In article <19971029083501.DAA12...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,

If this is true there is a substantial award -- $1,100,000 -- offered for
merely demonstrating it!  The offer is open to anyone, and the conditions
are simple.  
Please see  
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html  
or
Message-ID: <19971022053800.BAA02084@ladder01.news.aol.com>  ('Re: Koos FAQ')
... for a convenient application form.  Simply print it out and send it
in.  This is a serious offer, and the award is genuine.  Why don't any of
you OT wusses take it?  Is it because of the final paragraph in the application?

"Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great personal
embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct
proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate,
before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved me
and many claimants much time and work, by showing that the powers were
quite imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and
do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution."

Yeah, that could be the problem.

<snip>THE E-METER DIET -- Nyuk, nyuk.  Good one, Mike!

There's no doubt in my mind that a very simple experiment could be set up
that would easily convince the organizers of the award.

1)  mount two chairs and table on a sheet of plywood.  Place assembly on
digital industrial scale.

2) Sit auditor and BT-infested PC at table with e-meter.  

3) Record scale reading.

4) Conduct auditing session.

5) Note weight difference correspondent with number of BTs blown (be sure
blown BTs don't conceal themselves in furniture or plywood).

6) Collect $1,100,000 and gain the respect of the scientific community.
Bask in good PR, etc.

Easy as pie.

Why NOT, Russ?  WHY NOT!!!  ***_IT'S_ _A_ _MILLION_ _BUCKS_!!! ***  Heck
if *you* are so able, successful and highly principled that you scorn
material gain, just donate it to the dissem campaign.  Or start your very
own Celebrity Mission...  

But wait!  There's more!  You also get an unconditional right to brag that
this foundation has witnessed conclusive proof that a person's physical
weight varies as a result of Scientology auditing!  Isn't that great?  They
might not attribute said weight change to the removal of body-thetans, but
what the hell.  They can't deny that the evidence -- REAL scientific data
for once -- supports the result predicted by Hubbard, can they?

Of course, notwithstanding the million bucks, varying a person's weight
isn't much of a brag, is it?  Since the award is a one-shot deal, pick
something truly remarkable from your repertoire, something that will go
down in the annals of history as the most remarkable event since Jesus
walked on water.  You might choose any number of amazing feats of OT
ability.  Say for example repairing vehicles or other mechanical devices by
telekinesis.  Or telepathic communication at a distance.  If you've got a
flair for the dramatic and courage to match your faith in the Tech,
dematerializing your body in the path of a speeding truck would be a
spectacular validation of the Tech.

All three of the above examples have been performed by OTs, according to
accounts published in ADVANCE! magazine.  Those Success stories *are*
factual, aren't they?  Any of them would easily qualify for the award if
openly demonstrated.  Isn't it about time OT Powers came out of hiding?
What do you OTs have to hide?

What a hollow deflection.  No, at the present time the flow of money and
converts -- seeing that it is flowing *down* the drain and not so much from
the tap, that is -- is what everyone is *gloating* over.  Stats are
crashing worldwide.  Scientology's golden age is a ten-carat plated stamped
pewter tie tack out of Taiwan, and it's looking a bit greenish lately.  "Or
hadn't you noticed?"  Wouldn't $1,100,000 help polish things up a little bit?

I can't understand why CoS doesn't care that Hubbard's claims have not yet
been scientifically verified.  Can't they see that this is one of the major
reasons no one takes the claims seriously?  You seem like a reasonably
intelligent person, Russell.  Please explain why scientology being regarded
by the world at large as an insular superstitious bunch of willing dupes is
not a problem.  Because that's exactly the impression most normal people
have, when presented with the peculiar combination of arrogant denial of
reality and gullible unquestioning acceptance of HubSpew(tm) that your
posts illuminate so well.

Oh, if that taxes your house-of-cards belief system to an uncomfortable
degree, a variation of the standard non sequiter cop-out will do fine.
We'll understand.  After all, we among the 99.99999827586207% who aren't in
your black magic UFO nut cult, already know that there isn't one shred of
scientific foundation for the CoS's outrageous claims of OT ability -- IT'S
IMAGINARY.

Have a nice delusion.

-
NoScieno accepts NO mail (spam-bounce).  Try "thynkr"

The surest source of proof in an unfounded belief is the belief itself.

Then point it out to me, please.  I asked you for the names of the great
artists, innovative scientists, Nobel prize winners, Pulitzer prize
winners, entrepeneurs, inventors, etc. who are Scientologists.  I'm
still waiting for even a couple of names.

For that matter, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what your
profession is so that we can double-check for ourselves that you are "at
the top of your profession."  Because, if you truly are, then there will
be evidence that I can find at my local library and here on the web.

No, but a couple of names would.  So that we can see that these artists
really have achieved "success in the real world" through their
Scientology "education".

A couple of names, please?  So that we can verify that these
entrepeneurs really have achieved "success in the real world" through
their Scientology "education".

Isn't it?  I think in most of those cases above, the answer is *none*.
In particular, I'm fairly certain that nobody at the top of the various
technical and scientific fields is a Scientologist.

You have claimed that you have "observed that correlation"--a
correlation between "education" offered by the Church of Scientology[tm]
and success in the real world.  If you've observed it, then you surely
have some examples of that correlation.  Please share them with us.

Nothing.  You're correct in questioning this.  I wrote it in haste and
now regret it.  I apologize.

-Paul

If I may make a suggestion, it would have sounded a lot better, at
least to my personal taste, had you said:

    "What you think does not matter. You will be assimilated."

irrelevantly,

Leonardo

".signature": bad command or file name

<19971031090101.EAA20...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

Hear that Anti-Cult?  Only an idiot would ask questions of a Scientologist.
:-).

---Alec

On 31 Oct 1997 08:55:49 GMT, wonderf...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:

Well, that about wraps it up then I guess.  Typical scientologist
evasive manuever.

You could have expounded at length on Hubbard's "theories", winning
converts around the world, but instead you'd rather just have one or
two people "read the book".

Scientology really is a crock, scientologists never post anything
substantive here.

Zane

In article <3459134B.4681@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>, Paul
<pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote

:You must be reading a different newsgroup than I am.  I've heard no one
:claim that the *beliefs* are "awful".  I've seen a few people in a few
:postings point out that the Xenu story is rather silly, but I've also
:seen other people point out that stories from other religions are
:equally silly.

I would have to agree with this paragraph.  The xenu story is quite silly.

:I have seen quite a few people, including me, point out that some of the
:*policies* of the Church of Scientology[tm] are "awful", including the
:Introspection Rundown, the Purification Rundown, Fair Game, etc., but
:that is not the same things as *beliefs*.

These are not a matter of policy for idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H scientologists,
they are a matter of scripture as far as the clams are concerned.  It does
not matter to the clams that all of the shit that they consider scripture
are what started out as a scam and ended up the rabid ravings of a drunken
madman.

That, I feel, is a major difference between this 'session' of yours
and the Christian Catholic sacrament of Confession; a real Catholic
does not only attempt to get rid of his burden, s/he should also do
everything possible to atone.

Of course, in the case of an offense to God, the atonement does not
(directly) involve the material world. Yet, should a Catholic wrong
anyone, his|her confessor will advise s/he to make amendments. Else
the pardon cannot be granted; just as, to sin, it is not sufficient
to do wrong, but awareness and will are also required.

It appears to me that Scientology(tm) is more handy, in that - from
your report - it does not appear to need the two key conditions for
Christian Catholic sacrament of Confession; redress, and resolution
(implying: resolution not to repeat the misdeed).

As far as your (admittedly scant) report goes, there's nothing that
hints to a resolution not to fall back in the same errors; not even
an attempt to redress. You blandly 'erase' not the mistake, but its
memory, and blithely walk on.

Comfortable as it indeed seems, Catholics would object that you get
rid not of your sins, but of your conscience. I feel such a thought
somewhat disturbing.

Leonardo

".signature": bad command or file name

In article <34bed364.469624...@snews.zippo.com>,

From Hubbard.  A ridge is inactive until it is stimulated.
It then becomes active and as it activates, it mocks up mass.
After it's work is done, the mass disappears as the ridge no longer is in
immediate stimulation. BTs work the same way.

If an auditor stimulates an engram or ridge (same thing actually)
this makes the ridge mock up mass.  When one finally blows the ridge,
(ridge running was standart tech in Scientology in the early days if
Hubbard's tapes are to be believed) one loses mass as the ridge
blows.  Fascimiles attached to the ridge will, if in stimulation
have mass. They too will leave and so will their mass.
Often one has many facsimiles, a chain, on a ridge. The idea
is to handle secondaries, locks, get to the basic on a chain and blow it
all at once, so most will not have mass.
The first incident will be a archetype for similar other incidents
which are added to the chain automatically.

Ron goes on and on about such things at length in his tapes.

Ron repeatedly makes little claims such that if a person really learned
all at once to handle matter prefectly as a thetan, he could blow the
entire solar system up by releasing energy.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!

In article <19971029090201.EAA13...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,

We can tell.  

Except see what a flaming shitheel Hubbard was, what a liar, and
what a twit. And avoid being the same.

Use him as a bad example to pint a finger at.

I have seen the promises. Perfect memory and shrinking that overlarge nose
as promised by Dianetics?  Bull doo-doo.

 Exteriorize with full perceptics as promised bu Hubbard?
Bull doo-doo.

Mighty OT powers for simply speniding years of your life exorcising BTs
and Clusters and GMP implants?
Bull doo-doo!

Kill bugs with a thought?
Bull doo-doo!
Become a sooper genius, superliterate Big Being?
Bull doo-doo.

Lots of big promises and we get nebulous, vague, paltry claims of "it
works" or ludicrous "wins" that make any sane person laugh.

So how do the millions of people do it without Hubbard tech?
You do it till you get good at it.

The tech has nothing to do with making a go of life.
You ignore teh obvious failures of Hubbard's idiot claims and give him
credit for what you would do without him anyway just like everybody else
in this silly world who makes it.

Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!

<19971030075801.CAA10...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...

Russ, now you're really embarrassing Scientology.  That book is one of the
silliest, contrived books on phsyics ever written.  Throughout this book,
Hubbard demonstrates why he made an "F" at Georgetown College in physics.

This book is the best example in Hubbard's Library of him spinning a yarn.
It is nothing but a joke.

---Alec