Scientology Folklore was Starcraft... First Impressions
Mel Grindol
Let's break this out from the other thread. Plus my server won't let me do
a reply, can't find the subject header...
Will Hartung wrote in message ...
>"Mel Grindol" <mgri...@NOT.ME.instinet.com> writes:
>
>
>>Pohl told a great story while talking to the class (all 6-7 of us). He
>>mentioned that some time ago that he, another author (I blank on who), and
>>Hubbard had all gotten together one night to play cards and drink beer.
>>Around midnight it had degenerated into drinking and shooting the bull.
>>Well, one of them said "Hey here's a neat idea..." and went on to start
to
>>describe his idea. The three of them tossed it around constantly refining
>>it. All of this was a joke and purely made up. Nothing was based on any
>>real facts. So what did they dream up? Scientology.
>
>Not to feed a Scientology Bashing thread (let's call it Scientology
>Folklore for the un-initiated), the story I head was the Scientology
>was the result of a bet between Hubbard and Heinlein (sp?). I always
>favored that story.
>
Heinlein may have been the third author there when Scientology was dreamed
up. But I think I would have remembered his name considering he's my
favorite author. There is a possibility that Hubbard called Heinlein a few
weeks after the bull session and Heinlein bet him then.
I'm inclined to believe Pohl. He was there and should know the facts. He
had nothing to gain by lying to us. But there may be some truth to your
story. The combination makes it all the more believable.
Will Hartung
"Mel Grindol" <mgri...@NOT.ME.instinet.com> writes:
>Let's break this out from the other thread. Plus my server won't let me do
>a reply, can't find the subject header...
[ Scientology genesis from a late night of beer and card with Fredrick
Pohl, L. Ron Hubbard, and unknown third SF writer, snipped ]
>>Not to feed a Scientology Bashing thread (let's call it Scientology
>>Folklore for the un-initiated), the story I head was the Scientology
>>was the result of a bet between Hubbard and Heinlein (sp?). I always
>>favored that story.
>>
>Heinlein may have been the third author there when Scientology was dreamed
>up. But I think I would have remembered his name considering he's my
>favorite author. There is a possibility that Hubbard called Heinlein a few
>weeks after the bull session and Heinlein bet him then.
>I'm inclined to believe Pohl. He was there and should know the facts. He
>had nothing to gain by lying to us. But there may be some truth to your
>story. The combination makes it all the more believable.
LRH: "So, Bob, what d'ya think..20 bucks?"
:-)
--
Will Hartung - Rancho Santa Margarita. It's a dry heat. vfr...@netcom.com
1990 VFR750 - VFR=Very Red "Ho, HaHa, Dodge, Parry, Spin, HA! THRUST!"
1993 Explorer - Cage? Hell, it's a prison. -D. Duck
Nigel Tzeng
>[ Scientology genesis from a late night of beer and card with Fredrick
> Pohl, L. Ron Hubbard, and unknown third SF writer, snipped ]
How about Niven or Pournelle as a candidate? One of them was purturbed
enough to give LRH his own spot in hell (Inferno).
Nigel
Mika Petteri Lammi
When James Randi, famous scepticist, fraud exposer and stage magician, was
touring here in Finland last summer, he told this story and identified
himself as the third member of the group.
Mika Lammi
Finland
--
Mika Lammi
Kevin J. Maroney
Mika Petteri Lammi <mip...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>When James Randi, famous scepticist, fraud exposer and stage magician, was
>touring here in Finland last summer, he told this story and identified
>himself as the third member of the group.
Enough people have claimed to be the third witness to Hubbard's claim
that they could fill the Titanic.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Associate Producer, Evolution: The Game of Intelligent Life
Don't just sit there. Evolve. | http://evolution.discovery.com
Mika Petteri Lammi
Kevin J. Maroney <kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
> Enough people have claimed to be the third witness to Hubbard's claim
> that they could fill the Titanic.
Gee, that must include you too, then ?
Mel Grindol
Mika Petteri Lammi wrote in message <6a56i7$r...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi>...
>Nigel Tzeng <ni...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>> >[ Scientology genesis from a late night of beer and card with Fredrick
>> > Pohl, L. Ron Hubbard, and unknown third SF writer, snipped ]
>
>> How about Niven or Pournelle as a candidate? One of them was purturbed
>> enough to give LRH his own spot in hell (Inferno).
>
>When James Randi, famous scepticist, fraud exposer and stage magician, was
>touring here in Finland last summer, he told this story and identified
>himself as the third member of the group.
>
No, it wasn't James Randi. I haven't a clue who he is and I remember
recognizing the name as another big author. Talking to my wife last night
we're leaning towards it being Niven. That name sort of fits what we recall
about the third author and what the third author had written.
This James Randi may be trying to debunk the Scientology theory but he was
not there when it was made up. He may have heard how Scientology was
created and likes to place himself there to try to add credibility to his
theory. As a "professional" skepticist he would have a reason to lie about
being there to make himself seem more realistic. Pohl had no reason to lie.
Debunking Scientology wasn't a career to him, he didn't go around touring
against it.
Sorry to sound critical but I know that he was not the third person there.
Mark Asher
That wouldn't surprise. I admire Randi and even met him at a party,
but he has a reputation for self-promotion at the expense of the
truth.
The guy is cool, though. He was telling Asimov anecdotes at this
party. He also did a lot of this debunking tricks, showing how the
Philipine faith healers remove "tumors," etc.
The sad thing is, he doesn't seem to have any lasting effect. Remember
that minister, Popovich I think, whom Randi taped receiving broadcasts
telling him personal details about members in his audience so Popovich
could appear to be receiving divine guidance? Randi went on the
Tonight Show and showed his film and the authorities in California
were forced to shut down Popovich. Popovich folded up his ministry,
had his hands slapped, and a couple of years later reopened it under a
new name and he's still raking in the money -- millions, apparently.
People want to believe in magic and angels and demons.
Mark Asher
pno...@atwc.teradyne.com
This rumor about the origins of Scientology is really fascinating
to me. That it was cooked up in a late night bull session of
sci-fi authors really explains a lot, that it has succeeded to the
degree it has is yet another example of sci-fi anticipating/determining
the future.
As to Randi being the 3rd person, I emailed him the question and
he says no:
Subject: Were you in the meeting with Frederick Pohl and L Ron Hubbard?
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:01:48 -0800
From: pnorton
To: ra...@randi.org
Dear Mr. Randi,
I have been reading on Usenet lately some rumors that you were
the mysterious third person in the meeting where L Ron Hubbard
dreamed up the Scientology/Dianetics hoax with Frederick Pohl
back in the 40s?
Is this true?
Subject: Were you in the meeting with Frederick Pohl and L Ron Hubbard?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:59:37 -0500
From: James Randi <James...@compuserve.com>
To: pnorton
No, I'm not that "third party." I only met Hubbard twice, briefly, and
never got into a conversation with him. He didn't much like me, I think.
Randi.
>mgrindol wrote:
>
>Lammi wrote in message <6a56i7$r...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi>...
>>Tzeng <ni...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>>> >[ Scientology genesis from a late night of beer and card with Fredrick
>>> > Pohl, L. Ron Hubbard, and unknown third SF writer, snipped ]
>>
>>> How about Niven or Pournelle as a candidate? One of them was purturbed
>>> enough to give LRH his own spot in hell (Inferno).
>>
>>When James Randi, famous scepticist, fraud exposer and stage magician, was
>>touring here in Finland last summer, he told this story and identified
>>himself as the third member of the group.
>>
>No, it wasn't James Randi. I haven't a clue who he is and I remember
>recognizing the name as another big author. Talking to my wife last night
>we're leaning towards it being Niven. That name sort of fits what we recall
>about the third author and what the third author had written.
>
>This James Randi may be trying to debunk the Scientology theory but he was
>not there when it was made up. He may have heard how Scientology was
>created and likes to place himself there to try to add credibility to his
>theory. As a "professional" skepticist he would have a reason to lie about
>being there to make himself seem more realistic. Pohl had no reason to lie.
>Debunking Scientology wasn't a career to him, he didn't go around touring
>against it.
>
>Sorry to sound critical but I know that he was not the third person there.
for some critiques of Scientology see:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/sciento.txt
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1756/emeter.txt
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Dominion
pno...@atwc.teradyne.com wrote:
Sorry, the third author was Robert Heinlein. The way the story goes is
that the three of them decided to create a religion as a storyline.
Heinlein went on to write "Stranger in a Strage Land" and Hubbard went
on to write "Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health" I forget
what Pohl wrote, but it was probably pretty good. ;)
It has also been said that Heinlein hated the part he played in the
creation of Scientology. He even wrote a story (sorry the name escapes
me) where he calles Ron's followers Hubbardites. He may have even
coined the term "Rondroids" but I can't remember for sure.
As much fun as this story is however, I have never been able to find
any evidence that this actually happened. What is confirmed (by at
least three people) is that during a s-f writers convention Hubbard
said that "writing for a penny a word is no way to make a living. If
you want to make a million dollars, start your own religion". It is
clear he took his own advice, and he was right, the money came rolling
in.
>>This James Randi may be trying to debunk the Scientology theory but he was
>>not there when it was made up. He may have heard how Scientology was
>>created and likes to place himself there to try to add credibility to his
>>theory. As a "professional" skepticist he would have a reason to lie about
>>being there to make himself seem more realistic. Pohl had no reason to lie.
>>Debunking Scientology wasn't a career to him, he didn't go around touring
>>against it.
>>
>>Sorry to sound critical but I know that he was not the third person there.
I have never heard anyone claim that Randi was the third person
involved. Since Randi is a magician and not a science fiction writer,
I am even MORE confused as to why he would be mentioned. Certainly it
is not a claim that Randi makes, as seen above. I am also surprised
that Harlan Ellison was not mentioned as the third person, he always
seems to be around when history was made in s-f. ;) I really wish I
could remember where I first heard the poker genesis story of
Scientology, but I have wracked my brain and just can't remember.
Anyway I hope this helps, and seeing as this is going to a.r.s. I am
sure that if I made any mistakes, it will be kindly pointed out to me.
Hey guys! ;) Now that I am making a nice bit of change, I am thinking
of taking a trip to Florida...oh sometime in March I think...can
anyone suggest a good date? I hear Clearwater is nice that time of
year. hehehehe.
I am not clever enough to have a sig file!
Rob Clark
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:42:12 GMT, co...@Spam-hater.brokersys.com (Dominion)
wrote:
[harlan ellison on scientology]
[quoted from http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/harlan.htm]
Excerpt from Wings Interview: The Real Harlan Ellison (page 32).
Harlan Ellison is the author of over nine hundred stories. A third of them are
science fiction, a third are fantasy. The rest are mainstream. "What I'm trying
to do," he told fans at a recent science fiction convention, "is to create a
body of work that spans all genre." He has won eight Hugo awards for his
work in science fiction short stories and films, two Nebula awards from the
Science Fiction Writers of America, an Edgar from the Mystery Writers of
America, and three times received the Writers Guild of America award for Most
Outstanding Teleplay.
Among his award winning short stories are "Repent, Harlequin! Said the
Ticktockman", "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream", "The Beast That Shouted Love
at the Heart of the World", and "Jefty is Five". He won Hugos for his novelettes
"The Deathbird" and "Adrift Just Off the Islets of Langehans". His award-winning
dramatic presentations include "The City on the Edge of Forever"
(A Star Trek episode) and the motion picture "A Boy and His Dog".
[Snipped -- More biographical information ]
[Snipped -- earlier parts of the interview]
On Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard:
Ellison: Scientology is bullshit! Man, I was there the night L. Ron Hubbard
invented it, for Christ Sakes!
I was sitting in a room with L. Ron Hubbard and a bunch of other science fiction
writers. L. Ron Hubbard was famous among science fiction writers because he was
the first one to have an electric typewriter.
Wings: He claimed to have written Dianetics in a weekend, and nobody can deny
it.
Ellison: That's true. He wrote Dianetics in one weekend, and you know how he
used to write? He used to take a roll of white paper, like paper you wrap fish
in. He had it on the wall, and he would roll it into the typewriter and he would
begin typing. When he was done, he would tear it off and leave it as one whole
long novel.
We were sitting around one night... who else was there? Alfred Bester, and Cyril
Kornbluth, and Lester Del Rey, and Ron Hubbard, who was making a penny a word,
and had been for years. And he said "This bullshit's got to stop!" He says, "I
gotta get money." He says, "I want to get rich".
Wings: He is also supposed to have said on that same night: "The question is not
how to make a million dollars, but how to keep it."
Ellison: Right. And somebody said, "why don't you invent a new religion? They're
always big." We were clowning! You know, "Become Elmer Gantry! You'll make a
fortune!" He says, "I'm going to do it." Sat down, stole a little bit from
Freud, stole a little bit from Jung, a little bit from Alder, a little bit of
encounter therapy, pre-Janov Primal Screaming, took all that bullshit, threw it
all together, invented a few new words, because he was a science fiction writer,
you know, "engrams" and "regression", all that bullshit. And then he conned John
Campbell, who was crazy as a thousand battlefields. I mean, he believed any
goddamned thing. He really believed blacks were inferior. I mean he really
believed that. He was also very nervous when I was in his office because I was a
Jew. You know, he was afraid maybe I would spring horns or something.
Anyhow, the way he conned John was that he had J. A. Winter, who was a doctor,
who was a close friend of John's, and he got him to run this article on
Dianetics, the new science of mental health.
Wings: Dianometry was the first article, I believe.
Ellison: Right. And science fiction fans will go for any goddamm thing. They'll
believe anything, man, they will believe in the abominable snowman and the
Bermuda Triangle, in Pyramid Power, in EST, in Scientology, in the Second
Coming, they'll believe in any goddamm thing, they don't give a shit.
They go to see Star Wars; they think it is for real!
So science fiction fans picked it up, they began proselytizing, he started
making money, when he had made enough money he was able to spread out a little
more, then he got more cuckoos, you know, pre-Charlie Manson assholes that had
no place else to go, and he began talking to these loons as if Dianetics really
meant something. Then he wanted to get tax-exempt status, so he called it "The
Church of Scientology".
Now, they've gotten so big that they own property all over the country, and it
is impossible to stop it. They infiltrated the FBI, they infiltrated the tax
department... , the funny thing is, Ron Hubbard and I still occasionally
communicate with each other. Every once in a while, a couple or three times a
year, we exchange letters. And I write to him, you know, and I say, "Hey Ron,
when is this bullshit going to cease? These cuckoos are really driving me crazy!
They come around the house with pamphlets!" And he writes me back, and he says,
"It's the good work, it's the good work."
It's all very funny stuff. He was going to write a new story for me for the last
Dangerous Visions, but I guess he got too busy counting his money. I don't know.
--
rob
Steve Jebson
Dominion wrote:
>
> pno...@atwc.teradyne.com wrote:
>
>
> >>mgrindol wrote:
> >>
> >>Lammi wrote in message <6a56i7$r...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi>...
> >>>> >[ Scientology genesis from a late night of beer and card with Fredrick
> >>>> > Pohl, L. Ron Hubbard, and unknown third SF writer, snipped ]
> >>>
> >>>> How about Niven or Pournelle as a candidate? One of them was purturbed
> >>>> enough to give LRH his own spot in hell (Inferno).
> >>No, it wasn't James Randi. I haven't a clue who he is and I remember
> >>recognizing the name as another big author. Talking to my wife last night
> >>we're leaning towards it being Niven. That name sort of fits what we recall
> >>about the third author and what the third author had written.
Niven would be possible. He hung around the L.A. Science Fiction Club
(I don't remember if that was the actual name) around this time, as did
Hubbard. Niven slipped an allusion to Hubbard's novel "Fear" into his
Known Space novel "Protector". The allusion involved a law firm one of
whose partners was named Hubbard, perhaps a sardonic shot at the
legendary
barratry of Co$.
> It has also been said that Heinlein hated the part he played in the
> creation of Scientology. He even wrote a story (sorry the name escapes
> me) where he calles Ron's followers Hubbardites. He may have even
> coined the term "Rondroids" but I can't remember for sure.
Heinlein refers to Scientologists as 'Elronners' in the book "Friday".
The reference is not particularly uncomplimentary. I doubt that Hein-
lein's objections were as strong as this poster suggests, because I
have heard that RAH and LRH were still in occasional and cordial con-
tact for many years after Hubbard launched Scientology.
> As much fun as this story is however, I have never been able to find
> any evidence that this actually happened. What is confirmed (by at
> least three people) is that during a s-f writers convention Hubbard
> said that "writing for a penny a word is no way to make a living. If
> you want to make a million dollars, start your own religion". It is
> clear he took his own advice, and he was right, the money came rolling
> in.
This story is very probably true. There is a FAQ detailing the evidence
floating about somewhere on the Web. However, it should be noted that
the Harlan Ellison anecdote quoted in another message in this thread,
and in fact any Harlan Ellison anecdote, should be treated with some
caution. Let's just say that Harlan is better known for the quality
of his writing than for the reliability of his stories.
David G. Bell
In article <34CAFEE6.3682@spam_blocker.sprintmail.com>
nais...@sprintmail.com "Steve Jebson" writes:
> This story is very probably true. There is a FAQ detailing the evidence
> floating about somewhere on the Web. However, it should be noted that
> the Harlan Ellison anecdote quoted in another message in this thread,
> and in fact any Harlan Ellison anecdote, should be treated with some
> caution. Let's just say that Harlan is better known for the quality
> of his writing than for the reliability of his stories.
Ellison would have been around 16 years old at the time the first
Dianetics article was published in ASF.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
mike weber
>In article <34CAFEE6.3682@spam_blocker.sprintmail.com>
> nais...@sprintmail.com "Steve Jebson" writes:
>
>> This story is very probably true. There is a FAQ detailing the evidence
>> floating about somewhere on the Web. However, it should be noted that
>> the Harlan Ellison anecdote quoted in another message in this thread,
>> and in fact any Harlan Ellison anecdote, should be treated with some
>> caution. Let's just say that Harlan is better known for the quality
>> of his writing than for the reliability of his stories.
>
>Ellison would have been around 16 years old at the time the first
>Dianetics article was published in ASF.
>
Yah -- and i _really_ think that it's prolly too early for Larry Niven
to have been involved, too.
--------------------------------------------------
<<mike weber>> <<emsh...@aol.com>>
History doesn't always repeat itself -- sometimes it just screams
"Why don't you listen to what I'm telling you?!?" and lets fly with
a club. <<JWCjr>>
Rob Clark
>In article <34CAFEE6.3682@spam_blocker.sprintmail.com>
> nais...@sprintmail.com "Steve Jebson" writes:
>> This story is very probably true. There is a FAQ detailing the evidence
>> floating about somewhere on the Web. However, it should be noted that
>> the Harlan Ellison anecdote quoted in another message in this thread,
>> and in fact any Harlan Ellison anecdote, should be treated with some
>> caution. Let's just say that Harlan is better known for the quality
>> of his writing than for the reliability of his stories.
>Ellison would have been around 16 years old at the time the first
>Dianetics article was published in ASF.
during his teens, ellison was already famous just for being a nuisance
at SF cons. as for the rest of the story, i'm not sure. he was,
however, certainly hanging around at the time in the right places.
rob
Cally Soukup
mike weber <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 98 11:25:38 GMT, db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G.
> Bell") wrote:
> >In article <34CAFEE6.3682@spam_blocker.sprintmail.com>
> > nais...@sprintmail.com "Steve Jebson" writes:
> >
> >> This story is very probably true. There is a FAQ detailing the evidence
> >> floating about somewhere on the Web. However, it should be noted that
> >> the Harlan Ellison anecdote quoted in another message in this thread,
> >> and in fact any Harlan Ellison anecdote, should be treated with some
> >> caution. Let's just say that Harlan is better known for the quality
> >> of his writing than for the reliability of his stories.
> >
> >Ellison would have been around 16 years old at the time the first
> >Dianetics article was published in ASF.
> >
> Yah -- and i _really_ think that it's prolly too early for Larry Niven
> to have been involved, too.
For what (very) little it's worth, I've heard the story told with L.
Sprague deCamp as one of the listeners. As he's still around,
perhaps someone could ask him. I did notice that in Ellison's
version, Ellison is the only surviving person....
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup ma...@mcs.com
Scott Hamilton
In article <34c9cc7c...@News2.brokersys.com>,
co...@Spam-hater.brokersys.com wrote:
> Anyway I hope this helps, and seeing as this is going to a.r.s. I am
> sure that if I made any mistakes, it will be kindly pointed out to me.
> Hey guys! ;) Now that I am making a nice bit of change, I am thinking
> of taking a trip to Florida...oh sometime in March I think...can
> anyone suggest a good date? I hear Clearwater is nice that time of
> year. hehehehe.
I'm not sure what the signifigance of March is to Scientology is, but the
weather down here is beautiful in March and April.
If you got to Clearwater, prepare to be shocked. To put it nicely,
Clearwater tends to be a little seedy and run down, but the buildings that
Scientology are clean and very nice looking. Guess having all that money
counts for something.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|| "Being a misanthropist is
This Missive Was From: || hell on my social life" - Me
ScoPi in St.Petersburg ||
sco...@atlantic.net || "He learned too late that man
|| is a feeling animal"
|| - It Conquered the World
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Visit Stomp Tokyo Movie Reviews at:
http://members.aol.com/stomptokyo/
Sheldon Epstein
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 01:47:50 GMT, sco...@atlantic.net (Scott Hamilton)
wrote:
>If you got to Clearwater, prepare to be shocked. To put it nicely,
>Clearwater tends to be a little seedy and run down, but the buildings that
>Scientology are clean and very nice looking. Guess having all that money
>counts for something.
And if they call ahead they can schedule their visit for one of
the picketing sessions.
-=-=-
Alien abductees tell more consistant stories than holocaust survivors.
So do witches for that matter.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
Cally Soukup (ma...@mcs.com) wrote:
: mike weber <emsh...@aol.com> wrote:
: > On Sun, 25 Jan 98 11:25:38 GMT, db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G.
: > Bell") wrote:
: > >In article <34CAFEE6.3682@spam_blocker.sprintmail.com>
: > > nais...@sprintmail.com "Steve Jebson" writes:
: > >
: > >> This story is very probably true. There is a FAQ detailing the evidence
: > >> floating about somewhere on the Web. However, it should be noted that
: > >> the Harlan Ellison anecdote quoted in another message in this thread,
: > >> and in fact any Harlan Ellison anecdote, should be treated with some
: > >> caution. Let's just say that Harlan is better known for the quality
: > >> of his writing than for the reliability of his stories.
: > >
: > >Ellison would have been around 16 years old at the time the first
: > >Dianetics article was published in ASF.
: > >
: > Yah -- and i _really_ think that it's prolly too early for Larry Niven
: > to have been involved, too.
: For what (very) little it's worth, I've heard the story told with L.
: Sprague deCamp as one of the listeners. As he's still around,
: perhaps someone could ask him. I did notice that in Ellison's
: version, Ellison is the only surviving person....
It's not beyond the realm of possibility, of course, that there
were more than one conversations, and that Hubbard was more or
less floating a trial balloon on the concept. I've heard the
story as involving Hubbard, Heinlein and De Camp, during or
following their stint as propagandists during WWII.
-- LJM
The Walrus
This is not any Sheldon Epstein, it is Matt Giwer:
http://atropos.c2.net/~ccrj/giwer.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/net-abuse/
http://www-mathphys.iam.uni-bonn.de/nizkor/encouragements/giwer.html
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/email-96-06.html
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/giwer.matt/lies
He is a troll of the first order, and a self-confessed liar.
Another current alias is "William Wallace", used recently in a thread
which can be seen on sci.cognitive.
The internet is full of his shit: look him up.
d.
eyeb...@interpath.com
In article <6ah4q6$e9$1...@wheel.two14.lan>, Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> wrote:
> For what (very) little it's worth, I've heard the story told with L.
> Sprague deCamp as one of the listeners. As he's still around,
> perhaps someone could ask him. I did notice that in Ellison's
> version, Ellison is the only surviving person....
I don't have copies to check, but I'm almost certain that Asimov relates
this story in his two-volume autobiography. The people present in
Asimov's version (20 year old shaky memory tells me) were De Camp,
Heinlein, LRH & Asimov. I recall Asimov writing something like: "... and
then someone, I can't remember who, but I'm sure it wasn't Ron, said, 'The
only way to make any real money is to start your own religion.'"
This is becoming a true Urban Legend, and I'd love to know how it really
went down. I'm skeptical of the Ellison version, and would prefer the
Pohl version. Perhaps someone should ask Pohl. He, De Camp, and Ellison
are the only surviving members of all three versions.
eyebrown
Rob Clark
some versions of the story have become urban legends. others, such as those
reported by theodore sturgeon (a man of impeccable honesty), are likely as good
as proven.
From: lin...@munge.cs.colorado.edu (Don Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.answers,news.answers
Subject: non-scientologist faq on "Start a Religion"
Date: 6 Jun 1995 23:18:07 GMT
Message-ID: <3r2nnf$j...@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
Reply-To: lin...@cs.colorado.edu
Summary: L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said
"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."
Keywords: faq scientology hubbard religion million dollars
Archive-name: scientology/skeptic/start-a-religion-faq
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-modified: Friday, 28apr95
Version: 4.3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
L. Ron Hubbard is widely rumored to have said "The way to make a million
dollars is to start a religion." There are also variant rumors. For
some reason, this is often mentioned on Usenet. Evidence is discussed
below, but the short answer is that it's almost certainly true.
The Church of Scientology has actually taken German publishers to court
for printing this story. _Stern_ won (see below).
One form of the rumor is that L. Ron Hubbard made a bar bet with Robert
A. Heinlein. This is definitely not true. It's uncharacteristic of
Heinlein, and there's no supporting evidence. There is, however,
inconclusive evidence that Bob Heinlein suggested some parts of the
original _Dianetics_.
Another variant is that Hubbard talked of starting a religion to avoid
taxes. Jay Kay Klein reports that Hubbard said this in 1947.
The Church's media guide tells reporters that the rumor is confused, and
that it was George Orwell who said it. In 1938, Orwell did write "But I
have always thought there might be a lot of cash in starting a new
religion...". However, Robert Vaughn Young, who was Scientology's
spokesman for 20 years, says that Hubbard learned about the Orwell quote
from _him_. Young further states that he met three people who could
remember Hubbard saying more-or-less the famous quote. Nor did Hubbard
write a rebuttal of the rumor -- Young claims to have ghost-written the
rebuttal in the Rocky Mountain News interview.
I found the following in books about Hubbard and Scientology:
"Whenever he was talking about being hard up he often used to say
that he thought the easiest way to make money would be to start a
religion."
-- reporter Neison Himmel: quoted in "Bare Faced Messiah"** p.117 from 1986
interview. Himmel shared a room with LRH, briefly, Pasadena, fall 1945.
** "Bare-Faced Messiah, The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard", by Russell
Miller (N.Y.: Henry Holt & Co., 1987) ISBN 0-8050-0654-0. $19.95 London:
Michael Joeseph Penguin Book Ltd, 1987. See the Access FAQ for reviews.
"I always knew he was exceedingly anxious to hit big money - he used
to say he thought the best way to do it would be to start a cult."
-- Sam Merwin, then the editor of the _Thrilling_ group of magazines:
quoted in _Bare Faced Messiah_ p.133 from 1986 interview. Winter of 1946/47.
"Around this time he was invited to address a science fiction group
in Newark hosted by the writer, Sam Moskowitz. `Writing for a penny
a word is ridiculous,' he told the meeting. `If a man really wanted
to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his
own religion.'
-- _Bare Faced Messiah_ p.148. Reference given to LA Times, 27 Aug 78.
Supposed to have happened in spring 1949.
"Science fiction editor and author Sam Moscowitz tells of the occasion
when Hubbard spoke before the Eastern Science Fiction Association
in Newark, New Jersey in 1947:
`Hubbard spoke ... I don't recall his exact words; but in effect,
he told us that writing science fiction for about a penny a word
was no way to make a living. If you really want to make a million,
he said, the quickest way is to start your own religion.'"
-- _Messiah or Madman_**, p.45. No reference given. Yes, the spelling
of Sam's name differs: this book got it wrong, it has a "k". I
don't know why the two books disagree by two years.
** _L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?_ -- by Bent Corydon and L. Ron
Hubbard Jr. a.k.a. Ronald DeWolf.(Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1987)
ISBN 0-8184-0444-2 In 1992, from Barricade Books, dist. by Publishers
Group West, $12.95 See the Access FAQ for reviews.
_The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction_ lists Sam Moskowitz as the first
good historian of science fiction [among other things]. In 1994
Moskowitz wrote an affadavit which states: "After speaking for about an
hour at the meeting, Mr. Hubbard answered questions from the
audience. He made the following statement in response to a question
about making money from writing: `You don't get rich writing science
fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'"
The affadavit states that this was the 7 Nov 1948 meeting of the Eastern
Science Fiction Association, of which Moskowitz was the director.
Now, there is a problem with the three Moskowitz reports. Specifically,
the Church obtained affadavits in 1993 from David A. Kyle and Jay Kay
Klein. Both names are well-known in science fiction, and both say that
they went to the 7 Nov 1948 talk by Hubbard. Both say that they didn't
hear any such statement. Puzzling.
I believe that these dueling affadavits have met in court. _Stern_, a
German magazine, was sued by the Church, and the suit was thrown out
of court after they obtained the Moskowitz affadavit.
On 9apr94, jit...@gumby.cs.caltech.edu (Mike Jittlov) posted:
>Back in the 1940's, L. Ron Hubbard was a member of the Los Angeles
>Science Fantasy Society (when its old clubhouse was just north of
>Wilshire Blvd). Ted vividly recalled being a few yards from Hubbard,
>when he became testy with someone there and retorted, "Y'know, we're
>all wasting our time writing this hack science fiction! You wanta
>make _real_ money, you gotta start a _religion_!
>
>Though I didn't ask, I think Ted would've mentioned it if the second
>person was Heinlein or another author of note. He had an extremely
>accurate memory, and I'd trust Sturgeon over anyone else's account.
Reportedly Sturgeon also told this story to others. Theodore Sturgeon
was one of the truly great science fiction writers, and someone whose
word and memories were trusted. (John W. Campbell commented that
Sturgeon should have written the definitive history of SF fandom.)
Mike Jittlov is a respected Hollywood filmmaker and stopmotion actor,
and can be found on the net at "alt.fan.mike-jittlov".
Lloyd Arthur Eshbach was a science fiction writer and publisher between
1929 and 1957. His autobiography, "Over My Shoulder: Reflections of the
Science Fiction Era" ( Oswald Train: Publisher, Phila. 1983, limited
edition) says on pages 125 and 126 (about the events of 1948 and 1949):
I think of the time while in New York I took John W. Campbell
Marty Greenberg, and L. Ron Hubbard to lunch. Someone suggested
a Swedish smorgasbord, and I had my first--and last--taste of
kidney. Yuck! Afterward we wound up in my hotel room for
related conversation.
The incident is stamped indelibly in my mind because of one
statement that Ron Hubbard made. What led him to say what he
did I can't recall--but in so many words Hubbard said:
"I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is!"
Eshbach based his autobiography on detailed records and dated diary
entries, and is therefore likely to be quite accurate on this point.
To summarize: we have eight witnesses: Neison Himmel, Sam Merwin, Sam
Moskowitz, Theodore Sturgeon, Lloyd Arthur Eshbach, and the three
unnamed witnesses of Robert Vaughn Young. There is some confusion and
doubt about one of the five (Sam Moskowitz). Two are reported via
Russel Miller: one is reported via Mike Jittlov: one reported in his
autobiography; and one reported in an affadavit. The reports describe
different events, meaning that Hubbard said it at least five times, in
five different venues - definitely not just once. And the Church's
official disclaimer is now reportedly a flat lie.
Conclusion: He definitely said it (and more than once).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBL6HJNxcvfpnonWuNAQGwLwP9HCRkDW3u+zAL8arXQq8mrQ2DZtfUdP/P
tarWDfY8XgLPeAOneLY+E7oQL33dzEXApPpXr0TvTxKH1XW07oLHKRailLCjsxb5
hfSb27Ei/n2CXXHCHwlfJ1Fb5tb3O0c9TgV3Ziz5UZuvtHNAesT1ayVeV1LbtBPj
KbRB3G0j29Y=
=fn+i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Don D.C.Lindsay University of Colorado-Boulder Computer Science
>eyebrown
--
rob
Dr Gafia
In article <34c9cc7c...@News2.brokersys.com>, comex@Spam-
hater.brokersys.com (Dominion) writes:
<<snip>>
>[ . . . ] I am also surprised that Harlan Ellison was not
>mentioned as the third person, he always seems to be around
>when history was made in s-f. ;) I really wish I could
>remember where I first heard the poker genesis story of
>Scientology, but I have wracked my brain and just can't
>remember.
I can add nothing to this discussion except to note that
Harlan, as well as Pournelle and Niven, is inferentially out of
consideration on the basis of not being the "right" age.
Harlan's not that much older than I am; I'm not certain when
Dianetics [which led to Scientology] was first published, but I
am sure it was no later than 1950 and may have been earlier;
that means subtract a minimum of 48 from the ages of anyone
presumed to be involved. More, if the book took a while to get
written.
Harlan would have been about 12 in 1950; Niven and Pournelle in
the same ballpark or even younger. Harlan was in his full mid-
teens when he published his first fanzine in 1954/55.
Heinlein and Hubbard were at least contemporaries. Fred Pohl
. . . well, yeah, the age is okay, but somehow it doesn't
"feel" right; I can imagine Heinlein and Hubbard having drinks
and/or playing cards together but it seems more likely that
Isaac Asimov or L. Sprague de Camp would've been there before
Fred.
For what it may be worth, the notion that Hubbard went out and
started a religion while Heinlein wrote _Stranger in a Strange
Land_ after this discussion actually jibes pretty well with what;
we know: _Stranger_ wasn't published until the 1960s but
Heinlein wrote it in the late '40s, decided that even his mostly
"off stage" sex was still too hot to find a publisher (_Tropic of Cancer_ was
published in the U.S. in 1958, which resulted in the
Supreme Court giving us the present definition of obscenity),
and so he put most of it into a juvenile he was writing at the
time, _Red Planet_, less the sex and the religion and replacing
Michael Valentine Smith with Willis. Otherwise, they're
essentially the same book . . . . 8-([=^>}
--rich brown aka DrGafia
Avital Pilpel
The Walrus wrote:
Indeed. the great aryan hero also pollutes soc.culture.jewish,
talk.politics.mideast, and essentially any group that has anything to do
with jews or the holocaust.
Thanks for the links.
mitcho
> >This is becoming a true Urban Legend, and I'd love to know how it really
> >went down. I'm skeptical of the Ellison version, and would prefer the
> >Pohl version. Perhaps someone should ask Pohl. He, De Camp, and Ellison
> >are the only surviving members of all three versions.
May I respectfully suggest that while it may well be fascinating to
discuss which of several scifi authors said you could make a lot of
money by starting a religion, if one of the people in question actually
*started* one, it falls right over the precipice of appropriateness for
alt.folklore.urban.
Surely one or two of you lot are Christians. How objective about this
subject would you be if one of the folks involved was said to have been
St Paul? A little respect, please.
Followups, etc.
Mitcho
mit...@netcom.com http://www.employees.org/~ozyman
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The savage nuts have shattered the great myth of American decency.
- Hunter S Thompson
Marcus L. Rowland
In article <34CE6509...@columbia.edu>, Avital Pilpel
<ap...@columbia.edu> writes
>Indeed. the great aryan hero also pollutes soc.culture.jewish,
>talk.politics.mideast, and essentially any group that has anything to do
>with jews or the holocaust.
I've encountered him mostly in soc.history.what-if and alt.history.what-
if, where he is second only to AS Marques (another holocaust denier and
user of 25+ pseudonyms, who can only be killfiled by killfiling most of
Portugal) for nuisance value.
--
Marcus L. Rowland
http://www.ffutures.demon.co.uk/
"We are all victims of this slime. They... ...fill our mailboxes with gibberish
that would get them indicted if people had time to press charges"
[Hunter S. Thompson predicts junk e-mail, 1985 (from Generation of Swine)]
Sheldon Epstein
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:51:54 -0500, Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>The Walrus wrote:
>
>> This is not any Sheldon Epstein, it is Matt Giwer:
>>
>> http://atropos.c2.net/~ccrj/giwer.htm
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/net-abuse/
>> http://www-mathphys.iam.uni-bonn.de/nizkor/encouragements/giwer.html
>> http://www.almanac.bc.ca/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/email-96-06.html
>> http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/giwer.matt/lies
>>
>> He is a troll of the first order, and a self-confessed liar.
>>
>> Another current alias is "William Wallace", used recently in a thread
>> which can be seen on sci.cognitive.
>>
>> The internet is full of his shit: look him up.
>>
>> d.
>
>Indeed. the great aryan hero also pollutes soc.culture.jewish,
>talk.politics.mideast, and essentially any group that has anything to do
>with jews or the holocaust.
>
>Thanks for the links.
This message is exemplary. This pilpel clown has known of those
links for over a year but shows up here to "thank" someone for posting
them. That is the kind of deception these folks regularly practice.
In talk.politics.mideast this boy demonstrates a raging religious
hatred towards muslims, referring to them as animals and worse. One is
always advised to research the person who suddenly shows up to "thank"
someone. As I said, they will suddenly show up to disrupt any
newsgroup that dares deviate from total reverence for the jewish
holocaust.
Rob Clark
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:35:00 -0800, mitcho <mit...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >This is becoming a true Urban Legend, and I'd love to know how it really
>> >went down. I'm skeptical of the Ellison version, and would prefer the
>> >Pohl version. Perhaps someone should ask Pohl. He, De Camp, and Ellison
>> >are the only surviving members of all three versions.
>May I respectfully suggest that while it may well be fascinating to
>discuss which of several scifi authors said you could make a lot of
>money by starting a religion, if one of the people in question actually
>*started* one, it falls right over the precipice of appropriateness for
>alt.folklore.urban.
actually, i don't think so. some of the stories have achieved "urban legend"
status, such as the highly unlikely story of a bar bet between heinlein and
hubbard. others are questionable in their details, such as ellison's.
accounts from theodore sturgeon and sam moskowitz, though, are highly
credible, as are those from robert vaughn young, who spent 20 years as
one of scientology's most prominent spokespersons and in fact personally
wrote "hubbard's" denial of having made these "start a religion" statements.
>Surely one or two of you lot are Christians. How objective about this
>subject would you be if one of the folks involved was said to have been
>St Paul? A little respect, please.
respect? how about respect for the truth?
in any case, if theodore sturgeon, sam moskowitz, vaughn young, l.
sprague de camp, etc. had all said that st. paul said such a thing,
i believe they would have had good reason.
as it is, the christian issue is a mere diversion and only moderately
amusing as a hypothetical.
>Followups, etc.
>Mitcho
rob
Roberta Hatch
shep...@usa.net (Sheldon Epstein) writes:
>Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>>The Walrus wrote:
>>> This is not any Sheldon Epstein, it is Matt Giwer:
>>> He is a troll of the first order, and a self-confessed liar.
Well Walrus, it looks like you don't know the definitions
of net.terminology. Troll doesn't mean that nasty guy that lives
underground.
Troll in net.terminology refers to the fishing definition
of the word. Trolling is harmless and usually humorous.
Flamebaiting is designed to cause an argument.
Giwer seems to believe what he writes, so he's neither a
troller or a flamebaiter.
>>Indeed. the great aryan hero also pollutes soc.culture.jewish,
>>talk.politics.mideast, and essentially any group that has anything to do
>>with jews or the holocaust.
ObGiwer: What holocaust?
> This message is exemplary. This pilpel clown has known of those...
You call a clown now. But soon he'll have his degree in
Zionist Conspiracy Tactics and I expect you'll become more
respectful.
Bobbi
---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)
Avital Pilpel
Matt Giwer wrote:
> This message is exemplary. This pilpel clown has known of
> those
> links for over a year but shows up here to "thank" someone for posting
>
> them. That is the kind of deception these folks regularly practice.
Yeah, us jooos will stop at NOTHING in our evil ways of deception! We
will even thank someone for posting links showing what a jerk you are,
when we already KNOW some of them! How EVIL AND REVOLTING!
<maniacal laughter>
Bwhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
<puzzled look>
Hey, who took my extra-large gentile blood sundae???
William Wallace
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 23:34:33 -0500, Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>Matt Giwer wrote:
>> This message is exemplary. This pilpel clown has known of
>> those
>> links for over a year but shows up here to "thank" someone for posting
>
>> them. That is the kind of deception these folks regularly practice.
>Yeah, us jooos will stop at NOTHING in our evil ways of deception! We
>will even thank someone for posting links showing what a jerk you are,
>when we already KNOW some of them! How EVIL AND REVOLTING!
That is clearly the impression you folks give. And you then hide
behind antisemitic when called on it.
Speaking the truth can not be antisemitic.
=====
Let every Muslim learn one word and learn it well.
Let it be their constant shout to every Israeli.
If need be, let it be the last word in every Israeli ear.
FREEDOM!
George Black
In article <34d16153....@news.mindspring.com>,
William...@freeedom.org (William Wallace) wrote:
> Speaking the truth can not be antisemitic.
Then, for a change, write the truth.
This sig is a sine of the thymes
Roger Alexander
George Black wrote:
And this hookah is the cosine of the rythymes.
RLa
mike weber
On 25 Jan 1998 22:52:22 -0600, Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> wrote:
>For what (very) little it's worth, I've heard the story told with L.
>Sprague deCamp as one of the listeners. As he's still around,
>perhaps someone could ask him. I did notice that in Ellison's
>version, Ellison is the only surviving person....
>
Sprague deCamp could easily have been the other person involved in
such a bull session.
Seems to me that i recall hearing that JWCjr, as one of a number of
stroy ideas he routinely bounced off of authors suggested that
starting a (successful) religion would be a Good Way To Provide For
One's Twilight Years...
mike weber
On 26 Jan 1998 05:42:08 GMT, lmac...@garcia.efn.org (Loren Joseph
MacGregor) wrote:
>It's not beyond the realm of possibility, of course, that there
>were more than one conversations, and that Hubbard was more or
>less floating a trial balloon on the concept. I've heard the
>story as involving Hubbard, Heinlein and De Camp, during or
>following their stint as propagandists during WWII.
In which case, couldn't Asimov who IIRC was also stationed at the
Philadelphia Navy Yard with RAH and deCamp, have been involved?
Boy, would that have upset Asimov, if he was part of the inspiration
for Scientology, i bet.
rotting corpse
Sheldon Epstein wrote:
>
> -=-=-
> Alien abductees tell more consistant stories than holocaust survivors.
> So do witches for that matter.
people can tour Auchwitz, yet there is not even hard evidence of
UFOs...
Sherilyn
In article <34d5c6aa...@news.mindspring.com>, mike weber
<emsh...@aol.com> writes
>On 25 Jan 1998 22:52:22 -0600, Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> wrote:
>
>
>>For what (very) little it's worth, I've heard the story told with L.
>>Sprague deCamp as one of the listeners. As he's still around,
>>perhaps someone could ask him. I did notice that in Ellison's
>>version, Ellison is the only surviving person....
>>
>Sprague deCamp could easily have been the other person involved in
>such a bull session.
I believe that Sam Moskowitz is the only SF writer who has actually
given evidence on this story in a court case. Does anybody have more
details?
--
Sherilyn
Ai to seigi no, seeraa fuku bishoujo senshi! Seeraa Muun yo!
Sheldon Epstein
>Sheldon Epstein wrote:
The curator of Auschwitz has said several things of interest
here. The room shown to tourists as a gas chamber is something built
by the Russians after the war. He has stated he has no idea where any
gas chambers and certainly he can not find them.
So if your issue is the existance of camps, that is not in
question because we can find camps. The existance of camps does not
demonstrate the existance of gas chambers.
There are no two "eyewitness" stories that give the same
description of the "gas chamber" and the current best guess is clearly
contradicted by several description.
The there is a further problem with eyewitnesses such as Elie
Wiesel. He had been writing for decades and telling stories such as he
saw smoke from crematoria and could tell if fat or thin people were
being burned by the color of the smoke. He was such a convincing
writer that his stories became footnotes in other books as the legend
grew. But then in the mid 1980s he was called as a witness in Canada
and put under oath. Under oath he admitted he had made up the above
and had never even seen a crematorium.
That is and example of the kind of "eyewitness" we have to deal
with. And we can not get them all under oath. However there have been
many stories of the impossible told under oath so even an oath can not
get at the truth.
/\/\/\/\/\
Oh my god! They've killed Kenny!
Walter and Teresa Robison
I'm coming in late here but is what your posting: that there was in fact no
holocaust? If so I would like to know why you disbelieve such an event
ever happened. More to the point what facts if any do you have to support
your arguments?
W.S.Robison
Riboflavin
Walter and Teresa Robison wrote in message
<01bd3059$d3b32ec0$63968ed1@cen25970>...
Someone will post all of Mr. Giwer's history, but the basic tactic of a
holocaust revisionist is to find minor inconsistencies in history, and blow
them up to "prove" that the holocaust never happened, ignore any evidence
you put forward while calling for evidence, make up bizarre chemical
theories for why a "gas chamber" is impossible, say "but killing all those
people doesn't make any sense, therefore they didn't", call you a
'holo-hugger' or part of the 'world Jewish conspiracy', fake posts from you
threatening them and then rant about those threats, and other fun items.
Basically, you are completely wasting your time attempting to hold a
rational discussion with these sorts of people. They don't care about actual
evidence, and simply want to make things up to suit their political ends.
It's especially obvious when they go nuts and crosspost to unrelated
groups, take a look at the newsgroup lines and tell me how someone is
supposed to believe this has anything to do with all of the groups listed
above.
Followups set to a more appropriate group.
--
Kevin Allegood ri...@mindspring.com
No estoy vistiendo ninguna pantalones. Película a las 11.
Je ne porte aucun pantalon. Film à 11.
Ich trage keine Hosen. Film bei 11.
Non sto portando alcuni pantaloni. Pellicola a 11.
Eu não estou desgastando nenhumas calças. Película em 11.
Gno mou shiok fu, sap yat tim yau siu sek.
Jag har inga byxor på mig. Film kl 21.00
Uiopy treintity angleksi a retyuivia. Arestada bermany 11.
Ik heb geen broek aan. Film om 11 uur.
Pantsless in 10 languages!
Sheldon Epstein
On 3 Feb 98 04:14:16 GMT, "Walter and Teresa Robison"
<wrob...@centuryinter.net> wrote:
>I'm coming in late here but is what your posting: that there was in fact no
>holocaust? If so I would like to know why you disbelieve such an event
>ever happened. More to the point what facts if any do you have to support
>your arguments?
I point out it is Undefined. I point out there no more credible
evidence for gas chanbers than there is for alien abductions. I point
out that all evidence presented must be skeptically reviewed and
criticiszed without exception. All claims are equal.
Please participate if you are interested.
Dean Robb
Thus spake mike weber in <34d5c74d...@news.mindspring.com> on Mon,
02 Feb 1998 13:18:30 GMT:
> On 26 Jan 1998 05:42:08 GMT, lmac...@garcia.efn.org (Loren Joseph
> MacGregor) wrote:
>
>
> >It's not beyond the realm of possibility, of course, that there
> >were more than one conversations, and that Hubbard was more or
> >less floating a trial balloon on the concept. I've heard the
> >story as involving Hubbard, Heinlein and De Camp, during or
> >following their stint as propagandists during WWII.
>
> In which case, couldn't Asimov who IIRC was also stationed at the
> Philadelphia Navy Yard with RAH and deCamp, have been involved?
>
> Boy, would that have upset Asimov, if he was part of the inspiration
> for Scientology, i bet.
I've read that story in a number of works by RAH. The Good Doctor wasn't
at that gathering, one of their regular bull sessions. I can say from
his various comments (see 'Grumbles from the grave') that RAH wasn't
happy about L. Ron and Scientology.
....back to the topic.....
--
Have you hugged your Spam Fighter today?
Dean Robb
PC-Easy
On-site computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]