Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts May 22, 2004 - May 31, 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 059 Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:36:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Ethics Presence To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > I have been mussing over the subject of Ethics Presence because I am > trying to work out exactly what a good demand for ethics compliance > would > be. {PLAIN} Out of those four factors that make up Ethics Presence I find that the one that gets misunderstood or overlooked the most is the "now-we're-supposed-to's". I would guess that most if not all of the people on this list are doing what they think they are supposed to be doing when writing criticism of this or that, and so telling them to knock it off won't have much effect as they just think the person complaining is wrong. Unless it comes from Nick or bb in the form of "please knock it off or you'll get moderated", which is basically giving a new "now-we're-supposed-to" as well as the bigger deal of threatening to withdraw ARC (right at the end of the reference re the ARC). Or as XXXX pointed out, mostly hatting! And I am not suggesting a new rule of no-one is allowed to be critical of anyone or anything. {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 060 Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 18:56:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Ethics Presence To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > <2829> A TALK TO ST. HILL AND WW ETHICS OFFICERS > > What we have in Ethics is a system of removing the counter-effort to > the forward push. That's all an Ethics officer is supposed to do. {PLAIN} Great quote. I always used to understand this for myself by having the forward push in mind (clear planet, freed beings etc.), and from that I could more easily see if a particular action was a counter-effort or not, and so determine if an Ethics action was needed or not. But it seems you can do this in reverse too, i.e. look at the Ethics actions being taken in the CofS and from that deduce what are being considered as counter-efforts and therefore what they are pushing forward towards. {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 061 Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 19:20:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Hello from Reno!/Levels Checksheets To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} That's great on all the training. Thanks for the good news. June's fine for the quote. Where's that Qual Librarian when you need him/her?! Which brings up the question, which should properly belong on another thread of course, of what should a "Qual Librarian" on a FZ list actually *do*? I know how one in an org operates. But here? Just post little quotes in response to a request and where they are from and sufficient commentary or embellishment to satisfy the Fair Use law and piss off those who just want the quote, its source, and nothing else? {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 062 Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:10:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Clarification To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > --- In fzaoint@yahoogroups.com, XXXX > wrote: > > Using real checksheets is the only safe way to go. > > > > Copying is what is illegal. > > I think it is illegal to offer a CoX course for money, too. One can > audit or supervise and chargfe for those services, but not offer CoX > courses. {PLAIN} Could you clarify that any, XXXX? Is it a question of it being illegal to do the regular actions involved in promoting and delivering a particular course, or is it just illegal to label it in a certain way? Like is it legal, as far as you know, to promote that one delivers the Clearbird Levels, as long as it isn't called by a non-FZ-trademarked term? {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 063 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Auditor Feedback To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Hi Duck, > > That was a great idea and a wonderful site for auditor stats. That {PLAIN} Thanks very much for the support, XXXX. There are now three real auditors in the rating database. Anyone can check it out at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fztechrating/database , where you can view the auditors' ratings by clicking on "ratings" and the updated FAQ by clicking on "FAQ". You'll never guess who has the most positive "votes" (assessments/reviews/reports) so far [shameless mystery sandwich]! If you click on the link in this message to see these, Yahoo will demand first that you join the group. I don't see any downside to joining the group by doing that, as: 1. You are not disclosing any more data to view than you do by being a member of this fzaoint group, 2. No-one will know if you are a member of the group or not as the member list is not visible to anyone except me, 3. You can select "No Email" in the Message Delivery box on the right and you will not get from that group. 4. You can unsubscribe five minutes later if you want. I would love to know any objections anyone has to using this service. If you don't want to post them on this list, you can e-mail me privately. If you want, you can go to Yahoo and get a completely new free e-mail address for yourself and use that to anonymously e-mail me your concerns about this FZ Tech Rating service. If you think I'm an OSA plant and collecting information to be used in some way against you or the FZ, feel free to tell me so--I'm not likely to be offended by it. If you don't see how you can write a valid assessment of a FZ auditor you've had, and it isn't already covered in the FAQ I would be very interested so that we can figure it out and it can be added to the FAQ in case someone else has a similar question. I really want to get this FZ tech rating service into use, not for some tawdry purpose but because I think it will help get more and better training and auditing happening in the FZ. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 064 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 14:52:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Clarification To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} That's a good idea to have a laminated original checksheet to preserve it. One could make up duplicate "checksheets" by writing on paper just the name of the checksheet at the top, the item number and maybe a very brief description like "issue" or "drill" and then having a sign-off line for initials and date. That way one would have a legal "checksheet" that each student could keep and it would record the checkout attests and so forth. It's dev-t as one would have to keep getting up to look at the real checksheet, assuming there are more students than checksheets, but it is possible. Dry erase marker in not good here as it wouldn't work as a permanent record, or even for the duration of the course. This would not be necessary with checksheets created in the FZ, which could come off a computer printer and each student could have his own full checksheet per What Is a Course PL, as normal. There are very few checksheets in the vols. I think it used to be that a checksheet came with the pack, but that later got stopped for Div 4 courses when people started just buying the pack/checksheet and doing the course outside the church. At least, I believe that is why they stopped selling the checksheet with the pack, apart from Div 6 courses. It's not that hard to write a good checksheet if you thoroughly know study tech and the subject and its importances at the level the subject is being studied. Professional auditor checksheets are lousy for RIDIDI co-audits, and vice versa. I'm sure there are many people on this list who could write a perfectly acceptable checksheet for pretty much any course likely to be delivered in the FZ. {/PLAIN} Dee --- XXXX wrote: > I imagine, if you had a real checksheet and it was lamenated, so it > could > be passed around the room (conversely, I believe all or most > checksheets > are somewhere in the red vols). > > Then a student could have a paper that on which they note their > progress. > Instead of signing off step B.6 on the checksheet, they write "B.6 > done" > on their progress sheet. Or, if there are enough lamentaed > checksheets > to go around, they could sign off in dry-mark. > > XXXX > > > XXXX said > True, and XXXX's advice is also good (as to charging for the > supervision only). But wouldn't one have to eventually re-mimeo the > checksheets (i.e. copy them) unless one has a storehouse of them? > > XXXX

Message 065 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 16:07:09 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: (Qual Librarian) To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} I've renamed this thread. All I can think of for an Internet "Qual Librarian" is: 1. The reference location is given, as in "That's covered in HCOB 10 April 1981R, Revised 7 August 1983 REACH AND WITHDRAW" and a small quote is copied out if that is possible and permitted by Fair Use law in the context of the ongoing discussion. 2. Where a longer "quote" is needed, the source reference is given as above but instead of an exact quote, the needed material is *paraphrased* as much as is needed to be lawful. There are cross-purposes here, in that the more paraphrased it is the less likely it is to violate the Fair Use law, but also the more paraphrased it is the less likely it is to be acceptable to someone who insists on the real deal. And there really aren't any other choices! A FZ Internet Qual Librarian has to be trusted to know where to find useful quotes, and that any quotes are copied down accurately. With the more common sources, this isn't a big problem, as if he comes up with things like, "Oh yes, "Life is basically a statistic", reference Scientology Axiom 1"--and he's not trying to be funny--then he'll rapidly get jumped on. If it is from an obscure reel-to-reel tape, that's where trust comes in. The trust will build up to the extent that more and more quotes are posted unchallenged. The paraphrasing of a whole paragraph or page or issue is another matter, needful of even more trust. The mere idea of doing such paraphrasing is anathema to many, but look at the Clearbird materials. They are not perfect, but there aren't many in the FZ who are freaking out about it. Why? Because most recognize that it is a good solution to previously unsolved problems. Of the two numbered choices above, the first one is already being done by many on this list, and the people concerned probably enjoy doing it. I know it makes me feel good when someone asks "Hey Dee, didn't LRH talk about a thetan weighing half an ounce somewhere?" and I can say, "Bring me over that Phoenix Lectures book and I'll show you what he said. Also there's a write-up on the Internet of the doctor who did the experiments--here's the URL". The second one takes a lot more work and also invites criticism from people who don't realize the legal necessity of paraphrasing in this case. Plus doing it well requires that the person doing it fully understands what he paraphrasing. The ideal solution is for everyone to have a full Qual library of original materials at their fingertips, including all the tapes, all neatly indexed and electronically searchable. It works in the SO at management levels (the SIR system) but it isn't going to happen outside in real life unless the CofS suddenly says, "OK guys, we changed our minds and now we're serious about clearing the planet, so all the original LRH materials are available on our Internet site or on this CD/DVD that we are selling for $25. Sorry it took so long." In the meantime, there are the alternatives above unless I overlooked something. As an unpaid labor of love by someone I don't see extensive paraphrasing happening. Yes if it is part of a project like Clearbird. No if somone just casually asks on a list, "Oh, what's the best way to handle a GPM." {/PLAIN} Dee > Morning Dee, > > I'm not sure how a Qual Librarian hat in the FZ should be set up. XXXX > seems to do a good job of it, although more on tape references than > HCOBs. I think what could work is for the person(s) who assume that > hat, if they gave the reference PL or HCOB (or tape) as to issue date > > and title, and then if the person requesting the reference didn't > have them to hand or easily attainable, a link to a FZ site that > carries them might be possible. I know that XXXX is setting up a > reference library of materials to be available to members of the XXXX > with further references available to auditors and C/Ses. Eventually > we hope to have a search engine for it as well, but it's still a work > > in progress although growing. But referencing the issue or directing > to a link would keep this list secure I think. > > Best, > XXXX

Message 066 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 16:47:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Ethics Presence To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} The "now we're supposed to's" occur in the *other* person's universe and are the hardest to control by your own actions. It is *not* "now *you* are supposed to". It's not so hard in the CofS as there is a fairly general agreement on what is standard. It gets a little gray at the edges sometimes, but no-one in the CofS would suggest running Route 1 from Creation of Human Ability on someone who had just finished solo whatsit. At least, they wouldn't be around for long if they did. But let's look at FZ Auditor X, who has seen his pcs win a lot in running Route 1 as a solo whatsit completion. In his mind it is a very sensible and pro-survival thing to do. He does not acknowledge the rule or law that forbids it. He thinks people who don't allow it are idiots. *His* "now I'm supposed to", that he fully believes, is to run Route 1 on all solo whatsit completions. So along comes this idiot (in X's mind) who says, "Stop doing that, it's wrong." What happens? Non-compliance, unless other factors outweigh it, as in "Stop doing that or I will literally shoot you with this gun in my hand right now and I'm not bluffing." Now, if X's friend and mentor came along and said, "Hey X, you shouldn't have her run Route 1 right now as she was telling me yesterday that her father died and she's all cut up about it", and it was true, then X would comply at once. It's not the fact that X is ornery and never does what another suggests so much as the fact that he tends to do what he is supposed to do by *his* consideration, not anyone else's unless the considerations happen to align. "Presuming technical and/or moral rightness on the part of fzaoint" is a big presumption when it refers to the mind of the hopefully-fictitious Auditor X above. {/PLAIN} Dee --- XXXX wrote: > I am talking specifically about the situations I have seen on this > board, > where there has been argument and no resolution about what is and is > not standard tech. > > fzaoint vs TT, > fzaoint vs Pat, > fzaoint vs Heidrun, > fzaoint vs Pierre... > > Presuming technical and/or moral rightness on the part of fzaoint, it > still remains that fzaoint never succeeded in getting compliance. > > From that, it appears to me that some part of ethics presence is out, > and could use improvement. > > (This is not a totally 3D concern on my part, as I would like to > improve > ethics presence in my own area too.) > > So.. I am looking for thoughts a person could use to increase their > ethics > presence over their own areas. > > XXXX > > > > XXXX said: > Dunno what freezone you are talkin about. The contacts I have had > since 1978 have been rather sane on the subject of ethics. >

Message 067 Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 22:44:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Ethics Presence To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} Ah, XXXX, there are problems with the auditor feedback list that no-one is mentioning. Maybe through politeness; maybe through lack of interest; maybe for some other reason. I could be completely wrong--I'm just basing this on my own opinion, but let's see if I get any reads on anyone. I appear to be a "newbie" to the group, posting lots of stuff about this and that recently. Pat and some others may recall me from a couple of years ago on a similar list, but despite whatever I have said I have not used my real name. Hardly anyone on this list knows who I really am, and I obviously talk like a Scientologist, have knowledge of life in the Sea Org and generally know what's what in the FZ. I use the word "I" loosely, as sometimes an op is done using a particular nick and there is no way of knowing if it is one individual there or a bunch of people working shifts around the clock. The volume of stuff I have posted lately, plus all the admin involved in setting up the FZ Tech Rating group, might make it look like a single FZ individual couldn't possibly have the time to be doing all this and have any kind of life besides this one group. All very suspicious. As you point out, the vast majority of assessments/reports/reviews so far are very validative of TT, who is somewhat persona non grata on this list. I haven't tossed him off the rating list. The other two auditors who have received assessments are Rey Robles and Robert Ducharme. I have no personal knowledge of Rey, good or bad, but I do know that he is very visibly out there and he communicates and he audits. There have been rumors flying around about Rey, so therefore "he must be bad". And if you know anything about Robert's preferred mode of auditing, I don't need to mention why he is not top choice for favorite auditor on a standard tech list. There are no ratings for well-thought-of, relatively uncontroversial auditors like Ted or Ralph. The only other person noisily pushing this is *you*, XXXX, and {IRONY}"everybody knows you are an OSA plant" until proven otherwise.{/IRONY} It probably looks like we are in league with the devil! No "opinion leaders" on this list have strongly come out in favor of using the feedback system, although no-one is trying to stomp on it. So let me try and dispose of one of these factors to some extent, although it may open up a can of worms that I would have preferred not to. I had about 15 hours of auditing from Robert Ducharme some weeks ago. We chatted for a total of probably 15-20 hours in addition to the auditing. He knows my real name and my telephone number. Since I am obviously a Scientologist, that means that I am not going to get back on lines in the CofS this lifetime, and I should care about that. (Since there is no reason not to now, I will add my own positive rating report on him soon to the rating group, but I haven't written it yet.) Paranoid viewpoint: mmm well, you are obviously very well-trained at being a plant and this is a deep cover op. Maybe you used fake ID to get listed with the phone company all those years ago; or else OSA got an OK to make it look like you were getting auditing with Robert and you were just pretending. Since what Robert does couldn't possibly work, Robert is the *only* choice for auditor on this list that you could get away with, as a normal auditing set-up would quickly reveal the truth. Isn't it interesting that you chose Robert for this op and not anyone else on this list! Hah, now it's become even *more* certain that you're a plant. And all those hours talking to Robert were just to help lay in the cover more solidly in case something like this ever came up! And you're the first one to mention it, which makes it even more suspicious! Or maybe you're an illegal pc anyway, and so the threat of no further auditing is meaningless. Really sneaky. I'm not at all convinced. End of paranoid viewpoint. Please don't comment on Robert's auditing on this fzaoint list as it doesn't belong here. I am not revealing my real name on this list, so you'll have to wait for that. And how do I have all this time free? It's true--I don't have a life! {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee 3 {JOKE}what's the 3? It's so we can keep track of which one of us wrote it :){/JOKE} --- XXXX wrote: > XXXX quote: "In each case, both sides thought they were right. > > >We are running hard into an aberration that has > plagued mankind for centuries at least. > > >My cause is just, therefore what I do to its benefit > is just. We at least have to have more humnility than > that. > > >Hey guys, you are not LRH. You may be class whatever, > but you are still pretty much screwed up. Judging > others is not for you. Trying to do it destroys > things. Maybe you can do it as a c/s with an auditor > right under you, but you surely cannot do it over an > email link". > > You took the words right out of my mouth. > > And while I'm at it I'd like to comment that I don't see anyone > using the Auditor Feedback except people who went to Tommy and liked > what they got. Except for one who really didn't give a feedback for > the auditing but gave a personal opinion on the guy himself. > > What's up with this? This is a perfect opportunity to have > the "behind the lines" disturbers stick out like sore thumbs who > have been running around bad mouthing and black pr'ing other > auditors and good people. If those auditors were so bad, then it > will show on their feedback. If the feedback is great and > especially if many, then all of us can know the black PR was just > that, black PR. > > How about all of you standing up on your own two feet, forget any > politics, favoritism, and remember you aren't in the cos anymore > where you could get whipped into an RPF or whatever for saying and > doing what you think is right. > > I want to be part of a group with balls. Balls enough to tell the > cos managment where to go, and balls enough to not let the same > crimes happen here. I want to be part of a group that can > differentiate and not live off similarities. I like people who > don't accept black PR and 3rd party because they're smart enough to > know there's a good chance it might not be true, EVEN IF IT COMES > FROM SOMEONE THEY LIKE. And I love pan determinism in those who are > taking over leadership roles. None of us can be so great all the > time, but we sure as hell can BE it often enough to make a > difference and build this group up so that it takes over the area > like a wildfire. > > The above "wish list" fits several people out here and some of them > are in conflict with each other over such things as to whether they > are standard or not, and god knows for what other reasons. > > Has anyone ever received OTII from Tommy? I myself would really > like to know from people who have done the beginnning OT levels with > him whether they were butchered by this guy or if it is all just > some more bs. Now I'm being very upfront here. I really like > Ralph. But I've had some comm with Tommy too, and I really like him > too. So what does a person do? If I go to Ralph I can't like Tommy > or I'm a traitor. If I go to Tommy I probably run the same risk. > > The Auditor feedback site should lay to rest any 3rd party or lies > and half truths about our auditors out here. > > We have 3rd party and black PR campaigns going on behind the lines. > It is my personal opinion that there had to be a third party for > Ralph and Tommy to be in the conflict they're in. I know I don't > have all the data as to what took place between them but I also know > what Ron said about "a THIRD PARTY MUST BE PRESENT AND UNKNOWN IN > EVERY QUARREL FOR A CONFLICT TO EXIST" > > The Auditor Feedback site is a perfect chance for all of us to be > able to say what we really think and out loud so there's no hidden > comm lines. New people won't have to go through what I did which > was spending alot of time reading posts, most of which were a waste > of time but a necessity in order to find out who was who. Too bad > most of you aren't new because you must forget what it was like, or > you lucked out and lived by someone who wasn't experimenting on > their pc's. > > Anyway, I thought this thread was the best place to put my thoughts > and XXXX has a great post there!

Message 097 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 15:42:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Robert Ducharme. Positive. To: fztechrating@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} This is not a re-post, but a critique of auditing I personally received from Robert a few weeks ago, April 2004. I received 11 sessions totalling just under 16 hours, spread out over three weeks. The scheduling was fine. Robert charged me a reasonable rate, not payable upfront, and he didn't hassle me over the money at all. This critique is done from memory--I didn't keep notes or record our sessions. I've had auditing from maybe fifty different auditors while in the CofS and I am an auditor and have trained many auditors too. Since Robert's auditing is rather unique, I shall address separately his auditor basics (like TR's, metering, session set-up, Model Session, Auditor's Code, knowledge of the mind and auditing as shown in what he actually does); and his most-used auditing process. If you already know about Robert's auditing, please read section B of this write-up first. If you don't know much about it, read section A first. A. Auditor Basics Auditor Beingness: I felt that he cared about me as an individual. His attitude and manner in session was very professional. His TR's 0-9 are just fine. As a side-note, if you have chatted to Robert on the phone but not been audited by him, he sometimes stumbles when speaking. But this is when chatting, and not at all when in session. In those 16 hours I cannot recall any instance of him stumbling on a command. His auditing presence was obvious and he stayed in good comm throughout the session; he got the auditing commands across well; his TR 2 and TR 2 1/2 were fine; he repeated the command where needed and gave the next command instead when that was needed; he handled my originations correctly and rapidly and we got back into session. My attention did not get yanked off my case except for the few instances noted below. His intention and session control was excellent. One can best judge metering ability by standing behind the auditor's shoulder (distracting) or by looking at a video of the meter and session. As a pc I would judge metering by the auditor taking up the wrong things to run as demonstrated in my being asked to run things that didn't seem charged and I had no interest in, or failing to take up things that did seem charged and I was interested in. At no time with Robert did I feel we were running anything I had no interest in, or failing to address something that needed addressing. I had no complaints about his spotting of EP's, and I did not feel anything was under-run or overrun. The session set-up fell down on a few occasions: once, and only once, he fumbled one command because he did not have it written down in front of him. The next time I needed that command about five minutes later, he had it in front of him and delivered it correctly. In the second or third session, there was static on the phone line, and we even got cut off about three times. He replaced the phone line before our next session and there was no further trouble with it. On maybe four or five occasions, he took a phone call during our session, and was out of session for maybe a minute each time. This was done with ARC and apology, but it would seem to be a routine interruption of life that he allows into a session. Having a crackly phone line and not turning the other phone line off before session is a session set-up point; having a policy of accepting important phone calls while auditing is an Auditor's Code violation. I must add that I had no BPC on these things by session end, it only took twenty seconds to clean up said BPC, and it is easy to be reasonable about how a single auditor runs his full-time auditing practise. There was no inval in the sessions. There were a couple of times when he said something that I took as evaluative, but it wasn't a big deal and again it was all cleaned up by session end. Standard Book 1 Model Session is not the same as modern Model Session. Robert has a Model Session that he used consistently in all eight sessions I had from him. I understood each aspect of it, and the LRH tech it is based on. He applied his Model Session completely flublessly each session. B. R3X or R3XD procedure. I first came across Robert's style of telephone auditing a couple of years ago, on some web site. At that time I rapidly decided it was impossible for an auditor/pc/bank to produce reads on a meter being held by an auditor at the other end of a telephone line, and I immediately decided he was nuts. Plus he had alter-ised R3R or NED and mixed in some other stuff from non-Dianetics tech. Plus he was running Dn on non-Clears, Clears, right up to OT VII's or OT VIII, without addressing ownership issues at all! A real squirrel, even for the FZ. He wrote passionately about the process and the wins of his pcs and so on, but since it was all so totally impossible I dismissed it all from my mind. Crazy Robert. Over the next couple of years and especially recently I spent a few months doing research in fields not entirely disrelated, but not directly having to do with any mental therapy. The next time I came across Robert's stuff around a month or two ago, I suddenly realized how it *could* be possible for a pc to read remotely on a meter being held by an auditor in very good ARC with the pc, while they spoke through a telephone line. (My research included stuff like Map Dowsing, perhaps best also described in Abbe Mermet's Principles of Radiesthesia; Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenic fields as described in his book The Presence of the Past; and other stuff). So I spent many hours looking over Robert's write-ups on the Web, as my primary reason for considering him crazy was no longer valid. He has been pushing the same stuff for years despite all opposition, and his many posts to different lists and boards were definitely consistent. Various pc's said that they'd had good wins, Robert said his pc's had good wins, and there was a marked absence of posts from people saying they had received auditing from Robert and they were not happy with it. No-one of any standing in the FZ was backing Robert up, at least publicly they were not, but on the other hand no-one at all had any complaints about the *actual auditing*, just the theory of it. Especially how it would be impossible to run R3X or R3XD on someone above OT III without stirring up BPC that would not be addressed by the process. After thinking about it a while, I couldn't personally see how it would be possible to run the procedure without stirring up charge on an OT III or above that wouldn't get handled by the procedure. And I am not a dummy on the standard theory of what's going on here. I had a deep aspect of my case that I'd had some attention on all my Scn life, that had been addressed many times and with much attention but never really budged an inch. I wouldn't call it a hidden standard, but my life would have been much enriched with it gone. I wondered if R3X might help with it, as nothing else had. And no, I haven't gone all the way up to OT VIII, but I can't afford to do everything needed to do that, and I got tired of waiting. So I called Robert and we got going and I got an excellent reality for myself on how R3X runs on an OT III. After sixteen hours of R3X this basic aspect of my case is still unhandled. This fact means squat to me, as I would be really surprised if something that has resisted lots of handlings at my case level (I did OT III 20 years ago) would yield up after only sixteen hours of work. But what we were doing along the way was handling heavy, whole-track incidents, with obvious charge coming off and tone changes and cognitions and postulates recovered and so on. We were getting TA. I don't really give a damn about me having nice cognitions or feeling great after blowing lots of charge in session--what I am interested in is me changing my behavior and actions in life. This write-up is not a success story, but a critique of Robert's auditing from my viewpoint and experience with it. I would have preferred to combine it with a success story, but I haven't reached that point. We are mid-chain and I have been taking a break--Robert has said the chain should be finished, not even insisting that he be the R3X auditor to finish it if I had someone else in mind. He is not doing this for the purpose of making money! Now, get this. I have *no* attention on these R3X sessions. If you put me on a meter and ran any kind of correction list that you might think appropriate, I would be very surprised if anything at all read, even at high sensitivity, except for things like "unnecessary repair?" And it is not that I am too unaware of the BPC. At the end of many, many sessions in the CofS I have had unhandled BPC on this and that. Mostly pretty insignificant stuff that I wouldn't think warranted wasting session time on, like the auditor flubbed a command or ran the standard procedure slightly wrong or missed a read or any of the countless little things that often appear in a session from an auditor who is not perfect, and overall the session went pretty well so why make a fuss about it? But after each session of Robert's there wasn't any smallest trace of that, as whatever there was had been cleaned up by his routine application of his routine procedure. How is it that this stuff will run apparently perfectly on an OT III without stirring anything up? I have no freaking idea. As Robert so elegantly says, "It works in practise but not in theory." What validates a scientific theory is whether or not replicatable observation of what happens in the physical universe bears out what the theory predicts, not whether or not the theory agrees with some other theory. Wegener's 1912 theory of continental drift was pooh-poohed for decades and he was considered a complete crank. The first serious confirmation was in 1956, and it was finally established as the dominant theory in the early 1970's. One day the theory of what is actually going on here will be clear. In the meantime, those who *know* it is impossible will continue in that belief despite any evidence to the contrary; those who have found it works in practise but not in theory will just scratch their heads in puzzlement and continue doing it despite the fact that it is impossible; and maybe someone, somewhere will try and figure out the truth. Does R3X work out as Robert says it does on his pc's? I don't know. All I know is what I have written above. ************************ Wow. That was long. I imagine few will change their minds about anything, but I had to say it all. If anyone else has been audited by anyone in the FZ, please send a report/review to fztechrating@yahoogroups.com , putting only the Auditor's Name and "Positive", "Negative" or "Neutral" and nothing else in the subject line. There's a full FAQ in the group database at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fztechrating/database . {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 068 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 19:32:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Ethics Presence To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} Hey XXXX, I basically did all my auditing and training in the CofS. I have received no FZ services other than the one I recently mentioned. My case level is OT III, I completed no auditing internships and have no valid auditing certs left (ignoring the fact that none of my CofS certs remain valid on routing out of the SO), whatever courses I did, and you'll have to try and figure out anything else from what I write about this and that. I did do other stuff that I'm not mentioning purely because I wish to remain generally anonymous. If someone wishes to think of me as a professional pc because I'm not claiming anything else, that's fine by me. The "3" at the end was just a joke, relating to the earlier things I had said in that message. I must really be losing it if *you* didn't get that! I'll try and be more careful in what I write. There is only one person using this identity or e-mail account and signing off as Dee. Nothing else much to add right now about me. I would hope that my ideas and the way I communicate them would show enough about me for a working on-line relationship. For the record, I want many more people to go free, training and auditing others as well as receiving auditing. I want the tech in the FZ to be as of good a quality as it can be in the circumstances, where quantity and quality and viability of products are all taken into consideration. I hate bickering about this and that where it doesn't realistically result in increased production (i.e. more TA). If auditor X is busting his chops auditing and training left and right, and almost everybody is winning like mad, except for one poor guy who didn't get handled to his complete satisfaction for whatever reason, then Mrs Scroogit who hasn't audited anyone ever but did notice some outpoint about auditor X and thinks she must carp on it can go fuck herself. Or whatever is the transgression du jour. {/PLAIN} Love and kisses, Dee --- XXXX wrote: > Hey Dee3, > > Just a couple of quick questions as you're dispelling dub-in here and > > increasing ARC via C and R. :) > > 1) What is your case and training level and where were these > achieved? (i.e. in the CoS or the FZ?) > > 2) You mention "what's the 3? It's so we can keep track of which one > > of us wrote it." So I take it there are more than one in your group? > How many and what is your purpose? And what is the purpose of posting > > as one? > > 3) Anything else you'd like to add to come out non-E here? > > Thanks, > XXXX

Message 069 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 20:08:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Ethics Presence To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: {PLAIN} Any discussion about Robert does not belong on this board, as I said. My comments now are about my actions concerning him, not about him. I thought I had said how he ended up on the rating site--it was because someone sent in a report about him. Do you honestly think that I, working very hard to promote the use of this rating report system on a Standard Tech list, would immediately choose to stick arch-squirrel Robert on it? Do you think I am completely out of my mind?!! When that report came in there was a dilemma--either I accept it and immediately and at once and automatically without having to do anything else alienate, maybe forever, 95% of the people on this *standard tech* list? Or do I just quietly delete it and tell the person who sent it that I'm not allowing him on there right now and try again in a few months when maybe no-one will really notice or care so much? And you know what--it took me less than a second to decide. The purpose of that rating group is to collect reports about any FZ Tech practitioner from people who have received service from that practitioner, with whatever safeguards I can build in to make it workable, without *anyone's* ideas creeping in except the people directly concerned. No rumor, no hearsay. There are three people in there last time I looked, Rey Robles, TT and Robert. Why these three? Because those are the three auditors named in reports that were sent in. Why aren't others there? Because no-one has bothered to send in any reports about anyone else. I'm not being selective in any way at all. I am not soliciting reports about any particular auditor, but I am soliciting reports about as many FZ auditors as possible. If Joe is a FZ Tech practitioner and someone sends in a report about him, then he goes on the list. I am not setting myself up as a censor, to only include people that in my opinion are worthy of being associated with me. To hell with that. The intention is to provide the raw data and then anyone can evaluate it in any manner they choose to. If no-one provides any data, then there's none to view, is there? I did write an extensive and honest review today of Robert's auditing that I personally experienced and posted it at the rating site. That's the one opinion I am allowed because that is the one FZ auditor I have received service from. What's the betting the next report I receive will be for PE?!! End of rant. And before anyone suggests a third-party invest between XXXX and me, we're doing fine and understand each other and are in excellent ARC, thank you very much. {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 070 Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 20:29:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Some thoughts to share To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > To hold up the RPF way of read it drill it doit as a right example > of how to train and > auditor > stinks. That is how robots are created. {PLAIN} From HCOB 28 May 1980RA, Rev 20 April 1990, Co-Audit series 1RA, CO-AUDIT DEFINED: "'Read-it, drill-it, do-it' means: 1. The co-auditors twin up and study and check each other out on the basic issues and skills for the process or Grade to be audited. 2. They drill the actual actions involved in running the process, under tight supervision of a trained Co-audit Supervisor. 3. They then audit each other on the process to EP, under the tight guidance of a trained Co-audit supervisor. "Do you want to see an immediate upsurge in staff morale, activity level and enthusiasm? Establish a staff co-audit!" ..."They [co-audits] are the fastest, most satisfying method of getting lots of auditing delivered, of making lots of Releases and providing actual auditing experience." Of course they do not make professional auditors, but they are not designed to, and there have already been threads about the differences betweeen the two, and how each have their uses. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 071 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:42:02 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Some thoughts to share To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} I doubt it. In 1976 approx. Paulette Ausley, then a Class XII, went on mission to a large org and ran a pilot program to set up a big staff co-audit for non-trained people. I seem to remember some BTBs she wrote around that time, based on her experiences, but I could be wrong about that. A later mission Ausley was on was interesting and resulting in her having all her certs cancelled by LRH, and if you want to look it up that is easily located on Google by entering "ausley r/s pac" or something like that. I'm only mentioning that in case someone is about to say, "Oh, she got declared, so anything having to do with her is obviously out-tech." The 1980 date may indicate the BTBs I'm thinking about. Again if I remember correctly, the 1990 revisions were extensive, not just a few small points. One can get into the frame of mind that *anything* not actually penned by or directly approved by LRH is worthless. This attitude is actually widespread in the CofS. It is silly, and not only because one never actually knows for sure who the author was, apart from those handwritten things which are most likely his, or the tapes in his own voice. Something not written by LRH may be worthless. Or not. I'm not going to repeat myself on the value of a well-run non-professional co-audit. I consider those co-audit issues very useful indeed, even if they turn out to have been written by Hitler's mistress's pimp's used-car-salesman's lawyer. {/PLAIN} Dee --- XXXX wrote: > Thanks for the info, Dee. You mentioned it in the context of > something done > on the rpf as a method to train auditors without them having to study > theory > behind it. Your ref. is dated 1980.Did Ron write it? Just curious. > ARC XXXX

Message 095 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 21:05:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Some thoughts to share To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} Is "peps" a typo for "prps" (public reg paid starts)? I'm not familiar with mission stat abbreviations. This is a co-audit for paying public, right? What kind of stuff was run? It sounds like something some large California mission would have invented in the late 70's. I remember a HAS Co-Audit being promoted years ago, where raw, untrained public would twin up and run some question about "attacking" completely muzzled where they weren't allowed to say anything except the auditing command, nod their head if the pc said anything, and then give the auditing command again, and the sup used to run around and handle pc originations etc. I bet you could do it in the FZ now and have a roaring success, though, just like at the Mission. How many staff were involved in delivering it? {/PLAIN} Dee --- XXXX wrote: > i was on staff at a mission which enacted a co audit program. the co > audit > went from 6 peps to 20 in no time. when the program started to cut > into hgc > hours it was cut/ since then i have not seen or heard of a successful > co > audit in the cos > XXXX

Message 202 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 7, 2004 1:23 am Subject: [FZA Board] 5/25/04 The Thetan as an Energy Source. Or Not? Posted on May 25, 2004 - 10:20 pm: {PLAIN} Tom Bearden is a very respected guy in the free energy field. Free energy is all about extracting virtually limitless energy from the "seething vacuum". Establishment science says he's crazy. In his writings, he continually makes the point that any dipole automatically extracts energy from the vacuum and puts it out into the physical universe. LRH continually makes the point that a thetan creates energy by forming a dipole (plus and minus; dichotomy; differences of potential; GPM's etc.) If Bearden is correct, then the mere fact of the dipole existing, while being put there by a thetan, would allow energy to come into the universe from the seething vacuum, rather than the energy being created by the thetan. It would be as if a firefly brushed a curtain aside to let light into a room, rather than becoming luminescent and providing the light itself. I'm not particularly pushing this viewpoint, just tossing it out there if anyone else has had problems with the idea that a thetan actually creates tangible mest-universe energy out of nothing. {/PLAIN} [Paul]

Message 072 Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 21:03:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: RE: [fzaoint] Re: Co-Audits work To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Remember Dmsmh? Remember Any two can do it? So, yes co-audits have > worked > since the beginning. I would bet noone ever succeded at it without > first > reading and understanding the Book! I have no objections to > co-audits. I > object when someone reports that-read it, drill it, do it without > studying > the knowledge that lies behind the process i does notpromote good > practice.. {PLAIN} From the Tech Dictionary: "Personal Integrity is knowing what you know. What you know is what you know, and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. And that is integrity and there is no other integrity." I value mine greatly. Sometimes I'm scared to open my mouth, but I try. Around the time I did the NED course I did a "Book 1 Course" (1980-ish). It was a little Div 6 course, a couple of evenings part-time, to get new people into auditing on Book 1. The theory involved was equivalent to a few pages from DMSMH, some drilling on a muzzled procedure printed out in large print on one sheet of paper, then give and receive a Book 1 session, end of course. There was also a Book 1 seminar, which was somewhat similar, over two days--on Saturday everyone in the room studied theory, and on Sunday they audited a few hours each as auditor and as pc. I would love to say I attended the seminars and saw lots of wins, but I didn't attend any at all. I heard they were successful.... Does such a short intro to the theory make a professional Book 1 Auditor? No, of course not. These days there is a full course for that, which I believe includes the entire book but it may not. I have personally observed co-audits with less than the full theory allow people to get auditing they would not have been able to receive if they had had to get it from an HGC auditor or equivalent. Getting auditing as a staff member in a management org, unless you pay for it or are an exec or reg is nigh on impossible. It was different in the 70's with lots of public students on courses in service orgs needing pc's. The modern TRs and Objectives course, for instance, is fairly skimpy on objectives theory even compared to Level 1, let alone the SBSBC, but it works in practise, auditing in the courseroom. There was an HQS course in the early 1970's that had CCHs on it, with a similar amount of theory to that of the TRs and Obj course--maybe someone here did it. You don't have to know how to strip down an internal combustion engine in order to drive a car. You do have to know how to strip it down in order to do a major repair to the engine. If you, XXXX, have observed a co-audit fail, please give the details. If it is just that the theory seems impossible to you, then just state that and we can go our separate ways in peace. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 073 Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 21:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: RE: [fzaoint] Re: Co-Audits work To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Hi, Duck, > I am a Class V1 Auditor. I studied a lot of material to get my Cert > as a > fully interned Class VI. You are absolutely Right about Co-audits > work. I > started out with Book auditing, also did the HSDC, and supervised it. > I > probably know almost as much as you do about Tech and theory. > So-- Thats it, end of Cycle. > XXXX {PLAIN} Touchi. I am a pompous ass sometimes. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 074 Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 13:49:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Re: Tech training films To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Already talked to XXXX about making a film showing an F\N, she was > interested at first then declined. I can't remember exactly what > reason she gave for > why she wasn't interested, but it was something like this: Films in > the past > concerning F\N's have just caused MU's. I will ask her again when I > see her, > what the reason was. > > I have made two DVD's for XXXX, but she has not had time to > edit > them, and tell me what she wants me to correct or erase. > > I am in comm with her about making a co-audit video. XXXX's main > concern > on the co-audit is that I delete the voice. I have let her know I > will do that. > > Is Dee another one of XXXX's names? > > You gave an excellent example " Checklist for setting up a session" > of what > could be put on DVD,. > > I would still like to see a DVD dedicated to meter reads. Or maybe a > few > DVD's dedicated to meter reads. > > To slow the shrinking of the Freezone, I think a few DVD's for Div 6 > would be > good. > > Some DVD's for brand new people could be a very good tool for new > bodies in > the shop. > > ARC, > > XXXX {PLAIN} FYI, I don't post on these lists under any other name. If it ain't Dee it ain't me. I don't want to spend a long time repeating what I said a week or two ago on the fzaoint list, as the messages are readily available in the archives on the "FZ Tech Films" thread (or something like that). I believe XXXX is stating that a very good auditor with a few trainees under her does not need films showing auditor basics. I agree. Especially if the tech being shown in the videos might have some questionable points on it but is being held up as a model. A well-trained sup, who is not personally a very good auditor, with twenty students, does need videos or very good auditors permanently on call during course time, to provide models to emulate. Also, if you have a couple of new people out in Barfville, Idaho who are very interested in twinning up but don't have a Class VIII just around the corner, how are they going to get any idea at all just by reading the Clearbird materials? It's easy to say, "Ah, they'll just have to make do with Book 1 and SA Lists and reading books until they win the lottery or get able enough to make enough money to visit the nearest sup-trained Class VI a thousand miles away." That's the kind of crap the CofS pushes. One video showing one F/N can be problematic. Ten videos made by different people in the FZ, each showing twenty F/N's on a large number of different people, would give ample examples to show the idea. A small number of those F/N's might be problematic. Well whoop-de-do, let the highly tech-trained people on the various lists go argue about them, and eventually it will become widely known that F/N's 4, 8, and 9 on Dee's 2nd Reads video are questionable, but nobody of any tech stature disputes the others. And similarly with F/N's 11 and 19 on Rich's 4th Reads video; and similarly with F/N's 7 and 23 on Tommy's 3rd Reads video. The CofS solution is to have ONE F/N on ONE Reads video from ONE pc and even the novices from Barfville wouldn't have much problem calling it. Wonderful, until an F/N occurs that doesn't look exactly like that. This Barfville couple, all by themselves, even with fifty high-quality videos, aren't going to be perfect auditors. But they'll be a hell of a lot better than without any videos at all. I say go ahead XXXX, make a bunch of tech films of the best quality you can, and make them as widely available as possible at a reasonable price. If you're doing it mainly to make money or even to get a reasonable return on your investment of time and money it's the wrong reason (not that I have any indication that you are). Go for it! {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 075 Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 14:14:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Cost of CSing To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Was reading something interesting the other day on > that. Something called the "clueful manifesto". It > seems that the internet is the real source for > information these days. People interested in > particular products like to see what owners have had > to say on the net. They find real people speaking real > opinions far more valuable than slick PR and > advertising. {PLAIN} Hey, maybe it would be a good idea for someone to gather together in one place these real opinions about specific auditors that real people have had. It could be called, oh, "FZ Tech Rating".... {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 076 Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 15:41:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Re: Tech training films To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > When I > asked XXXX about doing a short video showing the F\N I assumed it > would be a > lot of different people with many different F\N's. {PLAIN} Excellent. > I have never > made a > dime off anything I have done in Scientology or the Freezone, never > occurred to > me that I could. > Did it ever occur to you that I was being altruistic? XXXX Yes. But I just wanted to discourage anyone reading this exchange that thought providing tech films might be a way of making money or even breaking even. Some people have high living expenses, with lots of wives and kids to support. They would need to value their time more highly than the individual with fewer dependents and fewer financial demands. Maybe the videos could be sold at cost of materials plus shipping, like $3 or $5 each or something. Making a living by producing tech videos would rocket the price up so high that very few would buy them, at least until the market becomes much larger. I'm not knocking your intention to do this at all, Rich. I am encouraging you. It's a *fantastic* idea and I am very pleased indeed that you are set up to do this and want to do it. Do it! Make some, and make them available. Someone will gripe about each product whatever it turns out like. I might even be a bit critical about some aspect of it, but I will be much more supportive of the fact that you made it in the first place. I used to silently gripe about bits of the CofS tech films. But I am glad that they existed--they were better than nothing. Now we have the opportunity--with cheap video capturing and editing and manufacturing capability in the home market--to get out some really useful videos into the FZ field: "Richfriends Productions Presents...." {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 077 Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:15:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Re: Tech training films To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > (Dee) One video showing one F/N can be problematic. Ten videos made > by > different people in the FZ, each showing twenty F/N's on a large > number of > different people, would give ample examples to show the idea. > > (XXXX) A valid observation. Hank Levin, TT, and clearbird so far. > Any > others I haven't named? Should I buy one of each? Would it be > possible > to get one video with contributions (segments) from many sources? {PLAIN} It would be ideal to have one central organization or individual produce such tech videos, with no duplication of effort, and all the opinion leaders in the FZ having endorsed these videos. However, let's look at reality. The early CofS films that showed David Mayo got withdrawn when he bit the dust. Until new films were shot, there was no films any more. What if there were a bunch of professional-grade videos made, at great cost of time and effort, starring a FZ tech authority of high renown, that finally had been deemed excellent by all that mattered, and they got marketed and into use--but three months later the FZ tech authority fell into irrevocable disfavor? It shouldn't affect the validity of the technical quality being shown, but in the mind of the viewer there's always that nagging doubt. Just as my words might sometimes seem very reasonable, but didn't I fess up to {JOKE}eating babies{/JOKE} or something last week? Who would the central authority in the FZ be? Would this central authority be acceptable to fzaoint people? RO people? Other factions? Different strokes for different folks. Having bunches of different people put out bunches of videos is very wasteful of effort. But it's not like financing a Hollywood movie. It's cheap enough for one person with a camera and some lighting and sound equipment and a computer and software to do it all at home or on location. The really bad videos will get rapidly trashed on this list and others and will never be seen again. The obvious outpoints in the better ones will get pointed out, and the pluspoints will get praised. Because of the way this is being done, the bad bits can get edited out or redone and a new video produced. It is not like the manufacturer has to spend $100,000 on stockpiling 1,000 videos and he has to sell them to get his money back. He just produces version 1.2 and announces that it's available and the tech gods buy it for $3 and review it and make their pronouncements. I doubt if you could get bits of different manufacturers' videos onto one video--it would violate copyrights and they would most likely have differing ideas on how such a compilation should be done. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 078 Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 19:44:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Upper-level tech on a lower-level case To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Out-tech or squirreling, or any hint of it, is every Scientologists' > business. It's covered in KSW1 for starters. And it's definitely MY > business, so I think I'll be minding it quite closely. Result isn't > what is looked at although it's an indicator. Exact application is > what is the criteria. And running OT level procedure on a non-OT is > NOT "thinking with the tech", it's squirreling. {PLAIN} The point I'm about to discuss may have been discussed before but I haven't seen it. Maybe it belongs on the OT list, but I'll be mindful here. I'm not talking about a pc who isn't even clear and some dingbat tries to run an upper grade on him or tries to get him to run an upper grade solo with the lower grades out. But what about a lower level preclear who runs across a single one of those NOTs thingies in auditing and it is giving him a lot of trouble? In the CofS you can't do anything about it except hope that the lower-level actions will cool it off somewhat and then push the pc up to the level where it would get rapidly handled. Maybe it will handle automatically in the general run of life before he gets onto NOTs proper, and maybe it won't. If the CofS auditor is of NOTs case level, and guesses what's going on but can't say anything, he would just grit his teeth and do the standard thing. But how about in the FZ when the pc may well be completely familiar with the basic NOTs tech on how to handle the thingie that's bothering him? Or if he isn't it's five minutes away via Google? If I was a pc in that position and wasted an intensive trying to handle something that could have actually cleared up in two minutes with a basic NOTs process that I could have found easily if I had only known I should have searched for, I think I would be pissed at my auditor. "Why didn't you tell me?!" I would say. "Because it's above your level and it's not standard" he responds. "But after we wasted an intensive failing to shift it much I did some reading at home, totally coincidentally as you didn't even drop a hint, found out what was going on--it was a [one of those NOTs thingies]--ran that simple NOTs process on it and blew the problem myself out of session in less than a minute!" "Sorry, I have to apply standard tech." "Harummph." This would be a rare occurrence, not a routine action. But I have come across such things in the CofS, where the lower-level pc is even originating that it seems like there's a [one of those NOTs thingies] that is bothering him (LF), strange as it is, and he doesn't understand it, and the auditor acks and carries on with the regular action for the grade. I'm not advocating one course of action or another, just searching for different viewpoints here. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 079 Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 11:56:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Tech Training Films To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} The CofS films were never available to be sold to the public. The first film that showed Mayo was "The Secret of Flag Results", a promo film not a tech film, and although he had a speaking role his auditing was never shown. The next one I think was the first E-Meter Reads film, and just showed him doing an intro as Humphey Bogart and maybe the voiceover but I don't think so. I could be wrong on this bit, but I do know there was never a film showing him auditing. I cannot guarantee that no-one in the FZ has copies, but I would be surprised if they do, if only for the simple reason of why bother? There may be some historical interest, but there is no technical reason to keep them around. {/PLAIN} Dee --- XXXX wrote: > In an ongoing discussion of Tech Training Films on the Richfriends > list > the following comment has been made in passing. > > > However, let's look at reality. The early CofS films that showed > David > > Mayo got withdrawn when he bit the dust. Until new films were > shot, > > there was no films any more. What if there were a bunch of > > > > I didn't know such films existed. However they sound like extremely > valuable materials to me - and not in a monetary sense. Can anybody > comment on whether these films: > a. still exist > b. exist as copies in the free zone? > > Did some former mission holder (name not required) order a set before > being declared and kept the materials after losing the mission? I > realize > this can be a touchy subject especially here in the U.S. but I for > one would > love to see those films. For many in the free zone Mr. Mayo > represents the > "gold standard" in tech delivery. > > I suggest that if there are legitimate copies warehoused somewhere in > the free zone that > they be made available in some manner to one or more training > delivery persons > so that they can be put to good use. > > XXXX >

Message 080 Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 09:40:32 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Re: Cost of CSing To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Been posting 2 per week for 3 years. Recently upped > to three per week. Earlier times many repeats. Now > none, or very rare. You are welcome to gather them. > Not sure if thats what you want. Its your baby. :) {PLAIN} Thanks for the offer, but no, it's not exactly what I want. A success story is about the pc/student more than the person/group that delivers the service. Different emphasis. Also I wish it to be a collection of reviews posted there specifically, with the poster's full consent. On occasion, I have had good wins on actions where the service deliverer should have ended up on Qual/Ethics lines, and it was the power of the tech itself and secondarily my knowledge of how it should have been delivered that produced the wins. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 081 Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 10:33:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Re: Tech training films To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > My suggestion is a video dedicated to F\Ns, XXXX had the idea of a > set up of > the session video, what do you suggest? (I hope I didn't alter-is > what you > said to much XXXX) > > > I really was impressed by XXXX's co-audit, and was trying to get > her to > do part of it on video and then have the processes on paper. It was a > co-audit > without the meter. {PLAIN} I would suggest you produce a video about anything at all and make it available. At $3 including postage a lot of people may buy it. Maybe a lot of people will then say, "Jesus Christ, how can we let *this* exist in the field! Maybe he'll try and sell them on eBay and then what would happen?" And then maybe some will become more assistive to you in making the next one much better. A reads video would be useful. A setting-up-the-session checklist video would be useful. Showing a basic metered session--a real one not a fake one--without too much detail of the meter reads as that isn't what this video is about--would be useful. One that shows, without emphasizing any particular part of it, a very standard Model Session, with the setting-up-a-session checklist completed but not necessarily done on camera, including something as simple as flying 3 ruds and running havingness and then ending session. An introduction to the FZ would be useful, not a tech film but a Div 6-type film tailored towards the kind of publics that bb gets inquiries from. I wouldn't produce one that shows a specific series of actions tailored to one pc or one auditor's practise, as someone might then place undue emphasis on those session actions. If you are going to have a video devoted to TR's, it would be best to have many different auditors on it. It would be great to tour around, capturing on video a dozen different auditors showing their craft, and then compiling one video from it. I suspect that would be snapped up by a lot of people, even at a cost of well over $3. I suspect lots of interesting things would happen as a result of such a video being viewed by a large number of FZ people. Very interesting things. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

Message 082 Date: Sun, 30 May 2004 20:05:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Re: Tech training films To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Dee you are one smart chick! XXXX, former > mission holder said much the same to me. > > XXXX {PLAIN} Yeah, I copied it from a recent post, probably by him. I thought it was a good idea too! {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 083 Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 00:11:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Re: Tech training films To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > I will now just have to wait and see if people are interested in > doing it with me. > > XXXX is the only one that has let me tape her. She likes the > idea, but she is very busy. {PLAIN} There's lots you can do right now. Let's take the setting-up-a-session video for example. What are you going to shoot exactly? If you just shoot a dry illustration of some auditor mechanically going through the actions, you'll end up with a boring piece of crap that no-one will treasure or even view because it won't really communicate more than the HCOB does. Except maybe noting whether or not you omitted point 44 (adjusting pc's chair) because you thought it was redundant and already covered by point 43 (comfort of chair--check with pc and handle). The CofS tech films aren't dry and mechanical--they might be corny but at least they try and present real life situations and how the correct tech handles it. Like the CofS setting up a session film that I recall showed an auditor set up in a mud hut in Africa, and his session set-up was terrible, and his sessions got interrupted by goats wandering through his hut, and all sorts of other ridiculous stuff. "Superman" arrived somehow and the auditor was shown drilling in cramming the checklist with all appropriate materials until he could do it all in about one or two minutes flat. Then he was shown doing a session and some weird stuff came up that never turned into a problem because of his prior preparations, and the pc was VVGI's etc. Corny yes, but it did get the point across. So figure out a shooting script and make sure all the MEST is available. Maybe you need to survey various FZ auditors to find out what real-life problems they have run into that screwed up their personal sessions because they didn't have the checklist in. Run a thread on some lists about it. It's a lot of work before you even have an auditor ready to shoot with. Also study or at least read the Art Series while you are waiting. Then the first video you produce, maybe a few weeks from now, will have some bite to it. You don't ever need to be on wait on these videos: there is lots of pre-production stuff to be done. {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 084 Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 21:10:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [Richfriends] Expand the Freezone Presence! To: Richfriends@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Folks, > > It is important that we gain a bigger presence on the web. > > One way to do this is to increase the number of web sites > of the Freezone. {PLAIN} Don't forget the power of a blog (weblog) either. I've had various blogs running, some for nearly a year. Mine have nothing to do with Scn or the FZ. But they do tend to rank high in search engine results, for reasons which someone better than I could explain. I have a few blogs on the subject of XXXXX, including one with the same name XXXXX on www.blogspot.com and a similar one with the same name XXXXX on www.blogdrive.com . The blogspot one is hosted by Google, and a previous blog YYYYY I had on blogspot nine months ago routinely came up number 1 in the search rankings when you entered YYYYY as a search term in Google. So, seeking to emulate my previous success, I made the blogspot one my main blog, that I updated most frequently, and the blogdrive one was just a token one as a placeholder for the name XXXXX. So, today, three months after I started the XXXXX blogs, what do we find? The *blogdrive* blog shows up as the #2 site on Google and the blogspot blog has not to date appeared in the rankings at all; on Yahoo yesterday the two blogs occupied the #1 and #2 spots, but today the blogspot one is at #1 and I don't see the blogdrive one in the first five screens. Now, don't go e-mailing me thinking I am a wizard at optimizing sites for search engine ratings. All I did was carefully choose the name I called my blog, so that when that name was entered as a search term, it came up high on the rankings. It is real easy to sign up for a free blog at www.blogger.com and www.blogdrive.com. It doesn't cost anything, and only takes a few minutes. There's more, but that's all for now. {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 085 Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 21:54:19 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzaoint] Expand the Freezone Presence! To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > > Lots of freezone sites. Freebies are fine. Ones with your own > proper domain (which will cost a relatively modest amount) are a bit > better (search engines seem to take a bit more notice of them and > where they link to) > > There is some info about how to do it at > www.fzaoint.org/website.html > You may find this helpful - perhaps not?! > > Above all, link to other fz sites. {PLAIN} It'e easiest to go and get a blog, or two, at www.blogger.com and www.blogdrive.com . Those are the two main free blog sites. It takes less than five minutes to sign up and get your blog going, and you can later edit everything about it except for the URL. So if you choose freezone.blogspot.com you are stuck with that name for ever. But you can always go and make a mrsdalesdiary.blogspot.com one also. Blogdrive limits you to ten free blogs per account and I haven't discovered the upper limit to Blogger's free accounts yet (it's over 100). Anyway, let's say you choose "killerauditor.blogdrive.com". Then, if you want your own domain name, go to http://www.godaddy.com . You can get a .com domain for one year for $8.95, maybe www.standardauditor.com (it's available at the time of writing) or whatever you fancy. Despite the millions that have gone, there are still lots of goodies left. Once it goes through the works, you can set the "domain forwarding" to your blog address, and you can then tell people your web address is www.standardauditor.com . When someone puts that address in his browser, it will automatically pull up your blog. There is a comm lag of a day or so sometimes from when you set it up, so don't get all upset when it doesn't happen right away. Later, if you get tired of your blog or a friend offers to host a nice fancy website for you, you can get your nice fancy website up and running, then just change the forwarding address at www.godaddy.com and it will forward to your new website. Still free. It's a good deal. And you don't have to delete the blog either. {/PLAIN} Dee

Message 086 Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 22:15:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: RE: [fzaoint] Re: The Bridge To: fzaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > I don't have a lot of valuable skills to > exchange with society, and without money, there aren't a whole hell of a lot of > idealistic folks out there going to take on my case for > free. I'm open to better suggestions. {PLAIN} A possible solution is barter. You go and work for some FZ group or other and in exchange for the auditing and training they give you, you help them getting people up the Bridge. The money comes from the other people who pay directly for the services they receive. This isn't as foolproof as playing the mercenary game in Iraq, but you aren't as likely to get blown to bits or chronically sick from DU, and it is certainly a more theta way of spending your time. You would probably have to work a wog job part time for living expenses, and it isn't guaranteed that you would get all the auditing and training that is promised to you. On the upside, if you do this with the CofS you are trapped in a 5-year staff contract, and when you discover the grisly truth it's too late. But with an arrangement with a FZ auditor/group, you can set up whatever terms are mutually agreeable. It's a question of applying the non-existence formula well, and seeing what you can barter for what. If all that fails, you can still go to Iraq instead. It's not going anywhere. It could just be that you have more useful skills in the FZ than you think you do. {/PLAIN} All the best, Dee

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