From: stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: How effective is this newsgroup? Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 15:35:33 GMT Message-ID: <35995129.63027792@news.demon.co.uk> On Fri, 26 Jun 1998 08:28:30 -0400, John Stone <stonej@pilot.msu.edu> wrote: > Since this newsgroup seems to be mostly concerned with being critical > of Scientology I was wondering how effective it really is in getting out > the message on Scientology. Does anyone know if it is reaching a wide > audience or is it just "preaching to the choir" so to speak. Much of it is, almost certainly, "preaching to the choir". Worse still, you should see how we critics tear each other to pieces when there's no Scientologists around! But for all that, there have been plenty of posts from people who came, lurked and learned, and who got out of Scientology, or avoided getting in (or prevented friends or relatives from getting sucked in), and of course, we never get to hear from those who did all their research via the DejaNews archives. It is hard to calculate readership figures for a newsgroup, especially now that many people will be reading groups via a database like DejaNews, but a generally accepted figure is that a ratio of somewhere around 100:1 applies for the number of lurkers vs the number of active posters. At times in a.r.s.'s history, that number of active posters has been well in excess of 300, suggesting a possible online readership of around 30,000. The group also exhibits a high turnover of posters, which, if reflected in the lurker group, would suggest an even higher per annum exposure. And that, of course, does not include the spinoff publicity that a.r.s. generates, such as paper media reports on pickets or court cases such as Keith Henson's, nor the interest such activities generate in other areas of Usenet: one of Scientology's major foulups was attempting to first rmgroup a.r.s., then spam it out of existence. As a result, Scientology got well known to the news.abuse crowd, themselves a powerful force for further cross-fertilisation, and is now a byword for the worst excesses of vertical spamming. Furthermore, the structure of Usenet is such that it has been possible for people who would in the past have been hunted down and "shuddered into silence" by Scientology to comment openly. It is essentially for this reason that Dennis Erlich, a high-profile ex-Scientologist, is being sued and "fair gamed" at the moment: his "crime" was to authenticate some sections of alleged Scientology scripture as being the genuine article. Since the cult sued Dennis, a.r.s. has become a focus for a worldwide campaign to expose these scriptures for what they are - variously, criminal instruction manuals and the most lurid of sci-fi cosmology - which has resulted in large parts of these writing being publicly available via the Swedish Government, and other sources. While this may not, in itself, appear to be a particularly constructive step on the part of Scientology's critical opposition, much of Scientology's success to date has been based on the manner in which they reveal their "beliefs" on a gradient, such that the more ludicrous stuff is not presented to followers until they have been sufficiently conditioned to accept it. Much of the critical opposition to Scientology is focused on the manner in which it operates a bait and switch scam, whereby potential recruits are lured in on the basis of wild-assed claims, and are then subjected to high pressure sales techniques to sign up for courses, which are themselves a means of indoctrination designed to pressure customers into signing up for yet more Scientology processing, all at grossly inflated prices. By exposing the secrets that Scientology would wish to remain hidden, we can show potential recruits what they will ultimately be being asked to believe in. We rely then on the utterly ridiculous nature of those beliefs - for example, the fact that we are infested with the souls of dead space aliens, brought here 75m years ago in spaceships that looked like DC-8's, dumped in volcanoes and nuked before being shown 30 days of bad 3D films - to convince people that Scientology is not what it claims to be. To date, that appears to have been a pretty effective tactic. So, in short, a.r.s. is *highly* effective in getting the message out. > I've never been involved with Scientology and just stubbled onto this > newsgroup at some point, many of the postings seem rather surreal to > someone like me that really has no background in this area but I must > say it is rather interesting and also entertaining in its own way. One of the problems is that understanding Scientology, much like being in Scientology, is a process of ongoing revelation. For example, Scientology, in common with many other high-control cults, redefines words to mean other things. This is done to reinforce a sense of isolation from the "profane" world in the cult follower, and is indeed very successful at doing so. What it means, though, is that critics debating with Scientologists will often couch their points in Scientology language in order to reduce the possibility that their debating partner will "accidentally" misunderstand what has been said and fail to address the point. While that works well in the immediate debate, it can tend to make a.r.s. a little impenetrable for someone who has had little experience of Scientology, from within or as a critic. That said, there is a Terminology FAQ posted on a regular basis, and something like the a.r.s. Week In Review (which is also available on the Web) does an excellent job of summarising the main issues that have arisen in the preceding week, in clear and concise reportage, with generous quotes and message ID's for the posts in question. A valuable starting point for the neophyte a.r.s. reader! a.r.s. is also somewhat unique in that there is a fairly broad definition as to what is on-topic. For example, over the last two months, we have seen informative and interesting debates on everything from nuclear-powered spaceships, through distributed computing, to in-depth discussions on the legal ramifications of various bits of Californian legislation. To a new arrival, such a breadth of debate might tend to be disorientating, and the sheer volume of a.r.s. traffic does not help. But, with a selective cursor finger and a little patience (not to mention a decent killfile), a.r.s. can be rendered readable in a very short time. > I saw the Bob Minton segment on Dateline after reading on here it was > going to be shown. There ya go, then. We did our job :-) -- Practicing medicine without a licence? You decide: "Step Four - Cures for Illness You will now find BTs and clusters being cures for illnesses of the body part. Handle all such BTs and clusters by blowing them off. "Cures for Illness" will then cease to read. [NOTS 34, Fair Use excerpt] Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12. <SARCASM>I am a Scientologist</SARCASM>