---

From: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Scott Goehring)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Perfectionism (was Re: L. Ron Hubbard was an egregious sexist.)
Message-ID: <GOEHRING.91Aug27084935@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 27 Aug 91 13:49:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.GOEHRING.91Aug27084935
References: <17563@life.ai.mit.edu> <19116@scorn.sco.COM>
	<1991Aug20.195201.17119@hellgate.utah.edu> <19188@scorn.sco.COM>
	<1991Aug22.145929.11774@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<GOEHRING.91Aug22174325@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1991Aug26.154135.24941@hellgate.utah.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Reply-To: goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Lines: 75
In-reply-to: sgandy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 26 Aug 91 21:41:35 GMT

In article <1991Aug26.154135.24941@hellgate.utah.edu>, sgandy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Sildem Gandy) writes:

>In article <GOEHRING.91Aug22174325@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes: >>In article <1991Aug22.145929.11774@hellgate.utah.edu>, sgandy%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Sildem Gandy) writes:

>>>Considering your knowledge of abreactive therapy I would hazard a >>>guess that you are a psychologist, or work in that field. Is that >>>so?

>>Why do you ask? So that if the poor soul says yes you can >>vituperatively attack him/her for being an evil mind-destroying person >>(as is required by Scientology doctrine)?

>I'll take that as a yes.

Answer the question. Don't evade the issue. You will note that you never asked me if I was a psychologist; in fact, I am a computer scientist and know rather little about psychology.

>>I've noticed that you constantly attack the people you disagree with >>with claims of "you haven't read this or that".

>I've noticed you accuse people of what you are culpable of yourself.

Really? I haven't accused anybody of not having read anything. What exactly am I culpable of?

>>I would like to see >>you post references to your claims. To wit:

>>|Message-ID: <1991Aug21.144850.9141@hellgate.utah.edu> >>| >>|Clearly you haven't read much of LRH's work yourself, else you would know, >>|or at least be familiar with that fact that he says right in the beginning >>|of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health that much of what he >>|was writing was discovered by others and that he was consolidating it and >>|putting it into a workable form. >> >>and >> >>|Message-ID: <1991Aug22.145929.11774@hellgate.utah.edu> >>| >>|You obviously missed reading the part where LRH gives credit to Freud for >>|the discovery of the engram chain etc. >> >>Please produce citations for these claims. I would like to check them >>myself. I have a hardbound copy of the 1951 edition of Dianetics >>(which has not been subject to revisionism, unlike the later, more >>popular versions), and can access most of the non-secret materials.

>Hooray for you. Why don't you type the old edition and the new edition in >and use diff on them. I am tired of hearing your unsubstantiated claims >as well.

Please respond to the questions placed before you. You have leapt off onto a totally random tangent here with the apparent purpose of levying personal attacks without justification. You have failed to produce citations for your claims. I repeat my request to you to do so. If you fail to do so, I will assume that you are unable to produce such citations, and that you are merely spouting forth that which some other person has told you. The issue of Scientological revisionism of its "sacred texts" is not at stake here. Your ability to justify your claims is.

You seem to have decided to ignore the questions placed before you and have instead chosen to attack the person. Of course, I should have expected this; it is totally in line with everything I have read about Scientology. I presume that you claim to be a representative (that is, more or less average) member of the Church of Scientology; if so, than I am forced to assume that little, if anything, has changed within the Church over the last decade or so. I am disappointed, but not unexpectedly so. -- It's because you...piss...me...off. -- Russ Smith, in rec.games.mud, said to Bruce Woodcock

---
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank