Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts April 22, 2004 - May 21, 2004






Yahoo Groups (mostly) Posted Messages


NOTE: The messages below are in their original form, except they have been annotated in the following manner in order to clarify their meaning.

The tags {PLAIN} and {/PLAIN}, with curly brackets, have been placed at the start and end of text intended to be read as it is written. The tags {IRONY} and {/IRONY} have been placed at the start and end of passages that are intended ironically, and should not be taken literally. The tags {JOKE} and {/JOKE} have been placed at the start and end of passages which are to be taken as jokes. Jokes which have to be explained are not funny, so I haven't tried to explain any of them. If you don't get something labeled "Joke", you can ignore it.


Message 001 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:11 am #1 Subject: Welcome to Paul's FZ Posts! {PLAIN} Some interest has been expressed in reading my FZ posts. Accordingly, as a service to all my loyal fans, I will preserve these ones of general interest in one place. Namely this group. There are perhaps a hundred prior posts worth preserving, and I will aim to get these sent here within the next week or so. In the meantime, I will copy current posts to here. Note that the language in the FZ Flame posts is intentionally rude, and if you find such offensive you might wish to ignore such. If you want to see the rest of the story, you will have to go to the archives of the group concerned, assuming it still exists. Thanks for reading. {/PLAIN} Paul





NOTE: Until around June 1, I was posting with the name "Lucky Duck" or "Dee".


Message 007 Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:59:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Moderation, purpose/Outflow-Inflow To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > I am not sure that books really make booms, but I do know this. You > can graph > 1) an org's book sales > 2) it's letters out > 3) it's bulk mail out. > > If those things show a healthy trend, then its GI almost always will > too. There is about a 6 week comm lag between the 3 indicated stats > > and GI. I've seen it in counltess graphs. {PLAIN} Hey guys, It's been a while since I've posted. A while back I was on an org's financial planning lines. I am very familiar with the LRH policy on the subject of outflow/inflow. Most of the Purchase Orders wanting postage or promo money quoted the principle, usually just in the words "outflow = inflow". Sometimes some industrious person attached graphs of GI and LO and/or BMO [gross income, letters out, bulk mail out]. The person would often point to two peaks fairly near each other as evidence. Without the graphs he would parrot, "inflow follows outflow on a six-week trend," but with the graphs he would point to those peaks. But the funny thing about those peaks was that the time between them would move about. As in, the income peak might indeed be six weeks after the outflow peak, or it might be three weeks, or eight weeks, or one week. Once he, in all seriousness, was pointing out that the outflow peak was one week *after* the inflow peak [rather like the famed negative psi effect]. The point is that for the few years I compared those graphs I never did see the correlation "everybody knew" was there. There definitely was a tendency for the reverse correlation to occur, as in "now that we've got some money we can finally afford to get the rest of this promo backlog out." But the supposed correlation just wasn't evident in the stats graphs at that time. The FP committee and the finance people "knew" how important it was to spend virtually all of the FP allocation on mailing out bits of paper to the way-out-of-date address list, so my own opinions on the subject never really counted for much. I once tried to spend some money on an investigatory tour--the idea was to take just twenty names/addresses at random from an address list that we mailed to and actually go see who lived at each address, just to get some idea of what we were spending all the promo money on instead of "unimportant" things like staff pay or toilet paper for the org's public restrooms. That idea never went anywhere! I don't doubt the principle of outflow=inflow is accurate, just that its execution was very flawed in the real-world org I was part of at that time, and no-one else seemed to give a damn that it didn't happen as the old man said it would. It was a case of the fixed ideas cutting off any perceptions that didn't align with them. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 008 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:34:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Book Publishing To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} There was some discussion here recently on "books make booms" and book publishing. I think it's a great idea to get some FZ books out into the public eye, since one can hardly put a postcard advertising local FZ practitioners in a CofS book. I saw Michael's recent offer re publishing and make no comment about it as I know nothing whatsoever about his set-up. Has anyone checked out http://www.iuniverse.com ? I have bought three books from these guys, and the service and quality is excellent. It works like this. The author writes his book, pays the publishing fee, and e-mails the manuscript to the company. They "typeset" it in Adobe .pdf format and e-mail it back for proofreading. Once the author has proofread it, they publish it, complete with ISBN numbers and all the needed formalities. This includes getting it into the "books in print" list so that anyone can order it from a regular bookseller. The author gets five copies as part of the deal. Here's where it gets good. The company automatically prints no more copies than those five and the needed Library of Congress etc. copies. Anyone can order a copy online at www.iuniverse.com . Once the order has been received, the company will print the cover, print the pages, glue it all up (trade paperback size, glossy cover, perfect binding), and ship it out. The three books I bought at different times were each delivered to my home well within a week of ordering them. So the author has *no* capital tied up in boxes of books sitting in the garage waiting to be sold. One could have a few copies available to sell to people, or one can promote the book online, directing people to the iuniverse.com website. There is a search engine at the site. One would then be directed to the book details. Clicking on the title brings up a long description, including a "browse before you buy" feature. The book I bought--one by Lloyd Pye concerning human origins--I was able to read pretty much in its entirety online using this feature. It's not very convenient, but hey, it's free. The author gets a generous royalty every time a book is sold. The cheapest publishing package is $495. There are lots of optional goodies you can get, for extra cost. You don't get the kudos of having your book published by a reputable publishing house, but realistically that isn't likely to happen anyway. But it is a realistic way of professionally publishing your book for a reasonable amount of money, and having it readily available for anyone on the planet to buy. If you want to check out the site, take a free look at the book I bought by Lloyd Pye, using the search engine (search by author for "Pye") on the site at http://www.iuniverse.com . This is one of the most fascinating books I have ever read. I have no connection with the company, or that particular book, other than being a satisfied customer/reader. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 009 Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:50:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Peak Oil To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com > bb wrote: > Any new members please make comments on how you got here. This list or > private dosn't matter. {PLAIN} I had been lying dormant with regard to the FZ for the past couple of years, lurking here and there but not doing anything. Then I read a sensible-seeming article about global warming causing a Gulf Stream shut-off sooner or later, more likely sooner. Shortly after that I read a very impinging article about Peak Oil on rense.com. And shortly after that on a different research track I was wading through some of the technical stuff on Tom Bearden's site and saw that even he had very pessimistic predictions re Peak Oil and the next few years. Add those three to a growing uneasiness over the general domestic and international actions being pushed by the U.S. right now, who- or whatever is behind them, as well as the world economic and political climate, and I figured it was time for me to change. I put "Peak Oil" in the subject line as I think it is very important that people take it into account in their lives, but I'm not going to thrust it down anyone's throat. Nick mentioned it recently in passing, so I thought I would just give it another plug. I got onto this particular list as it seemed like one of the more useful ones around in terms of people actually delivering, and in addition I was a member of an earlier incarnation of it. I found it from the link given at the end of one of the success stories bb posted on the a.c.t. or a.r.s. newsgroups. I have yet to decide exactly how and where to get to work. But soon.... {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 010 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:33:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Subject: Re: [fzelma]Misc Information To: fzelma@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Actually all you have to do is to type in super volcano or > yellowstone super volcano and the links should pop up for you to look > at. Apparently we are already on borrowed time. Sure hope something > can be done by you or any other powerful OT's. I don't see any > typical humans or governments with any contemporary technology on > this planet as having the capability to slow or stop this event. {PLAIN} Well, maybe the technology does exist. There does seem to be contemporary technology around with the capability to accelerate the event, even if it not discussed in Jane's Weekly. This is discussed by Tom Bearden at: http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/020804.htm . He includes a quote in his article from William Cohen, U.S. Secretary of Defense in 1977, which I have included below. These remarks have been widely quoted on the Net. I cut and pasted it ten minutes ago from a U.S. government site just to authenticate it. The link is: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/1997/t042897_t0428coh.html "Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. "So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why...." If any of these "powerful OT's" have the capability of changing people's intentions at a distance, the Bearden article gives some useful targets. Although since you-know-who is still running amok apparently unhindered, I am not holding my breath. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 011 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:16:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] When You Need Reassurance To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > I remember this issue from my earliest days in Scientology, when > first on staff long, long ago. {PLAIN} Time and time again when I was on staff I thought of this issue when things looked black and I also found it very reassuring. Then I left staff and started to think a bit. Now, after many years of trying to think for myself, I have to ask this: *Why* should we think it will all turn out all right? And *when* is this result supposed to occur? I'm not trying to make nothing out of what has been accomplished with the tech--I've definitely had stupendous wins with it on all flows--but I'm just looking at the future. The time frame makes a big difference. When I was on staff I took it to mean "on this planet within a decade or two", like we were all part of this video game and the big player(s) outside and over the game would hit the reset button or the override control if things were getting too gnarly and then everything would be hunky-dory thereafter. I didn't actually think of it in those exact terms--I didn't really think of it at all--but if someone had sat me down and fully hammered it out, that is what it would have come down to in my mind. I used to believe that a cleared planet was a foregone conclusion, and yeah it might take a few decades, but there wasn't really any doubt in my mind that it would come about in a foreseeable time frame. But now, in the real world, look at some stat quantities and trends. You don't even have to be really picky about what stats you look at as long as they are relevant to the fourth dynamic: Number of clears; auditors auditing; well-done auditing hours; square miles of rain-forest left; world population; air and land and ocean pollution; Monsanto's genetic insanities; government suppressions; take your pick--there are thousands more, very few of which are heading in a direction that is pro-survival for thee and me. The stats certainly don't point in the direction of everything being all peachy in a decade or two. Quite the reverse. Look at the graphs and extrapolate the trends. Ouch. Does anyone here really believe this planet is going to magically become passably clean and upstat with long-term survival prospects for all a generation from now? If you do, what is this based on other than mere hope? However, if the time frame you're looking at for "it all coming out all right" is a few trillion years, or some nebulous number of lifetimes, well OK, nobody could really argue with that. I am not particularly asking for a response to this, but I think it is worth sorting out in one's own mind what exactly one understands by "it will all come out all right", in what time frame, and what the bases are for those presumptions. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 012 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:17:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Re: I thought this might interest you... To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com > >XXXX wrote: > >I knew why they both colapsed they day it happened. > > > >Steel loses its strength very very fast, just get it to the right > >temperature > >and it conducts the heat fast and fails. {PLAIN} Construction steel supposedly melts at around 2800 degrees F; other steels melt between 2500 and 2700. JP4 jet fuel burns no hotter than about 1520 degrees F. The black smoke would indicate that the fire was fuel-rich rather than oxygen-rich, so it is unlikely to have been even that hot. There are many, many other outpoints in both the building collapses and the whole 911 deal, which a modicum of research on the Net would turn up, but for now: How does not-that-much of something that burns at 1520 degrees melt an awful-lot-of something that melts at 2800 degrees? {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 013 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:12:35 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Moderators comments on thread To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > The conspiracy thread needs to be ended, that is a very highly > charged subject with lots of opinions. Many people lost there lives > and many familys were impacted, Monday morning quarter backs are not > needed. The net result will be ARC breaks, lets keep it lighter. JW {PLAIN} I guess it's safe to talk about the weather. It's been real hot in LA lately. There are twenty local (to LA) temperatures quoted, showing today's (April 27) tentative record compared to the earlier record. The average difference is NINE DEGREES (Fahrenheit). If you've ever paid attention to these records, NINE DEGREES is a hell of an increase. It reminds me of those sci-fi disaster novels I used to read, like when the Earth had just started spiralling in towards the sun or something. Not that I think that is happening. But still.... Dee (chart follows. Sorry if the formatting doesn't hold up). Here are the figures lifted off Drudge: 641 SXUS99 KLAX 280107 RERLAX RECORD EVENT REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE LOS ANGELES/OXNARD CA 530 PM PDT TUE APR 27 2004 ...PRELIMINARY RECORD HIGH TEMPERATURES FOR APRIL 27 2004... LOCATION RECORD OLD RECORD ------------------------------------------------------ BURBANK 100 89 SET IN 1972 CHATSWORTH 102 96 SET IN 1992 LOS ANGELES DOWNTOWN USC 102 94 SET IN 1881 LOS ANGELES AIRPORT 93 82 SET IN 2000 LONG BEACH 99 90 SET IN 1992 PASADENA 99 92 SET IN 1992 UCLA 98 84 SET IN 1992 SIMI VALLEY 101 91 SET IN 1992 OXNARD 95 81 SET IN 1969 LANCASTER 95 90 SET IN 1987 SANTA BARBARA AP 95 88 SET IN 1993 SANTA BARBARA CITY 98 93 SET IN 1921 SAN LUIS OBSIPO CAL POLY 93 89 SET IN 1996 SANTA MARIA 101 88 SET IN 1996 PASO ROBLES 99* 96 SET IN 1987 *PASO ROBLES TIED THE HIGHEST MONTHLY TEMPERAURE SET IN THE YEAR 1989 ON APRIL 7TH AND 8TH. LOMPOC 101 90 SET IN 1996 CUYAMA 93 88 SET IN 1990 TORRANCE 93 85 SET IN 1992 PIERCE COLLEGE 103 93 SET IN 1992 OJAI 101 91 SET IN 1996 ...YESTERDAY APRIL 26 2004 RECORD HIGH... SAN LUIS OBSIPO CAL POLY SET A NEW RECORD HIGH ON APRIL 26TH, 2004 OF 103...THE OLD RECORD WAS 93 DEGREES SET IN 1996 $$ BRUNO/ROCKWELL/SETO ***END*** {/PLAIN}






Message 014 Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 22:45:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Pip and God To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com > --- In fzaoint@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > At an event once where Diana Hubbard was answering questions to > the public, somebody asked her if LRH believed in God. She said LRH > had done research and determined there was a God. > {PLAIN} This is from a very interesting lecture from the Exteriorization and the Phenomenon of Space series, 1st ACC, 14 Oct 53 INVERTED DYNAMICS (CONTINUED). Tape quotes are in quote marks; my comments are between *** marks. My comments are to allow some "fair use" quoting, so skip over them if you like. "...We get here the psycho in the insane asylum who's being God. And then we get the psycho in the insane asylum who's being Christ. He's not quite as bad off as the psycho being God. See? He's inverted. He's out through the bottom to the extent that he as a thetan is going to be God." ***When I was at college I used to secretly think I was Christ. After getting into Scientology and having some auditing and so forth I finally changed my mind. When I first heard this tape, I went "oh". I consoled myself that at least I never used to think I was God!*** "...When a person is completely sold on the idea of there being a God, you know where he is on the Tone Scale. 'There is a God. I know there is a God. He is my God, and I am blah--blah-blah-blah-blah.' He's just sold down the line. You know you're talking to somebody - you know just about where he is on the Tone Scale. He's just about 0.0 - practically dead." ***It seems to me that I have come across more women than men who are completely sold on this. I don't know why. It could just be that my sample is not big enough.*** "...Religion, as you know it in the Christian church, is well in the vicinity of 0.0. It's really close to death. They talk about "their God." A little bit higher they talk about "their Christ." Well, what's God in this case? It's themselves. But you've got to go all the way up through the dynamics to find him. You can't go out and walk around geographically trying to locate, yourself, your own God because you are your own God. It's so simple. You can't walk around all over the place trying to "find Christ" or "put Christ in your heart" or some such thing as that, because as far as you're concerned, you're - when you got to a straight up 7, you'd be it - you'd be Christ. Do you get the idea?" ***So there you go guys--you get both ends of it--how one can be Christ or God as a low-scale manifestation and as a high-scale manifestation. Hopefully if you meet this in someone you can sort out the difference. Personally, in myself, I have only come across the low-scale manifestation so far and think the high-scale one is hallucinatory. We'll see!*** {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 015 Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 11:26:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Fair Roads Fair Weather To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > XXXX quote: > "I think you're PTS, but to the church of Scientology because if now > you know the truth why would you want your wife to do the STCC > course which was not even written by Ron? It is one of those "based > on the works of LRH" or as it is known "botw" when NKW in LA can > deliver the real TRs course. > > You'll be robbing your wife from getting standard tech if she goes > on lines at the church, define yourselves". > > After reading the above I would like to have it clarified if the FZ > position on FZ members who have family members connected to the cos > would be considered PTS? And if so, is there handling or are they > ostracized? Or what happens then? Need data please. {PLAIN} My 2 cents worth: The FZ doesn't have a position. Individual FZ members may have. Groups of FZ members may have a stated position that they uphold. The definition of PTS per the Tech Dictionary is "a person connected to a suppressive person." I don't see this as an absolute. There are different degrees of connection; there are different degrees of being cause or effect. In a PTS handling one is trying to move the "PTS" person over from effect to "gentle cause". By this dictionary definition everyone on the planet is "PTS" as anyone is connected to anyone else to a lesser or greater degree. The point is the degree to which one is adversely affected (if at all) by the connection, not the mere fact of the connection itself. The CofS has some suppressive policies that are enforced by some good staff members, who are PTS by virtue of their staff position. They don't have a lot of choice if they want to stay in the CofS, and most don't know there is a viable alternative. The STCC is a useful course if it is run right and not quickied. TRs 0-4 are not the same and are not a substitute, just as STCC TRs are not a substitute for TRs 0-4 or TRs 0-9. Since it is a Div 6 course an STCC student should not get too heavily worked over by the CofS staff, so should be able to benefit from the course without being overstressed by the environment while taking it or after completing it. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 016 Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 16:49:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: FreeZone Tech Films To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} Hey guys, Has anyone thought seriously about producing and selling FreeZone tech films? There should be enough people qualified enough to turn out an acceptable product. And it should be possible to produce Clearbird-type products without trademark or copyright infringements. Whatever you might think about how corny the CofS tech films are, or the quality of the tech they show, they do at least exist. The biggest problem is that they are not readily available, to put it mildly. The mechanics of producing a video is not that hard, and these days it is not particularly expensive to run off a few dozen copies at a reasonable price. Hopefully they would be priced at a small amount above cost. We would not have to follow the CofS's moneygrubbing example. Also, one could tack on paid ads if anyone is willing to be that visible. The format would be VHS tape or DVD disc, I guess. The format could be updated as needed. Why should it be done, you may well ask? Well, it might not be particularly useful for oldtimers with years of experience, but for others it could be very useful. It's not like one can just drop in to the neighborhood FZ office just around the corner to get first-hand instruction from a local expert. It is instant mass to go with the significance. Also for someone thinking about getting auditing or training, it is part of a gradient approach to travelling halfway across the country or more. Possible titles/subjects: 1. An introduction to the FreeZone showing what's available and how to get it [yes, you can *eventually* find all this out for yourself online] 2. Meter reads/FZ meters/body reactions; 3. A demo of a metered session or sessions, showing TR's 0-9 as they are used in session, session set-up etc., mini-Scn CS-1 maybe; ...oh, lots more, but you get the idea. Any comments? {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee






Message 017 Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:55:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] FreeZone Tech Films To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Hi, Dee. All I have to say about tech films is they are late on the > track of Scientology. People learned just fine how to audit without > them. > > If they were LRH films, that would be great, but why bother with > anything less. Get people co-auditing, and they will learn to audit. > > Love, XXXX {PLAIN} Thank you Pat, and Ralph and others for your responses. LRH used state-of-the-art audio-visual aids in getting the tech into use. It is just that state of the art in 2004 is not the same as state of the art in 1950 or 1980, and it would be silly to not use what is available today on the basis that LRH didn't specifically say anything about it. Where would the FZ be without the Internet, for instance? A 4x or 8x DVD burner costs maybe $150. It will burn a 2-hour DVD in 15 or 30 minutes. Blank DVD disks cost $1 to $2 each. A mini-DV (digital video) camcorder costs upwards of $350 new, cheaper on eBay, and often includes free video editing software. Computers that will allow one to edit "home movies" are abundant and I imagine many people on this list already have one. I don't know exactly what proportion of households have a TV and a DVD player, but since a DVD player of reasonable quality costs only $50 in the US, I imagine it's quite high. The level of quality you can get from a cheap set-up like this, assuming you follow some minimum standard requirements like using a tripod and paying some attention to sound quality and read up a bit on how to do it all, is quite adequate. So, Pat, wouldn't it be nice to have a one-hour DVD that gives a guided tour of FZ Elma, the people one would meet, the area, how to get there, where to park, how much it costs to do this and that, how long it takes, with some glowing success stories given on camera by people who have just completed services there or whatever else you want to put on it? If someone wants to know what it's like to come to Elma for services, you could just mail them a DVD they can watch on their own TV and the disk and postage for it would cost you maybe $2 or $3. Don't you think that would increase the number of people you get on lines? For many it is a big deal to travel a thousand miles to somewhere you've never been and spend one or several thousand dollars, and the more reality one can provide to help increase ARC for the idea the better. I would love to see a FZ tech film that shows twenty different F/N's on different people in different circumstances and different meters, all the way from a fleeting F/N up to a floating TA. It's not too hard to spot an unkillable dial-wide F/N on a beaming pc who couldn't care less that a student auditor is peering at it for ten seconds before calling it. But if that is the only kind of F/N shown on a "Tech film" (like on the CofS Meter Reads films I saw), then whoever made that film is not really trying to make auditors as life isn't like that. I would like to see people bickering on this list that the fifth supposed theta-bop on the third Meter Reads movie from Jill is really an F/N, and Sam's movie showing a session set-up and model session omits moving the pc's chair to exert session control and he ought to reshoot that bit and edit it in before he sells any more of his $5 DVD's on eBay. Yes, it would be nice to have the {JOKE}FIZZ Central Committee{/JOKE} pass on all such movies before release to ensure standardness. But right now there aren't ANY FZ movies generally available. Not one. Or if there are any I don't know about them and I have surely spent more hours reading this stuff on the Net than someone new to the FZ wondering what's available and how and where and is it really possible to get up the bridge outside the CofS without getting killed. Ralph--I note your comment that you've trained only four people this century, and it is not worth your while putting any time into Tech Films right now. I understand that and I am not asking you to. But wouldn't more people be interested in training if such films were available, made by whoever? How about a film that shows people co-auditing Book One and Self Analysis lists, showing the auditor's code and so on? How about one for TR's and Objectives? Someone who is interested could give it to a friend and ask them to look at it and would they like to try it out? On second thoughts the CofS has a Book One DVD for $15 including postage. I assume that would work fine for Book One, although I haven't seen it and it might be great or it might not be. I'm going to make a film or two myself, since I pretty much have all the hardware needed and I'm the one pushing this idea. I will have to come fully out of hiding in order to show them to anyone, so it might be a little while before you see one. Or maybe not--depends. And although I'll do my best you're bound to critique the quality of the tech. But any films are better than no films. Right? {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 018 Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:23:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] FreeZone Tech Films To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Films are low priority being nice to have but not vital. There is a > liability in not having enough auditor/pc combinations to view as too > few > opens the door to a Hidden Standard on what a session should look > like. A > session is LIVE. The auditor is LIVE; the pc is coming ALIVE -- from > lord > knows where. Above and beyond the Auditor's Code and Auditing Comm > Cycle > anything goes. Having too many films to view easily becomes a > diversion that > prevents auditing as students and pc's will gladly talk about > auditing and > watch movies all day long. > > The best training aid is the supervisor's size 12 shoe pressed firmly > into > the student auditor's ass as he is being handed his pc, folder, and > shown > the door to the auditing room. > > > -- > Ted {PLAIN} I agree on both points, Ted. And I would imagine that you personally train auditors very competently. But what about the guy out in the boonies who doesn't have a seasoned veteran at hand to show him the ropes? Or someone who is willing to risk $10 to view something at home with a money-back guarantee but who doesn't (yet) have enough reach to travel 500 miles to check it out more fully? A film gives much more reality than reading a book. It's a gradient approach closer to reality than reading a book, or articles on the Internet. I remember a friend telling me about her first real metered session (she was a student) on the Hubbard Standard Dianetics course, early 70's. This was at an org. She got confused at the end of the chain because the pc didn't wave his hands/cans back and forth to go with the F/N (while being drilled, the coach would signal an F/N by waving his hands back and forth). Yes, that's silly, but it's only silly because you have been in a real session and know the ropes to a lesser or greater extent. That thing with the cans did happen as described. I did a co-audit once [Alternate repetitive, "What have you done? What have you withheld?"]with a roomful of people and the person thrown in next to me didn't even know how to turn his meter on [literally]. Remember all the billions of people who haven't even held the cans and have *no* reality on an auditing session. A film showing the basics of a session viewed by someone who has *no* idea gives him a lot more reality than he had before. Reading the internet does not give one a reality on what an auditing session is. I am talking about different types of films all mushed in together at once here and probably shouldn't be: tech films to show aspects of tech to assist in auditor training; Div 6-type films to attract new people; promotional-type films to give more reality on a particular auditor or group. In a regular CofS academy the tech films are for in-house use only--one of the reasons for restricting them to in-house use is to entice people into the org academy for training as that is the only place to see them. I don't see that they would have to be restricted in such a way in the FZ, as realistically no-one is going to get to be a good auditor without at least some in-person instruction from a good auditor. A huge problem with auditor training is that it takes a relatively long time to do, even without the current CofS idiocies that make the runway length prohibitively long. The more that could be done on one's own the better. Would it be possible to train up a raw person as an auditor completely remotely? The student would have to have the regular course materials and a checksheet and preferably films of every aspect of auditing and would need some hand-holding, but one could do checkouts over the phone; lots of insistence on word-clearing; lots of critiques of audio tapes; critiques of video tapes of drills and eventually sessions. If such critiquing is done on the basis of thoroughly correcting the most major error each time rather than overwhelming the student with pointing out everything incorrect each time I think it might be possible to train someone up to a certain level, certainly enough to be able to go into session and audit on something. Films would be a crucial part of it without someone there in person to demonstrate how it is done. Now, that would be fun and an interesting experiment. I was a course supe for many years so I do have a lot of familiarity with the subject of training. And it might make it possible for some guy in the middle of nowhere without lots of money or time but a lot of interest to get somewhere. There's a planet to clear. The CofS ain't doing it and seems to be trying real hard to stop anyone else doing it either. How many people get auditor training in the FZ? Whatever the number is it ain't nearly enough and in my opinion *anything* that helps more people get trained and auditing others is a good thing. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 019 Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:29:10 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: FreeZone Tech Films To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Dee, such might be good for promotion. > > But tech films made by field auditors I question. I know that Tommy > has made some. I don't know if what he made is what one would want > to present to students in training. I haven't seen them. > > XXXX {PLAIN} I don't know about Tommy's films. I haven't come across them anywhere, so even if they are of sufficient quality they aren't readily available. I seem to remember a late 60's PL or LRH ED (Superior Service Image?) that talked about a Central org not trying to maintain tech standards in the field as it was impossible, but instead to maintain tech standards in the org and advertise to the field that if someone got butchered in the field they could come into the org and get fixed up there. All while training lots of field auditors and after graduation encouraging them to audit in the field and getting lots of auditing occurring of the best quality possible but any auditing was always better than no auditing [that is how I remembered it anyway]. That always seemed to be a very sensible policy to me, then of course the CofS went onto a stupid "totally standard tech in the field" kick and that eventually knocked out virtually *any* field auditing. Is a field auditor capable of producing a perfect tech film? Maybe, maybe not. But I would sure as hell rather see twenty FZ field auditor tech films and be able to moan about the quality of them than to have everything "perfectly standard" but non-existent. Right now auditing in the CofS field is possibly perfectly standard. All two hundred hours of it a week worldwide or whatever the pathetic, suppressive total is. As I said, it would be nice for some central authority to step up to the plate and create a superior product, but it hasn't happened yet and it might not happen for a decade, if we survive that long. In the meantime maybe Class IV Joe with the big cojones will bring out some films just ahead of Class VI Sam and they shock Class VIII Annie into bringing out some better ones. If no-one starts the ball rolling then it doesn't move. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 020 Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:51:44 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Question To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} Would something similar to (not identical with) the eBay feedback system work here? It would not have to be high-tech software. It's not like there are going to be a million auditors on there. How many for now--a dozen? There is an auditor's name/nick (with a link to contact info or whatever else is desirable) and a feedback rating. The feedback consists of a line or two of comment from anyone who has received service, along with a rating of positive, negative or neutral; as well as a percentage figure. The feedback has the name/nick of the person who wrote it, and the auditor is allowed a couple of lines in response if the feedback is negative. On Ebay only one comment per person counts towards the feedback rating, even if there have been several "transactions"; here it might be more appropriate to have one eligible comment per "transaction" (i.e. service visit); whatever would work so as not to skew the ratings with just one person's feedback but to keep it fair. If someone who has not actually had service votes, or the person cannot be positively identified from the nick used (at least by the auditor), maybe that false "feedback" could get deleted by whoever's hat it is to keep the feedback/rating system in force. Voting should be restricted to someone who has received valid service from the delivery person, not done ona basis of "I'm voting negative 'cos I heard he was smoking once while he audited". Just as on eBay, one can only vote (once) after one has completed a transaction. The eBay system has to be automated because of its huge volume. A FZAOINT system wouldn't have to be. Once any backlog is caught up, I don't know what the current volume of comments/feedback would be a week; a dozen at most, I would guess. The recording process could possibly be as simple as a standard message board software with auditors names as the "topics" and the moderator deleting irrelevant crap and keeping the running total. The advantage of a "peer-review" system like this is that it is not as black and white as a Qual-OK-to-___ chit. If Auditor A has a feedback rating of +1324 and a positive feedback percentage of 98%, you can see that she audits a hell of a lot and has very little in the way of dissatisfied pc's. Auditor B with a rating of +3 after a while and a positive vote percentage of 100% obviously isn't auditing very much but the quality of that is OK. Auditor C with a feedback rating of 14 but a percentage of 50% obviously needs some help and isn't likely to be pulling in a lot of new pc's until after some hefty correction. Maybe an "auditor" could just go on a kick of auditing an assist on each of a hundred people in order to "get his feedback rating up", so there would have to be some sort of safeguard against a pure stat-push like that, maybe a minimum of five hours of auditing needed to qualify, maybe not. That kind of criterion would best be suggested and agreed on by some working auditors.. This kind of system is not perfect. But since we are not going to have "FZ Tech Inspectors" who go around and inspect folders and look at videos etc.--at least not in the forseeable future--it might be worth a try if people are willing to go along with it. Such a system would measure pc satisfaction rather than tech standardness, so again it would not be perfect as a pc could occasionally get a horribly non-standard session and still rave about it. But a series of non--standard sessions, on many different pc's, would show the true picture. Another advantage of a "peer review" system like this is that the auditors concerned would not have to all agree on one person to be the technical authority who gives them, effectively, a license--the Snr C/S world, or whatever. Another is that if pc Annie gets amazing wins from auditor George she can let everyone know and her two lines of comments will be readable by anyone who wants to read the feedback even years later. And if pc Pete gets screwed over by Auditor Janie he can unload his two lines of BPC (to which Janie can leave two lines of explanation)--and maybe pc Pete can later leave another two lines saying Janie pulled him back in afterwards and cleared up all the BPC at no charge and now everything is all hunky-dory). I know that I go really out of my way to keep negative comments off my eBay feedback, as do many people. On eBay, the feedback rating counts a hell of a lot towards the success of an eBay business. I think it could be a good system in the FZ. Once up and running, someone looking for a service provider would tend to choose one with a high rating over one with a low rating. To get a high rating one would have to give good service to a lot of people and really care about taking real good care of them. How about it? {/PLAIN} Dee --- XXXX wrote: > Well, OK Pat, so what are you and indeed BB from his reply saying > here. That, as I suggested, the policy is new auditors (and CSes and > > supervisors let us not forget) who assert that they wish to be > standard and are trained to a given level are accepted at face value > (unless they prove themselves otherwise)? > > If so, should we have a page on the site with such people's email > addresses on (if they wish it). And do we put everyone on it - or > only those that have proven themselves. And what is the criterion > for that? > > XXXX > > > On 19 May 2004 at 22:29, XXXX wrote: > > > What a great reply, XXXX. > > > > The objection I have to Qual OKs is that 1) we aren't a COS org > > 2) It is inspection before the fact. > > > > Most of us who audit do the best we can, and you know what, very > few > > complaints have occured in the last couple of years. All of us who > > > are active and delivering should be considered OK unless facts > prove > > otherwise. While there are good reasons for Qual OKs in an Org we > > have a field scene, not an org scene. > > > > If you talk to ten different well trained auditors about what is > > standard tech, they will certainly have some points of agreement. > > But again, they may have individual views and individual auditing > > styles. > > > > Are they standard? If they keep the auditor's code, get the pc > > through it, know their basic auditing, aren't doing gross auditing > > errors, why must we have a problem? > > > > All's well out here in the freezone. > > > > Love, XXXX






Message 021 Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:09:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Welcome To: fztechrating@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} Welcome to a tryout of the FZ tech rating system. The purpose is that anyone can go to the database and at a glance see what an individual practitioner's feedback rating is. Then one could search the archives and pull up ALL the comments made about that practitioner. This is a peer-review system, like the eBay feedback system. If you are not familiar with the eBay rating system, please go to http://www.ebay.com and check it out. The idea is that the technical quality of a FZ auditor/supervisor/practitioner is voted on by people who have received service from that person, and by no-one else. Right now one person who has received service gets one vote only, even if it was for a hundred sessions. If you got audited by three different auditors, you can vote for each of them. The vote is either positive, negative or neutral. In the subject field write the auditor's name followed by positive, negative or neutral. In the body of the message write no more than a few lines of comment. Example. Subject: Joe Auditor. Positive Body: I had great auditing from Joe three years ago. It was very standard and he handled a long-standing problem I had. The totals will be kept current by the list moderator. Discussions or comments about this system are allowed, but will probably be deleted from the archives as they would clutter them up. The moderator will be ruthless about deleting crap, otherwise the system will not work. Completely anonymous votes/comments will be disallowed. It is somewhat subjective as to what "completely anonymous" means. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 022 Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:15:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] different question/ordination To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} Check out the Universal Life Church at http://www.ulc.net . You can easily become an ordained minister there. The difference between getting ordained by ULC and getting a degree from a "diploma mill" is that, at least in the US, that ULC ordination is honored by law, hard as it may be to believe! {/PLAIN} Dee --- XXXX wrote: > I was just looking at one of the other FZ lists, and noticed that the > list owner refers to himself as "reverend." I was ordained in the > Co$ in Aug. of 1995, and I am wondering how the FZ handles such > certs. Can anyone answer that? I mean, obviously, I will have all > of my certs "canceled" the minute I sign up for any FZ service > (heaven forbid they find out I if I were to join staff!), but it is > equally obvious that there are a lot of people in the FZ still > claiming certs earned in the Co$ - so how about it? > > XXXX






Message 023 Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:27:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Question/FZ Tech Rating To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} Just to add some mass to the idea below, there is now a FZ Tech Rating Yahoo group up and running. You can access the database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fztechrating/database . You don't have to be a member to do so or to post some feedback, although members will automatically get all messages. In posting feedback please follow the format laid out, i.e subject line contains auditor name and positive/negative *only* and the body of the message is fairly brief, not pages. Example: Subject line: Ralph Hilton. Positive. Body: I went to Semmering last year for four weeks and had the most amazing auditing I've ever had. Ralph found and handled stuff that other auditors never reached. Fantastic! Love, Josie-Ann. It is not meant to be a discussion group, but purely a place where one can place feedback re specific tech terminals and have it recorded for posterity, along with a running total for each tech practitioner. I realise that most of you guys don't know who I really am, but that shouldn't matter as I don't see how any sensitive information will be sent to me. If bb or Nick or someone wants to take over ownership of this fztechrating group, no problem, just let me know and you can have it. If you post a tech feedback message there (just send an e-mail to fztechrating@yahoogroups.com ), I will add the name/nick of the person on the subject line to the database and keep their score up to date. It is not necessary for an auditor to ask to be added to the database. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee --- Lucky Duck wrote: > Would something similar to (not identical with) the eBay feedback > system work here? It would not have to be high-tech software. It's > not like there are going to be a million auditors on there. How many > for now--a dozen? > > There is an auditor's name/nick (with a link to contact info or > whatever else is desirable) and a feedback rating. The feedback > consists of a line or two of comment from anyone who has received > service, along with a rating of positive, negative or neutral; as > well > as a percentage figure. The feedback has the name/nick of the person > who wrote it, and the auditor is allowed a couple of lines in > response > if the feedback is negative. On Ebay only one comment per person > counts towards the feedback rating, even if there have been several > "transactions"; here it might be more appropriate to have one > eligible > comment per "transaction" (i.e. service visit); whatever would work > so > as not to skew the ratings with just one person's feedback but to > keep > it fair. > > If someone who has not actually had service votes, or the person > cannot > be positively identified from the nick used (at least by the > auditor), > maybe that false "feedback" could get deleted by whoever's hat it is > to > keep the feedback/rating system in force. > > Voting should be restricted to someone who has received valid service > from the delivery person, not done ona basis of "I'm voting negative > 'cos I heard he was smoking once while he audited". Just as on eBay, > one can only vote (once) after one has completed a transaction. > > The eBay system has to be automated because of its huge volume. A > FZAOINT system wouldn't have to be. Once any backlog is caught up, I > don't know what the current volume of comments/feedback would be a > week; a dozen at most, I would guess. The recording process could > possibly be as simple as a standard message board software with > auditors names as the "topics" and the moderator deleting irrelevant > crap and keeping the running total. > > The advantage of a "peer-review" system like this is that it is not > as > black and white as a Qual-OK-to-___ chit. If Auditor A has a > feedback > rating of +1324 and a positive feedback percentage of 98%, you can > see > that she audits a hell of a lot and has very little in the way of > dissatisfied pc's. Auditor B with a rating of +3 after a while and a > positive vote percentage of 100% obviously isn't auditing very much > but > the quality of that is OK. Auditor C with a feedback rating of 14 > but > a percentage of 50% obviously needs some help and isn't likely to be > pulling in a lot of new pc's until after some hefty correction. > > Maybe an "auditor" could just go on a kick of auditing an assist on > each of a hundred people in order to "get his feedback rating up", so > there would have to be some sort of safeguard against a pure > stat-push > like that, maybe a minimum of five hours of auditing needed to > qualify, > maybe not. That kind of criterion would best be suggested and agreed > on by some working auditors.. > > This kind of system is not perfect. But since we are not going to > have > "FZ Tech Inspectors" who go around and inspect folders and look at > videos etc.--at least not in the forseeable future--it might be worth > a > try if people are willing to go along with it. > > Such a system would measure pc satisfaction rather than tech > standardness, so again it would not be perfect as a pc could > occasionally get a horribly non-standard session and still rave about > it. But a series of non--standard sessions, on many different pc's, > would show the true picture. > > Another advantage of a "peer review" system like this is that the > auditors concerned would not have to all agree on one person to be > the > technical authority who gives them, effectively, a license--the Snr > C/S > world, or whatever. > > Another is that if pc Annie gets amazing wins from auditor George she > can let everyone know and her two lines of comments will be readable > by > anyone who wants to read the feedback even years later. And if pc > Pete > gets screwed over by Auditor Janie he can unload his two lines of BPC > (to which Janie can leave two lines of explanation)--and maybe pc > Pete > can later leave another two lines saying Janie pulled him back in > afterwards and cleared up all the BPC at no charge and now everything > is all hunky-dory). > > I know that I go really out of my way to keep negative comments off > my > eBay feedback, as do many people. On eBay, the feedback rating > counts > a hell of a lot towards the success of an eBay business. > > I think it could be a good system in the FZ. Once up and running, > someone looking for a service provider would tend to choose one with > a > high rating over one with a low rating. To get a high rating one > would > have to give good service to a lot of people and really care about > taking real good care of them. > > How about it? > > Dee






Message 024 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:56:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Question/FZ Tech Rating To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX> wrote: > --- In fzaoint@yahoogroups.com, XXXX > wrote: > > Well, to a large extent, we have a feedback system - it is called > > success stories and bb liberally posts them about the internet. I > > am also in the process of adding a whole bumch more to the site - > > which people should be able to see in a few days. > > > > However, while good success stories are one valid indicator of > > quality, I don't think I want to get into voting (too much like a > > committee) and also there is no substitute for folder scrutiny by a > > suitably qualified CS. > > > Quite true. A bit more effort, but a much better and on-source > method. > > XXXX > > > > XXXX {PLAIN} It is not so much group-think type voting as tallying up success stories/out tech reports in one place and making each of these reports as well as the total number of them readily accessible to anyone. If you want to read about the quality of an auditor's delivery just go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fztechrating/messages and search on the auditor's name. At this writing there are only about seven example messages just to show the idea, but if there were hundreds you could use the search engine there. Hopefully people will post real ones soon. I had thought it would be better to restrict each message to a few lines, but I don't really see any problem in writing a longer success story if one wants to. I don't know if it would be advisable to have a long, detailed after-service gripe with an auditor on public display or not: it would be undesirable in that it would be "washing one's dirty laundry in public". However the threat of having a bad report posted publicly available forever would tend to make an auditor very keen on making sure it doesn't happen, and the auditor can always post his side of it in a message linked to the original. I know this threat of a bad report works as a very strong deterrent against bad business practises on eBay, and I suspect it would work as a strong deterrent against failing to deliver what is promised in the FZ. If you don't have your own feedback rating on eBay go and check out the rating system at http://www.ebay.com --it is very useful indeed. With regard to what is "on-source" or not, what is on-source is having an on-policy in-tech org with fully hatted tech and admin staff, producing their standard high-quality products in high volume at high viability. The quality of the tech is constantly monitored by the C/Ses, pc examiner, success officer etc. and corrected where needed and the tech kept perfect. That's for an org. Can you tell me what the LRH references are concerning keeping tech standard in even an org's field? LRH references, not CofS practises. I don't recall what they are apart from what I posted recently so if there are others I would be interested, but even if there are LRH references on how to keep field auditors standard they would not apply in the situation of FZ auditors with no org to back them up. If there is no specific policy to cover a situation, one should work something out that aligns with general policy and that leads to expansion. Any ex-SO people here familiar with the Multiple-Viewpoint Data System put in with the creation of Flag Data Files, where the individual reports from the field become important instead of just the view from Head Office? That is what the eBay feedback rating system essentially is, a kind of multiple-viewpoint data system. With regard to the folder scrutiny by a qualified C/S, I agree that would be great. All we need is a Class VIII C/S that everyone agrees is acceptable, who then personally goes to visit every auditor who wishes to take part, all over the globe, and who makes the results of his inspections public and collected in one place so they are readily available to anyone who wants to know. Or alternatively who receives and critiques folders/videos from all these auditors and is available to do this year-round. But isn't that essentially the same as the Qual OK to audit system, that appeared to be unworkable with the current set-up? I like seeing bb's success stories too. If you like, I'll help to tabulate them by auditor and post them to fztechrating@yahoo.groups.com . Then they would all be in one place, rather than searching through two Usenet newsgroups and dozens of message boards (do you realise there are currently 74 Yahoo groups in the "Scientology" category, quite apart from the non-Yahoo ones). I'm going to repeat this because it is important. The threat of *any* negative feedback on eBay prompts people who depend on their eBay business for their livelihood to jump through hoops to make their customers satisfied with their business. I think a similar situation in the FZ would boost the quality of technical standards here. The system is in place right now, today, this minute. Just send an e-mail to fztechrating@yahoogroups.com with the auditor's name/nick and the word "positive" or "negative" in the subject, and then the details in the body of the message, and it's done. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 025 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:56:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Question/FZ Tech Rating To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > --- In fzaoint@yahoogroups.com, XXXX > wrote: > > Well, to a large extent, we have a feedback system - it is called > > success stories and bb liberally posts them about the internet. I > > am also in the process of adding a whole bumch more to the site - > > which people should be able to see in a few days. > > > > However, while good success stories are one valid indicator of > > quality, I don't think I want to get into voting (too much like a > > committee) and also there is no substitute for folder scrutiny by a > > suitably qualified CS. > > > Quite true. A bit more effort, but a much better and on-source > method. > > XXXX > > > > XXXX {PLAIN} It is not so much group-think type voting as tallying up success stories/out tech reports in one place and making each of these reports as well as the total number of them readily accessible to anyone. If you want to read about the quality of an auditor's delivery just go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fztechrating/messages and search on the auditor's name. At this writing there are only about seven example messages just to show the idea, but if there were hundreds you could use the search engine there. Hopefully people will post real ones soon. I had thought it would be better to restrict each message to a few lines, but I don't really see any problem in writing a longer success story if one wants to. I don't know if it would be advisable to have a long, detailed after-service gripe with an auditor on public display or not: it would be undesirable in that it would be "washing one's dirty laundry in public". However the threat of having a bad report posted publicly available forever would tend to make an auditor very keen on making sure it doesn't happen, and the auditor can always post his side of it in a message linked to the original. I know this threat of a bad report works as a very strong deterrent against bad business practises on eBay, and I suspect it would work as a strong deterrent against failing to deliver what is promised in the FZ. If you don't have your own feedback rating on eBay go and check out the rating system at http://www.ebay.com --it is very useful indeed. With regard to what is "on-source" or not, what is on-source is having an on-policy in-tech org with fully hatted tech and admin staff, producing their standard high-quality products in high volume at high viability. The quality of the tech is constantly monitored by the C/Ses, pc examiner, success officer etc. and corrected where needed and the tech kept perfect. That's for an org. Can you tell me what the LRH references are concerning keeping tech standard in even an org's field? LRH references, not CofS practises. I don't recall what they are apart from what I posted recently so if there are others I would be interested, but even if there are LRH references on how to keep field auditors standard they would not apply in the situation of FZ auditors with no org to back them up. If there is no specific policy to cover a situation, one should work something out that aligns with general policy and that leads to expansion. Any ex-SO people here familiar with the Multiple-Viewpoint Data System put in with the creation of Flag Data Files, where the individual reports from the field become important instead of just the view from Head Office? That is what the eBay feedback rating system essentially is, a kind of multiple-viewpoint data system. With regard to the folder scrutiny by a qualified C/S, I agree that would be great. All we need is a Class VIII C/S that everyone agrees is acceptable, who then personally goes to visit every auditor who wishes to take part, all over the globe, and who makes the results of his inspections public and collected in one place so they are readily available to anyone who wants to know. Or alternatively who receives and critiques folders/videos from all these auditors and is available to do this year-round. But isn't that essentially the same as the Qual OK to audit system, that appeared to be unworkable with the current set-up? I like seeing bb's success stories too. If you like, I'll help to tabulate them by auditor and post them to fztechrating@yahoo.groups.com . Then they would all be in one place, rather than searching through two Usenet newsgroups and dozens of message boards (do you realise there are currently 74 Yahoo groups in the "Scientology" category, quite apart from the non-Yahoo ones). I'm going to repeat this because it is important. The threat of *any* negative feedback on eBay prompts people who depend on their eBay business for their livelihood to jump through hoops to make their customers satisfied with their business. I think a similar situation in the FZ would boost the quality of technical standards here. The system is in place right now, today, this minute. Just send an e-mail to fztechrating@yahoogroups.com with the auditor's name/nick and the word "positive" or "negative" in the subject, and then the details in the body of the message, and it's done. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 053 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 15:57:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Cookie-cutter website and given names To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > In a message dated 5/20/2004 4:19:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, > XXXX writes: >>An explanation of your website, xxxxx, is probably in order as well. > whoa, this is not a FREEZONE site at all. this opened my eyes for > sure. everyone should take a look for yourselves. this is a c of s > site, no question about it. looks like ray may have been right and > was in the right ballpark all along. {PLAIN} I'm tacking this on here, but not picking on anyone. I hate to even add anything to this thread, but I would like to point out that it is probably as hard to get one of these cookie-cutter five-year-old sites removed as it is to get off the CofS mailing lists even if you're dead. It's not like one just e-mails the CofS webmaster and 24 hours later it is gone. Also, what's with posting this person's name all over the list? She never signed her list e-mails with that name. It would be polite to address someone by the name they sign their comm with. On this list I answer up to Dukfut or Dee or Lucky or whatever is plainly in sight. If someone who knows me in person were to refer to me on this list as "Lynn Nelson" (or whatever) when I have obviously been trying very hard NOT to publicly use my real name, I would be *very* upset. There is a reason people don't use their given names here. I post elsewhere in other non-Scn forums using my real name. I don't here. The reason I don't do it here is the obvious one; the reason someone else chooses not to may be different. Nick and bb and others use their real names. Some use nicks but many know their real names. Some use nicks and very few if any know their real names. Many are PTS to the CofS to a lesser or greater extent and would rather not take on all the heartache and dev-t of losing business relationships or families or getting picked on by a big bully tomorrow. That may be a case factor but is it such a crime? How about granting some beingness? We're all supposed to be good at that. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 054 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:47:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Question/FZ Tech Rating To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Without eBay's software I think it should be verified by an > editor/moderator before being posted. > The auditors have known email addresses and they could verify the > email addresses of their pcs. It is not a high traffic activity after > > all. > > XXXX {PLAIN} Thanks for the input. Validating the source of every comment before it is posted would be inspection before the fact. When the system is up and running, if it turns out to be a problem then it will get handled. I don't want to put more restrictions on the process at the outset than I have to--let it flow! This is not a completely mechanical process. Just because Auditor A has a feedback rating of 15 does not mean he is a better or more valuable auditor than Auditor B with a rating of 11. It's not a race. A prospective pc would be silly to choose an auditor based on a feedback figure alone with no comm to anyone else about it, and there are plenty of avenues available outside the fztechrating group. Look on it as a way for a large number of reports/comments about different auditors, good reports and bad, from many different people who have received service from them, to all be gathered together in one place and easily visible as to who said what and when. It's not as irrevocable as eBay--I will remove an obviously false report as soon as I am reasonably sure it is false. If a removed report was really genuine, the person concerned only has to post it again but with some acceptable verification (a confirmatory e-mail from the auditor would do). If unknown Auditor Z has a feedback rating of 37 glowing reports from "pc's" that you have never heard of, then it's not too hard to detect that it is false. There is a FAQ at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fztechrating/database . {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 055 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 21:59:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Cookie-cutter website and given names To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > You can't, XXXX. What they have you do is log in to a website where > they have you "answer a questionaire" and the data you give on the > questionaire is used to make a customized cookie-cutter site for > you. I admit to having done one back in 1996 - I've never been to > even look at it. If it is still current, that would be a great shock > > to me, I don't even know what it looks like. {PLAIN} If you want to check, go to http://on-line.scientology.org and enter the name in the search box near the top of the screen. Remember they probably keep a permanent record of names entered in there along with your IP address, browser version, operating system etc, so don't go and check out all your FZ/marginal FZ/CofS friends at once. Guilt by association and all that. You can check out what information about your computer is visible any time you visit a website by checking out http://www.sitemeter.com , which provides a very useful free webcounter service, by the way. {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 056 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 08:27:30 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Public Announcement To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} How would you like to be addressed on this list? "Hi there XXXXXXXXXXXX" is a bit of a mouthful. You don't sign off your posts with any kind of a name, and if there's a vacuum there is the tendency to put something there. A couple of people have tentatively used "XXXXXX", but it didn't catch on, and since your real name popped up it's been handy to toss around, I guess. I would suggest you sign off your posts with some name or other, then you will get referred to by *that* name. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee --- XXXX wrote: > BB quote: "Thank heavens we have someone here who understands > whats really important. :)" > > I think confidentiality should be important to the FZ if you wish to > survive and expand. This isn't just about who can gloat and say > they were "right". You're talking not just about me and my familys > rights to a religion without persecution but FZs responsibility to > protect its members. Just like in the cos, when confidentiality > went out the window and the chewing up its' members began, out went > the spirit of freedom for man. And in came suppression that makes > the Catholic Church look like Mother Therese. Others may say it > better, but I hope you got the concept.






Message 094 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 12:59:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Cookie-cutter website and given names To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} I just saw that what is also visible with such monitoring software is the referring site and in the case of a Yahoo group the exact group name and message number too. So if it matters to anyone, you may prefer to copy and paste the address or retype it into a new browser window rather than just clicking on the link. Using a new browser window gives "unknown" as a referring site with Sitemeter. And that was the last time I will provide a clickable link to a CofS site. {/PLAIN} Dee --- Lucky Duck wrote: > If you want to check, go to http:/on-line.scientology.org. [edited] and enter > the name in the search box near the top of the screen. > > Remember they probably keep a permanent record of names entered in > there along with your IP address, browser version, operating system > etc, so don't go and check out all your FZ/marginal FZ/CofS friends > at > once. Guilt by association and all that. You can check out what > information about your computer is visible any time you visit a > website > by checking out http://www.sitemeter.com , which provides a very > useful > free webcounter service, by the way. > > Dee






Message 057 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:11:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: FZ Tech Rating FAQ To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} From the FAQ at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fztechrating/database . Further comments are welcome. The service is available for use right now, which would be even more welcome. Dee Q. (General)What is the purpose of this FZ Tech Rating group? How do I use it? A. The purpose is to gather in one place feedback, both good and bad, about FZ tech people, readily available for anyone to see. See the tally in the group Database, and read the comments in the Messages section. Each message consists of a statement by a person (pc) about service received from a particular practitioner. You can search the archives for that practitioner's reports. You are free to e-mail anyone who wrote a report. It is just like checking references if you are going to hire someone. If an undue number of the references aren't checkable, be careful. And e-mail the list owner about it so it can be fixed. Q. (General)What form do these messages take? A. If you have received service from a tech practitioner, write his/her name/nick and either "positive" or "negative" in the subject line and your comment in the body of the message. E-mail it to fztechrating@yahoogroups.com . Q. (General)Don't we already have a feedback system with success stories and word-of-mouth? A. To a certain extent, but success stories are scattered all over the Net and are not tabulated by auditor's name, similarly with the occasional out-tech report or bunch of natter. If you want to know about Ralph's auditing, it's pretty easy to find out as he has a great reputation. But how about Angie Talifane in Chicago? Where do you find out about her? What if three people say Angie is great and no-one else knows about the one who got completely caved in two days after she went home and never spoke up about it to anyone except her practitioner, who ignored it? Q. (General)Why don't you just have some central authority verify a practitioner's ability? A. Who? There isn't one central authority in the FZ. Also, this FZ Tech Rating system keeps a practitioner on his toes. It is not an "OK" or Not OK" system, but one with a vast number of gradients ranging from "superb, totally standard, high volume with no unhandled complaints" down through various shades of mediocre to "butchers everyone he touches." If a practitioner screws someone up and refuses to fix it, there the feedback is the next day for all to see. Q. (General)Who can post feedback about a particular FZ tech person? A. Anyone who has received service from that person. Q. (General)I never received any service from this practitioner, but I heard something just terrible about what she did with her dog. A. Sorry, if you want to post here about a practitioner, get accepted for and receive service first. Q. (General)What is to stop a FZ tech person inventing pc's and posting fake feedback? Or what is to stop some nut inventing a totally fictitious auditor and then creating 25 fake pc's and ending up with a totally false feedback rating of 25? A. Nothing. But no-one is going to view this data in isolation. There are lots of message boards and e-mail lists and offline communication cycles going on all the time in the FZ. It is unlikely anyone is going to be fooled by a totally fake "tech practitioner" with totally fake "pc's" that no-one has ever heard of, where neither the practitioner nor the pc has a valid e-mail address or answers up sensibly when queried. And it is unlikely that a genuine FZ tech practitioner would invent fake feedback as that isn't the kind of game we are in. Q. (General)You added up one of the totals wrong. And someone posted a comment about the same practitioner only nine months after her previous one and you said that's not allowed. A. Thanks for noticing. Please e-mail the list owner so it can be corrected. Q. (General)How do you know how standard one of these practitioners is? A. All the FZ Tech Rating system does is basically compile reports about FZ tech practitioners, good and bad, tabulate them and make them easily available to anyone. One would expect that if a practitioner's tech is non-standard then the reports would show dissatisfaction. Yes, the odd pc might relish being chewed up and still give a positive, glowing report, but not all of them. The more reports that are sent in, the more accurate and useful this system will become. Q. (General)The eBay system tends to suffer from "feedback inflation" or "creep", in that one doesn't want to give negative feedback there in case one receives negative feedback in return. How does that apply here? A. This is a system for rating practitioners, not pcs. There is no tit-for-tat involved, so one does not have to write inflated or outright false statements about service quality. Also, something like "I had some auditing and it was OK, I guess" speaks volumes. Q. (Legal)Some FZ webmasters freak out if I use trademarked terms in a posting. What is your position? A. Follow the law. Our understanding is that it is illegal to promote that one delivers a trademarked service if one is not authorized to by the trademark owner. We have no wish to break the law, flout the law, or even present the appearance of impropiety. Postings that violate this principle will either be removed or reposted in an edited form. If you notice a violation that hasn't been corrected, please e-mail the list owner so that it can be. Q. (Practitioner)You put me in this system but although I do advertise my services on other web sites I don't want to be here. A. If someone posts something about you on a FZ message board that you don't like, you would normally be allowed to post a response but not allowed to delete the post you didn't like--unless you owned the list. The FZ Tech Rating system is similar in that you can post a linked response to some feedback you don't like, but cannot hide the original comment you object to. Q. (Practitioner)I don't recognize the name/nick/e-mail address of someone who left me feedback. A. E-mail that person. If a reasonable effort to locate that person fails, e-mail the list owner and we will delete the message and change your feedback total. Q. (Practitioner)I deliver word clearing and ethics consultations and chaplain handlings, but I don't audit. Can I get a rating too? A. Yes on the word-clearing; no on the others. For a rough rule of thumb FZ Tech Rating encompasses services routinely delivered in a regular org's Div 4 or 5 (like auditing, C/Sing, word-clearing, False Data Stripping, training); others (like ethics handlings, financial services, Chaplain handlings, admin/business consultations) are not included in this group. Q. (Practitioner)No fair! I do very good ethics consulting and chaplain handlings and want to be included. A. Oh all right. We just started a FZ Admin Rating group along the same lines as this FZ Tech Rating group. Just have one of your service receivers send an e-mail to fzadminrating@yahoogroups.com in the same form as detailed for the Tech group. Q. (Security)I got some great auditing from someone but he doesn't want to broadcast the fact that he's auditing in the FZ. How does that work? A. There is no intention to "out" anyone here, i.e. to post personally-identifying information about an auditor (or pc) who wishes to remain anonymous. If you got auditing from John Jackson, and you know John doesn't make himself known on public lists as an auditor, you are no more likely to write us naming him than you are to do so on a FZ message board. You can send us a rating e-mail in the usual form, but using a different name/nick, calling him "George Nonce" for instance. This is still valuable if it prompts others to use that nick in regard to John. If not, your feedback will be ignored as no-one will know who to apply it to. Q. (Security)I don't want anyone to know I got auditing with someone, but I do want to validate him. A. Create a nick for yourself just for that purpose, but let the auditor know who you are. You don't have to let anyone else know. If you are normally anonymous but using a consistent nick on FZ message boards then it would be better to use the same anonymous nick here, but it is not demanded. We may e-mail the auditor just to verify that he/she knows who you are. There is no completely anonymous "guest" category in this Yahoo group. Q. (Service Receiver)How often can I post feedback about the same FZ tech person? A. Only once per year. This is to minimize skewing of the results by multiple voting. Q. (Service receiver)But I got auditing from the same guy every year for the past five years and he has been consistently great. Can't I write "retroactive" comments? Surely it's unfair to ignore the past: some auditors have been auditing in the FZ for twenty years. A. OK, good point. You are allowed a maximum of three "retroactive" comments per auditor, but do make sure the correct time period--each one at least twelve months from another--is specified in the body of each message. Q. (Service Receiver)Can I do two practitioners in the same message? A. No, just one per message otherwise it gets messy. Q. (Service Receiver)I just got some great auditing from someone and would like to let everyone know about it, but I am going back for more six months from now. Maybe it will be different next time and I don't want to blow my chance of commenting on that one too as I'm only allowed one vote a year. Shouldn't I just wait? A. Go ahead and post now. If you want to say something else next time, send an e-mail that says something like, "I got clean-up auditing six months ago from George and it was great. I just had another two weeks and ..." and ask that this replaces your previous message and give the message number in the archives and we'll replace your earlier message with the new one. Q. (Service Receiver)I got terrible service from a practitioner. Should I just post a long weepy rant about how bad it was? A. First contact the practitioner and try and resolve the problem. If it won't resolve, post the specific details that you need to. Remember your post will remain in the archives, so be civil about it. Also the practitioner is free to add his version of events in a response. Anything further should be done off list as this list is not for discussions, purely for raw feedback. There are plenty of other lists to discuss things on if private e-mail doesn't work. Q. (Service Receiver)You copied and reposted my message. How come? A. Probably to standardize the form of the message. Maybe the practitioner's name was spelled differently, or there were excess words in the subject line, making it harder for someone to use the search facility or scan the message subject lines. END OF FAQ (for now {/PLAIN}






Message 058 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 18:06:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Hello from Reno!/Levels Checksheets To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com ---XXXX wrote: > Hey, sounds great XXXX! I've supervised those checksheets and they > produced fine auditors. I can't remember them fully, but I think they > were even more complete than the 87 checksheets. {PLAIN} There is a wonderful LRHED from 1968 or 1969 called "The Real Design of Training". If anyone has it maybe they could post the relevant two or three lines. If I recall, it said that the purpose of the Academy Levels was to teach a rapid course where the auditor goes through all the motions and learns the doingnesses, but "slide by on philosophic theory"; the SHSBC teaches all the theory and makes a superb auditor; the Class VIII course makes a standard tech zealot who can audit anything. Of course we have later developments and TRs courses and metering courses and the Student Hat and M1 Word Clearing and upper levels and Int RD's and ... But the above in its simplicity lays out what I consider to be a very sensible way to train someone, not that it's ever really done like that. A long, thorough Academy course with lots and lots of theory violates the long runway idea in the Study Tapes. It IS possible to train an auditor to audit without lots of theory--look at staff co-audits, including the RPF in the SO, where training is done on a Read it--Drill it--Do it (RIDIDI) basis, where there is a minimum of theory. Yes you need a good course sup there and a good C/S, but the entire emphasis is on drilling and auditing and doing it, not on theory study. In the RPF people twin up and audit whatever is needed. If it's an Int RD, well damn, the guy who needs the Int RD drills his twin on how to do it (who up to now had only done TRs 0-9, a short meter course, auditor's code course, a few other similar short checksheets, and a mini-FPRD checksheet), the drill gets checked out by the Course Sup, and then off they go into session in a common room where there is an auditing supervisor walking around to keep an eye on everyone. Most of the time it works out great. If they run into trouble the auditing sup bails them out right there and then in the class room and then hands the session right back to the original auditor and they are back in session with each other again. The theory is minimal but there is lots of doingness and morale is usually great. I'm digressing onto another subject here--the value of a well-run co-audit--but the point I'm trying to make is that *lots* of theory on a low-level checksheet is *not* what is needed. The shortened checksheets (1987?) were issued as green-on-white in the name of LRH. I don't know who actually wrote them, but I have trained people on those checksheets and they work just fine. They don't give all the data but they don't have to. Making a totally standard auditor at Level 0 is a complete impossible idiocy. Standardness is finally what you get after first banging out a bunch of doingness as a Class IV; then learning the theory on a SHSBC that you can relate to your auditing experience so far as well as getting the later tech and lots of practise in that (i.e. lots of auditing, not reading about it) until you become a superb auditor; and only then are you able to appreciate the basics as imparted on a Class VIII course. That is what it takes to become a totally standard auditor, along with a good C/S and a good Cramming Officer or equivalent. Again, a beginning auditor hasn't a hope in hell of becoming standard as he does not have enough experience and breadth of understanding to evaluate the importances of the subject. What does the CofS do? They spend a year or two full-time trying to make a completely standard Level 0 auditor! Totally freaking insane. Let's not encourage the same thing. I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's auditing ability here. But are there any Class VIII's on this list (who've done a proper Class VIII course in a standard courseroom, three times through the checksheet, all the LRH C/Sed sessions etc.) who think it is possible to make a completely standard auditor at Class IV or even Grad V level? {/PLAIN} Dee






Message 096 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 23:45:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Entheta Worth Adding To To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN}











{/PLAIN}





DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology™. Dianetics™, Scientology, OT™, E-Meter™, NED™, NOTs™ and Solo NOTs™ are trademarks and service marks reportedly owned by Religious Technology Center, and permission was not sought for their fair use here.

Robot Tech Menu | Abilities | Comparison | Writings | Reptiloids for World Peace | Upper Level Writings | Poetry | Food Replicator | Pix | Links | Home | Paul's ID | Paul's Pix | FZ Admin | Paul's Squirrel Academy


Copyright ©2004, 5 by Paul Adams. All Rights Reserved














Comprehensive Index of Postings from April 22, 2004 - Present Time