Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!cj871 Wed Jul 19 09:29:19 1995
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!cunews!freenet.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!cj871
From: cj871@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Scott A. McClare)
Subject: Re: The Noose is Tightening on CoS (was Big Suprise - 79K) (LONG)
Message-ID:
Sender: cj871@freenet2.carleton.ca (Scott A. McClare)
Reply-To: cj871@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Scott A. McClare)
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 20:21:01 GMT
Lines: 117
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
esi_inc@ix.netcom.com (Tim Johnson) said:
>>> I don't access a.r.s. or alt.conspiracy or anything else that sounds
like
>>> a forum for a hate group.............
"Don't bother me with the facts, please, I've already
made up
my mind."
>Dear Sister Clara
>Being a Scientologist myself doesnRt mean that I believe in Scn or L.
>Ron Hubbard, and I donRt know of any others frankly who do believe
>something as if in a cult or a faith even.
Come again? If you don't "believe in Scn or L. Ron Hubbard," then
what kind of Scientologist are you, exactly? That's like saying
"I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in Jesus," or "I'm a Muslim, but
the Quran is pretty much irrelevant to me," is it not?
> What I consider about the
>CoS is based on what information I have read, studied, examined, tested
>and evaluated for myself - not the claims of others, not the reports
>(purported false or otherwise), but what I have experienced to be true
>for myself.
Ah, yes, the Creed of the Church of Scientology : "What
is true is what's true for you."
>I notice how rare it is that anyone attempts to claim that Dianetics
>doesnRt really work. The reason is, itRs too easy to prove that it
>does. Just do it.
Obviously you haven't been reading this group for very long.
*Lots* of people here have said Dianetics doesn't work.
BTW, what exactly do you mean by "Dianetics works," anyway?
> If a person dared actually evaluate it for
>themselves, that is. But of course much as the media operates: QOh no,
>donRt look, itRs dangerous; donRt dare look for your self; we have
>looked [apparently] and we know it is dangerous, believe us; take our
>word for it Q So, people are coerced *out* of looking.
Typical Scieno paranoia. "The media are the Merchants of
Chaos! They don't want you to *know* that Dianetics works
(whatever that means)!" Run away! Run away!
FYI, you ought to read Jeff Jacobsen's essay, "The Hubbard
is Bare." It was just posted to this group a couple days ago, and
should still be floating around. He's got one section that says
someone *did* look for himself, and found Dianetics wanting.
>All this distasteful anti-CoS information spread around the Internet is
>deliberately intended to communicate to people that they should not look
>for themselves.
Wrongo! All this distasteful information serves as Equal
Time to the CoS 's well-financed propaganda campaign (the
Dianetics infomercials etc.). I'd personally hope that anyone
whose exposure to Scientology is one or two of those silly
volcano commercials would come here and see the dark side of your
vicious lying thug cult.
>I think we have all probably been led astray at one time or another by
>people we have trusted. I donRt do that any longer. I know what I know
>because itRs what I myself have evaluated with my own experience and
>found to be true by my own test, and retest and retest over and over;
>and it still holds to be true for me.
Creed! Creed!
>If you know something to be factual for yourself, if you know all the
>particulars and details, so you can be certain there are no distortions
>or alterations of fact or of relative importances concerning something -
>then I think you would not be swayed by contrary claims or opinions, or
>information aligned such as to make the greatest negative impact.
Bull. What the hell does "factual for yourself" mean,
anyway? "It's true if it's true for you." What if it's false for
someone else?
Dianetics is a fetid load of rotting dingo's kidneys. This
is true for me, and I have no objection to shouting this personal
truth from the rooftops.
>I weigh this against what I myself have experienced to be true. I
>consider this to be rational, sane behavior. There is little going on
>on ARS that is rational or sane.
Define "sane." I seem to remember that Scientology's
use of the word "sane" or "insane" tends to be a bit different
from the Real World's.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMAwKl+4Q7e/nlQspAQGWqwP/fEha0158lt8f+frkTCpuGAShsvxEcGFe
Fo28SEqA0pKUAXEgClV9XDRxBnzAWWX3mTcULb8XJ7BXNgQHb+rmElaM4gx6w4Wn
MFMY9d9mrWBcShCfcInvpnn57P65+G5Ry2LYswUgBqFk6a9A1njsplGS/NBAOLvn
TfwzKjuRDx8=
=LaM2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-=Scott A. McClare=- |PGP fingerprint:
cj871@freenet.carleton.ca |4135A8BA40E65657
samcclar@artspas.watstar.uwaterloo.ca |064671A9CF2B8A1C
* Though this is madness, yet there is method in't. - Polonius *
