NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/religion/scientol/2748

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 6.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!wdl1!master!jerry
From: [e-mail] (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Proving the Validity of Scn
Keywords: tongue pulled
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:20:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Lines: 131

>But back to my point.  I had shown that the CoS could have easily
>handled TEN times as many PCs' as it claims which only gives a TEN
>percent success rate.  Can I assume that you agree with this since you
>haven't questioned it, Jonathon?

I question it.  A 10% success is ridiculous.  100% is much more likely.

>
>Anyway I continue:
>>>    You *must* get my point now!  The CoS must produce _ALL_ of
>>>the cases, not just the successes.  I want to see all of the screwed
>>>up cases, all of the complaints, all of the unhappy customers.  In short
>>>the whole thing!  Not _just_ the successes that have been filtered out!
>
>>Okay, I understand.
>
>Good, you understand that _just_ the successes aren't proof.
>Am I correct?

Sure.  As long as the reason why a person considers a failure a failure
is taken into consideration.  For instance, if the person stops in the
middle of a rundown, the reason for the failure is obvious: incomplete.

>>>Jonathon says:
>>>>>>Ha ha ha!  No one is ever disciplined because something like exteriorization
>>>>>>or the existence of "spirits" (souls?  huh?) isn't real to them.
>>>>>>It's okay for something not to be real to someone.  I know a Scientologist
>>>>>>in particular who mentioned this to me ... he's been on staff for about
>>>>>>twelve years and there are some whole track (past life memories) which
>>>>>>aren't real to him.  That's okay.  No one is disciplined or pressured to
>>>>>>believe something like this.
>
>     In some posts following this comment you say that you have
>been disciplined.  Given the "doubt condition" I believe.  Isn't
>this a setback, a lowering of status, thus a punishment?

You're not duplicating.  Above I refer to the fact that people aren't
disciplined because things like past lives aren't real to them.  I was
assigned a doubt condition for something in a different context.
My belief in past lives or spiritual things were not in question.

>>>    Well, others have travelled this ground better than I, and have
>>>given evidence to cause me to doubt the truth of this.
>
>>Please provide specific examples.  (Remember: my statement relates to the
>>person believing in various concepts and does not apply to policy.)
>
>     I was, of course, refering to Mary Kuhners'(I hope I got the name
>right this time) treatment of Scn ethics as applied to the PC.  And
>Dave Decots' confirmation of her worries.

You've misunderstood something.  Ethics is not in use regarding people
who things like past lives are not real to.  Ethics is a different
subject.  People are not forced to believe something in Scientology.

>
>>>>>>"What's true for you is true."
>>>    IMHO, this is not true!  If this were true I could get 100% on
>>>_ALL_ of my physics exams!
>>Okay, if that's true for you, that's true!
>
>     Very cute! :-)  But if I were to say that the taller 5 ounce
>glass holds more water than the short 5 ounce glass, that would be
>true for me, right?  BUT IT IS NOT TRUE!

It isn't true ... for you.  If it were, I wouldn't invalidate you on it.

>
>>>>>from above :
>>>>>">If someone was dissatisfied, the source of the dissatisfaction is found and
>>>>> >handled.  It doesn't happen too often, but when it does there are several
>>>>> >things that they check (the Case Supervisor can double-check the PC folder
>>>>> >to see if anything was missed, etc.)..."
>>>>>    "handled"?  Sounds pretty ominous to me.
>>>>>    It sounds a lot like the blame would be put on the PC for any
>>>>>dissatisfaction.
>
>     This was confirmed by Dave.
>
>>>>No.  Nothing ominous and the PC is being blamed.
>
>>>     Is it _ALWAYS_ the PC's fault?  Of course it must be, because
>>>Scn is NEVER wrong!  :)
>
>>Sorry, that would be a typo.
>
>     Some would say Freudian slip.   :)
>
>>                             To clarify: the PC wouldn't be blamed.
>>There would be a review of the auditing to see if the auditor missed
>>something or whatever.  On the other hand, a problem would arise if
>>the PC was PTS (various types).  Again, the PC isn't blamed.  This
>>is merely something that would need handling before auditing would
>>be beneficial.
>
>      If, of course, auditing was benificial!  And this is _one_ of
>the things I would want to know, via some sort of professional
>examination.

Oddly enough, the beneficial effect of Scn auditing is rarely questioned
by ex-Scientologists (and even a few non-Scientologists).  The biggest
disagreement tends to be about the Church.

>
>>>>                                                  As I stated a couple
>>>>paragraphs back, the Case Supervisor double-checks the PC folder to see
>>>>if the auditor missed anything or if something was improperly handled.
>>>>Once the problem is found, it is handled by a little more auditing.
>>>>The end result: the PC is satisfied with the service.
>>>read: "The end result: the PC is _made_ satisfied"
>
>>Sure.  People's satisfaction is a concern of every organization.
>
>Not true.   There are many organizations who couldn't give a fig
>about satisfying people(I believe the CoS to be one such example).

Clarify: By organization is meant Scn organizations.

>    Of course.  The private lives of the clients, the thing is
>the private lives are never made public, save in generalizations
>where statistics are applied.  And that's what I ask!  A statistical
>evaluation of the cases, of every aspect of the cases.  This is done
>at hospitals, care homes, dental offices, psychiatric offices, to name
>just a few places.

Oh!  If statistics are all you want, take a look at the new edition of
What is Scientology? which contains statistics (even pie charts) regarding
Scientologists.

Jonathon
Barbera