Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: deej@cds8613.Cadence.COM (Jim Howard)
Subject: Re: Scientology questions
Message-ID: <1991Jul26.172305.3873@cadence.com>
Sender: usenet@cadence.com (USENET News)
Reply-To: deej@cds8613.Cadence.COM (Jim Howard)
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, San Jose
References: <1991Jul24.222243.6342@cs.sfu.ca> <1991Jul24.021125.714438@locus.com> <55326@apple.Apple.COM>
Distribution: alt.religion.scientology
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 17:23:05 GMT

In article <1991Jul24.222243.6342@cs.sfu.ca>, thomson@cs.sfu.ca (Brian Thomson) writes: > |In article <55326@apple.Apple.COM> cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus) writes: > |>In article <1991Jul24.021125.714438@locus.com> eastin@locus.com (Dick Eastin) writes: > |>>E-meter - remotely decended from the GSR, Galvanic Skin Response device > |>>and a distant cousin of the ohmmeter or resistance measuring device. > |>>Original theory of GSR was that it measured the skin resistance and that > |>>variations were a measure of moisture and salinity (saltiness). > |>>The E-meter, or electropsychometer, however works around the skin > |>>factors and measures the density(resistance) of the body circuit > |>>between the hand held electrodes. It is also super sensitive in > |>>magnitude of change and rate of change (time factor). > |> > |>The problem is that there is NO electronics in the E-Meter to do any of > |>this, except to measure resistance. I've taken two apart; there's > |>nothing in them except the parts needed to be an ohmmeter and some junk > |>that is presumably set dressing (resistors in series, parts not > |>connected to anything, etc.). > > Well the fact is that from the Scientologist's viewpoint is does the > job (amazingly well considering how rudimentary it is). The real issue > is not whether the thing is any good (within the technology it does well > enough what they say it does) but why the "Church" feels obliged to collect > a king's ransom for something that is really cheap enough to be given away > free with every course. In 1968 they cost about 40 pounds (in the UK) and > even then they were overpriced. The pricing now is a positive obscenity. > Would any (current) Scientologists care to respond to the fact that they > are paying extraordinary prices for goods and services that could be > delivered at a fraction of the price. > -BST.

I agree that the E-meter does have a high price-tag. By the same token, I've heard of people paying exhorbitant sums to their clergy for such "simple" things as wedding, baptism, funeral, briss, and other such religious ceremonies. Why is there such a high price on these things?

~ deej ~ | (If I were expressing Cadence's opinions, ) Jim Howard -- deej@cadence.com | (they'd probably make me wear a tie... ) Flames cheerfully ignored. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank