments inflicted on the "downstat" (and there are punishments
inflicted on the downstat, aren't there?) could not be
mathematically/MEST justified through the way your cult (pardon me, oh
thin skinned one, CHURCH) collects it "stats."
You completely ignored this, instead falling back to the old tried and
true scieno (is that acceptable?) tactic of whining "Mommy, there's a
bigot after me!"
> >Your cult uses them as a tool for intimidation.
>
> Here you reveal yourself. Your motivation for all the sophistry is
> brilliantly clear.
>
> My CHURCH uses statistics in an effort to be fair, productive and
> sensible, in which it largely succeeds.
That is the whole point. The way your CHURCH collects and uses stats is
mathematically UNFAIR, but you dismiss this as "airy-fairy." Oh, I
forgot, you guys are at cause over MEST, guess the laws of mathematics
cease to apply in an org. And here I thought that only happened in
restaurants.
>You've shown your total
> ignorance and willful contempt, and THAT is the problem. Not your
> imaginings about the Church's practices and not your premise that its
> use of stats is somehow invalid.
To the best of my knowledge (and newsfeed) you have never refuted the
claims of your former bretheren as to how the stats were collected. The
way punishments are handed down makes the evaluation process
transparent.
> You would portray yourself as knowledgeable. But you're both ignorant
> and biased. Example:
>
> >Because YOUR moronic cult makes use of point-to-point comparisons to
> >determine "upstat" and "downstat." If their "Stats" had any statistical
> >basis...again, why do I bother trying to explain this?
>
> The truth is, my CHURCH uses stats in BOTH immediate terms (this week
> compared to last, today to yesterday, etc., which I presume is the sort
> of thing you mean by point-to-point) and in terms of trends. Both are
> valid approaches, depending upon your purpose and position.
Yes, if your purpose is to have an excuse to punish people, then
point-to-point comparisons are valid. Otherwise not.
> Today right now, the guy placing the widgets on the gadgets tries to
> place more widgets than he did yesterday. It's elementary for him and in
> many instances, depending of course on the nature of the work, intensely
> sensible.
Just as sensible as saying "if there's a 20% chance of rain every day
for a week, then it must rain that week."
>There's nothing sinister or unusual about this. It was done
> when I was a kid picking strawberries.
As "sensible" as you think it is, it is logically, practically, and
experimentally invalid. Do people's skills improve over time? Yes.
Because someone does something well one day, does it follow that he
should be punished for not performing as well the next? Only if you
throw logic out the window. If there is a long-term trend, sure, fire
the bastard. But from all accounts, your CHURCH punishes peoiple
because ONE data point was lower than the PREVIOUS data point. This is
crap from an objective point of view.
[snip manager]
Just because there may be examples of your buddies using stats properly
does not excuse situations in which they are misused. I know this
attitude of good cancelling bad is integral to your CHURCH's philosophy
(that whole ka-khan thing, unless that story is apocryphal) but it's
simply not true from an objective viewpoint.
> A lot of very simple good sense applies, as do the sometimes-complex
> interrelations of reality to numbers, of stats to one another and so
> forth. But on the whole, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to use stats
> to good effect and for one basis of sane and humane management.
Punishing people because one weeks stats are lower than the previous one
is statistically unjustifiable. Period. No amount of postulating on
your part can change that.
> In Scn materials there's a whole body of data and methods that apply to
> this subject,
Yes, you gave me some examples, what were they? Ah yes: how to scale a
graph, the concept of cumulative numbers, and that small leaps aren't
that significant. Great. When you're finished reading my son's Penny
Power, please return it.
>which -- if you had the slightest familiarity with it,
> WHICH YOU DO NOT -- would for the most part conflict with nothing you
> hold so dear about statistics, but for its pointed omission of abstruse
> math.
Abstruse math? There is NOTHING arcane about statistics. (OK, maybe
gaussian distribution is a little unusual) The overwhelming majority of
statistical functions are merely addition and simple multiplication.
For example: Why are six points generally rquired for a trend? Simply
because a pattern of five points rising/falling occurs too often though
random chance.
simply 2x2x2x2x2.
or, there's a 1/32 chance of it happening by sheer luck alone.
> Your biggest problem, Arc-Angle, is that you are operating on false and
> unverified assumptions about Scientology practices;
Then enlighten me, or are you having too much fun snipping arguments and
screaming "bigot?"
>and attempting, on
> that rickety framework, to support the notion that your superior
> knowledge of statistical analysis makes those largely-imaginary
> practices invalid.
Thank you for the inadvertent compliment. I'm sure you won't do it
again.
>A lesser but significant problem is your evident
> assumption that without a lot of highly involved mathematics with which
> YOU happen to be familiar, no one could possibly use statistics
> sensibly.
Statistics are NOT highly involved. It is simply trying to find out
what is relevant and what is not. The epistemology of mathematics, if
you will. HOWEVER, it is easy to misuse statistics.
>Well, that sort of thing is a common symptom amongst
> half-educated and snobbish academics.
No one is ever fully educated, and it is not snobbery to strip away
false pretenses.
> As for your arguments about random variation... within limits, this sort
> of thing IS acknowledged in Scientology. But when you have a person who
> directly controls most or all aspects of his job, "random" variation is
> nowhere near the factor that his own skill, comprehension and efforts
> will be.
I must disagree. Random variation plays a large part in everything we
do. I see it because my work is very precise. Pitchers see it for the
same reason. You can, however, reduce the effects by coarsening the
measurements (and from what I've read the measurements are rather coarse
in the CoS (number of books sold, tests given, etc.))
>If the guy's work is dependent on factors outside his control,
> Lo and Behold! it is acknowledged. If the limits of his time make it
> necessary to drop one thing to do another, Viola! it is recognized.
> Although there are horror stories -- I've witnessed some of them -- of
> people misapplying the broad concept of stat-based management or failing
> to use simple good sense or principle, a complete knowledge of the
> subject -- as found in just the materials of Scientology, without
> reference to arcane math or engineering theory --
With all due respect to Mr. Carroll, telling us three times that
statistics involve arcane math doesn't make it true.
>leads one to just the
> sort of sensible analysis you pretend is absent from the Scn approach.
>
> And yes, my poor slavish student, it is possible to do to the benefit of
> all concerned, without complex math, without an alphabet-soup of
> acronyms, and most of all without narrow-mindedness, ignorance or bitter
> religious prejudice.
Are you no longer a student? Alphabet soup of acronyms? You claim to
design electronics, yet you have never heard of A2LA and ISO9000? Never
heard of the ACS? You did process control but are unfamiliar with OOC?
(Which, btw, demonstrates that you are unwilling to admit your mistake).
Narrow-mindedness--careful, you'll upset your brother Russ. After all,
it was he who said: "I am not open minded. Open minds are bound to be
filled with garbage."
Ignorance? I'm not the one who uses student perjoratively.
Religious prejudice? Sure. I'm against the thugees, and would
definitely be against some of the old Aztec and Creek religions, if they
still existed. AS for scientology, demonstrate that it is a religion in
the first place, and I'll consider whether or not I'm against it.
I would imagine that you are also prejudiced, whippingboy. When's the
last time you hugged a freezoner?
Please, if you want to discuss statistics, or your church's use/misuse
thereof, do so. But you simply cannot rightfully accuse me of any sin
which you yourself are not also guilty of. Give up the flame attempts.
You're not very good.
Archangel
Warrior
In article <6k1vdp$3...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com,
D. Keith Little wrote:
>
>My CHURCH uses statistics in an effort to be fair, productive and
>sensible, in which it largely succeeds.
I have to laugh at this statement.
I've seen SO staff threatened with an RPF assignment if they failed to
get a new recruit within an hour. I heard a very senior Scientology
exec threaten my friend that he'd better get his stat of # new SO
recruits up within one hour "or else be assigned to the RPF". This is
not heresay. I witnessed this.
I've seen SO staff assigned lower conditions for failing to report their
stats on time, let alone get their stats up.
I've seen SO staff eat rice and beans for weeks, all the while getting
no pay for weeks, as well.
It's all about control, making staff members work like slaves, and getting
lots of money (GI) in the orgs.
Hubbard even wrote in a policy letter "the blunt threat of punishment alone,
and unmistakable, can get stats up".
The use of threats of low pay, no pay, rice and beans, cancelled liberty
time (day off), lower conditions, ineligibility for staff enhancement
and mandatory amends are all tools used to control staff.
Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest.
Hey Mr Little: I'm going to post some stuff about stats, and I'm going to
dedicate it to you, just to show the actual practice of Scientology when
it comes to stats.
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
------------------
Spam free Usenet news http://www.newsguy.com
Tilman Hausherr
In <35689c56...@news.wxs.nl>, mi...@enturbulate.nu (Michael 'Mike'
Gormez) wrote:
>The ruthless Hubbard management by statistics system is unworkable. Nobody
>can always be "upstat". That is an impossibility.
An example of this are the stats for the Knights of Xenu RC5 team.
Sometimes we're upstat, sometimes we're downstat.
kwantem mekanik
In article <6k1p8c$m...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>In article <35645272.282B@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>,
>Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote:
>>What did this "research" consist of, Keith?
>
>Auditing, mostly. What else? Things tried and discarded, things revised
>and re-tried. Early on, Hubbard did most of it himself. Later, he used
>teams of auditors and groups of subjects.
>
And exactly how many subjects were there? What was the background of these
subjects? What were the conditions of the auditing? What were the
requirements for succesful results? How many procedures were successful,
how many failed?
What precisely was being tested? Where and when did this research take
place? Where can I read the published results?
If you can't answer all these questions, Whippersnapper, then you don't
have research.
(And I don't doubt that you'll ignore every single question)
What scientology calls research is known to science as unsubstantiated
anecdotes.
You need to do some serious word-clearing, Whippersnapper.
**********************************************
* The language of truth *
* is unadorned and always simple. *
* - Ammianus Marcellinus *
* http://burtcom.com/kwantem *
James A. Cherry
In article <6k20b6$5...@examiner.concentric.net> WHIPPERSNAPPER
(Whip...@cris.com) wrote:
[where to find Scn stat information]
>It's in the green volumes, some of the better references I believe are not
>in the earliest editions.
Thank you. I thought Zenon just posted these, but I can't find them on
DejaNews. I guess I'll have to wait to find the info.
I wrote:
>>OneScio wrote
>>(article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>):
>>>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if
>>>you get 14 people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me
>>>is an upstat.
>>You responded (article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>);
>>>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>>>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>>You yourself called an instantaneous change downward a "downstat" in a
>>very derogatory way.
You wrote:
>No. I referred to the use of a cumulative number as "upstat" -- when it
>will grow despite whether things improve or decline -- as ludicrous.
I agree you did the latter, but what about the sarcastic "Down stats
are GOOD!"? What was that, if not a reference to the instantaneous
14/12 change as a "downstat"?
>> To me, 14 one week
>>to 12 the next is a "brief dive" -- in fact, not even something I'd
>>go so far as to call a "dive" since it only changes by two people in a
>>small sample size of 14.
>In fact, I would regard it more or less as you say here. My disagreement
>was with the assertion of an idiotic principle.
I agree, looking to a cumulative stat isn't usually going to tell one
much. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it "idiotic", because
it does give _some_ information, albeit a very limited amount.
--
James A. Cherry (http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~jac/) "Pretty much..."
Nico Garcia
In article <199805201800...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dear a.r.s.,
>
>I left Scientology today--for good. The last three days I've been dealing with
>the phone calls and persuasion from the Org, and today I got the result I
>wanted--the Ethics Officer gave up, and threatened me with a declare for "not
>disconnecting from suppressive persons." I told him I'd welcome it.
>Your stories, your testimony, here, on the web, everywhere you speak, will save
>countless lives from being sucked into the empty endless bridge to nowhere that
>is Scientology. I'm here now, and I want to do my best to do my part and take
>my place to expose the Co$ for what it is. Scientology is an evil criminal
>cult, and Scientology training produces true suppressive people and degraded
>beings.
Welcome to the free world! Let us know if you visit Boston, and we'll
nominate you for membership in the ARSCC (which does not exist).
--
Nico Garcia
ra...@tiac.net
<PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
Martin Hunt
In article <6k0pq3$b...@examiner.concentric.net>,
Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>In article <Pj4Y1Mdl...@islandnet.com>,
>Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>>In article <6jvib6$3...@examiner.concentric.net>,
>>Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>>
>>>Man, if that's a troll I smell, I'd hate to get stuck in a crowd of 'em.
>>
>>Nah, Keith, it's just your own smegma.
>
>You can't communicate without spewing degraded sexual garbage, can you,
>Martin?
You're the one who raised the issue of a foul smell; I was just
pointing you in the direction of the likely Source, Keith.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
"It's wonderful to be out!! 2 PM Thursday is now just another hour
on the clock..." - One (Ex-)Scio.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cat O'Blivion
Whipsnap picked up on an interesting point here. Funny thing is, I almost agree
with him:
> But if there's a recognizable pattern to those who "blow" it usually seems
> to be combinations in varying degrees of 1) illiteracy,
Translation: They couldn't understand Hubbard's mangled prose, or they understood
it all too well and consequently ran screaming.
> 2) major patterns of unethical stuff
Translation: They didn't approve of the "ethics" of the ranking "church" hierarchy.
> and 3) serious pressures or problems, such as debt or family troubles.
Translation: They couldn't afford it anymore, or they decided their family was more
important than a "Bridge" that goes nowhere.
> Just my observations, nothing scientific about them.
Same caveat, here.
Cat
SP4, KoX
"The snow is falling down around the armoury; the city's closing in around my head"
Ted Mayett (KOX)
On Thu, 21 May 1998 21:28:15 GMT, mi...@enturbulate.nu (Michael 'Mike'
Gormez) wrote:
>The ruthless Hubbard management by statistics system is unworkable. Nobody
>can always be "upstat". That is an impossibility.
Hubbard covered this, I recall something about how 'of course there
comes a point where a brick-layer does all the bricks he can...'. I
forget how it ended, sorry. Perhaps Wonderful will put this up.
>>A good, short essay on Management by Statistics:
>>http://homepages.skylink.net/~teddy/essaysandpages/stats.html
>
>
>Mike (Free Church of Scientology natural Clear (Z sayz so..))
>--
>Deaths at Flag - http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/deaths.html
>Child Abuse and Neglect? - http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/childabuse.html
>Shortcut to FACTNet files - http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/factnet.html
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
William Barwell
In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>,
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@cris.com> wrote:
>In article <199805201946...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
>One Scio <one...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get 14
>>people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
>>always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
>>second week you'd have a total of 26 new people. It might stop some of the
>>craziness that goes on. *Especially* with finance stats. The staff at my former
>>org weren't paid for two weeks because financial stats were down. Stats are a
>>tyranny and a form of absolute control over every individual in Scientology.
>>
>>One (Ex-)Scio
>
>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
>
>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>
>
>- Whippersnapper
Scientology Hubbard managment stats is stupidity.
MacDonald's does not use Hubbard stat madness.
The closest I can think of an organization that did was
the Soviet Union, deceased.
Yes, the Lenin Tractor Factory #234 surpassed it's
5 year plan goals by 137%!
Scientology is expanding. 8 million, no, 10 million members!
Macdonald's is a real business. That is expanding and growing.
Scientology is not as I proved from copies of the Auditor,
and as Inducto proved bytracking dead missions and orgs
and downsized orgs. Stat madness isn't helping, is it?
Big brother raises the chocolate rations.
We note that there was a discussion of stat madness Hubbard
style's rank stupidities. If you have 14 new mebers one week
and 12 teh next, are you upstat or downstat? To Scientology,
all too often they will focus on the drop from 14 to 12
and call it downstat. When it ain't.
But all you did was bluster and babble and rant in
a general manner without fact or discussion of Hubbard's
simpleminded and fallacious management strategies.
You can bet McDonalds didn't get to be a big business by making such rank
errors as does Scientology or the Soviet union.
Both notorious for their incompetent managment techniques and reliance of
bad statistic management methods.
Which is why Scientology will take over 700 years for that next 50,000
set of Clears at the rate they are pissing along.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
William Barwell
In article <geoffrey.v.bronner-ya02...@news.dartmouth.edu>,
Geoffrey V. Bronner <geoffrey....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <ebohlmanE...@netcom.com>, Eric Bohlman
><eboh...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Evaluation systems that set performance goals based on an individual's
>>peak performance usually result in the individual learning to "game the
>>system" in order to avoid being held responsible for producing
>>impossible-to-sustain results. A common form of "gaming the system" is
>>"banking results"; for example, if a salesman sells more than his quota
>>during a particular reporting period, he might not report all his sales,
>>but instead hold onto some of them so that if he's running short in the
>>next period, he can add the previous sales to his reports.
>>
>
>I heard a story once during the cold war that a Soviet weight lifter was
>told he would get a reward every time he set or beat a world record.
>
>So he did, over and over again, in 1 pound increments. If he needed a new
>car, he added a pound, etc. etc. etc.
>
>No idea if it is true but it sounds like a good racket.
>
Russian factories were intensely stat driven.
Cheating was not only rampant, but necessary
to keep one's job and to stay out of the work camps.
Russian manufactoring thus created an amazingly
rich system of cheating on stats with a complex
specialized jargon all of it's own and a rather
large suite of cheating techniques.
By the late 60's and early 70's cheating had so evolved
that nobody at all had any idea of how poorly the system
was working. You couldn't find a decent fitting boot in all of Russia,
but they had record breaking 5 year plan stats in all
sectors of the Russian economy.
William Barwell
In article <199805202346...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Podkayne1 <podk...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <6jvh4j$c...@examiner.concentric.net>, Whip...@cris.com
>(WHIPPERSNAPPER) wrote:
>
>>>I've always found Scientology stats a little strange. After all, if you get
>14
>>>people in one week and 12 new people the next, that to me is an upstat. It
>>>always made more sense to me to have stats like that be cumulative: so in the
>>>second week you'd have a total of 26 new people.
>>>
>>
>>Good God. I have never seen such stupidity.
>>
>>Yeah sure! Down stats are GOOD! That's how McDonald's got big. They
>>just watched that ____ Billion Served! stat and damn the rest! Right?
>
>OneScio wishes Scn stats were.
>
Scientology accumulative stats are known lies.
8 million members.
Real stats are not wanted by Scientology.
Ask them how many members, really, does Scientology have today.
You won't get an answer.
If you dig through old back issues of The Auditor to find out
that they will have to work 700+ years to get that next 50,000
Clears, you will find yourself taken off the otherwise
impossible-to-get-off-of-mailing-list-from-hell like I have
been taken off for posting this info.
They don't want me doing the math and posting it publically.
THat is why I have not recieved either "The Auditor" 3272 or #273,
and don't even get "Expansion!" or other crap anymore.
You see, they are embarressed and angry that their faked stats got
exposed here.
David Miscavige. Downstat! Downstat!
He should be placed in state of emergency and made to do conditions.
But that's OK. Miscavige's bad management hurts them, not me.
In the meantime, anybody want off their mailing list?
Here's what you do. Next time you are at the post office, get
an official change of address post card and mail it off
to Scientology. Have this stuff forwarded to:
5307 La Branch
Houston Tx
77004
My address. You don't like Scientology propaganda in your mail box?
I do! As wide a variety as I can get! If I got an inch thick stack each
day, I wouldn't mind a bit.
William Barwell
In article <3566501b...@news.concentric.net>,
bc <great.question.life.universe@everything> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On 21 May 1998 04:12:32 EDT, Whip...@cris.com (WHIPPERSNAPPER)
>brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
>
><snip>
>
>>>With the accuracy and insight you've demonstrated, you
>>>might as well call your observations scientific. If it was good
>enough for
>>>Hubbard.........
>>
>>Interesting you'd mention that. A common claim here, which I
>haven't
>>answered in some time. But I have seen reams upon reams of
>Hubbard's
>recorded
>>research material as well.
>
>
>"Reams upon reams" of research? Where? "Tape-recorded research
>material"?? Lectures do not equal research, Whippersnapper.
>
>I sat and listened to Elrong ramble on tape for hours while I was in
>the cult, Whippersnapper. I read the course materials. I was only
>in for a short time, but I never saw a single fucking *shred* of
>research. Just bald assertion. This is NOT research.
>
If Hubbard had hundreds of tapes of auditing sessions, even then, so
what? Stick the cans in some fool's hands and let 'em rip.
That isn't research, that's screwing around.
Clam engrams, Martian implant stations, Fac One, the coffee grinder, Bap!
Bap! Bap!
Hubbard's apparent raw materials AND his research methods leave me
rather unimpressed to say the least.
It is also fun to see how a vaulted state, Clear, was so resoundingly
defined in DMSMH, with a long list of big claims for what a Clear
could do by becoming Clear. But that faded away leaving Clear an undefined
state with no real definition, no real claims made for Clear, no
publicly made, openly made assertions for what a Clear isand why we'd want
to bother. Now it's just a $50,000.00 waste of time.
Nor does Scientology tell when and why this change occured.
What research?
Whe it comes to Clear, the world cannot get a straight answer to what that
means and what a Clear can do a non-Clear can't.
Who needs research to make vague, inchoate mumblings?