From: christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Christi)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Perfectionism (was Re: L. Ron Hubbard was an egregious sexist.)
Message-ID: <CHRISTIR.91Aug29184846@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 91 23:48:46 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>
	<1991Aug26.154135.24941@hellgate.utah.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Reply-To: christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Who?  Me?  Organization?
Lines: 69
In-reply-to: sgandy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 26 Aug 91 21:41:35 GMT

In article <1991Aug26.154135.24941@hellgate.utah.edu> sgandy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Sildem Gandy) writes:

   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.  

why?  are you jumping to conclusions, or do you have proof?  i'd
really love to see proof of this.  it would be a side of scott i've
never seen before.

   >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.

can you give some examples?  i have seen scott quote sources, but i
haven't seen anything along the lines of argument soley based on
whether or not you have read book X.  what i've seen from some of the
scientologists is along the lines of "if you had read this book by
Hubbard you would know better."  what i've seen from scott is along
the lines of "i believe this ...  so-and-so backs this up in <book>:
<quote>" 

i would love to see some examples otherwise.  tell you what.  just
mail me the message id.  i can just pull the articles off tape.

   >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.

umm... that doesn't answer the challenge.  or should we assume that
you can't provide sources?  for the most part scott has backed up any
claims he's made with sources (i.e. actual quotes).

c.
--