L.A. Times: "L. Ron Elementary School"
Tom Klemesrud
Usually when my Los Angeles Times newspaper is missing from
my doorstep, there is a story about Scientology in it. Today
was no exception. In fact, there were three related stories:
1) "Hubbard Test Approved for School Use" by
mailto:duke.h...@latimes.com and
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/STATE/t000067289.html
2) "L. Ron Elementary--a Parody With a Point"
by mailto:scott....@latimes.com
It is HILLARIOUS:
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/VALLEY/SFNEWS/t000067286.html
3) a chastizing of the Los Angeles Unified School District for
running out of textbooks in the first place:
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/COMMENT/t000067139.html
leny
In article <tomklemE...@netcom.com>,
Tom Klemesrud <tom...@netcom.com> wrote:
>1) "Hubbard Test Approved for School Use" by
>mailto:duke.h...@latimes.com and
>
>http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/STATE/t000067289.html
Some of the LAUSD members have a very valid point. Although the books
do not teach Scientology nor is it mentioned, L. Ron Hubbard's name
should not be so prominent on the cover. The cover should be modified
to be formatted similar to other text books.
The point of this whole effort is to 1. Help the students by giving
them a better method of learning. 2. Prove to LAUSD, by results, that
the study tech does indeed work.
Promoting LRH is not only unnecessary but could be very counter
productive in the presence of those who are leary of Scientology.
I really hope the PR artists in the church get off their religious
pulpits for this project, primarily for the sake of the school kids.
In early literature, Scientology was promoted as a non-denominational
religion. Some of these execs need to go to cramming.
Leny
Joe Harrington
Mention or none mention of Hubbard's name is irrelevant. The use of
Hubbard's thought-stopping study "tech" is controlled by a vast network
of Scientology affiliated corporations, all of which have been granted
federal tax exempt, tax-exempt status based on their application that
and statement that they were engaged in strictly "religious activities".
as a 501 c-3 organization.
They need to take their "Religious "Scriptures" and peddle them to
their sheep, and not the taxpayers of California.
Joe
Tilman Hausherr
>Some of the LAUSD members have a very valid point. Although the books
>do not teach Scientology nor is it mentioned,
It is 100% scientology. It is the same that is taught in scientology,
except that the tometer isn't used.
>The point of this whole effort is to 1. Help the students by giving
>them a better method of learning. 2. Prove to LAUSD, by results, that
>the study tech does indeed work.
Why did Miscavige not even finish high school?
leny
In article <33DE5AC1...@uwc.edu>, Dick Cleek <dcl...@uwc.edu> wrote:
>leny wrote:
><snip>
>>1) "Hubbard Test Approved for School Use" by
>
>> them a better method of learning. 2. Prove to LAUSD, by results, that
>>
>> the study tech does indeed work.
>
>Leny,
>Show me a study. One study. A real study, you know,
>with controls, verifiable, quantitative. It's been 40 years.
>You guys have to have one study, somewhere?
>Right?
>__________________________
Probably not. The church has not done scientific studies, that I have
seen. In fact I'd like to see one with school children using the
study tech. Yes, a controlled study.
I can speak for myself though that the simple techniques do help one
to study, understand and apply the material better.
Since you are convinced that everything is Scientology is a big scam,
I won't waste time trying to convince you otherwise.
The materials and counseling have done well for me although I will
admit that their advertising and promotions do take a few liberties.
Leny
Dick Cleek
leny wrote:
<snip>
>1) "Hubbard Test Approved for School Use" by
> The point of this whole effort is to 1. Help the students by giving
> them a better method of learning. 2. Prove to LAUSD, by results, that
>
> the study tech does indeed work.
Leny,
Show me a study. One study. A real study, you know,
with controls, verifiable, quantitative. It's been 40 years.
You guys have to have one study, somewhere?
Right?
__________________________
Dick Cleek
MAPPING SCIENTOLOGY http://pharos.uwc.edu/~dcleek/cos/world2.html
pp
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
le...@skat.usc.edu (leny) wrote:
>
>Some of the LAUSD members have a very valid point. Although the books
>do not teach Scientology nor is it mentioned, L. Ron Hubbard's name
>should not be so prominent on the cover. The cover should be modified
>to be formatted similar to other text books.
This is a minor nit and it doesn't overcome the serious problems inherent
in teaching study tech in the public schools.
>The point of this whole effort is to 1. Help the students by giving
>them a better method of learning. 2. Prove to LAUSD, by results, that
>the study tech does indeed work.
Why should LAUSD guinea-pig study tech on 100 kids? There are Hubbard
schools out there who have already been using study tech for years, why
doesn't the proponent of this method have them do an Iowa skills test (or
something nationally accepted and comparable) to demonstrate whether or
not the Hubbard students are at or above grade level?
>Promoting LRH is not only unnecessary but could be very counter
>productive in the presence of those who are leary of Scientology.
And as Scientology claims to be a religion, it's just as impermissible to
promote Hubbard in the public schools as it would be to promote Jesus and
Christianity or Muhammad and Islam.
>I really hope the PR artists in the church get off their religious
>pulpits for this project, primarily for the sake of the school kids.
>
>In early literature, Scientology was promoted as a non-denominational
>religion. Some of these execs need to go to cramming.
"Non-denominational *religion*?" That's the problem! The study tech is
designed to front people into Scientology, and proponents of Scn are hot
about the belief that it is a religion.
You can't have it both ways. If Scn is a religion, it most certainly
cannot be taught in the public schools. If it's not, then before we
guinea-pig it on our children, we ought to have test scores from the
schools that currently use study tech that show it's a worthwhile method.
Deana
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
NEW! 4/97 *and* 4/96 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
mir...@xmission.com
Dick Cleek
leny wrote:
> In article <33DE5AC1...@uwc.edu>, Dick Cleek <dcl...@uwc.edu>
> wrote:
> >leny wrote:
> ><snip>
> >>1) "Hubbard Test Approved for School Use" by
> >
> >> The point of this whole effort is to 1. Help the students by giving
>
> >> them a better method of learning. 2. Prove to LAUSD, by results,
> that
> >>
> >> the study tech does indeed work.
> >
>
> >Leny,
> >Show me a study. One study. A real study, you know,
> >with controls, verifiable, quantitative. It's been 40 years.
> >You guys have to have one study, somewhere?
> >Right?
> >__________________________
>
> Probably not. The church has not done scientific studies, that I have
>
> seen. In fact I'd like to see one with school children using the
> study tech. Yes, a controlled study.
>
> I can speak for myself though that the simple techniques do help one
> to study, understand and apply the material better.
>
> Since you are convinced that everything is Scientology is a big scam,
> I won't waste time trying to convince you otherwise.
Leny, it's not just me. Here's an old post from someonewith firsthand
experience with your tech in schools:
Applied Scholastics: A testimony from inside
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 12:09:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "M. Council" <cou...@luna.cas.usf.edu>
The following is a statement in a letter dated 6/95, from a person who
wishes to remain anonymous who now lives in Florida. Posted with
permission.
SOME NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED BY THE POSTER.
My experience with Scientology was mostly through one of their Applied
Scholastics schools. I was looking for something
other than the public school system and found an Applied Scholastics
school that claimed to be non-denominational, a sane
environemnt, and an individual self-paced academic program for the
student. I was told that it was based on the breakthrough
study technology of the great "educator" L. Ron Hubbard. I didn't really
know anything about LRH being the founder of
Scientology at the time, and once I found out, I didn't know anything
about Scientology anyway except for the fact that John
Travolta, Kirstie Alley, Tom Cruise and other "successful" Hollywood
actors were members.
The claim that the school was non-denominational was a bold-faced lie.
Everything was Scientology. Knowledge reports were
kept on students, Q & A upon admissions which were kept in files and
used to smear students who "blew", stat charts, study
courses and the comm course (which being under the Tax Exempt umbrella
makes them "religious" courses), ethics policies,
success stories, Friday graduation and wins sharing and applause, etc.,
etc.
As for the sane environment, that was a joke. Everything always depended
on the mood of the ED, who, while a "clear" was
extrememly reactive and moody. It was common when students would come in
to timidly ask me "What mood is Joan in
today?" If she lost control of the courseroom she would literally start
stamping her feet and banging her fists on the tables and
screaming till her face turned red. She would stick her face two inches
away from a student's face and freak out on them. She
really managed to have the students intimidated. Of course when she
wasn't around they would imitate her and laugh about
what a basket case she was. If anyone dropped a piece of clay from the
clay table she would start screaming for knowledge
reports and run around waving her arms screaming "who did this, who did
this." But when she would talk with the parents, she
would be Miss mellow smiles and calm, tender voice, and say how much she
cared about their children and she was there to
help them. Then whenever any of the students would try to tell their
parents what was going on, the parents wouldn't believe
them. One thing I decided while being there and seeing all of this, is I
would rather believe my child in a lie than to disbelieve
him in the truth. Of course neither of these options are desirable. But
I have seen the trust taken away between a parent and
their child when the parent pooh poohs the child coming to them with
something upsetting them that is true. I learned my lesson,
and I learned that I will not sit by and let lies and emotional abuse go
on anymore without speaking up.
Regarding Applied Scholastics promises and the "credible evidence" it
produces. They say that with the Learning Book and/or
the Basic Study Manual (Learning How to Learn for younger children) that
once the student takes the course all the problems
they had in school with learning are "handled." They make a big deal
about misunderstood words, which to a point is true. I do
believe the dictionary should be used in public schools much more than
it is now. But these kids had real learning problems.
After the "study courses" they still had them, but in an environment
where results can be manipulated, they seem to have been
eliminated. Then comes the time when the person gets back in the real
world without the "Scientology" support and control
system, and they are no better off than before, and in some cases
depending upon the alienation from the real world, they are
worse off. Of course they say even learning disabilities are just MUs,
and when the child looks up the word and understands it
everything is fine.
I don't know if any of you were in any part of an org where you had to
report to LA on the org's stats each Thursday, but if
you were I'm sure you saw how stats can be "inflated" and manipulated
[poster's note: MMMMmmm! Tastes just like
Allstate!]. These are the same stats Applied Scholastics uses to
advertise how wonderful they are.
There are stats for student points that each student has to keep for
each day. Also there were different stats for courses
completed by each of the students that week as well. You understand the
different conditions Power, Affluence, Liability, etc., I
hope. These are determined by the weekly graphing of your stats. The
school I worked at manipulated these by inflating student
points. They would take students off of the courses they really needed
to get a standard academic education, such as math,
history, etc. which take a lot of work and time to get the course
completions. Then they would be put on some really
educationally benign program of drawing a picture, calling each picture
an art course, counting it as a completion, plus taking
the points for it. If they were far behind the previous weeks
completions and points, all of the students would draw several
pictures, taking an art "completion" for each one and the points that go
with it. Also, they would be given silly drills to do that
they could complete rapidly and do them over and over and over and take
75 points each time the drill was done and that
brought up the student points rapidly. That way going by how many points
the studnets were completing each week made it
seem like they were doing a lot of work, but the thing is, it was
quantity work and NOT quality work. All of these many
completions and student points looked really great on paper. My, how
much work it appeared the students were doing. HA!!
Of course the work was useless as far as what really needed to be done
for the students legitimate high school studies.
So any proof of anything can be manipulated, and believe me it's not
just the CoS that does this with all their programs. Of
course all of the students from this school have high GPAs when they
transfer out of her shcool or "graduate." But what people
don't realize is that the school doesn't give anybody a grade lower than
a B. A or B is the lowest grades you can get, unles you
transfer out without taking an exam on the course in question to test
what you have really learned. In that case she will give you
a C. I worked with the "examiner" and when the student takes the exam at
the end of the course, the examiner goes over all the
questions they missed with the student and will try to lead them to the
correct answer. If they can get them to remember the
proper answer the first time around, even if they originally missed
several questions, they get an A. If they can't remember, they
are given the questions they missed on the test on a pink sheet and told
what part of the book to look over to get the answers,
and then they retake the questions they missed. Then, if they still miss
the questions, the process is repeated for those questions
until the student finally memorizes the answers to all the qeustions
they missed. Even if they missed 70% of the test the first time,
then 40% of the questions the second time, then 20% the third, and
finally get those right on the fourth try, they would still be
given a B for that course. Now is that a dream come true for someone who
wants a high GPA...to go to a school that you
know the lowest grade you can make is a B! Now I know why colleges want
the SAT tests to be taken before a student can
enter their college and not just go by graduating GPAs alone. If they
come from a private school such as the Applied
Scholastics school I worked at, the students look good, but they didn't
really learn, and the GPAs are not fair in comparison to
people who went to schools where you didn't get the opportunity time
after time after time to do the same questions over and
over on the same test until you get it right and get a B. In most
schools if you get a C, D or F on your exams the first time you
get a C, D or F, period.
Now I can't say if all Applied Scholastics schools all over the country
work this same way. I do know that the ED (who was
also the director and teacher for the "high school" level) at this
school trained at Delphi in Oregon, and True School in
Clearwater.
Another thing about the high school I forgot to mention. The courses
they did were not high school courses for the most part.
The English courses they did were from workbooks for middle school, and
even from a workbook for grades 5 and 6. She had
several students doing courses in math from 7th and 8th grade workbooks.
When they would transfer out, she would put down
on their transcripts for English courses either English I, II or III on
their transcript, give them credit for the course, and of course
the A or B grade. THESE KIDS NEVER HAD ANY HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH! I even
witnessed her give credit for
courses that the students never even took! When they transferred back to
public schools they had trouble keeping up, had to
have extra tutoring, etc. Some of the kids couldn't even get their
credits accepted, and were told they would have to start over
again in the 9th grade. The few who did manage to have some of their
credits accepted really had to work hard to catch up.
The ED was a clear, and I must admit she was the most reactive person
I've ever met (I guess she may have had her engrams
removed but just had a very bad case of "Body Thetans"). She was also an
experienced auditor. She would get the parents
and/or student back alone in her office and would run procesing on them
and they didn't even know what was happening. They
would come out and say to me, "I can't believe the things I told her
about myself (or my family)." or, "Gee, I went in to talk
about one thing, and she ended up making me talk about something else."
Since I only worked at the one Scientology Applied Scholastics school I
can't say if my experience was typical or isolated. I
can say that we regularly had L.A. telling us what to do, and that they
were always checking up on us. When some
representatives came from Clearwater to evaluate the school, their main
concern was that there wasn't a picture or a bust of
LRH in reception, and that there should have had more CoS materials on
display. So now I ask you, does that say to you what
their main priority was?
From what I have seen, LRH Tech with its checks and balances works
perfectly for church courses because that will be the
environment most people stay in once they start up the "bridge." But
when you apply this to the "secular" world where it's not
for the mindless absorption of Scientology but must be used practically
in other circumstances, it didn't really work. All the
things these students learned, once they got back out into the real
world, were not the promised panacea. The one thing that did
make a difference was they did learn to use a dictionary and to make
sure they understood the words in the courses they were
studying. Yes this is an excellent practice but you don't need the
church or LRH to learn that. The use of dictionaries was in
existence long before LRH was born and using dictionaries was a practice
used before he ever had a brain to think it up. But
who knows, maybe he was Daniel Webster in one of his many adventurous
past lives.
I still remember the school I worked at, the Scientologists were always
taking about the "Wall of Fire" and different OT states
and that the material you handle is so volatile that it can cause you to
either go insane or commit suicide. Of course if you get
through it you are at a new state of "spiritual enlightenment." I know
if something has that effect on a person it isn't because they
are learning something cosmically revealing, but because they are
opening and giving their mind to influences they shouldn't be.
Here is what I find so nonsensical about the statement that Scientology
is a "religion:" A religion supposedly deals with things
dealing with the human spirit or soul, etc.; i.e. spiritual matters. If
you look at Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hindi, etc., they teach
the path of spiritual enlightenment freely. As a matter of fact, they
strive to teach as many people as possible to go as far as they
possibly can in their religion FREELY. Spiritual levels are attained by
how much time and heart you put into seeking that
knowledge, not by your ability to PAY. No other "religion" is on a "per
pay" basis. Everything they have to offer on the road up
the bridge is only attained through money or in a few circumstances by
becoming a "slave' for the org and trading your life for it.
All their magazines and brochures always have to do with "buy" this and
"buy" that. When you give something by insisting on
payment, and the public cannot attain that "spiritual" enlightenment
other than by payment [also known as "donation"], you
are SELLING. When you sell, you are a business, and when you are as
diversified as CoS is, you are a corporation.
Scientology says it is a religion. If they copyright all their spiritual
beliefs and make them available by payment [donation] only,
then that is SELLING. An organization that makes profit by selling is a
business or corporation, not a "religion." Maybe
Texaco, IBM, Microsoft and AT&T should call themselves a "religion"
also. Then, they won't have to pay taxes on their profits
either.
Scientology officials say they are for free speech, and that is the
truth. They just left out the part about being for free speech for
THEMSELVES, and not for OTHERS. Well, it's about time they learned that
people aren't going to sit around and let that
happen.
This has been a letter, posted with permission, from someone with no net
access who lives in Florida now. Some names
were changed.
They're learning. They just keep making the mistake of underestimating
people and overestimating themselves...
--------------------------------------m. council, human being
Hell, if you understood
everything I say, you'd cou...@luna.cas.usf.edu
be me. -Miles Davis
-------------------------------------------------------------
((The following is from follow-up e-mails with Maggie. It has been
slightly edited to protect the source, the end-product was submitted for
review. Tilman))
From: "M. Council" <cou...@luna.cas.usf.edu>
Subject: ok, more about schools!
I spoke with my contact who sent me the information about the Applied
Scholastics school she worked for in ((deleted)).
Points from the notes I took during our conversation:
Yes, they do use E-Meters at those schools! Just not on wog kids; when
they are used, they are not called e-meters [which
allows them to deny it without losing conscience]. They're called
"learning accelerators."
Yes, you do have to write success stories or you won't pass the class!
If you write one they don't like, you do it again until
they do like it. She related a story of one ((deleted)) kid who drew a
picture [sometimes pictures were okay instead of written
success stories] of genitalia as his success story [he later quit the
school].
Success stories were required to name the class or course taken, say how
wonderful it was, and how much you learned. Better
stories told of applications of the new 'knowledge'.
It's so easy to open a school! Private schools are businesses. That's
why ((deleted)) could open one with just a ((non
pedagogical credential deleted)) ! You need an occupational license, and
that's it, in ((deleted)). Also, and this is verrrrrry
important, accrediting agencies are not always what they appear to be.
Deceptive curriculum: I was told that there was one outdated Chemistry
book that supplied all the material for three courses
in Chemistry.
PC Folders: Admissions form had no tests, no academic questions. It read
like a sec check! and the answers were kept in the
file. All learning disabilities are really M/Us ((misunderstood words))
anyway, according to ((name of the directress deleted)).
Eventually, says my source, the kids stole their own PC Folders. When a
few left the school they were Fair Gamed. My
source was outraged by this, and it was part of her decision to leave
the school.
Child neglect: Not every kid there was a scientologist; many were not.
You could really tell the difference betweent the
scientology kids and the others, though. The Scientology kids were
hungry, dirty, scabies, "pathetic", inadequate clothing, etc.
HRS ((Health and Rehabilitative Services, an agency looking for
neglected children)) would call re: those kids often.
My source has lots of stuff documented. She may be willing to go to
authorities soon on this; I hate to push her because
((reason deleted)). Apparantly they've already suffered a bit of fair
gaming themselves.
>
> I hope that concerned citizens will tell that it is a clam school.
>
Concerned citizens [e.g., former students, parents of same, etc.] are
all frightened of the threats that were made to them. No
one has spoken out.
>
> Is this post public or "eyes only" ? I'd like to add it to the
previous
> post about that school on my page.
>
It's public as long as her name and the name of the town, the school,
and the school's owner, ((deleted)), are nowhere in the
material.
--------------------------------------------m. council, human being
"How come your ashtray didn't stand up by itself?"
-from Arnie's Favorite Questions for 'Dangerous' Oatees
------------------KoX------SP3-------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some [legitimate!] questions about Scn
From: "M. Council" <cou...@luna.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:48:08 -0400
On 16 Oct 1995 jam...@utdallas.edu wrote:
[snip]
> This brings up something that I've been considering for a while. What,
> exactly, does the Church have to say about disorders like ADD,
dyslexia,
> and others?
According to an ex-employee of a private school licensed by Applied
Scholastics [scientology<tm>], the Hubman thought ALL
learning disabilities were the product of M/Us, or "misunderstood
words." That's why his whole educational philosophy
revolves around looking words up in the dictionary; hardly a new or
unique idea.
Apparantly, there was little else: when the school folded after 3 years,
its students [high-school aged] were forced to restart
high school because none of them not one could pass the placement test
for the grade they were supposed to be in.
What's really sick is that the owners / operators of this school have
opened another school now in the same area, and are now
bilking a new generation of parents out of their childrens' education,
as well as their money.
--------------------------------------m. council, human being
Hell, if you understood
everything I say, you'd cou...@luna.cas.usf.edu
be me. -Miles Davis
---------------------------------------------SP4-KoX---------
--
Martin Hunt
In article <tomklemE...@netcom.com>,
tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud) wrote:
>Usually when my Los Angeles Times newspaper is missing from
>my doorstep, there is a story about Scientology in it. Today
>was no exception. In fact, there were three related stories:
Suggestion: set up a video camera to catch the person doing
it in the act.
Do you really think there's a Scientologist going around
collecting the papers from certain houses? I wouldn't put
it beyond them, but I want proof.
We know they steal library books and bowlderize magazines with
razors, but this is news. How nice to have it on film, suitable
for webbing!
Thank you for the articles, Tom.
ttyl,
martin.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. ARS & Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Warning: strong spamblocking software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc"
in From:, To:, or Subject: headers, or your email will not get through.
David Brower
Dick Cleek <dcl...@uwc.edu> writes:
>leny wrote:
><snip>
>>1) "Hubbard Test Approved for School Use" by
>> The point of this whole effort is to 1. Help the students by giving
>> them a better method of learning. 2. Prove to LAUSD, by results, that
>>
>> the study tech does indeed work.
>Leny,
>Show me a study. One study. A real study, you know,
>with controls, verifiable, quantitative. It's been 40 years.
>You guys have to have one study, somewhere?
>Right?
Probably not.
But maybe this is the opportunity to *get* such a study
done. With enough skeptics around to make sure it doesn't become an
indoctrination, this might be a reasonable thing to do.
-dB
--
"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room. | David Brower
Especially if the cat's not there. | dbr...@oracle.com
But we will!" | da...@acm.org
Tom Klemesrud
leny (le...@skat.usc.edu) wrote:
: In article <tomklemE...@netcom.com>,
: Tom Klemesrud <tom...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >1) "Hubbard Test Approved for School Use" by
: >mailto:duke.h...@latimes.com and
: >
: >http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/STATE/t000067289.html
: Some of the LAUSD members have a very valid point. Although the books
: do not teach Scientology nor is it mentioned, L. Ron Hubbard's name
: should not be so prominent on the cover. The cover should be modified
: to be formatted similar to other text books.
: The point of this whole effort is to 1. Help the students by giving
: them a better method of learning. 2. Prove to LAUSD, by results, that
: the study tech does indeed work.
Good point Mr. Freeman; however, I believe Charles Manson has written
a better study manual for his fellow White Aryan Nation Brotherhood
members in prison, called "What To Do When You Foo's Are Up Against
The Wall, And The Man Won't Let You Do It In The Road."
1) It doesn't ever mention murdering people, or the race war he was
trying to cause by the Manson Family Murders. Manson knows Hubbard
technology.
2) It is pure how-to-use-the-[prison]-library. It is much better than
the Hubbard books, I hear, and Sandra Goode will market them from her
house accross the street from San Quentin. As you know Charlie Manson
has a web site to support the study material.
Manson's text is cheaper, and better. I want the kids using the
Charles Manson text. It's a better deal for the taxpayer. I would
recommend to the State Board of Education that on the cover of the textbook,
the swastika carved in to Manson's forehead be airbrushed out for the
cover, though; and us a cover photo depicting a kinder, gentler Charles
Manson, who--like Hubbard--is often misunderstood.
"... Up Against the Wall ..." is pure study text, and--like Charlie's
popular selling music CD's--should not be denied to our hungry-minded
children. Besides, Manson ruined fewer lives than the other textbook
author.
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
Ex Mudder
dbr...@us.oracle.com (David Brower) wrote:
>Dick Cleek <dcl...@uwc.edu> writes:
>>Leny,
>>Show me a study. One study. A real study, you know,
>>with controls, verifiable, quantitative. It's been 40 years.
>>You guys have to have one study, somewhere?
>>Right?
>
>Probably not.
>
>But maybe this is the opportunity to *get* such a study
>done. With enough skeptics around to make sure it doesn't become an
>indoctrination, this might be a reasonable thing to do.
>
Nope. All of Hubbard's works are based on indoctrination the person
into believing that they will work. You will get hostile resistance -
in the form of multiple lawsuits and noisy investigations - if you try
to apply any such methodology.
"What's true is what's true for you"