Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95
From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!chaos.dac.neu.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!rogue Wed Jul 19 09:29:21 1995
From: email@example.com (R Agent)
Subject: Re: The Noose is Tightening on CoS (was Big Suprise - 79K) (LONG)
Date: 19 Jul 1995 03:50:56 GMT
Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Tim Johnson wrote:
>Dear Sister Clara
Hi Tim. I hope you don't mind my answering this too, since you did
post it publicly.
>Being a Scientologist myself doesn't mean that I believe in Scn or L.
>Ron Hubbard, and I don't know of any others frankly who do believe
>something as if in a cult or a faith even. What I consider about the
>CoS is based on what information I have read, studied, examined, tested
>and evaluated for myself - not the claims of others, not the reports
>(purported false or otherwise), but what I have experienced to be true
I hear Scientologists say this a lot to us wogs, but when they talk to
each other they start saying things like "duplicate Ron". There's an
awful lot of "duplicating Ron" going on, and that smacks of faith to
>I notice how rare it is that anyone attempts to claim that Dianetics
>doesn't really work. The reason is, it's too easy to prove that it
>does. Just do it. If a person dared actually evaluate it for
>themselves, that is. But of course much as the media operates: (Oh no,
>don't look, it's dangerous; don't dare look for your self; we have
>looked [apparently] and we know it is dangerous, believe us; take our
>word for it) So, people are coerced *out* of looking.
I would be delighted to examine the claims of Scientology with you,
point by point. Where shall we start? I'm familiar with both
introductory and upper level materials, we can discuss anything from
the Purif to BTs.
One thing I've been doing a lot of thinking about lately is the basic
TRs, 0 through 4. I'd like to have some input from a practicing
Scientologist on them, are you interested?
>The Scientologists I know have not taken anyone's word for anything.
>They have evaluated the data for themselves and found it to be true.
But you probably haven't looked at some of the data I have. I've seen
some data that says that the Purif is medically unsound, has no basis
in fact and is potentially dangerous to boot. Care to discuss it?
>All this distasteful anti-CoS information spread around the Internet is
>deliberately intended to communicate to people that they should not look
>for themselves. Well, if you don't evaluate (that is, think) for
>yourself, you had better know very well the character of those you are
>allowing to think for you, those you are allowing to evaluate and align
>and represent the information for you.
We are a mirror, reflecting the true face of the CoS to the world. If
you don't like what you see, don't blame us. "Mirror mirror, who's
the fairest of them all?" It sure ain't the CoS.
>I think we have all probably been led astray at one time or another by
>people we have trusted. I don't do that any longer. I know what I know
>because it's what I myself have evaluated with my own experience and
>found to be true by my own test, and retest and retest over and over;
>and it still holds to be true for me.
I've examined and evaluated the data I trust as well. I trust the
sources, and I trust the data they give me. They say the CoS does a
lot of bad things. You can believe what you like.
>If you know something to be factual for yourself, if you know all the
>particulars and details, so you can be certain there are no distortions
>or alterations of fact or of relative importances concerning something -
>then I think you would not be swayed by contrary claims or opinions, or
>information aligned such as to make the greatest negative impact.
You can -think- or -believe- you know everything about a subject, but
be deceived nonetheless. Certainty of belief is no test of the truth
of a principle.
>My own personal experience with the news media, for instance, has been
>around 8 different occasions in my life where I had first hand knowledge
>of some event which the media reported on. In each and every case
>there were incorrect names, dates, places, accounts inconsistent with my
>first hand information, etc.
This is straight out of PR Series 24, Handling Hostile Contacts. The
only problem is, you haven't spotted the source of our data correctly.
We're not getting it from "the media", so dead agenting them won't do
>That is my own personal experience with how reliable second-hand
This is right out of the bloody PL is what it is. Look, you're not
gonna just waltz in here with your TRs and Tone 40 and Command
Intention and expect us to all fall in line. It donesn't work that
way, not here.
We've seen first-hand how the church deals with critics. You think
you, some snot-nosed punk fresh out of the PRO course, can handle us?
Here's my questions for you, Tim:
1) Are you SO?
2) Are you OSA?
3) Have you taken the PR course?
4) Are you assigned to ARS?
[posted and mailed]
email@example.com (Rogue Agent/KoX/ACT Kha Khan/ARS Project Entheta IC)
The NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one.