Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by Veda, Jun 8, 2017.
Only to Scientologists, and notably in the pages of the Tone Scale tome, Science of Survival, which identifies those critical of Hubbard/Dianetics/Scientology as sex perverts.
All things considered, being slandered is getting off easy, as a Scientologist might regard James Randi - who has consistently refused Scientology auditing - as a candidate for harsher treatment.
From 'Science of Survival' by L. Ron Hubbard:
The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale , neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes .
The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society.
A Venezuelan dictator [Juan Vincente Gomez] once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
Wait wait wait ...
5% error rate? There is a concept in statistics of the p-statistic. That means roughly that an overall result can be attributed to chance in 5% of cases.
This means that one-in-20 experimental results are probably wrong. That is why science is big on repeating and replicating results. If a second experiment confirms the first, both at p<.05 then the chance of being wrong immediately plummets to one-in-20 SQUARED. That is one-in-400. And so on. This p<.05 is only calculated and confirmed (or not) after performing a properly designed experiment.
Pseudo science doesn't like this, and tries to be validated on a MINIMUM number of trials. Like one Ganzfield read can be done EACH DAY!
Randi was saying by giving a p<0.005 limit that he would give the million even if there was a chance (One in two hundred) that they just fluked it.
But the chance would be lower because they would have undergone some pre-testing to eliminate frivolous contenders.
So who isn't overlooking the fact?
Senior HH, James Randi may be the bestest person and charming and a dashing conversationalist, but, being ethical is not one of his high points - here is a comment by Rupert Sheldrake:
The following video was done by a Viennese science unit as a test to see if they could the same result as Sheldon and Pam Smart did.
Research by Rupert Sheldrake and Pam Smart
A film by the Science Unit of ORF, Vienna
I find it very unsettling that according to Hubbard's policies, US govt laws do not apply to CoS members. Not that I would diagNOSE anyone, but that seems an eensyteensy bit NPD. The "you're either with me or against me", sigh!! that's BPD, and the irony of that? Is the way the church screams religious persecution.
But did anyone verify if the debunked debunker is truly a pedophile? In Not-Scientology world?
Andy Nolch LOL!
I spoke to that guy for an hour on the phone recently. Mostly because he's from Melbourne & I wanted to hear what he knew about folks I used to know.
I can't decide whether he is seriously stupid or brilliantly trolly. I'm tending towards the stupid.
as we all were.
I haven't watched the video but if he's calling Randi a pedophile it's probably because Randi is gay:
"In a March 21, 2010, blog entry, Randi came out as gay, a move he explained was inspired by seeing the 2008 biographical drama film Milk."
Scientologists think it's normal to categorise gay people as pedophiles.
I'm not a fan of James Randi's, however there's a difference between saying his $1 million challenge isn't all it's cracked up to be (an effort I'd support) and calling him a paedophile.
Randi has every right to defend himself against such slander, and I hope Nolch gets a cease and desist order soon. On the small chance that he does have some evidence to support his allegations, law enforcement is the place to go with that, not Youtube.