Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts June 17, 2004 - July 16, 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 134 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:24:15 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Disconnection To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > > Yep. Welcome to the FZ. Nick and Ralph do not want anyone > > who really knows anything to make any noise at all. Plus, fzaoint > > in its current form is riddled with OSA. > > > Details, please. Time, place, form, event... you got the idea. {PLAIN} I like a statement Rich made a few weeks ago on Richfriends. Someone had suggested that there be a private very restricted list, where the participants were *sure* that there were no external influences on the list. Rich's response was no, keep it an open list, as that way everyone "knows" that the neighbors are looking in. It's not as if anything illegal or even sensitive was ever being discussed. The problem with having a "safe" list, he said, was that one becomes careless and assumes that it *is* completely secure, and might say something inappropriate. When it might not be secure at all. {JOKE}It's not like we are plotting the overthrow of the government pro tem on Marcab IV and revealing our strategy will lead to failure of the impending coup there, is it? {/JOKE} Since then I've viewed these relatively open lists in that light, and it seems a sensible viewpoint to me to assume that the lists are under constant surveillance by the neighbors. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 092 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:50:14 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzelma] UL_list; OT_List; OT List (no underscore). To: fzelma@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > New list for those who have started OT III or above. UL is upper > levels. I went to find the OT_list and it was gone:) So, we do need > > a list where can can communicate about something if we want to. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UL-list > > XXXX {PLAIN} That's great, XXXX. I wrote to Ralph but I'm not going to fart around begging to please not get thrown off his list again on some whim. I contributed far more to that list than I took from it. I started my own Yahoo OT list. No underscore. Just "OTList". I have no way of enforcing case level requirements on members, but anyone who hasn't started auditing on an honest OT3 would be a complete idiot to go visiting. Sometime in the next couple of days I will re-post to it all the new OT2/OT3 stuff that I sent to Ralph's list. I will also be posting the other OT2 and OT3 stuff there that I promised in my last post to that list but haven't written yet. I'll post list guidelines when I have worked them out. Maybe your list guidelines and mine could be complementary. I'm more interested in the hard nuts and bolt OT Level delivery-type stuff and not so much the friendly chat. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 135 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:57:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Yet another OT List To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com {PLAIN} It's list season. I wrote to Ralph but I'm not going to fart around begging to please not get thrown off his list again on some whim. I contributed far more to that list than I took from it. I started my own Yahoo OT list. No underscore. Just "OTList". I have no way of enforcing case level requirements on members, but anyone who hasn't started auditing on an honest OT3 would be a complete idiot to go visiting. Sometime in the next couple of days I will re-post to it all the new OT2/OT3 stuff that I sent to Ralph's list. I will also be posting the other OT2 and OT3 stuff I promised in my last post to that list but haven't written yet. I'll post list guidelines when I have worked them out. Maybe Pat's list guidelines and mine could be complementary. I'm more interested in the hard nuts and bolt OT Level delivery-type stuff and not so much the friendly chat. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 093 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:24:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lucky Duck" Add to Address Book Subject: Re: [fzelma] UL_list; OT_List; OT List (no underscore). To: fzelma@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > That's great, XXXX. I wrote to Ralph but I'm not going to fart > around > > begging to please not get thrown off his list again on some whim. > I > > contributed far more to that list than I took from it. > > Which list are you referring to? Everyone was thrown off the fzaoint > list > and then XXXX invited those members they wanted to join a newly > created > list. You are on it. So am I. I do not take sides in disputes > within the > freezone. I do agree with > standard application of standard ethics, tech and admin and plain > old-fashioned honesty. > > If you are referring to the OT_l list: yes, XXXX and others who were > either > driven off the fzaoint list or expelled from it were removed from > that list > too. I was not (neither was XXXX) and according the the membership > list neither > were you under the addy you are using on this list and were posting > under to > that list as recently as 3 days ago. Your new addy was added to that > list today. > > > Please explain. > > XXXX's starting a new OT list is understandable for the reasons she > has > stated. Your starting such a list of your own is not and requires > explanation. > XXXX {PLAIN} Damn. I screwed up. My apologies. Comes from juggling two main e-mail addresses. Thanks for adding [Paul's new ID] to the OT_list; Dee has unsubbed from it. I will continue to post to OT_List. I was going to anyway, apart from the slight technicality that I thought I wasn't on it anymore. I don't believe in taking sides in FZ disputes either. I will keep OTList alive for now. If I think of a useful purpose for it that isn't a duplicative function I will probably announce it; if not I'll just kill it. {/PLAIN} All the best, Paul






Message 136 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:47:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [fzflame] Re: Flaming To: fzflame@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > What the fuck kind of bs is this? If you were even > capable of understanding what the fuck I had written > and pulled your head out of your arse for a moment, >... > But I suspect it will become people playing with each > other. {PLAIN} Maybe. We'll have to wait and see. It would be funny if people don't dare use FZFlame for genuine ranting because it is looked on as a kind of playpit for gentlefolk with impeccable manners elsewhere. Maybe someone should start an FZRealFlame group and the otherwise polite people like thee and me and bb would get automatically unsubbed! >It's kinda nice to be able to write something > outrageous without worrying about people taking it > the wrong way. You're right. I laughed aloud for the first time in a day or two when I read your opening salvo above. Nice to see "arse" too. I've been swearing in American for the last 15 years or so. Thanks, XXXX. More invective later.... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 137 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:20:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [ifachat] toothpaste and lsd To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Are you saying this really happened??? > > I guess it would be pretty scary to ingest LSD without knowing it... > I've never done it, but I don't think it's evil. It's something I > want to try in my lifetime. > > It seems there would be far easier ways to cause someone to make a > fool of themself, but then we've all become aware of some truly > unbelievable things done by the COS. I appologize if this actually > happened to someone... it's just such a bizzare accusation I found > it amusing. {PLAIN} I took LSD a couple of dozen times over a period of six months or so while I was at college in the late 60s. I got into Scn a year after I left college. About five years later, when in the Sea Org, a relatively minor "trip" turned on for a couple of hours. I recognised it as being the influence of LSD and it was more interesting than uncomfortable, but I was convinced someone has slipped me a tab of it, as otherwise how could I be tripping? That was scary, being in the SO and all. It wasn't until the Sweat Pgm/Purif data came out around 1980 that I realized for sure what had happened. Giving another LSD without their knowledge is probably a heavy felony punishable in law with years of jail time. If the person suffering the effects did not realize what had happened, it would be really, really unsettling. But back in 1969, us "heads" looked on the effects of acid as beneficial, and straight people ought to turn on and see the gentler and hidden side of life, to "chill out" to use modern slang. The idea of laying some acid on someone without their knowledge was a bit naughty, but it was not considered in the same light as giving them strychnine, say. I never did it, but considered it for a few people who were overly uptight. In the 70s, many people in the SO and GO had taken LSD prior to their involvement with Scn. I could believe that someone in the GO who had personally taken LSD might have covertly given LSD to a public figure that they wanted to discredit, without considering it a big overt. But this is purely conjecture on my part. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 138 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:45:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [ifachat] Charisma To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > > I presume there are ways to increase one's charisma. There is a tech > to everything. But to date I have not seen a useful text on the > subject. > You've got it or you don't. {PLAIN} When I worked at New World Corps around 1988 there was a pilot issue called "Auditor Presence". It never got issued. It was basically some quotes from a tape or two, Academy Levels I think. I always thought it was a shame that this issue never appeared, as it made the point very well and the tape quote by itself, as part of the tape, didn't impinge to the same extent at all. I never forgot what was said, as I have found it very useful in life. It's all verbal tech for now. Maybe someone can find the original in the tape somewhere and post it. But this is how you can increase your charisma, Chloe. Here is the tech. TR-0. Doing what you're doing when you're doing it. It is having one's attention units in present time and not scattered all over the place. Many people have commented that when LRH spoke to them it was as if they were the most important person in the Universe at that time, as they commanded all of LRH's attention, and it made them feel very special indeed. It is an important ability for an auditor in session. But anyone can have increased charisma when they say hi to the checkout lady at the supermarket too. Try it! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 139 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:55:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] UL_list To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > XXXX says he was going to put it up again, but hasn't announced it. If > what you see belongs to ralph, do we want to ge there? {PLAIN} Sure. I don't like partisanship within the FZ. The FZ against "The Enemy", yes. But I don't know of a real flesh-and-blood FZ enemy. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 140 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:11:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] UL_list To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > The list has been there since it was set up by Ralph about 2 years > ago so > that there would be a place for upper level discussion off the main > fzaoint list. > Yes, Pat is missing and others who left or were forced off the > fzaoint list, > including Tommy. The rest of us are still on it and that includes > bb. Paul > Adams is on it as of today under his new addy. His old addy was not > removed > and that was what he was posting under as of three days ago. He > said that he > was writing to Ralph to ask why he was taken off. He wasn't taken > off. His > new addy may have been, but his new addy was added today. > > There are quite a few freezoners, most long-term, who are on several > (recently becoming too many) lists. Membership on a group list > entails agreeing with > the stated purpose of the group and keeping within the published > guidelines of > the group. It does not entail being in agreement with the > everything that > the owner &/or moderator says or does. > > The vast majority of the members of freezone lists are lurkers. Some > speak > up once in a while. Only a few speak up regularly. There is no > basis for > presuming anything about them. It is also safest to presume that > there is at > least one OSA/CoS person > on any freezone list who may or may not be just lurking. > XXXX {PLAIN} Thanks, XXXX. Very sensible. I screwed up and thought I had been bounced from the list--I was just looking at the wrong ID. I'm now using the [Paul's earlier] ID only for the fztechrating (and fzadminrating) Yahoo group as I can't see how to transfer ownership of the group over to the [new ID] ID without nuking it and restarting from scratch. I will continue to post my usual stuff to Ralph's OT_List. I might send some old OT-type poetry to Pat's UL_List. I don't know what I'm going to do with my fresh OTList, if anything. I know about the too-many-lists phenomena, but haven't worked out what to do yet on these OT lists. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 141 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:09:13 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [ifachat] Charisma To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > LOL- I WASN'T asking how to increase my charisma, Paul. > > I've been lamenting the use of it in chosing our leaders, because > you > can get very stuck to it and follow the wrong leader into hell. > > I was asking, what SHOULD we look for in leadership? > > Try it again :) {PLAIN} You weren't? Oh. The only thing worth looking at in the search for a leader is his/her proven statistics on the ground under real conditions in the area under consideration. And even then they get a probationary period. There are LRH issues on leadership in the OEC volumes. Note it is sometimes hard to view the real statistics if you have lies, false PR, Black PR, and disinformation campaigns going on. Witness the adulation for prominent figures in society and then the fallout when the sordid truth hits the fan fifty years later. {PLAIN} Paul






Message 142 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:17:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] New website up all ready! To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > This site does not come up. msm comes up instead: > http://www.microsoft.com/ {PLAIN} I've noticed that the forwarding does not always work. I don't know why. Maybe it has to do with an old browser, or something. The URL of http://www.fzinternational.org forwards to the URL of http://www.freewebs.com/fzinternational . I am not really promoting either URL as the site is a mess right now and not something worth promoting. The site may well get moved somewhere else soon. Give it a week, say.... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 143 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:28:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Yet another OT List To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > > What hard nuts and bolt stuff would you be thinking of, Paul? And > what are your proposed guidelines? Can you post them here when you've > > finished them? Thanks. The way we used to deliver OT2 and OT3 at SH when I was there doing that around 1982-1986 and later some in LA. It's all on Ralph's OT_List. If you're not on Ralph's OT_List for some reason and can't/don't want to join, the same stuff is posted on my OTList. Anyone whose case level is a genuine auditing-comfortably-on-OT3 or above is welcome there. I'll announce guidelines when I've worked them out. In the meantime, there's no need to join both lists. I don't like the dev-t of duplicative functions. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 144 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:32:38 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [ifachat] Boot from ICAUSE To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > > Ahh, yes. That is correct. That IS why you were booted. {PLAIN} Thanks for clearing it up, Tom. {/PLAIN} All the best, Paul






Message 145 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:40:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] UL_list To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > It needs to be kept. > > With so many people bounced from ralph's list, there is no place, > really > to discuss things. {PLAIN} Fair enough. Go ahead and join and bring your OT3-or-above friends and discuss away. I'm not going to throw you out because you like a different kind of pizza. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 002 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:35 pm Subject: Nowheresville Beach {PLAIN} NOWHERESVILLE BEACH As you lie spread out on Nowheresville Beach With your whole life in turmoil and no help in reach On an unaware planet with no tech at all No hope of salvation and you in its thrall Recall that brief lifetime you wasted on Earth When you lived in a goldmine and saw not its worth That veriest eyeblink in aeons of being And you blew it on trifles that blinded your seeing And now when you know what you ought to have done It's too late, old buddy, they've all upped and gone -- Paul, ca. 1980 {/PLAIN}






Message 003 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:39 pm Subject: Paradise Plaza {PLAIN} PARADISE PLAZA As you jauntily bounce across Paradise Plaza Flowing good mornings to friends on the way Wearing a body fresh out of the wardrobe Which matches the mood you have picked for today On a pink planet turning about a square sun That a friend had just mocked up one weekend for fun Recall that brief lifetime spent far off from here When you cashed in the car and the social veneer And traded the treadmill of nine-to-five In favor of being forever and ever alive -- Paul, around 1980 {/PLAIN}






Message 146 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:03:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: toothpaste and lsd To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > Why? Well that's easy - I want to see what it's like. I'm curious. > I've heard enough from people who have used it to know that it is > something I want to experience for myself. I have no idea when the {PLAIN} I copied a chunk from www.streetdrugs.org below. They are pretty negative about it, so I'll give my viewpoint on it. It would be hypocritical of me to say don't take it. Overall, I would say I benefited from taking it. Just. The plusses include lots of viewpoint shifts from being kicked out of the head and experiencing exterior perceptions as a thetan; total conviction of self as a spiritual being and not as a meat body, although it was hard to interpret at the time; and the wow! factor of the world dancing around with pretty colors and patterns. The minuses for me include a certain *permanent* loss of computational ability, like having a tenth of your brain permanently fried and some rerouting of circuits subsequently occurs but it doesn't fully compensate. Also a persistence of vison factor that wasn't there before I ever took the stuff. The report below says a typical street dose is 25 to 80 micrograms (mcg.) The effects vary with dosage. These are all from my personal experiences, and other published accounts may vary. At low dosage (25 to 80 mcg is low) you just see green/purple edges to things and maybe a little bit of things moving around, like involved carpet patterns may dance a bit. Colors seem extraordinarily vivid, as are other perceptions. The dancing effect is caused by natural eye-movements that normally one doesn't notice. Everyday objects and normal perceptions are unusually fascinating and detailed. Conversation is more or less possible. Other people's thoughts are much more visible than usual. At medium dosage, maybe 150 - 250 mcg, things heat up a bit. More colors come into the mix, red and orange and blue maybe. Not different shades of these colors, but always the exact same color. I grew to look on these colors as "acid purple" or "acid green". Presumably they come out of some specific body chemistry and not a thetan's imagination or recall. There is more dancing around of objects. Things are very vivid still, but perception is extended. Perceptics are just accepted as perceptics, without the normal differentiation between them. This was usually expressed as "hearing colors" or "seeing music", but it's just a thetan observing his environment and there is no real need to make a big deal about the different channels. Like you can watch a person talking, and you see their lips moving, and you can hear the words, but the sight and sound aren't cemented together. It's like watching a movie where the sound and picture are out of sync, but when you look really closely they aren't out of sync at all. Conversation is difficult, not because of difficulty with the motor controls but because it's not really worthwhile to communicate anything more than "wow". You might become gradually aware of this strange feeling and then cognite that your bladder has been telling you to pee for the past three hours and you didn't recognise the signal. And then there are high doses, maybe 300 "mikes" and up. The effects come on quickly, like in 15 minutes instead of 40, and they ramp up quickly, and the first time this happens you go, "Whoa! This is going to be some ride." Exterior objects do their dancing so violently it can be impossible to see what is really there. Exterior perception is very pronounced, in that you can hear whispers hundreds of feet away. Objects lost their normal appearance and are seen as merely energy manifestations, with an awareness of a kind of very high-level brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr buzz about them. On a couple of occasions I couldn't move the body at all. I remember once lying there contemplating the impossible enormity of the effort involved in blinking an eyelid and I couldn't do it. An hour later I could open and close my eyes but nothing more, and I found that I could see exactly the same thing with my eyes open or shut, it made no difference at all. The experiences like that were profound, and I felt that some secrets of the universe had been revealed. Some of them had in terms of awareness of theta perceptics, others were probably illusory. Overall though, it was like being mentally run over by a truck. Back and forth, for hours. Not once did I have a "bad trip". I was always fully aware of where I was and who was with me, and the "hallucinations" were just seen as what they were. I had no difficulty perceiving "reality", but an underlying one rather than a superficial one. An example could be given that, "He was on LSD and thought he could fly and jumped out of a window and died." In reality, it could have been that he was on LSD, realized for the first time that lifetime that he was a spiritual being that would survive the death of his meat body, decided that was more exciting than his future continued humdrum life as a normal human being on planet Earth, and wanted out. Overall, for me I would say that the rewards were intense, but the cost was great. {/PLAIN} Paul ***START*** D-lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is the most potent hallucinogenic substance known to man. Dosages of LSD are measured in micrograms, or millionths of a gram. By comparison, dosages of cocaine and heroin are measured in milligrams, or thousandths of a gram. Compared to other hallucinogenic substances, LSD is 100 times more potent than psilocybin and psilocin and 4,000 times more potent than mescaline. The dosage level that will produce an hallucinogenic effect in humans generally is considered to be 25 micrograms. Over the past several years, the potency of LSD obtained during drug law enforcement operations has ranged between 20 and 80 micrograms per dosage unit. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) recognizes 50 micrograms as the standard dosage unit equivalency. LSD is classified as a Schedule I drug in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. As a Schedule I drug, LSD meets the following three criteria: it is deemed to have a high potential for abuse; it has no legitimate medical use in treatment; and, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision. LSD tablets LSD was synthesized in 1938 by a chemist working for Sandoz Laboratories in Switzerland. It was developed initially as a circulatory and respiratory stimulant. However, no extraordinary benefits of the compound were identified and its study was discontinued. In the 1940's, interest in the drug was revived when it was thought to be a possible treatment for schizophrenia. Because of LSD's structural relationship to a chemical that is present in the brain and its similarity in effect to certain aspects of psychosis, LSD was used as a research tool in studies of mental illness. The effects of LSD are unpredictable. They depend on the amount taken, the user's personality, mood and expectations, and the surroundings in which the drug is used. Usually, the user feels the first effects of the drug 30-90 minutes after taking it. These effects include dilated pupils, higher body temperature, increased heart rate and blood pressure, sweating, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, dry mouth, and tremors. Sensations and feelings change much more dramatically than the physical signs. The user may feel several different emotions at once or swing rapidly from one emotion to another. Depending on the dose, the drug can produce delusions and visual hallucinations, which can be frightening and cause panic. Users refer to their experience with these acute adverse reactions as a "bad trip," and the effects typically last for about twelve hours. Terrifying thoughts and feelings, fear of insanity and death, injuries, and fatal accidents have occurred during states of LSD intoxication. Anyone can experience a bad trip and there is no way to predict what your own experience will be. ***END***






Message 004 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:33 am Subject: Re: [fzelma] UL_list; OT_List; OT List (no underscore). --- XXXX wrote: > > Very good. Your postings are very interesting and > making them available to those not on the OT_List is welcome. > ... > > I'd forgotten that you are the "excess of multiplicity > of sites" guy. :) > XXXX {/PLAIN} In keeping with the above two paragraphs, last night I had already created two more Yahoo groups. One is called "Paul's FZ Posts" [paulsfzposts] and the other is called "Paul's FZ OT Posts" [paulsfzotposts]. Assuming I remember, I will send a copy of any future posts of general interest to the appropriate one of these two lists. Neither is a discussion group--it's a one-way flow, me only to anyone who cares to look in. I will be sending along maybe 50 posts to various groups/lists from the past few weeks over the next few days. The paulsfzotposts one is already up to date. Membership requirements are obvious. Anyone can freely join the paulsfzposts one; the paulsfzotposts is for OT3 and above. I dislike having to belong to a dozen lists in case I miss anything important. Maybe others feel the same way. I know some people appreciate many of my posts. Making them available as above is a mixture of genuine desire to help and profound conceit. The ratio between the two changes daily depending on my attitude! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 005 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:34 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: New website up all ready! --- XXXX wrote: > Sticking my hand up. I can help with a logo. > > XXXX {PLAIN} That's great, XXXX--thanks. Go for it. It's bb's final say-so as I'm just the hired help. Personally I hate most of the FZ Logos I've seen. Do we have to have things like an ascending pentagram to show man's spiritual reach upwards; above broken chains to show independence from the cruel yoke of the oppressive Mother Church; clutching a well-worn double interlocked triangle to show some familiar symbols to welcome in the faithful? I know that doesn't look like anything currently existing, but I'm tired of the same old symbology. Couldn't we have something refreshingly jaunty like the Toys 'R Us logo? Sacrilegiously, Paul {/PLAIN}






Message 006 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Just an observation or inquiry . . . --- XXXX wrote: > Probably. However, pictures of Ron that are not copyright by the > church > are hard to get. > > XXXX {PLAIN} Go into an org with a camera and take a photograph of the bust of LRH. The large bust is a good quality piece. I think you would then be the owner of the image, but I wouldn't pay to argue it in court. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 026 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:14 pm Subject: [fzelma] Re: I wonder....hmmm --- XXXX wrote: > {PLAIN} Time for me to weigh in with a few choice words. Unless I misunderstood something, the person who originally started this train of thought should be having his attention directed onto the part of the bridge designed to handle his case right here and now. Otherwise he might just get the idea that two hundred hours of Objectives and Expanded Grades -type auditing is not as worthwhile as the electrifying fun of chasing angels with a butterfly net. Remember he won't even be able to see the angels until all the lower levels are fully and honestly completed. The more his attention is placed on upper level concepts the more of a disservice we do to him. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 027 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:45 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Paradise Plaza et al --- XXXX wrote: >> Thank you. Now post these two pomes and the one you put on the > freezone list > to yer poetry list. {PLAIN} I thought I had. I was about to unload some choice invective at you better suited to the FZ Flame group (in order to promote some traffic there) when I thought I'd better check just to be sure. And you got the first poem in! Oh, the shame of it. And the second too. I'll get there soon. In the meantime here's a nice little out-of-ARC poem: BODY Worship not a lump of meat It matters not as such It magnifies sensation Mere a crippled being's crutch -- {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 028 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: New website up all ready! --- XXXX wrote: > How about a large rasberry? > > Maybe coming out of an angel horn. {PLAIN} That's very funny. And appropos. Since bb is as irreverent as he should be and doesn't seem to be stuck on staid logos either, how about we just have a logo du jour, and change it when a better one comes along? Or just because we feel like it. Or when the webmaster has hiccups. {JOKE}When I get my thumb out of my ass{/JOKE} I'll just stick something funny in there (the logo space, not my ass) and if someone's got something better they can always let me know. Scn used to be real fun in the 70's before it got all serious. We don't have to dramatize the seriousness. Let insouciance reign! We can still do what we need to. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 029 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneFriends] Richfriends changed to FreezoneFriends --- XXXX wrote: > Hi guys, as you can see there have been some changes to Richfriends > list. You may need to update your email preferences in case you lost > it. Those that run other lists, if you would mention the new name and {PLAIN} Hi there, Here is a good point. I run several lists and quite happily generate new ones whenever the whim takes hold. I am well on the way to sorting out in my own mind what each one of mine is for, and when I've got it straight I'll make it known. Some people complain about "too many lists". I do too, and I'm apparently making it worse! We need someone to sit down and list out the main lists and what their function currently is. I don't count any of mine as main lists yet. It's complete dev-t to have two or more separate lists which pretty much do exactly the same thing, with pretty much the same people subscribed to each. Especially when each gets the same post from someone. Apart from the FZ America board, all the ones I know about are on Yahoo groups. Ones like FreezoneAOInt, FZElma, IFAchat, ICAUSE, FreezoneFriends, OT_List, and that RO list somewhere that I have never even looked for. Once it gets straightened out, hopefully with all the group owners participating, it can get published by each as an ongoing FAQ so that new people to the scene--and even the oldies--aren't confused any more. Any offers? {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 030 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:38 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] (title snipped to avoid perpetuating entheta) --- XXXX wrote: > My support goes to bb. He's the one being OT here. {PLAIN} I support bb too. I also support Nick. I support Ralph. I support Pierre. I support TT. I support RD. I even support almost all of the staff in the C of S. None of these people are our enemies. One of the R/Ser HCOB's shows a laudable LRH attitude to SP's. It's more compassionate than what he says in Science of Survival. The bible has the well-known "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." "What is Greatness" is one of my favorite LRH articles. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 031 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:55 pm Subject: The Caretakers THE CARETAKERS They came, you know, a few eras ago When the Earth was all oceans and rock They brought in some creatures with self-breeding features And started to build up some stock Computers and genes, life-changing machines Stellar indeed were their talents They came now and then to check up again They ensured that it all stayed in balance The dinosaurs rose on their armor-plate toes And fell after many millenia Not written in history it's really no mystery The memory, you see, is still in ya Be that as it may, look around you today See whole species disappearing from view When the caretakers come, as they always have done Can you guess what they're going to do? -- Paul, ca. 1989






Message 032 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:03 am Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] hello - first post --- XXXX wrote: > Cute. Some GAT auditor doesn't now how to handle a > meter. {PLAIN} Varying the question would help. Also I could write a great sec check for investigating whether a churchie had been frolicking around a bit in the FZ! Not that I'm offering my services for that. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 033 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:55 am Subject: Re: [fzpoetry] Spectator sport --- XXXX wrote: > Hi guys, I'm here. > > Poetry is a spectator sport for me. Hope you don't mind if I become > the designated lurker. > > XXXX {PLAIN} Welcome. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}It is an evil plot on my part to see how many new, little groups I can create and lure you to lurk on before you realize what I am doing... {/JOKE} {PLAIN} Otherwise: Picturing an aesthetic wreck later, You shy from a rhyming dreck hater, But at once you are shirking Your job of just lurking-- You posted! You ain't no spectator. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 034 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:05 pm Subject: [FZ Flame]Welcome XXXX... {JOKE} Hey XXXX! What the fuck kind of social bullshit is this? You can't just sit there on no fucking e-mail and wait to be entertained, you spineless moron. Come join in! {/JOKE} Paul :)






Message 035 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Charisma --- XXXX wrote: > No thanks. I'm not into flaming, regardless of the reasons. And yes, > I thought I sent that twice, but wasn't sure. Anyway, that's what I > thought you were talking about. It does have a good section on > auditor beingness. {JOKE} Spoilsport.{/JOKE} {PLAIN}Currently FZ Flame operates at 22.0 on the tone scale.{/PLAIN} Paul






Message 036 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:49 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] New website up all ready! --- XXXX wrote: > > Might I suggest something that does not attack or oppterm the C of S. > > Pointing out deficiencies of the C of S is fine but I would not be > creating and displaying a logo that denigrates or attacks them. That, > to my understanding, is not the purpose of the Freezone. Remember the > C of S is composed of beings with only a few at the top with the > wrong motivation. Most of them have the motivation of duty. > > The purpose of the freezone I believe is to expand the technology and > free beings. Including those poor buggers working in the C of S. > > A Logo that demonstrates the true spirit of the freezone would be > great. A logo should not be composed of the failings of one group > mixed with the future success of another. It should express the > Future of the group as a whole moving forward and expanding. > > Logos are Symbols. Therefore one would need to work out what the > Purpose and the Spirit of the Freezone is and build a symbol to > represent that. {PLAIN} I still like Roland's idea of the raspberry being blown out of the cherub's horn, myself. And since I'm the guy being the webmaster right now.... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 037 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:33 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] scooze me? old fart? --- XXXX wrote: > I know you werent talkin' bout me..were ya?..lol..speaking > Sacrilegiously well somebody posted that..I wish to lay claim to the > angel horn blowing a rasberry..I think Roland said it..I need a new > logo for FreezoneFriends list..that would be perfect..anybody with > art > skills willing to do that?..if so let me know..3 bucks by paypal up > for > grabs..ARC XXXX {PLAIN} I own the domain name XXXX, and have an e-mail address there. I posted about it a couple of weeks ago when I decided to shred my anonymity. I assume that is where the original mention came from here. I looked up "cherub horn" (without the quote marks) on Google, and looked at all that came up in the Images section. I stole the one that seemed most suitable. I can hardly forbid you to steal it! It's currently at www.fzinternational.org , but it might not be there for long. I didn't find any suitable raspberries on Google. I have a copy of Photoshop laying around somewhere, but I haven't yet summoned up the interest in cropping one of the raspberry images, resizing and rotating it, layering it on to the horn, etc etc. It's kinda tacky to have both of us with the same cheap-ass "logo". Neither bb nor I seem interested in a permanent logo, so go ahead and build your version of it and by the time you're ready to exhibit it bb and I will have something else up there. How's that? Paul P.S. How do you have a logo for a Yahoo group? {/PLAIN}






Message 038 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:32 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Coffee and pasteries in the main lounge > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 16:40:46 -0700 XXXX > wrote: > >Regarding Ron's Org, I suggest that although censoring > >people has a certain attraction to it, it does not > >work in the long run. One should have nothing to fear > >from competition - either Ron's Orgs have better > >results or they don't. Open and clear communication > >will eventually establish the truth of the matter, and > >allow all to see. > > > >There is nothing to stop people from criticising > >various techs on the group, and if it is not from a > >"My way or the highway" point of view, the criticism > >will be more or less convincing. > > > >My vote is to allow offshoots of LRH tech to > >participate, but any such should clearly identify > >themselves as what they are; and nobody should be > >merely writing promo. {PLAIN} This is a real big deal, not just a "Do you want the cheese or the sausage one, dear?" type question. One thing that I think would be very useful before even starting a discussion on what she or shouldn't be allowed in terms of "variations", is a careful analysis of what the hell we would be discussing. I've been wondering about doing it, but never have. Maybe someone else could. It is to make a long list of what is it that makes up what we generally consider to be "Standard Tech". It would include things like the auditors code, model session, auditing comm cycle, repetitive auditing comm cycle, TR's, C/Sing tech, and on and on. There might be a hundred things on the list. Once we have these stable data all neatly listed out, we can then analyze the different flavors of FZ activity, checking off which ones apply to the one under consideration and which ones don't. Kind of like those magazine reviews of a comparison between four different brands/models of automobile or pop-up toaster, where you can see which ones have which features, and which ones don't. Once ALL the different features have been listed out, we then need to NAME the different brands of FZ activity. There's RO--that's OK, that is pretty clearly defined. But a list like IFAchat or FreezoneOrg or whatever, sure it's a "Standard Tech List", but what does that mean exactly? And if one goes into it very carefully, one will probably find that most of it is very clear but there are some points that are fuzzy around the edges. Like which OT 1 and why? Where does NOTs fit in? Solo NOTs? OT VIII? What OT VIII? Original OT IV to VII? Which version of the Non-Interference Area HCOB is being operated on? Etc etc. One thing that will fall out of the woodwork will be the realization that one's own pet group and the bunch of FZ weirdos over there that barely give each other the time of day all agree on 98% of the fundamentals, and all the hoo-hah is based on disagreements over 2%. The reason for the naming, the labels, is for recognition purposes. "Ah yes, that new group over there is a Standard Tech Type 3A activity, except for allowing the use of any audited mock-up process after OT III, but the processes are restricted to those specifically mentioned by LRH in issues, books or tapes." Such a label is more useful than "gang of out-tech crazies". Anyone willing to have a go at it? {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 039 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 20, 2004 1:53 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] FLAMES, ATTACKS AND GAMES CONDITIONS --- XXXX wrote: > > > Ralph has done work for OSA and this other leader was so high up > in the hierarchy that he probably has studied every checksheet in the > world. > I therefore conclude that there is some kind of secret policy that is > used > by OSA as well as Ralph and this other guy. Maybe some of you have > seen it > and can tell me about it. {PLAIN} I was OSA Int staff for a couple of years around 1988 or 9. I wasn't privy to all the juicy stuff as I wasn't qualified to be a full member of OSA Int, but I worked in Qual as a supervisor and doing tech services type of stuff. Once I did a project for a few weeks compiling hat packs for all the OSA Int staff, and to be shipped out to lower level OSA units. These hat packs included regular issues, as well as confidential OSA issues. I forget the issue type--they were black ink on white paper--OSA Network ED's maybe? I suppose I wasn't meant to read them, but it wasn't like having someone at Grade 0 print OT III packs (which actually did happen around the same time!). So I read every single word of these OSA N/W issues the OSA Int staff had in their official hat packs. I also supervised these staff on studying their hat packs. What were the instructions re reverse scientology and so on? None whatsoever. There was nothing at all that would be really considered out-tech or to do with caving people in. There was something about using GPM words in lawsuits to confuse the opposing counsel, or something, but it didn't look particularly effective to me. And I don't recall if the practise of doing it was to cease, or was to continue. Whatever it was, it didn't seem like a big deal to me, whereas running reverse processes on someone would have. Now, I know dirty tricks have occurred, and there were gang-bang sec checks, and all kinds of crazy stuff. I'm just saying that it wasn't covered in the OSA hat packs that I was involved in putting together at that time. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 040 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: scooze me? old fart? --- XXXX wrote: > --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I know you werent talkin' bout me..were ya?..lol..speaking > > Sacrilegiously well somebody posted that..I wish to lay claim to > the > > angel horn blowing a rasberry..I think XXXX said it..I need a new > > logo for FreezoneFriends list..that would be perfect..anybody with > art > > skills willing to do that?..if so let me know..3 bucks by paypal > up for > > grabs..ARC XXXX > > Itza bit joker and degrader. {PLAIN} I joined the SO in late 1972. Life in the SO then was hard. If you were really lucky, you'd get up at 7 or so, eat breakfast, go on post, take a 30/45 minute break for lunch, work till 6, take an hour for lunch, go on course for 2 1/2 hours, go back on post or maybe spend some extra time on post, go home at 10:30 or 11:00. Seven days a week, except Sunday morning you might do renovations or personal laundry etc. Every other week you'd get a day off if your stats were up and it was OK with your senior. You'd get paid four pounds ($10) a week most weeks. Now, any old SO members will read this with disbelief and say, "You've gotta be kidding--it was NEVER that easy!" Well sometimes it was. For a period of some months in the late 70's we even got every Saturday night off to go to Brighton or something. A Flag Mission came and bounced the CO off post and that was the end of that, but it was nice while it lasted. Intersperse the cushy life with periods like the infamous "Battle of Britain" in January 1974. It was a Flag mission that was only around for a couple of weeks, but the actions being done by the mission were then dramatized by FOLO execs for months afterwards. The actions being to keep the crew on about 3-4 hours sleep a night, every night, for two months. This was at a period of the "3 day week", when it was ILLEGAL to use electricity in England every other day. This was in England in mid-winter. It was cold. We were on post in ratty overcoats and scarves and gloves if we owned any. There was no power every other day. Offices were lit with smelly, smoky, cheap kerosene lamps, that covered the walls--and presumably one's lungs--with thick, black soot. The diet was typically beans and rice three meals a day. No-one was sessionable or studentable. In short, there were times when it was downright miserable. Long times. Maybe once a year, someone produced a series of "skits" for the crew. I took part in several of these, both writing and acting. What the skits were about, for the most part, were periods of mutual anguish for the crew. The situations we had all suffered heavily through were held up for inspection for what they were, and the crew, viewing these, were able to discharge enormous amounts of charge through laughter. The local area seniors wisely either kept away or joined in the fun. They didn't put a stop to the activity. The only remotely similar activity that went on was a session or two of Group Engram Running, where the Battle of Britain was the #1 candidate for attention. At the start it looked very promising as a mechanism for blowing the charge, just as it sounds great in theory when you read about it. The minions at the bottom had their say, but that held no surprises as we had all lived through the crap. Then it was the turn of two local executives who had been paramount in perpetuating the misery. And the cocksuckers just lied and PR'd their way through it instead of coming clean. A golden opportunity for blowing all that group charge was missed. Then it was 1977 and the J&D HCOB came out. That was the end of the skits. And that was the end of blowing the group charge. A similar thing happened with me personally at ITO around 1992 or so. I had written a couple of poems for the daily OODs (Orders of the Day). There was a push on people getting enough sleep and attending staff study instead of staying up all night on post and then continuing through the next day. One poem I forget most of, but another one had a last verse that ended off something like: Izzy-Wizzy's always working Izzy-Wizzy thinks he's hot ... oh! Oh! Where'd he go? Izzy-Wizzy's just been shot. My intention was to point out that if the people who stayed up all night on post were to get fully hatted for their posts, they would become more efficient and be knowledgeable enough to get rid of the dev-t they were handling and then they wouldn't *have* to stay up all night. And the end result of being unhatted was being taken off post, comm-ev'd, RPF'd, disgraced, whatever--the "being shot" in the poem. A few staff complimented me on the poetry, including a senior exec in one of the orgs concerned. I like to think more staff came to study as a result. Then it came down the lines that IG Admin had seen them and was not pleased as it was "degrading" to the Flag Bureau and I had to bow and scrape like shit to avoid getting taken off post for being a J&Der, and I did "conditions" and ... Suffice it to say that never again did I dare to try and blow group charge like that. It wasn't worth the hassle. So, back to the present. This isn't an identical situation. I've already made my comments about what I think of the usual symbology, and with this post too I have nothing further to add. There is more to the subject of "joking and degrading" than there appears at first sight. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 041 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 20, 2004 9:52 pm Subject: Basic Elements of Standard Tech {PLAIN} BASIC ELEMENTS OF STANDARD TECH "Intelligence" can be defined as the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. There are different groups and individuals, both in the CofS and in the FZ, saying the tech as delivered in one place is more standard than another. This has lead to friction. It has never been clearly laid out exactly what "Standard" means, except in terms of glib phrases. These sound good, and might get you through a star-rate checkout, but don't help in trying to understand how one flavor of FZ Scn differs from another. I have compiled the first draft of a list of the basic elements that could be considered to make up Standard Tech. My intention, after adequate discussion among intelligent and highly-trained FZ people on various e-mail lists, is to end up with a list of "features" that could be used as a checklist to differentiate among the different flavors of tech available in the FZ. As an example, those who have not been doing CBR tech, might think of the RO people as a bunch of weirdos. But on inspection, it could be that the two might have 98% of their points of standard tech in common, and only differ on 2%, and that 2% is the cause of all the contention. It could be that a new group, "Ronology", claims to be an offshoot of standard LRH tech, but a closer inspection shows that Ronologists only share 43% of the points in common with the guys who consider themselves the most standard. This list can also be used to rate the current C of S technical standards against well-known LRH materials. It could also be used by an individual practitioner to see how "on-source" he is, although it is not really designed for that. "Standard" is here empirically defined as "as is familiar to many from observing what was generally considered as LRH standard in the C of S when they were there." Roland wanted to discuss "other techs" on a particular "Standard Tech" list. I did this long list of basic elements as I don't really know what is being considered as "Standard", and I can't sensibly discuss "other" without being at square 1 first. I would appreciate comments and suggestions so I can prepare a better list. "It's too damned long" would not be a helpful comment! {/PLAIN} Thanks, Paul {PLAIN} Here is the first rough draft in no particular order: 1. Source materials pre-1982 (books, issues, tapes) generally upheld 2. Materials issued since 1982 generally ignored [NOT CofS STD] 3. Auditor's Code, especially no inval/eval in session 4. No hypnotism, no drugs, all non-invasive and done with pc consent 5. TRs OT-TR0 to TR4 6. TRs 6-9 7. Assessment TRs 8. Communication Cycle 9. Auditing Communication Cycle 10. Repetitive Auditing Comm Cycle 11. Model Session per 1978 HCOB, including Hav where needed 12. Full Scn CS-1 is done on new Scn pc 13. Full Dn CS-1 is done on new NED pc 14. Full clearing of commands is done per the HCOB 15. Full clearing of word lists is done per the HCOB 16. Checklist for setting up a session is fully done 17. A person different to auditor does pc exam after session 18. A person different to auditor acts as C/S 19. Auditor or C/S do not do actions above their training levels 20. Grade Chart is basic pc program and dominant program 21. Grade Chart: Purification RD or equivalent 22. Grade Chart: Introductory/Basic 23. Grade Chart: Expanded Grades and NED/Alternate Clear Route 24. Grade Chart: State of Clear/Sun RD immediately follows 25. Grade Chart: Solo Course and OT 1, 2, 3 after Clear 26. Grade Chart: OT DRD after OT 3 27. Grade Chart: Audited NOTs after OT 3/4 28. Grade Chart: Solo NOTs after Audited NOTs 29. Grade Chart: An OT 8 after Solo NOTs, but variable/unspecified 30. Grade Chart: Original OT4 not run 31. Grade Chart: Original OT5 not run. 32. Grade Chart: Original OT6 not run 33. Grade Chart: Original OT7 not run 34. Case: Dianetics forbidden on Clears and OTs 35. Case: Actual GPM's never directly addressed 36. Case: Implant GPM's only run per regular tech on NED, CC/OT2 37. Case: Implant GPM's never addressed with 60s tech (R2-12 etc.) 38. Case: No gain attempted but for unburdening and entity deletion 39. Case: Pc attests to state obtained by ability gained, after C/S OK 40. Non-Interference Area between OT 1 and OT 3 41. Non-Interference Area while on OT DRD 42. Non-Interference Area while on Audited NOTs 43. Non-Interference Area while on Solo NOTs 44. Confidentiality of upper-level rundowns enforced 45. Pc Indicators taken note of in case programming and running 46. Don't mix rundowns or repairs 47. Dianetics: Run per Book 1, or 48. Dianetics: Run per R3RA on NED 49. Dianetics: R3R or variations [NOT CofS STD] 50. Various additional actions and repair actions available 51. Major actions never run twice [STUPID if missed the first time] 52. LRH processes not on Grades etc. not used (e.g. mock-up processes) 53. Super-Power is not yet released 54. Use of Auditing Prepared Lists 55. Use of Correction Prepared Lists 56. Light touch on rudiments 57. Use the major action to run the case 58. All major actions flattened to no Tone Arm Action 59. Auditing done in brackets/four (or more) flows 60. A single tech/policy issue authority 61. A C/S using the C/S Series 62. Use of a Qual, cramming etc. 63. Auditor audits one pc at a time in a formal session 64. In group auditing, several at a time, but still formal 65. Ethics--Tech--Admin 66. Auditor Admin Series for session admin/pc folders 67. Each level contains specific processes 68. Process commands are standardized and almost unvarying 69. Processes are never invented, but only taken from usual sources 70. Broad workability of tech 71. Different auditing styles for different levels 72. Assessment for what to run next by meter 73. Assessment for what to run next by pc interest 74. Don't run uncharged subjects/items (use buttons too) 75. F/N Everything (includes Rehab Tech) 76. Run as many processes as needed to reach the stated EP. 77. The stated EP is attainable by all. [NOT ALWAYS TRUE] 78. ARC and the Tone Scale 79. Axioms/Logics accepted as-is 80. Regular skin galvanometer-type meter and cans 81. Usual meter reads 82. Study Tech 83. Student Hat a pre-requisite to major courses 84. Courses run per WIAC PL 85. Course Sup expert in Sup Tech, not subject being taught 86. Instructor expert in Sup Tech AND subject taught [NOT CofS STD] 87. Drilling done pre-GAT [NOT current CofS STD] 88. Rote drilling done post-GAT [NOT LRH STD] 89. Word Clearing Tech per W/C Series 90. Auditor learns mostly by auditing and cramming 91. Verbal Tech is tromped on hard 92. Short runway into the chair [NOT CofS STD] 93. Unmetered auditor courses: Self-Analysis, Objectives etc. 94. Non-level metered courses, Method 1 Co-audit etc. 95. Standalone Hard TRs course 96. Standalone metering course 97. Academy Levels = Short practical courses [NOT CofS STD] 98. SHSBC theory = All the theory and philosophic background 99. BC prac. = Enough auditing to get superb, all actions below Clear 100. Class VIII = True Auditing Basics; OT Level repair 101. Voluntary internships after courses 102. Auditor certs expire after 1 year if no internship 103. Unmetered auditing for some actions 104. Qual corrective actions like False Data Stripping 105. Co-Audits possible below Clear 106. Non-professional co-audits not possible above OT3 107. Field auditing is encouraged [NOT CofS STD] 108. LRH materials as available as publishing tech allows[NOT CofS STD] 109. Confessionals part of Grade 2, not followed by Ethics 110. Miscellaneous confessionals where needed, no ethics 111. Miscellaneous confessionals, followed by Ethics [NOT LRH STD] 112. Mandated 6-month checks on Solo NOTs [NOT LRH STD] 113. Confessionals done for the group, not the pc [NOT LRH STD] 114. O/W write-ups are OK, but followed by Ethics is not mandatory 115. PTS handling as needed 116. PTSness to CofS terminals not allowed [NOT LRH STD] 117. Real SP defined by case study of TA action and 12-points behavior 118. [False] SP defined as big annoyance to Management [NOT LRH STD] 119. SP declared and broadly published 120. Someone intimately connected to real SP not allowed auditing 121. Enforced disconnection from a False SP [NOT LRH STD] 122. Actions normally audited by another are not done Solo 123. Clear adjudication is only done by a very qualified C/S 124. Solo Auditing is done under a competent C/S 125. Actions are not completed until student/pc is satisfied 126. Auditor studies/drills any action before running it 127. Adequate theory backs any auditing action 128. The philosophy of the subject is fairly self-consistent 129. Org-type Admin: Exists but not delineated here 130. Pc folder data strictly confidential [NOT CofS STD] 131. Pc discouraged/forbidden to discuss own case 132. Pc does not view own folder except separate solo folder on solo 133. KSW = Tech considered complete and no further research necessary 134. Other tech (Revenius etc.) banned even though on solid grounding 135. Discussion of subject forbidden! [NOT LRH STD] 136. Rightness of organization asserted and enforced [NOT LRH STD] 137. Perceived enemies of organization attacked relentlessly [STUPID] 138. No off-line case actions; doctor etc. needs C/S OK 139. No mixing practices 140. No other practices while on-lines 141. No self-auditing of processes but for correctly C/S'd OT Levels 142. Org enforces mores on public that don't affect case [NOT LRH STD] 143. Coffee-shop auditing of intro/demo type processes OK on new people 144. Scn is targeted towards making the able more able 145. Reward upstats and penalize downstats 146. Decency and compassion are subordinated to 144 and 145 [STUPID] 147. No-one other than LRH is an authority on anything [STUPID] 148. LRH is never wrong about anything, ever [STUPID] 149. LRH tech/policy subordinated to Int Mgmt orders [NOT LRH STD] 150. Real illegal pc's ("IP") are not accepted for processing 151. False IP (e.g. guy who spoke to a psych once) banned [NOT LRH STD] ********** {/PLAIN}






Message 042 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:48 pm Subject: Re: Basic Elements of Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > Actually I didn't want to restrict communication about > "other techs", not quite the same thing, and out of > concern for the fundamantalist attitude people tend to > get. {PLAIN} Sorry, I missed the nice difference. >I think that Scn tech speaks for itself, and > doesn't really need to fear other ideas. The problem comes in when you get things like the below. I'll take a fairly safe example, the Revenius Super-Power materials. I was hiding when these first came out, and didn't follow any real-time discussions going on anywhere. These would not be considered as regular LRH tech, as they were published in no HCOB or tape. They come from a highly-thought-of source, and they appear to be based on LRH materials, and they look like they could be very beneficial if run properly. A discussion about whether the Revenius materials could be considered to be Standard Tech right now would be premature, as there aren't voluminous reports as to the workability in real life of the processes. But let's say it is two years down the road, and thirty people have been run on them. Of those 30, 8 were not yet clear and 20 were through Solo NOTs, say. The 8 didn't really get a whole lot out of them; 19/20 Solo NOTs people were blown away, and 1 was sick and shouldn't really have been running them as he wasn't set up. It would be reasonable to say, "OK, great bunch of processes, they result in the ability of ___, pre-req is through Solo NOTs." Per AN INTRODUCTION TO STANDARD TECH, "Standard Tech isn't what I say it is. It's what works." (LRH) So what now? We're two years down the road. We have some tech that wasn't written in LRH's lifetime that works wonderfully, and is fully deserving of being called "Standard Tech" per the LRH definition just above. A Standard Tech fundamentalist might be having problems right around now ... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 043 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:56 am Subject: Course Supervision and Misunderstoods {PLAIN} COURSE SUPERVISION AND MISUNDERSTOODS Don't read this if you're not well-rested and well-fed. And if you get to the end when you weren't, don't say I didn't warn you. Around 1988, I was posted in New World Corps as the "Sec-Checker School Theory Supervisor." I had been supervising for a while, and had been idly wondering about the attestations at the end of the course. They varied slightly from checksheet to checksheet, but were usually something like: Student: "I attest that I have no misunderstoods on the course materials, and can fully apply them." Supervisor: "I attest that this student has fully completed the checksheet, has no misunderstoods, and knows and can apply the course materials." All fairly routine. Everyone is familiar with these attest lines as we have all signed them off without too much thought. I had been doing a minute study of the word-clearing series, just to make sure it actually said what I thought it said. I had been reading those issues very carefully. Very, very, very, VERY carefully. And yes, they did say, without equivocation, that one should not go by ANY misunderstoods. I had heard gruesome stories about how the occasional student in the International Training School across the hallway had been discovered to have gone past a misunderstood, and it was a big deal, and he had to go back to the beginning of {/PLAIN} {JOKE}his existence as a thetan or something....{/JOKE} {PLAIN}Terrible stuff. Well, that's what it said. Did I dare to actually apply what it said? I was kind of a wimp at the time, and not at all happy to be up at that level of the org board, with inspections every month from the Senior C/S Office and so on. But I figured I couldn't get into too much trouble for exactly applying what a whole slew of HCOBs said. It's not even as if it was a questionable tech point--no-one at all was arguing that it was OK to go by a misunderstood word in anything you were studying. It's an "everybody knows" kind of thing. OK, so with some trepidation, off I went. I told my existing students that I was going to apply something exactly, and I showed them the attest lines at the end of the checksheet, and I said that since I had to attest that the student had no misunderstoods, I was going to do my best to make sure it was true. Just to make it finite, I said that the way I was going to implement the new regime was this: I would give the student a check on KSW1. I was going to ask him to define up to ten words in a row on KSW1 (i.e. pass ten words in a row and he's done with me). If the student passed the ten words, I would assume he could clear words properly and I wouldn't hound him after that. I would give spot checks later on in the course, but it wouldn't be in the same manner. I gave the same R-factor to new students too. No complaints, that all seemed very reasonable, and they'd all been passing star-rates and M4's and even M9's on KSW1 for years, so what the hell was the big deal. First student. I didn't even hide the issue from him. I pointed to the word in the first paragraph, so he could see it in context. I wanted the definition of the word I was pointing at in the way it was being used right there and then. Sup: "OK, what is the definition of the word 'type' right here [pointing at "corrections in this type style"]. Student: "Oh, it means, er, "kind". Sup: "Flunk. Look it up. Restudy the first page of the issue." I wasn't even bothering to flunk a one- or two-second comm lag. Student comes back ten minutes later. Sup: What's the definition of the word 'type' here? Student: (Gives the correct printing definition). Sup: "Good. Sentence... Good. What is the definition of the word 'has' here? [Pointing at "Neglect...has caused great hardship"]. Student: "Um, it means 'possesses'". Sup: "Flunk. Look it up. Restudy the first paragraph." Student comes back half an hour later looking a little bit less cocky this time. Sup: "What's the definition of the word 'has' here? Student: (Fumbles through the definition involving the grammatical construction of the perfect tense). Sup: "Good. Sentence... Good. What's the definition of the word 'on' here? [Pointing at "...great hardship on staffs" four words after the last flunk.] Student, with some relief as he always passes this one on a star-rate checkout: "It means 'having to do with'". Sup: Flunk. Look it up. Restudy the rest of the sentence. Student comes back one minute later with a dictionary, pointing to the definition that he gave me, to protest. "See, look, that's what I told you." Sup: "Yeah, but it doesn't mean that the way it is being used there in that sentence. Look at it again." Student looks, and eventually he realizes that it doesn't and the flunk was completely valid. Usually he caves in somewhere around here, on realizing that "on" has twenty definitions, and there are probably at least twenty words, maybe fifty, on that page that he can't exactly define in context. And maybe his confront is up to realizing that it has been the same on every single page of every issue he has ever studied in his entire life. And nobody ever caught it before. Everyone's been glibbing their way through every single damn course they have ever done. So he has the cognition. He comes back for the next check from me, just on the first paragraph, a day or three later, looking very hunted indeed, and not at all confident. We repeat the procedure. Maybe he will get one word right and have a win before the next flunk. I deliberately didn't choose easy words. I deliberately chose the hardest words there, usually small common English words, often used in one of their less common usages. I hadn't done Key to Life, but I was fairly literate, and I looked up the words myself beforehand just to make sure. I don't think I incorrectly flunked anyone. Once it was questionable if the student had the right definition, and I took back the flunk after he showed me that his definition could fit although it wasn't what I had in mind. I had people on KSW1 for three weeks or more. Some routed off course because they couldn't hack it. Many were in tears, including long-term excellent HGC auditors. But they couldn't argue with the references showing that they weren't supposed to go by misunderstoods. I continually felt terrible, almost in tears myself. It seemed to me that what I was doing was suppressive. I was sure that there was a confidential bulletin on the Key to Life Course, which was being piloted across the hall at that time, that said that it was impossible for people who hadn't done the Key to Life Course to fully define these small words, and one should turn a blind eye to their failure to pass a thorough checkout on them. Years later, after I did the KTL Course and the KTL Delivery course, I found to my surprise that there was no such issue. My seniors at New World Corps knew what I was doing, but none of them told me to knock it off. Several students got through KSW1 eventually. I let them continue with the checksheet, and didn't push so hard after that. I figured if they could get through my checkout on those words, then they deserved to get through the rest of the course unhassled to the same extent. I was full of admiration for those who got through. I was one tough son-of-a-bitch on those checkouts, even ignoring a short comm-lag. After a month I had an inspection from Jeff Walker. I think he was Deputy Senior C/S Int at the time. He had inspected my course room before, but not since I had started my new kick. He looked over the checksheets and at the student progress, like on the same issue for a month. He had probably heard reports of what was going on. He just said to me gently, "Get them through the checksheets, Paul" and walked out. Now, I have had about four tech correction type things from Jeff Walker. Each of them has been spot-on, and I have been very impressed with his tech and his dealings with me personally. So he said that to me, and I said, "Screw it." I was having a big problem for a couple of days, because I knew I should get the students through their checksheets, but also I knew they weren't supposed to go by misunderstoods, and the only way to get anywhere remotely near to doing that was something like what I had been doing. There were only two students who got through my KSW1 checkout on the first or second try. They were both Key to Life grads. Craig Wright and Rick Siegel, if anyone knows them. I was impressed! I resolved my dilemma thus: 1. It is probably impossible for a student who has not done KTL to study anything without going past at least 20 misunderstoods per page. 2. I am going to use as a benchmark, "Can he apply the materials?" If he can't, I will clear up mu's to the point at which he *can* apply the materials and leave it at that. To find and clear mu's just for the sake of it is soulless and almost suppressive. 3. The people who write checksheets are just as glib as the students who went through my course room, and the attestation section is impossible as stated and no-one except me realizes it. And that is what I used for the rest of my supervisor life. I didn't make a big deal out of it. What was the point? It was just amusing to sometimes supervise in the OEC/FEBC courseroom downstairs at ITO. There it's a real big deal if a student went past a misunderstood. A real big deal. Back to the beginning of the OEC volume under study at least, maybe previous volumes as well. Weeks of Method 2 word-clearing. Very serious. And most of these guys didn't even have English as a native language! The whole scene is unbelievably, fucking crazy. And you thought you were a good student? {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 044 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 11:10 am Subject: Re: [formerscio] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods --- XXXX wrote: > > I suppose what you were doing was essentially what KTL > and M-1 w/cing are supposed to do (though the latter > mostly doesn't), and what really one's education is > supposed to provide. {PLAIN} M1 W/C originally, per "Talk on a Basic Qual" tape, was designed to get the whole track E/S's out of the way, so that the student doesn't spend 25 hours trying to clear the word "the" because it is hung up on the word "glpfg" a million years ago. Maybe someone who has the tape or a transcript could supply the actual quote as I don't have it. Somehow this got twisted into a hundred or two hundred hour marathon where the student clears up mu's at great length in this lifetime's subjects studied. The EP is stated as "Recovery of one's education" or something. That latter is in an issue published as an LRH issue, but I have my doubts as it looks like a PR/Marketing thing now whereas it originally wasn't. Just my opinion. KTL is a long, hard slog and is often quickied. I found that most KTL graduates, like those who hadn't done KTL, couldn't define the "of" in "Church of Scientology", for example, some months after graduation, although their general comprehension level was vastly improved. (Hint: it isn't really "having to do with" although you could probably get away with that in a normal checkout). > One clear example to me is the expression "no joy" > which LRH uses as part of the instructions in some > correction list (L3RH, maybe?). He says, "If no joy, > (do something else)". In my youth, this expression > was fairly common, and means "if that doesn't work". > But getting Americans to beleive that rather than "If > not deliriously happy" was a definite uphill struggle. I laughed at that one, as an old Brit supervising mostly American kids. I used to use the Concise Oxford dictionary a lot, as it contains a very large selection of English idioms. Under "joy", for instance, it says, "3. Brit. colloq. satisfaction, success (got no joy)". > When one is in fact educated, has long been interested > in words and derivations and their history, has had > hundreds of hours of M-1, it still takes quite a bit > of awareness to realize that others just don't know > things to the same depth, and this can leave one at > the effect of others' misunderstandings. Yes. A useful reference on this is W/C Series 66, CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING. Part of it is, "People who have no idea of concept get bogged into terms and mechanics. They can't operate at the level of concept and are extremely literal...People who are literal rather than literate simply haven't achieved conceptual understanding." The origin of the "Ronbot" problem. > BTW, what does "had" mean in that last sentence, and > why did I use it? What is that grammatical > construction called? Paul knows, I'm sure. One of my favorite questions, not in the course room, but to people outside who fancy themselves as being very literate in English, is: "What part of speech is the word "No" on that "No Smoking" sign over there?" {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 045 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:11 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Coffee and pasteries in the main lounge --- XXXX wrote: > But if you look at Paul's long list it is clear it isn't all > assimilated in a minute and many less trained people are still > struggling with what they really mean or talking about. > > XXXX {PLAIN} Partly my doing as I wanted to compress each point to fit onto one line. If anyone is too confused about any particular points, and is interested enough to open their mouth about them, I'll happily amplify on anything. Just one request: if there is a question, please ask it on the "Basic Elements..." thread and not this one. {/PLAIN} Thanks, Paul






Message 046 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:31 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] HCO Bring Order!! --- XXXX wrote: > > I think its time for friends of Ralph and Pierre to step in! {PLAIN} Oh, I don't know about that. If you know about a huge bomb blast coming your way in time to do something about it, you open all the doors and windows of the house, put the china on the floor and wait. W--H--O--O--S--H!!!!! The air rushes through. You wait a bit. W--H--O--O--S--H!!!!!! The air rushes back through the other way. You wait a bit more for things to settle down. Then you put the china back on the shelves, pick up the few bits and pieces that blew around, do a bit of dusting, then get back to reading your book. Of course, if the bomb lands directly on you, that handling won't work. But very few people actually sustain a direct hit. It's like a hurricane. You don't try and stop a hurricane, or change its course. If you're human you shelter underground. If you're a tree you bend. Stuff that can't bend or shelter gets trashed, unless it is very robust. When the hurricane blows out, you yawn and go back to fishing. If you try to move the hurricane somewhere else, you're toast. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 047 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:49 pm Subject: Bye and thanks for all the fish {PLAIN} Hi guys, I'm withdrawing from FZ Elma about five minutes after I send this. I'll still be on other groups. {/PLAIN} All the best, Paul






Message 048 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:50 pm Subject: Bye and thanks for all the fish {PLAIN} Hi guys, I'm withdrawing from FreezoneFriends about five minutes after I send this. I'll still be on other groups. {/PLAIN} All the best, Paul






Message 049 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:19 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods --- XXXX wrote: > > Well, the phrase is clearly short for "There is no > smoking allowed in this here place." {PLAIN} All that you said--and I snipped--is perfectly true, Roland. But I think that in the phrase, "No Smoking", "No" is a verb. Whatever the dictionary says. Imperative mood. With the meaning of, "Don't engage in". If it can even be separated out from the phrase. I think it can, as above. The KTL Sup at ITO, John McGurk, who lived and breathed this stuff all day every day for five years or so, thought the phrase could not be chopped up like I did. I just checked in my trusty Concise OED and it agrees with John, giving an action definition similar to the ones Roland mentioned. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 050 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] FLAMES, ATTACKS AND GAMES CONDITIONS --- XXXX wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:53:56 -0700 (PDT), Paul Adams wrote in > <20040620085356.17401.qmail@web53310.mail.yahoo.com>: > > >Now, I know dirty tricks have occurred, and there were gang-bang sec > >checks, and all kinds of crazy stuff. I'm just saying that it > wasn't > >covered in the OSA hat packs that I was involved in putting together > at > >that time. > > > > > So we just have to do with lowtoned individuals screwing up, > with or without going into a bank agreement. Probably emulating a > "winning valence" they have perceived. > > No destructive LRH policy. > > This is a beautiful information to have and a big relief. {PLAIN} I must add something to correct any false impression. The infamous Fair Game cancelation policy merely canceled the practise of using the label "Fair Game", and that is all. It was a PR move, nothing more. The same actions that had been being done against "enemies" were allowed to continue to be done. There were not really additional issues in the hat packs I saw that went into greater detail than what is covered in well-known LRH policies. At least, they are well-known to critics. The hat packs for guys in the Legal, PR, and Intel Bureaus also contained two books, Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and Clausewitz's "On War". Both well-known texts on warfare, and very useful in life too, I might add. Even for little old gentle me. There is more information on all this than anyone could possibly want available on the Web via any search engine, so I won't elaborate. "Ruin him utterly" as a search term works well, if you must wade through the garbage. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 051 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:18 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: scooze me? old fart? --- XXXX wrote: > Hey Paul-still got any of those skits around? > > Probably would blow staff [stuff?--Paul] for some people here! :) > Chloe {PLAIN} All I can remember clearly that is worth reporting is this. On Sea Org Day in 1974 or '75 we had the whole day off. Remarkable at the time. We put on a whole costume musical called "Treasury Island". It took place at Stonelands, a large stone Elizabethan mansion where the SO crew lived, about four miles from SH. There was a large ballroom there, with oak-panel walls and a large stone fireplace, which normally was a mens' dorm. I slept in there with about twenty other guys for seven years. All the furniture was removed; a stage was built about two feet off the ground with rudimentary stage lighting installed; Alex Smith painted a large backdrop; chairs were imported; and we had a show for a couple of hours with an audience of about 100. There were some other items in addition to Treasury Island. There were also games and a roast pig barbecue and soccer and other goodies to pretty much fill up the day with fun. This was the best SO Day I experienced in 23 years. Treasury Island was a take-off of Treasure Island. It was basically about a Sea Org reg tour to a remote Pacific island to collect some money from a prospect and get it counted on the Gross Income stat for that week before 2 PM. I arrived late on the scene, about a week before the event. Someone had just discovered that I could write, and asked me to contribute. Things grew from there and come the night I ended up directing and performing six original songs that I had written. Oh, I sing too. Or I did. My character was the Head Cannibal. My costume consisted of some leaves sewn onto a pair of brief shorts, so it looked like I was wearing only leaves about my loins. And make-up to darken the skin all over. And a large circular-ish metal object on a chain around my neck, that went well with the native mock-up. I had hair then too. Sitting in the front seats of the audience were all the senior execs from the GOWW, as well as from FOLO UK and AOSHUK and SH FDN. My post at the time was Flag Banking Officer AOSHUK, and almost everyone knew me as a strait-laced kind of guy. It made for an interesting first appearance on stage. There were about ten characters total. The songs were performed mostly offstage with me directing, with me as lead and a chorus of four or five. There was a piano and a piano-player, but we had had no rehearsal, and the guy didn't really know the tunes ahead of time. So we sang them a cappella. Rehearsal was very skimpy! None of us were professional or even very experienced singers, but it all went over very well indeed. The first song was an introduction. To make it all simple, with very limited rehearsal time, and because I was lousy at writing melodies, I used well-known tunes and just wrote fresh words. What follows is just a few fragments from memory--I never kept a copy of the script. I think we managed to mimeo it off at the time. I'm sure there's one floating around somewhere in someone's treasured memorabilia. Song 1. Sung to the tune of "The British Grenadiers", one of the most recognizable regimental marches and still a much-loved patriotic British song (as some web-site says about it). We came out here on a Rush P.O.* To get GI** uptrending If we go home with the GI down We'll be had for over-spending Whatever may occur today We'll have to see it through (forgotten)... We're a loyal Sea Org crew (another three or four verses, now forgotten) (some syllables have to be extended to fit the music but I haven't bothered to reproduce that) *Rush PO = Rush Purchase Order, a basically-illegal way of spending next week's income **GI = Gross Income Part of the accompaniment was some people singing "bom...bom...bom" to simulate a drum beating in time with the music. Now that I think of it, the first verse was me bom-bomming my way through the melody to simulate a marching band. A bit of a skimpy marching band. At the end of the song, the rhythmic beat kept going, but segued into a "chhhsh" kind of noise, like a snare drum. It would have been better with real drums, but what the hell! Once this was going ahead and I was confident the rest of the chorus could keep it going, I left the group at the side of the stage (and off-stage), and crept around the back. My intent was to stick my head up over the back of the stage and make an appearance that way. I stuck my head up, but no-one could see me, so I gradually stuck my head and shoulders up until I got an audience reaction. I looked left and right in an exaggerated fashion to make sure the coast was clear, then stood up. I had to stand there for about a minute until the laughter had almost died away, then I thumped loudly on the stage with a big stick I was carrying. More laughter... Thump! Quiet. Then the rest of the cannibal band came on stage, equally sillily made-up. One cannibal (Dave Flood) was wearing dark glasses. {IRONY}Very authentic.{/IRONY} More laughter... Thump! The snare drum was still going, so I used that for rhythm and launched straight into my introductory song. It was "I'm a Cannibal", sung to the tune of Monty Python's "I'm a Lumberjack". I would sing a line or two, then the Cannibal Chorus would repeat them, just like in the Lumberjack song, or as best as I remembered it. I'm a cannibal, and I'm OK I eat human bodies Nicely cooked o'er a big log fire With lovely bloody toddies (Chorus) (Another few verses I forget). Later there were another four songs, but I sang them offstage and I don't remember them now. I have a photograph in front of me, with some of the cast of cannibals, taken during the performance: Me, Floodie, Peter Hill, Hazel Grafton, Carol Beatty, Anna Angel?. And another one of me and Peter taken outside earlier in the day on the front steps of the imposing main entrance to Stonelands, me in costume apart from the make-up, and Peter in regular clothing. My scanner is down right now--I'll post them somewhere one day. Other cast members I recall were Chris Burton as Ben Gun, and Mark Gardner. I don't remember Mark's character, but he distinguished himself by performing drunk and falling off the back of the stage. It wasn't scripted, but no-one seemed to notice. Except Mark. I had all my attention on the songs, and others had written the dialogue anyway, and I don't remember a single line of it apart from Hazel Grafton running on-stage shouting, "Help, help, I've been GRAPED." Someone said, "Surely, madam, you mean 'raped'?" "No, no there was a BUNCH of them." It's not even particularly funny, but since it's all I remember after thirty years I added it to this historical record. The whole day went very well. We put the beds back into the ballroom that night so we could sleep, then completed the move back the next morning. It was Sunday, so we didn't have to be on post until noon. And that was my introduction as a performer to the world. And to me too, astonishingly. I had never done anything remotely similar this lifetime, except to sing a few quiet songs with a guitar in front of three people at most a few times. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 052 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:26 am Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods/M3 --- XXXX wrote: > You commented in reply to another post that you hadn't > had wins out of M-9's or 4's. In fact almost all the > M-4's I've ever seen or had were utter bullshit. A > fair number of M-9's were too, I admit. {PLAIN} I never found M-4 useful and was really shocked once when I got a read on the question! I wasn't good at M-4. Maybe others were, but not me. M-9 was OK, but slow. I would never, ever use M-9 to debug a student. Spot-checking was only useful in finding out that a student had mu's, not in finding out where he was really hung up. I found M-2 impossible, and not for use at all. The only time I did M-2 was when I was forced to by another; never on my own determinism. My favorite method of word-clearing on students as a debug tool was M-3. In competent hands, it is complete dynamite. Yes, lowly Method 3. Example: Student looks dopey. It's an hour into course time and I've just now got to him. I noticed he was dopey earlier, but I gave him a bit of time to see if he could dig himself out. Besides--maybe I've got 30 other students! Sup: "Hi--how's it going?" Student: "Fine. (Social answer)" Since my question wasn't a social question, I would vary it. Usually I would just cut to the chase. Sup: "I noticed you were falling off your chair, and you had been looking fine earlier. Getting enough sleep? How many hours? Well fed?" That would be a few comm cycles, but I'm just short-handing writing it down here. I ask about the sleep as staff would sometimes sneak into course after getting two hours sleep the night before and because they were "tough", they figured they could make it on course. Similarly I would [ask for and] get how many hours, or they might say they slept enough and if you accept that answer you don't find out they only got two hours. In this example, let's assume that he's had enough sleep and food, and he's not wildly out-ruds over being RPF'd tomorrow or something. Sup: "Where were you doing well?' NOT NOT NOT "Where were you LAST doing well?" "Where were you last doing well" is TWO questions in one, and it is too much for a student to answer accurately while in the anaten from some mu(s). Student: (Dully) "I was doing OK at the beginning of this issue here, but I've been on it all morning. I've looked up eight words in it so far." Sup: "OK. But where were you doing *well*?" Student: (Brightens up quite a bit) "Oh, this area was fine." Let's say he's stuck on the first page of an issue, and he is pointing to the last few issues on his checksheet. He got through two inches of checksheet yesterday. Normally this guy studies fine, say. Sometimes you find out he has *never* done well. If that is the case, he's off to Qual but usually he gets to do study tech and maybe a grammar course, and maybe even KTL, until he can finally get to the point where he is doing well on study. For however long it lasts, at least in the future he can find a point this lifetime where he was doing well on course. ("On course" includes school etc.) Sup: "OK. We're going to come forward and find out where you started to run into trouble." I would then fairly rapidly come forward, depending on how far we had to go back to find where he was doing well. Sometimes it's the previous paragraph, sometimes it's ten years ago. I am watching the guy *very* sharply to see the first point he goes a bit anaten, whether he notices it or not. Let's say he gets to the end of the last thing he studied yesterday, and he was doing great. We then get onto this issue he's been looking at all morning. Student suddenly looks dull again. Student: (Looks slightly less dull)" You know, I'm not really sure what "Remimeo" means. I've looked it up before, but I should probably look it up again." Sup: "OK, you can look it up later if you want, but let's finish off what we're doing. We're going to find the point where you started to have trouble." It's phrased like I'm asking his OK or something, but that *is* what we are going to do whether he likes it or not. But it is very, very rare that anyone complains if you're doing it right. I would put his attention on the issue paragraph by paragraph, or line by line (I would usually do this by covering up the issue with a piece of paper below the paragraph I was directing his attention to. In extreme cases, I would cover up the text above the paragraph too). In this way, in this example, we might find out that he wasn't doing well from the first word in the issue. He might offer up five genuine m/u's. Note them if you like, but it would be a God-awful Q&A to stop what you are doing to clear them. You don't give a flying freak that he's noticed an m/u, or even a hundred. You are only looking for one thing--the exact point where he ceased to do well. It isn't a page. It isn't a paragraph. It isn't usually a line. It's almost always a word or a short idiomatic phrase. The datum here, that everyone knows, is that you find out where the student was doing well; then where he started to do not so well; and the m/u lies at the exact tail end of the point where he was doing well. So, we have a student who was doing great right up to the last moment of course yesterday; and was doing badly from the very first moment of course today. No m/u. Well, maybe he's got an m/u on the typist's initials at the end of yesterday. Or it's something about "Hubbard". Even though he's already looked those up as he knows how to do M3 too. Well, maybe M-3's missing something.... NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! There have been 10 hours of life between the end of course yesterday and the start of course today. When you enquire carefully, you find out that he went to a one-hour staff LRH tape play last night after course; he talked to his friends about a basketball match in the dorm last night; there was a long speech from the CO at muster that morning about how the uniforms were looking sloppy and more attention had to be put on them. And he was eavesdropping on a pretty girl's conversation at breakfast just before course. So you look over all this stuff, still using the the basic M3 concepts (two of them, not one) of where were you doing well, and where did you cease to do well. Sup: "OK, tape play, how was that? (I am inwardly wincing as I went to the tape play too, and there were words in there I knew hardly anyone would duplicate, and I'm half working out how I can clear them up as they are pigs to clear on the average student). Student: (Looking bright) "It was fine, actually." And we would poke around for a bit, and finally come up with the point where he was on the bus riding in to the org that morning and he picked up an m/u from an advertising billboard. That is the point he really brightens up on, VGI's on spotting it. So I'd dig up a definition for him of whatever it was, he'd clear that, I'd make sure there wasn't anything else after (not before) that point, then back to the issue. I would check the other stuff as simply as, "How was the CO's briefing this morning--any attention on that?" (I'm looking *very* carefully to make sure there is no flicker of anaten or concern or confusion). "No, it's fine" he says and I can see that it is, not just because the words "it's fine" come out of his mouth. If the m/u was in his materials, he would just come lightly forward from there. But you can't do that with a ten minute staff briefing, so you have to improvise. The pretty girl's conversation was fine too. If it hadn't been, I always found I could pull the exact m/u out of the guy's head, as long as he was genuinely doing fine up to the point he got it. If you're directing his attention too late in time, in the fog after an m/u, you won't get the *subsequent* m/u's out of his head because he's anaten to a certain extent, but I found you can always get the earliest one. Then when that's cleared up, the next one suddenly becomes visible. And so on. Now he's in PT. He has forgotten that he wanted to look up "Remimeo" again, and doesn't notice as he flies through the rest of the issue and the next few issues. And that is how M-3 is *really* done. None of all I described above is anything other than finding out where he was doing well, and then finding out where he ceased to do well. It took a long time to describe it in minute detail. But the whole cycle above of locating the word could be done in maybe ten minutes. Sometimes it takes two minutes. The one above was an extreme example. He clears the words after that by himself, and he does it just fine. Now, what would have happened if he had gone to a rote word-clearer, who would have given him 5 hours of Method 4, 2, 9 ... and still would never have found the m/u that was causing all the trouble? Any failed students reading? {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 098 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:52 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods/M3 --- XXXX wrote: > > There's a plethora of tools that a supe can use. That's what makes an > excellent supe - she/he knows them all and uses the one that cuts to > the quick, locating the source of a student bog, just as an auditor > should know his/her tools and be able to dig the pc out of any bog > with the right action or correction list. There's even the Remedies > and other metered supervisor actions that are fantastic when properly {PLAIN} Agreed. I wasn't trying to denigrate the other tools, and the other W/C methods. They all do have their place, but not for use by a sup on post in a courseroom with more than a couple of students. I also did hundreds of hours of FDSing on others, but not while sup'ing. One of Al Baker's favorite tools in the OEC/FEBC courseroom was the Hubbard Study Stress Analysis. Basically just sticking the guy on the meter and poking around to find out what was the scoop. He was very good at it. I wasn't totally happy with my metering, and since I got rave results with M-3, I could survive well without it. Al Baker was--and still is as far as I know--a famous sup. Good guy, too. In meter checks, and in M4, I got the odd read on the question about going past mu's, and tracked down the word that read, but since I knew the guy was going past twenty mu's a page anyway, I didn't get all excited about it, all by itself. If the question read on the meter check, then the full procedure had to be followed per the HCOB. If on M4, then that procedure was followed. I don't recall any student, who had reasonable study skills, and was able to come to course well-fed and rested, that I couldn't debug with M3. There were lots who could only manage 5 hours sleep a night, who never made it. There were some who had never ever studied well in their entire lives. They bounced around in and out of Qual and then KTL came out and I never saw them again in my courseroom. I've found lots of mu's using M9 and properly done, it is very useful in its place. KTL and LOC are all done M9, of course. I have supervised a dozen students on the Art Course, and that is all M9 (or it was--I don't know if it still is). At SH, sometimes in the AO Courseroom the only students we had were on the Art Course. The day of the first IAS event at Saint Hill, the Int Mgmt execs came into the courseroom to look around. Fortunately I was helping the sole student at the time, rather than sitting at my desk doing some admin. I assume they didn't know she was doing the Art Course and not Solo Part II or the Philadelphia Doctorate Course, as we never heard about it. Chris, the AO D of T, met the execs. DM already knew Chris from when he had been studying at SH earlier. M2 assumes that if you get a read while reading an issue, it indicates an m/u. "What was the word you just read?" The student says "XXXX", whatever the word he just read was. If there is supposed to be a duplicative read, I never saw one. The RTRC HCOB says the W/C "finds the word that read." How the hell do you do that? If you're flying a rud, and the question reads, and the pc gives an answer, you accept the pc's answer and F/N the rud. You don't say, "Just a minute, I want to check that what you're telling me is the exact thing that gave me the read I saw." So the student says, "XXXX", and you "clear" it, and reread the sentence and continue. If no more reads in that sentence, you assume you got it. Both of you usually know what the procedure is, and the student usually is approaching the M2 with gritted teeth anyway. Random reads, as in the student thinking, "Jesus, I hope we get through this crap in time to catch the last bus"(instant LF), are assumed to be mu's. If you try and be clever, as in, "Did you think of something just then?" "Yeah, I thought "Jesus, I hope we get through this crap in time to catch the last bus'"(instant LF VGI's), now you're screwed. Obviously the read came from that random thought, but the HCOB says you have to find the word that read! Either you falsify the work-sheets (BIG NO-NO), or you do something screwball. In reality, you usually end up picking some word that's easy to clear, and pay lip-service to it. Both the W/C and the student know the game, at least if he's a seasoned SO member in cramming he does. M1 was fairly clear, although sometimes it was mis-C/S'd into an overkill. M3 I've covered very thoroughly. A bit more.... Learning M3 is part of the Student Hat. There was a drill on doing M3 that required a sup pass, and I used to put students through the wringer on that drill. But I can't say I ever trusted students to debug each other. M9, FDS each other, yes. Debug, no. M4 is pretty clear, although in practice it suffers from being too rote. M5 is considered to be really obvious, although I am convinced there is a typo in the last line of the issue. It says, "This method is the method used to clear words or auditing commands or auditing lists." I think it should say, "This method is the method used to clear words *of* auditing commands or auditing lists," as that is what it is used for. It's kinda dumb to say that M5 is the method used to clear words; or it is the method used to clear auditing commands; or it is the method used to clear auditing lists. I e-mailed RTRC once on this, and got back a distempered response that the guy had checked the original and the issue IS what was on the original and I should go to cramming. He probably had to dig through some old files at 2 AM to find the original. Or maybe he lied about it--who knows? I just remember he was pissed, and I remember my sadness at the fact that this stupid wording--that not one other person ever queried that I heard of--would remain intact until the end of time. It's not really M5, but sometimes if I had a new student, I would fairly arbitrarily take the first sentence of what he was studying, and ask him to define one by one each of the first ten words, big ones, little ones, whatever. No-one got ten out of ten. But it gave me a pretty good idea of where the guy was at as a student. I would have him clear the ones he missed on the check, but I wouldn't make a big deal of it. I found M6 interesting and theoretically extremely useful, but not used very much except for a "Key Word List" section on a checksheet. I think I only used it once apart from when it was required as an M6 drill on a checksheet I was doing. It's a shame--it's a lost tech. M7 is abused horribly. It gets corrupted into, "Oh, I can't be bothered to look that up, would you just 'M7' me on it?" In other words, the fact that there is a standard W/C method where one explains the definition rather than having the student use the dictionary, gets completely alter-ised into a justification for using verbal tech. There is also the tacit assumption that the phenomena at work in doing M9 (the student goes past an m/u and at some later point reacts) are somehow magically different to the phenomena at work while doing M7 (the mistaken idea that the student hits an m/u and reacts at that exact point). I think that the Reading-Aloud tech was not fully developed until M9 was researched, and up to that point it had just been used on children or foreign-language students. The M7 HCOB just says, "Correct it by looking it up for him or explaining it to him" without going over exactly what "it" is. Looking over the M7 HCOB as a Professional WordClearer, with the hindsight of knowing all the tech of M9, gives a vastly different viewpoint to the viewpoint one would have had back in 1971. Of course, applying the precision tech of M9 doesn't work on an M7 on a child or foreign-language student either, as he can't normally spot the m/u that caused him to stumble. So there is always this conflict if you are trying to understand rather than just rotely doing the procedure--the kid stumbles on something and it isn't necessarily the word he mangled that is the one he misunderstood, but he's usually not able to find the one he didn't get. Besides, there is no post-M9 HCOB that adds more to the M7 procedure than what is in the M7 HCOB. I resolved the conflict for myself by doing this. When the kid/foreign student stumbled, I would ask him if there was anything there he didn't get. If he couldn't rapidly spot something, I just explained the word (or idiom) at the point of reaction or fairly close before it that I considered him most likely to have misunderstood, checked his indicators and if OK then I carried on. It's not the same as debugging a once-flying student, where you work with BI's and VGI's, not just GI's. It seems that the M7 student's best indicators come in on just getting through the issue. I didn't have much to do with M-8. I didn't personally do the PRD. I supervised a couple of students on it, one in particular. He was on it for several months full-time. (This is Sea Org "cushy" full-time, i.e. 8:30 AM to 10:30 PM, 6 1/2 days a week). He wasn't bogged, or slow, and was just chewing through it by himself without quickying it. Some years later some issue came out saying that all the W/Cing on M-8 had to be done *with a twin*. I figured that would extend the PRD from four months to six months on a super-fulltime schedule, and completely lost any interest I had in doing the PRD personally at that point. And that's all for now. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 099 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 1:19 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods/M3 [THIS POST HAS BEEN DELETED. IT IS AN EXACT DUPLICATE OF MESSAGE 098]






Message 124 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods --- XXXX wrote: > Hi XXXX, > > Please read the many posts carefully. Nobody is > saying that w/cing doesn't work. What we are saying > is that mis-applied wordclearing doesn't!!! > > Paul never found that M-4 was much use: this was > because it wasn't appropriate to use, very often, and > simply didn't do something it was never going to do > anyway. What did work was M-3, because it was the > right method to use most of the time in his > experience. > > I posted that M-4's in particular done for form's sake > are a pure waste of time, as indeed they are. I also > posted that M-4's done correctly when they are needed > give absolutely wonderful results. > > What the tech people on this list are mostly trying to > do is to get real about it all. Starry eyed > "everything is perfect, just apply KSW1 and all will > be well" doesn't cut it. Applying the tech correctly > is part of KSW1!!! when you don't, it doesn't work. > Paul in particular was pointing out how not to apply > tech incorrectly, and how to apply it correctly. That > is how to read his posts. > > Roland {PLAIN} Thank you. Well said. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 147 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:05 pm Subject: RE: [freezoneaoint] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods --- XXXX wrote: > > While it can be some use to point out what did not work, I can only > find it > useful here, if the reason and solution is also given. {PLAIN} If you are referring to something that I wrote, I'm glad to oblige if I can. I like to think I don't have a misguided sense of my own importance or ability--some things I do well and some things I don't. As an example, like I said, I was never totally happy with my metering. If you consider the error(s) to be in one or more of my posts, please point out the exact specifics and I'll try to fix it all up. I'm not above correction. If, after reflection, I wish to let my statements stand as-is, I will say so and why. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 148 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:12 pm Subject: Re: [fzflame] Re: Hey XXXX- --- XXXX wrote: > I know this and have read this stuff already. If I do have a > problem I know how to leave. {JOKE} Have it your way, bitch. Just don't talk anymore about those goddamn fucking kittens. {/JOKE} Paul






Message 149 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 6:06 pm Subject: Re: [fzflame] Re: Hey XXXX- --- XXXX wrote: > > > > Have it your way, bitch. Just don't talk anymore > > about those goddamn > > fucking kittens. > > > I had a pc once who was a very wonderful lady, very > ballsy and so forth, but very keyed in. I was doing a > repair cycle which ended up very well indeed, but in > the course of it she came in one day all broken up and > miserable. > > My DTS (who was herself pretty ballsy and no dewy > flower) got all sympathetic and worried, so I took her > aside and told ther that sympathy was the last thing > this pc needed, and would she go back out there and > treat her like she usually did - so she went back to > the pc and said, "What the hell do you want, bitch?" > and the pc brightened right up and was just fine. {PLAIN} Wonderful story, XXXX. I have found that you can say the most outrageous things to people, and if the tone level communicates, and they can see no malice, they come right uptone and are not in the least offended. But that was not my intent with dear XXXX. It is my opinion that she doesn't belong on this list and will get hurt, but I am not going to forbid her to stay if she wants to. I'm not going to throw her off. The best way to win a fight is to so completely overwhelm your opponent at the outset that he goes instantly into apathy and gives up. If you drag it out he gets tougher and tougher and more and more defiant. You might still win the fight after a long battle, but the damage is much greater, the wounds taking longer to heal. I figured one vicious riposte should work. I prefer the foil to the baseball bat. We'll see.... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 150 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:10 pm Subject: RE: [freezoneaoint] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods --- XXXX wrote: > What I did not agree with was this statement: > " I never found M-4 useful and was really shocked once when I got a > read on > the question! I wasn't good at M-4. Maybe others were, but not me. > M-9 was > OK, but slow. I would never, ever use M-9 to debug a student." {PLAIN} I will just address my statements, and the others can do as they wish. "I never found M-4 useful...": You can't really disagree with that as stated without accusing me of falsifying my experiences. On reflection, I'll leave it as-is. "...and was really shocked once when I got a read on the question!" It was hyperbole, but I suppose it could have been taken literally. But that incident is vivid in my mind to this day. I was so surprised by the LF that I didn't take up the read. A more accurate figure would probably be that out of 500 M4 questions asked personally by me, maybe 5 or 7 read. Why such a low read rate? I suspect that there are several factors. My assessment TR's maybe sucked. My regular TRs are usually very good. I didn't *want* the meter to read. Also, there is a normal expectation on the part of both the W/Cer and the W/Cee that most times it *won't read*, so both tend to go through the motions only. In addition to all this, there is the factor of what the student's attention is being directed to. I'll give an example using M3, as I am better at it. My probing on M3 is basically exactly the same as an M4 question, "Is there anything in your materials there that you didn't fully get?", with the W/Cee's attention directed to a part of the materials. Except I used my own perception rather than looking at a meter. I would start off putting his attention on a large area, and then narrow the target bit by bit. How's bulletin A? (Me directing his attention to the exact bulletin). It's all right. OK. How's issue B? It's fine. OK. How's issue C? Well, not so hot. All right. How's the first page of issue C? Fine. OK. Page 2? No problem. OK. Page 3? (Page 3 is open and he's looking at it while I ask the question). Not so good. Fair enough. How's the first paragraph? It's fine. How's the second paragraph? It's cool. How's that illustration that appears next? I found that a bit tricky. I don't understand why they used blue ink instead of green. OK, let's backtrack to the last paragraph. How's the first half of the paragraph? (I might be using a sheet of paper to cover up the bits of the issue I didn't want his attention on. It would depend on how confident I was of his ability to focus his attention.) It's fine. OK. Second half? Something in there that's not good. OK, how's this first sentence in the second half of the paragraph here? It's fine. OK. Next sentence? Something fuzzy in there. --Maybe along around now he'll spot the word and go VGI's on spotting it (not after clearing it up, but on *spotting it*). Or maybe not. How's the first half of the sentence? It's fine? OK. How about this phrase here? That's fine. OK. Next few words? You know, (all bright now) there's something about "Wurzels". I know what it means, but there's something about it my attention hangs up on. Very good. Clear it up and study forward from there, and I'll be back in a bit to see how you're doing. I'd check back and he'd be doing fine, say, with no problem on the illustration after all. NOW, you could do all of that with Method 4, using meter reads (or lack of), instead of itsa and spotting indicators. Isn't there an issue called "Meter Use in Qual" that mandates such, in fact? Let's continue. "I wasn't good at M-4. Maybe others were, but not me.": Again, you can't really challenge that statement. "M-9 was OK, but slow." I would leave that as-is. Personally I would whizz through M9's. The first time I M9'd KSW1 it took me 6 hours. It was an unwarranted RTC cram on a correct application of LRH policy, and I was protesting doing it a bit. But hell, one doesn't argue with the local RTC rep if one is interested in one's continued survival. Subsequent M9's were shorter. Now I could probably get through the entire issue without stopping once. And that would be with *me* on the other side of the table looking for a hesitation or stumble! But with others it is generally laborious. Remember, I found almost everyone is completely riddled with mu's. If anyone here thinks they aren't, meet me for coffee sometime with an issue of a page or so you think is clean and we'll check it out. M9 picks up some of these m/u's. Why is the person doing the M9? Usually because it says so on the checksheet or cram. If I wanted to thoroughly word-clear someone on a short issue, I would personally ask him to define every single word on the issue in the context it is used in right there. Once that was done, only then would I be satisfied that he had no mu's on the issue. We're being theoretical here, as it never happened in reality, but it could be done. Probably another could do it as well, but I wouldn't trust another to unless I had personally checked out that he himself knew every single word. As an aside, I'm not saying that I instantly know the meaning of every single word in every issue I handle, with no comm lag, in the exact sense as used right there. But at least I know that I don't! Anyway, why the M9? I found it too slow for debug purposes, as long as I had time to personally debug the student. If it was part of a cram, go ahead and do it. It the mu's picked up resulted in the desired improvement, great. If not, then they didn't. M9 doesn't necessarily pick up all the mu's. For proof, come meet me for a cup of coffee and bring along an issue you've M9'd a dozen times (and a good dictionary) and we'll see if I can't find some mu's that you missed. "I would never, ever use M-9 to debug a student." I think I covered that. I'm not saying another isn't welcome to try a debug using M9. I must have given and received over a thousand hours of M9, more given than received. It does find mu's in a high-ARC manner that the word-clearee doesn't protest, as long as it's done right. He knows he stumbled, and he knows per the HCOB he must find an m/u. Anyway, I hope all this satisfies you. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 151 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:21 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Sp building --- XXXX wrote: > Does anyone know if any PART of it is being used? Maybe a back door > that goes up to an area that only admin use, maybe? {PLAIN} Well, the IDEA of it is being used heavily.... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 152 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:32 pm Subject: Re: [fzflame] Re: Flaming --- XXXX wrote: > > what makes ya think we don't mean all of this? {PLAIN} It's like bull-baiting. Bull-baiting is most effective when it's based on truth. Tell a female auditor in session that you masturbated in the shower last night thinking about her walking around flaunting her large nipples--when she *does* walk around flaunting her large nipples, and shouldn't--and just watch her try to keep her TR's in. Not that one should be so out of session as to bullbait the auditor, but sometimes such things come up naturally in the course of the session and there is no way to avoid them. So it is expected that there will be an undercurrent of truth here. It's just kinda pointless to accuse someone's mother of having being rejected by a Bedouin camel-trader when there's no truth in it and the other person has no buttons anywhere close. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 153 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 8:54 pm Subject: Re: [fzflame] Re: Hey XXXX- --- XXXX> wrote: > I think XXXX needs some bull baiting , Paul. *GET HER!~* {JOKE} Sure. Hey XXXX! Are you such a lousy judge of character that you can't do any better than choosing a slimy friend like XXXX? How's that? {/JOKE} Paul






Message 154 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 22, 2004 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [fzflame] Re: Flaming --- XXXX wrote: > XXXX > > BTW. let's come up with some original invective. {PLAIN} Sure. > And has anyone invited Ralph and Pierre? Not directly, although I have mentioned the group in lists they are each on. Ralph posted recently about fz_warfare, a very similar idea to the original conception for fzflame. I didn't check at the time, but I checked a minute ago and no such group exists. I don't know if he created one and later nuked it or if it never existed for real in the first place. It might be useful to have an fzwarfare for real. fzflame has turned into an upscale play-pit, and now I don't want it to be used for *real* disputes. I just created fz-warfare for real between this paragraph and the last. Now fzflame can remain the friendly place it has been since the outset. You can invite them to fz_warfare if you wish. I doubt if either would come. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 155 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:54 am Subject: Too Many Lists: Hello and Goodbye {PLAIN} Hi Guys, I am posting this message to each of the formerscio, ifachat, FreezoneOrg and freezoneaoint lists. There have been opinions voiced recently about too many lists. Some problems: 1. Not knowing who is on what list. 2. Choosing to send the same message to more than one list with the intention of reaching "everyone" with something one considers important. 3. Receiving the same message several times, but not being sure as different messages can look identical before they are opened, so having to open it before deleting it. 4. Some people like to engage in small-talk with their on-line friends. Such people possibly feel uncomfortable doing so in the presence of others who post voluminously on more weighty matters. In a real-life room, the Class VIII's can gather together and chat about whatever Class VIII's chat about; and the people with less experience can chat with people they feel more comfortable with. With one group online, this is not possible. 5. 75% of the members don't post much, if at all. Who knows what they need or want? The lists I have been familiar with, and my opinions about them follow: A.C.T. on Usenet: Too many crazies--there may be some good stuff available, but the high Noise-to-Signal ratio makes it discouraging to find. FreezoneAmerica (not Yahoo): Very wide range of subject matter covered, with a mixture of sane comment and otherwise. One major advantage is that it is a place to float wild ideas that would never be acceptable on a "Standard Tech" (ST) list. fzaoint: A ST list, now in disuse. freezoneaoint: A ST List overseen by Nick and Ralph, with people who feel comfortable there. A venue for major discussion. 86 members, 61 messages in past 7 days. FreezoneOrg: A ST List overseen by bb, with a lighter touch, with people who feel comfortable there. 89 members, 185 messages in last 7 days. ifachat: A ST list overseen by Michael at IFA, with people who feel comfortable there. 57 members, 313 messages in the past seven days. FZElma: A ST list based around the Kreniks, some stuff of local interest, some major discussion. 76 members; 123 messages so far in the past 7 days. Richfriends: Renamed to FreezoneFriends. FreezoneFriends: A ST list, originally for the friends of Rich Hernandez. He chatted a lot. Some serious discussion. He turned the group over recently. 57 members; 77 messages in the past 7 days. formerscio: A ST list started in 1999. 156 members, 37 messages in the past 7 days. There were only 236 messages for the whole of 2003. I don't know who the members are as the member list is restricted. OT_List: A ST list for discussion of topics above Clear/OT3. 47 members; 6 messages in last 7 days. UL_List: A FZ Elma upper-level confidential list, presumably ST. 10 members; 12 messages in the past 7 days. OTList: A Paul Adams list. ST upper-level confidential matters; 7 members; 12 messages in the past 7 days. fzinternational: A Paul Adams list. One member. Purpose not yet defined. fzglobal: A Paul Adams list. One member. Purpose not yet defined. fzflame: A Paul Adams list. Basically a play-pit for people with otherwise impeccable manners who sometimes get tired of being polite and want to have some fun. 6 members; 31 messages in the past 7 days. The original purpose was a place to send people crapping all over one's otherwise genteel list, but it changed. fz_warfare: A Paul Adams list now. Mentioned by Ralph a couple of days ago but it didn't exist earlier today. Earmarked now for the crapper that fzflame never was. fztechrating: A Paul Adams list. Not a discussion group, but a place for people who have personally received service from a FZ tech practitioner to send their reports and have them made available for general viewing. 22 members; no traffic in the last 7 days, but 40 messages in May. fzadminrating: A Paul Adams list. Same as fztechrating, but for admin. No members or traffic yet. paulsfzposts: A Paul Adams list. A list to collect together all my non-confidential messages to various FZ lists. I know that I was sometimes very interested in reading all the posts from a single individual. Ralph was one once. Just in case someone else is interested in reading all *my* scattered posts, I've made it easy. 152 posts so far in the past week; no members. paulsfzotposts: A Paul Adams list. As above but for confidential posts. No members; 7 messages in the past 7 days. No doubt I'll make up some more lists as the urge takes me. **************** The main OT List is OT_List. I don't know what goes on at Pat Krenik's UL_List. I will leave my OTList up for now and will post anything there than I post to the main OT_List. I have my OTList open for now as much as a service for anyone of OT3 case level kicked off the OT_List as for anything else. I have been posting to, and have just looked over, four main "Standard Tech" lists: ifachat, FreezoneOrg, freezoneaoint, and formerscio. I haven't included ICAUSE, as I don't know what goes on there. These four lists each seem to cover the same kind of topic, and each have many of the same people posting to them. The formerscio list has been going longer and is twice the size of each of the others. The freezoneaoint guys don't seem to be oozing with affinity for ifachat and FreezoneOrg. There isn't a Yahoo group that I can see for NON-Standard Tech Scn, which would allow for various off-shoots still based largely on LRH tech, but with more permissiveness. Such a list is covered on the FZA board, but not on a Yahoo group. I don't know how much of an interest there would be in such a list, but I think a heckler-free one should be made available. Accordingly, I now designate fzglobal to be such a list. It is open for business as of this writing. Its address is http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/fzglobal . At the bottom of this post is a list of who made a post to one of the four main groups above in the last three screens of posts recorded in Yahoo groups. You will see that many people posted to more than one of these lists. To cut down on a lot of duplicated effort, I am withdrawing forthwith from ifachat, FreezoneOrg, and freezoneaoint. I will post on formerscio, OT_List, and OTList only of the main groups. I will continue to post to my own groups, those listed as Paul Adams groups above, as before. If you want to see my posts, either join formerscio or join paulsfzposts. I can't stop you cutting and pasting my posts on formerscio to another group, but I will not be seeing any responses posted there. {PLAIN} {JOKE}If I don't see you again for a while, goodbye and thanks for all the fish. {/JOKE} Paul {PLAIN} ADDENDUM List of who posted to the four main Standard Tech lists recently: [deleted] {/PLAIN}






Message 156 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:17 am Subject: Welcome to FZ Global {PLAIN} Hi there, This group is not a Standard Tech group. It is not that Standard Tech is banned, just that nothing is sacred. It is for sensible discussion of existing tech and possible future tech based on well-known Scn principles. There's a lovely LRH quote about this, that says something like Standard Tech isn't what I say it is, but what works. When I find the correct wording and source, I'll post it as a belated Welcome! I would prefer there not to be upper level discussions here, but if you must then do so, keeping it as sanitized as you can. I won't forbid upper-level discussion, but there is no restriction on who may see these posts. Have fun. And let's see if we can have some useful stuff come out of this. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 157 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:19 am Subject: The Thetan as an Energy Source? {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 159 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:02 pm Subject: Re: [fzglobal] An Observation & Request --- XXXX wrote: > > So, does anyone have processes that would handle that criticism? Or > is anyone working to develop such? {PLAIN} As far as I know, the answers in order would be No; Yes. The problem with the first part, telekinesis etc., is that these seem to be fairly upscale abilities as these things go. A small number of people have these abilities to some extent, but it is usually on some automaticity rather than being under the conscious and knowing control of the person. A famous historical example was Daniel Dunglas Home, born in Scotland in 1833, who could levitate his body and hold hot coals in his hand without damage and similar feats. I believe he thought that his powers came from God or some external source, not his own native ability. On the development, you'll probably find many researchers dream of achieving such abilities, not necessarily even in the Scn community. Ingo Swann had some interesting stuff free online last time I looked a few years ago. (Look up Swann's name and "Supermind"). I have read English books about Russian research with titles like, "Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain", but that is from 25 years ago. Interesting data, where people with various OT powers that they had developed in themselves personally, would have training for others to develop such powers in themselves. Things like "seeing color through the skin", where a blindfolded person would be able to reliably tell the color of a piece of paper held in the hand. "Seeing through the skin" is somehow more acceptable to a regular scientist than the existence of a thetan. I haven't heard of an OT school, where you go along and pay your money and some time later you can fly. Although there is a guy, Jack Houck, http://www.jackhouck.com/,who conducts spoon-bending workshops, who seems for real, and has a very high success rate in getting ordinary people to bend spoons with their mind alone. Barbara Brennan is a well-known psychic healer, who heals by manipulating energy fields. She is an ex-physicist, not an ex-tarot card reader. She has a school where she teaches others to do this. Her books, "Hands of Light" and "Light Emerging", are written from the viewpoint of nuts and bolts physics, and do not contain the usual impenetrable esoteric prose. There are lots of fascinating real-looking illustrations about chakras and auras and so forth. She talks about healing involving telepathically communicating with charged terminals connected to her patient, and running out earlier incidents that the charged terminal has, to a resolution for the charged terminal and thus to resolve a problem the patient had up to the point of healing. And similar "OT" abilities. Fascinating stuff, but not really Scientology, for better or worse. And if someone posts an LRH quote that says something about chakras I'll throw them off the list! > Also of potential interest (due to my nickname) would be the ability > to defy gravity (fly) and/or teleportation. Read my site at http://foodreplicator.blogspot.com , starting back in the archives at the beginning for the details on how to build the device. It is kinda based on a device and system developed by Malcolm Rae, an English homeopath and radiesthesia exponent. What follows is with regard to his device and system, not my adaptation of it. Without going into details here, you can use this device to produce remedies, in water/alcohol or in sugar-pill form, of various kinds. These include regular homeopathic remedies, Bach flower remedies, gem remedies and so forth. I have a couple of hundred of these, out of a possible total of over 20,000 (not a typo). Three of the two hundred are "Gravity--[Uncreated Substance]"; "Gravity: Non Use, Abuse & Misuse of"; and "Gravity: Unbeneficial Effects of". I would like to be able to fly too. An unfulfilled dream of mine for many years. After extensive research, I believed enough in his system to invest some $800 of my own hard-earned money in the paraphenalia concerned. So far, I can't fly, but I haven't given up hope. I've stopped experimenting for the past two weeks as it was too rough on my heart, but I'll resume again when I have the nerve. You can probably tell from my other writings that I am not a complete dingbat. At first glance the whole idea of Rae's device seems preposterous, but on investigation it more and more enters the realm of possibility. Curiouser and curioser. > I even remember an LRH > Quote having to do with a theoretical possibility for time travel. That is contrary to my memory. I remember a quote saying it is *not* possible, at least not possible in the normal MEST sense of time travel as commonly shown in sci-fi novels or movies. Or even poems. Possible in a theta sense, yes. Have fun! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 160 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Course Supervision and Misunderstoods/M3 --- XXXX wrote: > > (hand raised high in the air in response to that question) :-) > > That was very interesting stuff. I'd never looked at M9 [M3-ed.] quite that > way > before. What I HAVE noticed though, was how useful that procedure in > > general is on life situations, not just regarding words. I use it > ALL the > time for that. Anyone who complains about an issue, I often ask them > to go > back to when they were feeling normal and move forward to when that > condition started. Whatever it was that was causing the problem will > show > up there, whether it be some tainted food eaten at a restaurant, or a > lack > of sleep, or encountering someone he was PTS to, or a tragic event, > or > something else. This method seems so simple and common sense, but > it's not > in common use in the wog world. Locating the source of the problem > (like > eating foods one is allergic to) and eliminating that is a lot easier > and > simpler than compounding the problem by adding a "solution" on top of > that > (like taking medications to counteract the allergy caused by the > particular > food). > > XXXX {PLAIN} Now that is very interesting, XXXX. Thank you very much. I shall discuss it further, but not now. I'm just tidying up an e-mail backlog. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 161 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:17 pm Subject: Re: [fzglobal] Re: An Observation & Request --- XXXX wrote: > --- In fzglobal@yahoogroups.com, XXXX > wrote: > > I've observed that one of the biggest sore-spots with some anti- > > Scn.'s is that processing doesn't lead to demonstratable gains in > > ability. Clears can't move a coffee cup with telekinesis, people > > don't routinely walk through walls, or communicate via telepathy > > instead of email or phones, and no processing has made people > > bullet-proof. > > > > > That's true. However, there is one BIG ability that could be > gained with SCN processing. It is covered in the booklet > "The Dynamics and the Tone Scale", and basically has to do > with personal growth across the dynamics. > > Maybe LRH's example with the husband and wife who BECOME > the second dynamic is a little trivial, but the same idea > carried to the next higher dynamics has an enormous potential > and, in my opinion, would be worth much more that any > superman stunts. > > One open question for me is how to program a PC for such > a gain in ability with SCN standard tech?? {PLAIN} I remember ordering that booklet from Pubs DK around 1976(?) when it first came out. I excitedly tore open the envelope a week later to reveal, "Die Dynamiken und der Tonskala" or whatever it was! The dynamic processes that I recall off-hand from the CofS were Int RD by Dynamics; Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics (not really a process); on the RPF there were long FPRD lists by dynamics (5th Dynamic List etc.); there are probably others. I can't think of any general standard approach to handling different dynamics. Were XXXX to become part of this list ... Also, I don't know about the "SCN standard tech" bit, but were XXXX a member of this group, I'm sure he would be jumping in here around now.... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 162 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 6:22 pm Subject: Re: [fzglobal] Re: An Observation & Request --- XXXX wrote: > > I have a daughter to whom these things just "happen". > > She is not only very easily communicating to spirits, > she also has books jumping out of shelves, food moving > in the plate, and similar things happening around her. > > She never had any formal processing, and I should > mention that she feels not really comfortable with > these strange events. In some cases, I had to keep > her on the phone for an hour to calm her down. {PLAIN} That is fascinating. How old is she? You must get a lot of unasked-for advice on "how to fix her". Do you mind? [Paul itches to come forth with more of it]{PLAIN} {JOKE}("Get DOWN boy!" Thwack!){/JOKE} Paul






Message 163 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:13 pm Subject: Course Supervision and Misunderstoods/OT3 Part 1 {PLAIN} Course Supervision and Misunderstoods/OT3 Part 1 There is nothing confidential in this article. It relates to the non-confidential part of OT3 and reveals less of what is on OT3 than the RJ67 tape. When I first started to supervise OT3 at Saint Hill in the early 80's, Chris Burton, the AO D of T and an old hand at the game, told me a good word to spot-check on people doing OT3 theory. I had done OT3 theory in 1979 or 1980, and the checksheet then had KSW1 and Tech Degrades, then straight into the juicy stuff. Sometime between then and the time I started sup'ing, the checksheet broke into two, with the juicy stuff coming in Part Two after a week's worth of Part One. Part One didn't have any confidential materials on it and consisted of fare like RJ67 and "The Nature of a Being" HCOB, as well as some meter drills and Dating and Locating theory and drilling. It was during this part of the checksheet that this particular "Fun With Wordclearing" took place. There are some concepts vitally important to gaining a clear understanding of what OT3 is about. The main non-confidential ones are covered in this post. Fully 85 or 90% or more of OT3 students got this all horribly wrong. You probably won't believe this unless you ask the same questions of regular people around you. I certainly didn't believe it when Chris first told me until I had asked a few people myself. It goes like this: Sup: What is the definition of the word "star"? OT3 Student: It's one of those little white things up there in the sky. Sup: Yeah, but what is it exactly? OT3 Student: What do you mean? Sup: Just give me a bit more data. Is it, for instance, like little holes punched in the backdrop up there that lets light in from outside, or what? OT3 student: Oh, I see. Well, it's.... And this is where the fun starts. I would get the most *amazing* stories at this point. This is what the OT3 student understood by the word "star", going into OT3. No-one thinks of asking this word of a student on a spot-check, as everybody knows what it means. OT3 Student #1: Oh, it's a little block of ice. OT3 student #2: It's a very big, fiery ball. Sup: How big? What's its diameter? OT3 Student #2: Oh, it's H-U-G-E. Maybe 100 miles across! And so on. But it doesn't stop there. Student looks it up in a dictionary, and comes back to continue. Sup: What's the definition of the word "star"? OT3 Student (glibly): A large luminous body in the heavens, appearing to be fixed in position. Sup: How large? Student: Well, (and here we go again). A dictionary is nowhere near sufficient to clear up the word. Chris and I used to use two different encyclopedias. One was good for clearing up what a star actually was, with a good diagram; and the fact that our sun is a star. That point often got missed somehow. The other was good for showing just how large a star is compared to the Earth; and what a long way it is from the Earth to the sun; and how far it is from one star to the next one; and how huge a galaxy is and how many stars are in it; and how really far apart the galaxies are; and the vast, vast number of galaxies in the incomprehensibly huge space that is just the visible portion of this MEST universe. And don't forget to clear up the size of the Earth too. Most people don't know that either, although they glibly talk about it. They haven't related the "long drive" of 100 miles they are familiar with to the 25,000 miles of the Earth's circumference. Use diagrams! Part of this is clearing up dates, as in 1967. Sup: What's the definition of 1967? Student: It's the year. Sup: What's that mean exactly? Student: (Thinks a bit) Well, it's the number of years since Christ was born. Supposedly. Sup: OK. But what's a year? Student: Um.... So this gets cleared up at the same time while showing pictures of the solar system and the Earth going around the sun. Also clearing up the Earth revolving on its axis and day and night. Not to overdo it, but you know that if you don't do it now it will never happen. After you have cleared up these mu's on a whole bunch of people, it slowly dawns on you that most people walk around with tiny, provincial viewpoints on life that don't extend a whole lot outside their local environments. It's reminiscent of the time when people lived their whole lives without traveling more than twenty miles from their home village. Even though people now view world events every day on TV and talk to friends by telephone in a distant country. And then there are the terms glibly used in dating and locating. "Light-year" can get cleared up at the same time as you are clearing the distances between stars. But then there are all those "gazillion" numbers. If you haven't cleared it up specifically, once you get up into the millions and billions and trillions, it all becomes much of a muchness and the guy's mind just kind of shuts down. I would usually use the idea of "sugar cubes". This is easier for Europeans as the concept of a box of sugar cubes, each cube approximately one centimeter on a side, is familiar. So we start with a theoretical box of sugar cubes, 10 cubes by 10 cubes by 10 cubes, 1000 cubes total. Got it? That one is easy. Then we have a bigger cube, made up of ten boxes by ten boxes by ten boxes. That is 1 meter long by 1 meter wide by 1 meter high. That is 1000 boxes, each of 1,000 cubes. Or a million cubes total. OK? The next cube up is 10 meters on a side, a billion cubes, 1,000,000,000. The next cube up is 100 meters on a side, a trillion cubes, 1,000,000,000,000. The next cube up is 1 kilometer, 1,000 meters on a side, a quadrillion cubes, 1,000,000,000,000,000. I didn't bother to go any higher. This would all usually take an hour or two from the initial idea of little blocks of ice ten miles above the head to a true concept of the real scale of the physical universe, and what the numbers really mean. Time very well spent. Around 1983, something like eight new issues came out on OT3. They were interesting and blew a bit of charge for the people who read them. Chris and I turned this into a service, which we sold for 10 pounds, about $20. The call-in people would call in all the local Scientologists who were OT3 or above for the "OT3 Update Service". They would see the Reg and the Ethics Officer on a fairly painless, normal kind of routing form, then come down to the AO. We would give them a pack of the eight issues. There were two purposes behind this. One was to get the body in the shop, which made lots of org staff happy. We didn't count it as a course completion, but I think the CO counted it as a Div 6 mini-course completion, or something like that. Which was fair enough, although it wasn't technically a course. The other purpose was to get a whole bunch more people to understand what the level was actually about, which made me and Chris happy. Them too! Just having the people read the issues didn't accomplish squat, really. We used to show the issue about all advanced courses materials having to be *rated M4, as a justification for working the guy over to make sure he understood what exactly the level was about. It didn't really apply, but no-one objected. In addition to what we did as described above, we did make sure he really understood what the level was about. I will go into the confidential part of that in a separate posting to the OT_List. We did *rate M4 the people too. Almost one for one, the guy had had no real idea what was going on when he did OT3 the first time through. Almost one for one. You wouldn't believe it unless you saw for yourself. These guys really got their money's worth. It was worth a lot more than $20 for the service, but what the hell, there weren't that many other people in the AO doing real services and it kept us busy and there was all that theta recovered. These guys were VVVGI's when we got through with them. Everybody won. Then after several months, it came out as an "official service". We couldn't continue with what we were doing, as now there was an "official" way of doing it. Of course no-one could get valuable word-clearing and other services for free as it violated HCO PL "Free Service Free Fall", so it died instantly. Fortunately, by that time, we had pulled in and worked over practically all of our local public, so it wasn't the loss it could have been. And that's that. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 164 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 23, 2004 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [fzglobal] Re: An Observation & Request --- XXXX wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:22:48 -0700 (PDT), Paul Adams wrote in > <20040624012248.48110.qmail@web53303.mail.yahoo.com>: > > >That is fascinating. How old is she? > > > She is now 24, a grown-up girl :-) {PLAIN} Oh goodie! I asked because I read that almost always the "poltergeist" phenomena occurs in children only, and when they grow up the phenomena tend to fade away. I am fascinated because possibly she will be able to become at cause over it all, and *that* would be very interesting indeed. > I am not getting any advice, as I am not talking about her > "stuff" very much. Only to people with a brain cell :-) > > As I just said, she usually ignores what I suggest, and follows > the advice of her guru instead. > > Only if she is bothered by a spirit in the middle of the night, > I have the honor to give her a phone session - with all the lower > gradients out, translating technical terms into human speak > on the fly. But I am happy about the trust she has in me. > > > >[Paul itches to come forth with more of it]("Get DOWN boy!" > Thwack!) > > > Oh, I am VERY interested. Go ahead!! Thank you very much. There is a well-known general principle that whatever the pc is doing unconsciously, you have the pc do consciously to take over the automaticity and put it under the pc's control. I discovered this for myself in one particular application before Scn, not the general principle. I found out that a very fast way to cure hiccups was simply to try and hiccup as hard as you can. It usually takes less than a minute to stop the hiccups. All you are doing is taking over the automaticity: it is not necessary to understand what is going on in order to stop the hiccups. With your daughter, maybe it is *her* doing it on some automaticity, or maybe it is an associated being doing it, presumably on an automaticity too. Either way, if she tries very hard to just personally do consciously what is happening unconsciously, the automaticity should fall away. It could happen that it is another being doing it, and the other being might blow, taking the ability with him, and that's the end of it. Your daughter would have to determine if it is worth "taking the risk". I don't know if she considers it a boon or a blessing. Such a demonstrated ability, even though not under conscious control, probably attracts all the weirdos for kilometers around! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 165 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:46 am Subject: Re: [formerscio] Some LRH books I am getting rid of. --- XXXX wrote: > I do apologize about putting this on a public list, I would like to > see a classified webpage in the freezone (maybe that will be my next > project) but until then outflow = inflow, right ? {PLAIN} Excellent idea! Your ad is the first ad in the Yahoo group FZ Classifieds. It is at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/fzclassifieds . Anyone is welcome. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 166 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:11 pm Subject: Roley-Poley Pudding and Pie {JOKE} Hey, You sign yourself off as "XXXX", a male name, but your Yahoo profile lists you as Female. Kinky. Got any interesting tats or piercings to share? I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours, sweetie. While we're in the mood, let me just check some things on my telepathic E-meter: Are you secretly a post-op transexual? x Have you ever audited while wearing leather or rubber underwear? F Hmmm. Have you ever audited while wearing leather or rubber underwear? [Looks up expectantly...] {/JOKE} Paul






Message 167 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:06 am Subject: Re: [fzglobal] An Observation & Request/Food Replicator --- XXXX wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:02:21 -0700 (PDT), Paul Adams wrote in > <20040623220221.59634.qmail@web53302.mail.yahoo.com>: > > >Read my site at http://foodreplicator.blogspot.com , starting back > in > >the archives at the beginning for the details on how to build the > >device. > > > I found some magnets but have no idea whether they are sufficient. > Is there any objective way to determine their strength? > > Also, is there a mailing list for the project? {PLAIN} Hi XXXX, You ask _me_ if there's a mailing list for my food replicator?!!! I sent the invite already to you. Somewhat unsurprisingly, it's the Yahoo group http://www.yahoogroups.com/food replicator. Probably the simplest way to test the magnet strength is to hold them apart from each other and see how close you can get without feeling any pull or push. 1 cm should be fine. I haven't done any testing on what strengths work yet, and none of the other related research seems to make a big point out of it as long as they're not incredibly puny magnets that won't even support their own weight. Don't slide magnets off to the side if you have them together as it reduces the strength. Move them towards and away from each other directly. A few days ago a girl moved into the house I share. She appears to be very energy-sensitive, so possibly I can try different magnet strengths and find out if it makes a significant difference to the potency of the finished electronic food/silver/whatever. She is very interested in the whole thing and she appreciates the energy-rich goodies I have given her. See you on the food replicator list. We can continue there. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 168 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 25, 2004 10:20 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Jokers and Degraders - Let's get serious! --- XXXX wrote: > --- XXXX wrote: > > Looks SP to me.:) What kind of a person would > > delibertly stick > > someone into an engram? > > A fucking idiot. {PLAIN} I'm back. I didn't see what came earlier on this thread, so I'll just comment on what is plainly visible above. I can think of a sensible reason for deliberately sticking someone into an engram. It would be the situation of where the other guy completely pooh-poohs the idea of the existence of engrams or similar, and for some reason you think it would be a good idea to try and convince him at any cost. So you carefully explain what you are going to do, and normally you wouldn't do anything even remotely like it, and get the guy's agreement to do it--as he doesn't think anything is going to happen anyway. You make some prediction about what might happen, and you get his agreement to "do your worst". You then scout around with a meter and find something nice and juicy and engrammic that reads well--you ask him not to say anything of course--and run him through it a couple of times. When you see he's thoroughly in the middle of it, you end off, and tell him to come back and see you if he thinks that what you did possibly has any slightest thing to do with whatever turns on in the near future. Maybe he'll get the point and maybe not. But it comes under the heading of "Any case is better being opened than remaining closed". {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 169 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [fzglobal] Re: An Observation & Request/Dr. Fox --- XXXX wrote: > I read that too, but it seems that in her case it only developed > after she was through puberty. In that context, the Jeff Rense > URL I just gave you was wildly interesting to me. {PLAIN} I didn't check out that URL until just now. Dr. Fox is engaged in very sloppy science and I would discount *everything* she says. Some of it may be true, but unless you have data from elsewhere that backs up what she is saying you have no way of knowing. And since you have to get the back-up data anyway, anything coming from her is superfluous. I doubt her claims about extra DNA helixes being formed as humankind "evolves". Evolution is a dead duck. It doesn't happen. No slur intended, but even LRH talks about the "Darwinian Implant." There is a lot of data on the web about it, if you look for it, and I was convinced evolution wasn't a viable theory even before I read Pye's work. Pye's work is the clincher (put "Pye" and "rachises" into Google and it's the first hit). The woman on Rense talks about evolution towards a particular goal of 1,024 DNA strands or becoming a crystalline being or something. She might as well be talking about shapeshifting aliens from Draco having replaced all the major world figures years ago. And Elvis. How does she know? She also talks about the HIV retrovirus being dangerous. It's not dangerous at all and if it does any damage in the body it is insignificant. There is no paper in the literature showing a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS. Read the works of Dr. Peter Duesberg carefully. I got so pissed off about the whole HIV/AIDS scam when I was looking into it several years ago that I wrote this about it (hence the cross-posting to fzpoetry--don't reply to both forums as once): The HIV/AIDS Scam I'm just a little virus, don't think so bad of me A little retrovirus, to put it properly I'm really pretty harmless-if you could only see But people earn billions, all because of me! They say I do such awful things as you could hardly credit But not a single scientific paper ever said it Some learned guy went through them all and vowed he'd never read it So why would they take my good name and then go off and shred it? It's got so bad not one of my friends will even speak to me And I know we'll see more healthy folks get killed by AZT I need a libel lawyer but he'll have to work for free I'm just a little virus, don't think so bad of me. -- Anyway, don't place any stock in what she says about anything at all. Rense is great. I look at articles on his daily list most days, and have kept up to date on that list for a few years now. I don't accept most of it, but it's good to at least have the choice. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 170 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:20 am Subject: Immortal {PLAIN} IMMORTAL Blow foul, O wind, I tremble not Nor shrink to avoid thy fiery blast Howl, O blizzard, I will not shiver However long thy batterings last Crack doom, O thunder, thy awesome might Brings not upon this soul to bear For I not in mortal flesh reside Thy humbling power to fear I am forever Neither space Nor time's dark well can swallow me And so are you, if truth be known And so are you And so are you... -- Paul, ca. 1980 {/PLAIN}






Message 171 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 26, 2004 9:52 pm Subject: [FZ Flame]Spikey {JOKE} Spikey's so illiterate, His thetan must have missed: How the bleeding fuck Did he find this list? {/JOKE} P.






Message 172 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jun 26, 2004 11:09 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: BOTWO Books question --- XXXX wrote: > After awhile you would end up with a master squirrel list and a > master > IFA recommends list. Distinguishing the differences. :-) {PLAIN} Why? It seems to me to come under the heading of "Distinctions without a real difference". For the most part the changes are very minor. A few phrases are missing from newer versions of PDC tapes where the older versions could be embarrassing to the current management. The Briefing Course tapes to do with study had the GPM stuff edited out of them because it's not relevant to a green-ish person learning how to study. And almost all the time, that's a good idea. I've sup'd lots of people on the Student Hat, and they get on fine with the abridged versions. There's only one point where there is trouble and that is one tape where some GPM stuff is cut out and what is left doesn't make sense if you go through it with a fine tooth comb. Most students don't notice that what they are studying on that tape doesn't make any sense at all at that point in the tape. The occasional one that noticed and had a question on it, I would show them a transcript from the old version of the tape and it would usually clear up very quickly. The book changes are for the most part fairly small. Adding and subtracting entire essays from books like "Intro to Scn Ethics" and "New Slant on Life" aren't really a big deal. If they started a wholesale rewriting of the axioms that would be different. One could wonder why the slight changes are being done. If you love this kind of thing, you could check out http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/scientologyreligion.html, but don't e-mail me about it! A guy calling himself "Safe" got his knickers in a twist for years over the alterations, before he got silenced, by whatever method. He did us all the service of making the point known, but it's not as if they are rewriting processes to make them unworkable. There are far worse methods of denying people Scn being used. I'm sure everyone here can think of lots of examples of how Scn is being denied to almost everyone and how it could be done differently. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 173 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 27, 2004 1:25 am Subject: Re: [formerscio] Immortal --- XXXX wrote: > one of them. And since probably most people (like myself) are not > exactly poetry aficionados, you may not hear too many responses to > that type of > post. {PLAIN} I wasn't expecting any response to the poetry. But it would be nice to get some responses to the other stuff, or better still, thoughtful new threads about things I had never considered. Now, that would be interesting. I should have something thought-provoking on the list in a day or two, that I've been working on for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours. Not poetry, but something useful and far-reaching and on-topic. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}And if there's no response to that, there's always the Vogon rewrites....{/JOKE} Paul






Message 174 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 27, 2004 2:57 pm Subject: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech {PLAIN} Per the Study Tapes, nomenclature is very important in a subject. Missing nomenclature can cause problems, as can unnecessary nomenclature. I decided we needed just a little bit more. The two terms in the subject line above are defined as follows. "Intelligence" can be defined as the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. "Standard" is here empirically defined as "as is familiar to many from observing what was generally considered as LRH standard in the C of S when they were there." This seems to be a workable definition, even if not really acceptable to a purist. The Conservative Standard Tech (CST) person believes the tech as developed by Ron needs no improvement, and no further research is needed for levels below OT VIII. The CST person cherishes the existing technology and defends it against all attempted change. This category of person is found throughout the CofS and the FZ alike. The Progressive Standard Tech (PST) person cherishes the tech developed by Ron, but considers it as a solid foundation for further research to get nearer to the perfect technology envisioned in the Safeguarding Technology PL. In that PL, Ron says that Scientology is not a perfect technology, but it is a workable technology, and should be safeguarded as such. Both types of Standard Tech person are needed. A CofS person making his first tentative reach into the FZ would find much more reality in a CST group than a PST group. A CST person is happy with the tech that he has, and doesn't see any need for any further research. CST people are needed to preserve that workable tech, so it doesn't get degraded or even disappear. On the other hand, a PST person accepts the general workability of the tech used by the CST person, but is reaching for something more, is seeking to push the envelope. All great progress in science is made by individuals doing further research, standing on the shoulders of the giants who went before. There does not have to be friction between the two. Both the Conservative Standard Tech person and the Progressive Standard Tech person can peacefully co-exist. One does not have to fully agree with the views of another in order to have harmony. Religious tolerance and freedom of speech are cornerstones of a civilized society, part of granting beingness to another. It is somewhat hypocritical to preach religious tolerance, but not to practise it with one's fellow practitioner just because one does not agree fully with the other. I hope you don't mind me meddling just a little bit. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 175 Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:28:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech To: freezoneaoint@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > > > On 27 Jun 2004 at 14:59, Paul Adams wrote: > > > "Standard" is here empirically defined as "as is familiar to many > from > > observing what was generally considered as LRH standard in the C of > S > > when they were there." This seems to be a workable definition, even > if > > not really acceptable to a purist. > > Well call me a purist, but the CoS is demonstrably far from standard. {PLAIN} I agree about the CofS's "standardness". I'm just trying to get some rough, general idea of what we're talking about here. My CST and PST post is only an introduction to what comes next, which is ticking over in the silo waiting for me to hit the red button. I don't want to launch the next phase without any ruckus over CST/PST conflict blowing off first. So, reader, if you have any objections, please voice them now! {/PLAIN} Paul
Message 176 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:35 pm Subject: Basic Elements of Standard Tech Checklist version 1.2 {PLAIN} Well, you've had ten minutes to object to my using the terms, "Conservative Standard Tech" and "Progressive Standard Tech". {/PLAIN} {JOKE}I didn't hear any more objections, so we'll just assume that all is fine and dandy on that score. {/JOKE} {PLAIN} I worked on that BEST checklist some more, and put it on a website. Here is the introduction to the checklist from the website: "Intelligence" can be defined as the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. There are different groups and individuals, both in the CofS and in the FZ, saying that the tech as delivered in one place is more standard than another. This has lead to friction. It has never been clearly laid out exactly what "Standard" means, except in terms of glib phrases. These sound good, and might get you through a star-rate checkout, but don't help in trying to understand how one flavor of FZ tech differs from another, or even how CofS tech measures up. Here is a list of "features" that could be used as a checklist to differentiate among the different flavors of tech available in the FZ and in the CofS. As an example, those who have not been doing CBR tech might think of the RO people as a bunch of weirdos. But on inspection, it could be that the two might have 95% of their points of standard tech in common, and only differ on 5%, and that relatively small percentage is the cause of all the contention. It could be that a new group, "Ronology", claims to be an offshoot of standard LRH tech, but a closer inspection shows that Ronologists only share 43% of the points in common with the guys who consider themselves the most standard. This list can also be used to rate the current C of S technical standards against well-known LRH materials. It could also be used by an individual practitioner to see how "on-source" he is, although it is not really designed for that. "Standard" is here empirically defined as "as is familiar to many from observing what was generally considered as LRH standard in the C of S when they were there." This seems to be a workable definition, even if not really acceptable to a purist. The Conservative Standard Tech (CST) person believes the tech as developed by Ron needs no improvement, and no further research is needed for levels below OT VIII. The CST person cherishes the existing technology and defends it against all attempted change. This category of person is found throughout the CofS and the FZ alike. The Progressive Standard Tech (PST) person cherishes the tech developed by Ron, but considers it as a solid foundation for further research to get nearer to the perfect technology envisioned in the Safeguarding Technology PL. In that PL, Ron says that Scientology is not a perfect technology, but it is a workable technology, and should be safeguarded as such. Both types of Standard Tech person are needed. A CofS person making his first tentative reach into the FZ would find much more reality in a CST group than a PST group. A CST person is happy with the tech that he has, and doesn't see any need for any further research. CST people are needed to preserve that workable tech, so it doesn't get degraded or even disappear. On the other hand, a PST person accepts the general workability of the tech used by the CST person, but is reaching for something more, is seeking to push the envelope. All great progress in science is made by individuals doing further research, standing on the shoulders of the giants who went before. There does not have to be friction between the two. Both the Conservative Standard Tech person and the Progressive Standard Tech person can peacefully co-exist. One does not have to fully agree with the views of another in order to have harmony. Religious tolerance and freedom of speech are cornerstones of a civilized society, part of granting beingness to another. It is somewhat hypocritical to preach religious tolerance, but not to practise it with one's fellow practitioner just because one does not agree fully with the other. This is still a work in progress. Each answer box contains two answers. The first one is for how the point is generally considered theoretically by educated people in that group, the second is for how it generally works out in practise for the typical practitioner. As an example, almost all Standard Tech auditors, both Conservative and Progressive, would welcome the use of a separate Examiner. In practise, almost no FZ auditors have one available. E.g. (abbreviation of Latin exemplii gratia) introduces an example. I.e. (abbreviation of Latin id est: which means literally "that is", but is better translated as "I'll explain") introduces an explanation of what comes before. NA for Not Applicable means the question does not apply at all in the field concerned. Yes means definitely yes or mostly yes. No means definitely no or mostly no. - means equivocal, neither yes nor no. ? means unknown. This is different to equivocal. Here is a comparison among: Column 1: The CofS generally in the 1970s Column 2: The CofS generally now Column 3: A hypothetical "typical" FZ Conservative Standard Tech practitioner, who does all training and processing available in the FZ Column 4: Robert Ducharme, a Progressive Standard Tech practitioner, auditing (no training) in his usual manner Column 5: For illustration only and not carefully evaluated, a typical non-Scn psychoanalyst Column 6: Ron's Orgs Column 7: PEAT from Zivorad Slavinsky Column 8: Idenics Column 9: TROM Column 10: Pilot's Self-Clearing Neither the questions nor the answers are finalized. The last five columns are empty, for instance, and more columns could be added. But it is a start. *****************(End of intro) I have the whole checklist on a website, FZ Global. It is at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal currently. Http://www.fzglobal.org should reach it soon, but maybe not for 24 hours or so. I may move it later on from Freewebs, but the www.fzglobal.org URL should follow it around OK. Please don't cut and paste the checklist onto some other site as I will continually update it. It would also violate *my* copyright, and we all believe in upholding copyrights now, don't we? Webmasters: if you want to link to the site, please link to the front door at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal or preferably http://www.fzglobal.org . That link should work within 24 hours from now. It's pretty obvious how to find the checklist from the front page. Constructive comments are always welcome. I don't claim it is all perfectly correct and if any errors are pointed out I'll fix them. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 177 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jun 27, 2004 11:18 pm Subject: Standard Tech Comparison Results {PLAIN} I set aside all the "In Theory" answers and tabulated the "In Practise" answers for the four practitioners/organizations concerned. I put it all on a separate web page linked to the main Comparison page. I'm removing three of the four results here just to create a bit of a mystery sandwich. The results should have you rolling around on the floor with your arms flailing around. They did with me--metaphorically anyway--when I first calculated the totals. I was staggered, and I've been working intimately with this for 25 hours or so. In summary, as fairly as I could do this, I assessed the CofS in the 1970s as delivering 81% Standard Tech; the CofS in PT as delivering XX% Standard Tech; a hypothetical "typical" FZ practitioner today as delivering XX% Standard Tech; and Robert Ducharme as delivering XX% Standard Tech. Next time you hear someone boasting about the "100% Standard Tech" somewhere, remember these figures! And how they are arrived at, too, so you can work it out for yourself and are not just parroting the data you read in my e-mail. The Checklist is at http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal . {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 178 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:56 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > > I think XXXX posted some incredibly good references to > > this same issue > > that you brought up before. They were further to my > > post of excerpts > > from Tape #4 of the Class VIII course, "Standard > > Tech Defined". I > > believe LR's quotes were from both tapes and issues > > and helped define > > the concept of standard tech quite well. Why do you > > feel this area > > requires further clarification? > > > > To answer for Paul, The various quotes don't really > say what Standard Tech isn't. They are essentially > handwaving, IMO, saying, just do it right. Also, the > various things written in the PL's are entirely > self-serving. If anyone else wrote stuff like that > about a technology they had invented they would be > laughed at. What else is LRH going to say? This > isn't to say he is necessarily wrong, only that you > can't accept it all at face value. > > From a policy POV (I mean actual policy for any > organization, not Policy as in Green on White), no > organization can do anything but say that what it is > doing is perfect and the best thing since sliced > bread. To say anything else is to admit to errors and > lay yourself open to all kinds of problems. Hence any > such statement MUST BE DISCOUNTED!!!! It's like Bush > justifying attacking Iraq. What the hell do you think > he's going to say? > > > > > > Ron went on to state in that PL, "Scientology, > > exactly and correctly > > followed, takes the person up and out of the mess." > > (LRH) > > This is a great example. So far as we know, nobody, > through applying Scientology exactly and correctly, > has been taken out of the mess (though I suppose this > depends on just what LRH was meaning by "mess"). > Assuming it means "the trap of the MEST universe", > this statement is in the nature of a pius hope, not a > proven fact. LRH did talk about OT levels above VIII, > but didn't get them released, so it cannot be true > that Scn as currently released does the above, or he > would have had no need for further levels. > > It is important to hold to the POV that XXXX is > espousing when being an auditor or C/S, since it is > too easy to go off into your own bank if you don't > follow standard procedures. It really does seem, > though the information to thie effect is filtered > through Scn terminals or through LRH and thus is > biased, that going off into other techs is less > effective than following the standard. Ralph has > found this to be the case and he did a pretty good job > of experimenting with other ideas. Tommy on the other > hand does seem to be having success with his IC2 > rewrite. Still, we know that Scn has had a lot of > success with the standard bridge, so alternatives have > to be proven before they can be widely accepted. > > If the Scn standard is truly the say out, then after > enough competition that will become apparent from the > results. If other techs prove to have better results, > then we will have to admit that Scn standard tech, > while workable, was not the optimum. > > Someone pointed out that one of the major reasons why > people lose faith in Scn is the lack of OTs. People > come up with justifications for why not being able to > knock of hats at 50 paces is OK, but the fact is, > nobody can actually do it in a repeatable fashion. > Scn does what it does, but it doesn't do *that*. > > My opinion is that an alternative tech, to be > acceptable, must produce real repeatable, > incontestable, physically measurable OT powers. If it > can't, well, it's just another theory, and no better > than the current bridge, unless perhaps it's faster or > easier. But even then, why bother. > > > So, in relation to this post of yours, which side > > are you promoting > > here? > > > I think he's promoting a rational analysis of Scn. > > XXXX {PLAIN} Well said. Thank you very much, XXXX. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 179 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 9:21 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > right... But our disagreements are at the edges of > what we agree about. Sometimes to our horror we agree > about something, and it is sorta like fighting with > someone who doesn't fight back - that will never do. > So we wait until the next opportunity. We aren't > fighting about whether you should use model session or > not, or fly ruds, or use the Auditor's code or the > grade chart. {PLAIN} Yes, indeed. There's always FZ Flame when you've run out of *real* stuff to fight about.... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 180 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:47 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Standard Tech Comparison Results --- XXXX wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 23:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Paul wrote: > > >In summary, as fairly as I could do this, I assessed the CofS in the > >1970s as delivering 81% Standard Tech; the CofS in PT as delivering > XX% > >Standard Tech; a hypothetical "typical" FZ practitioner today as > >delivering XX% Standard Tech; and Robert Ducharme as delivering XX% > >Standard Tech. > > > >Next time you hear someone boasting about the "100% Standard Tech" > >somewhere, remember these figures! And how they are arrived at, > too, > >so you can work it out for yourself and are not just parroting the > data > >you read in my e-mail. > > One of the major points of disagreement with RD's practice is that he > holds > the cans while auditing someone else. That far outweighs less > important > points. > > In Q. 188 you give RD a score of 1 for doing that even though it is a > flagrant violation of auditing basics. > > I would say that the data as presented is heavily biased and contains > the > huge outpoints of "assumed similarities are not similar" and "altered > importance" in that the same importance is given to points not of at > all > equal importance. > > Here are some of my corrections (from my viewpoint): > > 4. RD evaluates in violation of the auditor's code by using reads on > himself > to state what is charged for the PC. > 6. RD does not use standard TR0 as the PC is not in the same room. > 15. A Dn/SCN C/S1 would be expected on a new PC in the FZ. However I > would > normally do it outside of formal session. > 26. The purif would be used in the FZ if needed but not C/Sed for > someone > who didn't need it. Q26A should be added: "Is the purif wrongly > enforced > when unnecessary?" > 33. Random attests aren't something I would generally approve. > 34 - 38. RD scores 1 on each despite not delivering those levels!? > 39 - 40 Old OT4 and 5 could validly be run after OT8 > 41. Original OT7 is a valid action as C/Sed when necessary per Cl 8 > issues. > 43. Actual GPMs could be taken up after OT8 > 45. Implant GPMs may be addressed with 60s tech as appropriate. > 53. RD cannot see the PC and therefore cannot properly spot > indicators. > 57. RD is incorrectly given a positive score for altering R3R. > 80B. There are thousands of standard listing Qs. > 85. Ev purps should be taken up if reading per XDN issues. > 127. Non professional staff co-audits above OT3 were done at Flag in > the > late 70s. > 156. Research would be applicable after OT8. However it would be done > per > Cl. 8 tapes. > 180. LRH was wrong on some things. He would sometimes say so later. > > XXXX {PLAIN} I answered this in a text editor, so it is all down below with questions repeated. P. One of the major points of disagreement with RD's practice is that he holds the cans while auditing someone else. That far outweighs less important points. Thank you very much, XXXX, for your thoughful and sensible comments. I really appreciate it. For the rest of my e-mail, "you" refers to the reader, and not specifically to XXXX. Any time up till six months ago I would have completely agreed on that point. For several years I had sometimes come across Robert's posts about getting reads like that, and my idea of how impossible it was completely overshadowed anything else that he was saying. I never saw any posts from anyone saying they had been getting auditing from Robert and how messed up they were as a result; and Robert kept saying how it always worked very well on his pcs. But it was all so impossible that I couldn't even begin to accept what he was saying at face value. Or even look at it. An analogy: It is said that what Galileo saw in the early 17th century was so disturbing for some officials of the Catholic Church that they refused to even look through his telescope; they reasoned that the Devil was capable of making anything appear in the telescope, so it was best not to look through it. If you think it is preposterous of me to position Robert with Galileo, well, point taken, but it's really not that important compared to the rest of it, so let's continue. About six months ago I started doing a lot of reading in subjects that interested me, but are outside mainstream thought. Subjects like homeopathy, dowsing, radionics and the like. I started this because I had been getting extremely interesting and beneficial results from some commercial products that had been prepared "eloptically", and I reasoned that since the other ingredients in the products were fairly normal, this "eloptic" stuff warranted further inspection. That research paid off, but I'm not branching off into that subject now. The point is that there is a whole wealth of data in the world outside of Scn that deals with effects being caused at a distance. Rupert Sheldrake famously covers them to some extent in his book, "The Presense of the Past", surmizing that such actions at a distance occur through the medium of what he terms "morphogenetic fields". I won't mention a host of other names, but even most Scientologists accept the idea of action at a distance through "theta" or "postulates". There is a famous book by Abbi Mermet called "The Principles and Practice of Radiesthesia", written (in French) in 1935. I read an English translation. The subject of dowsing for water is probably familar to most, to a lesser or greater extent. An expert dowser can locate water flowing one hundred feet underground, as well as such details as the direction of flow, the flow rate, and how drinkable it is. If he is practised in it, the same dowser can determine the same information from one hundred miles away. You might think this is getting ridiculous, but remember that these same dowsers probably think practising Scientologists are a bunch of freaking weirdos too. It is difficult to have affinity for a subject you have no reality on or communication with. Abbi Mermet used a simple pendulum held in his hand to determine information at a distance, and he was an acknowledged master at it. His book contains dozens of testimonials from professionals in more normal fields, attesting to his accuracy, whether in locating water underground from a thousand miles away, diagnosing illness over a similar distance, or locating the body of a missing person. Abbi Mermet considered himself a simple priest, and did not speculate too much on how the information he could pluck out of thin air, so to speak, was available to him. If one wishes to speculate, one is faced with the fait accompli of the feasibility of map dowsing, where an expert dowser can locate an item on a map in front of him, without ever having seen the location portrayed on the map. Possible theories include those like Sheldrake's, and others I won't name. But the idea of a person's emotional charge reading on a meter connected up to the body of a distant auditor, while being in excellent ARC with that auditor on the telephone at the same time, while the auditor has all his attention devoted to the task at hand, is not nearly as far-fetched as locating a heap of inanimate iron ore buried a hundred feet down from a hundred miles away. The dowser isn't on the telephone with the iron ore, isn't personally concerned with its welfare, and is using a lump of wood or metal on a string, not an ultra-sensitive electronic instrument! Anyway, after reading a pile of books on dowsing and other fields, I grew comfortable with the idea of "plucking information out of thin air", at least as a possibility. That doesn't mean I became an instant expert at it, just that I believed it was possible for others to do it. Some weeks later I came across Robert Ducharme again. This time I did not automatically bounce off what he wrote, because what he said he did no longer sounded impossible to me. I read what he said with interest. I actually dug up every single post of his I could find anywhere, and read all of it. He does talk about other subjects, but mostly he talks about R3X and R3XD. There are three big problems with R3X or R3XD. Most importantly, in general consideration anyway, is that he holds the cans and says it's the pc reading on the meter and not himself. Secondly, although it can be run in a normal session in the same room, he normally runs it over the telphone, with the auditor at home and the pc wherever. And third, although it is based on sound Scn principles and practices, it is not standard R3R. And he runs it on Clears and OTs. Ten weeks ago, I wanted to get some auditing. Apart from some great gains on the Clay Table processes of Pro Trs, I hadn't made any real case gain since OT3 in about 1980. I'd had maybe two hundred hours of sec checks in the SO, but that doesn't count. I checked with Ralph over prices for NOTs, but with travel and living expenses it was too much money for me. I looked at RD and R3X/R3XD. This time I didn't have a problem with the remote metering. I didn't know if he could do what he said he did, but I didn't have a theoretical problem with it any more. Similarly with the telephone auditing. I know from personal experience that if you have good ARC with the person at the other end of the phone, and your attention is fully on that person, you can pick up a surprising amount of information. As for the "improvement" on R3R, well, maybe. I mean, LRH improved on R3R with NED. I didn't know if R3X did what RD said it did, but I didn't have any theoretical problem with it. And that left this: I didn't understand how you could beneficially run Dn on a Clear or OT. But I had had hundreds of hours of R3R before 1978 when the Dn Clear HCOB came out, and it seemed to run OK then, so maybe it was possible to some extent. Whether or not it worked I didn't know, but no-one said it was bad. All there was on the Internet was several years' worth of Robert banging the drum saying how he'd been auditing it for years full-time with no problems and how uniformly good it was; and everyone else saying how impossible it was for Robert to be doing what he said he was doing without offering any criticism beyond that. I've been involved with several "impossible" things in my life. Scientology is one of them. So I called Robert and a few days later I was in session. So far I have had about 25 hours of R3X/R3XD. I had a session today, in fact. I've booked the next session, I'm paid up to date, and I anticipate many more sessions. I'm a happy camper. I think it's great stuff, and it reaches parts that other auditing doesn't touch. Yes, if I were full OT7, L's completion, and Class VIII, I would be in a better position then to evaluate the full "standard" bridge. So what? If money had been no object, I would probably have been camping out at Ralph's for the past two months. But I like being able to lie on my own bed in my underwear and have a great session handling some real basic Actual GPM stuff, in a relaxed style that even clears up any faintest traces of session BPC. As for it all being impossible, well OK, so it's impossible. I don't care if it's impossible. We're doing it. In Q. 188 you give RD a score of 1 for doing that even though it is a flagrant violation of auditing basics. See above. My question was phrased as, "Is the common auditing activity possible with the pc's charge showing remotely on a meter?" I believe it is. Robert successfully audits R3X/R3XD with a remote meter. He says he would not audit Scn grades, for instance, in the same manner. One reason is that assessments aren't the same. With a non-Scn pc, he doesn't even mention the meter. He says he can audit R3X remotely without a meter, but finds it more accurate to use one in that after a BD occurs, for instance, he can ask if anything happened, or if the pc noticed anything. He never miscalls an F/N, for the simple reason that he never indicates one. If I had phrased the question as, "Does the practitioner audit in the normal, accepted manner?", he would have scored 0. I would say that the data as presented is heavily biased... In that I had to make evaluations, I did so based on my own experience and viewpoints. Anyone else is free to work from their own evaluations. I tried to be impartial, but where it was a question of choosing to go with my own understanding and certainty, or just being popular, I chose the obvious one. ...and contains the huge outpoints of "assumed similarities are not similar" and "altered importance" in that the same importance is given to points not of at all equal importance. Yes indeed. No quibble with that. One has to start somewhere! But "sooner or later" just turned into sooner. I have left the basic form of the first table as-is, but I have added a "weighting factor" to the second table. The default weight is 10. A point considered very minor could have its weight reduced to as low as 1; and a point considered extremely important could have its weight increased as high as 100, say. That is a factor of 10 each way. That must be ample difference for anyone. Obviously any weight factor is somewhat arbitrary and there will be different opinions. Again, if you don't like the final result, make your own table and shout out the differences. I'll look and see if I should change mine. Maybe I will and maybe I won't, but I will look. I haven't really started on the weighting yet. Suggestions are welcome. Here are some of my corrections (from my viewpoint): 4. RD evaluates in violation of the auditor's code by using reads on himself to state what is charged for the PC. Not really. He doesn't indicate F/Ns. Items to be run are assessed by pc interest as well as meter read. Example: RD: "I'll read down a list of items. If you find any interesting and worth taking up, let me know, OK?" PC: "OK." RD (assesses) Apples x Oranges x Pears sF Grapefruit LFBD Lemons F Kiwifruit x RD: "How about those?" PC: "I thought pears, grapefruit and lemons might be good." RD: "How about if we run grapefruit?" PC: (Very interested) Sure, sounds great! I don't see any evaluation in that. If he was *really bad* at this, instead of as excellent as he is, maybe he might have picked an uncharged item, as in "How about if we run Kiwifruit?" The pc would respond, "Well, we could I guess, if you say so (BI's)", and it would not have been run as the pc wasn't interested in it. That is still not evaluating for the pc, as far as I can see. In the 25 hours of auditing I have received from RD, I have not felt evaluated for once. (I have been distracted a few times by what I consider to be unnecessary comments from RD about meter reads, but since any minor BPC is picked up and handled by his end-of-session model session, it's no big deal. If I wasn't his pc, I might have fixed it earlier, but I consider it bad form to directly correct one's auditor!) 6. RD does not use standard TR0 as the PC is not in the same room. Technically, true. But if his attention is fully on the pc and the pc's case, and his auditing admin is in, I would consider his TR0 to be in. However, I'll reduce his weighted score from the default 10 to 5. 15. A Dn/SCN C/S1 would be expected on a new PC in the FZ. However I would normally do it outside of formal session. I accept that correction as-is. I have changed the CST FZ guy from "No" to Yes", from 0(0) to 1(10). 26. The purif would be used in the FZ if needed but not C/Sed for someone who didn't need it. Q26A should be added: "Is the purif wrongly enforced when unnecessary?" Thank you. Corrections accepted as-is. 33. Random attests aren't something I would generally approve. Thank you. Corrections accepted as-is. 34 - 38. RD scores 1 on each despite not delivering those levels!? I am trying to do an assessment for a hypothetical "typical" FZ practitioner. This hypothetical practitioner is a composite of many actual FZ people, who delivers everything from the very bottom to the very top. If I had the space and the time and the information, there could be ten columns for ten different FZ practitioners, and the answers for each could reflect what each actually delivers. It is a question of comparing like with like. I'm comparing RD with a hypothetical composite, and it would be unfair to mark him down because he doesn't deliver those levels. If I had him in a column next to you, Ralph, you would get credit for delivering those levels and he wouldn't. If he objected to people doing OT1-3, or thought they weren't necessary, I would have marked him down for that, but he considers those levels valuable, just like the rest of us. 39 - 40 Old OT4 and 5 could validly be run after OT8. 41. Original OT7 is a valid action as C/Sed when necessary per Cl 8 issues. 43. Actual GPMs could be taken up after OT8. Thank you. Corrections accepted as-is. 45. Implant GPMs may be addressed with 60s tech as appropriate. Is this general within the FZ? If so, I will change it to 10. Meanwhile, I've changed it to 5. 53. RD cannot see the PC and therefore cannot properly spot indicators. The PC Indicators HCOB lists 50 BI's and 29 GI's. Of these, a remote auditor would be unable to spot 11 BI's and 5 GI's that an on-the-spot auditor could, in my estimation. That is 16/79, about 1/5. I have reduced RD's score from 10 to 8, while keeping the Typ FZ guy at 10. 57. RD is incorrectly given a positive score for altering R3R. That one is my bias, based on my practical experience. As RD says, it works in practise but it doesn't work in theory. 80B. There are thousands of standard listing Qs. I query this one. I can't quote exactly, as I don't have the reference available. My scoring comes from what I remember of one of the Class VIII tapes, #7 maybe, that deals with listing. I think it said something about there only being a very few standard listing questions, the ones specifically given in HCOB's. As a sup, I used to somehow use that as a reference in trying to clear up the definition of "Standard Listing Question" with a Level 3 student or a Solo student doing the L&N section of a checksheet. It used to piss me off that there wasn't a better definition available for a student. I wouldn't show the Class VIII tape or tell the student verbally what is said, but would just clear "Standard" in such a way the student would get the idea that if he invented a listing question that wasn't specifically in an LRH book, tape or issue, it wasn't standard. One of the later HCOB's talked about it was only "standard" if it was red-on-white, and I used to use that. If I had been able to show the Class VIII tape transcript, I would have used that! I have very little personal experience as an auditor handling lists and L4BR's on people. If someone who is familiar with that Class VIII listing tape tells me I've got the data wrong and why and it makes sense to me, I'll change the marking. 85. Ev purps should be taken up if reading per XDN issues. Correction accepted as-is. 127. Non professional staff co-audits above OT3 were done at Flag in the late 70s. SH too, briefly. I did one session on an OT3 staff pc once on such a co-audit (kind of) before the whole thing got nixed from above. OK, I changed that one on the first table, but it is still the same on the second table, showing as it's OK to not have them. Personally, I think it's a good idea to have them, but I'm not pushing that point of view. I had already marked the point with an * to show that I thought it was debatable. 156. Research would be applicable after OT8. However it would be done per Cl. 8 tapes. OK, I've changed that one in broad terms. I don't know the reference about conducting research per the Class VIII tapes. I am assuming an implication that RD has not done his research per the VIII tapes, so his research is not valid. My response would be that if there is a good product I wouldn't care if it was revealed to the inventor by God in big letters on his bedroom wall one night (which is exactly what the inventor of the superb non-Scn products I mentioned way earlier says happened), but I'm willing to look at that viewpoint more. 180. LRH was wrong on some things. He would sometimes say so later. Correction accepted as-is. OK. Further comments welcomed from anyone. There's lots of room for improvement in the weighting factors. Particularly as I haven't really looked at them at all yet except as noted above, and most will be non-optimum. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 181 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:33 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Standard Tech Comparison Results --- XXXX wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:10:37 -0700 (PDT) you wrote: > > >XXXX wrote: > > > > It is, however, worth pointing out that LRH > >> binned processes > >> because they didn't work for all auditors on all PCs > >> - even though > >> they perhaps did work for some, even many, auditors > >> much of the time. > >> > >This is exactly so. Standard means that anyone, > >applying it correctly, will get the standard result. > >LRH could get results in 1949 by winging it, but > >nobody else could do what he did, that's why he > >developed the bridge, AFAIK. > > > >It occurred to me that a test could be done on > >Robert's approach, and it might be interesting. Have > >a bunch of people do emeter assessment drills over the > >phone, and then repeat the assessments in person, and > >see if the reads are the same. You have to be pretty > >damn good to get good reads on a list of fruits or > >colors in the first place, so this might be a pretty > >reasonable test. I would predict that the results > >might be better than what you would expect from a > >statistical average, but not 100% the same. > > > >(You'd have to discount protest etc. as reads, of > >course). > > I wrote software for real time analysis but no-one would put their > butt on > the line. {PLAIN} It seems that I often have my butt on the line here, so I wouldn't object to taking part in principle. But Robert does not generally run Scn processes using remote metering. To conduct a "test" using parameters which are unreal would be as false as the Amazing Randi's debunking. To assess a fruit list on someone in person, then assess the same list remotely proves nothing. Robert doesn't assess ARCX's by remote meter, for instance, as far as I know. If you want to examine what Robert does, then examine what Robert does and not something else. I believe he would be very willing to cooperate. I would not want to see the equivalent of some graduate students filling out an OCA with the answers they imagine some public figure would put, marking the test and drawing the graph, then ridiculing the OCA test because it "doesn't work". {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 182 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: >> Does it make sense to promote FZ SCN as being > essentially psychological in nature? Come to us, we > will fix your personality problems and make you > happier and feel better? > Or Come to us to explore your spiritual nature, learn > who you are as an immortal spritual being? > > Versus, come to us and knock of hats at 50 paces? > > Or some alternative? {PLAIN} Why not all of them? One promotes to each public at its reality level. If you are promoting at a Sci-fi convention, you would want to appeal to the fannish taste. If you were promoting to the Ladies' Own Knitting Circle of Little Piddlington-in-the-Mire ({JOKE}obscure{/JOKE} English country village) you would promote using whatever buttons your survey had established. Or the nearest you had, anyway. I doubt if your promo to the old dears would include Klingon-eating reptiloid fire-breathers. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 183 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Basic Elements of Standard Tech Checklist version 1.2 --- XXXX wrote: > > There is one factor which needs to be considered in this context, > in my opinion, and in some way incorporated into your points > system, even if it can always only be an approximation. > > It is the "relative weight" of LRH principles, as covered in the > "Anatomy of Thought" article (Data Series 1). {PLAIN} Yesterday I incorporated a weighting system. It probably isn't in its final form yet, but it is easy to change the weighting amounts. I haven't worked out any figures yet for these, but will probably just take a stab at it and see what reaction I get, then change it as better data/opinions come along. Obviously the bias of whoever is doing all the work counts a lot, but since the task seems to be being left up to me, then everyone gets to look at my bias! I called the checklist, "Basic Elements of Standard Tech". Yes it's a neat acronym. It could be extended to any kind of mental tech, but I decided to restrict it to the Scn paradigm, since that is what I know and what is familiar to the people on the FZ lists I frequent. Once I have some weights in place, your comments would be welcomed. {PLAIN} Paul






Message 184 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:10 am Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Standard Tech Comparison Results --- XXXX wrote: > > > On 28 Jun 2004 at 22:47, Paul Adams wrote: > > > OK. Further comments welcomed from anyone. > > Well, I did. On point 64. You got the points 0/0/0/1 on your first > four columns - whereas in my experience (and it is a singular > experience - but then, so is yours) it might be nearer to the truth > as 0.5/0.5/1/1 {PLAIN} Fair enough. I changed the figures per your suggestion. > One thing is you say you're trying to compare like with like, but > you're not really. You've got, in the form of the CoS, a largish > organisation of which you have quite a lot of experience (but the > quality you get there naturally would vary from individual to > individual), an anonymous and in fact non existant "conservative" > FZer (a designation I am not entirely comfortable with in the first > place) and a specific example of one "progressive" practitioner. I was referring in broad terms to comparing RD with this hypothetical example. If I was comparing RD with Ralph, and Ted, and Rey, I would have taken the actual scene for each, to the extent that I had the data. Also, there have to be broad generalizations in any such attempt as mine, as "The C of S in 1975" didn't exist except in conceptual form. But hopefully, enough people read it and go, yeah, that sounds about right. Or everyone says, no, he got that one wrong, and if that is the majority view I'll change it. > Also, another thing is that your table supposedly measures > "standardness". And then go on to justify giving RD full marks on > specific things, not based on whether it is standard or not, but > whether it works in your estimation. > > Well, I am not arguing with you about whether RD can get R3X whatever > to work for you in your estimation, nor indeed whether it works for > others. It is, however, worth pointing out that LRH binned processes > because they didn't work for all auditors on all PCs - even though > they perhaps did work for some, even many, auditors much of the time. > > You see, that is, to me, the difference. I can probably sit someone > down and without running any specific process, listen to their woes, > direct their attention to one or two things and probably get a result > as good or better than any psychoanalyst. By that standard "it > worked". Yipee, that means I am a standard auditor by the yardstick > you've applied. But LRH wasn't too interested in what simply worked > for some people some of the time. I'm trying to get some quantitative assessment of different groups, or individuals. You hear phrases like, "Oh the FZ is much more standard than the C of S these days." My response is, "How so?" I am not challenging the bald statement so much as requesting some analysis of what is it that makes the FZ more standard than the C of S. On the one hand, the FZ doesn't do GOAT training. {IRONY}(Whoops, sorry for the typo){/IRONY}. The FZ also doesn't do mandatory 6-month checks on Solo NOTs. But on the other hand, the FZ isn't so hot at getting crams done, or delivering a NED C/S Course. So how does it add up on balance? (There are more points than these). I'm trying to answer that question. RD has a lot in common with regular FZ auditors who practise auditing in a more familiar manner. There are some differences. I want to bring the identities, the similarities, and the differences out into the open. I wrote the table. I phrased questions the way I wanted them. Someone else could have questions like, "Is the typical auditor running some damn process that isn't covered in any known issue?". "Would the typical auditor auditing in his normal manner get a Qual OK to audit from a 1975 C of S Qual Div?". How about "Does the auditor audit in a familiar manner that wouldn't upset your old course supervisor?" I could have written questions like, "Is the typical auditor 53 years old, British, and living in Los Angeles?" and given almost everyone 0 for flunking that question. I haven't seen ANY write-ups from anyone--or even any rumors--detailing how they got screwed up by RD's auditing. {JOKE}Maybe he kills them to stop them talking and maintains a perfect record over several years that way.{/JOKE} I don't know. Certainly no-one has sent a negative report to the FZ Tech Rating service ( http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/fztechrating ) about his auditing. Tell me which specific questions you object to, in terms of not measuring "standardness", and I'll take another look at it. > So, what are you measuring? Workability or standardness? I'll respond with the same remark as above. I'll look at the specific questions in point. > Also, standardness is hard to quantatively assess. A Class VIII or > IX with a relatively fast running PreOT is going to be able to > "change gears" in session sufficiently quickly and often that it > might lead a Class IV to wonder whether what happened was standard or > not. But the fact is that the Class IV is not a competent judge of > the matter. However that doesn't mean that the Class IV can't do a > perfectly competent job up to his or her level. I agree with that. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 185 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:37 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > > So I think that we need a clear, explicit definition > of what constitutes standard tech in the FZ, that > means something to one who either doesn't understand > auditing all that well, or who *knows* that we are > non-standard. Anyone who actually does know ST will > be equally appreciative since the definition will be > validating to them. > > XXXX's point that "Progressive" implies improvement > and approval is also an excelent one. I suppose the > most neutral alternative might be "Variations on". {PLAIN} Well said again, XXXX. {JOKE}How about "Tentative Experimental Standard Tech Involving Carefully Limiting Expanding Scientology"?{/JOKE} I'm not stuck on the exact labels. I wanted to carefully describe the existing scene, and to lay out a framework for some degree of tolerance rather than enmity. As you pointed out earlier, the names I used were chosen to be fairly neutral and not pejorative in any way. Labeling a certain class of people as "non-smokers" is like labeling honest citizens as "non-criminals". I think the "Conservative Standard Tech" name is fine as-is. Some conservative standard tech zealots will argue that the name is unnecessary, and from that viewpoint of course it is. That's the whole point! A CST-type person (sorry if this sounds like a psychology text) would shriek if someone wanted one comma changed. I'm not knocking that viewpoint as it is a very valuable one. Someone has to preserve the tech. But the tech has developed over the years from 1952, say. All the developments have been assigned to LRH alone. He was responsible for most of them, but not the totality of them. LRH was just a man, as he said himself. He was not some large sub-set of The Almighty. He's around somewhere as a thetan: what do you think he is doing? Is he pushing around a body somewhere, unaware of his previous lifetime? Is he in full possession of his previous faculties and running the body of a young Messenger at Int, just waiting for the right opportunity to make his move? Is he operating as a discarnate thetan, whispering astute suggestions to intrepid FZ researchers? Is he running the body of Britney Spears? I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just pointing out that I don't know all he's up to and nor do you. For my part, I don't know *anything* that he's up to--others have different realities. From earlier discussions, if I have this correctly, the vast area above OT7 or OT8 is up for grabs, and there is general agreement in the FZ Conservative Standard Tech community that research can be done in this area by long-term Scientologists who are extremely well-versed in Scn principles and basics and who also have enough experience to know what has already been tried and discarded and why. Like Class VIII, OT8, long-term Scientologists. I believe such research is ongoing in the FZ. I haven't heard anyone trying to stop such research. I don't know if that is because there are no objectors, or because the silent objector doesn't want to kick against the pricks (that's a good-usage idiom that per my Concise OED means "persist in futile resistance"). The unattractive alternative is to be one of the pricks kicked against (that isn't good usage at all). The existing scene is that people are doing research, like it or not. Some researchers have the requisite qualifications, and some don't. Most will come up with nothing useful. Some will spin in; some of those will be picked up by Pierre or Chris or others and cleaned up, and some won't. Some useful research may appear, or it may not. It will certainly be done. A Conservative Standard Tech [person] will probably look pityingly on the researchers. The researchers have their own way of looking at the CST guy. Each is doing what they think is correct. Each is trying to better the lot of man, one way or another. One cannot impugn the motives of the other. A rigid, hard-line "you are forbidden to even LOOK" is one attitude. "Well, I'm going to; you don't have to" is another. If the different types of FZer are accurately labeled, with labels that each type accepts as accurate and will proudly wear, then an improvement will have been made. Labels make for instant identification. "A five-star hotel" says a great deal in a few words. "Progressive Standard Tech" isn't a perfect name. XXXX suggested "Variations on Standard Tech", which isn't bad but also isn't perfect. Any other suggestions? I want to convey the idea of small variations on top of a much larger, well-established, invariable foundation. Preferably with a one-word adjective! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 186 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:03 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > I hate to bust your balloon, Paul, but there isn't any research going > > on in the freezone at this time. > > There were a few past attempts that really went nowhere. > > When Rey Robles had his last Seminiar on research, he had hoped that > people would show up who did research so they could speak--no one > did. We all had a great time, and also there was e-meter research > shown, but not upper level "hats off at 50 paces" or anything like > that. {PLAIN} Well, OK. Maybe we'll have to wait a bit for the telekinesis stuff. I'm doing some interesting research, but not into auditing tech. But there is some genuine auditing research going on. Robert Ducharme is still researching. I spoke to him today. He's been auditing R3X from its rudimentary beginnings in 1989. In 1995 he gave up his job to audit full-time and has been auditing full-time ever since. That is 9 years. He told me today that he has probably audited between 500 and 1,000 people on R3X or R3XD. He said that as long as they could run engrams, there wasn't anyone he couldn't audit on R3X. Most new people wouldn't get outside of this lifetime, of course, but that doesn't mean they couldn't usefully unburden this lifetime's charge. Every now and then he makes a breakthrough of magnitude that markedly increases the gains that pcs get from R3X, or the speed with which they get them. The rest of the time is just consolidation of gains he has made, and gradual improvement. He's been working on this one process for fifteen years. And each one of the 500-1,000 people he has audited has helped his understanding and his honing of the technique. There is no esoteric cosmology involving 18-dimensional earlier universes to stretch one's credulity. All the data about what is there comes from the pc. I was in session today. We were handling really basic early-early track stuff. Charge was pouring off (yawns, tears, tone scale changes etc.). It was fabulously useful to me and has finally reached an area I've been wanting to handle my entire life, but never could. And earlier. So he is out there in the FZ doing it. Maybe he doesn't lecture on it so much because everyone knows what he does is impossible, so no-one pays it any attention whatsoever. {PLAIN} {IRONY} It looks like he has me hoodwinked too, along with the 500-1,000 others. Man, what a consummate con artist he is! {/IRONY} Paul






Message 187 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:51 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] ADMIN SCALE --- XXXX wrote: > This was our admin scale from two years ago. > Somewhat staledated. Any comments? {PLAIN} Sure, why not. > > > ============== > > GOALS > > > > The freeing of beings, and enabling them to play > better games in their own estimation. It's a VFP, not a goal. It can be achieved today in any number of auditing chairs. > > PURPOSES > > > > A thriving Freezone, allied, co-operative, > > forming orgs with subproducts. Delivery of > > high quality standard tech. > > > > The provision of skilled management services for > > the above. OK > > The preservation of the tech. Ambitious, but OK. >>This activity can > > now be regarded as solely within the realm of the > > FZ. Doubtful. > > Picking up the hat of research of upper levels, > > as COS appear no longer to have that ability. To > > get more people up to class 8 and OT8 to do this. OK. > > POLICY > > A high morale cooperative organisation rather than > > > > a rigid heirachical beaurocracy. Stress on > > "Service" > > PL. Carefully-formulated, sensible, known and agreed-upon policy is the basis for co-operation. The policy section needs to contain much more. How about OEC policy--is it considered useful, or not? Which bits of it should be kept and which discarded? One advantage of OEC policy is it is written down and easily referenced. I'm not saying all of it should be followed, just that there is some good stuff in there and it is easy to reference it and it is written in a language most FZers understand. Even if they recoil from it! > > PLANS > > > > To form orgs. Missions, forming missions. This is a purpose. A plan would be how to bring about the above, in general outline terms anyway. It might be 100 words long. And no, there is no definition that says how many words should be in the statement of a plan. > > PROGRAMS > > > > 1) To form alliance with existing FZ orgs and > > networks. > > > > 2) To find new Orgs, Missions, Field auditors, > > > > 3)To Resume standard promotional actions. > > > > 4)To upgrade the delivery potential of existing > > resources. > > > > 5) Examine legal requirements. Unless these exist written down in somewhat formal form with major targets, vital targets, operating targets etc., then these are just purposes too. Or maybe each is the major target of an unwritten program. An example of a program would be the "What Is a Course Program", a famous CofS one. On the admin scale, there would just be listed the name of each of the programs that entity is running. Here it would just say "What is a Course" Program, or its issue number. There might be several other programs listed, like: Org Establishment Program, BB ED 236 Treasury Basics Pgm BB ED 179 General Production Prg BB ED 202R Internet Reach-Out Pgm BB ED 241 The regular WIAC Pgm basically consists of all the points listed out in the WIAC PL, and from the Courses Their Ideal Scene HCOB, and each point is a target. The responsible person has to see that each point gets in and stays in. Example, operating target #6 might say, "Supervisor calls roll on time and action is taken on any missing students." (Or whatever the exact wording from the PL or HCOB is). So the program supervisor, like the Tech Sec or the D of T, observes the Sup calling roll, and makes sure he does it on time. He notes what happens then. Does Course Admin or the MAA come along immediately after roll-call and see who's missing and then chase them up to get them to course? Does this happen after *every* roll-call? Or just after the one where the course admin has been threatened he'd better attend and call people in who should be there or he'll get assigned treason, but tomorrow he can just go back to ignoring the no-shows as normal? The person running the program has to ensure the person responsible for getting the target in and keeping it in does so, and not just the times the Tech Sec is standing at the door watching. There might be a hundred targets on the program like this. When every target on the program is in maintain (i.e. everything happens like it is supposed to, per policy), then one could truly say that "WIAC PL is in." That's an example of a program. > > PROJECTS > > > > 1) Form good working relationship with other > > FZ orgs. > > > > 2) Find new tech terminals from on going promo. > > > > To find such resources from existing members. > > > > To develop such resources with our training > > facilities. > > > > To link up people globally for co-study/audit. > > These are building blocks for forming missions. > > > > Get new Tech Aide. > > > > To liase with existing networks for maximum > > efficiency. > > > > 3) Write some new promo. > > > > Collect up more success stories for promo. > > > > Develop more methods of promo. > > > > Utilise upcoming editorships in ODP. > > > > 4) Find existing capabilities of currant > > installations. > > > > Find what currant actions are and ways to > > improve production. > > More projects from there. > > > > 5) Investigate legal aspects. See if we have > > lawyers on list. Same comments as for programs. A project is a list of steps--targets--to get done to achieve a program step. Maybe one of the WIAC targets is "Get any needed course materials". A quick inspection shows that of the 39 courses the org should be able to deliver, packs only exist for 16, the checksheets are xeroxed ones of graduated students with the signatures whited out (if you're lucky); the courseroom clock doesn't work; there are no student graphs and so on. At that point, a detailed inspection would be done and a 68-step project (for example) would be written to remedy every single thing non-optimum about course materials. One of the project steps might be to get in 7 reams of paper to print off needed checksheets. The next step might be to locate copies of the stencils (or whatever) for each of the 23 missing checksheets. The next one might be to run off five copies of each checksheet, and put each course checksheet in its own folder, neatly labelled, and filed alphabetically in the "checksheets file". And that would be a project. And when that project is fully and completely done, i.e. each one of the 68 project targets are fully and completely done, one will then have fully completed the ONE program step of "Get the course admin materials area in shape". These things are a lot of work! Usually, "Orders" on published admin scales are simply "as needed to get in the projects and programs." > > ORDERS > > > > ED to find/create new org board, or temporary org > > board. For an aligned admin scale, this might be one target of an establishment program. I'm not going to comment on the other items in this "Orders" section. > > ED/OES/HES To liase with existing > > networks,missions, auditors, > > ED to poll existing members to find out more of > > the > > unreported activity, and resources. > > ED/OES to link people up. > > ED/OES continue successful div 6 actions. > > > > > > OES Do required actions for max search engine > > listings. > > > > ED/OES/HES find new webmaster. Tech Aide. > > > > ED/OES Consult auditors, networks to see > > what is needed and wanted. > > > > HES Consult requisite legal terminals. > > (oh! the JOY of delegation) :) > > > > IDEAL SCENES > > > > Harmonious co-operation from all. Expansion in > > all > > areas gradually better organised. A structure which > > people in the FZ can feel safe and secure with. I'm not going to comment on this one. > > STATS > > > > Number of AOs, Missions, forming missions.Missions > > have two tech terminals. AOs deliver higher level > > services. I am missing definitions here. Is someone who hats someone to some extent on how they think OT2 should be run "an AO"? Maybe I'm being overly picky. It's great to keep these stats. And to do actions that increase them. Is there an "active" list somewhere? Do the "active" people *want* to be known as active, or would they rather keep a low profile and just get on with it without possibly unwelcome attention being drawn to them. How do the stats get counted? In an org this is well grooved in, and org staff just report their stats at the right time in the usual manner, whether by telephone or telex, or just dropping a stats sheet in the stats officer's stats basket set up outside his door or by his desk or wherever. But how does it work here? Does everyone e-mail bb once a month on some kind of standard monthly report form? {PLAIN}{IRONY}I can see that going over real well! :){/IRONY} > > Number of co/audits/study groups. > > > > Number of students,PCs, Solo auditors active. > > > > Above Stats taken monthly > > > > New members or contacts. ( monthly) > > > > VALUABLE FINAL PRODUCTS > > > > People delivered tech services and > > study completions. Whose VFP is this? Is this an individual FZ practitioner's VFP? Or one from the Mgmt Org? The usual response to comments like mine is, "Well, if you think you can do better, write your own, pig-face! Until then, just shut it." So maybe I will write one myself. But it might be a while as I'm doing some other stuff right now. [[Later comment: I did write an admin scale, and it is at http://www.freewebs.com/fzadmin/adminscale~individual.htm ]] {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 188 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 12:01 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > And yes, the "old" (god, I hate than delineation) OT levels are {PLAIN} Then don't use it. 20 years ago when they got withdrawn I noticed I used it and didn't like it as it was a degrade. I thought a bit and discussed it with the AO D of T and we decided on "Original OT Levels" and I have used that ever since. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 189 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 12:47 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: [freezoneaoint] Standard Tech Comparison Results --- XXXX wrote: > I like the idea of a scoring system for FZ practitioners as to how > 'standard' they are, but I DO think that it should be an 'impartial' > scoring > system, and not based on personal biases. {PLAIN} Excellent idea. Maybe someone else could go ahead and write their own impartial one and I will comment on it. > Although it may, indeed be > possible to audit someone remotely (over the phone, over the > internet), I > would say it is safer to do so without the auditor attempting to > 'hold the > cans'. Holding the cans presents too much of a possibility of reads > being > from the auditor himself. Yes, that possibility does exist. The auditing style only works if the auditor is able to adopt a "neutral attitude" and not have his own reactions influence the meter, or indeed the pc. It's similar to a face-to-face session where the pc says he really enjoyed tearing the legs off that puppy yesterday and the auditor keeps a straight face, more or less, but mentally screams "YOU FUCKING BASTARD!" and the pc picks up the eval and inval telepathically and caves in instantly because he doesn't have an auditor there any more doing his part in the auditor-plus-pc-is-greater-than-the-bank equation. Robert thinks that anyone who is Clear or otherwise in good case shape should be able to learn to audit in that manner. > Whether it is possible for some people or > not, it > would be better to not give a high score to the practice of 'remote > auditing' in any form, simply because (if for no other reason), it is > NOT > standard. Anyone else can write their own and score it how they like. On mine it really affects only two questions, #186 and #188, out of 195, I believe. A difference of about one percent. > The PC Indicators HCOB lists 50 BI's and 29 GI's. Of these, a > remote auditor would be unable to spot 11 BI's and 5 GI's that an > on-the-spot auditor could, in my estimation. That is 16/79, about > 1/5. I have reduced RD's score from 10 to 8, while keeping the Typ FZ guy at 10. > > If he can only use 1/5 of the indicators... I didn't say that. Read it again. > > Not really. He doesn't indicate F/Ns. Items to be run are > > assessed by pc interest as well as meter read. Example: > > RD: "I'll read down a list of items. If you find any interesting > and > > worth taking up, let me know, OK?" > > PC: "OK." > > RD (assesses) Apples x Oranges x Pears sF Grapefruit LFBD > Lemons > > F Kiwifruit x > > RD: "How about those?" > > PC: "I thought pears, grapefruit and lemons might be good." > > RD: "How about if we run grapefruit?" > > PC: (Very interested) Sure, sounds great! > > Just curious here, but how do you know he does choose items which > 'read' on > the meter (aside from feeling that it is your item of course)? I asked him about how he does assessments, and he told me. In session, a month ago, he had done exactly what he told me he does. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 190 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 1:06 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > XXXX, just let him be. He gonna do HIS thing no matter what anybody > (including LRH) sez. Like his suggest to XXXX to call around and > chek out the Book One scene, when he has already made up his mind > and posted his results. He didn't do any callin around hisself, did > he? > > > > > . {PLAIN} I have been refraining from commenting directly on your invalidative remarks up to now, Ms. Anonymous Black Spot. But this time I will. What's with all the criticism? What's so threatening about allowing XXXX to have an opinion about something before he's OT 32? I asked XXXX to help because he is interested and very knowledgeable in the area of Book 1. I spent a good many days putting that list together and filled out the data to the best of my knowledge and asked for any corrections. I am happy to allow others to contribute if they wish. If you want to be helpful, why not give me the data to fill in the Ron's Org column on the chart? Maybe some people in the FZ other than myself are interested in what goes on there, and you are surely in a good position to offer the answers. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 191 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 1:23 am Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Standard Tech Comparison Results --- XXXX wrote: > By the way, since what we have works so well, what problem is Robert > trying to solve? He must have come up with this to solve some > problem. Couldn't he get a guy in front of him? Is he in a very > remote area and have no transportation? XXXX {PLAIN} Why don't you ask him? He's not on this list, but his e-mail address is easily available via Google. I asked him some questions today and he told me he started auditing R3X in its rudimentary form in 1989, and has been refining it ever since. In 1995 he gave up his other job and has been auditing it full-time ever since. That is nine years auditing it full-time. I asked how many pc's and he said he didn't know exactly, probably between 500 and 1,000. He said that as long as the person could run an engram, he hasn't had any trouble running it on anyone. That is an awful lot of running of this stuff. It's not just some wild idea that he tried out a few times. He's willing to have what he does examined, as long as it is a real examination of what he actually does. This translates to someone suggesting the parameters for a test, and Robert says what would be acceptable to him, and this goes back and forth a bit until it is acceptable to both sides. I don't mind being the pc. This isn't the correct forum to be effusive about wins I've had being audited in this manner, but I'm still paying the money and going back for more. Lots more. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 192 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 1:52 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > That has been going on for a while. Possibilities: {PLAIN} Hi XXXX, I made my comment and I'm done. If you want to start a war, that's your affair, but don't think you need to do it on my account. I am perfectly able to take care of myself. If you do want to start a war, I would also prefer you to do it elsewhere, but it's not my list to lay down any rules. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 193 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 1:59 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > > Ok, we don't say "old" We now say "earlier". > > > > XXX > > > > I say "classic". {PLAIN} I just checked Google for "__ OT levels". Hits for each are: Old 42 Original 7 Earlier 1 Classic 0 LRH 4, although one of those is "old original LRH OT Levels"! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 194 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:21 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Zap post 1020 - it's spam --- XXXX wrote: > > This advertiser has been a problem ever since I posted a message on > formerscio > requesting the moderator to get rid of the spammer. > > I think they all come from the same person, altho the email addresses > are the same. > > I'm thinking to put this list on closed status for awhile, with new > people > put on moderated status til I know they are here for ifachat. > > Does anyone object? > > XXXX {PLAIN} I object. It's overkill for a really minor problem. Someone posts a bit of obvious off-topic spam to one of my lists I don't Q&A with it at all. I just delete the message from the archives and delete the e-mail address from the members list and get on with living. It takes 30 seconds total. A month later someone else posts a bit of spam the same thing happens. This happens on Yahoo Groups. It's not a CofS op. If there was a CofS op ongoing you would really know about it. It's only a real hassle if you try and do more, like send an e-mail to the spammer saying, "I see you sent some spam about enlarging a body part that I don't have to my group on cultivating begunias. I am pleased to see that you may be interested in begunias, but if you don't actually stay on topic I'm afraid that I will have to put you on moderated status for a while. Is that OK with you? Love, Moderator." Screw it. Someone spams they're instantly dead without comment. Look at all this dev-t. Even this message of mine is dev-t. Just kill the bastard instantly and that's the end of it. [["Kill" and "dead" means off the list--ed.]] Don't reply to this message! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 195 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > > I know that originally one always did old OT 4 > after OT3. I didn't know that was still considered > standard to do as an option still. What were LRH's > last words on that? > > bb {JOKE} Hot damn! All these variations on Standard Tech.... {/JOKE} Paul






Message 196 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 8:49 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > This is not to say that Robert D. didn't get case gains on many > people. After all, many do need Dianetics, and he is running a form > of it. Even badly applied tech will make gains if the basics are > there, and Robert does handle the time track well. He doesn't do > anything else. He doesn't practice Scientology, just R-3R Dianetics > with some of the other engram handling techniques, like over/under or > > earlier/later (a technique used to unstick a stuck picture) but I > really object to his getting good promotion simply because in spite > of the fact that he can make gains he is taking people off the > standard route that is known to get people through. It is a very > fine line. LRH did all that research and writing to present this > narrow walk through the bank and Robt. ignores all of this. {PLAIN} Robert's position is that R3X does not supplant any usual Grade Chart actions. He looks on R3X as a case booster, that can be run at various points on the Grade Chart. It could be run before the Expanded Grades--assuming the pc can run engrams--or after Grades and before Clear; after Clear and before OT 1-3 (assuming Clear on NED and the pc is not on the alternate Clear route); or after OT3 or between higher OT levels. It doesn't even supplant NED. R3X doesn't lend itself to the laser-precise pre-assessment procedures of NED, but uses a broader approach instead. I checked his position re the Grade Chart before marking up my Basic Elements checklist, as I had wondered if he thought it replaced the Grace Chart too. The above is what he has told me. > And surely with all that Dianetics someone went Clear???? He keeps > running Dianetics? He is going to run OT III material by Dianetics > if it comes up! He says he doesn't have any problems running R3X on Clears and OTs. I'm OT4, and although I haven't had any formal NOTs auditing I've read the NOTs pack and certainly stirred stuff up for several years. I haven't had any trouble running R3X. Even though it theoretically can't run the way it does without huge misownership problems, they just don't seem to manifest.{/PLAIN} {JOKE}Maybe the entities concerned haven't read the HCOBs and don't know they are supposed to get stirred up.{/JOKE} > If he has really audited that many people, how about turning them > over to some of the rest of us so we can get them up the bridge? He > has apparently audited more people than are active in the freezone. {PLAIN} He says that although they are not active on the Internet mailing lists, there are several thousand FZ people on Hank Levin's snail-mail mailing list for the apparently defunct (maybe just taking a breather) Free Spirit magazine. He used to advertize in there. He has also audited non-Scn's, mostly people referred to him by a FZ Scn doctor. He says they tend to have a few sessions of running this-lifetime charged stuff, like their childhood, and are perfectly content with that. As for turning them over, well, I would say that's up to him. If I had a big client list I had built up over the years, I would have second thoughts about generously turning it over to "associates" who thought so little of me. Robert thinks that if someone were to advertize in any of the numerous New Age magazines, they could get pc's that way. Especially if they delivered their counseling to anywhere in the country over the telephone! (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one). {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 197 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 1:11 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] uhh oh... --- XXXX wrote: > > My apologies and mortification over a letter written privately to XXXX > and accidently put on this list. > > It has been deleted from archives. {PLAIN} Don't feel bad on my account, XXXX. Repost the message if you want to--I don't have any problem with it. "People do as people do" is almost a mantra of mine. I am not going to become in the least upset by people acting somewhat in the manner expected. An auditor who is thrown off by a pc because the pc didn't F/N "when he should have" is a lousy auditor. And a nervous one. As I see it, this list is for people who adhere firmly to what they consider Standard Tech to be. I have no complaints about that. I enjoy the thrust and parry of intelligent discussion. I am not into empty discussion: I do firmly believe in what I am saying and I would love for others to widen their perspectives to embrace a larger reality. But if it is a slow process or never happens, that's just the way it is. I understand that I am treading a fine line here with my postings. I know they will be received with discomfort by some. My intention is not to irritate, but to cause the reader to look at his stable data and to inspect them in a new unit of time. Possibly they could stand some improvement. Possibly not. But they are pretty shaky stable data if a few messages from an apparent unbeliever can rock them. If someone has been auditing and training for years and some nut comes up and says the tech is just useless brainwashing, such a comment is just water off a duck's back as there is not one iota of reality in it. If someone is on the fringes of Scn and has no personal reality on the tech, the same remark from a friend could have a huge impact. No-one has said, publically or privately to me, "The rules of this group say that you are not allowed to challenge our orthodox views. You are challenging them, so you are violating these rules that have been set for our harmony and peace of mind. You are hereby warned. One more mention and you're history." No-one has said, "You're pushing it a bit too much. Back off. We're putting you on moderated status--all your posts will have to be approved and if one is OK it will go on the list but if we don't like it it won't." That one is the safest way out for you. It's an "ethics gradient" somewhere between the mild one of talking derogatorily about another and the extreme one of Expulsion. I find it distasteful to act that way towards honest challenge, but hey, it's not my list. I run a list that has to do with a particular brand of soap products. Some guy came on the list and started to challenge some of the business practices of the company. He had been thrown off a similar list for rocking the boat. I left him on mine as he brought up some interesting points. A couple of people left my list in protest, presumably because they didn't want to have to think about the issues being brought up. I told him he was welcome to stay as long as he was civil about what he was saying, as he had been a bit "ad hominem" to another. He was polite thereafter. And interesting. I deliberately phrased a couple of paragraphs above in a provocative manner. If everybody thinks the same, it's real boring. No randomity. One might not like what I post, but has to admit that it isn't dull. I post all that is in this message publically because I consider it valid fodder for discussion. I am not fragile. You can discuss me completely openly and it's not a problem for me. I would welcome it--it's better out in the open than done furtively in the dark somewhere. "Sunshine disinfects", as Warrior's signature line on a.r.s goes. The only real withhold I have in life is from the churchies that I live with and who don't know about my communing with "The Dark Side". If someone wants to mess with me they could do so along that avenue, but be warned that I don't mess with easily! I am not pretending to be what I am not. Someone can say, "But you are not a Class VIII auditor!", and it is true, I am not. It would be technically true to say that I didn't even complete Level 0, although I did complete other auditor courses. If it makes someone feel better to harp on that, go right ahead. If it is germane to the discussion, bring it up. It would only hurt me if I was pretending to be a good auditor and was worried about being found out. I admit that my assessments weren't good and I was never happy with my metering. Some things I do well. Some things I don't. I try to be honest about it. I *really* value my personal integrity. 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." So there you are. Do as you will. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 198 Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:12:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Paul Adams" View Contact Details Subject: Re: [fzflame] No decent flames To: fzflame@yahoogroups.com --- XXXX wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 04:03:45 +0100, XXXX wrote in > <40E63021.14672.A9FAAE@localhost>: > > > > >Ah, so no ladies are allowed then. Ya didn't strike me as a sexist. > > > What would a lady do on a newsgroup that consists of > self-important machos? {JOKE} Lie on her back, of course. You surely weren't expecting chivalry here? OK, OK, enough of the machos and sleaze (Southern California joke). {/JOKE} Paul






Message 199 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 4, 2004 8:27 am Subject: Re: [OT_List] gain support/backup for IFA.- FZ individualization --- XXXX wrote: > Well, if one just issues a cram to someone unknown to you then it > seems the likely response will be "fuck off". You're right about > that. > > However, for example, there are a few in Europe that will use Ralph > for advice and correction. I believe, also, for example, there are > one or two that use Pat as a C/S. So, it seems that where there is > prior agreement, such things can be made to work. > > That's why I was pushing "use a C/S" on the fzaoint list a while > back. Small bits of "hierarchy" seem to be able to evolve. {PLAIN} Remember there are two parts to getting a cram. One is the person who views what he considers to be an outness, and writes up a "cram" or "instruct", usually in the form: "Outness noted: blah blah blah...Material violated/suggested references: blah and blah." The other part of it, often forgotten or downgraded but in fact very important, is someone wearing the hat of the Cramming Officer. If he is a good Cramming Officer, he will sit down with the person being crammed, fly ruds as needed, and find out what is *really* going on, including a correct why if he is trained in why-finding, and then correct *that*. Then he will do some kind of write-up to let the originator of the cram know what was found and what was done about it. If the whole cycle is done properly, then the outness gets corrected and everyone benefits from it. I am guessing that the main problem with crams in the FZ is the lack of a good on-the-spot (i.e. available to the auditor) Cramming Officer. Apart from the ruds-flying, it could possibly be done over the phone, though. Not as good as in person, but a lot better than nothing. I cross-posted this message. This thread shouldn't be restricted to the OT_List. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 200 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jul 5, 2004 5:02 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Can someone who's been in SO explain? --- XXXX wrote: > I just saw a video of "Tanya" about being a 16 year old SO memeber. > At http://xenutv.bogie.nl/trust/leipzig.htm#viv > > > She says when she worked in hco, one of her duties was to read > private letters incoming to SO. > > I have known SO mail was monitored. She says they were looking for > entheta and money. I know letters were checked for entheta. But > private letters checked for money??? > > Is this true? What became of this money? Was it simply logged? Were > people questioned about it? Was the money absconded? {PLAIN} There's a Div 1 PL about a Treasury person being present when the mail was being opened. When I was Flag Banking Officer at SH around 1974-5 and also 1979-80, the mail was opened once a day around 9:00AM. Anything that came in later in the day was locked up until the next morning. Private mail was opened just because all the mail was opened, but it wasn't particularly being scanned for entheta. The HCO and Treasury person were looking for org GI, money being sent for services. It was all honest and above-board at that time, as far as I know. Org gross income was carefully logged and banked as GI; private money went to the persons concerned. There was a gray area, like if a public person paid $100 to have his folders shipped from SH to Flag. If he made the mistake of giving it to the cashier, it went into the GI, went through the proper lines, and finally made it Tech Services sometime around the following Wednesday. If he knew the ropes, he would give it to Tech Services directly, bypassing the "official" line. Then came 1982. I wasn't on Finance lines then (except as FP Chairman for a year), and don't know about the mail-opening lines any more. I would expect there to have been a bit more attention kept out for mail in from squirrels, but it wasn't a huge deal. After I left the SO in 1996, I read on the Net that it had become a big deal, and *all* incoming personal mail was being carefully scrutinised, and all outgoing phone calls from regular SO members necessitated the presence of an HCO person/security guard. This was to stop SO members arranging family members to come and pick them up so they could blow, and so forth. When I was routing out, I was supposedly "under guard" at all times. In reality, I sometimes had to remind the person that he was supposed to be guarding me and couldn't just walk off like he was going to. If I had wanted to walk out, I could easily have done so numerous times. If some security guard had stood in front of me I would have calmly said that I was leaving and was he going to commit the felony of basically restraining and kidnapping me? Would they have done that when I was obviously in possession of my faculties and not being a public danger? Despite stories to the contrary that I have read, I think they would have let me walk out if the only alternative were physical restraint. I completed the process and left properly. Being the polite, agreeable, accommodating chap that I am. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 201 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jul 6, 2004 1:19 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] rectahedron --- XXXX wrote: > I suspect 'rectahedron' is someone's substitute for 'orthohedron' and > thus a 'cube' {though not necessarily 3-dimensional}. Call it an > educated guess. > > XXXX {PLAIN} I would have thought that if it was a cube, he would have used the word "cube". The man was not known for deliberate obfuscation. I suspect the figure he had in mind was a block, related to a cube as a rectangle relates to a square. There is no common, unambiguous English word for that polyhedron. And in the sense it was used (look it up on Google if you haven't already), it would be the 3-dimensional case. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 203 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 7, 2004 1:26 am Subject: [FZA Board] The Thetan as an Energy Source. Or Not? Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 06:12 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.freezoneamerica.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=4&post=10139#POST10139 {PLAIN} I'm now using Paul Adams as my user name. I have something else to add to this thread. I was recently getting some auditing from Robert D., and had deleted as much charge as I could from a basic-basic whole-track incident. I suddenly remembered this little bit of theory, a different way of looking at things. I tried looking at that incident from the viewpoint of me as a thetan in that incident creating dipoles--i.e. differences of potential, not necessarily dichotomies as such--which allowed energy to come in from the seething vacuum. I got a lot more "charge" off the incident. It also made sense to me how one could "get charge off" a time period before one was "supposed" to have the ability to create charge. Sorry about all the quote marks. Subsequently, I have found it a useful way to look at things differently and get more charge off any other incident. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 204 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 7, 2004 1:30 am Subject: [FZA Board] The Thetan as an Energy Source. Or Not? XXXX wrote: > > Paul, you might want to give us some mass to go along with the > significance. Can you give us an example as an illustration of exactly > what you do and how you do it? Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:20 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {PLAIN} I can give you some more significance, XXXX. You might find it beneficial to sketch out on paper or make in clay what is happening; or try looking in your own mind. Read the LRH theory on how he says a thetan generates energy. He covers it a lot in the book Scn 8-80. To quote from the second 1963 HCOB on Time Track and Engram Running By Chains, "...charge, an impulse to withdraw from that which can't be withdrawn from or to approach that which can't be approached, and this, like a two-pole battery, generates current. This constantly generated current is chronic charge." There's more in the HCOB, but I can't copy it all out. All I was doing as a pc was looking at how I was holding in place a pair of dipoles, basically just items that are different to each other. "He's a straight Scnist and I'm an RO person" is a difference. If there is something aberrative about the way one has that as a consideration, the mere fact of holding the two different ideas at once--according to my new, tentative way of thinking, anyway--allows the constant flow of 3-dimensional electro-magnetic energy to come out of the seething vacuum into 3-space. Changing the consideration to remove any aberration from it removes its ability to act as a portal, to allow the constant flow of current while one's attention is on it. A button works in the same way, in my current estimation. If something is occurring and you are protesting it--say someone is criticizing a painting you are doing--you are simultaneously holding two different viewpoints on something. One is how things are; the other is how you desire them to be. The more protest, the greater the difference, the greater the potential difference and the greater the current flow that occurs while your attention is on it and you are creating that dipole. To my current way of thinking, all the thetan is doing is creating the dipoles. The energy does not come directly from the thetan, but is just being released by the thetan from the seething vacuum. While I am being heretical, I might as well mention a bit more. (See Part 2) {/PLAIN} Paul Adams New member Username: Paul_adams Post Number: 3 Registered: 07-2004 Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) Posted on Tuesday, July 06, 2004 - 11:37 pm: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Part 2 of 2) {PLAIN} More heresy: I was running basic-basic, a separation from static incident. At the very first moment of separation, from my viewpoint, the very first moment of individual beingness, before I had put out any anchor points, there was charge coming off the incident. I had trouble itsa-ing what was happening as how could there be charge there at that point in "time". "Time" wasn't supposed to be there either as it didn't start till way later on, per the Factors. Then I remembered my Bearden seething vacuum theory and I wasn't nullifying my perceptions of the incident any more by trying to fit it into a standard Scn In-The-Beginning type of paradigm, and only then was I able to get lots of charge off (yawns, tears etc.) The charge was just a flow from the vacuum occasioned by my holding the dipoles apart and when I stopped holding the dipoles apart, the "charge" ceased. If you "become one" with something, permeate it or whatever, there is no longer a difference and no longer any charge. Of course, if you do this to extremes there is no game either! I don't have this all worked out yet, and I am not asserting that this is the way it is and other viewpoints are wrong, but it has helped me a lot in my own auditing. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 205 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 7, 2004 9:44 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: FWD. The beginnings of the Freezone. 2 --- XXXX wrote: > > Taken from ACT. It seems Reconnection is a FZ magazine started > sometime after the missionholders conference, and was one of the > ways they stayed connected back then. > XXXX {PLAIN} Do you know what became of all those UK FZ people, XXXX? I knew many of them. Don't they come out and play with the rest of us? {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 206 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 7, 2004 2:28 pm Subject: Request for info re OT abilities {PLAIN} Sometime in the past few months someone reposted to a list a message originally posted on a.c.t. I don't know who wrote it. It was a very thoughtful summary of a gradient approach to OT, some possible waystops along the route. It didn't go into how to achieve these abilities, just what the abilities might be. The repost was done for two reasons: one to repost some good stuff; and secondly to show what a.c.t. used to be like. I would like to find that post. I've looked for it, but haven't been able to. Anyone know exactly where I can get it? (I already tried searching on a.c.t. with Google, but I don't know exact enough search terms). {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 207 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 7, 2004 10:12 pm Subject: Weights Added to BEST Checklist {PLAIN} I have now added weighting factors to the Basic Elements of Standard Tech Checklist. The weights are restricted to 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, with the default being 3. I consider the 1-8 spread is ample for this task. These figures are not fixed in stone, and if anyone has better suggestions (with reasons) for any of them, or even the whole system, I will change them. The BEST checklist is accessible via http://www.fzglobal.org (or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal )--click on the "comparison" link at the bottom of the page. The results table is accessible from the end of the checklist page. The #1 practitioner is the hypothetical "typical" composite FZer. Comments welcomed as usual. It's still a work in progress. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 208 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 7, 2004 11:12 pm {JOKE} Subject: [FZ Flame] Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes, Mr. XXXX Very apropos in this newsgroup. {/JOKE} P.






Message 209 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 8, 2004 12:01 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Wierd Graduation Ceremony --- XXXX wrote: > I got a wierd graduation ceremony today. As in, graduating from the > Co$. My phone rang, and someone who called himself "Ed" told me that > he was a private investigator looking for information on TT. He > wanted to know if I could help. > > LOL! > > I said, "Who? (then after he repeated the name) Sure. Go to > google.com and plug the name into the search engine and see how many > hits you get. Who do you think I am . . . the SWB Yellow pages?" {PLAIN} There is more to this game than what appears at first sight. Gathering information about TT is possibly no part of it at all. There's an old issue called, "How to do a Noisy Investigation" or something like that. You get someone--let's say "Eddie"--to say he is representing something like a "Citizens' Committee to Clean Up Hollywood" or something. Let's say you want to do in a hypothetical Mr. Jones. So this Eddie who's been roped into this, who may or may not know exactly who he is really working for, goes to Mr. Jones' co-workers or neighbors and may ask questions like, "Good afternoon, my name's Eddie, I'm just collecting information to help with our 'Clean Up Hollywood Drive'. Do you know if Mr. Jones has any connections with the porn industry?" [gets negative answer] "None that you know of, you say. That's very interesting. [looks doubtful] Well, thank you very much." It doesn't take very much of that to have an effect on Mr. Jones, who doesn't like what's happening. Usually Mr. Jones rapidly gets the idea that if he does what is wanted, then the covert harassment will cease. What he does next depends on what kind of character Mr. Jones is. So, XXXX or anyone else, if you get any more friendly calls from such people, don't blow them off. Get in comm, find out who they think they are working for, and tell them the truth about their real employer! Just kind of reverse the flow. It's almost like doubling an agent. They probably have no idea at all what is really going on. If enough people did that, that harassment tactic would cease. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 210 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 8, 2004 6:48 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Wierd Graduation Ceremony --- XXXX wrote: > The best answer is to ask any such PI a lot of questions. > > To introvert due to such nonsense is what they want to bring about in > > you. > Ask for his phone no "to call you back", his PI license, who he is > working for and who else he has contacted, etc., etc. > He will fall apart in two minutes. > > The only thing he has going for him is an element of surprise. {PLAIN} True. But remember that the PI is not necessarily the correct target. The PI could just be a regular guy trying to earn a living who has fallen in with the wrong crowd. He doesn't get a briefing pack at the beginning of the assignment that goes: {/PLAIN} {IRONY} "Dear Private Investigator: "Thank you for enlisting in our Crusade. We are a multinational Church, with an annual income in excess of $100 million. Some of our parishioners have become disillusioned with our lies and our unwillingness to follow the tenets of our Founder, and especially with our heavy-handed approach to separating them from as much money as possible as quickly as possible. They believe in upholding the true meaning of the Founder. While they share the same general philosophy as most of us in the Church do, they are not as cowed as our still-apparently-loyal flock and they do threaten our vast income potential. "If the rest of our parishioners found out they could get similar services elsewhere at a fraction of the cost and with none of the hassle, they would all leave the Church in a shot. We sometimes run a covert campaign of terrorizing these independently-thinking people by using unsuspecting Private Investigators or other dupes. We can't risk a public PR campaign as we would lose that one hands-down and would also risk our public finding out about "The Freezone". So we have to do whatever harassment we can on an individual basis. "I mean, what would happen if it became general knowledge that the Church had been running for 20 years a tireless crusade to discredit or harass or generally render less effective people with the identical religious philosophy as the Church, but who just prefer to think for themselves and won't put up with all the dishonesty and dirty dealings? The Church meanwhile publicly decries religious bigotry while hypocritically being a huge offender. "Thank you very much for supporting us in our endeavor to stamp out these free-thinking, spiritually-minded gentlefolk. "Sincerely yours, etc." {/IRONY} {PLAIN} Mr. PI probably has no idea at all. He has an instruction sheet that says contact so-and-so and ask him for infomation about X. Maybe he has a bit of verbal hatting--verbal so nothing embarassing in writing would ever show up in court--that says that so-and-so has been attacking the Church. Something that is nice and general, just to give Mr. PI the idea that he is on the side of Right and the target of the investigation is not. Mr. PI is effectively a dupe. So, when Mr. PI comes along, firmly believing that the person he is about to talk to is a nasty piece of work, one just has to disabuse him of that idea. One doesn't have to lie about it at all, just provide the briefing pack that the employer didn't. Provide some key words that Mr. PI can go and look up on Google that will open up wide vistas of understanding. Hey, Mr. PI might even be interested in some auditing from you if you do a good job. Of course, maybe Mr. PI is a schmuck and doesn't care about any of the truth. In which case, don't waste your time with him other than showing him you are no pushover. But he is unlikely to be a died-in-the-wool Churchie, either way. Most people are more amenable to reason than lies, and don't like to find out they have been lied to. And why am I spending all this time on this subject? I don't like bullies. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 211 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 8, 2004 7:30 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Regarding freedom... --- XXXX wrote: > > > This young girl, in my opinion, was the most on source and Flag > > quality Sup in the place. Yet she had been utterly convinced that > > showing this fellow the LRH TA HCOB's was Out Tech! > > > > XXXX > > > > Hey XXXX! > > Very interesting story. That is so strange. If things have drifted > that far afield, then it is much worse then I imagined and robots are > > truly being made in the CoS these days. > > It is interesting that she could not apply basic Student Hat data and > > supe tech to her students. Interesting how she did not find it > germane to refer to Source. Interesting how some key points that make > > the tech workable were left off the revised "BOTWO" issue. And even > more interesting that a non-LRH course like that is being offered in > the church. > > The HQS course made me into a Scientologist. It was one of the best > course I ever did. Sorry to see it's been so bastardized now. What a > tech degrade. {PLAIN} I don't know what this checksheet is now, or even what is covered in the course material. Possibly it is from the assists Chapter of the book, The Scientology Handbook. Part of the sup's training is the datum that the answer to the student's question is in the materials of the course the student is studying, or possibly earlier, more basic courses. This is a "that's-just-the-way-it-has-to-be" datum, not one based on truth or natural law. Whether or not the answer is in the course materials depends on the skill with which the materials are compiled and the skill of the checksheet writer. But let me give an example. Let's say the student asked me, as sup, "What does this touch assist procedure have to do with balancing the energy flows in the body's meridians? It seems somewhat similar to the 4,000-year old Chinese Acupuncture and similar processes." Let's say the student happens to be a chiropractor who has spent a long time studying such things. Let's also say that I knew where in the courseroom there was a good encyclopedia article summarizing the whole meridian flow process, and I knew exactly what references existed on Touch Assists including the bits on the Class VIII tapes. Would I marshall all that knowledge and allow the student to spend five hours answering his question to his extreme satisfaction? It would only take five minutes total of my time to direct the student to those references; the five hours is how long he would spend of his own time, not my time. Would I do that? And have one blown-out student who would be forever impressed with the depth of my knowledge on the subject and how helpful I was? No I wouldn't, and here's why. Let's say he is doing the HQS course, whatever the hell that is now. It's a 50 hour course, say. It goes over some basic stuff on how to be a Scientologist, some basic tools. The approximate time allotted to the Touch Assist section is one hour theory, and however long it takes to grab someone and do a touch assist to a good result. The practical could possibly be done outside of course hours if there was no good candidate available at the time the theory had just been completed. An in-depth analysis of how a touch assist works is not part of that course. It might be part of a post-graduate Assists course, but it is not part of the HQS course. In reality, faced with the question from the chiropractor above, I would go over the fact that he was studying a basic course, and the data to answer his question was available but was not on his course. I might show him a couple of lines off a relevant Touch Assist HCOB--not on his course--that might point the way, and he would probably understand enough of it to be satisfied for now, at least for the duration of the course. I would reason that it is quicker to give that student that one off-course reference than to leave him wondering about it. This is assuming, of course, that the answer to his question *isn't* in the course materials. If it is, I would just refer him to those, and clear up any mu's as needed. Now, what does a shit-hot Flag-trained sup do who doesn't know anything about energy meridians? Or even touch assists? Well, she has a problem! Part of the sup code is the sup is supposed to know where to direct the student for answers to student questions. A smart sup who has been supervising a course for a while knows what questions will come up again and again, and has the answer all ready. A student might be incredibly impressed by my relaxed answer of, "Oh yes, bring me a copy of Scn 8-80...thank you [flips pages rapidly] here you are, just read that sentence there...OK? Great, put the book back and get on with your checksheet." What the student doesn't see is the five hours I spent frantically looking all over the place before I finally worked out how to answer that one question to the total satisfaction of everybody. The first student who ever asked me that question got a dog's breakfast of a response that tied him up for an hour or more before he went back to study, not the completely-satisfied one minute of the later students. But a new sup or a sup new to a particular course or checksheet has a rough, rote time of it. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 212 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 8, 2004 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [fzflame] Stultum est timere quod vitare non potes, Mr. XXXX --- XXXX wrote: > > immitte scurras, Mr. Adams. {JOKE} RMV! (Ridens magna voce) And that's enough of that. At least we got the other morons to shut it for a while. {/JOKE} Paul






Message 213 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jul 9, 2004 1:20 pm Subject: RE: [freezoneaoint] Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > I agree with Nick on below. Unless one is a highest trained auditor > and C/S > with case aspects thoroughly handled, I see no sligh chance of that > 'progressive' standard tech idea. The result will be (and is) a mess. > > Maybe it is all fine in theory. But tell me one example of results by > "progressive" standard tech, I mean someone who made it up the bridge > all > the way with such tech. I do not mean a successful session or some > wins. {PLAIN} I dislike the argument of, "Why go and buy that thing you like at that new Ethiopian corner shop? How do you know it's not in stock at Safeway until you've walked by every shelf of every aisle in the super-store? Safeway is really dependable." My current understanding of the bridge is that while doing whatever training/hatting is needed or desired, one first of all gets oriented to the subject of Scn; then unburdens the composite case up through Expanded Grade 4 while taking off the major buttons of the bank that prevent progress, i.e. communication, problems, O/Ws, ARCX's, ser-facs, remedying other difficulties on the way (out-int etc); does the final Clearing approach with NED or Power/R6EW/CC, resulting in personally separating from the composite case at Clear; takes charge off the composite case and breaks it up to some extent into bite-sized chunks on OT2; blows off the entities that are available and can easily be gotten into comm at OT3; blows off some more that are made available through drug-related questions on the OT DRD; then does an extensive, extensive handling of more entities using various techniques like NOTs/Solo NOTs, CBR stuff, and doubtless other variations that are not so socially acceptable. Finally one gets to the point of "no entities left" (like the OT3 EP in the materials is "No BT's left") or "no entities having an adverse effect on one", or however that is phrased. I imagine there are also different degrees of being "at cause over other entities/beings/associations with entities" and other ramifications that I haven't thought of, but however you put it it's big-time entity handling after OT2 until that part is done. Maybe there's an alternative to just blowing them off of org-boarding or enlisting the help of entities, just as in life one enlists the help of friends and associates or even enemies. I have heard of the "spiritual team-mates" idea, but haven't investigated it at all. Anyway, eventually we get to the point of the start of "the real OT levels", where one works on improving the ability of the being directly instead of just dealing with entities one way or another. Since this area is not well-codified at all, and the CofS has not been delivering anything here beyond various OT 8 sections of differing value (per report), it is considered up-for-grabs in the research arena, and no-one vigorously defends any particular position regarding it. There may be Actual GPM handling; increasing OT abilities by mocking up/unmocking banks; Route 1-type drills; other OT drills; postulate-handling; the list could go on and on. That is the bridge as I see it. Is there some "new technique" that accomplishes all of the above without using Scn basics? Not that I know of. I think it very unlikely that one will be developed that doesn't use what we know as the basics of Scn. I'm not an expert in alternatives to what I call Conservative Standard Tech that still use the same (or almost all of the same) Scn basics. One Progressive extension of a common technique that I am familiar with does not purport to address anything on the standard bridge at all, but is considered by its developer to be a "case-booster" that can be run at different points on the bridge where it won't interfere with normal bridge progress. Of course the developer and main proponent of this "alternative tech" cannot produce one single example of someone who has reached any of the standard EP's of the bridge by using his extended process alone. I wouldn't expect him to, as that isn't what it does. What it does it does well, but all by itself it doesn't even make a comm release. There are various abilities one can gain through Scn. There are various abilities that I assume anyone can gain (reliable telepathy, telekinesis, various exterior perceptions, use of the "dowsing sense" etc.) that are not specifically addressed on the regular Scn bridge, although improvement in these abilities may occur incidentally along the way. Some may decry the exhibition of such abilities as "mere parlor tricks", but hell, if I knew of a place where almost anyone could learn to fly like Superman I'd be there yesterday, and to hell with spending the next five years in Entity City. I'm working on a chart of such abilities and where/how one might be able to get them and I'll probably release a preliminary version in a few days or so with a request for help/comments/corrections. But again, electrifying as it may appear, there is no intention to supplant the regular bridge. "Untrained, out-ethics OT's with banks" is not the way to go. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 214 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jul 9, 2004 1:45 pm Subject: RE: [ifachat] Weights Added to BEST Checklist --- XXXX wrote: > At the risk of being seen as "UNPOPULAR", I must tell you that I see > a > textbook example of HCOPL "Propaganda By redifinition of Words" at > work > here. {IRONY} Thank you for the compliment. {/IRONY} {PLAIN}I never heard what you think of TT's IC2. Would you care to answer that question now?{/PLAIN} Paul






Message 215 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jul 9, 2004 6:15 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] orientation --- XXXX wrote: > You know... I'm sure this is a 'problem' with many new people who > 'drop in' > without really knowing any of us. Perhaps a 'non-e' page would be in > order... somewhere that those of us who want to, can post a brief > 'who we > are' type deal? {PLAIN} What would be interesting would be a page where five or more people posted what they really thought of the *other* posters, as well as themselves. It won't happen, but it's an amusing idea. There's plenty of room in the Yahoo groups "back rooms" for such piffle. Or indeed for the prim, somewhat useful and entirely proper listing you suggest. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 216 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jul 9, 2004 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Wierd Graduation Ceremony --- XXXX wrote: > Hey Paul... your 'PI Briefing Packet' is good promo stuff... mind if > I (or someone else) uses it on a website? {PLAIN} Yes, please don't, although I can't stop you re-writing it. After all, it's just from stuff I picked up on a.r.s. or the Web, not from personal experience. I am not particularly into attacking the CofS. I'm a tech guy hoping for reform but not expecting it and willing to settle for peaceful co-existence. I'm not a critic seeking its downfall, despite the occasional dig. {PLAIN} Paul






Message 217 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jul 9, 2004 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Fresh CofS attack --- XXXX wrote: > Hi all, > > For your info and any suggestions you may have. Please see: > > http://www.freezoneamerica.org/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi {PLAIN} Hi XXXX, Yes, I have a suggestion--just drop it! It is of very minor importance. This anonymous dude pops up out of nowhere and offers a NOTs pack for sale with no other data. It's like someone with a rating of zero and a fresh ID appearing on eBay and offering a Rolex for sale. Caveat emptor. And the other bit is like kicking a sleeping dog and then being surprised when it snaps at you. It is *exactly* the mechanism of creating antagonism in the PTS tech. The CofS are required by law to defend their (speaking very loosely here) trademarks and copyrights, or they lose them. They don't go after every little infringement they can find, but they have to be seen to go after the major stuff. So they do. If you want to take on the CofS in court, go right ahead with what you are doing. I haven't closely examined the merits of your case as it isn't the point. The point is that those legal people have LRH policy saying they're gonna harass you until you drop it, and they have DM pushing it too. They aren't going to let it drop in the legal arena until the Supreme Court rules against them. Then they *still* won't let it drop. What's the point? There are more important things to put your attention on. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 218 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:13 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] A bit of time to reflect.../abbreviations --- XXXX> wrote: >> 2. The only problem is that if U guys that use abbreviations and such > > would please clarify what exactly you mean, if you feel some others > wont understand. I think this saves lots of time and a bit of the Mu > problem don't you think? Plus a bit of a bonus for new members like > me... > Or maybe someone could occasionally post an abbreviation list or > something? That'd be great! And I'd be grateful for sure! {PLAIN} Go to Google and look up a Scn abbreviation list, glossary, etc. I just looked--there are plenty out there. I am probably one of the worst offenders, but understand that this is how I've talked in life to fellow Scnists for 30 years. If I am talking to a stranger at the supermarket, I talk in language they can understand. But on a regular Scn e-mail list, I use regular language to most of the people on the list. I wouldn't use obscure org statistic abbreviations here--like there's a book stat with the lovely slang name of "new beasties"--NBSTI--"number of books sold to individuals" and I wouldn't dream of using that term in a post without an explanation. But I enjoy writing. I use words and terms that I feel impart the flavor of what I want to say in the way I want to say it, and I refuse to dumb it down to the lowest common denominator of possible readers. If someone reading one of my posts comes across an unfamiliar word and can't be bothered to open an extra browser window and spend a minute looking it up in one of the many online dictionaries, well, then they miss out. English is the richest language on this planet. Classic English literature doesn't sound so good when rotely re-translated back from Esperanto. So make the effort. You'll have to learn them sooner or later. It's like that horrible realization of what is ahead of you when you get that first *rate checkout on KSW and flunk on the word "the".... {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 219 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jul 10, 2004 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Oooops, sorry! --- XXXX wrote: > Some auditors were trained on NOTs at the AOs and > purchased their own packs, {PLAIN} Excuse me? Which AO SOLD a NOTs pack to its NOTS auditors to do with as they wish? I was a NOTs DTS in the early 1980's. The NOTs auditors had NOTs packs available for use in session and for reference, and these numbered packs would have been signed out to specific individuals, but they were never for sale. I cannot believe that any AO at any time would have allow the ownership of a NOTs pack to be legally transferred to an individual as in buying a NED pack from the bookstore. > and then there were many copies sold by > the church themselves via "plants" in the field for $20 in the > 80s, What do you have as evidence for the statement that the "CofS had plants" sell these copied packs? Until I got onto the Net in 1996 and saw that it was already a done deal and people weren't dying in volume as a consequence I was horrified at the idea of OT Level data being at large in the world. It is hard for me to believe that any good Churchie would endorse the idea. This is just my informed opinion and if you have more than the bald assertion of the fact I'll look at it anew. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 220 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jul 10, 2004 9:57 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Regarding freedom.. and TA(Paul) --- XXXX wrote: > The section on Touch Assists in that manual did not contain any data > that would lead the student to workable knowledge of a TA. Not even a > > simplified easily digestible interpretation of the LRH Theory. I > believe he > was > expected to pick up the mechanical steps automatically from a simple > diagram and follow it without any knowledge of the theory. {PLAIN} For me to really comment further you will have to let me know exactly what the material in the course was. As I said, I think it might be from the Assists Chapter of the Scn Handbook. I am looking right now in the Scn Handbook, at the section on Touch Assists. This is of course a BOTWO book. I don't see anything obviously incorrect or with the importance misplaced. There are lots of photos of the procedure. Bearing in mind what is being demonstrated, you might think any photogenic person could have been used for the photos showing how it is done. But no, the guy is Peter Alpert/Albert, Class VI or maybe Class VIII; and the girl is Lisa Frau (name is different now), who is at least a Class IV and used to be Qual Sec ITO. If I was supervising a basic course on assists, I would be happy to use that section on Touch Assists as the material to be studied. The theory of what exactly is going on with a touch assist is not in the least simple, and I'm not even sure that I fully understand it (I wasn't kidding about the energy meridians). And that doesn't mean I have an mu on an LRH Touch Assist HCOB. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 221 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Jul 10, 2004 10:45 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re Nots and Copyrights --- XXXX wrote: > > From: XXXX > Subject: Re: Oooops, sorry! > > I may be showing my ignorance here, but if NOTS is available in the > COS, how > could it be possible that no one would be able to have a 'legal' copy > of > it(them)? > > There is a lack of information here. The person who offered the NOTs > pack for sale on Mike's list was > > 1) annonymous > 2) Did not indicate if it was a new made up pack or a used pack, in > which case it would have been a resale of second hand material. > 3) There is nothing to show that it was actually NOTs other than > being named as such. > Was any reference given that would indicate what issue of NOTs it > was? > 4) the C of S jumped the gun with their usual heavy handled legal > missive. But keep in mind it is just a letter from their lawyers > (In Australia they are called soliciters - don't laugh). The only > claim the C of S would have is if a NOTs pack were found to be stolen > from THEM and someone was selling that pack. > 5) There are legal packs of NOTs around inthe freezone. As has been > mentioned, people have purchased them legally from the C of S and are > quite entitled to do with them as they pleased. (I have always > wondered why no one ever challenged the C of S when they get ebay to > remove an e-meter for sale on ebay. That meter is the property of > the owner not the C of S. i am sure you cannot dictate to a person w > you sell a product to what they may do with that product or that they > may not sell it). > > I have big questions on the C of S's perchant to issue legal letters > at the drop of a hat even when not warranted. {PLAIN} The CofS (loose term) has never and likely will never *publish* anything considered "confidential" or "secret". This would include Power Processing and up, like R6EW, Clearing Course, OT I through VIII. Reference materials for these levels are obviously printed, or in the past mimeo'd, so that people can be trained on the materials or use them in session, like platens or correction lists. But there is a big difference between printing them for authorized use within the CofS and having them available at amazon.com. There's a non-confidential PL called "Advanced Course[s] Regulations and Security", which includes a dire penalty for releasing these materials into the wild, so to speak. Someone else would have to quote it exactly as I don't have a copy available. These materials are now and never have been sold openly by the CofS. Never. Never. Never. I have extreme doubts that anything was ever sold covertly either, at least with top management OK. Possibly some of the materials have now entered the public domain, as in the famous "Fishman Declaration". I am not a lawyer and I am making no statement as to whether any of this material is in the public domain or not. Obviously it is loose on the Internet. CofS people have been gnashing their teeth for years at this. The authorship of the NOTs materials is not clear. It would seem to be a collaboration between LRH and David Mayo, but as I understand it Mayo's position would have been that of producing a "work-for-hire", in that he was doing his job as an employee and any work produced on the company time as opposed to something he cooked up on a day off properly belongs to his then-employer. "Legal NOTs packs" are contentious. The CofS will say there is no such thing as a "Legal NOTs Pack" in the field. Whether or not they are correct is unclear to me. Whether or not they will fight the issue is abundantly clear to anyone who cares to look, and is more to the point than whatever the truth is. Or rather, whatever the current legal position is. With regard to selling things with conditions attached, look up "conditional ownership" or consult with a lawyer. The CofS E-meter is supposedly sold under the condition that it only be used by bona fide CofS ministers or ministers-in-training. Whether this is legal or not I don't know. But I do know that if you went to an org bookstore and said, "Hey, I want to buy an E-meter to replicate LRH's 1960's tomato experiments and I have no intention of using it on people. Well, except maybe as a radionics device to try and locate an ex-girlfriend", you would be unlikely to walk out of there with one under your arm. Is that legal? Is the CofS's insistence legal? Realistically, who cares?! If they slap a lawsuit on you, you're the one that suffers greatly in trying to uphold or defend your position in court. Maybe you will finally achieve some kind of Pyrrhic victory. Well, whoop-de-do. I say just screw it and spend your time and energy on something more useful. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 222 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:01 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Nots & Copyrights --- XXXX wrote: > > > Is that legal? Is the CofS's insistence legal? Realistically, who > cares?! If they slap a lawsuit on you, you're the one that suffers > greatly in trying to uphold or defend your position in court. Maybe > you will finally achieve some kind of Pyrrhic victory. > Well, whoop-de-do. > I say just screw it and spend your time and energy on something more > useful. > Paul > > Well yes, Time is always well spent on auditing and training. > > But attention does need to be given to the matter. One of the > purposes of the IFA is to be able to assist in such situations when a > unwarranted lawsuit is slapped upon a member. As such it is in the > interests to build a historical record of the activities in this > area. Such assistance would be along the lines of countering any > stop or infringement o the persons right to practice their religion. > > Obviously the stronger the IFA becomes financially the better > position it will be in to assist along these lines. > > XXXX {PLAIN} I think you're dreaming. Still, it's a barren life without dreams. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 223 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 11:51 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re Nots and Copyrights {PLAIN} Hi XXXX, I know OSA probably reads all this stuff. I maybe know the guy at OSA Int who reads it. Hi Diethelm! Hi Andy! Hi Gavino! Hi __! Before GOWW was shredded in the early 80s it was based at SH, in the Manor. I knew a lot of these guys. For my first year I worked in Treasury, in the "monkey room" that Treasury AOSHUK shared with the Finance Bureau WW and Herbie Parkhouse, DGFWW. That was an interesting year. I also worked at OSA Int for two years around 1988 in their Qual, doing supervision, word-clearing and tech services functions. I was also on a project to compile hat packs for the entire OSA network, including all the OSA N/W orders. I have spent some 5,000 hours over the past eight years reading about the CofS on the Net. None of the above is secret information in that I have posted the data on one Yahoo group or another in the past month. I am just repeating it in case you missed it and might have the impression that I am merely an innocent techie. Do you have any specific data re the CofS covertly selling OT materials? Or is that just your opinion too? It is impossible to prove a negative. It is just so ingrained into the mind of a Sea Org member that it would be dangerous to release these materials broadly that I could not imagine some B1 guy doing it. It is not something casual that would be done without permission. It is a real big deal, and I cannot imagine any local B1 person taking the decision at his level to do that. He would be risking expulsion and denial of advanced courses forever (in his own mind, anyway)! It wouldn't be the same big deal for a non-Scn PI to do it, but even then I don't think that one would. Where would he get the materials from? And why would he risk his job and possible prosecution? If he got as far as thinking of the idea, he would ask permission, and the approval process would be the same as above in that no local senior would dream of making the decision himself. Prior to the shredding, B1 command lines would have gone up through Mo Budlong DGIWW, Jane as Guardian WW and Mary-Sue as Controller or CS-G at least. Part of the process is saying "This is OK" before you pass it up the line. Do you think Mo or Jane would have said "This is OK" to such an idea? In PT, the approval process would go through whoever runs B1 at OSA Int, through Kurt Weiland (D/CO OSAI?), the CO OSAI (Rinder?), Mike Sutter (WDC OSAI?), and maybe Marty Rathbun at least before it got to DM. Do you think these guys would say "This is OK" before passing the idea up the line? No, it ain't gonna happen. How about the other way, the idea originating at the top and passing down through the chain of command? And it would have to pass through the chain of command just because anyone receiving *that* order is going to make damn sure that everyone above him is fully aware of what it says before even thinking about the possibility of carrying it out. If I was on the ground in B1 I would be scared shitless of doing such a thing, when there is direct LRH policy against it, and the LRH penalty for doing it, enshrined in perpetuum in green-on-white, is loss of my eternal salvation! And so on all the way up. I have not read any whisper of such an idea in all the confessions and intentionally-damning affidavits written by Vicki Aznaran, Jesse Prince, Robert Vaughn Young, Stacey Young or anyone else. So, that's what I'm basing my opinion on. How about you? {/PLAIN} Paul --- XXXX wrote: > Hello Paul > > Paul I fully believe what you say with the exception of the > following statement. It appears to be more an intuitive > statement than fact. > ..Snip. > "These materials are now and never have been sold openly by the CofS. > > Never. Never. Never. I have extreme doubts that anything was ever > sold covertly either, at least with top management OK." > > As a DTS or other Common Org posts one eats and sleeps > with tech that is applied 100% per HCOB's. and everything follows > the no "hidden data line". However if one thinks clean pristine > thoughts and has the same opinion of B1 (Bureau 1, the covert > operations section) of the old GO ( Guardian) Offices Or their > replacement DSA (todays, dept of Special affairs) Then one is > missing the > whole point of Covert Operations.That is what they do(opinion), > That is what they did (fact). > > If you do not think that they use every trick in the book to > get covert data, to "protect Scientology", You have not been > privy to the B1 Policy. Even selling already compromised OT manuals. > or useless sections of non compromised one's. > I don't believe for one instance that OSA listens to any one else > except perhaps Miscavige. That is something I have personally > experianced. > > There is a whole section of confidential Policy on Covert Operations, > > Public Relations, Finance and Legal. > > I worked with it and seen it applied for years. It sounds like you > would be very surprised. > > And it is unthinkable that there isn't at least one agent from OSA > reading > and copying every related thread on the Internet. > > XXXX






Message 224 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 12:29 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Regarding freedom.. and TA(Paul) --- XXXX wrote: > > Wow.... you mean that 'kid' is a Class VI-VIII??? Holy smoke... {PLAIN} Yeah, it blew me away too when I first heard that. He married a girl called Kathy, who used to be on staff with me at ITO. Kathy and I both had "shredding" as our daily cleaning station, so most nights we spent 15-30 minutes together at 10:30 PM collecting up the shredding from the various ITO offices and feeding it to the giant shredder/pulverizer in the basement. I remember one Saturday night at 11 PM we walked the 3 miles home along Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. Some guys outside a McDonalds jeered at us, and I didn't know if it was because of our SO uniforms or the spectacle of a pretty 18-year old girl hand-in-hand with a balding, 40-year old guy. We never held hands again--she probably thought better of it too on reflection. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 225 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re Nots and Copyrights --- XXXX wrote: > > With regard to Nots, I gather they were posted in > Greece, and the COS denied they were the correct ones. > This may explain why they make no attempt to stop > their continual posting on ARS and I believe ACT. {PLAIN} I just checked on one Greek link I found after a 30-minute search (!) and it was down. I also saw that someone has been posting a Greek link for a year, but I don't know what lay at the end of it. If someone has a viable link I wouldn't suggest posting it to this forum but you're welcome to mention the fact. I don't think it is true that one can post NOTs issues with impunity. Try putting a few NOTs issues on a free website in the US and proclaim the fact on this list and ars/act, and see what happens (this isn't a serious suggestion on my part). Try searching for any NOTs issue using Google--just grab a short phrase from one and see what comes up. I'll make it easy for you, try "e/beg or e/sim" (for earlier beginning or earlier similar). I remember that as it's so unusual. The second idea yields two hits on Google. One is labelled as a satire, where someone has taken a NOTs issue or maybe more than one and used "search and replace" to almost rewrite it. I can't decide if it is a genuine satire or just someone thumbing their nose at the CofS because if you are smart you can figure out the entire issue anyway. Maybe the CofS will wise up now that I have mentioned it and get it taken down anyway. The other hit shows the Web page is now gone but still shows up for now in the cache. But that's all. Two hits. Neither of them are current and contain unadulterated NOTs issues. I doubt the materials are not posted through lack of interest. Which leaves...{JOKE}[scary music swells up to a crescendo]....{/JOKE} {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 226 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 2:15 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] orientation --- XXXX wrote: > > Paul Adams whose posts you have read is a very > experienced and excellent course Sup. {PLAIN} He's got a good PR guy. You'll notice that no-one has yet posted a tech report about any real-life supervision to the FZ Tech Rating system at http://www.yahoogroups.com/fztechrating . > He did this at > AOs in los angeles, and for int management I did not. I supervised mainly Solo through OT III at AOSHUK in 1984-5. And I supervised pretty much everything except KTL/LOC and the Clay Table Processing of the New Pro Trs Course at the International Training Org and similar orgs (New World Corps when it was in LA) between 1986 and 1995. The exact designation of the pecking order there was "Upper Middle Management", the rung below Int Mgmt. I did supervise OT 1-3 again on and off at ITO for about a dozen execs. I was never posted in the PAC orgs like AOLA or ASHO, although I once supervised for a few hours in one of them for some reason or another. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 227 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:51 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech --- XXXX wrote: > > one "appropriate" question could be how much of NOTs was written by > LRH (the CoS could provide NO notes in LRH handwriting for the Mayo > courtcase) and how much was written by David Mayo - {PLAIN} A mystery indeed. But does it really matter? Legally, Mayo has no claim to the intellectual property as his contribution was a "work-for-hire". Kind of technically, the CofS has adopted it as being "official" tech. And really technically, it works as badly or as well as it works, and this would be true even if it had been invented by a mimeo typist during some quiet moments when traffic was low. (Yeah, yeah, I know). A quick aside while on the subject. In the late seventies I toyed with the idea of writing a few "red on white" issues called the "Alien Auditing Series," that would superficially look like genuine HCOB's on how to handle the cases of extra-terrestrial visitors masquerading as humans. I had access to mimeo at SH and I could have typed them up to look right and cut a few stencils and mimeo'd a few off and put them in the comm baskets, in the same way as regular HCOB's used to appear some days. I would have done it outside of post time and I would have paid the few pounds for the cost of the materials used. For a few years just before April Fools Day I thought of the idea, but I was scared of getting into big trouble from people who wouldn't see the joke. Then the Joker and Degrader issue came out and I never considered the idea again. > and another could > be is NOTs an extensive repair action on LRH's case or is it an OT > level (or 4)? It didn't come out as an OT level. It was done after OT3 and before original OT4, 5, 6. Then one day OT4, 5, 6 got withdrawn and for a short while there was this awfully big gap below OT8. Someone had the bright idea of filling in the gap with NOTs/Solo NOTs and changing a few labels. Voil`! Instant OT Levels! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 228 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 5:52 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] (cross-posted) Warning... --- XXXX wrote: > By the way, I don't normally relay stuff like this, but this is the > most credible threat we have heard since the beginning of the whole {PLAIN} What is it exactly that makes this credible? That the threat is being heavily promoted in a scary way (which is terrorism, after all) by the very people--or their agents--who are likely to carry it out? For a recent historical example look up Hitler and the Reichstag fire. If you are concerned about nuclear fallout, download the book, "Nuclear War Survival Skills". It is a tremendously useful, practical book on surviving such a scenario, complete with useful practical data about surviving fallout by living in a trench dug in the back garden with a roof made by dirt piled up on doors for support. And how to practically ventilate it. And making a workable geiger counter using gypsum from wall board and similar stuff, and how to simply calculate how long it is safe to be outside the trench for to empty the toilet bucket and so on. Such a makeshift "shelter" would provide at least a hundred times the radiation protection of a regular house. It isn't theoretical either--the author had regular people build these things from the written instructions in the book. It is all tried and tested, although not in a real nuclear war. It is a lot easier to survive than is commonly believed, but you have to get hatted on it. Lots and lots and lots of useful data in that book. But the real terrorists are not the ones that you hear about on the TV. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 229 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 6:17 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] orientation --- XXXX wrote: > Do you remember when one of the ITO courserooms was in the ASHO > building? {PLAIN} I arrived at NWC around March 1986. NWC was piloting KTL and the Sec-Checker School at the time. NWC and the International Training School were on the third floor of the Main Building. In 1989, ITS--which had been a small OEC/FEBC-type admin training operation--went to the HGB and was incorporated into ITO. > Do you remember the day a 12 year old arrived to do the Levels and > was > homesick? The Crs Admin took her for a locational of the complex, > she called her > mother and was OK after that. No. What year are you talking about? Which org? > Do you remember Pedro Bassio? Bossio. Yeah. > Did you know "Waldo?" Yeah. One of those SO members granted undying fame by virtue of appearing in the LRH Pro Trs film. I can barely remember him in the film now--didn't he have the 'fro? Wasn't he the guy doing 50' TRs with "Joe"? > Did you know Diane from EUS who did the Levels? When? Not Pedro's wife that later joined FB? Diane Konneus? > Do you remember the fish tank with the two sea horses in it? Not sure. I wasn't into sea horses much. > Was Tony a Crs Sup on the Pro TRs there when you were? Tony who? When? > Do you remember the woman who ran the project to get new trainees for > the ITO > and the OEC courserooms who was replaced (after the whole of the FCB > was > removed from post) by the guy who had run the original project under > LRH? When? ITO didn't exist until 1989. I think this FB cycle occurred around 1988 when I was out of NWC and working with OSA Int, as it didn't involve me directly at all and I just saw what was going on and thought, "poor bastards." And are you talking about Nancy Phelps and Al Baker? {/PLAIN} Paul > The exact designation of the pecking order > > there was "Upper Middle Management", the rung below Int Mgmt. > > Yea. The ITO and OEC training were under the Tech Aide at the FCB. > The New > World Corp was run a bit differently because it was running Pilots, > especially > the KTL/LOC during part of that time. > XXXX >






Message 230 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 11, 2004 6:59 pm Subject: Abilities [freezoneorg][ifachat][freezoneaoint][formerscio] {PLAIN} Various people have various abilities. Some never achieve very much, while others can perform the most extraordinary feats. I am attempting to catalog the major abilities demonstrable by man, and I am making the grand assumption that what one man can do anyone else can also, at least in theory. I am not trying to list out all the "ordinary" abilities, even though these would include being able to lead like Alexander, compose music like Beethoven, think like Newton or even create like Da Vinci or Tesla. I am trying to encompass the ability that enables a dog to go and sit by the front door at the exact moment that his owner decides to leave work for home thirty minutes away [see Sheldrake]; and the ability that enables a US concert performer [Kreskin] to rapidly locate his appearance fee check 99.9% of the time after the organizers have hidden it anywhere in the building. Can the average man ever hope to develop such abilities in himself? If so, how? A 1997 book, China's Super Psychics, found a surprisingly large number of Chinese schoolchildren able to "see with their ears" in their early teens, but the incidence dropped off as the children grew older. Maybe they were told that what they were doing was theoretically impossible so they obligingly lost the ability. A person familiar with LRH tech is accustomed to technology enabling one to heal an ARC Break, to get on better with others, even to be able to get remote, discarnate entities to examine their own considerations and change them. But such a person is not usually so familiar with technology enabling one to balance another's energy flows at a distance, move a ping-pong ball inside a sealed bell-jar on a solid table, or indeed pick up the table without apparent physical means. A person familiar with LRH tech might exclaim that such "parlor tricks" are not worthy of attention and are a distraction from the important business of concentrating on the twenty or so abilities that LRH tech directly addresses. He is very welcome to direct his attention away from the maybe eighty other abilities listed, which are not directly addressed by LRH tech. Oh, and feel free to go ballistic on the list too. What kind of technology does address these abilities? Some I know about, but in most cases, I have no idea right now. Maybe there are technologies in use on this planet right now that address and increase some of these abilities--if I find out exactly what, I will add them to the chart. What likelihood of success is there that one can achieve the listed ability by doing the supposed tech that is reported to bring about the ability? Again, this is a very hard question to answer at all accurately, but if I get figures that seem more accurate than the ubiquitous "?", I will put them on the chart. The sequence is very roughly in order of ascending difficulty or rarity, but very roughly. The chart is at the usual place, http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal , click on the "Abilities" tag. Comments and suggestions welcome, as usual. OK, I'm done. Yoooo-hoooo! Pierre! Chris! Ray! RF! Your turn! (Sorry if I missed anyone). {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 231 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:01 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Weights Added to BEST Checklist --- XXXX wrote: > > Personally, I don't see why you [Robert] have such a problem with R3XD being > assigned an "alternative tech" or "other tech" status. Because that's > what it is. {PLAIN} My view is that I don't have any problem with anyone considering R3X as "alternative tech" or "other tech" or even "junk tech". I don't have any problem with anyone considering Dale Carnegie insincere flattery "junk tech"; or with someone considering the Linux operating system "junk tech"; or with someone considering LRH tech "junk tech" either. We each have our way of looking at things, whether based on rational evaluation or on laughably-absurd prejudice or on ideas in-between. I don't have any problem with a prison warden enforcing any particular code of conduct on the inmates, providing it broadly falls within agreed-upon conventions for such. "It's a free world", as they say. It isn't, but there is a relatively large degree of latitude permitted within one's thinking processes, in that this planet is not flooded with the electronics needed to completely shut down what has managed to escape the drugs and TV and "educational" systems currently in vogue. It all depends on the agreements. Someone who started preaching that LRH tech was junk tech would be rapidly tossed off this list without debate or qualm, but would be welcomed by many on ARS. I don't sit on the fence regarding LRH tech. No words of praise would be remotely sufficient for how I feel about it. But obviously I think there is room in the ability-increasing (or more correctly, willingness-to-demonstrate-the-ability-increasing) universe for more than strictly-as-already-printed LRH tech. Many don't. So be it. My attitude and communications push the envelope of a so-called Standard-Tech list a bit. How acceptable it is to the members of the list would vary from member to member. Some express their views--some vehemently!--some just suffer in silence. And some applaud silently too. Over the space of fifteen years of intensive and widespread application to over 500 pcs Robert has developed a very useful technology from an earlier workable technology. This statement will be rejected by many who will not view the evidence or even admit its existence. The fact that he did it is acceptable to some and not acceptable to others. Even the possibility of someone daring to attempt it is unacceptable to many. Labels are labels. They are useful methods of conveying information. The same thing is labelled differently by different people. A 15-year-old's new nose ring is not viewed similarly by the 15-year-old and her school-principal father. I have found it useful to use the labels of Conservative Standard Tech and Progressive Standard Tech. Some agree. Some disagree. Some try to enforce their views on others. Some don't. The world continues to turn. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 232 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Weights Added to BEST Checklist --- XXXX> wrote: > > You do have the right to your own views, your own ideas, your > own "labels" and opinions, Paul, even when they are wrong. That is > one of the rights of a being. However, when they begin to bar the > route out, as in the promoting of an alternative tech as a standard > tech, then one needs to apply the datums LRH covered in the > PLs "Keeping Scientology Working" and "Safeguarding Technology". > > Labels can also be used to obfuscate and confuse. They can be used to > > lead down stray paths. LRH tech is LRH tech because it IS LRH tech > and not some other tech. R3XD is other tech that LRH tech, even if it > > is standard within it's own sphere. If you're having wins on it, > well, all the more power to you. You are free to follow your own > path, even if it's in your underwear. However, this is a list to > promote and preserve the standard application of LRH tech. > > Sometimes other "isms" or alterations of LRH tech enter into a > discussion. That's fine. But the agreement on this list that began > this list was that it was a pro-LRH tech list. It was an agreement > with LRH, and LRH principles and LRH tech. So whether or not it is > acceptbale by a.r.s. or you or anyone else is a moot point. It is a > constructive list to promote the use and correct application of LRH > tech. You might do well to re-read the blurb on the home page that > covers what this list is about. I'm sure there are plenty of other > lists to discuss the alternatives you now follow. If not, you can > always create one, if you haven't already. > > XXXX {PLAIN} That was well-written, XXXX. I just looked at IFA's home page blurb very carefully. Either it changed, or I missed it last time I looked. Completely coincidentally, I just came across this lovely quote, that seems ever so true in my experience: "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." ~ John Kenneth Galbraith. My apologies. I'll be a good boy now. Well...good-ish. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 233 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:25 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Abilities, Info please --- XXXX wrote: > So anything you could recommend that is worth reading as a trained > scientologist would be very useful to me, because, well, you'd know > right? Google's good. > And I suppose a bit of a personal Q. Have you ever seen any really > amazing things? {PLAIN} Not really. I lead and have led a fairly dull life. But I do have an imagination. Don't get the idea that I am trying to offer some alternative to regular Scn, because I am not. But I am guilty of a bit of playing around with some icing on the cake. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 234 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:35 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Courses --- XXXX wrote: > with a little something. You know the list the Pilot made for tapes? > I > was wondering if you had at your disposal a list of courses thru > their > various revisions and repackagings. {PLAIN} I have no interest in making up such a chart of courses, particularly in the detail that Ken went into on that tapes list, but it wouldn't be that hard to answer questions off the top of my head, or for many other people here too. Most of the courses are obvious, in that Level 0 in 1974 pretty much covers the same ground as Level 0 in 2004, but with different prerequisites. What exactly do you want data on? I'm not going to spend time describing the "Steward's Checksheet" I did on the Estates Project Force when I joined the SO in 1972, for instance. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 235 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jul 13, 2004 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Weights Added to BEST Checklist ----- XXXX wrote: > >As far as I am concerned, I see R3XD as squirrel, plain and simple. I admit >there was a time when I felt it was ok. However, shortly after my >expressions of R3XD then(not really knowing its application at the time), I >personally know 3 different people having had it applied to them on the >phone by Robert Ducharme. I got a well trained Auditor to C/S for one that >Solo'd out of the mess left behind by the so-called R3XD. I refuse to >comment on the messes left behind with the other two. {PLAIN} I checked with Robert. He doesn't know who you are referring to, and since this forum is closed to such discussion the true data is not likely to see the light of day. Tried and convicted without being allowed to see the evidence or even respond. {/PLAIN} {IRONY}Very impressive, XXXX. You must make a lot of friends.{/IRONY} Paul






Message 236 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:07 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Digest Number 29-Clearwater CofS --- XXXX wrote: > It looks better all the time and is still being worked on; a > bit > slower than expected but it is a nice building although a bit large > for the lot. {PLAIN} Hi XXXX, Do you have any data that is more specific? Is there any heavy equipment in operation? How many people are working on it? Are they outside contractors or SO members? Are there teams of people who look they are trying to get things finished, or only a few casual workers with all the time in the world doing the odd thing here and there to make it look like construction is occurring? I've been on a work crew when Int Mgmt wanted something done. I was in the RPF at the time, June 1996, and we were working on ASHO renos. I was going into the third or fourth day straight without sleep (exaggeration--I had 2 hours in bed just before this point) when I collapsed at muster and they thought they had better complete my routing-out cycle before I died on them and created a PR flap. The other RPF guys got to keep working without a break. And I was free within 24 hours after sleeping most of the intervening time. It sure looks to me like they are not trying to get the building finished this century. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 237 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:06 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: scooze me? old fart? {PLAIN} I now have a couple of pix from that 1975 SH SO Day "Treasury Island" spectacular. As well as one of Isla Pryde from 1983 at her desk in the AO and one of me supervising the Sec Checker School at New World Corps in 1987. They are at http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal (same site), click on the Pix tag. {/PLAIN} Paul --- Paul Adams wrote: > All I can remember clearly that is worth reporting is this. > > On Sea Org Day in 1974 or '75 we had the whole day off. Remarkable > at > the time. We put on a whole costume musical called "Treasury > Island". > It took place at Stonelands, a large stone Elizabethan mansion where > the SO crew lived, about four miles from SH. There was a large > ballroom there, with oak-panel walls and a large stone fireplace, > which > normally was a mens' dorm. I slept in there with about twenty other > guys for seven years. > > All the furniture was removed; a stage was built about two feet off > the > ground with rudimentary stage lighting installed; Alex Smith painted > a > large backdrop; chairs were imported; and we had a show for a couple > of > hours with an audience of about 100. There were some other items in > addition to Treasury Island. > > There were also games and a roast pig barbecue and soccer and other > goodies to pretty much fill up the day with fun. > > This was the best SO Day I experienced in 23 years. > > Treasury Island was a take-off of Treasure Island. It was basically > about a Sea Org reg tour to a remote Pacific island to collect some > money from a prospect and get it counted on the Gross Income stat for > that week before 2 PM. > > I arrived late on the scene, about a week before the event. Someone > had just discovered that I could write, and asked me to contribute. > Things grew from there and come the night I ended up directing and > performing six original songs that I had written. Oh, I sing too. > Or > I did. > > My character was the Head Cannibal. My costume consisted of some > leaves sewn onto a pair of brief shorts, so it looked like I was > wearing only leaves about my loins. And make-up to darken the skin > all > over. And a large circular-ish metal object on a chain around my > neck, > that went well with the native mock-up. I had hair then too. > > Sitting in the front seats of the audience were all the senior execs > from the GOWW, as well as from FOLO UK and AOSHUK and SH FDN. My > post > at the time was Flag Banking Officer AOSHUK, and almost everyone knew > me as a strait-laced kind of guy. It made for an interesting first > appearance on stage. > > There were about ten characters total. The songs were performed > mostly > offstage with me directing, with me as lead and a chorus of four or > five. There was a piano and a piano-player, but we had had no > rehearsal, and the guy didn't really know the tunes ahead of time. > So > we sang them a cappella. Rehearsal was very skimpy! None of us were > professional or even very experienced singers, but it all went over > very well indeed. > > The first song was an introduction. To make it all simple, with very > limited rehearsal time, and because I was lousy at writing melodies, > I > used well-known tunes and just wrote fresh words. What follows is > just > a few fragments from memory--I never kept a copy of the script. I > think we managed to mimeo it off at the time. I'm sure there's one > floating around somewhere in someone's treasured memorabilia. > > Song 1. Sung to the tune of "The British Grenadiers", one of the > most > recognizable regimental marches and still a much-loved patriotic > British song (as some web-site says about it). > > We came out here on a Rush P.O.* > To get GI** uptrending > If we go home with the GI down > We'll be had for over-spending > Whatever may occur today > We'll have to see it through > (forgotten)... > We're a loyal Sea Org crew > > (another three or four verses, now forgotten) > (some syllables have to be extended to fit the music but I haven't > bothered to reproduce that) > *Rush PO = Rush Purchase Order, a basically-illegal way of spending > next week's income > **GI = Gross Income > > Part of the accompaniment was some people singing "bom...bom...bom" > to > simulate a drum beating in time with the music. Now that I think of > it, the first verse was me bom-bomming my way through the melody to > simulate a marching band. A bit of a skimpy marching band. > > At the end of the song, the rhythmic beat kept going, but segued into > a > "chhhsh" kind of noise, like a snare drum. It would have been better > with real drums, but what the hell! > > Once this was going ahead and I was confident the rest of the chorus > could keep it going, I left the group at the side of the stage (and > off-stage), and crept around the back. My intent was to stick my > head > up over the back of the stage and make an appearance that way. I > stuck > my head up, but no-one could see me, so I gradually stuck my head and > shoulders up until I got an audience reaction. I looked left and > right > in an exaggerated fashion to make sure the coast was clear, then > stood > up. I had to stand there for about a minute until the laughter had > almost died away, then I thumped loudly on the stage with a big stick > I > was carrying. More laughter... Thump! Quiet. Then the rest of the > cannibal band came on stage, equally sillily made-up. One cannibal > (Dave Flood) was wearing dark glasses. Very authentic. More > laughter... Thump! > > The snare drum was still going, so I used that for rhythm and > launched > straight into my introductory song. > > It was "I'm a Cannibal", sung to the tune of Monty Python's "I'm a > Lumberjack". I would sing a line or two, then the Cannibal Chorus > would repeat them, just like in the Lumberjack song, or as best as I > remembered it. > > I'm a cannibal, and I'm OK > I eat human bodies > Nicely cooked o'er a big log fire > With lovely bloody toddies > > (Chorus) > > (Another few verses I forget). > > Later there were another four songs, but I sang them offstage and I > don't remember them now. > > I have a photograph in front of me, with some of the cast of > cannibals, > taken during the performance: Me, Floodie, Peter Hill, Hazel Grafton, > Carol Beatty, Anna Angel?. And another one of me and Peter taken > outside earlier in the day on the front steps of the imposing main > entrance to Stonelands, me in costume apart from the make-up, and > Peter > in regular clothing. My scanner is down right now--I'll post them > somewhere one day. > > Other cast members I recall were Chris Burton as Ben Gun, and Mark > Gardner. I don't remember Mark's character, but he distinguished > himself by performing drunk and falling off the back of the stage. > It > wasn't scripted, but no-one seemed to notice. Except Mark. > > I had all my attention on the songs, and others had written the > dialogue anyway, and I don't remember a single line of it apart from > Hazel Grafton running on-stage shouting, "Help, help, I've been > GRAPED." Someone said, "Surely, madam, you mean 'raped'?" "No, no > there was a BUNCH of them." It's not even particularly funny, but > since it's all I remember after thirty years I added it to this > historical record. > > The whole day went very well. We put the beds back into the ballroom > that night so we could sleep, then completed the move back the next > morning. It was Sunday, so we didn't have to be on post until noon. > > And that was my introduction as a performer to the world. And to me > too, astonishingly. I had never done anything remotely similar this > lifetime, except to sing a few quiet songs with a guitar in front of > three people at most a few times. > > Paul






Message 238 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:57 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] RE Eval --- XXXX wrote: > I am not sure how I got on this mailing list, but I have been reading > and find most of it.. cool. How can the SO, are we meaning Sea Org?, > be out of comm with the rest of Scientology? There are SO staff at > any COS even recently. Perhap I am missing something? {PLAIN} Maybe I can give some data on this. I spent many years in the SO. Someone outside the SO might think that "the prices are too high", in that $350,000 to go from raw public to OT8 is too much money for the average person to afford. I thought like this around 1980. But I rapidly learned to keep my mouth shut, because if anyone dared to mention such an idea they were accused of "forwarding an enemy line" and sent to cramming or ethics if it persisted. After a while one didn't think too much about the prices being too high because it was a non-survival thought to have. There are many examples apart from prices. People who complain too much to Int Mgmt get declared. So Scn public keep their mouths shut and their minds closed, just like the staff, if they know what is good for them. And the SO guys don't look too closely because they might see the truth, and that would be very hard to deal with. It is a reign of terror, really. There just isn't any blood to see. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 239 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:48 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Auditing pc with psoriasis --- XXXX wrote: > Hello FreezoneOrg, > > Auditing pc with psoriasis > > Does anybody have experiences with auditing pc who has psoriasis? > Any successes in helping such pc and what method or processes did you > apply? > Are there any C/Ses from LRH to help such pc? > > > Thanks in advance for helping me with such questions. {PLAIN} I would try a medical handling first. Look up "alternative" treatments that address the supposed physical cause, rather than ones which mask the symptoms. My understanding is that in psoriasis the body is incompletely ridding itself of toxins through the pores of the skin: if the "treatment" consists of some cream which blocks up the pores so that the toxins are forced to remain in the body and damage the internal organs instead, then the skin might look better but at what cost? A nutritional handling might address the cause correctly. Handling the correct bugs (i.e. literally organisms like viruses, bacteria, molds, worms and fungi) and toxins in the body would too, both in eliminating existing ones and reducing/eliminating taking on more. A short auditing program could handle immediate BPC and end up with someone who is perfectly comfortable about being disfigured with psoriasis. A more extensive program could address the reasons for predisposition and precipitation and prolongation, and should be done if the nutritional/environmental handling doesn't bite after a reasonable period. Possibly the whole thing could be handled with a very extensive auditing program alone, but it is like the old story of it may be possible to audit out the need to drink, but if someone is thirsty it is a lot easier to give the person a glass of water. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 240 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:25 am Subject: Death of [Paul's E-mail address] {IRONY} I am sad to announce the sudden and unexpected passing yesterday of [Paul's e-mail address]. The cause of death is still unknown. There will be no memorial service. Flowers may be sent to the usual place. Will lives on in our hearts and minds. {/IRONY} {PLAIN}I am now using the e-mail address of xxx@xxx. Let's see how long this one lasts. If you have sent me private mail in the past couple of days and I haven't responded by now, please send it again at this new address. Thank you very much. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 241 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] RE Eval - Clarified --- XXXX wrote: > By the way XXXX, The correct why always blows charge and gives a > confrontable > handling. {PLAIN} And the handling has to be within the resources available, otherwise it is an academic exercise only. Example: One might hear of a genetic disorder being a cause of cancer. Following this down a bit, one could get all excited at discovering about the Annunaki's genetic manipulation, splicing chromosomes #2 and #3 from our hairy "brethren" to make human chromosome #2. For a less outlandish (and implausible, but never mind) explanation, look up the more respectable article called "Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry" where the same conclusion is reached but assigned to the inane but scientifically-safe doctrine of "Evolution". The big problem of using this as a why for cancer is that it doesn't open the door to a handling. Aunt Mamie isn't about to get her genes unspliced to cure the lump in her stomach. It's like doing an eval on the state of the planet today. One would come up with the who-wheres being the usual evil suspects behind the financial-government-industrial-oil-media complex.{/PLAIN} {JOKE}Or if one likes to get a bit more exotic take it further to Marcabian foreign policies if one is partial to CBR or V and M, or reptiloids from Alpha Draconis if one prefers alien bad guys without the Scn flavoring. Then what? Armed with the spot-on eval, still warm from the printer, does one then go and picket outside the main government building in the capital city of Marcab III, hoping for an upsurge in public opinion there to force a change in their foreign policy? I think not.{/JOKE} {PLAIN} No eval I have seen regarding fixing the CofS has a realistic handling. As I said before, I am not particularly into attacking the CofS. Yes, it would be great if it reformed overnight. But if it didn't reform, and collapsed to nothing instead, would that be an improvement? By "collapsing to nothing" I mean the people would still be alive and kicking and as free as any citizen wherever they live, but the corporate entities known loosely as "the CofS" would no longer be able to function as a totalitarian regime and their MEST would be unavailable for use--or sold off to the highest bidder. Now that I think about it, before I continue, I would like comments on the above scenario. If "the CofS" were to disappear as a third-dynamic entity, would this be a good thing or a bad thing? And humor me: please don't just lecture me on how such a scenario is impossible. {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 242 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] RE Eval - Clarified --- XXXX wrote: > Paul, > > I see your comments as assumptions about > > what I am going to say and invalidating it before it is said. > > Now; > > Even you are bound to get embarrassed if you keep that up! > > I never said anything about repairing the CoS {PLAIN} Well, rather than all this straw man stuff, hurry up and say what you are going to say so I can invalidate it after the fact, then! {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 244 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:06 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: RE Eval - Clarified --- XXXX wrote: > > Now that I think about it, before I continue, I would like > comments on > > the above scenario. If "the CofS" were to disappear as a third- > dynamic > > entity, would this be a good thing or a bad thing? And humor me: > > please don't just lecture me on how such a scenario is impossible. {PLAIN} [XXXX's comments about the FZ in PT snipped]. Let me repeat the question, slightly reworded. Would we all be better off without the CofS or not? I really want to know other viewpoints on this as I don't have a definite answer to this question for myself, and it is important. Obvious factors are, against the CofS: 1. They are squirrelling Solo NOTs with the arbitrary 6-month checks; 2. They have become money-grubbing rather than oriented around freeing beings; 3. Enforced disconnection from "false SPs" as a policy is very stupid and makes permanent enemies; 4. GAT slows down the runway to a crawl as well as making robots; 5. Free communication within the CofS is inhibited; 6. They suppress activity in the FZ, people practising the same religion; 7. It is impossible for the average man to have any hope of getting up the bridge this lifetime; 8. Auditing in the field has been all but stamped out completely. Factors for the CofS: 1. For all the faults, the various orgs do act as orientation points, places where people can go to at least look at Scn if not necessarily get any; 2. People can get some Scn at the CofS. The auditing might be expensive and the training slow, but at least some auditing and training does occur; 2. The various Social Reform and other groups like CCHR, ABLE Literacy groups, Narconon, Criminon, even WISE do do some good that wouldn't be done if they didn't exist; 3. The non-confidential materials are available, at a price, and generally are delivered promptly; 4. The CST archives project--the underground vaults etc.--presumably has some potential benefit if the worst comes to the worst; 5. There is some kind of broad promotion going on. The CofS Div 6 stuff tends to be OK, so if someone new gets into Scn through the CofS, does some basic courses and becomes a Scn-ist, then finds out what the CofS is really about and leaves and eventually winds up in the FZ, this is OK. [That line would make the CofS a feeder line from raw public to the FZ, kinda like a Mission feeding an org--an amusing way of looking at it.] Anything else major that I missed? I'm not trying to generate a lot of natter about the CofS. The question I want answered is: Would Mankind be better off without the CofS in its present form or not? {/PLAIN} Paul






Message 245 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:12 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Joe's eval, comment for Olga In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > >> Hello, XXXX! > >> > >> What change did happened BEFORE DM got the power? > >> > >> What case Level LRH developed in that time? > >> > >> In the period of ' 67 started heavy attacks on the CofS from > >outside, isn't it? > >> > >> 1978... ExDer 17 dec 1978 "Ron's Jornal 30". Start of NOTs. > >> Attacks from inside of the CofS. > >> > >> (Did anybody ran through this Level here? without doubts and > >reservations.) > >> > >> > >> Why? - the case matter of that level. > >> > >> Have any arguments against? > >> > >> Love > >> XXXX {PLAIN} Yes. I just cut and pasted what comes below. Mere date coincidence does not imply any cause/effect relationship. You can find the article and other items on logical fallacies on the Net easily. {/PLAIN} Paul [From http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/causal.php] Causal Fallacies: It is common for arguments to conclude that one thing causes another. But the relation between cause and effect is a complex one. It is easy to make a mistake. In general, we say that a cause C is the cause of an effect E if and only if: Generally, if C occurs, then E will occur, and Generally, if C does not occur, then E will not occur either. We say "generally" because there are always exceptions. For example, we say that striking the match causes the match to light, because: Generally, when the match is struck, it lights (except when the match is dunked in water), and Generally, when the match is not struck, it does not light (except when it is lit with a blowtorch). Many writers also require that a causal statement be supported with a natural law. For example, the statement that "striking the match causes it to light" is supported by the principle that "friction produces heat, and heat produces fire". The following are causal fallacies: Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other) Joint Effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause) Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others) Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed) Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause) ********





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