Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: davidb@caen.engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell)
Subject: Re: What's so Scientific here?
Message-ID: <_3f_Jf-@engin.umich.edu>
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 17:41:05 EST
Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
References: <1991Nov6.213823.1249@usl.edu> <z9d_k3+@engin.umich.edu> <1991Nov9.033839.18528@usl.edu>

In article <1991Nov9.033839.18528@usl.edu>, das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
> Well, I did read the 'you suck' beginning section of Dianetics.  It came off
> to me as a quack's ramblings.  None of this psycho-analytical drivel makes any
> sense.  Just because some guy says <such and such> about how he thinks people
> think, does mean it is truth.  Don't be so gullible.

What exactly is the 'you suck' beginning?  I think I missed that part. If 
you are having trouble understanding be sure you are passing by no words
that are misunderstood. Look up ALL words you are unsure of.  That's why
most of the hard to understand words are defined on the bottom of each page.
 
> 
> Why not respond to this instances which I originally noted in my first 
> article? They made to bulk of it. They sure don't shine well on the 'science'
> in Scientology, if you know what I mean,....
> 
> -Dan

If you are really interested in the way energy flows work in the body and
mind there are books that I can give you reference on.  Of course I am not going
to just tell you because that violates "the telephone rule".