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: <1991Aug26.154135.24941@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 91 21:41:35 GMT
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> <GOEHRING.91Aug22174325@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 80

In article <GOEHRING.91Aug22174325@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes: >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'll take that as a yes.

>I've noticed that you constantly attack the people you disagree with >with claims of "you haven't read this or that".

I've noticed you accuse people of what you are culpable of yourself. >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. >

Hooray for you. Why don't you type the old edition and the new edition in and use diff on them. I am tired of hearing your unsubstantiated claims as well.

>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. > >--

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have known people that have had case gain and were declared suppressive, and people that were suppressive that did not get "declared". It is entirely possible to process suppressives, it is just damn hard. I know from experience. I once had the adventure of coaching one through the simplest beginning part of Scientology, Training routine 0. He just wouldn't do it right, and kept trying to mess me up. I eventually got him through it, but it was a real pain to do, and not really worth it when I could coach an average person through in a tenth the time.


Sildem Gandy

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