 |
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Wolf <wolft...@micron.net>
Date: 1998/04/14
Subject: Re: I refuse to believe it
Paul wrote: This is the second time I've heard this on ars w/in the last week. > Wolf wrote: > I don't think that's correct. At least, at my local org, the claims > I've been told that "the tech[tm] always There's never bad tech, just non-standard auditors or PTSness. The tech > works." I don't think my experiences are unique. It's probably the one > differentiating factor about the Church of Scientology[tm] and I believe > they push it for all it's worth. is 100% standard, which means if you blow, you were PTS or your auditor sucked. Here's a story: Flag sent various FSM's and made many calls to me after 82 to get me to <snip false claims dialog> > > No doubt with good cause. CofS made stronger claims in the 50's and 60's Oh? I haven't been in an org since 83, that may explain a lot. > > than they have the last 30 years. > I'm not sure that's correct, either. What I think has gotten stronger > > And why should they? At least to you or any other critic? You're not #2 is valid. Is CofS actually obtaining public funds? Is this heresay or > > buying what they're selling so it's not a productive use of time. > They should meet the burden of proof for two reasons: > 1) if the Church of Scientology's claims are false, then are guilty of > 2) they want my tax money for their programs (e.g., Narconon, the "study proven? > Once again, we differ. The burden of proof, in my opinion, is always on I think we're splitting hairs. I can see that if you bought a service > the side of the person making the claims. If I claim that the Church of > Scientology[tm] is a criminal organization, the burden of proof is on me > to back up that claim. Until I do, you should view that claim with > great skepticism. If the Church of Scientology[tm], on the other hand, > claims that they can raise my IQ, the burden of proof is on them. Until > they back up that claim with hard evidence, I should (and do) view that > claim with great skepticism. and didn't get an IQ increase (assuming that there were written promises to that effect) you'd at the least have a case for refund. I'm not sure you could get any court to seriously consider investigating a religious organization for failing to deliver a subjective reality. > Insisting that someone back up their rather extravagant claims with some And you're entitled to it. To the CofS it is, and they will use it to > hard evidence is not a "witch hunt," in my opinion. their benefit. > Until they start going to the public till to maintain that cash flow. I'm assuming that hasn't happened yet. I doubt it will except possibly > At that point, they are under an obligation to prove their claims--to me > and to every other taxpayer. in the Narconon scenario. > > What they *must* prove though, to Your right to free speech remains unmodified by the Constitution. I'd be > > their customers, is that it's worth the money - subjectively or > > otherwise. > I concur with that, but I still maintain the right to point out to their leery though, the right to free speech does not give one the right to libel or slander. What you may call your right and duty, CofS might consider illegal (if you do it illegally) and then you'd be defending yourself in court. That's their right... under the same laws that protect you and I. > > The And so are Polish jokes, Nig--r jokes and Jewish jokes. But on a public > > bulk of posters on ars enjoy the > > clam-cootie-brainwashed-clambot-$ciendroid name calling and derision of > > not only the CofS materials, but the ars posters who claim to be > > members. If they doesn't give a damn about the beliefs, then why > > ridicule them? > Because they're funny? forum they can quickly turn into malicious harrasment and, as has happened on ARS, attract flies and all other manner of scat-loving degenerates. In the end, you're known by the company you keep. > Perhaps I have filtered out too much--I've certainly been accused of The worst does come from just a few, but most, including some who > that in the past. My impression, though, is that the vast bulk of the > mockery comes from half a dozen posters or so. When you consider that > several hundred critics post here each week, that isn't really a > significant percentage. suprise me, have adapted the clam-meme into their basic dialog. At what point does ars, as a group, become exactly what they accuse Scientologists of being -> attenuated zombies who denigrate their opponents and spout nothing but the lingo of their own group? <snip- Wolf's bait-n-switch lecture> > True, and those words are, perhaps, too strong. Nonetheless, I firmly It's not within them to ever *lower* themselves to even attempting to > believe that the Church of Scientology's claims are, in fact, > fraudulent. Given the complete lack of evidence to support them, I > stand by that belief. If the Church of Scientology[tm] were ever to > provide evidence to support the claims or were to completely drop them, > I hope that I'm openminded enough that my position would change. show evidence. That's the Achilles heel of all such groups. Personally, I'd not be satisfied, nor would I care. All I'd like to see is for CofS to lose the *C*. > As for the bait-and-switch, that is perhaps the wrong choice of words, There is that. If we were talking aluminum siding sales they could be > but I don't know what else to call it. I'm referring, of course, to the > story of Xenu and the body thetans, which is only told to those who have > spent a great deal of time and money "going clear." Subsequently, they > find that it was all for naught and that they have to spend a great deal > more time and more money dealing with body thetans. brought up for charges. But hey, we're talking religion here aren't we? Who's going to put a church on trial? See why I could care less about their claims than I do their Church status? > My opinion is that over 90% of Scientologists are Tell me about it! I was making six figures selling the stuff for years > decent, well-meaning people. I reserve my anger for those at the top. and then along comes DM, and pow! Wolf has to go get a real job. Henson, Paper Tiger and others know my view on this. The *tech* (I learned to hate that meme) is highly effective as long as it's kept away from all the bt, OT, Clear Planet, marching-and-singing crap. Easy to sell, easy to deliver, very few dissatisfied customers and - being a service- start-up costs are negligable. When DM wrested control his first real target (after Bill Franks) was the field. And why not? He was certainly jealous. We were driving Porsches, living in big houses, wearing Italian suits and had classrooms full of smiling faces. All he ever had was was a home on a rotting cattle-boat and a sweat-stained hat. He never got to drive fast or get laid by a chick with a tan. I sat through his little party in SF in 82'. I know a sociopath when I see one and he is very willing to hurt whomever keeps him from whatever goals his childhood angst drives him towards. [end of rant] > > citing the fraud&lies belief as the basis of their attacks. Okay... I was just suggesting fighting on a front where you have the > > Claiming that Scn has to prove anything is a dead horse. > "I'm not dead yet!" Sorry, but we disagree on this issue. advantage. > > The burden of Oh they want your money. In fact, so do I. That's the basis of my > > proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the accusers, > I agree, but that's not the whole picture. If the Church of personal desire to see CofS and the upper structure dismantled. If not for them, Ron's hare-brained Sea Org and the meglomania that working in isolated, degenerate work-groups spawns, I'd have had a shot at it too..<grin> Wolf You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||