From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A few definitions
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.204802.168392@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 91 20:48:02 GMT
References: <1991Nov9.114625.4752@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <12f_AY-@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: gandalf.cs.cmu.edu

In article <12f_AY-@engin.umich.edu> davidb@caen.engin.umich.edu 
	(David Bonnell) writes:
>It is very interesting that you so strongly state below that I should give
>evidence for my claims when you have none for yours!  Find someone else to
>slam for fun.  
>As soon as you prove your claims I will be more than happy to demonstrate mine.

It's quite the logical leap, from noting that Crunchy Frog gave no
evidence, to concluding that he has none.

While you are demonstrating *your* evidence, could you throw in the
name of *one* important scientist or chess player who credits
Scientology for their intellectual successes? Just one would do, and
no, I am not demanding anything extreme, such as a Nobel winner or
world champion. I've asked others before, but still no answer.

I believe that Transcendental Meditation can come up with such names.
If Scientology can't, and if Scientology's big defence is that "it
works!", then shouldn't you consider switching to TM? 
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science