From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: What's so Scientific here?
Message-ID: <1991Nov9.033839.18528@usl.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 91 03:38:39 GMT
References: <1991Nov6.213823.1249@usl.edu> <z9d_k3+@engin.umich.edu>
Sender: anon@usl.edu (Anonymous NNTP Posting)
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Lines: 17

Well, I did read the 'you suck' beginning section of Dianetics. It came off to me as a quack's ramblings. None of this psycho-analytical drivel makes any sense. Just because some guy says <such and such> about how he thinks people think, does mean it is truth. Don't be so gullible.

Why not respond to this instances which I originally noted in my first article? They made to bulk of it. They sure don't shine well on the 'science' in Scientology, if you know what I mean,....

-Dan .

-- ******************************************************************************** *Daniel Anthony Stephenson Is a cat's urinary tract health important? * *Univ. of Southwestern LA My daddy loves me so much he bought a Volvo. * *das9674@usl.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