From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Perfectionism (was Re: L. Ron Hubbard was an egregious sexist.)
Message-ID: <GOEHRING.91Aug22174325@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 91 22:43:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.GOEHRING.91Aug22174325
References: <17563@life.ai.mit.edu> <19116@scorn.sco.COM>
	<1991Aug20.195201.17119@hellgate.utah.edu> <19188@scorn.sco.COM>
	<1991Aug22.145929.11774@hellgate.utah.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 54
In-reply-to: sgandy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 22 Aug 91 20:59:29 GMT

In article <1991Aug22.145929.11774@hellgate.utah.edu>, sgandy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Sildem Gandy) writes:

>Considering your knowledge of abreactive therapy I would hazard a
>guess that you are a psychologist, or work in that field.  Is that
>so?

Why do you ask?  So that if the poor soul says yes you can
vituperatively attack him/her for being an evil mind-destroying person
(as is required by Scientology doctrine)?

I've noticed that you constantly attack the people you disagree with
with claims of "you haven't read this or that".  I would like to see
you post references to your claims.  To wit:

|Message-ID: <1991Aug21.144850.9141@hellgate.utah.edu>
|
|Clearly you haven't read much of LRH's work yourself, else you would know, 
|or at least be familiar with that fact that he says right in the beginning
|of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health that much of what he
|was writing was discovered by others and that he was consolidating it and
|putting it into a workable form.  

and

|Message-ID: <1991Aug22.145929.11774@hellgate.utah.edu>
|
|You obviously missed reading the part where LRH gives credit to Freud for 
|the discovery of the engram chain etc.  

Please produce citations for these claims.  I would like to check them
myself.  I have a hardbound copy of the 1951 edition of Dianetics
(which has not been subject to revisionism, unlike the later, more
popular versions), and can access most of the non-secret materials.

Oh, and furthermore:

>I don't know of anyone who has been harmed by LRH, but I know
>personally hundreds of people who have received Dianetics and
>Scientology counselling who have rave reviews of it. I am also a
>trained New Era Dianetics Counselor and I know how effective it is.

Of course you don't know of anyone that has been harmed by
LRH/Scientology.  Scientology declares such people SP (anyone who
fails to benefit from Scientological therapy did so because they have,
what was it, withheld overts, I believe is the term, and is therefore
probably an enemy of the Church; therefore, suppressive).  You as a
Scientologist may not contact SPs; in fact, you are expected to treat
them as if they never existed.  So you never meet any of these people.
They nonetheless exist, despite your (and Scientology's) claims to the
contrary.

--
It's because you...piss...me...off.  --  Russ Smith, in rec.games.mud,
					 said to Bruce Woodcock