From: whatis@gnu.ai.mit.edu (....What Is?....)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Snide comments (was Re: Perfectionism)
Message-ID: <17807@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 28 Aug 91 03:12:40 GMT
References: <1991Aug20.005448.14011@chinet.chi.il.us> <17755@life.ai.mit.edu> <GOEHRING.91Aug27090757@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@ai.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 46

In article <GOEHRING.91Aug27090757@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes: >You probably don't realize it, having been so thoroughly isolated from >the public by the Church, but the general public impression of >Scientology is that it is a bunch of crazy crackpots who believe in a >story which borders on the ludicrous and could well be sold as a cheap >sci-fi thriller (in fact, LRH once made a movie which had strong >similiarities to the events put forth in the OT3 materials, although >he never released it; it wasn't good enough for him). Very few people >outside the Church take Scientology seriously.

You didn't listen to the FIRST thing we said. We don't _believe_ anything! We're expected to take everything on our own terms! For example, I found out about past lives early on, and thought it was sort of strange. Then I experienced it myself. I suppose the rest of the stories I've heard will fall into place, but I'm not particularly holding my breath.

Isolated from the public by the Church. How do you fathom they did this? Do they keep me locked up in a room all day? Do you think they sit there and dictate what I can and can't do?

Borders on the ludicrous. I could say the same thing about psychiatry and Christianity (I've been seriously burned by Christianity). I wonder if you would put your own beliefs up to the same acid test that I'm forced to put mine up to.

>I suspect that most of the people posting here fall into one of four >classes: > >1. Active Scientologists >2. Non-active Scientologists (persons who are not currently active in > Scientology, but would like to be) >3. Persons who practice Dianetics outside of Scientology (what a > Scientologist would refer to as a "squirrel", if I understand the > terminology correctly). >4. Persons who have been harmed in some way by Scientology. > >Now, obviously there is little love lost between the first and third >classes or the first and fourth classes.

I have nothing against squirrels. Why do you insinuate that I do? Or do you just enjoy generalizing to help your own case? -- Steve Boswell | "Now drop and give me infinity pushups!" whatis@ucsd.edu | -Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey whatis@gnu.ai.mit.edu |

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