From: sgandy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Sildem Gandy)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Perfectionism (was Re: L. Ron Hubbard was an egregious sexist.)
Message-ID: <1991Aug20.195201.17119@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: 21 Aug 91 01:52:01 GMT
References: <1991Aug8.200303.22826@cadence.com> <28A1D783.13882@ics.uci.edu> <17563@life.ai.mit.edu> <19116@scorn.sco.COM>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 19

In article <19116@scorn.sco.COM> jondr@fscott.UUCP (Dances With Voles) writes:
>>
>I don't, but the way Dianetics was written, and the way most of Hubbard's
>claims were presented leave the reader with no other choice than to assume
>that yes, he DID get it all right the first time around and yes, it is all
>perfect.  Notice the injuction against squirrel tech.  Now, there's nothing
>wrong if WE go changing it, but nobody else could POSSIBLY get it right, so
>avoid them.
>

Jon, if you have any suggestions as to how to improve Dianetics why don't 
you say so?  LRH looked for suggestions for years, and after receiving
a thousands of which only twenty or so proved at all useful and *none*
were major or basic, decided to go it alone.  In fact many suggestions
if followed would have been disasterous.  Anybody has the right to figure
it out by themselves, why don't you?  I for one am greatful for what
LRH has discovered.  

Sildem                sgandy@peruvian.utah.edu | u_gandy@cc.SLCC.edu