From: nyet@cco.caltech.edu (n liu)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: recent FAQ postings
Message-ID: <1991Sep10.173747.25809@cco.caltech.edu>
Date: 10 Sep 91 17:37:47 GMT
References: <GOEHRING.91Sep10092703@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 39

goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring) writes:

>The FAQ postings which eastin@locus.com has posted recently are
>heavily biased toward the Church.  He leaves out all of the very
>negative aspects of Scientology.  I have a almost complete archive of
>this newsgroup (229 articles and counting - only 21 articles missing
>from the beginning) which I would be glad to share with anybody who
>would like to see it. There have been several discussions which I feel
>are much more indicative of the true nature of the Church of
>Scientology than the recent postings by Mr. Eastin, who is merely
>transcribing material from the Church's advertisements.

This brings up an interesting point.. Clearly, there should be TWO
FAQ listings - one for scientologists, one for non-scientologists, 
considering both groups seem to have completely differing views of
reality. Most FAQ's are maintained by peer review - "Excuse me, but
this info is incorrect" or "may I add something to that". However, the
majority of non-scientologists I have met feel that scientologists
are either hopelessly brainwashed or being blackmailed, and most
scientologists feel non-scientologists know absolutely NOTHING
about scientology and therefore have nothing useful to say about it.
This complete disagreement on even the most basic "facts" makes the
ideal of a conclusive FAQ quite unrealistic. Since both camps feel
the other is misguided, ignorant, and/or narrowminded, how can they
POSSIBLY agree on ANYTHING? I realize this argument can be applied
to almost any controversy, I feel this one is particularly divided and
quite impossible to resolve.
	In addition, the basis of "absolute truths" that
both parties agree upon can probably be counted on one hand. And 
"myth debunking" is equally impossible. Scientologists can easily 
dismiss anything as bad press, and non-Scientologists merely quote
P.T. Barnum.
Personally, I may just unsubscribe to this group altogether, unless
a useful debate ensues soon. I was hoping to find any reasonable
evidence that Scientology is NOT a scam, but sadly, none surfaced.
And I fancied myself open-minded. Perhaps that was a mistake.
-- 
nyet@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu
nyet@aerospace.aero.org