Mark Plummer aka warrior had quite accurate figures which he explains below.
I believe at one point he had a list of approx 250,000 which was the total mailing list world wide. I'll see later if I can dig that up.
This below appears to be only for the US. As a rule of thumb double that for worldwide.
Note comments that the "10,000,000" he considers made up.
--------------------
Warrior
View profile
More options Jun 15 2003, 8:35 am
In "International Scientology News", issue 9
published in 1999 the following statements
appear on page 31:
"FACT: A survey of untrained Scientologists
shows that 16% have made it to Clear and
15% to OT.
"Compare this to a survey of trained Scien-
tologists. The difference is remarkable: 90%
have made it to Clear and 79% to OT."
I know from having been in charge of maintain-
ing Scientology's mailing list that there were
only 45,000 people who were categorized in
their computer as "trained and processed".
We know from statements made by Scientology
in its "Auditor" (magazine) that there are now
approximately 50,000 Clears. The fact is that
perhaps half of this number of Clears are no
longer active in Scientology. Granted this is my
observation/opinion that I don't have exact
numbers on, but one day I will. But I digress...
Using Scientology's statement of percentages of
trained versus untrained Clears, and my knowl-
edge of the number of "trained and processed"
(T&P) members, the following can be deduced:
45,000 T&P total, 90% of which are Clear.
45,000 x .90 = 40,500 Clears who are T&P.
50,000 total Clears minus
40,500 T&P gives
9,500 other Clears (non-T&P) remaining.
Since Scientology says only 16% of untrained
Scienos are Clear, work this backwards to find
the number of untrained Scienos.
9,500 Clears divided by .16 = 59,375 untrained.
Double-check:
59,375 (untrained) x .16 (percentage of which
are Clear, according to Scientology) = 9,500
40,500 trained Clears plus
9,500 untrained Clears equals
50,000 total number of Clears
45,000 trained and processed Scienos
59,375 untrained Scienos
----------
104,375 total maximum number of Scienos
(and realize that this 50,000 figure includes
thousands of individuals who have died, been
declared or are no loner active in Scn.)
There are not now and never have been
8 million Scienos.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
No wonder Scientology stopped publishing
Clear numbers.
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Hartley Patterson
View profile
More options Jun 15 2003, 9:41 am
Warrior:
> In "International Scientology News", issue 9
> published in 1999 the following statements
> appear on page 31:
> "FACT: A survey of untrained Scientologists
> shows that 16% have made it to Clear and
> 15% to OT.
> "Compare this to a survey of trained Scien-
> tologists. The difference is remarkable: 90%
> have made it to Clear and 79% to OT."
Interesting...
As always with CoS stats it's not always possible to tell which ones are
total fantasy. The purpose of this data is to make more money from
training, not to be truthful. What exactly does 'trained and processed'
mean?
Actually I flat out don't believe these high percentages of
Scientologists reaching Clear/OT. They are hardly going to say to new
recruits that only a small percentage make it to the upper levels!
--
ARSCC Demographics Department
Still looking for 7,900,000 Scientologists (TM)
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
LaserClam
View profile
More options Jun 15 2003, 12:32 pm
>From: Hartley Patterson
[email protected]
>Date: 6/15/03 4:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <
[email protected]>
>Interesting...
>As always with CoS stats it's not always possible to tell which ones are
>total fantasy. The purpose of this data is to make more money from
>training, not to be truthful. What exactly does 'trained and processed'
>mean?
>Actually I flat out don't believe these high percentages of
>Scientologists reaching Clear/OT. They are hardly going to say to new
>recruits that only a small percentage make it to the upper levels!
Have you noticed any one else who has had the purpose to make more
money?
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Chip Gallo
View profile
More options Jun 15 2003, 2:21 pm
"Hartley Patterson" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
- Show quoted text -
The "T&P" list is supposed to have anybody who received Div IV training or
processing. Also would include people who did the "HQS" (Hubbard Qualified
Scientologist) course in Div VI. This was designed so material that was
"out-R" (out reality; would seem bizarre) to a new person would not be sent
to them (each address is tabbed with a category like "bookbuyer," "trained
and processed," "FSM," and even the case level. I guess the assumption was
that if you stuck it out through a course or major piece of auditing, you
could handle the doom 'n gloom promo that said your very existenz on the
whole track would be threatened if you didn't shell out money for your next
action.
> Actually I flat out don't believe these high percentages of
> Scientologists reaching Clear/OT. They are hardly going to say to new
> recruits that only a small percentage make it to the upper levels!
> --
> ARSCC Demographics Department
> Still looking for 7,900,000 Scientologists (TM)
>
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Chip Gallo
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
LaserWOG
View profile
More options Jun 15 2003, 4:37 pm
On 15 Jun 2003 11:31:53 GMT,
[email protected] (LaserClam) scribed:
- Show quoted text -
The Scientology corporation.
CofS = Corporation of Scientology
LaserWOG
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
blackdog
View profile
More options Jun 16 2003, 1:14 am
Warrior wrote:
> I know from having been in charge of maintain-
> ing Scientology's mailing list that there were
> only 45,000 people who were categorized in
> their computer as "trained and processed".
You are being dishonest on two counts here.
In the first place, you were not in charge of *Scientology's*
mailing list. You worked with AOLA's mailing list and, if your figures
can be trusted, this number only represents those people on AOLA lines
who were "trained and processed."
Secondly, you left the Sea Org (and AOLA) in 1983, some twenty years
ago. Your figures are therefore woefully out of date.
.
--
Not of the sunlight,
Not of the moonlight,
Not of the starlight!
O young Mariner,
Down to the haven,
Call your companions,
Launch your vessel,
And crowd your canvas,
And, ere it vanishes
Over the margin,
After it, follow it,
Follow the Gleam.
["Merlin and the Gleam" Alfred, Lord Tennyson]
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
roger gonnet
View profile
More options Jun 16 2003, 6:12 am
Great calculation indeed: one more showing that these assholes can't speak
truth.
Thanks for the research.
roger
"Warrior" <
[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news:
[email protected]...
- Show quoted text -
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Magoo
View profile
More options Jun 16 2003, 6:47 am
"Warrior" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
- Show quoted text -
Nor are there any Clears....now, or ever before.
Outpoint number one, two, three, and on up to eternity.
Peace!
Tory/Magoo!~
- Show quoted text -
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Rev Norle Enturbulata
View profile
More options Jun 16 2003, 8:18 am
"blackdog" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
- Show quoted text -
That's the kind of knee-jerk nitpicking one expects out of a cult troll like
you.
As you already know though, you've done the equivalent of:
A: I'm a painter. I painted this house.
B: You didn't say you were a HOUSE painter, or what COLOR you painted it!
You're a LIAR!
So thanks for showing us all more of $cientology. Its Cold War-style
attempts of mudslinging that lack any culpable argument, but claim to its
adherents that it was a Big Win nonetheless!
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
- LRH's "Creation of Human Ability" p251
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Warrior
View profile
More options Jun 16 2003, 8:50 am
In "International Scientology News", issue 9 published in 1999 the following
statements appear on page 31:
"FACT: A survey of untrained Scientologists shows that 16% have made it
to Clear and 15% to OT.
"Compare this to a survey of trained Scientologists. The difference is re-
markable: 90% have made it to Clear and 79% to OT."
I know from having been in charge of maintaining Scientology's mailing list
that there were only 45,000 people who were categorized in their computer
as "trained and processed".
We know from statements made by Scientology in its "Auditor" (magazine)
that there are now approximately 50,000 Clears. The fact is that perhaps
half of this number of Clears are no longer active in Scientology. Granted
this is my observation/opinion that I don't have exact numbers on, but one
day I will. But I digress...
Using Scientology's statement of percentages of trained versus untrained
Clears, and my knowledge of the number of "trained and processed" (T&P)
members, the following can be deduced:
45,000 T&P total, 90% of which are Clear. 45,000 x .90 = 40,500 Clears
who are T&P.
50,000 total Clears minus
40,500 T&P gives
9,500 other Clears (non-T&P) remaining.
Since Scientology says only 16% of untrained Scienos are Clear, work this
backwards to find the number of untrained Scienos.
9,500 Clears divided by .16 = 59,375 untrained.
Double-check:
59,375 (untrained) x .16 (percentage of which are Clear, according to Sci-
entology) = 9,500
40,500 trained Clears plus
9,500 untrained Clears equals
50,000 total number of Clears
45,000 trained and processed Scienos
59,375 untrained Scienos
----------
104,375 total maximum number of Scienos (and realize that this 50,000
figure includes thousands of individuals who have died, been declared or are
no loner active in Scn.)
There are not now and never have been 8 million Scienos.
No wonder Scientology stopped publishing Clear numbers.
In <
[email protected]>,
"blackdog" says...
> You are being dishonest on two counts here.
Sorry, "blackdog", you are wrong. You're good at making allegations,
but very poor at answering questions or providing information.
> In the first place, you were not in charge of *Scientology's*
>mailing list.
Well, I sure wasn't in charge of the mailing list for the Hare Krishnas or
the Moonies.
>You worked with AOLA's mailing list
AOLA's list was only a small part of what I worked with. I worked on the
database of names and addresses of every known person, dead or alive
who had ever
a) completed a course, including an introductory course
b) received auditing, including solo auditing
c) bought a book, whether purchased in an org or mission or by mail
d) written in and simply asked for more information at every org and
mission in the western hemisphere.
>and, if your figures can be trusted, this number only represents those
>people on AOLA lines who were "trained and processed."
Wrong again. First off, "my numbers" can be trusted. I am a "fully hatted"
Address Officer and Computer I/C who worked with the numbers for months
while maintaining and building the mailing list. "My numbers" actually came
from Scientology orgs and missions.
In other words, the number of trained and processed Scienos is information
compiled by many different people holding many different posts in over 50
different Scientology orgs and missions. This information was all computer-
ized on the same central database on a computer housed in the AOLA building.
But the number of trained and processed did not only represent those people
"on AOLA lines". The number of trained and processed Scienos represented
individuals who had done a major servce at any org or mission in the western
hemisphere, whether it was ASHO, AOLA, Boston, San Francisco, New York,
Tampa, Washington D.C. (FCDC), Chicago, Detroit, Austin, Houston, Dallas,
San Dieego, Portland, Seattle, LA Org, Celebrity Centre, Sacramento, Las
Vegas, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Coral Gables, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Evanston,
Phoenix, Denver, Albuquerque, Pasadena, Sherman Oaks, Waikiki, Santa
Barbara, Columbus, Cincinatti, Orlando, Kansas City, Ann Arbor, Toronto,
Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Kitchener, Montreal, Quebec, Winnipeg or
Mexico. This is not an exhaustive list, but simply the names of the orgs
and missions I can recall.
Additionally, "my numbers" constitute information that I learned from
experience on several different positions including Treasury Secretary,
Advisory Council member, Financial Planning Committee Chairman, Director
of Disbursements, Financial Planning Liaison Officer, Purchasing Officer,
Bills Paying Officer and Financial Planning Activation Section Officer.
These posts, as you may know, are in different divisions and completely
seperate from the Address Officer and Computer I/C posts.
I have experience with not just maintaining the list, but planning for the
monthly magazine which went out to everyone on the list (including book-
buyers every other month). I sat in on morning "product conferences"
in the Commanding Officer's officer, where the list was discussed. I have
personal knowledge of the number of magazines printed and the number
of mailing labels which were affixed to the magazines because I not only
wrote the checks for their purchase (as Director of Disbursements), but
in some cases I even ordered or bought the supplies (as Purchasing Officer).
As Financial Planning Activation Section Officer, I was the one who prepared
the checks for payment of the bills for the magazine itself, as well as the
mailing labels which went on the magazines and all other promo pieces. As
Treasury Secretary Secretary I signed the checks for payment of the bills
and supplies for the various magazines and promotional pieces.
> Secondly, you left the Sea Org (and AOLA) in 1983, some twenty years
>ago.
I was never ever AOLA staff, not even for one second. Yes, I did leave the
Sea Org in September 1983, but I didn't leave Scientology until 1988.
>Your figures are therefore woefully out of date.
Let me give you a few clues, "blackdog". I have friends still in Scientology.
I continue to receive many, many monthly magazines from many, many
different orgs and missions. It is not necessary to be "on the inside" to
be able to know the names and numbers of completions in the various
periodicals published by Scientology organizations and missions.
Heber Jentzsch is a bald-faced liar. His figures are made up out of the clear
blue sky. He mis-states the number of members by a factor of 8000%. His
"definition" of a "member" is in reality propaganda by *redefinition* since he
defines "member" as anyone who has ever bought a book, done a course
or received auditing.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Susan
View profile
More options Jun 16 2003, 9:49 am
"Warrior" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
| In "International Scientology News", issue 9 published in 1999 the
following
| statements appear on page 31:
|
| "FACT: A survey of untrained Scientologists shows that 16% have made it
| to Clear and 15% to OT.
|
| "Compare this to a survey of trained Scientologists. The difference is
re-
| markable: 90% have made it to Clear and 79% to OT."
|
| I know from having been in charge of maintaining Scientology's mailing
list
| that there were only 45,000 people who were categorized in their computer
| as "trained and processed".
|
| We know from statements made by Scientology in its "Auditor" (magazine)
| that there are now approximately 50,000 Clears. The fact is that perhaps
| half of this number of Clears are no longer active in Scientology.
Granted
| this is my observation/opinion that I don't have exact numbers on, but one
| day I will. But I digress...
|
| Using Scientology's statement of percentages of trained versus untrained
| Clears, and my knowledge of the number of "trained and processed" (T&P)
| members, the following can be deduced:
|
| 45,000 T&P total, 90% of which are Clear. 45,000 x .90 = 40,500 Clears
| who are T&P.
|
| 50,000 total Clears minus
| 40,500 T&P gives
| 9,500 other Clears (non-T&P) remaining.
|
| Since Scientology says only 16% of untrained Scienos are Clear, work this
| backwards to find the number of untrained Scienos.
|
| 9,500 Clears divided by .16 = 59,375 untrained.
|
| Double-check:
|
| 59,375 (untrained) x .16 (percentage of which are Clear, according to Sci-
| entology) = 9,500
|
| 40,500 trained Clears plus
| 9,500 untrained Clears equals
| 50,000 total number of Clears
|
| 45,000 trained and processed Scienos
| 59,375 untrained Scienos
| ----------
| 104,375 total maximum number of Scienos (and realize that this 50,000
| figure includes thousands of individuals who have died, been declared or
are
| no loner active in Scn.)
|
| There are not now and never have been 8 million Scienos.
|
| No wonder Scientology stopped publishing Clear numbers.
|
| In <
[email protected]>,
| "blackdog" says...
| >
| > You are being dishonest on two counts here.
|
| Sorry, "blackdog", you are wrong. You're good at making allegations,
| but very poor at answering questions or providing information.
|
| > In the first place, you were not in charge of *Scientology's*
| >mailing list.
|
| Well, I sure wasn't in charge of the mailing list for the Hare Krishnas or
| the Moonies.
|
| >You worked with AOLA's mailing list
|
| AOLA's list was only a small part of what I worked with. I worked on the
| database of names and addresses of every known person, dead or alive
| who had ever
| a) completed a course, including an introductory course
| b) received auditing, including solo auditing
| c) bought a book, whether purchased in an org or mission or by mail
| d) written in and simply asked for more information at every org and
| mission in the western hemisphere.
|
| >and, if your figures can be trusted, this number only represents those
| >people on AOLA lines who were "trained and processed."
|
| Wrong again. First off, "my numbers" can be trusted. I am a "fully
hatted"
| Address Officer and Computer I/C who worked with the numbers for months
| while maintaining and building the mailing list. "My numbers" actually
came
| from Scientology orgs and missions.
|
| In other words, the number of trained and processed Scienos is information
| compiled by many different people holding many different posts in over 50
| different Scientology orgs and missions. This information was all
computer-
| ized on the same central database on a computer housed in the AOLA
building.
|
| But the number of trained and processed did not only represent those
people
| "on AOLA lines". The number of trained and processed Scienos represented
| individuals who had done a major servce at any org or mission in the
western
| hemisphere, whether it was ASHO, AOLA, Boston, San Francisco, New York,
| Tampa, Washington D.C. (FCDC), Chicago, Detroit, Austin, Houston, Dallas,
| San Dieego, Portland, Seattle, LA Org, Celebrity Centre, Sacramento, Las
| Vegas, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Coral Gables, Buffalo, Philadelphia,
Evanston,
| Phoenix, Denver, Albuquerque, Pasadena, Sherman Oaks, Waikiki, Santa
| Barbara, Columbus, Cincinatti, Orlando, Kansas City, Ann Arbor, Toronto,
| Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Kitchener, Montreal, Quebec, Winnipeg or
| Mexico. This is not an exhaustive list, but simply the names of the orgs
| and missions I can recall.
|
| Additionally, "my numbers" constitute information that I learned from
| experience on several different positions including Treasury Secretary,
| Advisory Council member, Financial Planning Committee Chairman, Director
| of Disbursements, Financial Planning Liaison Officer, Purchasing Officer,
| Bills Paying Officer and Financial Planning Activation Section Officer.
| These posts, as you may know, are in different divisions and completely
| seperate from the Address Officer and Computer I/C posts.
|
| I have experience with not just maintaining the list, but planning for the
| monthly magazine which went out to everyone on the list (including book-
| buyers every other month). I sat in on morning "product conferences"
| in the Commanding Officer's officer, where the list was discussed. I have
| personal knowledge of the number of magazines printed and the number
| of mailing labels which were affixed to the magazines because I not only
| wrote the checks for their purchase (as Director of Disbursements), but
| in some cases I even ordered or bought the supplies (as Purchasing
Officer).
|
| As Financial Planning Activation Section Officer, I was the one who
prepared
| the checks for payment of the bills for the magazine itself, as well as
the
| mailing labels which went on the magazines and all other promo pieces. As
| Treasury Secretary Secretary I signed the checks for payment of the bills
| and supplies for the various magazines and promotional pieces.
|
| > Secondly, you left the Sea Org (and AOLA) in 1983, some twenty years
| >ago.
|
| I was never ever AOLA staff, not even for one second. Yes, I did leave
the
| Sea Org in September 1983, but I didn't leave Scientology until 1988.
|
| >Your figures are therefore woefully out of date.
|
| Let me give you a few clues, "blackdog". I have friends still in
Scientology.
| I continue to receive many, many monthly magazines from many, many
| different orgs and missions. It is not necessary to be "on the inside"
to
| be able to know the names and numbers of completions in the various
| periodicals published by Scientology organizations and missions.
|
| Heber Jentzsch is a bald-faced liar. His figures are made up out of the
clear
| blue sky. He mis-states the number of members by a factor of 8000%. His
| "definition" of a "member" is in reality propaganda by *redefinition*
since he
| defines "member" as anyone who has ever bought a book, done a course
| or received auditing.
|
Now if Blackdog would only answer those questions you asked of him/her a
while back....
Susan ;-)
|
| Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
|
http://warrior.xenu.ca
|
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Hartley Patterson
View profile
More options Jun 16 2003, 5:44 pm
blackdog:
> In the first place, you were not in charge of *Scientology's*
> mailing list. You worked with AOLA's mailing list and, if your figures
> can be trusted, this number only represents those people on AOLA lines
> who were "trained and processed."
> Secondly, you left the Sea Org (and AOLA) in 1983, some twenty years
> ago. Your figures are therefore woefully out of date.
Warrior only used one figure from his own recollection, the others were
taken from CoS Official publications. You want to nitpick, expect to be
nitpicked back!
The point with these figures is not the nitpicking. It is that there are
various ways of attempting to calculate the worldwide number of
scientologists, most of them using data published by the CoS, and none
of them support the claim that there are eight million scientologists.
Instead they produce much lower figures, varying depending on how
exactly one defines 'scientologist'. This is not margin of error stuff,
this is several orders of magnitude lying.
--
ARSCC Demographics Department
Still looking for 7,900,000 Scientologists (TM)
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Warrior
View profile
More options Jun 16 2003, 11:50 pm
In article <
[email protected]>,
Hartley Patterson says...
>Warrior only used one figure from his own recollection, the others were
>taken from CoS Official publications.
Correct. And I saw the information as to the number of trained and
processed, as well as the number of book buyers, so many times it
is impossible to forget. I didn't only gain my knowledge from when
I was the Address Officer and Computer I/C; I was privvy to the same
information over a period of 6 years during which I held various executive
posts in Division 3 (Treasury) and Division 7 (Executive Division).
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
- Show quoted text -
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
blackdog
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 2:35 am
- Show quoted text -
What a pile of utter malarkey!
The sentence that hoists you on your own petard is this:
"First off, 'my numbers' can be trusted."
No, they cannot be trusted, as a simple examination will show.
Let's take AOLA itself for a start. This organization was established
in August of 1968. You left the Sea Org in September of 1983. This gives
a fifteen year operating period for AOLA.
Your list had, according to you, 45,000 names on it. These are people
who had "(a) completed a course, including an introductory course" or
"(b) received auditing, including solo auditing."
If we assign these 45,000 different service takers to AOLA alone over
that fifteen year period it works down, on average, to 3,000 different
service takers a year and futher, to 58 different service takers a
week on average (rounding up) - new and different service takers.
Not only does AOLA deliver the Solo courses, they also deliver lower
Grade Chart auditing and various other courses, including introductory
services. By itself, AOLA had the capability to generate those 58 new
and different service takers each week on average.
If that figure (58) is too high for you, then throw in ASHO
(established on the same day as AOLA) and LA Org (established in 1954).
Even if we only take what LA org generated in that fifteen year period
(1968 - 1983), the three orgs only have to contribute 20 new and
different service takers *each* a week on average to make your 45,000
list by 1983, a quota that is ridiculously easy to attain and maintain.
So you can forget about every "org or mission in the western
hemisphere." Your numbers just don't add up.
Either your memory is especially foggy or your "numbers" are made of
whole cloth.
.
--
Not of the sunlight,
Not of the moonlight,
Not of the starlight!
O young Mariner,
Down to the haven,
Call your companions,
Launch your vessel,
And crowd your canvas,
And, ere it vanishes
Over the margin,
After it, follow it,
Follow the Gleam.
["Merlin and the Gleam" Alfred, Lord Tennyson]
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Rev Norle Enturbulata
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 9:47 am
"blackdog" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
- Show quoted text -
Well, since the ufo nut-cult you're mentally enslaved by and slavishly work
for is a load of codswallops (as your bloated, pill-popping, wife-beating,
child-abusing, tax-dodging wannabe antichrist Hubbard would have you say),
this is all a moot point, isn't it? Thanks for sharing what your handlers
feed you.
--
Revd. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page
than has any publication since the invention of printing."
- Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Praxis
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 2:48 pm
- Show quoted text -
I find it interesting that your response to Warrior's calculations are
to attack his calculations without presenting any of you own
calculations or figures as an alternative.
Also, it would have been more impressive if you presented what you
believe to be the real numbers.
If you have neither your best calculations or the real numbers to
present we must presume that your only purpose is to undermine ...
read more »
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Warrior
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 7:50 pm
In "International Scientology News", issue 9 published in 1999 the following
statements appear on page 31:
"FACT: A survey of untrained Scientologists shows that 16% have made it
to Clear and 15% to OT.
"Compare this to a survey of trained Scientologists. The difference is re-
markable: 90% have made it to Clear and 79% to OT."
I know from having been in charge of maintaining Scientology's mailing list
that there were only 45,000 people who were categorized in their computer
as "trained and processed".
We know from statements made by Scientology in its "Auditor" (magazine)
that there are now approximately 50,000 Clears. The fact is that perhaps
half of this number of Clears are no longer active in Scientology. Granted
this is my observation/opinion that I don't have exact numbers on, but one
day I will. But I digress...
Using Scientology's statement of percentages of trained versus untrained
Clears, and my knowledge of the number of "trained and processed" (T&P)
members, the following can be deduced:
45,000 T&P total, 90% of which are Clear. 45,000 x .90 = 40,500 Clears
who are T&P.
50,000 total Clears minus
40,500 T&P gives
9,500 other Clears (non-T&P) remaining.
Since Scientology says only 16% of untrained Scienos are Clear, work this
backwards to find the number of untrained Scienos.
9,500 Clears divided by .16 = 59,375 untrained.
Double-check:
59,375 (untrained) x .16 (percentage of which are Clear, according to Sci-
entology) = 9,500
40,500 trained Clears plus
9,500 untrained Clears equals
50,000 total number of Clears
45,000 trained and processed Scienos
59,375 untrained Scienos
----------
104,375 total maximum number of Scienos (and realize that this 50,000
figure includes thousands of individuals who have died, been declared or are
no loner active in Scn.)
There are not now and never have been 8 million Scientologists.
No wonder Scientology stopped publishing Clear numbers.
In <
[email protected]>,
"blackdog" says...
> You are being dishonest on two counts here.
Sorry, "blackdog", you are wrong. You're good at making allegations,
but very poor at answering questions or providing information.
> In the first place, you were not in charge of *Scientology's*
>mailing list.
Well, I sure wasn't in charge of the mailing list for the Hare Krishnas or
the Moonies.
>You worked with AOLA's mailing list
AOLA's list was only a small part of what I worked with. I worked on the
database of names and addresses of every known person, dead or alive
who had ever
a) completed a course, including an introductory course
b) received auditing, including solo auditing
c) bought a book, whether purchased in an org or mission or by mail
d) written in and simply asked for more information at every org and
mission in the western hemisphere.
>and, if your figures can be trusted, this number only represents those
>people on AOLA lines who were "trained and processed."
Wrong again. First off, "my numbers" can be trusted. I am a "fully hatted"
Address Officer and Computer I/C who worked with the numbers for months
while maintaining and building the mailing list. "My numbers" actually came
from Scientology orgs and missions.
In other words, the number of trained and processed Scienos is information
compiled by many different people holding many different posts in over 50
different Scientology orgs and missions. This information was all computer-
ized on the same central database on a computer housed in the AOLA building.
But the number of trained and processed did not only represent those people
"on AOLA lines". The number of trained and processed Scienos represented
individuals who had done a major servce at any org or mission in the western
hemisphere, whether it was ASHO, AOLA, Boston, San Francisco, New York,
Tampa, Washington D.C. (FCDC), Chicago, Detroit, Austin, Houston, Dallas,
San Dieego, Portland, Seattle, LA Org, Celebrity Centre, Sacramento, Las
Vegas, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Coral Gables, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Evanston,
Phoenix, Denver, Albuquerque, Pasadena, Sherman Oaks, Waikiki, Santa
Barbara, Columbus, Cincinatti, Orlando, Kansas City, Ann Arbor, Toronto,
Ottawa, Vancouver, Edmonton, Kitchener, Montreal, Quebec, Winnipeg or
Mexico. This is not an exhaustive list, but simply the names of the orgs
and missions I can recall.
Additionally, "my numbers" constitute information that I learned from
experience on several different positions including Treasury Secretary,
Advisory Council member, Financial Planning Committee Chairman, Director
of Disbursements, Financial Planning Liaison Officer, Purchasing Officer,
Bills Paying Officer and Financial Planning Activation Section Officer.
These posts, as you may know, are in different divisions and completely
seperate from the Address Officer and Computer I/C posts.
I have experience with not just maintaining the list, but planning for the
monthly magazine which went out to everyone on the list (including book-
buyers every other month). I sat in on morning "product conferences"
in the Commanding Officer's office, where the list was discussed. I have
personal knowledge of the number of magazines printed and the number
of mailing labels which were affixed to the magazines because I not only
wrote the checks for their purchase (as Director of Disbursements), but
in some cases I even ordered or bought the supplies (as Purchasing Officer).
As Financial Planning Activation Section Officer, I was the one who prepared
the checks for payment of the bills for the magazine itself, as well as the
mailing labels which went on the magazines and all other promo pieces. As
Treasury Secretary Secretary I signed the checks for payment of the bills
and supplies for the various magazines and promotional pieces.
> Secondly, you left the Sea Org (and AOLA) in 1983, some twenty years
>ago.
I was never ever AOLA staff, not even for one second. Yes, I did leave the
Sea Org in September 1983, but I didn't leave Scientology until 1988.
>Your figures are therefore woefully out of date.
Let me give you a few clues, "blackdog". I have friends still in Scientology.
I continue to receive many, many monthly magazines from many, many
different orgs and missions. It is not necessary to be "on the inside" to
be able to know the names and numbers of completions in the various
periodicals published by Scientology organizations and missions.
Heber Jentzsch is a bald-faced liar. His figures are made up out of the clear
blue sky. He mis-states the number of members by a factor of 8000%. His
"definition" of a "member" is in reality propaganda by *redefinition* since he
defines "member" as anyone who has ever bought a book, done a course
or received auditing.
In <
[email protected]>,
"blackdog" continued his attempted "DA" (dead agent) attacks with:
> What a pile of utter malarkey!
This is nothing more than your attempt at "invalidation" of what I know.
I get the feeling that you are "bullbaiting" me in order to gather more
information as to what I know. If this is the case, I am happy to oblige
you, since it provides me with yet another opportunity to put to rest
your feeble attempts to "DA" (attempt to invalidate) my information.
> The sentence that hoists you on your own petard is this:
You wish. Dream on, oh disingenuous "blackdog".
> "First off, 'my numbers' can be trusted."
The reason I used "my numbers" in quotes is because you earlier had
used the phrase "my numbers", as if *I* made them up . That's why
I wrote "'My numbers' actually came from Scientology orgs and missions."
In other words, the information as to the nature and size of Scientology's
list has as its source, Scientology itself. I used quotes because the
numbers are not "my numbers".
> No, they cannot be trusted, as a simple examination will show.
When you allege "they cannot be trusted" you are in actuality saying that
*Scientology's* numbers (the actual computerized database of members)
cannot be trusted.
> Let's take AOLA itself for a start. This organization was established
>in August of 1968. You left the Sea Org in September of 1983. This gives
>a fifteen year operating period for AOLA.
> Your list had, according to you, 45,000 names on it. These are people
>who had "(a) completed a course, including an introductory course" or
>"(b) received auditing, including solo auditing."
You completely mis-state my words. Here's what I wrote:
"I worked on the database of names and addresses of every known person,
dead or alive who had ever
a) completed a course, including an introductory course
b) received auditing, including solo auditing
c) bought a book, whether purchased in an org or mission or by mail
d) written in and simply asked for more information at every org and
mission in the western hemisphere."
I have never claimed "[my] list had, according to [me], 45,000 names on it."
What I *have* stated is that the list had a total of 250,000 names and that
of the 250,000, only 45,000 were "trained and processed" members. The
other names on the list (they were called "identities") were book buyers or
individuals who had done a "basic course". These numbered approximately
180,000 names. The list also contained approximately 25,000 names which
were "tabbed" one of the following categories, since they were *not* to be
mailed to:
1) "UNK" (address unknown)
2) "DF" (deadfiled due to "entheta" letters to the org)
3) "X" ("dropped the body", or now dead)
4) "PTS" (potential trouble source)
5) "SP" (suppressive person)
6) "L" (a legal threat)
7) "ASK" (had asked off the mailing list).
Here's one of my posts where I previously discussed this:
...
read more »
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Warrior
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 7:50 pm
In article <
[email protected]>,
Praxis <
[email protected]> wrote:
>I find it interesting that your response to Warrior's calculations
>are to attack his calculations without presenting any of you own
>calculations or figures as an alternative.
As you know, cult "scripture" written by L. Ron Hubbard says that
"blackdog" should "always attack, never defend."
>Also, it would have been more impressive if you presented what
>you believe to be the real numbers.
I seriously doubt he knows the real number of members of the
Scientology cult. Interestingly, "blackdog" has failed to make
any comment on Heber Jentzsch's false and misleading claims.
>If you have neither your best calculations or the real numbers to
>present we must presume that your only purpose is to undermine
>Warrior.
That's his true intention. His purpose for posting is not to provide
any factual information since doing so would further expose Heber
Jentzsch's oft-repeated lies. But "blackdog" is applying Hubbard's
"scripture" that says to "DA" (cult lingo for the verb phrase which
means to "dead agent") persons who are critical of Scientology.
>Now why would you want to do that?
I think "blackdog" is afraid to admit the truth, so he attacks me
as his way of "defending" the liar, Heber Jentzsch. The trouble
is, his "logic" is severely flawed, as I have shown in my post with
message-ID: <
[email protected]>, posted a few
minutes ago.
>Why would an anonymous ankle-biter like yourself want to try and
>discredit a reputable ex-Scientologist like Warrior who is presenting
>data to the newsgroup? What are the possibilities that his data is
>close[r] to the truth tha[n] the official CoS figures?
Scientology has two sets of figures:
1) the truth, available to "insiders", which supports the fact that
Scientology is a relatively small little cult
and
2) the false propaganda (lie) that Scientology has "8 million members"
when dealing with "wogs" or members of the press
>Either present alternative calculations or alternative figures from a
>reputable source. That's not hard to do, is it?
His "calculations", presented in message-ID
<
[email protected]>
are severely flawed. I have answered in my post with message-ID
<
[email protected]>.
In <
[email protected]>,
"blackdog" wrote falsehoods such as the following:
"You worked with AOLA's mailing list and, if your figures can be trusted,
this number only represents those people on AOLA lines who were 'trained
and processed.""
AOLA's list was only a small part of what I worked with. I worked on the
database of names and addresses of every known person, dead or alive
who had ever
a) completed a course, including an introductory course
b) received auditing, including solo auditing
c) bought a book, whether purchased in an org or mission or by mail
d) written in and simply asked for more information at every org and
mission in the western hemisphere. I am a "fully hatted" Address Officer
and Computer I/C who worked with the numbers for months while main-
taining and building the mailing list. "My numbers" actually came from
Scientology orgs and missions.
In <
[email protected]>
"blackdog" also wrote:
"Secondly, you left the Sea Org (and AOLA) in 1983, some twenty years ago."
At no time was I ever staff at AOLA.
Here's a post by another ex-member who knew about the lie:
=====
From: Robert Vaughn Young
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
Subject: How Scientology "Grew" to 8 Million Members
Date: 21 Aug 1997
I have seen much speculation on where Scientology representatives get
their figure of "8 million members" or "6 million members." Some wonder if
it is people who have taken courses or who have bought books or perhaps
people who walk in the door. It's none of that. Let me tell you how it
started.
Department 20 has been the section that handles media. It is now called
the Office of Special Affairs but in the early 70s it was called the
Guardian's Office. I worked in the PR section, first in San Francisco and
then at the US offices, 1971-82. We had clipping services for the words
"Scientology" and "L. Ron Hubbard." Other than the PRs scattered about
who would send in clips, that was the only other way to find how we were
being covered.
At that time, we were in a massive anti-FDA campaign, stemming from the
raid on the Washington, DC, organization, over the role/function of the
E-Meter so there was media interest. Inevitably, we were asked how many
members we had and while the local PR might come up with a number for
his/her area, we didn't have a figure for national, let alone international,
and this was noticed at the US office. PRs were giving random figures and
so we had to come up with a stable figure. Nothing was used to calculate
the figure. It was dreamed up as "over one million" because anything less
wouldn't sound good. There was no count of students or anything. It was
simply dreamed up and the figure sent to the PRs to use when asked. (We
also needed it for the publications we were putting out.)
Then what came into play was the LRH order that Scientology is always
growing. He wrote it in a policy letter, to never admit to anything but
growth. That meant the "one million" had to grow. Again, no calculations
were made. No organizations were asked to submit figures. Perhaps six
months later, we were "1.1 million" and then later "1.25 million" and so
the membership figure began to grow. Occasionally it would produce some
humor, as when a reporter would call the US office and along the way ask
for the membership figure and he/she would be put on hold while someone
asked what the latest one was. "1.5" someone shouted. "No, we used that
one last month, make it 1.6," suggested another. "Why not 1.75," someone
else asked. "Too many digits," someone would call back, "make it 1.8."
"Hey," the original PR would ask, "I've got a reporter here on hold, gimme
a figure!" "Racquel Welch," came a fast reply from someone coming down
the stairs.
Okay, so it wasn't "Saturday Night Live" but that was pretty much how
we treated it. I think we stayed with the 1.5 that time. But it soon moved
up to 2 million and it has climbed ever since.
As to their actual count, it depends on the definition of a "member." But in
the meantime, there have been some good samplings that align to my own
estimation. For example, when orgs were closed and there were massive
phone campaigns ordering everyone to an event in the Greater Los Angeles
area, which has the highest number and concentration of Scientologists in
the world, they could must[er] only a few thousand. At a similar function in
Europe where they demanded turnout, they couldn't even raise 2000. You
can also extrapolate back from some of the "stats" they give. None of it
reflects 8 million "members," unless one is including "body thetans" from
OT 3.*
But this was how it all started and how Scientology "expanded."
Robert Vaughn Young
[email protected]
===
See also "The Boomer Report" and my comments here:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=45,000+"The+Boomer+Report"+group:a...
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
grouchomatic
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 7:58 pm
blackdog wrote:
(huge snip of Warriors excellent presentation)
> What a pile of utter malarkey!
> The sentence that hoists you on your own petard is this:
> "First off, 'my numbers' can be trusted."
Really? Let's take a look at your numbers.
> No, they cannot be trusted, as a simple examination will show.
> Let's take AOLA itself for a start. This organization was established
> in August of 1968. You left the Sea Org in September of 1983. This gives
> a fifteen year operating period for AOLA.
This is irrelevant data. It is not the length of time it has existed
which is at issue.
> Your list had, according to you, 45,000 names on it. These are people
> who had "(a) completed a course, including an introductory course" or
> "(b) received auditing, including solo auditing."
> If we assign these 45,000 different service takers to AOLA alone over
> that fifteen year period it works down, on average, to 3,000 different
> service takers a year and futher, to 58 different service takers a
> week on average (rounding up) - new and different service takers.
Why in Xemu's name would you do this? Now, according to you, there are
only 3,000 active scientologists taking services a year. Even I don't
think it is shrunk that small, but I could only hope
Go back and re-read what Warrior said. He doesn't say there are only
45,000 people who have ever taken a course, purchased a book etc, no, he
said the mailing list contained 45,000 names of people categorized as
"trained and processed."
The balance of your argument is irrelevant because you began from a
flawed premise.
You're an excellent example of the human mind on Hubbardian logic. Useless.
Grouch
- Show quoted text -
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Susan
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 8:21 pm
"Warrior" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
| In article <
[email protected]>,
| Praxis <
[email protected]> wrote:
| >
| >I find it interesting that your response to Warrior's calculations
| >are to attack his calculations without presenting any of you own
| >calculations or figures as an alternative.
|
| As you know, cult "scripture" written by L. Ron Hubbard says that
| "blackdog" should "always attack, never defend."
|
| >Also, it would have been more impressive if you presented what
| >you believe to be the real numbers.
|
| I seriously doubt he knows the real number of members of the
| Scientology cult. Interestingly, "blackdog" has failed to make
| any comment on Heber Jentzsch's false and misleading claims.
|
| >If you have neither your best calculations or the real numbers to
| >present we must presume that your only purpose is to undermine
| >Warrior.
|
| That's his true intention. His purpose for posting is not to provide
| any factual information since doing so would further expose Heber
| Jentzsch's oft-repeated lies. But "blackdog" is applying Hubbard's
| "scripture" that says to "DA" (cult lingo for the verb phrase which
| means to "dead agent") persons who are critical of Scientology.
|
| >Now why would you want to do that?
|
| I think "blackdog" is afraid to admit the truth, so he attacks me
| as his way of "defending" the liar, Heber Jentzsch. The trouble
| is, his "logic" is severely flawed, as I have shown in my post with
| message-ID: <
[email protected]>, posted a few
| minutes ago.
|
| >Why would an anonymous ankle-biter like yourself want to try and
| >discredit a reputable ex-Scientologist like Warrior who is presenting
| >data to the newsgroup? What are the possibilities that his data is
| >close[r] to the truth tha[n] the official CoS figures?
|
| Scientology has two sets of figures:
|
| 1) the truth, available to "insiders", which supports the fact that
| Scientology is a relatively small little cult
|
| and
|
| 2) the false propaganda (lie) that Scientology has "8 million members"
| when dealing with "wogs" or members of the press
|
| >Either present alternative calculations or alternative figures from a
| >reputable source. That's not hard to do, is it?
|
| His "calculations", presented in message-ID
| <
[email protected]>
| are severely flawed. I have answered in my post with message-ID
| <
[email protected]>.
|
| In <
[email protected]>,
| "blackdog" wrote falsehoods such as the following:
|
| "You worked with AOLA's mailing list and, if your figures can be trusted,
| this number only represents those people on AOLA lines who were 'trained
| and processed.""
|
| AOLA's list was only a small part of what I worked with. I worked on the
| database of names and addresses of every known person, dead or alive
| who had ever
| a) completed a course, including an introductory course
| b) received auditing, including solo auditing
| c) bought a book, whether purchased in an org or mission or by mail
| d) written in and simply asked for more information at every org and
| mission in the western hemisphere. I am a "fully hatted" Address Officer
| and Computer I/C who worked with the numbers for months while main-
| taining and building the mailing list. "My numbers" actually came from
| Scientology orgs and missions.
|
| In <
[email protected]>
| "blackdog" also wrote:
| "Secondly, you left the Sea Org (and AOLA) in 1983, some twenty years
ago."
|
| At no time was I ever staff at AOLA.
|
| Here's a post by another ex-member who knew about the lie:
|
| =====
|
| From: Robert Vaughn Young
| Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
| Subject: How Scientology "Grew" to 8 Million Members
| Date: 21 Aug 1997
|
| I have seen much speculation on where Scientology representatives get
| their figure of "8 million members" or "6 million members." Some wonder if
| it is people who have taken courses or who have bought books or perhaps
| people who walk in the door. It's none of that. Let me tell you how it
| started.
|
| Department 20 has been the section that handles media. It is now called
| the Office of Special Affairs but in the early 70s it was called the
| Guardian's Office. I worked in the PR section, first in San Francisco and
| then at the US offices, 1971-82. We had clipping services for the words
| "Scientology" and "L. Ron Hubbard." Other than the PRs scattered about
| who would send in clips, that was the only other way to find how we were
| being covered.
|
| At that time, we were in a massive anti-FDA campaign, stemming from the
| raid on the Washington, DC, organization, over the role/function of the
| E-Meter so there was media interest. Inevitably, we were asked how many
| members we had and while the local PR might come up with a number for
| his/her area, we didn't have a figure for national, let alone
international,
| and this was noticed at the US office. PRs were giving random figures and
| so we had to come up with a stable figure. Nothing was used to calculate
| the figure. It was dreamed up as "over one million" because anything less
| wouldn't sound good. There was no count of students or anything. It was
| simply dreamed up and the figure sent to the PRs to use when asked. (We
| also needed it for the publications we were putting out.)
|
| Then what came into play was the LRH order that Scientology is always
| growing. He wrote it in a policy letter, to never admit to anything but
| growth. That meant the "one million" had to grow. Again, no calculations
| were made. No organizations were asked to submit figures. Perhaps six
| months later, we were "1.1 million" and then later "1.25 million" and so
| the membership figure began to grow. Occasionally it would produce some
| humor, as when a reporter would call the US office and along the way ask
| for the membership figure and he/she would be put on hold while someone
| asked what the latest one was. "1.5" someone shouted. "No, we used that
| one last month, make it 1.6," suggested another. "Why not 1.75," someone
| else asked. "Too many digits," someone would call back, "make it 1.8."
| "Hey," the original PR would ask, "I've got a reporter here on hold, gimme
| a figure!" "Racquel Welch," came a fast reply from someone coming down
| the stairs.
|
| Okay, so it wasn't "Saturday Night Live" but that was pretty much how
| we treated it. I think we stayed with the 1.5 that time. But it soon moved
| up to 2 million and it has climbed ever since.
|
| As to their actual count, it depends on the definition of a "member." But
in
| the meantime, there have been some good samplings that align to my own
| estimation. For example, when orgs were closed and there were massive
| phone campaigns ordering everyone to an event in the Greater Los Angeles
| area, which has the highest number and concentration of Scientologists in
| the world, they could must[er] only a few thousand. At a similar function
in
| Europe where they demanded turnout, they couldn't even raise 2000. You
| can also extrapolate back from some of the "stats" they give. None of it
| reflects 8 million "members," unless one is including "body thetans" from
| OT 3.*
|
| But this was how it all started and how Scientology "expanded."
|
| Robert Vaughn Young
|
[email protected]
|
| ===
|
| See also "The Boomer Report" and my comments here:
|
http://www.google.com/groups?q=45,000+"The+Boomer+Report"+group:a...
gion.scientology&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=7dbvp3%24f1s%40drn.newsguy.com&rnum
=2
|
|
| Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
|
http://warrior.xenu.ca
|
Wow blackdog,
You are trying to defend yourself against the words and experiences of
Warrior and RVY.
Once again, the tech doesn't work.
Another footbullet for the CoS.
Susan
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Warrior
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 8:35 pm
In article <
[email protected]>, grouchomatic says...
>Go back and re-read what Warrior said. He doesn't say there are only
>45,000 people who have ever taken a course, purchased a book etc, no,
>he said the mailing list contained 45,000 names of people categorized as
>"trained and processed."
Correct. And it is important to note that the computerized mailing list of
names (250,000) does not equate to the number of members.
72% (180,000) of the names were of people who had only bought a book or
who had done an introductory service
10% (25,000) of the names were of people who were either dead, or "dead filed",
had asked off the list, were declared "SP" or "PTS", legal threats or address
unknown
That leaves 18% (45,000) names of actual members in the entire Western
Hemisphere.
Interesting to note is that "The Boomer Report", which is a religious
identification
survery, shows 45,000 as the number of *self-described* adherents of Scientology
in the United States.
>The balance of your argument is irrelevant because you began from a flawed
>premise.
The best he can do is attempt to confuse the issue, mischaracterize my words,
and otherwise spew his attempted "DA" garbage.
>You're an excellent example of the human mind on Hubbardian logic. Useless.
>Grouch
I think "blackdog" is afraid to look at the truth. His/her "reality" would be
shattered upon realizing that Heber Jentzsch has been lying for years.
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Warrior
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 10:05 pm
In article <
[email protected]>,
"blackdog" says...
> So you can forget about every "org or mission in the western
>hemisphere." Your numbers just don't add up.
According to policy written by Hubbard, The Auditor Magzaine minor issue
gets mailed every other month to everyone on the list. The minor issue
went out to 225,000 people.
During the in between months the magazine is mailed to the trained and
processed ("T&P") list. These are called "major issues", and the size of
these mailings was 45,000. One of my duties when I was the Address
Officer and Computer I/C was making sure the that address labels were
printed.
We used large, fan folded and perforated (the machine was pin fed) paper
manufactured by the Avery Dennison company. The printer in the computer
room printed out labels which were about 3" wide and 1" high on this large
paper. There were, as I recall, about twelve rows of six labels on each page,
making about 72 labels per page. The entire list of 225,000 (mostly good)
addresses was what we used to send the magazine to. (We didn't mail to
10% of the 250,000 total names on the list, as these 10% were "tabbed"
as either address unknown, or declared SPs or people who had threatened
legal action or were "dead filed" and not to be mailed to.)
Picture about 6 1/4 reams of 20 lb. paper stacked on top of each other
and you will get an idea of the thickness of the list. I could easily carry
the list. The list was around 3125 sheets of fan folded paper. This list
was about 12 1/2 inches high.
If Scientology had 8 million members and they all received the "minor"
issue of the Auditor Magazine, the list would have to have been 35.55
times the size of the actual list.
Such a list would have been 444 3/8 inches (about 37 feet) high!
I *definitely* could not have carried such a list. And most assuredly I
would remember *if* the list were that big.
Humbly tendered as my gift to mankind this 17th day of June 2003...
Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
http://warrior.xenu.ca
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Hartley Patterson
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 10:10 pm
Warrior:
> Scientology has two sets of figures:
> 1) the truth, available to "insiders", which supports the fact that
> Scientology is a relatively small little cult
> and
> 2) the false propaganda (lie) that Scientology has "8 million members"
> when dealing with "wogs" or members of the press
It's actually more complex than that. The CoS seems to have *three*
levels of publically available membership figures.
'8 million', which is an invented number with no relation to reality
whatsoever.
National figures quoted by national spokespersons to the media. These
may equate to national mailing lists.
'Hardcore' membership figures, quoted by the same spokespersons in
several countries, which seem to be people actually taking courses or
otherwise active.
The real figure is of course IAS membership, but that has never been
published.
--
ARSCC Demographics Department
Still looking for 7,900,000 Scientologists (TM)
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
mimus
View profile
More options Jun 17 2003, 11:53 pm
On 15 Jun 2003 00:13:05 -0700, Warrior <
[email protected]> wrote:
- Show quoted text -
I don't know how many Scientologists there have been, but I know
exactly how many disease- free genius "clears" with perfect recall
there've been . . . .
>Warrior - Sunshine disinfects
>
http://warrior.xenu.ca
>No wonder Scientology stopped publishing
>Clear numbers.
(Somebody should've gone to the RPF for releasing such an unfortunate
analysis.)
--
[email protected]
I saw
many people
reduced to
incoherent babbling,
stripping off clothes,
crawling around on the ground,
banging heads, limbs and other body parts
against furniture and walls,
barking,
losing all sense of one's identity
and intense and persistent suicidal ideation.
--Declaration of Andre Tabayoyon
I'm an OT.--Lisa McPherson
If you imagine 40-50 Scientologists
posting on the Internet every few days,
we'll just run the SP's right off the system.
It will be quite simple, actually.
--Elaine Siegel, OSA INT (1996)
Case 5/BTLA/SP1/BAD
KSJ
(And, BTW: Xenu Xenu Xenu!)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Reply to author Forward
Report spam
Lulu Belle
View profile
More options Jun 19 2003, 2:44 am
- Show quoted text -
Scientology has no idea how many Clears there actually are. This has
been a known fact to Church management for years. There are several
reasons for this.
One reason is the way Clear numbers were originally assigned: They
were given in "blocks" to orgs. The amount of numbers assigned has
nothing to do with the number of Clears there are. There really has
been no actual organization or administration in keeping track of
those who attest to Clear.
Another reason is, it was found in the 80s and 90s that a lot of
people who attested to Clear in earlier days weren't actually Clear at
all. And, from the supposed OTs I've seen on completion lists from AO
and Flag recently who are now doing lower level services, this is
apparently still a problem.
Still another reason: Many, many people who were declared "Clear" are
now out of Scientolgy and/or declared. So, if the person is out, are
they still "Clear"? Do they "count"?
The whole subject of who is Clear/ are they really Clear/ how many
Clears are there/ where are they, etc. has been a total clusterfuck
for the church for a number of years.
but I doubt it.
), every month I would make the "Foundation" (decorative toilet paper) magazine from scratch and mail it out.
