I refuse to believe it
Xenu Jr.
Panos Stokas wrote in message <352C9A...@skiathos.physics.auth.gr>...
>I think the ideological battle against the Corporation of Scientology is
>a battle against a new dark age. A dark age introduced by some very
>intelligent businessmen like the late Hubbard who prey on the innocent
>people's pockets.
>
>Panos Stokas,
>Greece
I must agree. It's very funny to me that Hubbard was (is) selling people a
'bridge'. In America we have a saying about gullible persons which runs
something like this:
[If the first person says he believes or is willing to accept
without question something completely ludicrous, the second person says:]
Well, if you believe that, I have got a bridge to sell you"'
alluding to a hoax perpetrated by a man (name escapes me) who, some years
ago, successfully bilked several people out of a considerable amount of
money by representing to them that he was a local civil servant or somesuch
and the monument or bridge (I think London and Brooklyn Bridges were two,
and the Statue of Liberty as well) had to be sold to boost the public
coffers. Can you agree that these peole must have been extremely gullible?
Are potential $cientologists any less gullible?
Xenu Jr.
Xenu Jr.
Wolf wrote in message <352D0C...@micron.net>...
>BTW, Christianity is only the world's largest religion if you filter the
>numbers through organizations with a vested interest in asserting such
>fallacies. Much like CofS's reputed 8 million members if you ask me.
>
>Wolf
You speak of logic. You shall have it :
"THE MAN WHO WORSHIPS GOD IS WORSHIPPING BY PROXY THE MAN WHO CREATED GOD"
- Anton Szandor LaVey
(emphasis author's)
Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Your pipe is underneath your 'Good
Book', where you left it.
Xenu Jr.
Panos Stokas
Is it possible that any human being would believe in stories about dead
extra-terrestials and the evil lord Xenu?
Are you guys SERIOUS? or just brainwashed?
Panos
Mark Styles
It's only slightly less believable than being taken to a higher plane by
a UFO hiding behind Hale Bopp, or than a man claiming to be the son of
god and walking on water.
The difference of course is that Scientologists don't learn about these
wacky beliefs until it is too late, when they've already spent a fortune
on auditing, and no longer have sufficient independant thought to
question them.
--
Yet mark his perfect self-contentment, and hence learn his lesson,
that to be self-contented is to be vile and ignorant, and that to
aspire is better than to be blindly and impotently happy.
Jim Wissick
On Thu, 09 Apr 1998 09:28:48 +0100, Mark Styles <lam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The difference of course is that Scientologists don't learn about these
>wacky beliefs until it is too late, when they've already spent a fortune
>on auditing, and no longer have sufficient independant thought to
>question them.
What happens to those that learn this after reaching the level where they are
told.... and then leave the org laughing and feeling like fools??
To reply to this message, remove SPAMBLOCK from
the email address.
http://home.pacbell.net/jwissick/jwissick.txt for my
public PGP key.
Panos Stokas
> > Is it possible that any human being would believe in stories about dead
> > extra-terrestials and the evil lord Xenu?
> It's only slightly less believable than being taken to a higher plane by
> a UFO hiding behind Hale Bopp, or than a man claiming to be the son of
> god and walking on water.
Yes... but those guys were just a small fraternity. Scientology claims
to be a religion and although still in infancy it does seem to have many
members, or at least a considerable monetary power.
Starshad
>>The difference of course is that Scientologists don't learn about these
>>wacky beliefs until it is too late, when they've already spent a fortune
>>on auditing, and no longer have sufficient independant thought to
>>question them.
>What happens to those that learn this after reaching the level where they
>are
>told.... and then leave the org laughing and feeling like fools??
Well, look around the newsgroup. Some of them arrive here. Many times this
is after they are threatened, or their families threatened, or they are sued,
or other nasty things happen to them...$cientology doesn't allow people to just
leave and resume their lives, assuming they still have one after years of
giving their all to the cult they are told are the "most ethical people on the
planet".
Especially if they dare to tell others about the scam.
Bright Blessings,
Starshadow SP4, Granny Dyke
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>Is it possible that any human being would believe in stories about dead
>extra-terrestials and the evil lord Xenu?
>
>Are you guys SERIOUS? or just brainwashed?
Religion is a cultural thing. All religions have
some influence in their mythology which probably
originates from the ravings of madmen. Now
looking up in the sky for UFO's is regarded as
pretty dim. Many years ago looking up in the sky
for angles or in the woods for trolls the same.
Looking at the whole picture Xenu isn't that
different.
Maybe in some years belief in UFO gods will be
accepted as mainstream, just like sertain
belief in desert tribe gods are now.
Issue is not what people believe in, but what
their belief makes them do. If they put their
belief over others, then we have a problem. All
they should be allowed to do is to put their
belief over themselves.
Best regards, Andreas
www.xenu.net
---
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too
important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and
ignorant superstition." -- Isaac Asimov
Inducto
>Panos Stokas,
>Greece
Ah, a poster from Greece! Perhaps you can help us with a question.
One of the CoS aparatchiks here has recently claimed that CoS is "expanding" in
Greece. But it's been posted to a.r.s. that the Greek government had basically
shut down CoS and its operating fronts. CoS' website (apparently at least a
year out of date) lists these two offices in Greece:
Applied Philosophy Center
Patision 200
11256 Athens
GREECE
Phone: 301-86-40-080
Hubbard College of Administration of Athens
12 Klissovis Street
10677 Athens, Greece
Phone: 301 382 0149
Can you tell us if the CoS is making outdated claims and was in fact entirely
run out of Greece, or do they still have some offices and operations in your
country?
Inquiringly,
I.
p/m -- please send copy of response via e-mail
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
Inducto
>Is it possible that any human being would believe in stories about dead
>extra-terrestials and the evil lord Xenu?
As has been said before, the introduction of the "space opera" beliefs to CoS
members is kind of like the old parable of the frog in hot water: If you try
to put a frog in boiling water he'll jump out, but if you put it in cold water
and slowly turn the heat up, he'll sit in the water until he's boiled.
Similarly, CoS carefully keeps information about the upper levels from their
lower level members, until they are "prepared" for them -- this is a process of
slowly getting them to put their full faith in CoS, and also weeding out all
but the most gullible.
It's likely that most of the "scientologists" who post here are low-level CoS
staff functionaries, who have no access to the "advanced" training reserved for
paying customers -- that's the carrot CoS keeps luring them with to get them to
work 16 hour days, but they rarely actually get it.
I.
Panos Stokas
> Religion is a cultural thing. All religions have
> some influence in their mythology which probably
> originates from the ravings of madmen. Now
> looking up in the sky for UFO's is regarded as
> pretty dim. Many years ago looking up in the sky
> for angles or in the woods for trolls the same.
> Looking at the whole picture Xenu isn't that
> different.
Religions and mythologies are different things. They often derive from
man's interpretation of the universe. At night, the woods are frightful
and the shades there create strange images; a troll is formed.
However, a "religion" that springs from science fiction is something
totally different. Science fiction was created as *fiction*.
Therefore, I can't accept Xenu as an equivalent of Devil or a troll. Of
Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader, I can. Of course, anyone is free to
believe whatever he likes. "Religion" is not just belief, however.
> Best regards, Andreas
> www.xenu.net
Are you the creator of xenu.net? Congratulations! It was your page that
brought me here!
Panos
Scott A. McClare
Panos Stokas (spam-OF...@skiathos.physics.auth.gr) writes:
> Is it possible that any human being would believe in stories about dead
> extra-terrestials and the evil lord Xenu?
>
> Are you guys SERIOUS? or just brainwashed?
Brainwashed into believing someone would believe such silly stories? 8-)
Never underestimate the power of human gullibility. How many people do
you suppose STILL believe there's a face thing on Mars, despite better
evidence now to the contrary? How many people do you think still believe
mysterious forces (rather than drunken students) make strange circles in
grain fields?
Remember, the billion practitioners of of the world's largest religion,
myself included, believe their founder died and then raised himself from
the dead. Scientology <tm> doesn't have a monopoly on non-rational
beliefs. Given L. Ron Hubbard's career as a science fiction author,
however, I'd have hoped more of his followers would have made a leap of
logic that appears to be lacking.
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
Wolf
Scott A. McClare wrote:
> Brainwashed into believing someone would believe such silly stories? 8-)
-snip-
> Remember, the billion practitioners of of the world's largest religion,
> myself included, believe their founder died and then raised himself from
> the dead. Scientology <tm> doesn't have a monopoly on non-rational
> beliefs. Given L. Ron Hubbard's career as a science fiction author,
> however, I'd have hoped more of his followers would have made a leap of
> logic that appears to be lacking.
Just curious Scott... in the above statement you acknowledge that your
belief in Jesus is non-rational, yet you criticize CofS members because
their belief is non-rational. Are we talking failure to make leaps of
logic here? Or are you just jumping in to join the feeding frenzy?
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>> Religion is a cultural thing. All religions have
>> some influence in their mythology which probably
>> originates from the ravings of madmen. Now
>> looking up in the sky for UFO's is regarded as
>> pretty dim. Many years ago looking up in the sky
>> for angles or in the woods for trolls the same.
>> Looking at the whole picture Xenu isn't that
>> different.
>
>Religions and mythologies are different things. They often derive from
>man's interpretation of the universe. At night, the woods are frightful
>and the shades there create strange images; a troll is formed.
I disagree that there is such a big difference between
religion and mythology. What is called what depends on
our culture and history. The belief in trolls and UFO's
may just as much come from someones fantasy as the
god others believe to have talked to or seen.
>However, a "religion" that springs from science fiction is something
>totally different. Science fiction was created as *fiction*.
A very loose defenition. Who can tell what sprung from
what? As far as I know Xenu originates as secret religious
documents. You calling it science fiction does not make
it less a religion than the belief in angles, IMHO.
As for what we actually know about the origin of other
religions we have not enough information to say it
originately was a fiction that "took off".
I may be "swearing in church" now, but I believe it is
an error to claim Xenu is so different from other
beliefs. The biggest difference is that we know who
made it up because he just lived here among us. With
other religions we don't.
Our problem is with the word 'religion'. By accepting
that also the crazy belief in Xenu and thetans could be
just as much religion as anything else, one with a
personal religious belief can't distance him/herself
from Scientology as they might want.
They have to rewind, this is about a dangerous cult
and the need for everybody to know the truth about
the different religions to actually live out their
freedom of religion.
>Therefore, I can't accept Xenu as an equivalent of Devil or a troll. Of
>Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader, I can. Of course, anyone is free to
>believe whatever he likes. "Religion" is not just belief, however.
What is then 'religion'?
>> Best regards, Andreas
>> www.xenu.net
>
>Are you the creator of xenu.net? Congratulations! It was your page that
>brought me here!
Thanks. :)
Andreas Heldal-Lund
On Wed, 8 Apr 1998 18:04:07 -0400, "Xenu Jr." <ex$c...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"THE MAN WHO WORSHIPS GOD IS WORSHIPPING BY PROXY THE MAN WHO CREATED GOD"
> - Anton Szandor LaVey
>(emphasis author's)
Another LaVey quote:
"Whatever alleged 'truth' is proven by results to be but an
empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer
darkness, among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies,
and other useless lumber and wreckage!"
-- Anton Szandor LaVey
Garry Scarff
Scott A. McClare wrote:
>
> Panos Stokas (spam-OF...@skiathos.physics.auth.gr) writes:
>
> > Is it possible that any human being would believe in stories about dead
> > extra-terrestials and the evil lord Xenu?
> >
> > Are you guys SERIOUS? or just brainwashed?
>
>
> you suppose STILL believe there's a face thing on Mars, despite better
> evidence now to the contrary? How many people do you think still believe
> mysterious forces (rather than drunken students) make strange circles in
> grain fields?
>
> myself included, believe their founder died and then raised himself from
> the dead. Scientology <tm> doesn't have a monopoly on non-rational
> beliefs. Given L. Ron Hubbard's career as a science fiction author,
> however, I'd have hoped more of his followers would have made a leap of
>
> Scott
This is fine as long as you don't disparage my grandparents. They
immigrated to Roswell, New Mexico 50 years ago from Ork.
Garry
Panos Stokas
> >Religions and mythologies are different things. They often derive from
> >man's interpretation of the universe. At night, the woods are frightful
> >and the shades there create strange images; a troll is formed.
>
> I disagree that there is such a big difference between
> religion and mythology. What is called what depends on
> our culture and history. The belief in trolls and UFO's
> may just as much come from someones fantasy as the
> god others believe to have talked to or seen.
Indeed!? The troll is an interpretation of a natural phaenomenon, the
UFO is not. Or perhaps it is? Oh, I think I can see your meaning...
But then we cannot be too guarded from our perception into leading us to
conclusions and beliefs which will expose us to ridicule to the future
generations. I always thought it was very silly for ancient Greeks to
believe in stories *they* created (Homer for example) but it seems we
are not much better after all.
> >However, a "religion" that springs from science fiction is something
> >totally different. Science fiction was created as *fiction*.
>
> A very loose defenition. Who can tell what sprung from
> what? As far as I know Xenu originates as secret religious
> documents. You calling it science fiction does not make
> it less a religion than the belief in angles, IMHO.
> As for what we actually know about the origin of other
> religions we have not enough information to say it
> originately was a fiction that "took off".
The difference between religions and mythologies to Scientology (IMHO):
Religions and mythologies, at least the most popular ones, tap on
*unknown* events and provide a set of beliefs to explain them. Much of
the Old Testament is such an attempt to explain natural phaenomena.
Scientology taps on a man-made fiction (IMHO - 99% of the UFO's
experience comes from this excellent literature) and then provides a set
of beliefs based on THIS fiction.
> >Therefore, I can't accept Xenu as an equivalent of Devil or a troll. Of
> >Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader, I can. Of course, anyone is free to
> >believe whatever he likes. "Religion" is not just belief, however.
>
> What is then 'religion'?
It is very hard if not impossible to answer that. There are so many
studies on the subject you see... Of course I am not implying that
Scientology should be deprived of its right to call itself "religion" if
they wish. I just wish to reserve my own right to laugh at them, for I
cannot help it.
Keep up the good work on xenu.net,
Panos
Wolf
Xenu jr sez:
> You speak of logic. You shall have it :
> "THE MAN WHO WORSHIPS GOD IS WORSHIPPING BY PROXY THE MAN WHO CREATED GOD"
> - Anton Szandor LaVey
> (emphasis author's)
> Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Your pipe is underneath your 'Good
> Book', where you left it.
>
> Xenu Jr.
Many thanks for the excellent quote. You misread my post
though, I was applying ~logic~ to the lack of same in the other gent's
post -> wherein he claims his own lack of clarity to be somehow superior
to the Scn's lack of clarity. As for myself, I tend to agree with Mr.
LaVey.
Wolf
Andreas Heldal-Lund
>The difference between religions and mythologies to Scientology (IMHO):
>
>Religions and mythologies, at least the most popular ones, tap on
>*unknown* events and provide a set of beliefs to explain them. Much of
>the Old Testament is such an attempt to explain natural phaenomena.
>
>Scientology taps on a man-made fiction (IMHO - 99% of the UFO's
>experience comes from this excellent literature) and then provides a set
>of beliefs based on THIS fiction.
But the story about Xenu did not start as fiction. It
started as a secret religious truth in Scientology.
It's true that Hubbard _also_ wrote sci-fi books, but
none of those books are made into a religion?
And beside that, Scientology isn't only UFO's and
sci-fi.
"Mythology is what grown-ups believe, folk-lore is what
they tell their children, and religion is both."
--Cedric Whitman, letter to Edward Tripp, 1969
>> >Therefore, I can't accept Xenu as an equivalent of Devil or a troll. Of
>> >Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader, I can. Of course, anyone is free to
>> >believe whatever he likes. "Religion" is not just belief, however.
>>
>> What is then 'religion'?
>
>It is very hard if not impossible to answer that. There are so many
>studies on the subject you see... Of course I am not implying that
>Scientology should be deprived of its right to call itself "religion" if
>they wish. I just wish to reserve my own right to laugh at them, for I
>cannot help it.
I totally agree with you, I too laugh at a lot of what I
read and see. But this religion (or whatever one choose
to call it) still intrigues me as a phenomenon. Being an
atheist myself I may tend to look at it in a bigger
religious picture. In that picture the biggest differences
between the difference belief systems are what they call
eachother. That's also interesting. :)
>Keep up the good work on xenu.net,
Thanks, I will. You too!
Best regards, Andreas
www.xenu.net
---
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away
Scott A. McClare
Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) writes:
> Many thanks for the excellent quote. You misread my post
> though, I was applying ~logic~ to the lack of same in the other gent's
> post -> wherein he claims his own lack of clarity to be somehow superior
> to the Scn's lack of clarity. As for myself, I tend to agree with Mr.
> LaVey.
Don't put words into my mouth. I said nothing about "lack of clarity" - I
said religious beliefs were "non-rational," by which I was contrasting the
presuppositions of Christianity with those of rationalism, which would
reject that truth could be discovered apart from of empirical observation
and reason. That religious truth also draws upon revelation does not make
it irrational, incoherent, or "unclear."
Wolf
Scott A. McClare wrote:
>
> Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) writes:
>
> > Many thanks for the excellent quote. You misread my post
> > though, I was applying ~logic~ to the lack of same in the other gent's
> > post -> wherein he claims his own lack of clarity to be somehow superior
> > to the Scn's lack of clarity. As for myself, I tend to agree with Mr.
> > LaVey.
>
> Don't put words into my mouth. I said nothing about "lack of clarity" - I
> said religious beliefs were "non-rational," by which I was contrasting the
> presuppositions of Christianity with those of rationalism, which would
> reject that truth could be discovered apart from of empirical observation
> and reason. That religious truth also draws upon revelation does not make
> it irrational, incoherent, or "unclear."
>
> Scott
My. You folks are testier than a platoon of rabid OSA agents. Pay
attention Scott! I used the phrase 'lack of clarity', therefore it
hardly qualifies as putting words in ~your~ mouth. As for the idea that
religious truth isn't unclear because it draws on revelation (which we
all know to be a subjective phenomena), I disagree, as do most of the
ARS critics who deny that Scientology offers even the merest gain
because it can't be lab tested. Simply put, the subjective gains, truths
and beliefs of a confirmed CofS'er do appear irrational, incoherent and
unclear and this ng is merciless in it's attacks on those beliefs.
Christian beliefs are steeped in the similar mythology and therefore are
irrational, inchoherent and unclear to any who haven't had the
'revelations'. Anyway, enjoy the hypocrisy.
Wolf
Rebecca Hartong
Wolf wrote in message <352E48...@micron.net>...
>As for the idea that
>religious truth isn't unclear because it draws on revelation (which we
>all know to be a subjective phenomena), I disagree, as do most of the
>ARS critics who deny that Scientology offers even the merest gain
>because it can't be lab tested.
I believe you may have misinterpreted the objection many a.r.s. critics have
regarding the CoS's claims about the benefits of Scientology. The problem
is not that the church claims Scientology is beneficial-- the problem is
that they claim the benefits of Scientology have been scientifically
verified.
As you say, the benefits of religious practice are largely subjective. I
have no doubt--and I suspect the majority of other a.r.s. critics would
agree--that most active Scientologists believe they are benefiting from the
tech.
---------------------------------
Rebecca Hartong
http://www.erols.com/hartong
Paul
Wolf wrote:
[snip]
> As for the idea that
> religious truth isn't unclear because it draws on revelation (which we
> all know to be a subjective phenomena), I disagree, as do most of the
> ARS critics who deny that Scientology offers even the merest gain
> because it can't be lab tested.
While there are probably a few critics who maintain that, I believe that
your sentence above does not apply to the overwhelming majority of the
critics.
The Church of Scientology[tm] maintains that their "gains" *are*
scientific and *can* be scientifically tested. Such claims as raised
IQ, improved communication skills, improved reading comprehension, etc.,
all are *objective* claims, not subjective claims. As such, they are
subject to verification in the lab. After more than forty years, the
Church of Scientology[tm] has not backed up *any* of these claims with
*any* evidence whatsoever. Given that information, and given Hubbard's
complete lack of qualifications, I remain highly skeptical of the
claims.
The burden of proof rests with the individual or organization making the
claims. To date, the Church of Scientology[tm] has not met that burden
of proof.
> Simply put, the subjective gains, truths
> and beliefs of a confirmed CofS'er do appear irrational, incoherent and
> unclear and this ng is merciless in it's attacks on those beliefs.
Not really. Most of us don't give a damn what Scientologists believe.
I don't care if they believe in Xenu or body thetans or engrams or
anything like that. What I care about is fraud, lies, and
bait-and-switch, all of which are perpetrated by the Church of
Scientology[tm].
> Christian beliefs are steeped in the similar mythology and therefore are
> irrational, inchoherent and unclear to any who haven't had the
> 'revelations'. Anyway, enjoy the hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy, here, Wolf.
-Paul
Wolf
Rebecca Hartong wrote:
> I believe you may have misinterpreted the objection many a.r.s. critics have
> regarding the CoS's claims about the benefits of Scientology. The problem
> is not that the church claims Scientology is beneficial-- the problem is
> that they claim the benefits of Scientology have been scientifically
> verified.
Without having to go thru the entire litany of ars *documentation* and
assertions about CofS claims, I agree up to a point that CofS literature
has made certain claims (such as increased IQ or theraputic value of
sweating) that they say are scientifically proven. Those claims
represent a small percentage of what CofS promotes. Since the major part
of what they are selling has very little to do with IQ or purif rundowns
it's hardly accurate to judge the entire subject based on those few
items.
> As you say, the benefits of religious practice are largely subjective. I
> have no doubt--and I suspect the majority of other a.r.s. critics would
> agree--that most active Scientologists believe they are benefiting from the
> tech.
Here I disagree. The majority of ars critics revel in name-calling and
paranoid delusions about the threat of CofS to everything from mankind's
ultimate fate to free speech. To the point that a recent poster, when
describing her husband's involvement with a consulting group, expressed
that had she gone to a meeting she might have had R-45 run on her. The
follow-up posts were sympathetic to the point of silliness, with one
poster suggesting, "you can't be too careful." The threat of Scientology
is equally subjective since the group-think on this ng tends to be that
all members of CofS are 'clams' who are just looking for an excuse to
drown your dog, PDH your cat and get into your daughter's knickers. The
definition of a 'good Scientologist' is one who will give appropriate
answers to loaded questions which will prove that the ars critic has
been right all along. Anything less is met with derision and put-down.
It has long been my view that continual braying attacks of the nature
you find on ars make a group stronger, not weaker. What ars has done is
force CofS to find ways to deal with their attacks, to shore up their
edges, to better inform their members to get creative in advertising and
dissem and to dispense with marginal lawyers and hire more skilled ones.
In the meantime, CofS still has that religious protection thingie that
chafes us all.
BTW, it's nice to see that admist all the foul-mouthed, copy-cat SP4
wannabe's and other bored ego cases looking for something to be a victim
of, ARS seems to have retained a number of intelligent posters and
attracted a new group who might actually be able to find a way past the
fake-religion protection CofS enjoys.
Wolf
Wolf
Paul wrote:
>
> Wolf wrote:
> [snip]
> > As for the idea that
> > religious truth isn't unclear because it draws on revelation (which we
> > all know to be a subjective phenomena), I disagree, as do most of the
> > ARS critics who deny that Scientology offers even the merest gain
> > because it can't be lab tested.
>
> While there are probably a few critics who maintain that, I believe that
> your sentence above does not apply to the overwhelming majority of the
> critics.
Okay. I really need to get a newsreader with a filter then.
> The Church of Scientology[tm] maintains that their "gains" *are*
> scientific and *can* be scientifically tested.
Actually, the CofS maintains that IQ's can be raised and that Purif
therapy is healthy. No doubt CofS has had some doctors agree on both
counts. But that's not the point. The point is that Scn services are not
sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
proven to do anything.
> After more than forty years, the
> Church of Scientology[tm] has not backed up *any* of these claims with
> *any* evidence whatsoever. Given that information, and given Hubbard's
> complete lack of qualifications, I remain highly skeptical of the
> claims.
No doubt with good cause. CofS made stronger claims in the 50's and 60's
than they have the last 30 years. Heat from outside critics back then
along with FDA interest in them were likely the reasons for not only the
grade chart, but for the shift in entry level marketing to happiness and
well-being rather than unprovable god-like abilities.
> The burden of proof rests with the individual or organization making the
> claims. To date, the Church of Scientology[tm] has not met that burden
> of proof.
And why should they? At least to you or any other critic? You're not
buying what they're selling so it's not a productive use of time. The
ploy of hurling an accusation at a target and then demanding the target
prove it's not true is showmanship and PR on either side of an argument.
Politicians do it every election cycle and historically we all know it
as a 'witch hunt'. As long as CofS maintains cash flow and
constitutional protection as a church they are under no obligation to
prove anything to you or any critic. What they *must* prove though, to
their customers, is that it's worth the money - subjectively or
otherwise.
> > Simply put, the subjective gains, truths
> > and beliefs of a confirmed CofS'er do appear irrational, incoherent and
> > unclear and this ng is merciless in it's attacks on those beliefs.
>
> Not really. Most of us don't give a damn what Scientologists believe.
> I don't care if they believe in Xenu or body thetans or engrams or
> anything like that.
Excuse me? Have you filtered out 99% of the posts on this newsgroup? The
bulk of posters on ars enjoy the
clam-cootie-brainwashed-clambot-$ciendroid name calling and derision of
not only the CofS materials, but the ars posters who claim to be
members. If they doesn't give a damn about the beliefs, then why
ridicule them?
> What I care about is fraud, lies, and
> bait-and-switch, all of which are perpetrated by the Church of
> Scientology[tm].
Paul, you seem like a nice fellow, intelligent and interested in CofS
and what threat (real or imagined) it may pose to whomever. But, because
you, me or anyone else calls something a fraud, or a bait-and-switch
doesn't mean that it's true. Has CofS defrauded people? I'm certain that
specific reg's and other staff, in specified cases throughout the
history of CofS have done so. The same for bait-and-switch. But does
that mean the entire membership, all it's staff, and each and every
person who is involved in selling these services is, by association, a
criminal? Nope. Not even close. When you read a headline about a
Catholic priest debauching himself with young boys do you immediatly
rush to the alt.religion.catholic ng and demand they be exposed as a
worlwide cult of pedophiles who have defrauded their members by asking
for donations in exchange for eternal salvation while secretly just
wanting to diddle their kids?
Whatever CofS's actual membership is, it's considerable. In there among
the majority are a few liars, cheats and crooks. So what? Same holds
true for ars most likely. And from time to time people who are also Scn
die. So what? Not every death is a 'cult death', nor, for that matter,
has it been proven yet that any deaths are 'cult deaths' (whatever that
is).
Many Ars posters will continue to demonize and degrade any who disagree
with them, citing the fraud&lies belief as the basis of their attacks.
Claiming that Scn has to prove anything is a dead horse. The burden of
proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the accusers, not the accused
in all but tax law, environmental law and labor law (to name a few) and
no matter how loud you yell, how long you howl or how many "Scientology
Kills" pickets you make, CofS is much more experienced and well versed
at this game and will very likely outlive the usefulness of this ng.
> No hypocrisy, here, Wolf.
That remains to be seen. How pious do you claim to be? <grin>
Wolf
Realpch
In France in l925, a man named Victor Lustig sold the Eiffel Tower, not once,
but twice.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <199804110436...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Realpch
<rea...@aol.com> writes
>In France in l925, a man named Victor Lustig sold the Eiffel Tower, not once,
>but twice.
But didn't the two owners get in an argument then?
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Brent Stone
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 21:56:27 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Paul wrote:
>>
>> Wolf wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > As for the idea that
>> > religious truth isn't unclear because it draws on revelation (which we
>> > all know to be a subjective phenomena), I disagree, as do most of the
>> > ARS critics who deny that Scientology offers even the merest gain
>> > because it can't be lab tested.
>>
>> While there are probably a few critics who maintain that, I believe that
>> your sentence above does not apply to the overwhelming majority of the
>> critics.
>
>Okay. I really need to get a newsreader with a filter then.
>
>> The Church of Scientology[tm] maintains that their "gains" *are*
>> scientific and *can* be scientifically tested.
>
>Actually, the CofS maintains that IQ's can be raised and that Purif
>therapy is healthy. No doubt CofS has had some doctors agree on both
>counts. But that's not the point. The point is that Scn services are not
>sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
>proven to do anything.
If claiming to be the "modern science of mental health", a "discovery"
equivalent to that of the discovery of fire or the wheel, with more
"scientific research" than any other field doesn't claim to be science,
I don't know what does. The blatant false claims of curing disease,
solving problems with life, etc. with the "scientifically proven"
E-Meter are sold as a proven science. The end result is sold as the
"Homo Novis", a new species of human with super-human powers.
>> After more than forty years, the
>> Church of Scientology[tm] has not backed up *any* of these claims with
>> *any* evidence whatsoever. Given that information, and given Hubbard's
>> complete lack of qualifications, I remain highly skeptical of the
>> claims.
>
>No doubt with good cause. CofS made stronger claims in the 50's and 60's
>than they have the last 30 years. Heat from outside critics back then
>along with FDA interest in them were likely the reasons for not only the
>grade chart, but for the shift in entry level marketing to happiness and
>well-being rather than unprovable god-like abilities.
The claims are still made, just not as boldly where the FDA among others
can see them. NOTS 22 and 34 market the same things, and the members are
given to believe that "we can't advertise the things we can really do
because the 'evil' government is trying to stop us, but 'we all know that'
we can really cure disease, etc.".
>> The burden of proof rests with the individual or organization making the
>> claims. To date, the Church of Scientology[tm] has not met that burden
>> of proof.
>
>And why should they? At least to you or any other critic? You're not
>buying what they're selling so it's not a productive use of time. The
>ploy of hurling an accusation at a target and then demanding the target
>prove it's not true is showmanship and PR on either side of an argument.
>Politicians do it every election cycle and historically we all know it
>as a 'witch hunt'. As long as CofS maintains cash flow and
>constitutional protection as a church they are under no obligation to
>prove anything to you or any critic. What they *must* prove though, to
>their customers, is that it's worth the money - subjectively or
>otherwise.
They "should" provide proof, even to us degraded beings who have the
audacity to criticize them for the simple reason that we wouldn't
call it a fraud if it wasn't one. Either they are selling a fraud
with no evidence of it providing what they sell it to be, or they
are covering up the evidence, "pulling in" the charges of fraud.
The criticism would go away if they could show any evidence.
Unfortunately, the US government is so overprotective of the public
(ie. forcing manufactures to put labels on products that detail
essentially "don't be stupid when using this product"), that the
public has come to _expect_ the government to be their babysitter
("but nobody _told_ me the coffee was hot and not to spill it on
myself"). The fact that the government does not do this for
"religious" claims leaves a public that is gullible to believing
them purely because they expect their babysitter to protect them.
>> > Simply put, the subjective gains, truths
>> > and beliefs of a confirmed CofS'er do appear irrational, incoherent and
>> > unclear and this ng is merciless in it's attacks on those beliefs.
>>
>> Not really. Most of us don't give a damn what Scientologists believe.
>> I don't care if they believe in Xenu or body thetans or engrams or
>> anything like that.
>
>Excuse me? Have you filtered out 99% of the posts on this newsgroup? The
>bulk of posters on ars enjoy the
>clam-cootie-brainwashed-clambot-$ciendroid name calling and derision of
>not only the CofS materials, but the ars posters who claim to be
>members. If they doesn't give a damn about the beliefs, then why
>ridicule them?
When the "church" lies to their recruits about their core beliefs,
the recruits cannot possibly determine for themselves on a rational
basis whether or not to join. When they charge huge sums of money
for discovering these beliefs, the person going in should be allowed
to know that the "modern science" they are signing up for believes
that space aliens are the cause of their problems. If they still
want to exorcise dead space aliens, it's up to them, but not telling
them what they are signing up for is bait-and-switch in my opinion.
>> What I care about is fraud, lies, and
>> bait-and-switch, all of which are perpetrated by the Church of
>> Scientology[tm].
>
>Paul, you seem like a nice fellow, intelligent and interested in CofS
>and what threat (real or imagined) it may pose to whomever. But, because
>you, me or anyone else calls something a fraud, or a bait-and-switch
>doesn't mean that it's true. Has CofS defrauded people? I'm certain that
>specific reg's and other staff, in specified cases throughout the
>history of CofS have done so. The same for bait-and-switch. But does
>that mean the entire membership, all it's staff, and each and every
>person who is involved in selling these services is, by association, a
>criminal? Nope. Not even close. When you read a headline about a
>Catholic priest debauching himself with young boys do you immediatly
>rush to the alt.religion.catholic ng and demand they be exposed as a
>worlwide cult of pedophiles who have defrauded their members by asking
>for donations in exchange for eternal salvation while secretly just
>wanting to diddle their kids?
I don't see any _policy_ of the catholic church to diddle kids. I _do_
see _policy_ of Co$ to lie, harass, hi-pressure "sell", commit criminal
acts and generally be anti-social. Even at that, I would protest
when the catholic church tries to cover up for their priests, but it's
not at all like when a "church" covers up for their active and written
_policy_ of those kinds of actions.
>Whatever CofS's actual membership is, it's considerable. In there among
>the majority are a few liars, cheats and crooks. So what? Same holds
>true for ars most likely. And from time to time people who are also Scn
>die. So what? Not every death is a 'cult death', nor, for that matter,
>has it been proven yet that any deaths are 'cult deaths' (whatever that
>is).
The problem as I see it is that the "liars, cheats and crooks" are the
ones directing the thing, and the lying, cheating and stealing are
the core of the church's policies.
>Many Ars posters will continue to demonize and degrade any who disagree
>with them, citing the fraud&lies belief as the basis of their attacks.
>Claiming that Scn has to prove anything is a dead horse. The burden of
>proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the accusers, not the accused
>in all but tax law, environmental law and labor law (to name a few) and
>no matter how loud you yell, how long you howl or how many "Scientology
>Kills" pickets you make, CofS is much more experienced and well versed
>at this game and will very likely outlive the usefulness of this ng.
If they don't want me to criticize, they can stop lying and covering up
the problems. When they fix the problems, I won't have to criticize.
It's like the catholic "problem" above, allowing the problems to be
solved clears up criticism. Screaming that anyone who criticizes
is a "hateful, lying bigot" and continuing to do the things that are
being criticized will keep the criticism active.
William Barwell
In article <352EDA...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Rebecca Hartong wrote:
>
>> I believe you may have misinterpreted the objection many a.r.s. critics have
>> regarding the CoS's claims about the benefits of Scientology. The problem
>> is not that the church claims Scientology is beneficial-- the problem is
>> that they claim the benefits of Scientology have been scientifically
>> verified.
>
>Without having to go thru the entire litany of ars *documentation* and
>assertions about CofS claims, I agree up to a point that CofS literature
>has made certain claims (such as increased IQ or theraputic value of
>sweating) that they say are scientifically proven. Those claims
>represent a small percentage of what CofS promotes. Since the major part
>of what they are selling has very little to do with IQ or purif rundowns
>it's hardly accurate to judge the entire subject based on those few
>items.
You have to judge the whole on its various parts.
Yes, IQ raising is a big part of the claims Scientology uses
to sucker in new recruits. It peddles this claim in Dianetics
and I have seen it in a few of their propaganda rags like Expansion.
Purif is pushed as a cure all for whatever, and the book
Clear Body Clear Mind is peddled in sports magazines and other places
whereever they cult thinks it might find suckers who'll by their
pseudiscience claims for Purif. Two years ago, somebody spotted
ads fo PBPM in a magazine aimed at firemen.
They do sell LOTS of other claims, Way to Happiness campaigns,
Man From Mud, and more.
Whatever they can come up with, they push. And all of it makes
big claims, and none of their claims can offer evidnce for
their claims. Whether it is recruitment for Narconon, and they do
have campaigns to get radio stations to broadcast PSA for Narconon,
or sales campaigns for "Fundamentals of Thought", the point
is, they offer neither evidence for any claims, and often lie
about what Scientology is really about to boot.
>
>> As you say, the benefits of religious practice are largely subjective. I
>> have no doubt--and I suspect the majority of other a.r.s. critics would
>> agree--that most active Scientologists believe they are benefiting from the
>> tech.
>
>Here I disagree. The majority of ars critics revel in name-calling and
>paranoid delusions about the threat of CofS to everything from mankind's
>ultimate fate to free speech.
Not all do. I have often stated they are cockroaches, they carry off
little but simply make a mess.
To the point that a recent poster, when
>describing her husband's involvement with a consulting group, expressed
>that had she gone to a meeting she might have had R-45 run on her.
To paint all critics as being this paranoid is silly.
****************** Deleted ******************
>It has long been my view that continual braying attacks of the nature
>you find on ars make a group stronger, not weaker. What ars has done is
>force CofS to find ways to deal with their attacks, to shore up their
>edges, to better inform their members to get creative in advertising and
>dissem and to dispense with marginal lawyers and hire more skilled ones.
I don't know that they have gotten that much more clever.
Their idiot Men from Mud commercials for FOT are apparently
so ludicrous they are disasters.
Pushing the deranged book "A New Slant on Life" is about as
idiot a dissemination effort as one can think of.
They have the same old lawyers as always. Their way of dealing with
attacks is to let Justin and Gertie ramble. Not like the old days
wheer Kobby threatened lawsuits daily, or the failed massive spam
bombing we saw last year. They are avoiding new lawsuits.
About all they can do is claose down their orgs when picketers
come, sic their PIs on people like Minton and the Youngs,
and DA people with ludicrous Freedom magazine style pamphlets.
Nothing new or clever here, except for shutting down Orgs.
>
>In the meantime, CofS still has that religious protection thingie that
>chafes us all.
And a lot of new bad publicity, plus Xenu keeps getting into the news.
>
>BTW, it's nice to see that admist all the foul-mouthed, copy-cat SP4
>wannabe's and other bored ego cases looking for something to be a victim
>of, ARS seems to have retained a number of intelligent posters and
>attracted a new group who might actually be able to find a way past the
>fake-religion protection CofS enjoys.
Clams and Xenu and space cooties.
The best thing in the long run is to laugh them out of existance.
When the entire world knew that the spirits seen in Spiritualist
churches were the mediums prancing around in the dark wearing
cheezeclothe doused with phosphorescent paint, the Spiritualist
churches died.
When the world knows Scientology is about exorcising
space cooties, they will have a hard time getting new
suckers.
Last year, they admitted in a court of law that this was no secret,
no trade secret as they once wanted to claim, and a case against
the Washington Post was thrown out of court because it wasn't against the
law for the WP to mention Xenu.
They are dying a long slow death.
The jig is up.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Wolf
Brent Stone wrote:
> >> Wolf wrote:
> >Actually, the CofS maintains that IQ's can be raised and that Purif
> >therapy is healthy. No doubt CofS has had some doctors agree on both
> >counts. But that's not the point. The point is that Scn services are not
> >sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
> >proven to do anything.
>
> If claiming to be the "modern science of mental health", a "discovery"
> equivalent to that of the discovery of fire or the wheel, with more
> "scientific research" than any other field doesn't claim to be science,
> I don't know what does.
Hubbard, like thousands of other pitchmen, wrote what he figured would
sell the most of his books and services. Ad copy doesn't always qualify
as fraud just because it's hype.
> The blatant false claims of curing disease,
> solving problems with life, etc. with the "scientifically proven"
> E-Meter are sold as a proven science. The end result is sold as the
> "Homo Novis", a new species of human with super-human powers.
The e-meter does do something. And it has been proven that whatever that
something is, it is definitly happening. It's certainly a matter of
opinion exactly what the e-meter is registering. As for curing disease,
solving problems, etc., so what? That's what faith healing, herbal
medicine, exorcism, prayer, copper bracelets, chiropractic, channelling
and a host of other beliefs and practices claim to do also.
> The claims are still made, just not as boldly where the FDA among others
> can see them. NOTS 22 and 34 market the same things, and the members are
> given to believe that "we can't advertise the things we can really do
> because the 'evil' government is trying to stop us, but 'we all know that'
> we can really cure disease, etc.".
Your point is what? That CofS ought not to have the right to promote
within their membership an alleged spiritual gain? Or that because they
have the idea that the gov't is evil and working against them that they
should be restricted from transmitting it? This is where many on the ars
become self-appointed dispensers of 'truth'. My question then might be
this: who annointed you (collectively) to save others from choices they
make of their own free will?
> They "should" provide proof, even to us degraded beings who have the
> audacity to criticize them for the simple reason that we wouldn't
> call it a fraud if it wasn't one. Either they are selling a fraud
> with no evidence of it providing what they sell it to be, or they
> are covering up the evidence, "pulling in" the charges of fraud.
> The criticism would go away if they could show any evidence.
No they shouldn't. Not unless it can be proven, legally, that CofS does
not have the right to pursue their goals and growth. My contention is
that CofS is in actuality a for-profit service organization that ought
be be stripped of the religious shield it operates under. At that point
it would be required to tailor it's advertising to laws governing the
competitive marketplace.
> Unfortunately, the US government is so overprotective of the public
> (ie. forcing manufactures to put labels on products that detail
> essentially "don't be stupid when using this product"), that the
> public has come to _expect_ the government to be their babysitter
> ("but nobody _told_ me the coffee was hot and not to spill it on
> myself"). The fact that the government does not do this for
> "religious" claims leaves a public that is gullible to believing
> them purely because they expect their babysitter to protect them.
Fair enough. Now that you've sourced the real evil SP's (the gov't),
then it seems to me that attacking CofS serves little purpose. OTOH, I'd
suggest that if the gov't stripped religion of it's protections under
the constitution that a few other problems would befall us. The solution
is not to change the constitution, but to be more restrictive of what is
protected by it.
> When the "church" lies to their recruits about their core beliefs,
> the recruits cannot possibly determine for themselves on a rational
> basis whether or not to join.
This is one of the more arrogant and false accusations on ars. Xenu,
BT's and Marcabs are not a 'core belief' of CofS. They are specifically
a background filler to CofS's reason that one ought to pay for NOTS and
OT3. For you, me or anyone else to determine from a distance that
because we don't believe it then anyone who does is not capable of
making an informed decision, is the worst sort of arrogance. Tomorrow
millions of people will celebrate the notion that a man died and then
rose from the grave. I personally don't believe that but I don't
consider that I'm entitled to determine that people who do are not
capable of determining on a *rational* basis whether to donate to their
church.
> When they charge huge sums of money
> for discovering these beliefs, the person going in should be allowed
> to know that the "modern science" they are signing up for believes
> that space aliens are the cause of their problems. If they still
> want to exorcise dead space aliens, it's up to them, but not telling
> them what they are signing up for is bait-and-switch in my opinion.
I'm sorry, but bait-and-switch is not what you think it is. CofS is not
advertising one thing at a low price to lure customers in and then
claiming they are out-of-stock on the sale item in order to switch the
buyer to an overpriced item. That IS bait-and-switch.
> >When you read a headline about a
> >Catholic priest debauching himself with young boys do you immediatly
> >rush to the alt.religion.catholic ng and demand they be exposed as a
> >worlwide cult of pedophiles who have defrauded their members by asking
> >for donations in exchange for eternal salvation while secretly just
> >wanting to diddle their kids?
>
> I don't see any _policy_ of the catholic church to diddle kids. I _do_
> see _policy_ of Co$ to lie, harass, hi-pressure "sell", commit criminal
> acts and generally be anti-social. Even at that, I would protest
> when the catholic church tries to cover up for their priests, but it's
> not at all like when a "church" covers up for their active and written
> _policy_ of those kinds of actions.
If indeed CofS had a policy of committing crimes in order to hawk it's
wares, then no doubt it would have been prosecuted many years ago. In
essence, you have confirmed my point in your paragraph above. That is
that CofS has been aggressively investigated by a plethora of gov't and
private sources for over 40 years and it has not been proven that it is
a criminal conspiracy or that it has perpetuated a policy of malicious
fraud in order to sell it's offerings. The same holds true, I would
assume, of instances where Catholic priests, teachers in public schools
or elected officals have broken laws. Branding an entire group, class or
market segment as 'criminal' by citing antecdotal instances of criminal
behaviour is (sorry) both uninformed and stupid.
> The problem as I see it is that the "liars, cheats and crooks" are the
> ones directing the thing, and the lying, cheating and stealing are
> the core of the church's policies.
I'll restate the obvious: since only upper management *can* direct
things in CofS, it's easy to see that when a criminal act might occur,
that it's from within the management structure. The suggestion that
lying, cheating and stealing are at the core of their policy is
ludicrous. I'll point out here that there is a world of difference
between the Sea Org and what goes on there and the bulk of mainstream
Scientology. I'm not about to defend the existence or rideculousness of
SO policies or the effects on SO members, I dislike utterly that aspect
of CofS.
> If they don't want me to criticize, they can stop lying and covering up
> the problems. When they fix the problems, I won't have to criticize.
> It's like the catholic "problem" above, allowing the problems to be
> solved clears up criticism. Screaming that anyone who criticizes
> is a "hateful, lying bigot" and continuing to do the things that are
> being criticized will keep the criticism active.
It's my view that CofS could care less whether you, or the bulk of
posters on ars, criticize them. In fact, they could care less who you
are or that you even exist. In short, you're moot. That's because you're
not a prospect. What the CofS does care about is the state of mind of
their customers. To the extent that ars can disway potential customers
from buying service, ars becomes a problem. But from the perspective of
one who has long experience with CofS and who is not (like many *weeping
victims* on ars) blaming CofS for decisions I made of my own free will,
it's easy to see that CofS has little to worry about from ars as long as
the focus of this group is name-calling, paranoid conspiracy rants,
accusations of murder squads and pet disposal teams and endless
offensive posts from boring know-nothings. Present company excepted, of
course.
Wolf
kEvin
>Actually, the CofS maintains that IQ's can be raised and that Purif
>therapy is healthy. No doubt CofS has had some doctors agree on both
>counts. But that's not the point. The point is that Scn services are not
>sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
>proven to do anything.
I've gone into two different orgs at two different times and listened
to the recruiting sales pitch that they use on people coming in off the
street to take the personality test. Both times I was told that Dianetic
auditing was scientifically verified.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
Rob Clark
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998 20:51:18 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Rebecca Hartong wrote:
>> I believe you may have misinterpreted the objection many a.r.s. critics have
>> regarding the CoS's claims about the benefits of Scientology. The problem
>> is not that the church claims Scientology is beneficial-- the problem is
>> that they claim the benefits of Scientology have been scientifically
>> verified.
>BTW, it's nice to see that admist all the foul-mouthed, copy-cat SP4
>wannabe's and other bored ego cases looking for something to be a victim
>of, ARS seems to have retained a number of intelligent posters and
>attracted a new group who might actually be able to find a way past the
>fake-religion protection CofS enjoys.
i still disagree in essence with what you're saying. . .and take some
of your comments as stinging insults.
regardless, welcome back. you have always had style AND substance.
i'll slag you off some later ;-)
>Wolf
rob
Wolf
> rob
Thanx Rob. I can't wait. I'll hang out until DM and The Loyal Officer
Troop needs my services again.
Wolf
Brent Stone
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:58:25 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Brent Stone wrote:
>
>> >> Wolf wrote:
>
>> >Actually, the CofS maintains that IQ's can be raised and that Purif
>> >therapy is healthy. No doubt CofS has had some doctors agree on both
>> >counts. But that's not the point. The point is that Scn services are not
>> >sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
>> >proven to do anything.
>>
>> If claiming to be the "modern science of mental health", a "discovery"
>> equivalent to that of the discovery of fire or the wheel, with more
>> "scientific research" than any other field doesn't claim to be science,
>> I don't know what does.
>
>Hubbard, like thousands of other pitchmen, wrote what he figured would
>sell the most of his books and services. Ad copy doesn't always qualify
>as fraud just because it's hype.
There are clear definitions in the law of the differences between
hype and fraudulent claims. Calling your product "the best" for
example, is allowed as 'hype'. On the other hand, saying that your
product produces a specific result which it does not produce is fraud.
Hubbard claimed 'scientific research' 'proved' the absurd results he
promised (such as raising IQ one point per auditing hour). That is
a lie and fraud under any definition of the term.
>> The blatant false claims of curing disease,
>> solving problems with life, etc. with the "scientifically proven"
>> E-Meter are sold as a proven science. The end result is sold as the
>> "Homo Novis", a new species of human with super-human powers.
>
>The e-meter does do something. And it has been proven that whatever that
>something is, it is definitly happening. It's certainly a matter of
>opinion exactly what the e-meter is registering. As for curing disease,
>solving problems, etc., so what? That's what faith healing, herbal
>medicine, exorcism, prayer, copper bracelets, chiropractic, channelling
>and a host of other beliefs and practices claim to do also.
Again, it is _sold_ as "scientifically proven", not as "faith".
>> The claims are still made, just not as boldly where the FDA among others
>> can see them. NOTS 22 and 34 market the same things, and the members are
>> given to believe that "we can't advertise the things we can really do
>> because the 'evil' government is trying to stop us, but 'we all know that'
>> we can really cure disease, etc.".
>
>Your point is what? That CofS ought not to have the right to promote
>within their membership an alleged spiritual gain? Or that because they
>have the idea that the gov't is evil and working against them that they
>should be restricted from transmitting it? This is where many on the ars
>become self-appointed dispensers of 'truth'. My question then might be
>this: who annointed you (collectively) to save others from choices they
>make of their own free will?
Cures for disease using the E-Meter are the subject of a consent decree
that Scientology signed. _They_ promised never to claim cures for disease
in order to get out of being prosecuted for illegally making the claims
in the first place. If they thought it was within the law to make the
claims they were making, their army of lawyers would not have suggested
signing the consent decree. _Now_ they are _breaking_ the consent decree
that _they_ agreed to.
>> They "should" provide proof, even to us degraded beings who have the
>> audacity to criticize them for the simple reason that we wouldn't
>> call it a fraud if it wasn't one. Either they are selling a fraud
>> with no evidence of it providing what they sell it to be, or they
>> are covering up the evidence, "pulling in" the charges of fraud.
>> The criticism would go away if they could show any evidence.
>
>No they shouldn't. Not unless it can be proven, legally, that CofS does
>not have the right to pursue their goals and growth. My contention is
>that CofS is in actuality a for-profit service organization that ought
>be be stripped of the religious shield it operates under. At that point
>it would be required to tailor it's advertising to laws governing the
>competitive marketplace.
There is no special shield for false advertising granted to religions
in the US. In fact, if there were such a thing, it would violate the
Establishment Clause. You can advertise something as 'faith' based
whether or not you are a religious organization, but regardless of
whether you claim to be a religious organization, you cannot make
false claims of medical healing.
>> Unfortunately, the US government is so overprotective of the public
>> (ie. forcing manufactures to put labels on products that detail
>> essentially "don't be stupid when using this product"), that the
>> public has come to _expect_ the government to be their babysitter
>> ("but nobody _told_ me the coffee was hot and not to spill it on
>> myself"). The fact that the government does not do this for
>> "religious" claims leaves a public that is gullible to believing
>> them purely because they expect their babysitter to protect them.
>
>Fair enough. Now that you've sourced the real evil SP's (the gov't),
>then it seems to me that attacking CofS serves little purpose. OTOH, I'd
>suggest that if the gov't stripped religion of it's protections under
>the constitution that a few other problems would befall us. The solution
>is not to change the constitution, but to be more restrictive of what is
>protected by it.
I'm not claiming the government is at fault here, more like the people
are at fault for suing for such ridiculous claims, forcing the stupidity.
The failure of the government to follow the same rules for 'religions'
as for other enterprises does seem to be illegal to me.
>> When the "church" lies to their recruits about their core beliefs,
>> the recruits cannot possibly determine for themselves on a rational
>> basis whether or not to join.
>
>This is one of the more arrogant and false accusations on ars. Xenu,
>BT's and Marcabs are not a 'core belief' of CofS. They are specifically
>a background filler to CofS's reason that one ought to pay for NOTS and
>OT3. For you, me or anyone else to determine from a distance that
>because we don't believe it then anyone who does is not capable of
>making an informed decision, is the worst sort of arrogance. Tomorrow
>millions of people will celebrate the notion that a man died and then
>rose from the grave. I personally don't believe that but I don't
>consider that I'm entitled to determine that people who do are not
>capable of determining on a *rational* basis whether to donate to their
>church.
Nobody sells you one claim (Dianetics auditing) while hiding the 'real'
truth from you in Christianity. You know going in that the story of
Christ is a major part of it, and the story is not hidden from you.
Scientology charges most of the money selling you exorcising BTs,
yet _denies_ publicly that that is _any_ part of their beliefs.
>> When they charge huge sums of money
>> for discovering these beliefs, the person going in should be allowed
>> to know that the "modern science" they are signing up for believes
>> that space aliens are the cause of their problems. If they still
>> want to exorcise dead space aliens, it's up to them, but not telling
>> them what they are signing up for is bait-and-switch in my opinion.
>
>I'm sorry, but bait-and-switch is not what you think it is. CofS is not
>advertising one thing at a low price to lure customers in and then
>claiming they are out-of-stock on the sale item in order to switch the
>buyer to an overpriced item. That IS bait-and-switch.
And the 'sale' item is engrams as the cause of your problem. They are
not 'out of stock', they just tell you that all the claims they made
for auditing out 'engrams' only come when you audit out 'BTs'. You
are only told _that_ after you have paid for the first part.
Bait-and-switch includes advertising one item and then telling the
customer when he gets there that the item advertised is really no
good for the purpose, and you 'need' a more expensive product. In
the case of CoS, they let you buy the product that "doesn't work",
then they sell a far more expensive product for the same results.
(the fact that the more expensive product _also_ doesn't work is
a different problem)
>> >When you read a headline about a
>> >Catholic priest debauching himself with young boys do you immediatly
>> >rush to the alt.religion.catholic ng and demand they be exposed as a
>> >worlwide cult of pedophiles who have defrauded their members by asking
>> >for donations in exchange for eternal salvation while secretly just
>> >wanting to diddle their kids?
>>
>> I don't see any _policy_ of the catholic church to diddle kids. I _do_
>> see _policy_ of Co$ to lie, harass, hi-pressure "sell", commit criminal
>> acts and generally be anti-social. Even at that, I would protest
>> when the catholic church tries to cover up for their priests, but it's
>> not at all like when a "church" covers up for their active and written
>> _policy_ of those kinds of actions.
>
>If indeed CofS had a policy of committing crimes in order to hawk it's
>wares, then no doubt it would have been prosecuted many years ago. In
>essence, you have confirmed my point in your paragraph above. That is
>that CofS has been aggressively investigated by a plethora of gov't and
>private sources for over 40 years and it has not been proven that it is
>a criminal conspiracy or that it has perpetuated a policy of malicious
>fraud in order to sell it's offerings. The same holds true, I would
>assume, of instances where Catholic priests, teachers in public schools
>or elected officals have broken laws. Branding an entire group, class or
>market segment as 'criminal' by citing antecdotal instances of criminal
>behaviour is (sorry) both uninformed and stupid.
Let's go back to NOTS 22 and 34 for starters here, then add the training
routines for lying, the policies of covering up criminal activity (ie.
Tony Strawn), the policies of abusing the courts to harass, and the
many other unethical and illegal actions _written_ into the 'scripture'.
>> The problem as I see it is that the "liars, cheats and crooks" are the
>> ones directing the thing, and the lying, cheating and stealing are
>> the core of the church's policies.
>
>I'll restate the obvious: since only upper management *can* direct
>things in CofS, it's easy to see that when a criminal act might occur,
>that it's from within the management structure. The suggestion that
>lying, cheating and stealing are at the core of their policy is
>ludicrous. I'll point out here that there is a world of difference
>between the Sea Org and what goes on there and the bulk of mainstream
>Scientology. I'm not about to defend the existence or rideculousness of
>SO policies or the effects on SO members, I dislike utterly that aspect
>of CofS.
That's the point. I have no argument with Scientologists, just with the
management pursuing these practices. The core of Scientology to the
members is different than the core reasons for Scientology as viewed
by management. I believe that management is on a power trip at the
expense of the members.
>> If they don't want me to criticize, they can stop lying and covering up
>> the problems. When they fix the problems, I won't have to criticize.
>> It's like the catholic "problem" above, allowing the problems to be
>> solved clears up criticism. Screaming that anyone who criticizes
>> is a "hateful, lying bigot" and continuing to do the things that are
>> being criticized will keep the criticism active.
>
>It's my view that CofS could care less whether you, or the bulk of
>posters on ars, criticize them. In fact, they could care less who you
>are or that you even exist. In short, you're moot. That's because you're
>not a prospect. What the CofS does care about is the state of mind of
>their customers. To the extent that ars can disway potential customers
>from buying service, ars becomes a problem. But from the perspective of
>one who has long experience with CofS and who is not (like many *weeping
>victims* on ars) blaming CofS for decisions I made of my own free will,
>it's easy to see that CofS has little to worry about from ars as long as
>the focus of this group is name-calling, paranoid conspiracy rants,
>accusations of murder squads and pet disposal teams and endless
>offensive posts from boring know-nothings. Present company excepted, of
>course.
Great, now can you tell us what would be effective to stop the abuse?
>Wolf
- Brent
Wolf
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <352EDA...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
Those claims
> >represent a small percentage of what CofS promotes. Since the major part
> >of what they are selling has very little to do with IQ or purif rundowns
> >it's hardly accurate to judge the entire subject based on those few
> >items.
>
> You have to judge the whole on its various parts.
> Yes, IQ raising is a big part of the claims Scientology uses
> to sucker in new recruits. It peddles this claim in Dianetics
> and I have seen it in a few of their propaganda rags like Expansion.
Agreed. CofS claims auditing will raise IQ.
> Purif is pushed as a cure all for whatever, and the book
> Clear Body Clear Mind is peddled in sports magazines and other places
> whereever they cult thinks it might find suckers who'll by their
> pseudiscience claims for Purif. Two years ago, somebody spotted
> ads fo PBPM in a magazine aimed at firemen.
Agreed. I've seen some of the ads as well.
> They do sell LOTS of other claims, Way to Happiness campaigns,
> Man From Mud, and more.
Agreed.
> Whatever they can come up with, they push. And all of it makes
> big claims, and none of their claims can offer evidnce for
> their claims. Whether it is recruitment for Narconon, and they do
> have campaigns to get radio stations to broadcast PSA for Narconon,
> or sales campaigns for "Fundamentals of Thought", the point
> is, they offer neither evidence for any claims, and often lie
> about what Scientology is really about to boot.
I think you probably know my pov on this: CofS doesn't see the need to
prove claims that are (at least in their view) subjective and
'unprovable' to critics. From the perspective I have (having earned my
living selling their services) Scientology services are not *about* bt's
and above. It's about selling services, be it a CC, a Study course a
sweat routine or NOTS. It only graduates to being about upper levels
when they get a prospect to that point.
> >Here I disagree. The majority of ars critics revel in name-calling and
> >paranoid delusions about the threat of CofS to everything from mankind's
> >ultimate fate to free speech.
>
> Not all do. I have often stated they are cockroaches, they carry off
> little but simply make a mess.
Heh. Now you are being modest and understating it just a tad. I do know
what your pov is.
> To the point that a recent poster, when
> >describing her husband's involvement with a consulting group, expressed
> >that had she gone to a meeting she might have had R-45 run on her.
>
> To paint all critics as being this paranoid is silly.
> ****************** Deleted ******************
Good point. To paint all Scientologists as uninformed victims of a
criminal conspiracy is silly.
> >to shore up their
> >edges, to better inform their members to get creative in advertising and
> >dissem and to dispense with marginal lawyers and hire more skilled ones.
>
> I don't know that they have gotten that much more clever.
> Their idiot Men from Mud commercials for FOT are apparently
> so ludicrous they are disasters.
That's your opinion. I strongly doubt you, or anyone on this ng has
anything even close to whatever stats CofS considers when it evaluates
an advertising pgm.
> Pushing the deranged book "A New Slant on Life" is about as
> idiot a dissemination effort as one can think of.
You obviously don't earn your keep by selling. NSOL is a terrific
selling tool. Having sold millions of dollars of Scientology services,
this is something I do know. Another way to look at it: when I sold
Mercedes the 'chatter' was that the first $100,000 production car would
be a flop. It seems the only people forcasting MBZ failure were those
who either couldn't afford one or wouldn't. Meanwhile people lined up to
buy them. I think it's beyond dispute that CofS understands how to sell.
>They are avoiding new lawsuits.
When possible I'm sure.
> About all they can do is claose down their orgs when picketers
> come, sic their PIs on people like Minton and the Youngs,
> and DA people with ludicrous Freedom magazine style pamphlets.
> Nothing new or clever here, except for shutting down Orgs.
I'd suggest that to CofS, this is a war. ARS is just a new tactic to
them. I think that the valid success of ars lies in bringing an expanded
public focus onto CofS. The fact that much of what is seen is here
repetition of decades old antecdotes or problems that CofS dealt with
(Snow White for example) or just accusations without substance has not
been missed by mngmnt. The fact that you won't come off your contention
that publications like Freedom are ludicrous or that NSOL is deranged
just shows that you're thinking like an enemy, not like a Scientologist.
In fact, the larger thing being missed here is you're not thinking like
a potential Scientologist. This may not matter to you, but I assure you
it's a weakness that CofS can exploit to their benefit.
> >In the meantime, CofS still has that religious protection thingie that
> >chafes us all.
>
> And a lot of new bad publicity, plus Xenu keeps getting into the news.
That it does. Guess what? This matters more to you than it does to CofS.
It's already happened. Long before ars occured. That's my point. They
have learned how to deal with it by publishing ludicrous magazines and
having deranged meetings with giant pictures of Ron and cheering wildly
at the *defeats* handed out to the SP's.
> >BTW, it's nice to see that admist all the foul-mouthed, copy-cat SP4
> >wannabe's and other bored ego cases looking for something to be a victim
> >of, ARS seems to have retained a number of intelligent posters and
> >attracted a new group who might actually be able to find a way past the
> >fake-religion protection CofS enjoys.
>
> Clams and Xenu and space cooties.
>
> The best thing in the long run is to laugh them out of existance.
I would expect nothing less of a SubGenius-droid. I'd agree with one
poster (the Pilot?) who states that one of the best things that could
happen to CofS is for them to cancel the J&D policy. Seems to me that
the best Christians are the ones who laugh at Jesus jokes.
> When the entire world knew that the spirits seen in Spiritualist
> churches were the mediums prancing around in the dark wearing
> cheezeclothe doused with phosphorescent paint, the Spiritualist
> churches died.
That was a scam sprung upon a much less sophisticated public. CofS is
far from a scam. It's a sales organization with a 48 year history of
selling and delivering actual services to hundreds of thousands of
people. Arguing the merits of the tech is similar to arguing the merits
of Chevy vs. Ford. The only people who really care are the ones who own
the brand they like already.
> When the world knows Scientology is about exorcising
> space cooties, they will have a hard time getting new
> suckers.
Ah! I see you drive a Ford.
> They are dying a long slow death.
> The jig is up.
Having read similar statements 4 years ago on this ng and having heard
this as far back as 1963, I'd have to assume you are speaking in a
geological time frame when you mention 'long slow death'.
Wolf
Panos Stokas
> That was a scam sprung upon a much less sophisticated public. CofS is
> far from a scam. It's a sales organization with a 48 year history of
> selling and delivering actual services to hundreds of thousands of
> people.
Since the "Church" of Scientology is just a sales organization, why are
they posing as a religion? I can only think of one answer to that:
S C A M !
Rob Clark
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 03:07:50 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
pope charles:
>> They are dying a long slow death.
>> The jig is up.
>Having read similar statements 4 years ago on this ng and having heard
>this as far back as 1963, I'd have to assume you are speaking in a
>geological time frame when you mention 'long slow death'.
i tend to think the news of the imminent demise of scientology is
somewhat exaggerated. i would also agree in general principle that
criticizing something on the net does not in any way threaten that
something. scientology's critics have no power over it that
scientology itself doesn't give them.
that is to say, scientology's critics such as henson and ward and
erlich have struck great blows at the criminals of scientology, with
force and power given to them by scientology.
as long as scientology continues to empower its critics with dirty
tricks and the like, they will be taken seriously. scientology could
destroy the power and influence overnight and even make its critics an
asset simply by applying critical thinking themselves.
that they don't is their own lookout and could be their own demise.
scientology's critics can't destroy it unless it continues to help out
so generously in its own destruction.
>Wolf
rob
William Barwell
In article <353084...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>>
>> In article <352EDA...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Those claims
>> >represent a small percentage of what CofS promotes. Since the major part
>> >of what they are selling has very little to do with IQ or purif rundowns
>> >it's hardly accurate to judge the entire subject based on those few
>> >items.
>>
>> You have to judge the whole on its various parts.
>> Yes, IQ raising is a big part of the claims Scientology uses
>> to sucker in new recruits. It peddles this claim in Dianetics
>> and I have seen it in a few of their propaganda rags like Expansion.
>
>Agreed. CofS claims auditing will raise IQ.
>
****************** Deleted ******************
>
>I think you probably know my pov on this: CofS doesn't see the need to
>prove claims that are (at least in their view) subjective and
>'unprovable' to critics.
If by this, you mean to survive, they can ignore critics and just go
for the suckers, of course, they have been doing this for 48 years now.
SOP.
From the perspective I have (having earned my
>living selling their services) Scientology services are not *about* bt's
>and above. It's about selling services, be it a CC, a Study course a
>sweat routine or NOTS. It only graduates to being about upper levels
>when they get a prospect to that point.
True. And almost assuredly they sell more beginners courses
and books than OT courses.
>
>> >Here I disagree. The majority of ars critics revel in name-calling and
>> >paranoid delusions about the threat of CofS to everything from mankind's
>> >ultimate fate to free speech.
>>
>> Not all do. I have often stated they are cockroaches, they carry off
>> little but simply make a mess.
>
>Heh. Now you are being modest and understating it just a tad. I do know
>what your pov is.
I have several POV depending on exact subject. PIs and thier tricks and
barratry and Clearing the world are all different aspects of Scientology.
>> To the point that a recent poster, when
>> >describing her husband's involvement with a consulting group, expressed
>> >that had she gone to a meeting she might have had R-45 run on her.
>>
>> To paint all critics as being this paranoid is silly.
>> ****************** Deleted ******************
>
>Good point. To paint all Scientologists as uninformed victims of a
>criminal conspiracy is silly.
Yes, some are well informed as to what is going on and do it anyway.
But most lower level Scientologists are dupes, wasting their time
until they catch on a blow, (most do) or get indoctrinated enough
to waste their time in the SO trying to earn enough brownie points
to get those OT courses. Many never get the promised processing and blow
eventually.
Ask those in ARS who spent time on staff if they got the promised auditing
and courses.
>
>> >to shore up their
>> >edges, to better inform their members to get creative in advertising and
>> >dissem and to dispense with marginal lawyers and hire more skilled ones.
>>
>> I don't know that they have gotten that much more clever.
>> Their idiot Men from Mud commercials for FOT are apparently
>> so ludicrous they are disasters.
>
>That's your opinion. I strongly doubt you, or anyone on this ng has
>anything even close to whatever stats CofS considers when it evaluates
>an advertising pgm.
>
Look at Inducto's info on orgs and missions, and check out
the number of new Clears over the last two years or so.
It ain't workin' well. If they are evaluating, I doubt
they are doing a good job of it.
>> Pushing the deranged book "A New Slant on Life" is about as
>> idiot a dissemination effort as one can think of.
>
>You obviously don't earn your keep by selling. NSOL is a terrific
>selling tool. Having sold millions of dollars of Scientology services,
>this is something I do know. Another way to look at it: when I sold
>Mercedes the 'chatter' was that the first $100,000 production car would
>be a flop. It seems the only people forcasting MBZ failure were those
>who either couldn't afford one or wouldn't. Meanwhile people lined up to
>buy them. I think it's beyond dispute that CofS understands how to sell.
We are talking about selling a book to the nose pickin' public.
Not a segment of already convinced clams at an org.
NSOL is a really idiot book, and stuck away in the newage
tripe sections of bookstores, anybody who buys this book is
more likely than not to feel ripped off rather than enlightened.
It's truely a laughable book.
By the way, two days ago at my local magazine rack, I enquired
about sales of Dianetics NSOL and Fundamentals of Thought, all on the
racks there. No sales of FoT. Nor Dianetics.
None. Zip, zero, nada. Without a high pressure rege to peddle these
books, they don't sell. They will sit there until flyblown and tatty,
the covers will be ripped off and return and the books dumped.
New ones will be sent out and the cycle will start again.
Bridge will get the covers and will cut a check to the distributer
in the amount of some thousands of dollars in compliance with
the agreed minimal sales - profit agreement with Bridge.
If the distributer does not make a certain minimum prophet on
Bridge/Hubbard books, Bridge makes up the difference.
At this magazine, paperback store, it has been working this
way for years apparently.
>
>>They are avoiding new lawsuits.
>
>When possible I'm sure.
>
>> About all they can do is close down their orgs when picketers
>> come, sic their PIs on people like Minton and the Youngs,
>> and DA people with ludicrous Freedom magazine style pamphlets.
>> Nothing new or clever here, except for shutting down Orgs.
>
>I'd suggest that to CofS, this is a war. ARS is just a new tactic to
>them. I think that the valid success of ars lies in bringing an expanded
>public focus onto CofS.
True. Of course, expanded media coverage helps too. 60 minutes
mentioning Xenu had far more impact than ARS. One good thing
about ARS is one can actually find ex-members. And Scientology's
tricks and stunts are immediately exposed to the world.
The fact that much of what is seen is here
>repetition of decades old antecdotes or problems that CofS dealt with
>(Snow White for example) or just accusations without substance has not
>been missed by mngmnt.
Ah, but Xenu and BTs is a problem still. You can tell they hate
this. They sued Washington Post and failed. THIS is what hurts them.
The world laughing at them. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and
60 Minutes telling the world about Xenu, BTs, volcanos and atom bombs.
Here one can learn more about these idiocies.
You can bet if there is one thing the cult does not want discussed, it is
this subject, and it will be discussed.
Too bad there isn't anything they can do about it.
Watch the real stats. Number of new Clears.
It is low and I doubt will be climbing in the future.
And this is what matters. A clown that does a few TRs, the
comm course, and wanders off, is a loss. You have to get them
hooked and up to Clear where the real money is to be made
on expensive courses. Scientology doesn't profit much from
people who learn about Xenu and blow, or dead wood that hangs
around the mission buying the occasional book or tape.
As ted Mayett pointed out, it is the occasional big spender
that pays for everything. That goes Clear and beyond.
As I have pointed out, Scientology's own stats show
these Clears are dropping in numbers over the last two years or
so.
Why? Bad publicity. The net. The idiot Golden Age of Tech
recertification effort. Increased media attention. Pickets.
Oafish advertising efforts. stupid stunts galore from Scientology
that has earned them the wrath of governments like Germany and Greece
and France.
I don't see sales campaigns for FoT and NSOL turning this all around,
nor any more halfwitted full page ads like they used in the fight with
Germany. Their crack sales teams can only polish the turd so much.
I can think of a lot of effective things Scientology COULD do, but they
aren't.
(And no, I ain't gonna tell.)
The fact that you won't come off your contention
>that publications like Freedom are ludicrous or that NSOL is deranged
>just shows that you're thinking like an enemy, not like a Scientologist.
No, I am looking at the stats. I have read NSOL and its for the
already convinced. It is not a good sales tool. It is miles
below Dianetics. Freedom is not something most people even know about
or would care about if you handed it to them.
Look at the stats. It will take about 728 years to make that second
50,000 clears. Even if you cut the real number of clears to 25,000,
it would take 364 years to make that.
Cut it to 12,500 Clears. 182 years. 6,250 real Clears, 91 years.
What happened? Do you really think NSOL will turn this around?
>In fact, the larger thing being missed here is you're not thinking like
>a potential Scientologist.
Thank "Bob"!
This may not matter to you, but I assure you
>it's a weakness that CofS can exploit to their benefit.
>
Of course. But then again, the stats seem to suggest potential
Scientologists are rarer now, or that the old ways no longer really
work. If Company A sold 100,000 units 10 years ago and now sells 10,000
units, and uses the same sales approach, something is wrong with company
A's management.
>> >In the meantime, CofS still has that religious protection thingie that
>> >chafes us all.
>>
Which does not help sales.
>> And a lot of new bad publicity, plus Xenu keeps getting into the news.
>
>That it does. Guess what? This matters more to you than it does to CofS.
>It's already happened.
Not to the degree it is now. The Washington Post mattered.
They sued, and lost over the Xenu story. Now 60 Minutes blabbed and so
have other major news outlets, such as the WSJ.
It looks now like almost every major media examination of Scientology
has to mention Xenu, BTs and volcanos.
And if it did not matter to CoS, they would not have bothered to sue the
Washington Post, would they? They knew this would hurt them and tried
to bottle this story up.
Long before ars occured. That's my point. They
>have learned how to deal with it by publishing ludicrous magazines and
>having deranged meetings with giant pictures of Ron and cheering wildly
>at the *defeats* handed out to the SP's.
>
Nobody reads that tripe except Scientologists and sniggering critics.
Most of this goes to people on their idiot mailing list who
say, "Crap, the $!#!#!! have sent more $!#!#!! junkmail to me!
How can I get off this !#!#!! mailing list?". Just before they
pitch it unread in the trashcan.
How many people do you really think read Freedom?
>> >BTW, it's nice to see that admist all the foul-mouthed, copy-cat SP4
>> >wannabe's and other bored ego cases looking for something to be a victim
>> >of, ARS seems to have retained a number of intelligent posters and
>> >attracted a new group who might actually be able to find a way past the
>> >fake-religion protection CofS enjoys.
>>
>> Clams and Xenu and space cooties.
>>
>> The best thing in the long run is to laugh them out of existance.
>
>I would expect nothing less of a SubGenius-droid. I'd agree with one
>poster (the Pilot?) who states that one of the best things that could
>happen to CofS is for them to cancel the J&D policy. Seems to me that
>the best Christians are the ones who laugh at Jesus jokes.
>
Before you can laugh at the Xenu jokes and pluck down
$360,000.00 for the bridge you have to be well indoctrinated.
Nobody is going to hear about Xenu from day one and be willing to pay
$360,000.00.
That is why they are suing Erlich, Henson and Grady Ward.
They thought they could shut people up. That is why they sued the WP.
>> When the entire world knew that the spirits seen in Spiritualist
>> churches were the mediums prancing around in the dark wearing
>> cheezeclothe doused with phosphorescent paint, the Spiritualist
>> churches died.
>
>That was a scam sprung upon a much less sophisticated public.
Actually, some of these scams were FAR more sophisticated
than anything Scientology ever came up with.
A lot of these fake mediums were far better than the fraudulent
Uri Geller ever was.
CofS is
>far from a scam. It's a sales organization with a 48 year history of
>selling and delivering actual services to hundreds of thousands of
>people. Arguing the merits of the tech is similar to arguing the merits
>of Chevy vs. Ford. The only people who really care are the ones who own
>the brand they like already.
>
Scientology has one hell of a turnover and dropout rate.
Very few people stick with this brand and numbers are dropping.
>> When the world knows Scientology is about exorcising
>> space cooties, they will have a hard time getting new
>> suckers.
>
>Ah! I see you drive a Ford.
>
>> They are dying a long slow death.
>> The jig is up.
>
>Having read similar statements 4 years ago on this ng and having heard
>this as far back as 1963, I'd have to assume you are speaking in a
>geological time frame when you mention 'long slow death'.
Let us see what the stats say.
**************************
Is Scientology expanding?
Well, no. Number of Clears is an important Scientology
'stat'. They brag that Scientology has over 47 years, created
"over 50,000" Clears. So according to "The Auditor",
their own propaganda organ, how are they doing lately?
Here are the numbers of new Clears listed.
#271 5 Clears (1998)
#270 16
#269 11 (24 names listed, Duplicates from #269)
#268 0 (Reliably reported as no Clears. I have not seen this issue)
#267 25
#266 0 (Reliably reported as no Clears. I have not seen this issue)
#265 9
#264 ? (I have not seen this issue.)
#263 25
#262 12 (1996)
Total 103 9 issues (#264 not included)
Total for 9 issues, (18 months) = 103, an average of 11.5 per issue,
or 5.7 Clears per month. 68.6 Clears/year average.
Now it would take only 728.8 years to reach the 2nd 50,000 Clears.
I have no list of names for #270, nor do I have issue #264
at all. If anybody has these issues or any from #250 - #261,
please e-mail me with the numbers of Clears for any of these
issues you may have.
All issues are "The Auditor", American Saint Hill Organization
versions. The Auditor is published every other month.
Tilman Hausherr
In <3530ce7f...@news.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com (Rob
Clark) wrote:
>i tend to think the news of the imminent demise of scientology is
>somewhat exaggerated. i would also agree in general principle that
>criticizing something on the net does not in any way threaten that
>something. scientology's critics have no power over it that
>scientology itself doesn't give them.
>
>that is to say, scientology's critics such as henson and ward and
>erlich have struck great blows at the criminals of scientology, with
>force and power given to them by scientology.
Scientology is destroying itself by wasting the money of its
"parishioners". In the Erlich, Henson and Ward case they could have
prevented the alleged copyright violations with just a few thousand $$
to get a restraining order. Instead, they went for full lawsuits and
have now wasted 5 - 10 million dollars.
I wonder what scientologists think that their hard-earned money is not
used to spread the "ethical" (haha!) word around the world, but to amuse
a bunch an unorganised group of internet surfers.
Tilman
Keith Henson
Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
: William Barwell wrote:
snip
: > Clams and Xenu and space cooties.
: >
: > The best thing in the long run is to laugh them out of existance.
: I would expect nothing less of a SubGenius-droid. I'd agree with one
: poster (the Pilot?) who states that one of the best things that could
: happen to CofS is for them to cancel the J&D policy. Seems to me that
: the best Christians are the ones who laugh at Jesus jokes.
Wolf, I don't think they can. As people have pointed out, Miscavige is
no Brigiam Young, so changes to the tech are minimal if at all. Ending
a major feature like the J&D policy might well result in the *members*
going into uncontrolled laughter at their own sillyness. If they actually
had the flexibility to change things, dumping the Introspection Rundown
would be a good first step. But they could never admit that Hubbard did
not know beans about how to take care of psychotic people. Keith Henson
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <353084...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> writes
>
>> To the point that a recent poster, when
>> >describing her husband's involvement with a consulting group, expressed
>> >that had she gone to a meeting she might have had R-45 run on her.
>>
>> To paint all critics as being this paranoid is silly.
>> ****************** Deleted ******************
>
>Good point. To paint all Scientologists as uninformed victims of a
>criminal conspiracy is silly.
"You have a wart on the en of your nose, Wolf."
"Nyaah but you have one on the end of your nose too, Dave."
Hmmm.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is testable reality out there. You do in fact have a wart;
I cannot be made to have a wart by your saying I should.
There are two questions here:
(1) That CofS is a criminal conspiracy, and
(2) that MOST $cientologists are uninformed of its criminality
and get the worst of their bargain with it: they pay real money
to get inmaginary benefits. [You yourself that CoS claim to raise
IQ, and make other claims, but don't fulfil those clams].
Both are pretty easily confirmed.......
Wolf
> >Hubbard, like thousands of other pitchmen, wrote what he figured would
> >sell the most of his books and services. Ad copy doesn't always qualify
> >as fraud just because it's hype.
>
> Calling your product "the best" for
> example, is allowed as 'hype'. On the other hand, saying that your
> product produces a specific result which it does not produce is fraud.
Saying CofS doesn't produce the subjective gains is a _contention_ of
ars critics, not a fact proven in any court I'm aware of.
> Hubbard claimed 'scientific research' 'proved' the absurd results he
> promised (such as raising IQ one point per auditing hour). That is
> a lie and fraud under any definition of the term.
This are ancient claims dating from as far back as 1949.
<snip: e-meter dialog>
> Again, it is _sold_ as "scientifically proven", not as "faith".
I receive no less than 5-10 weekly mailings from CofS organizations
promoting every level and product being offered. Nowhere in any material
I have receieved over the last 25 years is such a claim being made for
the e-meter.
> Cures for disease using the E-Meter are the subject of a consent decree
> that Scientology signed. _They_ promised never to claim cures for disease
> in order to get out of being prosecuted for illegally making the claims
> in the first place.
Is this in reference to the post 63' FDA raids? If so, 35 years have
passed. That's more than three decades for CofS to have been busted. I
think they have a handle on this issue.
> _Now_ they are _breaking_ the consent decree
> that _they_ agreed to.
Again I'll ask, where are they breaking it? In what sales material? What
court is currently pursuing them on this issue?
> You can advertise something as 'faith' based
> whether or not you are a religious organization, but regardless of
> whether you claim to be a religious organization, you cannot make
> false claims of medical healing.
I'll refer to back to the material used in selling and promoting their
wares. I don't see such claims anywhere. As an aside, during my years in
the CofS no organization I was ever involved with promoted (as a
practice) medical healing as an effect of services. Certainly it has
been done, maybe even as a localized sales tactic, but IMO it would be
tough to prove it against the church itself.
> I'm not claiming the government is at fault here, more like the people
> are at fault for suing for such ridiculous claims, forcing the stupidity.
> The failure of the government to follow the same rules for 'religions'
> as for other enterprises does seem to be illegal to me.
Good luck.
> Nobody sells you one claim (Dianetics auditing) while hiding the 'real'
> truth from you in Christianity. You know going in that the story of
> Christ is a major part of it, and the story is not hidden from you.
> Scientology charges most of the money selling you exorcising BTs,
> yet _denies_ publicly that that is _any_ part of their beliefs.
I'm having a hard time seeing your point here. CofS has a grade chart
which lays out for the prospect the exact steps he/she will be expected
to take to attain the lofty heights of cosmic supremeness. Price lists
are published and distributed to every person who even looks like a
potential customer. That they demand security for their upper levels is
not (I think) a fraud or B&S tactic. It is hardly a secret within even
the most rudimentary Dianetic Group that Flag services cost beacoup
dollars.
> >I'm sorry, but bait-and-switch is not what you think it is. CofS is not
> >advertising one thing at a low price to lure customers in and then
> >claiming they are out-of-stock on the sale item in order to switch the
> >buyer to an overpriced item. That IS bait-and-switch.
>
> And the 'sale' item is engrams as the cause of your problem. They are
> not 'out of stock', they just tell you that all the claims they made
> for auditing out 'engrams' only come when you audit out 'BTs'. You
> are only told _that_ after you have paid for the first part.
On this you are incorrect. That's the beauty of the grade chart and the
hazy nature of what one is attesting to at each step along the way. None
of the thousands of members I dealt with for over 17 years were ever
told they'd get OT phenomena on lower levels. OTOH, many did expect that
and were unhappy when they didn't get whatever it was they expected. But
then, that's the nature of selling isn't it? It's strictly a numbers
game. Cherries & Pits as the saying goes.
> Bait-and-switch includes advertising one item and then telling the
> customer when he gets there that the item advertised is really no
> good for the purpose, and you 'need' a more expensive product. In
> the case of CoS, they let you buy the product that "doesn't work",
> then they sell a far more expensive product for the same results.
> (the fact that the more expensive product _also_ doesn't work is
> a different problem)
While that may be a definition of B&S (though I think it's arguable) it
is not what happens in CofS sales and delivery. To begin with, it's your
*opinion* that the tech doesn't work. I don't know if you ever bought
any service, but if you did then I'd suggest that you weren't a viable
prospect for CofS. The bottom line is this - your opinion that the tech
is not effective is not a problem for CofS.
<snip- dialog on lying, etc>
> Let's go back to NOTS 22 and 34 for starters here, then add the training
> routines for lying, the policies of covering up criminal activity (ie.
> Tony Strawn), the policies of abusing the courts to harass, and the
> many other unethical and illegal actions _written_ into the 'scripture'.
This is slippery stuff and not a good battle to fight. Staff training,
legal tactics and cancelled policies are too hazy and maybe even
impossible to 'prove' against CofS. Mostly it comes down to a "He
Said/She Said" impasse like Clinton's current non-crisis (I don't even
know who Tony Strawn is). Railing against alleged crimes and whatever
the upper level stuff is or isn't supposed to do is tilting at windmills
and I think it's exactly what CofS would prefer it's critics to focus
on.
> That's the point. I have no argument with Scientologists, just with the
> management pursuing these practices. The core of Scientology to the
> members is different than the core reasons for Scientology as viewed
> by management. I believe that management is on a power trip at the
> expense of the members.
Okay. Power tripping is not the exclusive territory of CofS and I
believe you'd be correct if you made that statement about any collection
of humans. But I believe it's a mistake to assume that because DM and
the crew may be power freaks, that they don't also believe that what
they're protecting is for real. If DM was a mere thief and grifter, he
had ample opportunity to make off with more than enough cash 15 years
ago. I think he's a zealot and so are the bulk of his assembly of
officers.
> Great, now can you tell us what would be effective to stop the abuse?
Just my opinion, but, a good start would be to stop confusing the SO -
which does abuse it's staff - with Scientology in general, which sells
services to a willing and intelligent public. Critics may have
difficulty seperating the two, yet they are seperate.
The only weakness I think CofS has lies in the area of financial
misconduct and the abuse of religious protection while operating as a
for-profit enterprise. It can be argued endlessly on ars that the tech
is hollow or the members brainwashed and I think that's a positive
outcome for RTC. As long as they can maintain the appearance of being a
church under attack by bigots (which is pretty easy to maintain
considering the nature of the bigotry in this ng, the pickets, the wild
accusations and the human flotsam like Scarff) they can continue to
expend the bulk of their energy in promoting and expanding their
'religious' base.
Can it be proven that funds have been siphoned off by top officials?
Can it be proven that CofS has, as a policy, abused the religious
protections afforded by US law in order to operate a profitable venture?
Can the SO be busted as a criminal organization that routinely abuses
it's members?
Can anyone find DM's money and source it?
The weakest area that CofS has is, IMO, the FSM program. Yet it has
never been, to my knowledge, researched by any ars posters who have the
skills and talents to ferret out exactly what laws may be being broken
by this scheme. Hundreds of FSM's earn their living as independent sales
reps for the CofS, earning as much as $100,000 or more per year by
travelling the country selling the services. They use banks of WATS
lines at Flag, the AO's and Tours Office, paid for wholly by the CofS. I
believe that CofS would not be able to defend a concerted attack on this
program and that it would prove beyond any doubt that they are a sales
organization who contract the services of independent sales reps to
maintain their cash flow.
These people are paid with CofS checks. They file taxes. Records exist.
Rather than waste bandwidth with sleep-inducing FOI files from FBI
records that date back almost 50 years ago, why not use those skills in
shining some light on the BUSINESS practices of an alleged church.
Wolf
gerry armstrong
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 03:07:50 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>William Barwell wrote:
>>
>> In article <352EDA...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Those claims
>> >represent a small percentage of what CofS promotes. Since the major part
>> >of what they are selling has very little to do with IQ or purif rundowns
>> >it's hardly accurate to judge the entire subject based on those few
>> >items.
The selling of increased IQ is a huge part of what $cn promotes. It is
a tangible. It is, as the lawyers say, a secular representation. It is
measurable. Following the Hubbardian way of thinking as well, the
higher the IQ the more the increase per hour of auditing.
The cult can't deliver, never has delivered, and never will deliver.
As has been shown, and is demonstrated by those who have risen to the
top of the $cn pyramid, including those who have risen to being
allowed to post to this newsgroup, and whose writings we read every
day, that the higher one goes in $cientology the stupider one gets.
Indeed, each and every person who was told prior to any involvement
with Scientology that such involvement, whether it by, e.g.,
"auditing" or "training," would cause or result in an increase in IQ,
and did get involved, and didn't get a whit smarter has a legitimate
claim against $cn. If you're such a person, and you haven't realized
this until now, then your statute of limitations for a fraud claim is
right now starting to run.
Seems to me that this is one of those narrow frauds that fits well in
class action litigation. IASAIASNAL. There is a sufficiently large
body of people who had this con run on them.There is a body of
Hubbard's literature promising increased IQ; there's the initial use
of the cult "IQ Test;" there's the continuing use of the same test
throughout the incultation. There's no retraction by the cult, and in
fact a renewed use of the IQ con in their "promo." There's no one $cn
can bring forward to demonstrate a point increase, let along 50 or
250.
This is a timely topic.
>>
>> You have to judge the whole on its various parts.
>> Yes, IQ raising is a big part of the claims Scientology uses
>> to sucker in new recruits. It peddles this claim in Dianetics
>> and I have seen it in a few of their propaganda rags like Expansion.
>
>Agreed. CofS claims auditing will raise IQ.
>
>
>That was a scam sprung upon a much less sophisticated public. CofS is
>far from a scam. It's a sales organization with a 48 year history of
>selling and delivering actual services to hundreds of thousands of
>people. Arguing the merits of the tech is similar to arguing the merits
>of Chevy vs. Ford. The only people who really care are the ones who own
>the brand they like already.
>
But in the battle among the Fords, Chevies, and let's add Volvos,
$cientology is (and this is an unfair comparison because this car's
builders I think really tried) a Yugo. But that's not half of it; its
promo and its sales people tell you that if you drive it your IQ will
go up a point per hour. Then its army of bullies, intel agents, PIs
and lawyers go after you if you protest that as a car the tech is a
lemon, that you're stupider than ever because you spent good money and
good time on it it, and that you want your money back. That - that
entity with that 48 year history as a "sales organization" - is a
scam.
>
>Wolf
>
Gerry
Ted Mayett (KOX)
>Before you can laugh at the Xenu jokes and pluck down
>$360,000.00 for the bridge you have to be well indoctrinated.
>Nobody is going to hear about Xenu from day one and be willing to pay
>$360,000.00.
>
This is the "problem", so far the media is not really picking up on
the 360K price tag. Xenu is not really that far-fetched, not really.
But if this price tag were mentioned more in the media... I talk to a
lot of people about this cult, the one thing that really gets their
attention is when I mention the Price of it. Staff might laugh at you
and laugh off the price to new members, then suddenly you are required
to buy a set of e-meter books for about $180.00, then suddenly you
learn that the "key to life" course is about $6,000.00, and if you
have ever heard that the Price is 360K, suddenly you are done with it
all. I say that if the Price of $360K were as well known as the name
Xenu is now known, this cult would be done with.
If it is so important to reverse the Downward Spiral and Audit your
fellow man, the why are the prices so stupid? So tell me something
internet-monkey, how are you going to answer this one? When new
people come in smiling and laughing because they know the full price
already, what are you going to tell them?
"This is what your donations buy"?
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
Paul
Wolf wrote:
>
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Wolf wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > As for the idea that
> > > religious truth isn't unclear because it draws on revelation (which we
> > > all know to be a subjective phenomena), I disagree, as do most of the
> > > ARS critics who deny that Scientology offers even the merest gain
> > > because it can't be lab tested.
> >
> > While there are probably a few critics who maintain that, I believe that
> > your sentence above does not apply to the overwhelming majority of the
> > critics.
>
> Okay. I really need to get a newsreader with a filter then.
I'd recommend it. It's amazing how much the newsgroup changes with a
proper filter.
> > The Church of Scientology[tm] maintains that their "gains" *are*
> > scientific and *can* be scientifically tested.
>
> Actually, the CofS maintains that IQ's can be raised and that Purif
> therapy is healthy. No doubt CofS has had some doctors agree on both
> counts. But that's not the point. The point is that Scn services are not
> sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
> proven to do anything.
I don't think that's correct. At least, at my local org, the claims
being made are that Scientology[tm] is scientifically valid and has been
scientifically tested. I've been told that "the tech[tm] always
works." I don't think my experiences are unique. It's probably the one
differentiating factor about the Church of Scientology[tm] and I believe
they push it for all it's worth.
It isn't just IQ and the Purification Rundown, either--it's
communication skills, relationship skills, study skills, and so on.
> > After more than forty years, the
> > Church of Scientology[tm] has not backed up *any* of these claims with
> > *any* evidence whatsoever. Given that information, and given Hubbard's
> > complete lack of qualifications, I remain highly skeptical of the
> > claims.
>
> No doubt with good cause. CofS made stronger claims in the 50's and 60's
> than they have the last 30 years.
I'm not sure that's correct, either. What I think has gotten stronger
is the disclaimer that the Church of Scientology[tm] asks you to sign,
which basically says that they won't stand by anything you were told by
the person who tried to recruit you. There may be (and probably are)
orgs which have backed down on the claims, but I know of at least one
org that has not.
> Heat from outside critics back then
> along with FDA interest in them were likely the reasons for not only the
> grade chart, but for the shift in entry level marketing to happiness and
> well-being rather than unprovable god-like abilities.
Actually, if they truly did shift to those rather intangible claims, I'd
have no problem with them (as far as unverifiable claims go, of
course--that would still leave other areas requiring reform).
> > The burden of proof rests with the individual or organization making the
> > claims. To date, the Church of Scientology[tm] has not met that burden
> > of proof.
>
> And why should they? At least to you or any other critic? You're not
> buying what they're selling so it's not a productive use of time.
They should meet the burden of proof for two reasons:
1) if the Church of Scientology's claims are false, then are guilty of
fraud.
2) they want my tax money for their programs (e.g., Narconon, the "study
tech," Criminon).
> The ploy of hurling an accusation at a target and then demanding the target
> prove it's not true is showmanship and PR on either side of an argument.
Once again, we differ. The burden of proof, in my opinion, is always on
the side of the person making the claims. If I claim that the Church of
Scientology[tm] is a criminal organization, the burden of proof is on me
to back up that claim. Until I do, you should view that claim with
great skepticism. If the Church of Scientology[tm], on the other hand,
claims that they can raise my IQ, the burden of proof is on them. Until
they back up that claim with hard evidence, I should (and do) view that
claim with great skepticism.
> Politicians do it every election cycle and historically we all know it
> as a 'witch hunt'.
Insisting that someone back up their rather extravagant claims with some
hard evidence is not a "witch hunt," in my opinion.
> As long as CofS maintains cash flow and
> constitutional protection as a church they are under no obligation to
> prove anything to you or any critic.
Until they start going to the public till to maintain that cash flow.
At that point, they are under an obligation to prove their claims--to me
and to every other taxpayer.
> What they *must* prove though, to
> their customers, is that it's worth the money - subjectively or
> otherwise.
I concur with that, but I still maintain the right to point out to their
prospective customers the complete lack of documentation or evidence.
As long as a customer is fully informed, then I have no problem with
them joining the Church of Scientology[tm]. But I insist that they be
fully informed.
> > > Simply put, the subjective gains, truths
> > > and beliefs of a confirmed CofS'er do appear irrational, incoherent and
> > > unclear and this ng is merciless in it's attacks on those beliefs.
> > Not really. Most of us don't give a damn what Scientologists believe.
> > I don't care if they believe in Xenu or body thetans or engrams or
> > anything like that.
>
> Excuse me? Have you filtered out 99% of the posts on this newsgroup? The
> bulk of posters on ars enjoy the
> clam-cootie-brainwashed-clambot-$ciendroid name calling and derision of
> not only the CofS materials, but the ars posters who claim to be
> members. If they doesn't give a damn about the beliefs, then why
> ridicule them?
Because they're funny?
Perhaps I have filtered out too much--I've certainly been accused of
that in the past. My impression, though, is that the vast bulk of the
mockery comes from half a dozen posters or so. When you consider that
several hundred critics post here each week, that isn't really a
significant percentage.
> > What I care about is fraud, lies, and
> > bait-and-switch, all of which are perpetrated by the Church of
> > Scientology[tm].
>
> Paul, you seem like a nice fellow, intelligent and interested in CofS
> and what threat (real or imagined) it may pose to whomever. But, because
> you, me or anyone else calls something a fraud, or a bait-and-switch
> doesn't mean that it's true.
True, and those words are, perhaps, too strong. Nonetheless, I firmly
believe that the Church of Scientology's claims are, in fact,
fraudulent. Given the complete lack of evidence to support them, I
stand by that belief. If the Church of Scientology[tm] were ever to
provide evidence to support the claims or were to completely drop them,
I hope that I'm openminded enough that my position would change.
As for the bait-and-switch, that is perhaps the wrong choice of words,
but I don't know what else to call it. I'm referring, of course, to the
story of Xenu and the body thetans, which is only told to those who have
spent a great deal of time and money "going clear." Subsequently, they
find that it was all for naught and that they have to spend a great deal
more time and more money dealing with body thetans.
> Has CofS defrauded people? I'm certain that
> specific reg's and other staff, in specified cases throughout the
> history of CofS have done so. The same for bait-and-switch. But does
> that mean the entire membership, all it's staff, and each and every
> person who is involved in selling these services is, by association, a
> criminal? Nope. Not even close.
I completely agree. My opinion is that over 90% of Scientologists are
decent, well-meaning people. I reserve my anger for those at the top.
[snip of additional arguments supporting this position]
> Many Ars posters will continue to demonize and degrade any who disagree
> with them,
Some will, certainly. But "many?"
> citing the fraud&lies belief as the basis of their attacks.
> Claiming that Scn has to prove anything is a dead horse.
"I'm not dead yet!" Sorry, but we disagree on this issue.
> The burden of
> proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the accusers,
I agree, but that's not the whole picture. If the Church of
Scientology[tm] wants my money, the burden of proof is on them to
justify what they're asking me to pay for.
[snip]
-Paul
Keith Henson
Wolf (wolf...@micron.net) wrote:
: > >Hubbard, like thousands of other pitchmen, wrote what he figured would
: > >sell the most of his books and services. Ad copy doesn't always qualify
: > >as fraud just because it's hype.
: >
: > Calling your product "the best" for
: > example, is allowed as 'hype'. On the other hand, saying that your
: > product produces a specific result which it does not produce is fraud.
: Saying CofS doesn't produce the subjective gains is a _contention_ of
: ars critics, not a fact proven in any court I'm aware of.
Actually, Wolf, the objection is not at all to *subjective* effects. I
think most critics would say that people who stay with CoS experience
*subjective* positive effects (certainly I would). But that is true of a
heck of a lot of snake oil products. The objection is the claim to
*objective* results. Anybody even losely associated with science knows
that getting good measurement results on on humans requires double blind
experiments because of the placebo effect.
: > Hubbard claimed 'scientific research' 'proved' the absurd results he
: > promised (such as raising IQ one point per auditing hour). That is
: > a lie and fraud under any definition of the term.
: This are ancient claims dating from as far back as 1949.
: <snip: e-meter dialog>
: > Again, it is _sold_ as "scientifically proven", not as "faith".
: I receive no less than 5-10 weekly mailings from CofS organizations
: promoting every level and product being offered. Nowhere in any material
: I have receieved over the last 25 years is such a claim being made for
: the e-meter.
Then I suggest you get a look at NOTs 34 and 22. While they were written
back in 1978, they are current scientology 'tech.' I don't see any other
way to read "The Sequence for Handling a Physical Condition" than as a
claim for healing properties of "blowing off" body thetans using an
emeter. (Though you are not going to get CoS sending out clear violations
of the Gesell order in the mail.)
: > Cures for disease using the E-Meter are the subject of a consent decree
: > that Scientology signed. _They_ promised never to claim cures for disease
: > in order to get out of being prosecuted for illegally making the claims
: > in the first place.
: Is this in reference to the post 63' FDA raids? If so, 35 years have
: passed. That's more than three decades for CofS to have been busted. I
: think they have a handle on this issue.
: > _Now_ they are _breaking_ the consent decree
: > that _they_ agreed to.
: Again I'll ask, where are they breaking it? In what sales material? What
: court is currently pursuing them on this issue?
That's the problem. Scientology harassed the IRS into giving them a
billion dollars break on back taxes *and* a deal better than any other
religion or criminal organization has ever gotten from the US government.
They have the support of the Federal Judge in my case who has taken the
possision that the (assumed) criminal nature of the contents of NOTs 34 is
less important than the intellectual property issue and specifically
forbidden me to even have a copy of this document--though he did make it
clear that I could make fair use of it. (From memory perhaps?)
Heck, a guy I know who was dealing in importing non-FDA approved drugs
from overseas drove the FDA away from his operation with a tiny fraction
of the resources scientology could focus on the FDA. FDA people have
told me that without *massive* public support they are not about to get
in a court fight with CoS--no matter *how* many people die from
scientology's quack "treatments."
: > You can advertise something as 'faith' based
: > whether or not you are a religious organization, but regardless of
: > whether you claim to be a religious organization, you cannot make
: > false claims of medical healing.
: I'll refer to back to the material used in selling and promoting their
: wares. I don't see such claims anywhere. As an aside, during my years in
: the CofS no organization I was ever involved with promoted (as a
: practice) medical healing as an effect of services. Certainly it has
: been done, maybe even as a localized sales tactic, but IMO it would be
: tough to prove it against the church itself.
Maybe or maybe not. Try this *current* policy from
L. Ron Hubbard HCO PL 4 December 1966, Admin Know-How Series 9,
EXPANSION, THEORY OF POLICY, as covered in volume 0 of the 1991 OEC
volumes edition, page 126:
----begin quote----
INTERPRETATION OF POLICY
The organization then has all its policy rigged to expand.
It makes many things to ensure expansion.
Thus when you are interpreting policy it should be interpreted only
against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it.
This can serve to clarify questions about policy. The correct
interpretation always leads to expansion, not holding a level or
contraction.
For example, policy bars the entrance of the healing field. This is
solely because there is too much trouble with the occupants of that
field and only outright war (with no demand) could solve them. This
seems to be a brake on expansion. It is only a brake on expanding by
war in the absence of demand. Therefore the right way to expand is to
gradually build up general public demand, let experience by the public
see that we heal and when the demand is there and howling for us,
reinterpret the policy or abolish it as a brake to expansion. As one
can only expand by external demand for the product, if one seeks to
expand in absence of a specific demand for the product, one has a war;
and war doesn't lead to expansion any more than burning heretics and
other brutalities expanded the Catholic movement.
So one interprets policy against *proper expansion* that is proper.
---end of quote ---
. . . let experience by the public see that we heal . . . .
The above, widely available policy clearly indicates that (a)
Scientology claims and believes to heal (though sort of "undercover")
and (b) the only reason they officially promote themselves as NOT
being active in the healing profession is the law which forbids them
to make these claims unless they are duly qualified. The above policy
can also be found in the earlier OEC volumes and in Staff Status 1
"hat packs."
<snip for bandwidth, but Wolf, I really like your analysis of the money/
FSM angle. Read the last few paragraphs of Wolf's posting carefully
folks.>
Keith Henson
Realpch
well gosh i don't really know what happened to the two guys who bought the
eiffel tower. i think instead of getting into an argument together, they would
have been best served by running down mr lustig. i'll have to go back to the
library and see if i can find out more. i read the story about 8 years ago and
have forgotten the reported outcome, if any.
Brent Stone
On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 12:53:41 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Brent Stone wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 12:58:25 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>
>> >Hubbard, like thousands of other pitchmen, wrote what he figured would
>> >sell the most of his books and services. Ad copy doesn't always qualify
>> >as fraud just because it's hype.
>>
>> Calling your product "the best" for
>> example, is allowed as 'hype'. On the other hand, saying that your
>> product produces a specific result which it does not produce is fraud.
>
>Saying CofS doesn't produce the subjective gains is a _contention_ of
>ars critics, not a fact proven in any court I'm aware of.
>
>> Hubbard claimed 'scientific research' 'proved' the absurd results he
>> promised (such as raising IQ one point per auditing hour). That is
>> a lie and fraud under any definition of the term.
>
>This are ancient claims dating from as far back as 1949.
"Ancient" claims like in the currently sold literature. "Dianetics"
claims "invariant scientific evidence" to cure all psychosomatic
illnesses and claims that 70% of all human illness is psychosomatic.
Perhaps you could read chapter five.
><snip: e-meter dialog>
>
>> Again, it is _sold_ as "scientifically proven", not as "faith".
>
>I receive no less than 5-10 weekly mailings from CofS organizations
>promoting every level and product being offered. Nowhere in any material
>I have receieved over the last 25 years is such a claim being made for
>the e-meter.
Beginning with DMSMH and thru NOTS 22 and 34, scientific cures are
claims for physical illnesses.
>> Cures for disease using the E-Meter are the subject of a consent decree
>> that Scientology signed. _They_ promised never to claim cures for disease
>> in order to get out of being prosecuted for illegally making the claims
>> in the first place.
>
>Is this in reference to the post 63' FDA raids? If so, 35 years have
>passed. That's more than three decades for CofS to have been busted. I
>think they have a handle on this issue.
Has the consent decree been rescinded? Is it not illegal if they didn't
get busted for it (yet)? Have they been doing these same things for
35 years, _never_ following the consent decree? Why would CoS want
Henson not to give NOTS 34 to the FDA?
>> _Now_ they are _breaking_ the consent decree
>> that _they_ agreed to.
>
>Again I'll ask, where are they breaking it? In what sales material? What
>court is currently pursuing them on this issue?
See above.
>> You can advertise something as 'faith' based
>> whether or not you are a religious organization, but regardless of
>> whether you claim to be a religious organization, you cannot make
>> false claims of medical healing.
>
>I'll refer to back to the material used in selling and promoting their
>wares. I don't see such claims anywhere. As an aside, during my years in
>the CofS no organization I was ever involved with promoted (as a
>practice) medical healing as an effect of services. Certainly it has
>been done, maybe even as a localized sales tactic, but IMO it would be
>tough to prove it against the church itself.
Starting with DMSMH thru NOTS. It's _written_ in their most basic book,
and procedures are _written_ in their upper level materials. Some
squirrel wrote these things?
>> I'm not claiming the government is at fault here, more like the people
>> are at fault for suing for such ridiculous claims, forcing the stupidity.
>> The failure of the government to follow the same rules for 'religions'
>> as for other enterprises does seem to be illegal to me.
>
>Good luck.
>
>> Nobody sells you one claim (Dianetics auditing) while hiding the 'real'
>> truth from you in Christianity. You know going in that the story of
>> Christ is a major part of it, and the story is not hidden from you.
>> Scientology charges most of the money selling you exorcising BTs,
>> yet _denies_ publicly that that is _any_ part of their beliefs.
>
>I'm having a hard time seeing your point here. CofS has a grade chart
>which lays out for the prospect the exact steps he/she will be expected
>to take to attain the lofty heights of cosmic supremeness. Price lists
>are published and distributed to every person who even looks like a
>potential customer. That they demand security for their upper levels is
>not (I think) a fraud or B&S tactic. It is hardly a secret within even
>the most rudimentary Dianetic Group that Flag services cost beacoup
>dollars.
Excuse me?? Price lists are published for the bridge? Potential
customers are made aware of it? How come I get called a bigoted,
hateful liar when I *ask* if the total cost is over $300,000. The
members tell me that I'm making it up. *DOES THE BRIDGE COST OVER
300,000????*
>> >I'm sorry, but bait-and-switch is not what you think it is. CofS is not
>> >advertising one thing at a low price to lure customers in and then
>> >claiming they are out-of-stock on the sale item in order to switch the
>> >buyer to an overpriced item. That IS bait-and-switch.
>>
>> And the 'sale' item is engrams as the cause of your problem. They are
>> not 'out of stock', they just tell you that all the claims they made
>> for auditing out 'engrams' only come when you audit out 'BTs'. You
>> are only told _that_ after you have paid for the first part.
>
>On this you are incorrect. That's the beauty of the grade chart and the
>hazy nature of what one is attesting to at each step along the way. None
>of the thousands of members I dealt with for over 17 years were ever
>told they'd get OT phenomena on lower levels. OTOH, many did expect that
>and were unhappy when they didn't get whatever it was they expected. But
>then, that's the nature of selling isn't it? It's strictly a numbers
>game. Cherries & Pits as the saying goes.
Has *anyone* ever gotten what was first advertised as 'clear' results,
now advertised as 'OT' results?
>> Bait-and-switch includes advertising one item and then telling the
>> customer when he gets there that the item advertised is really no
>> good for the purpose, and you 'need' a more expensive product. In
>> the case of CoS, they let you buy the product that "doesn't work",
>> then they sell a far more expensive product for the same results.
>> (the fact that the more expensive product _also_ doesn't work is
>> a different problem)
>
>While that may be a definition of B&S (though I think it's arguable) it
>is not what happens in CofS sales and delivery. To begin with, it's your
>*opinion* that the tech doesn't work. I don't know if you ever bought
>any service, but if you did then I'd suggest that you weren't a viable
>prospect for CofS. The bottom line is this - your opinion that the tech
>is not effective is not a problem for CofS.
The problem is when they *sell* it as *scientifically proven* with more
research than physics or chemistry and cannot show _any_ research, the
only scientific studies I know of show _no_ results, and cures for
physical diseases are being sold in defiance of a consent decree.
Selling something that you have agreed not to sell because you have
admitted that you cannot provide evidence for it working is fraud.
><snip- dialog on lying, etc>
>
>> Let's go back to NOTS 22 and 34 for starters here, then add the training
>> routines for lying, the policies of covering up criminal activity (ie.
>> Tony Strawn), the policies of abusing the courts to harass, and the
>> many other unethical and illegal actions _written_ into the 'scripture'.
>
>This is slippery stuff and not a good battle to fight. Staff training,
>legal tactics and cancelled policies are too hazy and maybe even
>impossible to 'prove' against CofS. Mostly it comes down to a "He
>Said/She Said" impasse like Clinton's current non-crisis (I don't even
>know who Tony Strawn is). Railing against alleged crimes and whatever
>the upper level stuff is or isn't supposed to do is tilting at windmills
>and I think it's exactly what CofS would prefer it's critics to focus
>on.
It's written down on paper by the 'church'. You're right that it's
nowhere near as important as stopping the abuse of people that occurs,
but some of this (like the IR or Purif) are a big part of the abuse.
Selling the purification rundown when it has been shown that large
doses of niacin can damage the liver (and especially selling it to
a class of people with a high risk of prior liver damage -- addicts
and alcoholics), is criminal IMO.
>> That's the point. I have no argument with Scientologists, just with the
>> management pursuing these practices. The core of Scientology to the
>> members is different than the core reasons for Scientology as viewed
>> by management. I believe that management is on a power trip at the
>> expense of the members.
>
>Okay. Power tripping is not the exclusive territory of CofS and I
>believe you'd be correct if you made that statement about any collection
>of humans. But I believe it's a mistake to assume that because DM and
>the crew may be power freaks, that they don't also believe that what
>they're protecting is for real. If DM was a mere thief and grifter, he
>had ample opportunity to make off with more than enough cash 15 years
>ago. I think he's a zealot and so are the bulk of his assembly of
>officers.
Perhaps he could have gotten away with a lot of cash, but he would have
been leaving the golden goose behind. At the time, the prospects for
much, much more would have been on his mind. If he wanted the power,
absconding with the cash would not have given him that.
>> Great, now can you tell us what would be effective to stop the abuse?
>
>Just my opinion, but, a good start would be to stop confusing the SO -
>which does abuse it's staff - with Scientology in general, which sells
>services to a willing and intelligent public. Critics may have
>difficulty seperating the two, yet they are seperate.
Most of the source of the abuse is SO. Most of that is directed
at SO too, but a considerable share overflows onto the rest of
the organization. I don't see any way to split the arena into
parts, the SO is funded from the outside.
>The only weakness I think CofS has lies in the area of financial
>misconduct and the abuse of religious protection while operating as a
>for-profit enterprise. It can be argued endlessly on ars that the tech
>is hollow or the members brainwashed and I think that's a positive
>outcome for RTC. As long as they can maintain the appearance of being a
>church under attack by bigots (which is pretty easy to maintain
>considering the nature of the bigotry in this ng, the pickets, the wild
>accusations and the human flotsam like Scarff) they can continue to
>expend the bulk of their energy in promoting and expanding their
>'religious' base.
I tend to think differently. If the only _problem_ was that someone
was lining his own pockets, that wouldn't be much worse than a lot
of other organizations. I would be annoyed that it was done on
tax-free money, but would not need to be personally active in
fixing it. The _problem_ is the abuse of people, and that needs to
be fixed. Whether it's the IR, fair game, using the courts to
harass, intimidation tactics, using PC folders as ammo, these things
have to change. Pulling the tax exemption as long as these things
are in force will help, but a lot of other things will help too.
Informing the public members what they are supporting is about the
most effective thing I can think of. If _they_ start dropping out
because of the abuses, I can see the 'church' attempting to fix
the problems.
>Can it be proven that funds have been siphoned off by top officials?
>Can it be proven that CofS has, as a policy, abused the religious
>protections afforded by US law in order to operate a profitable venture?
>Can the SO be busted as a criminal organization that routinely abuses
>it's members?
>Can anyone find DM's money and source it?
I assume it's hidden so deep that you couldn't find it with a
submarine.
>The weakest area that CofS has is, IMO, the FSM program. Yet it has
>never been, to my knowledge, researched by any ars posters who have the
>skills and talents to ferret out exactly what laws may be being broken
>by this scheme. Hundreds of FSM's earn their living as independent sales
>reps for the CofS, earning as much as $100,000 or more per year by
>travelling the country selling the services. They use banks of WATS
>lines at Flag, the AO's and Tours Office, paid for wholly by the CofS. I
>believe that CofS would not be able to defend a concerted attack on this
>program and that it would prove beyond any doubt that they are a sales
>organization who contract the services of independent sales reps to
>maintain their cash flow.
This is a part of why the tax exemption is abusive, but doesn't really
relate to the abuse of _people_. Abuse of _people_ is my concern.
>These people are paid with CofS checks. They file taxes. Records exist.
>Rather than waste bandwidth with sleep-inducing FOI files from FBI
>records that date back almost 50 years ago, why not use those skills in
>shining some light on the BUSINESS practices of an alleged church.
>
>Wolf
- Brent
Wolf
Paul wrote:
>
> Wolf wrote:
> > Scn services are not
> > sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
> > proven to do anything.
>
> I don't think that's correct. At least, at my local org, the claims
> being made are that Scientology[tm] is scientifically valid and has been
> scientifically tested.
This is the second time I've heard this on ars w/in the last week.
> I've been told that "the tech[tm] always
> works." I don't think my experiences are unique. It's probably the one
> differentiating factor about the Church of Scientology[tm] and I believe
> they push it for all it's worth.
There's never bad tech, just non-standard auditors or PTSness. The tech
is 100% standard, which means if you blow, you were PTS or your auditor
sucked. Here's a story:
Flag sent various FSM's and made many calls to me after 82 to get me to
go on with the upper levels. Their hole card was that my NOTS was
*Mayo-NOTS* and therefore squirrel. I repeatedly told them that I was
not unhappy with what I received and they could check and see if I was
on refund lines to verify it. No dice Wolf, I had received squirrel
tech. So I changed my tack, "Mayo NOTS!" I would exclaim, "Why, that
violates the Service Policy. I didn't get what I paid for." Whereupon I
told whomever was calling/visiting at the moment that as soon as I had a
letter in hand from CO Flag that I would receive, free of charge,
exactly what I paid for in 1980, I would be on the next plane. Never got
that letter....
<snip false claims dialog>
> > No doubt with good cause. CofS made stronger claims in the 50's and 60's
> > than they have the last 30 years.
>
> I'm not sure that's correct, either. What I think has gotten stronger
> is the disclaimer that the Church of Scientology[tm] asks you to sign,
Oh? I haven't been in an org since 83, that may explain a lot.
> > And why should they? At least to you or any other critic? You're not
> > buying what they're selling so it's not a productive use of time.
>
> They should meet the burden of proof for two reasons:
>
> 1) if the Church of Scientology's claims are false, then are guilty of
> fraud.
>
> 2) they want my tax money for their programs (e.g., Narconon, the "study
> tech," Criminon).
#2 is valid. Is CofS actually obtaining public funds? Is this heresay or
proven?
> Once again, we differ. The burden of proof, in my opinion, is always on
> the side of the person making the claims. If I claim that the Church of
> Scientology[tm] is a criminal organization, the burden of proof is on me
> to back up that claim. Until I do, you should view that claim with
> great skepticism. If the Church of Scientology[tm], on the other hand,
> claims that they can raise my IQ, the burden of proof is on them. Until
> they back up that claim with hard evidence, I should (and do) view that
> claim with great skepticism.
I think we're splitting hairs. I can see that if you bought a service
and didn't get an IQ increase (assuming that there were written promises
to that effect) you'd at the least have a case for refund. I'm not sure
you could get any court to seriously consider investigating a religious
organization for failing to deliver a subjective reality.
> Insisting that someone back up their rather extravagant claims with some
> hard evidence is not a "witch hunt," in my opinion.
And you're entitled to it. To the CofS it is, and they will use it to
their benefit.
> Until they start going to the public till to maintain that cash flow.
> At that point, they are under an obligation to prove their claims--to me
> and to every other taxpayer.
I'm assuming that hasn't happened yet. I doubt it will except possibly
in the Narconon scenario.
> > What they *must* prove though, to
> > their customers, is that it's worth the money - subjectively or
> > otherwise.
>
> I concur with that, but I still maintain the right to point out to their
> prospective customers the complete lack of documentation or evidence.
> As long as a customer is fully informed, then I have no problem with
> them joining the Church of Scientology[tm]. But I insist that they be
> fully informed.
Your right to free speech remains unmodified by the Constitution. I'd be
leery though, the right to free speech does not give one the right to
libel or slander. What you may call your right and duty, CofS might
consider illegal (if you do it illegally) and then you'd be defending
yourself in court. That's their right... under the same laws that
protect you and I.
> > The
> > bulk of posters on ars enjoy the
> > clam-cootie-brainwashed-clambot-$ciendroid name calling and derision of
> > not only the CofS materials, but the ars posters who claim to be
> > members. If they doesn't give a damn about the beliefs, then why
> > ridicule them?
>
> Because they're funny?
And so are Polish jokes, Nig--r jokes and Jewish jokes. But on a public
forum they can quickly turn into malicious harrasment and, as has
happened on ARS, attract flies and all other manner of scat-loving
degenerates. In the end, you're known by the company you keep.
> Perhaps I have filtered out too much--I've certainly been accused of
> that in the past. My impression, though, is that the vast bulk of the
> mockery comes from half a dozen posters or so. When you consider that
> several hundred critics post here each week, that isn't really a
> significant percentage.
The worst does come from just a few, but most, including some who
suprise me, have adapted the clam-meme into their basic dialog. At what
point does ars, as a group, become exactly what they accuse
Scientologists of being -> attenuated zombies who denigrate their
opponents and spout nothing but the lingo of their own group?
<snip- Wolf's bait-n-switch lecture>
> True, and those words are, perhaps, too strong. Nonetheless, I firmly
> believe that the Church of Scientology's claims are, in fact,
> fraudulent. Given the complete lack of evidence to support them, I
> stand by that belief. If the Church of Scientology[tm] were ever to
> provide evidence to support the claims or were to completely drop them,
> I hope that I'm openminded enough that my position would change.
It's not within them to ever *lower* themselves to even attempting to
show evidence. That's the Achilles heel of all such groups. Personally,
I'd not be satisfied, nor would I care. All I'd like to see is for CofS
to lose the *C*.
> As for the bait-and-switch, that is perhaps the wrong choice of words,
> but I don't know what else to call it. I'm referring, of course, to the
> story of Xenu and the body thetans, which is only told to those who have
> spent a great deal of time and money "going clear." Subsequently, they
> find that it was all for naught and that they have to spend a great deal
> more time and more money dealing with body thetans.
There is that. If we were talking aluminum siding sales they could be
brought up for charges. But hey, we're talking religion here aren't we?
Who's going to put a church on trial? See why I could care less about
their claims than I do their Church status?
> My opinion is that over 90% of Scientologists are
> decent, well-meaning people. I reserve my anger for those at the top.
Tell me about it! I was making six figures selling the stuff for years
and then along comes DM, and pow! Wolf has to go get a real job. Henson,
Paper Tiger and others know my view on this. The *tech* (I learned to
hate that meme) is highly effective as long as it's kept away from all
the bt, OT, Clear Planet, marching-and-singing crap. Easy to sell, easy
to deliver, very few dissatisfied customers and - being a service-
start-up costs are negligable. When DM wrested control his first real
target (after Bill Franks) was the field. And why not? He was certainly
jealous. We were driving Porsches, living in big houses, wearing Italian
suits and had classrooms full of smiling faces. All he ever had was was
a home on a rotting cattle-boat and a sweat-stained hat. He never got to
drive fast or get laid by a chick with a tan. I sat through his little
party in SF in 82'. I know a sociopath when I see one and he is very
willing to hurt whomever keeps him from whatever goals his childhood
angst drives him towards.
[end of rant]
> > citing the fraud&lies belief as the basis of their attacks.
> > Claiming that Scn has to prove anything is a dead horse.
>
> "I'm not dead yet!" Sorry, but we disagree on this issue.
Okay... I was just suggesting fighting on a front where you have the
advantage.
> > The burden of
> > proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the accusers,
>
> I agree, but that's not the whole picture. If the Church of
> Scientology[tm] wants my money, the burden of proof is on them to
> justify what they're asking me to pay for.
Oh they want your money. In fact, so do I. That's the basis of my
personal desire to see CofS and the upper structure dismantled. If not
for them, Ron's hare-brained Sea Org and the meglomania that working in
isolated, degenerate work-groups spawns, I'd have had a shot at it
too..<grin>
Wolf
Paul
Wolf wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > Wolf wrote:
>
> > > Scn services are not
> > > sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
> > > proven to do anything.
> >
> > I don't think that's correct. At least, at my local org, the claims
> > being made are that Scientology[tm] is scientifically valid and has been
> > scientifically tested.
> This is the second time I've heard this on ars w/in the last week.
Well, then, it must be true, right? :)
[snip of great story about Mayo NOTs and Church refund policy]
> <snip false claims dialog>
>
> > > No doubt with good cause. CofS made stronger claims in the 50's and 60's
> > > than they have the last 30 years.
> >
> > I'm not sure that's correct, either. What I think has gotten stronger
> > is the disclaimer that the Church of Scientology[tm] asks you to sign,
>
> Oh? I haven't been in an org since 83, that may explain a lot.
It's also possible that my experience is atypical. Perhaps the local
representative is pushier (or more desperate) than most. Certainly the
disclaimer is a marvel. It's been posted here before and it makes for
highly entertaining reading.
> > > And why should they? At least to you or any other critic? You're not
> > > buying what they're selling so it's not a productive use of time.
> >
> > They should meet the burden of proof for two reasons:
> >
> > 1) if the Church of Scientology's claims are false, then are guilty of
> > fraud.
> >
> > 2) they want my tax money for their programs (e.g., Narconon, the "study
> > tech," Criminon).
>
> #2 is valid. Is CofS actually obtaining public funds? Is this heresay or
> proven?
Hmm....I must confess that I've taken this point for granted. I know
that they've applied for public funds in the past, and I'd be surprised
if one or more of their programs doesn't use public funds today, but I
guess I'd better do my homework before I make such a claim again.
Anyone else want to help me out?
Personally, I think #1 is valid, too. It might be difficult to prove,
but that doesn't make it invalid.
> > Once again, we differ. The burden of proof, in my opinion, is always on
> > the side of the person making the claims. If I claim that the Church of
> > Scientology[tm] is a criminal organization, the burden of proof is on me
> > to back up that claim. Until I do, you should view that claim with
> > great skepticism. If the Church of Scientology[tm], on the other hand,
> > claims that they can raise my IQ, the burden of proof is on them. Until
> > they back up that claim with hard evidence, I should (and do) view that
> > claim with great skepticism.
>
> I think we're splitting hairs. I can see that if you bought a service
> and didn't get an IQ increase (assuming that there were written promises
> to that effect) you'd at the least have a case for refund. I'm not sure
> you could get any court to seriously consider investigating a religious
> organization for failing to deliver a subjective reality.
Subjective? No. Objective, possibly (although courts are always
skittish around religions). While it might be difficult to prove
anything on an individual basis, it should be possible to institute a
class action lawsuit against the Church of Scientology[tm].
I'm not actually advocating filing lawsuits or shutting down the Church
of Scientology[tm]. What I'd like to do is to trumpet the fraudulent
claims far and wide so that it becomes too expensive (in terms of lost
revenue) for them to continue these practices. When bodies stop coming
in the door, they will either have to reform or close. Do I honestly
expect my efforts to achieve this goal? Not really, but that doesn't
make it any less worthwhile.
> > Insisting that someone back up their rather extravagant claims with some
> > hard evidence is not a "witch hunt," in my opinion.
>
> And you're entitled to it. To the CofS it is, and they will use it to
> their benefit.
They've certainly tried, but to anyone with a modicum of intelligence,
the accusation is ludicrous. I liken it to their claim about Nazi
Germany, which is generally being given the respect that it deserves in
the national and international media--i.e., none.
> > Until they start going to the public till to maintain that cash flow.
> > At that point, they are under an obligation to prove their claims--to me
> > and to every other taxpayer.
>
> I'm assuming that hasn't happened yet. I doubt it will except possibly
> in the Narconon scenario.
I think Criminon might be publicly funded, and certainly, they want
public schools to license Hubbard's "study tech" as well.
> > > What they *must* prove though, to
> > > their customers, is that it's worth the money - subjectively or
> > > otherwise.
> > I concur with that, but I still maintain the right to point out to their
> > prospective customers the complete lack of documentation or evidence.
> > As long as a customer is fully informed, then I have no problem with
> > them joining the Church of Scientology[tm]. But I insist that they be
> > fully informed.
> Your right to free speech remains unmodified by the Constitution. I'd be
> leery though, the right to free speech does not give one the right to
> libel or slander. What you may call your right and duty, CofS might
> consider illegal (if you do it illegally) and then you'd be defending
> yourself in court. That's their right... under the same laws that
> protect you and I.
As a strong advocate of freedom of speech, I have no problem with either
the rights or the responsibilities of that freedom. To date, as far as
I can tell, nothing I've said has even come close to crossing the line.
> > > The
> > > bulk of posters on ars enjoy the
> > > clam-cootie-brainwashed-clambot-$ciendroid name calling and derision of
> > > not only the CofS materials, but the ars posters who claim to be
> > > members. If they doesn't give a damn about the beliefs, then why
> > > ridicule them?
> > Because they're funny?
> And so are Polish jokes, Nig--r jokes and Jewish jokes. But on a public
> forum they can quickly turn into malicious harrasment and, as has
> happened on ARS, attract flies and all other manner of scat-loving
> degenerates. In the end, you're known by the company you keep.
I should have put a smiley after the line above. I couldn't resist the
smart-aleck one-liner response, but that isn't what I truly feel. I
don't think the story of Xenu and the body thetans is necessarily
funnier than any other religious belief.
As for the company I keep, I refuse to be held accountable for people I
have no control over. I'm not responsible, for example, for Roland's
words, any more than Wonderful Russ is responsible for wgert's.
> > Perhaps I have filtered out too much--I've certainly been accused of
> > that in the past. My impression, though, is that the vast bulk of the
> > mockery comes from half a dozen posters or so. When you consider that
> > several hundred critics post here each week, that isn't really a
> > significant percentage.
>
> The worst does come from just a few, but most, including some who
> suprise me, have adapted the clam-meme into their basic dialog. At what
> point does ars, as a group, become exactly what they accuse
> Scientologists of being -> attenuated zombies who denigrate their
> opponents and spout nothing but the lingo of their own group?
It's a valid question and one I don't know the answer to. All I can do
is occasionally object when I believe someone has crossed over the line
and do my best to ensure that I never cross that line. I must confess
that the task is made more difficult by the official drones who post
here. Their postings tend to increase the hostility of the group and to
bring the level of the group down--something that they are almost
certainly doing intentionally.
> <snip- Wolf's bait-n-switch lecture>
>
> > True, and those words are, perhaps, too strong. Nonetheless, I firmly
> > believe that the Church of Scientology's claims are, in fact,
> > fraudulent. Given the complete lack of evidence to support them, I
> > stand by that belief. If the Church of Scientology[tm] were ever to
> > provide evidence to support the claims or were to completely drop them,
> > I hope that I'm openminded enough that my position would change.
> It's not within them to ever *lower* themselves to even attempting to
> show evidence. That's the Achilles heel of all such groups. Personally,
> I'd not be satisfied, nor would I care. All I'd like to see is for CofS
> to lose the *C*.
Interesting. While I certainly wouldn't object to seeing them lose
religious status, that's not something I particularly care about, mostly
because of the difficulty of defining precisely what a religion is.
> > As for the bait-and-switch, that is perhaps the wrong choice of words,
> > but I don't know what else to call it. I'm referring, of course, to the
> > story of Xenu and the body thetans, which is only told to those who have
> > spent a great deal of time and money "going clear." Subsequently, they
> > find that it was all for naught and that they have to spend a great deal
> > more time and more money dealing with body thetans.
>
> There is that. If we were talking aluminum siding sales they could be
> brought up for charges. But hey, we're talking religion here aren't we?
> Who's going to put a church on trial? See why I could care less about
> their claims than I do their Church status?
Different strokes and all that.... I agree with you that the court
system tends to be overly solicitous when it comes to religions. That's
true not only in the United States, but worldwide, as well.
I suppose I focus on the claims because a) that's something that I can
actually talk to people about and get a response, and b) because I don't
have the foggiest idea how to persuade the IRS to reverse itself. I had
high hopes for the secret agreement, but my opinion is that it didn't
contain the "smoking gun" that would instantly persuade Congress to
intervene.
> > My opinion is that over 90% of Scientologists are
> > decent, well-meaning people. I reserve my anger for those at the top.
> Tell me about it! I was making six figures selling the stuff for years
> and then along comes DM, and pow! Wolf has to go get a real job. Henson,
> Paper Tiger and others know my view on this. The *tech* (I learned to
> hate that meme) is highly effective as long as it's kept away from all
> the bt, OT, Clear Planet, marching-and-singing crap. Easy to sell, easy
> to deliver, very few dissatisfied customers and - being a service-
> start-up costs are negligable. When DM wrested control his first real
> target (after Bill Franks) was the field. And why not? He was certainly
> jealous. We were driving Porsches, living in big houses, wearing Italian
> suits and had classrooms full of smiling faces. All he ever had was was
> a home on a rotting cattle-boat and a sweat-stained hat. He never got to
> drive fast or get laid by a chick with a tan. I sat through his little
> party in SF in 82'. I know a sociopath when I see one and he is very
> willing to hurt whomever keeps him from whatever goals his childhood
> angst drives him towards.
>
> [end of rant]
And a hell of a rant it was, too, which is why I left it intact. A good
rant should never go to waste.
My opinion is that the managers of the Church of Scientology[tm] are
truly incompetent. With competent management, I believe that
Scientology[tm] really would have "8 million members." Instead, it
wouldn't surprise me if the membership has been steadily declining.
> > > citing the fraud&lies belief as the basis of their attacks.
> > > Claiming that Scn has to prove anything is a dead horse.
> >
> > "I'm not dead yet!" Sorry, but we disagree on this issue.
> Okay... I was just suggesting fighting on a front where you have the
> advantage.
> > > The burden of
> > > proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the accusers,
> >
> > I agree, but that's not the whole picture. If the Church of
> > Scientology[tm] wants my money, the burden of proof is on them to
> > justify what they're asking me to pay for.
>
> Oh they want your money. In fact, so do I. That's the basis of my
> personal desire to see CofS and the upper structure dismantled. If not
> for them, Ron's hare-brained Sea Org and the meglomania that working in
> isolated, degenerate work-groups spawns, I'd have had a shot at it
> too..<grin>
Actually, you might have, some years ago. Now, my natural cynicism and
my long exposure to just about every sales tactic known to man renders
me damn near immune.
-Paul
(How about that--a civil discourse on a.r.s. Will wonders never cease?)
wgert
Armstrong's halucinations are on a strong uptrend. It is just a matter
of time when his computer usage will be discontinued..
arms...@dowco.com (gerry armstrong) wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Apr 1998 03:07:50 -0600, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>>William Barwell wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <352EDA...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>>Those claims
>>> >represent a small percentage of what CofS promotes. Since the major part
>>> >of what they are selling has very little to do with IQ or purif rundowns
>>> >it's hardly accurate to judge the entire subject based on those few
>>> >items.
>The selling of increased IQ is a huge part of what $cn promotes. It is
>a tangible. It is, as the lawyers say, a secular representation. It is
>measurable. Following the Hubbardian way of thinking as well, the
>higher the IQ the more the increase per hour of auditing.
snip
wgert
The first step you ought to learn is to take care of yourself - next
gradient thereafter is a girlfriend/wife, after that comes the ability
to take care of a family, thereafter the ability to take care of a
group.
You've got a long way to go, Tilman, before you are able to comment
intelligently on the life of an organization.
wgert
Anti-Cult
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 18:46:09 GMT.
wg...@loop.com (wgert).
From: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: I refuse to believe it:
>Armstrong's halucinations are on a strong uptrend. It is just a matter
>of time when his computer usage will be discontinued..
>
And if that happens, and with your article in many databases, who do
you think is going to knock on your door cult shill?
Stupid OSA goon :-)
BTW Wgert, learn how to spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------
***** Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! ******
********* http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ***********
*** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ***
****** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) *******
------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ One drop of drops in the river of life ~
~ Has not the power to float by itself ~
~ But there's this demand on every drop: ~
~ Help keep the other ones up ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
William Barwell
In article <353310...@micron.net>, Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Paul wrote:
>>
>> Wolf wrote:
>
>> > Scn services are not
>> > sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
>> > proven to do anything.
>>
>> I don't think that's correct. At least, at my local org, the claims
>> being made are that Scientology[tm] is scientifically valid and has been
>> scientifically tested.
>
>This is the second time I've heard this on ars w/in the last week.
>
It is scattered through a 1000 and one Hubbard books and tapes.
Dianetics, History of Man, Scientology 0-8, and more.
Yes, Hubbard's woprk on Clams 'proved' Darwins theory Ron assured us.
This is real science.
It (Scientology) id a precise and exact science designed for am age of
exact sciences.
Fundamentals of Thought
No other subjects on Earth except physics and chemistry have had
such grueling testing.
.. It is valid. It has been tetsted
- Fundamentals of Thought.
William Barwell
In article <6h0eua$ngf$8...@usenet88.supernews.com>, wgert <wg...@loop.com> wrote:
>The first step you ought to learn is to take care of yourself - next
>gradient thereafter is a girlfriend/wife, after that comes the ability
>to take care of a family, thereafter the ability to take care of a
>group.
>
>You've got a long way to go, Tilman, before you are able to comment
>intelligently on the life of an organization.
>
William Barwell
In article <6h0as6$l0s$9...@usenet88.supernews.com>, wgert <wg...@loop.com> wrote:
>Armstrong's halucinations are on a strong uptrend. It is just a matter
>of time when his computer usage will be discontinued..
>
You have never posted anything here worth bothering with.
You embaress your cult.
When will Scientology stop lying?
Christopher Leithiser
wgert wrote:
>
> The first step you ought to learn is to take care of yourself - next
> gradient thereafter is a girlfriend/wife, after that comes the ability
> to take care of a family, thereafter the ability to take care of a
> group.
Or you could start out slow, with, say, a pig.
Martin Hunt
>Flag sent various FSM's and made many calls to me after 82 to get me to
>go on with the upper levels. Their hole card was that my NOTS was
>*Mayo-NOTS* and therefore squirrel. I repeatedly told them that I was
>not unhappy with what I received and they could check and see if I was
>on refund lines to verify it. No dice Wolf, I had received squirrel
>tech. So I changed my tack, "Mayo NOTS!" I would exclaim, "Why, that
>violates the Service Policy. I didn't get what I paid for." Whereupon I
>told whomever was calling/visiting at the moment that as soon as I had a
>letter in hand from CO Flag that I would receive, free of charge,
>exactly what I paid for in 1980, I would be on the next plane. Never got
>that letter....
Are the NOTs in current use substantially different than the "Mayo
NOTs"? Did they even remove the little "dm"'s from the author lines?
David Mayo and Hubbard together came up with the whole idea of
body thetans and auditing them out, a spin-off of exorcism. I
doubt much has changed with the NOTs being run in 1998 on the
marks other than price. The NOTs are still the same item, still
co-authored by an SP and a squirrel. Imagine that; the top half
of Scientology's bridge is the work of a declared SP.
That's what awaits you, publics from OTIII downwards: a squirrel/
SP bridge all about removing implanted "body thetans". Enjoy!
--
Cogito, ergo sum. FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
Michael Reuss
>Wolf <wolf...@micron.net> wrote:
>Is CofS actually obtaining public funds? Is this heresay or proven?
I have a flyer containing photo in which the organization called
H.E.L.P., run by Kinder Hunt from the address of the Sea Org building in
Hollywood CA, which is almost certainly a front group for Scientology,
received at least one check for $90,000.00 from the state of California
last year (under the guise of teaching people to read by training them
ain L.Ron Hubbardspew).
--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid