Archive Message - 1995

Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From!!!utnut!nott!cunews!!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!cj871 Wed Jul 19 09:29:19 1995 Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Path:!!!utnut!nott!cunews!!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!cj871 From: cj871@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Scott A. McClare) Subject: Re: The Noose is Tightening on CoS (was Big Suprise - 79K) (LONG) Message-ID: <> Sender: (Scott A. McClare) Reply-To: cj871@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Scott A. McClare) Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 20:21:01 GMT Lines: 117 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- (Tim Johnson) said: >>> I don't access a.r.s. or alt.conspiracy or anything else that sounds like >>> a forum for a hate group............. <chuckle> "Don't bother me with the facts, please, I've already made up my mind." >Dear Sister Clara >Being a Scientologist myself doesnRt mean that I believe in Scn or L. >Ron Hubbard, and I donRt know of any others frankly who do believe >something as if in a cult or a faith even. Come again? If you don't "believe in Scn or L. Ron Hubbard," then what kind of Scientologist <tm> are you, exactly? That's like saying "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in Jesus," or "I'm a Muslim, but the Quran is pretty much irrelevant to me," is it not? > What I consider about the >CoS is based on what information I have read, studied, examined, tested >and evaluated for myself - not the claims of others, not the reports >(purported false or otherwise), but what I have experienced to be true >for myself. Ah, yes, the Creed of the Church of Scientology <tm>: "What is true is what's true for you." >I notice how rare it is that anyone attempts to claim that Dianetics >doesnRt really work. The reason is, itRs too easy to prove that it >does. Just do it. Obviously you haven't been reading this group for very long. *Lots* of people here have said Dianetics doesn't work. BTW, what exactly do you mean by "Dianetics works," anyway? > If a person dared actually evaluate it for >themselves, that is. But of course much as the media operates: QOh no, >donRt look, itRs dangerous; donRt dare look for your self; we have >looked [apparently] and we know it is dangerous, believe us; take our >word for it Q So, people are coerced *out* of looking. Typical Scieno paranoia. "The media are the Merchants of Chaos! They don't want you to *know* that Dianetics works (whatever that means)!" Run away! Run away! FYI, you ought to read Jeff Jacobsen's essay, "The Hubbard is Bare." It was just posted to this group a couple days ago, and should still be floating around. He's got one section that says someone *did* look for himself, and found Dianetics wanting. >All this distasteful anti-CoS information spread around the Internet is >deliberately intended to communicate to people that they should not look >for themselves. Wrongo! All this distasteful information serves as Equal Time to the CoS <tm>'s well-financed propaganda campaign (the Dianetics infomercials etc.). I'd personally hope that anyone whose exposure to Scientology <tm> is one or two of those silly volcano commercials would come here and see the dark side of your vicious lying thug cult. >I think we have all probably been led astray at one time or another by >people we have trusted. I donRt do that any longer. I know what I know >because itRs what I myself have evaluated with my own experience and >found to be true by my own test, and retest and retest over and over; >and it still holds to be true for me. Creed! Creed! >If you know something to be factual for yourself, if you know all the >particulars and details, so you can be certain there are no distortions >or alterations of fact or of relative importances concerning something - >then I think you would not be swayed by contrary claims or opinions, or >information aligned such as to make the greatest negative impact. Bull. What the hell does "factual for yourself" mean, anyway? "It's true if it's true for you." What if it's false for someone else? Dianetics is a fetid load of rotting dingo's kidneys. This is true for me, and I have no objection to shouting this personal truth from the rooftops. >I weigh this against what I myself have experienced to be true. I >consider this to be rational, sane behavior. There is little going on >on ARS that is rational or sane. Define "sane." I seem to remember that Scientology's <tm> use of the word "sane" or "insane" tends to be a bit different from the Real World's. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMAwKl+4Q7e/nlQspAQGWqwP/fEha0158lt8f+frkTCpuGAShsvxEcGFe Fo28SEqA0pKUAXEgClV9XDRxBnzAWWX3mTcULb8XJ7BXNgQHb+rmElaM4gx6w4Wn MFMY9d9mrWBcShCfcInvpnn57P65+G5Ry2LYswUgBqFk6a9A1njsplGS/NBAOLvn TfwzKjuRDx8= =LaM2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- -=Scott A. McClare=- |PGP fingerprint: |4135A8BA40E65657 |064671A9CF2B8A1C * Though this is madness, yet there is method in't. - Polonius *


Return to The Skeptic Tank Alt.Religion.Scientology Archives Master List
Go to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank