From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: What's so Scientific here?
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.031424.19697@usl.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 91 03:14:24 GMT
References: <z9d_k3+@engin.umich.edu> <1991Nov9.033839.18528@usl.edu> <_3f_Jf-@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana
Lines: 52

In article <_3f_Jf-@engin.umich.edu> davidb@caen.engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes: >In article <1991Nov9.033839.18528@usl.edu>, das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes: >> 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. > >What exactly is the 'you suck' beginning? I think I missed that part. If >you are having trouble understanding be sure you are passing by no words >that are misunderstood. Look up ALL words you are unsure of. That's why >most of the hard to understand words are defined on the bottom of each page. That is the first chapter where Hubbard explain how the Everyman is a louse, how he is compelled by incomplete drives, how is nowhere near okay-ness (read:you suck and *need* diaetics), how he _automatically_ assumes you are such an idiot that you need every other `hard to understand` word to be marked with a &!#*!# asterisk!

>> >> 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 > >If you are really interested in the way energy flows work in the body and >mind there are books that I can give you reference on. Of course I am not going >to just tell you because that violates "the telephone rule". Oh, great, just wonderful. As I have said, all this is bullshit. I do not need references to UFO sitings, to Psychic Powers, to astrology, to wheat circles, and CERTAINLY not on the `mass equals energy and *thought* is energy so thought MUST have mass and the E-Meter measures the MASS of your thoughts, ans _negative_ thought `mass more` than _positive_ thought` theme in so-called 'scientology`. PLEASE don't tell me! I wouldn't want you to tell me for free,... Face it, there is no redemption in claims that scientology is scientific. You can ohh-ahh yourself with it, but _don't_ say it is scientific. What in the hell *is* the 'telephone rule'?! Oh, if you DO respond to this post, please , PLEASE respond to the quackery I have exampled. You've not done this twice now. Oh, and while you are at, try to explain who this 'Xemu` geek is, ok??

-A not-so humble freethinker-

-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