: The Introspection r/d, which is a part of the tech of Scn, has not been
: implicated in the death of Lisa McPherson.

It may not have actually been involved, but it sure has been discussed
as an assumed factor in the treatment Lisa received.

                                             The apparent cause of her
: death was mistreatment of her and disregard for her well being by at
: least three people at FSO.

It was a *far* larger number.  There were a dentist and a doctor involved
as well as a number of guards and baby watchers, not to mention Lisa's
case supervisor and the ones who where in charge of the guards and baby
watchers.

                             The tech of Scn is inert. It's the actions
: and failures of these three people that are at fault.

To the extent that people pay any attention to the tech, you have a
point.  However, *following* the IR tech, doing exactly what Hubbard
dictated out of thin air, blindly, and without a lick of sense, was
what killed Lisa.

: In the end, if they are tried and found guilty, I have little doubt that
: the introspection r/d and the CofS will be harmed by that finding. But
: it's not apparent or even suspected that the tech of Scn in any way
: leads to the death of some of it's members. To suggest otherwise would
: be to suggest that humankind is divided into two distinct groups: those
: that are victims and those that are perpetrators. If you believe that
: then there is little I can say that will make sense to you.

While I can kind of see the point you are making, Wolf, there are reasons
for getting dangerous instructions for medical treatments off the market.
How would you feel if the next time you went to a doctor he opened a
vein to let the bad humors out?

: In short, it appears that your mindset re: The CofS is that it's methods
: are harmful

Agree.
             and it's practitioners are aware of that and use it anyway.

Nope.  Although I can't speak for everyone, I think the vast majority
of critics feel that the practitioners are *not* aware of the dangers
of what they are doing.  If they were, I think very few of them would
be doing things that they think are harmful--it just is not in human
nature.  The fact that the practitioners *don't* understand the dangers
of what they are doing the scary part.

: Lack of proof, or even lack of enough similar events doesn't seem to
: give you pause to think. You assert, therefore you are.

There are a much larger number of these cases which through luck rather
than any other factor were not fatal.

I do appreciate your putting your objections to what you see as the
critic mind set down, Wolf.  We make serious progress in understanding
this way.  Keith Henson