Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts July 17, 2004 - August 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 246 From: [Paul] xxx@xxx Date: Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:23 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Eval - Clarified (Ted) -----Original Message----- From: XXXX To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 07:49:43 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: RE Eval - Clarified (Ted) > Toronto went down from about 350 staff to 35 staff after the declare of > several of it's execs by DMs Henchmen by Chayne Whitmore > the real SP(or PTS) in 1982/83. {PLAIN} Shane Whitmore? He was CO HGB Estates around 1996 when I left. I always thought of him as a nice guy, effective, certainly no SP. But PTSness is an occupational hazard in the SO. > IT WAS A WRONG WHY. Any fool SHOULD have been > able to see that way back when. As the man said, XXXX, how about you run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes? The mystery sandwich and the anticipation works for a little bit, but after a while the failure to deliver just turns the eager expectation into an ARCX. State what you consider the correct why to be, then we can applaud or throw mud or ignore it or whatever. Paul (Sorry about the musical IDs and e-mail addresses. You can always verify the latest one at http://www.freewebs.com/paulsid [link now dead 2014]) {/PLAIN}

Message 247 From: xxx@xxx Date: Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Warning - update (crossposted) -----Original Message----- From: XXXX To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:53:20 -0700 Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Warning - update (crossposted) > I have just acquired information that one of the suitcase nukes in possession of the Al Quaeda in the > US, has been recovered by US intelligence. > > It's an improvement :) {PLAIN} As usual, the "you" in this post refers to you the reader, and not the previous poster I appear to be chewing on. I know of no objective evidence that Al Quaeda exists outside of bald statements unaccompanied by any shred of objective evidence, made by spokemen for organizations generally viewed with suspicion by thinking observers. It is uncomfortable to assume that *all* public statements made by a government are made for PR purposes only, with any connection to the truth usually being only incidental. It is easier to assume that all such statements are true until one is admitted to be untrue in the mainstream press, or one has genuine personal knowledge of the matter, at which time the assumption changes to all public statements except that one. Until the next one is admitted to be false, and then the assumption becomes all public statements except those two. And so on. I find it interesting that people who distrust the motives and statements of Int Mgmt will readily accept those of their governments, not renowned for being the most ethical people on the planet. This isn't a political forum and I'm not going to turn it into one. But I will repeat my earlier statement about terrorism. Giving "Al Quaeda" any credibility whatsoever IS terrorism. Whoever Seby knows. Don't take my word for it. That's as bad as believing the mainstream press. Look at different viewpoints, at arguments in different forums--the Internet is wonderful for this. Weigh up the different arguments yourself, based on what makes sense and what doesn't. Come to your own conclusions. "Think for yourself", as they say. If you're not going to do all the hard work and carefully check out the arguments for and against and prefer to think I'm crazy to have this viewpoint in the face of all the "evidence" to the contrary, then just add it to your list of crazy ideas that I mention. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 248 From: xxx@xxx Date: Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:51 pm Subject: [freezoneorg][ifachat]Bumper Stickers etc.: "Tech Outside the C of S -- The Freezone" {PLAIN} XXXX made a recent suggestion about using bumper stickers as a dissem tool. I think that's a great idea of hers. I hijacked the idea and dove-tailed it into something similar I was working on a month ago, and my suggestions follow. The FZ's most sensible target audience/public is ex-CofS people. These are people that have contacted Scn through the CofS and have had some training and/or auditing, maybe a little and maybe a lot, and have dropped off lines for some reason or another. These are people that have a yearning for spiritual enlightenment and progress, found sufficient truths in Scn to justify further investment of their time and energy, but then left. It goes along with bb's observation that the CofS often acts as a Div 6 for the FZ. Going after raw public in volume is tricky to do without a lot of money. Why duplicate the effort with the CofS? Going after *existing* CofS public would be foolhardy. If they are actively on lines then their indoc blindness is likely to be at its greatest, and the dangers of going head-to-head in competition with the CofS for the same public are not necessary to point out. Splat! Many of these ex-CofS people know nothing of the FZ, not even the *name*. Their idea of spiritual salvation through Scn ended with a failed purpose. The CofS certainly never even mentions the name at events, in confidential briefings, in newsletters, nowhere. I like to think of myself as a savvy kind of guy, but I didn't hear the word "Freezone" until I left the Sea Org in 1996. None of the churchies I mingled with between 1996 and now ever mentioned the word, or even the idea of getting tech outside the CofS. The core ideas that you want to communicate to these ex-CofS people are: 1. It is possible to go up the Bridge outside the CofS; 2. It's called "The Freezone". And that's all! Because of the Internet, no more is needed. Armed with those two concepts, anyone with any interest that is readily able to be rekindled can find out who to contact with a little online searching. There isn't a whole lot of competition in the FZ for the same potential clients. It is far more important that an ex-CofS person be directed to the FZ than a particular practitioner or group or list or website within it. If you have someone sitting in front of you, sure, tell him about the various web sites and groups and e-mail lists, and save him some trouble, but with a bumper sticker you have only a few seconds to communicate a message to someone who usually isn't able to write anything down and isn't likely to remember a URL. But he might just remember "Freezone" and why, especially if he has a strong spiritual purpose there. "Tech Outside the C of S -- The Freezone" is a perfect message for a bumper sticker aimed at ex-CofS people. "TECH OUTSIDE THE C OF S. THE FREEZONE" is all the bumper sticker needs to say. Where can you get such stickers from? Make your own! Or maybe someone reading this would like to make them and sell them at $2 each or something like that. You can buy regular letter-sized sheets of bumper sticker paper for an inkjet printer in a packet of 10 sheets for about $20. For a normal-sized sticker, cut the sheet into 3. That's about 75 cents a sticker. There may be better deals elsewhere--this was just a quick look on my part: http://www.mcgpaper.com/stickers.html . {/PLAIN} Paul xxx@xxx (You can verify my current e-mail address at http://www.freewebs.com/paulsid [link now dead 2014])

Message 249 From: xxx@xxx Date: Sun Jul 18, 2004 5:35 pm Subject: [freezoneorg][ifachat]"Tech Outside the C of S -- The Freezone" -----Original Message----- From: xxx@xxx [Paul] > "Tech Outside the C of S -- The Freezone" is a perfect message for a > bumper sticker aimed at ex-CofS people. > > Where can you get such stickers from? {PLAIN} Just to make it really easy, you can buy this sticker already made up from http://www.bumperstatements.com/browsestatement.ihtml?sid=26763 . [Note 15 March 2007: site no longer up] Order with a credit card, and the total cost for one sticker is $5.98 including postage. It is on a white background with a lighthouse on the left side, so "Tech Outside the C of S" is Red Text on White and "The Freezone" is Black Text on White. Click on the link to see the exact item. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 243 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:03 pm Subject: Those Abilities Again [posted to ifachat Jul 20, 17:16:14] {PLAIN} This is me being good-ish. Around 1977 I had just started writing poetry this lifetime. I was looking around for someone to help me with some calligraphy for it, as I wanted to stick some of it up on the wall and block printing didn't seem appropriate. I didn't find anyone within my means. I had just been reading about recovering abilities in the first set of tech volumes, and had some idea that I had an ability to do calligraphy lying around unused on my track somewhere and it would be nice to bring it into PT. One group of processes didn't seem appropriate, but maybe Certainty Processing would work. Certainty Processing is covered in PAB 3. I didn't bother clearing it with a C/S as he would have said no way. I wasn't in the middle of anything so went ahead anyway. I was a cowboy even then in some respects. I ran "There is good writing" [seemed like the correct wording for my item"]/"There is no good writing" for a couple of hours on myself over a couple of mealtimes. Horrific, I know. Lo and behold, at the end of it, I could do calligraphy. Maybe not ideal calligraphy, with uniform letters like you can get with a Windows font these days, but it was good enough that I was asked if I would do the calligraphy on that declaration from the first IAS conference. (I didn't accept--self invalidation--but after the fact I realized that I could have done a better job than whoever they did get in the end). Whoopee! I thought. Anything I want like that I can just pull off the track with this process. Man, I'll be rich and famous in no time flat! So I tried it again with some other items. But if it made any difference I didn't notice, and I dropped the experiment, assuming the calligraphy win was just a lucky fluke. Now, I'm not trying to launch a campaign of un-C/S'd self-auditing on wild ideas. But does anyone here *use* certainty processing to achieve results like the above? Does anyone C/S for it? Is it lost tech? Does anyone C/S that other process to rehabilitate abilities? It's in PAB 115, The Rehabilitation of Abilities. Fair Use Quote: "For any ability the preclear always wanted to have, lost and couldn't do. For example, for the speaking of Arabic: "Mock up (Arabic objects)." Keep it from going away." Then, "Mock up (Arab men, women, children)." "Stop (him, her) from talking." "Start (him, her) talking." Should it be a particular musical instrument the preclear wants to play, have him mock up the instrument, make it solid, keep it from going away, stop and start it playing, and this will rehabilitate his ability...." Unquote. Does anyone do this type of stuff, in proper session, for real any more? {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 250 From: [Paul] Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:00 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] new member intro -----Original Message----- From: XXXX To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:30:12 -0000 Subject: [ifachat] new member intro > Now I'm reading TROM. I'm eager to find out what's working for > others, what networks exist, etc. {PLAIN} Hi there, I have been waiting for you. There is a comparison checklist at http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal (same site [link now dead 2014]), click on the comparison tab. The TROM column is full of ?s as I didn't have the data to fill it out. Any suggestions you could make as to how to fill out the answers would be much appreciated. I understand you're not an expert, but you know more than I do about it. You'd better e-mail me privately as they don't like such things being discussed on this LRH Tech list. Did you know Lynn McNeil? {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 251 To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com CC: From: "Paul Adams" Add to Address Book Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:51:20 -0700 Subject: Re: [ifachat] Those Abilities Again --- XXXX wrote: > --- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams" wrote: > > Does anyone do this type of stuff, in proper session, for real any > > more? > > Very good questions. I'm sure that many of these processes could be > used on Repair and Advance Programs. The C/S series do stress getting > the pc back on the Gradation Chart (the "Bridge"), but sometimes what > is really needed by the pc is something like the above. When these > remedies parallel the pc's mind, they perform miracles. {PLAIN} Thanks, XXXX. Does that mean "No"? Does anyone know of anyone using these processes in a standard session anywhere in the last ten or twenty or even forty years? I know we're not allowed to say they are old and not used any more. But maybe they are just from the 50s and have been retired for now. I would suspect that HCOB 11 Feb 1960, Create and Confront has much to do with their apparent demise. To quote, "Out of this we now have an understanding of what a limited process is. Any process which makes the preclear create is a limited process and should be avoided. Such processes as "Tell a Lie" are creative processes." Am I allowed to challenge that statement in this forum? Does it seem right that all such creative processes should be abandoned? I don't know of any other tech references that cover their disuse. Am I missing something? {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 252 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:36 am Subject: Paul's FZ Postings {PLAIN} In case anyone is interested, I have collected together over 250 of my public Internet FZ group postings from the past couple of months and put them on a web site. There are no private e-mails in there. No-one is really mentioned by name except for some very public FZ stalwarts, and even then not in a personal manner. The posts are in chronological order. They are also indexed by subject matter, not necessarily the title on the thread. As usual, they are available at http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal (same site [link now dead 2014]): click on the Writings tab for the index by subject matter and also the chronological index. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 253 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:30 pm Subject: Dub-In and Bugs Bunny {PLAIN} Below is a news story from 2001 about "false memories". I knew about dub-in, but I was staggered at the percentage of people found to exhibit it. {/PLAIN} {IRONY}Of course, *I* never dub in and all my memories are completely 100% factual, and always have been, just like you reading this. Besides, the study was done by some psychologist or other, so it can be automatically dismissed. :) {/IRONY} Paul {QUOTE} ABOUT one-third of the people who were exposed to a fake print advertisement that described a visit to Disneyland and how they met and shook hands with Bugs Bunny later said they remembered or knew the event happened to them. The scenario described in the ad never occurred because Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. cartoon character and wouldn't be featured in any Walt Disney Co. property, according to University of Washington memory researchers Jacquie Pickrell and Elizabeth Loftus. Pickrell will make two presentations on the topic at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society (APS) on Sunday (June 17) in Toronto and at satellite session of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition in Kingston, Ontario, on Wednesday. "The frightening thing about this study is that it suggests how easily a false memory can be created," said Pickrell, UW psychology doctoral student. "It's not only people who go to a therapist who might implant a false memory or those who witness an accident and whose memory can be distorted who can have a false memory. Memory is very vulnerable and malleable. People are not always aware of the choices they make. This study shows the power of subtle association changes on memory." The research is a follow-up to an unpublished study by Loftus, a UW psychology professor who is being honored by the APS this week with its William James Fellow Award for psychological research; Kathryn Braun, a visiting scholar at the Harvard Business School; and Rhiannon Ellis, a former UW undergraduate who is now a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh. In the original study, 16 percent of the people exposed to a Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny later thought they had seen and met the cartoon rabbit. In the new research, Pickrell and Loftus divided 120 subjects into four groups. The subjects were told they were going to evaluate advertising copy, fill out several questionnaires and answer questions about a trip to Disneyland. The first group read a generic Disneyland ad that mentioned no cartoon characters. The second group read the same copy and was exposed to a 4-foot-tall cardboard figure of Bugs Bunny that was casually placed in the interview room. No mention was made of Bugs Bunny. The third, or Bugs group, read the fake Disneyland ad featuring Bugs Bunny. The fourth, or double, exposure group read the fake add and also saw the cardboard rabbit. This time 30 percent of the people in the Bugs group later said they remembered or knew they had met Bugs Bunny when they visited Disneyland and 40 percent of the people in the double exposure group reported the same thing. "'Remember' means the people actually recall meeting and shaking hands with Bugs," explained Pickrell. "'Knowing' is they have no real memory, but are sure that it happened, just as they have no memory of having their umbilical cord being cut when they were born but know it happened. "Creating a false memory is a process. Someone saying, 'I know it could have happened,' is taking the first step of actually creating a memory. If you clearly believe you walked up to Bugs Bunny, you have a memory." In addition, Pickrell said there is the issue of the consequence of false memories or the ripple effects. People in the experiment who were exposed to the false advertising were more likely to relate Bugs Bunny to other things at Disneyland not suggested in the ad, such as seeing Bugs and Mickey Mouse together or seeing Bugs in the Main Street Electrical Parade. "We are interested in how people create their autobiographical references, or memory. Through this process they might be altering their own memories, " she said. "Nostalgic advertising works in a similar manner. Hallmark, McDonald's and Disney have very effective nostalgic advertising that can change people's buying habits. You may not have had a great experience the last time you visited Disneyland or McDonald's, but the ads may be inadvertently be creating the impression that they had a wonderful time and leaving viewers with that memory. "The bottom line of our study is that the phony ad is making the difference. Just casually reading a Bugs Bunny cartoon or some other incidental exposure doesn't mean you believe you met Bugs. The ad does." {/QUOTE} ************

Message 254 To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com CC: From: "Paul Adams" Add to Address Book Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 22:07:43 -0700 Subject: Re: [ifachat] Dub-In and Bugs Bunny On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:26:13 -0700 XXXX wrote: > --- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > For more on this and some valid criticism see: > > http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/bugs.html > > Good critical article, XXXX. Thanks for the link. > XXXX > > XXXX {PLAIN} I agree. Good article. But I am not particularly interested in suggestibility or dub-in as it would apply to childhood sexual abuse or even this-lifetime alien abduction. I agree that such incidents would be far more traumatic and significant and therefore more likely to generate valid memories than the details of the furry costumes worn by non-threatening humans at a theme park. What I am interested in is suggestibility or dub-in as it may apply to whole-track incidents. I have a personal reality on the whole track and I have handled past- track incidents at many times that have permanently resolved things for me that had remained unresolved up to that point in life. I will give one specific example here as there isn't really any reason not to and it shows that I can get case gain . For all my life up until it was finally resolved in 1986 I had had a problem with acknowledgements. If someone did something for me, I couldn't simply look them in the eye and say brightly with good TR-1, "Thank you very much!" I had done various TR courses and kind-of fudged my way through TR-2, and I could pass a not-too-exacting drill, but in life I would not feel good about saying the words "thank you" or whatever, but would mumble something and feel embarrassed about it. That was still the case years after Expanded Grade 0 and years after OT3. Then in 1986 I was doing the Pro Trs course, and was up to TR-2, and naturally it came up again. But this time it needed to be handled. I drilled regular TR-2 and fifty-foot TR-2 for hours--no dice. I word- cleared it for hours and hours--no dice. I then had some False Data Stripping. I had had a few dozen hours of FDSing up to this point, as I was doing the Pro TRs course at New World Corps. And at New World Corps it was de rigueur to use FDSing extensively in all hatting and training activities, per the HCOB. And after some FDSing on TR-2, I came across an incident from 1835 where I was a little boy with a bible-thumping father who heavily impressed on me the idea that *Only God Can Acknowledge*. Oh! From that moment on in that FDSing session in 1986 I have never had a moment's trouble in acknowledging anyone for anything. I don't doubt for a moment that it was a real incident and the right why. On the other hand, I have run whole-track incidents in session that didn't seem to go anywhere, and after a bit I would decide the incident was dub-in and the chain or the process or whatever would resolve without the need for that incident. And on the third hand, I have run whole-track or otherwise-weird incidents in session that would resolve (F/N Cog VGIs) as dub-in in one session, then the exact same incidents would come back sessions later and resolve (F/N Cog VGIs) as real the next time around. Curiouser and curiouser. I am giving examples from my experience as a pc as I have only audited a couple of hundred hours on others, mostly sec checks, and I cannot usefully draw much on my experience of others' cases as an auditor or C/S. But others here do have extensive such experience. I am looking for other viewpoints on suggestibility or dub-in as it would apply to whole-track incidents. Does anyone have any enlightening comments on the subject? {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 255 From: xxx@xxx [Paul] Date: Thu Jul 22, 2004 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] New Member Intro -----Original Message----- From: XXXX To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 07:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] New Member Intro > And does FZ have all the same courses/auditing actions as CoS too? > Thanks for your help in advance! > XXXX {JOKE} But not wizened, one would hope. {/JOKE} {PLAIN} There is a comparison checklist available at http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal (same site); click on the "Comparison" tag. It shows an idea of the identities, similarities and differences between the CofS and the FZ. Welcome to the Land of Choice. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 256 From: xxx@xxx [Paul] Date: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:59 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] letters out question On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:58:36 -0700 XXXX wrote: > not be on any stat. But you could use it to polish your successful > actions list and/or expanded non-ex condition formula. > "Got 10 positive reactions to statement A", "got 10 negative > reactions to item B" could help you to understand better what's > needed and wanted. Item A would also show up as a successful action, > item B would show up as a non-successful action, and so you > could navigate through your application of the "normal" condition. {PLAIN} This is making the assumption that the responses you get are representative of the target audience, and it is not necessarily true. I recall reading some PL which mentioned this subject. It's like thinking the general public around Rey's place don't like him just because five guys with picket signs are persuaded to parade around there every now and then. It doesn't even have to be an orchestrated campaign. I just want to make the point that what you get in the few letters/e-mails is not necessarily representative, and certainly isn't enough data to base an important decision on concerning a wider audience. The only way to really tell is to get out on the street or on the telephone and get a statistically representative sample of your target audience and ask them directly in a manner that will tell you what they really think rather than some PR answer. Or better, see who is actually buying your products where and in what volume, but sometimes that won't apply. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 257 From: xxx@xxx [Paul] Date: Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:32 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Joe Keldani's Eval -----Original Message----- From: XXXX To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 21:09:35 -0000 Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Joe Keldani's Eval > So let's give CoS some real competition and you will see things > improve across the boards! {PLAIN} Competition for what public? No individual or group that I know of in the FZ has the money to compete with the CofS for raw public. Also, why bother? The FZ currently competes with the CofS for people who have dropped off the Bridge. That is working out fine. There is no significant income loss to the CofS because those people weren't about to come back on lines anyway. But if you were to compete with the CofS for on-lines public, I suspect that if the competition got to be significant, then the FZ would attract a lot more unwelcome attention from the CofS than there is now. Go and set up a booth or something outside Tampa airport every day of the week saying, "Solo NOTs outside the CofS! Discount Prices but not Discount Service! No 6-month checks! Experience Scn as LRH intended! Contact your local Freezone auditor for details! Tel: xxx xxx xxxx or www.xxxxxxx.org." (Don't really do this!) See what would happen if you markedly cut across the Flag's income lines like that, or in any other manner like that. Splat!!!! These Yahoo lists function reasonably well and free from attack. Just one person working part-time could make them all more or less unusable. Why doesn't it happen? Probably because it's not a very high priority on the overall "Maintain the Monopoly!" battle plan. "Let sleeping dogs lie" is a wise saying if you're vulnerable to sharp teeth in powerful jaws with not too much intelligence behind them. It is insane to go head-to-head with an enemy which has a marked superiority. In warfare the only possible strategy that might lead to eventual success is guerilla warfare; in commerce you chip away at the market leader's position by occupying a niche that the market leader doesn't do well, and then you do the actions in that niche VERY well. And if you get the other things right, gradually you will build up market share. The CofS might not be good at a lot of things in the doing-the-right-thing arena, but they've sure got the legal arena sewn up. I applaud actions to go after ex-CofS or long-dropped-off-lines Scn-ists, and decry actions aimed at on-lines ones. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 258 From: xxx@xxx [Paul] Date: Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:38 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] denigrating the tech..does it work? -----Original Message----- From: Roland Aldridge To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] denigrating the tech..does it work? > There is a difference between denigrating the tech and > questioning it. > > In every other sphere of human knowledge, questioning > things is regarded as a good thing. Either the > questions reveal something the questioner didn't know, > and strengthens his understanding, or else the > question reveals something nobody knows, and > strengthens human knowledge. > > If the tech is right, then it can withstand any > question. If it can't, then we better know about it > and fix whatever it wrong. > > Stopping questions is the way down to the bottom. > Have courage, and make sure you understand well enough > so that you are not worried by, but welcome, > questions. > > Roland {PLAIN} Well said, sir. "If the tech is right, then it can withstand any question." Indeed. "If it can't, then we better know about it and fix whatever i[s] wrong." And how, pray, would you suggest that be done? {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 259 From: xxx@xxx [Paul] Date: Sat Jul 24, 2004 5:44 am Subject: Re: [freezoneorg] Do conditions work? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > XXXX: > > what condition is this: > > _ > / \__/\ > / > / > / > _/\/\/ > / {PLAIN} I expect the answer being looked for is Power. If that were the graph for an SO service org recruiter, i.e. number of recruits through the Estates Project Force (or whatever the stat is these days) and onto post at ASHO, then that would be an appropriate condition. But if it is a weekly letters out stat, for example, and the weekly figures as shown were 1,2,1,2,7,7,6,6,7,6, then that would be a totally non-viable range for a Letter Registrar and the condition would be non-existence at best. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 260 From: [Paul] Date: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:24 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] denigrating the tech..does it work? -----Original Message----- From: XXXX To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com Sent: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] denigrating the tech..does it work? > Well right in the beginning is the rfactor to test it and see for yourself if it does work. > > What's to question? > > A person reads something, applies it, sees whether or not it works. > > Is terribly simple. {PLAIN} Well, no, it isn't. Do the basic books contain data about life that greatly assists one's understanding of the world? Yes. No argument there. If auditing and training per the Grade Chart is done in the correct manner under the correct conditions, do most people generally benefit markedly from it? Yes. No argument there. These things are relatively easy to try out and observe whether they work or not. But let's say you're studying the 1st ACC lectures and you hear about motion pictures being a lock on the "phoom! and condensation of an explosion". And you figure it's best to audit it exterior. Now, you don't recall any HCOB talking about the importance of auditing explosions, especially exterior. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}Besides, the last time you went exterior was when your 14 year-old girlfriend's mother came home unexpectedly. {/JOKE} {PLAIN} So what do you do then? Let's say you try it out anyway, and you end up with a headache. What conclusion do you draw? Probably nothing more than it was a damn silly way to try and test it out. Does that bit of tech work? Does it not work? If you're honest, you say something like, "Hell if I know". {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 261 From: [Paul] xxx@xxx Date: Tue Jul 27, 2004 2:14 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] weblogs On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:54:03 -0700 XXXX wrote: >Hi, > XXXX asked for suggestions for weblogs (also called "blogs" for > short, meaning online diaries/journals/news sites). I have a few: > I think that blogs in the FreeZone can be vital. {PLAIN} I agree. The single, heart-felt journal type is very valuable. I took a different approach. My first 20 non-journal/diary ones are now showing up on Google. You can see them by typing in "tech outside the c of s" as a search term. I know people aren't going to use that search term normally, but it's just a way to show up these blogs. For the full theory on why I did it that way, refer to my earlier posts on blogs, conveniently webbed at: http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040522-040531.htm#^084 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040522-040531.htm#^085 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040601-040616.htm#^103 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040601-040616.htm#^125 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040601-040616.htm#^126 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040601-040616.htm#^107 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040601-040616.htm#^109 {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 262 From: "Paul Adams" xxx@xxx Date: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:25 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Real Serious Next quiz, Sex On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:20:02 -0700 XXXX wrote: > > 7th dynamic sex - angels incarnated, Avatars or Buddha's who > have volunteered to serve on Earth, or OT's on a mission - > pick your favourite model. Their main thrust is not to be > part of the play but to serve the players by enlightening them, > training them, cleaning the playing field, creating or > preserving a future for the play, etc. > They have to emulate the players in order to do their job, > and at the same time get some of their reward in the beauty > which makes this play worthwile. Human love, human sex, > human music, movies, mountain climbing, gardening, pets, wow! > Lots of havingness! But they must be careful not to "go native" {PLAIN} I put this post aside to give it the attention it deserved. XXXX speaks a different language to the rest of us--and I don't mean German. > (become a player and forget the mission). > The key to the art of staying on purpose is to know the > principle of attachment. This is not really covered in SCN... It is, you know. I discovered this for myself while at college and undergoing my first real sexual experience. The girl was working away while I was watching in a detached manner, and after a bit she was getting tired and complained to me. Nicely, but a complaint all the same. I thought I had better "get more into it", and did so, and that all worked out fine. At the time I didn't realize what I had done, but many years later I did. What changed at that moment was that I "became the body", at which point I was susceptible to all the sexual stuff going on, and beforehand I was being something else. I won't go as far as saying I was being spiritual, but I wasn't solidly into being a body. I find that even now sometimes I might be wearing sandals and I think of scraping my toes along the sidewalk, say, in such a manner as the toenails would scrape and come off/bleed etc. (I just think of this happening for some reason--I don't actually do it or come close to doing it). Sometimes I catch myself wincing: at that point I notice that I am being my body and decide not to be, at which point the exact same mock-up has no effect. It's like mocking up pulling out one of your eyeballs and playing on the optic nerve like a double bass: if it makes you queasy then you're just being a body. That's how I look on it anyway. > ...But for me, attachment is the better > expression. As long as a missionaire just enjoys the gifts > of life, sex included, without becoming attached to them, > he's still in good shape. > The most intense joy though is to meet a fellow angel. > They have a tone level of which I am not sure whether > LRH includes it in his tone scale. "Serenity of beingness", > which he has at the top, is a first dynamic tone level. > It is passive. Tone 20, games, is an active tone level > but it is not pan-determined - there are opponents. > To go into resonance with the "divine love" of an angel, > entirely determined to work his ass off for the greatest good, > is the most blissful sensation ever. There is also a feeling of > connectedness, or rootedness, contained in it. With good > theta perceptions, you can "see" a live line between them > and their home plane. It is the main difference between an > oriented and a disoriented spirit. > Such a person can still do sex, because they can span the > whole scale of existence, but it's of a different quality. > Their native tone level shines into it - an unconditional > willingness to understand, to assist, and to give, transported > on a carrier wave of bright and lucid energy. Not getting > attached to THAT is the real art! That is so spiritually uplifting! Thank you XXXX for all the shining theta. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}Now, where can I find one of those joyful angels to screw? {/JOKE} Paul

Message 263 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:46 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Real Serious Next quiz, Sex On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:34:10 -0700 XXXX: > ROFL! Different language. Right! > I guess when you are spiritually vibrating on their frequency, > you'll run into them all the time. I meet one once a lifetime, > or nearly that often! {PLAIN} I should apologize for cheapening your posting, XXXX. I couldn't resist the joke. And I was serious about your different language. I can think of two people I have met this lifetime somewhat as you describe--without anything sexual occurring outside of my mind--and with both of them I was concerned about sullying their apparent purity with my sordid self and withdrew from their presence. Theta repels entheta in living color. I have improved my self-worth and self-opinion since then, but if I met either again, who knows? Angelic I am not. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 264 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Jul 28, 2004 7:53 am Subject: How You Can Learn Telekinesis {PLAIN} If you consider telekinesis merely one of those uninteresting parlor tricks, feel free to ignore the rest of this post. I read an interesting book over the weekend by the authors of "China's Super Psychics", Paul Dong and Thomas Raffill. Paul Dong is a martial arts master. The book is called, "Empty Force" and subtitled, "The Power of Chi for Self-Defense and Energy Healing". I had commented earlier on not having found a procedure anywhere for developing the ability of telekinesis in oneself. Well, it looks like I have found one. And it is very interesting. "Empty Force" is the name given to a martial arts skill of supposedly directing chi from the practitioner's body at another or others, and influencing them thereby. The influence can involve mental confusion, or even cause the opponent to be knocked backwards or down. All without physical contact. Even through a closed door into an adjacent room. Looking this up on the Net shows a refutation article, Randi style, that is quite convincing. I am taking the book at face value, without personal inspection of the matter at hand. The theory of it all makes sense to me. There are probably some martial arts experts on this list who could give us the benefit of their hands-on experience. The manner of learning to master the empty force is very interesting. 95% of the power of the empty force comes from "standing-on-stake". And what is "standing-on-stake"? It is an exercise in stillness. One stands, with the feet about a shoulder-width apart, with the hands raised to about waist level with the palms down. The eyes are closed. Mentally what one does is similar to OT TR0--not the same but similar. You can look it up on the Net. Part of the exercise is imagining chi filling the body. Later, one drills with a candle. One lights it and stands 6 inches away, and drills focusing the mind with strong intention, pointing two fingers at the candle flame, and guiding the chi to the flame. This is done for 20 or 30 minutes a day, indoors, until one can make the candle flicker and finally go out. The next exercise involves making a cotton ball about the size of a ping- pong ball and hanging it in your room by a fine thread, with the doors and windows shut so there is no wind. As with the candle, one points at the cotton ball and focuses the intention on it, until one can move it. Then move back and do the same until one can move the cotton ball from 8-10 feet away. Next replace the cotton ball with a heavier object, such as a cloth ball, and practice the same thing. And so on. This isn't meant to be a full instruction here, but just to give an idea of the gradient scale of technique. The amount of time it reportedly takes to develop the ability is three years at two or three hours a day. It occurs to me that someone who has already spent hundreds of hours drilling OT TR-0 and TR-0 would already be a good way towards the goal. Whether or not it is a worthwhile goal is not the topic of this post. Meanwhile, back at the ranch.... {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 265 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:04 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] A Strange Idea, indeed. On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:16:43 -0700 XXXX wrote: > Nor, for that matter, does "bankruptcy" defeat copyrights. The >only > > valuable "assett" of the CST ... which is the ONLY valuable assett >of > the CST ... assuming it were to go bankrupt, are the copyrights. > A > Bankruptcy Trustee would come to own those copyrights (in "trust"), > > if for some reason the CST could be bankrupt, which is can't because > > it doesn't do anything. {PLAIN} Surely CST is the corporation that has apparently spent $100 million + (see http://www.ronsorg.nl/scientologychurch/CSTmoney.htm for example) on "preserving the tech"? If not CST, is there some other corporation doing it that we don't know about? >We defeat >> > ourselves when we spend even an iota of time on hoping to resurrect >> > the CofS. On a first dynamic basis, maybe. But there are a lot of good people still ensnared in the CofS's meshes. Common decency would demand that they be taken into account also and not abandoned until they "see the light" of their own accord alone. > It will not happen in this lifetime, or many, many, many >> > lifetimes to come. I disagree. The CofS's shored-up castle is not built on a firm foundation. Look at the extremes of behavior that are required to somewhat hold it together. And that is just what anyone can see. It is not stable. One good poof and it will crumble to dust. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}Any good poofs reading or did kgb scare them off? {/JOKE} Paul

Message 266 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Jul 29, 2004 7:37 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: A Strange Idea, indeed. On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:22:13 -0700 XXXX wrote: > > As in hoof and poof and blow their house down? {PLAIN} Yes. > How you gonna get > the good folks you speak of outta there? > . Moi? I'm not into blowing wind at that house of cards in present time, beyond a few gentle wafts here and there from fluttering my butterfly wings nearby. If I change my mind later on, I'll answer your question publicly in glorious, holographic Technicolor. Maybe when I get finished with the 8th Dynamic on R3XD and have a different view of things. I am mid the 4th currently. For now, just look on my comments as bluster about bluster. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 267 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Jul 29, 2004 7:56 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: A Strange Idea, indeed. On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:11:29 -0700 XXXX wrote: >Even if CST were actually legal (I highly doubt it if honestly >investigated) {PLAIN} There are some very honest-looking people who have spent hundreds, if not thousands, of hours investigating CST in the minutest detail. The results are online, only a browser away, and if you took advantage of the opportunity and did a bit of hard reading you could then replace your opinions with some informed, documented facts. Search for items like CST, Veritas, Lenske etc. Some very sharp and entertaining individual(s) posting as "CL", "The Librarian", and "Ace of Clubs" has written much on the subject in ARS. But don't read any of his/their posts if you appreciate gentility--it is not his/their strong point, at least in writing. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 268 From: [Paul] xxx@xxx Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 5:47 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] 2D policies in SO -----Original Message----- From: XXXX To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ifachat] 2D policies in SO > I just remembered reading some comment that LRH came > up with lots of rules in the SO on 2D. {PLAIN} Look on Google (groups) with the search term:' "2D rules" Caetano' . It was issued as a Flag Order and followed as if LRH had written it. I know from personal experience that the 2D scene in the SO at SH was a riot before it came out and it was much duller afterwards. I have no data on what LRH's viewpoint on 2D in the SO was, but my idea is that if he didn't know what was generally going on in the Sea Org at any time while he was alive he should have. I'm afraid I don't buy into the "various bad elements kept LRH out of the loop" scenario. You can't be virtually all-knowing on the one hand and very ignorant on the other when it is inconvenient from a PR viewpoint. If he was being denied data he only had to pick up a telephone, for Christ's sake. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 269 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:42 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: 2D policies in SO On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 23:09:05 -0700 XXXX wrote: > He didn't get data from orgs by talkin on the fone. He got written >> > reports. So it was relatively easy for the take-over crowd to cut >> > his lines and write their own policy. He DID take action when > reports got thru to him - this I know as a FACT. Your attitude >> > towards LRH borders here on the critical. I don't like it much. > And where'd you get this "all-knowing" idea from anyhoo? {PLAIN} Are you suggesting that LRH--not some dingbat who got appointed company president because Daddy owns the company, but LRH--got fooled for years and years by some little prick lying to him in written reports? LRH, in full possession of his faculties, dependent for vital information regarding HIS LIFE'S WORK AND THE SALVATION OF MANKIND on mere words...on...paper from one source? Even I don't do that for fairly routine "important stuff", and I have difficulty putting myself in the same sentence as the man. There are written reports. One can ask questions. One can put out other comm lines. But there is also the whole beingness of the person who gives you the reports. And there is the vibrant theta universe full of information to draw on at any time. There are clues about things everywhere. The only way for a very perceptive person not to know some approximation of the truth about something is to not put his attention anywhere near it, for whatever reason. So what choices are there? Take your pick, or think of some more: 1. He was in full possession of his faculties, and was just taken in like some humanoid dupe who can't think further than his meat body. 2. He was in full possession of his faculties, and knew what was going on, and didn't do anything effective about it. 3. He wasn't in full possession of his faculties, and was taken in as above. 4. He wasn't in full possession of his faculties, and knew what was going on, as above. 5. He got taken out in 1972 by the CIA. (I only mention this one because CL on ARS seems to think this is a real possibility. CL is usually pretty bright, but I think he took a wrong turning here). Personally, I don't like any of these choices at all. Anyone got a better one? 6. ? {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 270 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:11 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: 2D policies in SO On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:59:05 -0700 XXXX wrote: >On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:42:40 -0700, Paul Adams wrote in > : > >Personally, I don't like any of these choices at all. Anyone >got a >better > >one? > > > >6. ? > He played at a level of pan-determinism and created TWO groups? > One to contain the broken pieces and one which would attract > everybody that could "think with the data", could not be > B/Sed, had their integrity intact and had no fear? {JOKE} You mean there's a group of people somewhere that: 1. Has the mental wherewithal to take the time and effort to understand and think with the data rather than just lazily taking it literally; 2. Can't be B/Sed, i.e. they have a superb general knowledge of things and their relevant importances and have good judgement in all areas; 3. Has their integrity intact, i.e. they are honest and upright and know what they know and have the courage to know and say what they have observed; 4. They aren't afraid? They don't even resort to fake names and addresses? Holy Spam-Control, Batwoman! Where is this group? Sign me up at once! {/JOKE} Paul

Message 271 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 10:13 am Subject: Re: [ifachat]Real Serious Next quiz, Sex --- XXXX wrote: > > How big is a size 16 in pounds? I'm not familiar with > American sizes. > > Too big for KGB obviously :-) {JOKE} The current Alpha Draconis wholesale meat buying guides show that a typical North American Terran female size 16 with a body fat ratio of 32% yields about 361 snakistis' worth of edible meat with a total wastage factor of 41%. At the current exchange rate of 0.76 snks = US $1.00, that translates to around 175 pounds, give or take. {/JOKE} Paul

Message 272 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 9:39 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] A Strange Idea - Red Herring --- XXXX wrote: > > It is a much more global problem. The coincidence > gives much more credence to the datum(one data) being > passed around that the Church and LRH copyrights are > owned or controlled by non Scientologists. {PLAIN} It is not a wispy rumor, but a matter of documented fact. Start from http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com and see for yourself. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 273 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 5:53 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] reminder On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 18:40:12 -0700 XXXX wrote: > > OSA I bet you are here. How about looking at it that it is out > ethics to send virus to people. {PLAIN} I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that OSA is the source of all ills that befall one. That could be granting more power than is due. But also, it could be that almost no-one on this list is considered in those circles to qualify as "people". It is fairly easy to justify doing unspeakable things to "non-persons". Not too many of us are decent and compassionate in our handling of, say, cockroaches. Even a nest full of cute little young uns scampering around. Splat! without a second thought before they escape and breed more. I exaggerate somewhat, of course. Maybe. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 274 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 6:18 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: 2D Policies in SO --- XXXX wrote: > --- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com, Roland Aldridge > wrote: > > > I can imagine legal reasons for the CST being the way > > it is. I don't see much indication that anyone other > > than DM runs the show. Also, the decisions being made > > seem too stupid for older worldly-wise people to be > > making. But what do I know? > > Who sez aliens are any smarter than US? Scientific "smarts" (ie > space travel etc) don't equate to SMART. {PLAIN} Hey XXXX, did you misread "older[,] worldly-wise" as "other-worldly..."? Tsk, tsk. If I jumped to the wrong conclusion, please explain why you made the remark you did, as in that case I don't understand. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 275 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 12:22 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] online resources --- XXXX wrote: > I have Norton AV set to auto-scan every file, folder, download, and > attachment that I use. It warns me instantly if something is > recognized as a threat. That is on my home desktop. > > My laptop is even more secure. I am running Linux OS on it, and more > than 98% of all virus programs won't affect Linux right out of the > gate. Of course, I didn't stop there . . . . {PLAIN} Ah, but XXXX, is your laptop also TEMPEST-compliant? For the uninitiated, TEMPEST is more or less synonymous with "compromising emanations", and the whole subject refers to a specific eavesdropping technology and defenses against same, where the emanations from regular computer terminals can be picked up by suitable portable monitoring equipment at long distances (like in a van parked up to half a mile or more away), through drawn curtains, walls etc. Much of the technology is government classified, but not all. This is not a joke. There's a comprehensive page at http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/tempest.html if anyone is interested. I don't pay that much attention to it at all. I don't worry about my computer equipment not being TEMPEST-compliant. I figure that I don't do anything illegal and hopefully I don't piss anybody off too much that I should be scared of. If anyone from the NSA or some other alphabet- soup agency were to be that much after me, what appeared on my computer monitor would be the least of my worries. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 276 From: [Paul] Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 9:06 am Subject: Spreading Entheta {PLAIN} I just received a letter from my landlord (Ron Yoder, a CofS Scn-ist although I believe he hasn't been on lines for years) telling me to find new accommodation in the next few days. Up to now, Ron has been a pretty decent landlord. The message attached below is my response, that I just e-mailed. What happened a couple of months back was I had a "good" friend in the CofS, who I had known for several years in LA, who then went to East Grinstead to live. We spoke by phone an hour or two every week. I decided to take a calculated risk and tell him that I had been getting auditing in the FZ. He decided that he had to cut comm with me "while I was getting auditing". Losing the comm line was a big loss to him, he said, and I believed him. I could feel it in the theta universe and he was quite anguished for a while. A few weeks later he decided to tell a mutual friend, Cindy Bostick, about it. Cindy then just had to tell another mutual friend, Phil Embick about it. Phil e-mailed me about it, to "verify the rumor" and I told him the truth. I said that indeed I was getting auditing outside the CofS, that it was unreal to me to pay the CofS between $100,000 and $200,000 as a "freeloader bill" before they would even consider letting me get into session. I also said that I told no-one in the CofS about my activities with "The Dark Side", except for the one guy who'd told Cindy. I told him that I encouraged CofS members to continue with their auditing and training with the CofS--which is true--and I didn't mention the other stuff (the FZ and the CofS's transgressions, but I didn't tell him that) to anyone in the CofS. I suggested he turn our e-mails over to OSA, not a local MAA as he would be out of his depth, and he said he would. We parted amicably, apart from the fact that he thought I was sure to burn in hell, but that's his problem. I then saw no further point in posting in the FZ anonymously, and immediately started posting under my own name. Yesterday, after Sunday service at CCint (presumably) Phil saw XXXX, the person who manages the house I live in. Phil thought it would be a good idea to tell XXXX the situation. Now, I have spent literally hundreds of hours and several thousand dollars helping XXXX over the past couple of years. I haven't spoken to her since this occurred, but I would imagine she is severely enturbulated over it, as she is a good Churchie and is probably very confused right now over how this nice, sane guy could be in league with the Devil, so to speak. And there is no easy way to clear up the confusion. She could well be stuck with it for the rest of her life. Anyway, I just thought you'd be interested in a little example of idiocy. Not by the CofS, but by Phil Embick and Ron Yoder, whose names I choose not to withhold. I am not overtly cc'ing OSA with this message, but I assume they'll get a copy one way or another. Let's see how this one turns out! I e-mailed the message below to Phil, with a copy to Ron Yoder, a bcc to Cindy, and a blind cc to my friend in the UK whose name I choose to withhold for now. The two comments in square brackets were not in the message I sent, and the names weren't X'd out, of course. Paul * * * Hi Phil, I just received a letter from my landlord telling me I should leave the accommodation I have lived in for six years. This is a direct result of your talking to XXXX recently about me. The "request" from my landlord is illegal, in that it violates the Fair Housing Act. It is unlawful to discriminate in renting accommodation based on a person's religion. My religion is similar to yours but not identical. My religion is Scientology as written by LRH, not as currently practised by the C of S. I don't intend to quietly be kicked out of my home of six years for no good reason. Why didn't you just leave things as they were? If you remember, I told ONE person and ONE person alone who was in the Church about my decision to get auditing from an individual outside the Church. My auditor audits alone--he is not a member of any "divergent" group. My C of S friend foolishly chose to tell Cindy. Cindy couldn't resist spreading the entheta further to you, and now you can't resist spreading it further too. Do you honestly think XXXX is not enturbulated by this? Do you think it made my landlord's day? How about all the other Scientologists who have known me over my 32 years in Scientology? Do you think they should know I am getting great auditing outside the C of S for a fraction of the cost the C of S charges without all the hassles? [I deliberately phrased that provocatively.] What if I went on a crusade about it and did it noisily? Do you think that would enhance everyones' quality of life? I told you two months ago what the exact situation was with me. I told you that when I spoke with my Church friends and roommates about doing services with the Church I encouraged them to continue doing them there, and that I gave no hint to them about what I was doing personally. I told you to copy my e-mails to you about this subject and to send them to OSA, NOT the local MAA. Don't you think OSA would have told my landlord to try and kick me out if they thought it was the best thing to do? OSA Int knows about my activities "over there". They also know me personally as I worked there for a couple of years in the late 1980s as well as continued to supervise their staff for several years afterwards. Cat Tebar [OSA PR in LA] knows me too as I sup'd her for a while when she was doing her PR training. If you see this e-mail, hi Cat! There is a well-known maxim: Let sleeping dogs lie. There is a datum in the PTS/SP pack about not creating enemies, about how a PTS person actively creates antagonism, and he shouldn't. You're a Class VI at least and should know this tech. I would suggest that you apply it. I told ONE C of S person about this. ONE. You could interpret my reaction in this e-mail to your enturbulating XXXX and Dev-Ting Ron and my being asked to leave my home as antagonism. It is created antagonism. Who created it? It sure as hell wasn't me. I was keeping my mouth shut around here as I have done all along. And Ron, it applies to you as well. You mention putting Scientologists at risk. I haven't said anything to XXXX, XXX, XXXXX or XXXXX's 2D about my religious beliefs. It's called maintaining friendly relations with the environment, and it's what Scientologists are supposed to do. It's the first policy of a Scientology organization. I have no plans to suddenly change this. I would suggest to you that there is more risk in making a scene about it and trying to illegally get rid of me than in not making a big deal out of it. By all means clear it with OSA to cover your ass, but not some local MAA as he would be well out of his depth. And how about just putting a lid on spreading entheta on C of S lines from now on. It's not me that's doing it. [I don't count sending messages to FZ lists and other intra-FZ activites as "spreading entheta on CofS lines". This "entheta" is well contained within the CofS]. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 277 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 2:27 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] COS Doubt --- XXXX wrote: > > This is a result of cos mind control. And even though the > "pain" > appears to be real, it is not. No being in thier right mind would > disconnect from a loved one simply because some org told them so. > Robotisim. > They simply are below the condition of doubt. "Find out > who are > your friends" sums it up nicely. > {PLAIN} "Real pain" and "imagined pain" both hurt. But he decided to disconnect "on his own determinism" because he thought he might get into trouble later. How's that for indoc? > > also said that I told no-one in the CofS about my activities with > "The > > Dark Side", except for the one guy who'd told Cindy. > > > You need to change your think on that. The "dark side" is what > we are > struggling against. I'm not about to change my think on that. I use the term in an ironic sense--the CofS people can take it literally and I find it amusing to see them do that. > I told him that > > I encouraged CofS members to continue with their auditing and > training > > with the CofS--which is true-- > > That is a mistake. That is letting people whom you know > are being > supressed and ripped off continue blindly on a dead end road. Even > worse, > they are getting messed up in the deal. > Falls under overt of omission. You should be screaming like a > pig > hung in a gate. At least it will be on thier track, and they may even > cognite. Maybe, maybe not. I am not particularly interested in getting into fights with people. I'll take another look at it in a month or so, though. It is on my list of things to look at again when I've finished with my current mental tune-up. > Why would it even cross your mind to stay in com with OSA? > You > think that they may somehow really be good fellows? HCO PL 16 Feb 1969 II Confidential BATTLE TACTICS states, "Always be ready to parley but watch for tricks." It seems like a good idea, although I'm not adopting the whole policy. The complete PL is webbed at http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/pl- 1969-02-16-battle-tactics-reiss.html . > All the best with the cycle. Thanks, XXXX. And thank you to everyone else who has offered support and words of wisdom. I appreciate it. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 278 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 2:45 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Spreading Entheta --- MXXXX wrote: > All of the churchies (I dislike that term, but don't wanna use > Scientologist, cuz that's what we are)... {PLAIN} I use "churchies" as I don't have a better term. I don't use it in a pejorative sense, though. > ...will see your actions as a > High Crime. Whether or not they can work through that, I dunno. > > But these folks do seem to listen to what you say. Maybe you should > give them a copy of The Pilot's Point of Reform. You can print out > the page from: > > http://freezoneamerica.org/pilot/reformer.html I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind with regard to the CofS, merely to change their mind with regard to me. It took me years to change my mind about the CofS! It is in everybody's best interest in the CofS to just let the matter of my religious beliefs drop. I'm merely defending my position in the manner I think best: I'm not out to make life miserable for anyone, even if Phil Embick is/was. If I don't feel threatened I'm not going to fight back. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}I like the maxim, "Let sleeping dogs lie". But when it applies to me, does that make me a lying dog? Hmmm. {/JOKE} Paul

Message 279 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 3:09 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Spreading Entheta --- XXXX wrote: > > this is pretty shocking. Not that I am surprised. When I made > my first steps out of the CoS, I learned soon that it is better > to avoid all resources and connections that are controlled by > CoS members. You never know when they blow up beneath your feet. > Totally irrational. {JOKE} This is true. But I wasn't starting from scratch. Long ago I decided that I would just continue as before until things blew up and then handle as needed at that point. Why cut my own comm lines ahead of the need? I haven't been significantly dependent on the CofS or any CofS member since the day I left. > Of course you could make this a big "religious discrimination" > issue on ARS and all over the net. You might even win in a > lawsuit. Yes, I could. But I'm not intending to go that route unless some birdbrain forces my hand or really pisses me off. I would rather play the game of getting some auditing and training going on than attacking the CofS on ARS and in the press and so forth. > But both probably wouldn't improve the cooperation > between you and the landlord very much. > > I hope you will find a better place! Who says I'm going anywhere? I quite like it where I am. The occasional misunderstanding isn't a big deal. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 280 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 3:42 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Another Recent CoS outpoint/Assessing Drills --- Roland Aldridge wrote: > If indeed a student assesed a list of say colors, got > an item and indicated it, it damn well had better be > right. If it isn't, it's a flunk! > > People are often astonished that it is possible to get > good reads off those training drills. In fact if you > don't get good reads, you aren't doing them right. > > Roland {PLAIN} From years of courseroom observation, I agree. Sometimes in coaching a student auditor in projecting the thought of the question (not the intention to get the *word* across, but the intention to get the *concept* across per TR 8-Q) he would be astonished when his dinky little reads on me turned into long falls when he succeeded. I would sometimes hold the cans myself if I couldn't see what the student was doing wrong from just looking at the assessment on another student. But this brings up an interesting point. What exactly are these drills reading on? Auditing is aimed at reactivity, and the meter is supposed to read on sub-conscious charge. If the student prefaces his assessment with, "What is your favorite color?" and then calls off Red? Green? Blue etc. and gets some big reads, what is happening? What happens if the student prefaces the assessment with, "What colors played a part in some past deaths or implants?" Or, "What colors remind you of some lost love?" Or, ...? I have never done or supervised these drills with any assessment question other than the one in the book, for obvious reasons. But I did wonder at the time. Anyone have any good answers? Even though some good reads would be produced when someone assessed me correctly, these items never seemed charged to me. There was nothing I noticed that got stirred up. The only time that "fruit"-type questions seemed charged on me was when I was doing the Sweat Program just before the Purif came out, and all we had to eat were some bits of fruit and some cheap, sand-like protein powder in water. I really thought "Apples? Pears? Oranges?" would get genuine reads then, but they didn't. Probably should have, though! {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 281 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 6:38 am Subject: Change of Pix {PLAIN} I changed the photographs on my FZ website. There are four fresh ones there now. At XXXX's special request I learned how to make thumbnails. The photos now are: Me finishing the first London Marathon in 1981, my only marathon. There were about 80 Scn-ists in the race, as a fund-raiser for SEF. SEF was short for the "Safe Environment Fund", the brainchild of Deputy Guardian Finance World Wide Herbie Parkhouse, to collect donations etc. to pay legal fees. My Californian daughter, Allison Beatty, hitch-hiking with me just outside Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England, July 1996, a couple of weeks after I had routed out of the SO. I took the picture so there is only her in the frame. She's much prettier than I am, so it's no loss. Peter Gallop on a very snowy day at Saint Hill around 1982. You can't see much of Peter, but it is him! I think Peter is now at ASHO. I last saw him about a year ago when he came around to my then place of work, David Morse and Associates, doing event call-in. I don't know if he's on a tech post or admin post now. Me{/PLAIN} {IRONY}overjoyed{/IRONY} {PLAIN}at being posted as OEC/FEBC Course Admin at ITO around 1992, after I had been Comm Ev'd and taken off post as a supervisor and all my tech certs suspended for looking up a girl's skirt or something equally {/PLAIN}{IRONY}horrendous{/IRONY}. {PLAIN}I finally got a Board of Review and got my certs back after I convinced them to interview my students and discover what my actual supervision was like as opposed to my sexual proclivities. The LRH Communicator ITO agreed that it was a miscarriage of justice. I told her in a somewhat exasperated fashion that (per policy) she would have approved the original Comm Ev findings and recommendations. From her reaction she obviously hadn't, and may not even have seen them before they were issued. Anyway, just a day in the life of an SO member. Click on the "Pix" tag from the main page of the FZ Global site. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 282 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 5, 2004 1:35 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] online resources- TEMPEST --- Roland Aldridge wrote: > (This by the way is > > earth's problem in by passing the speed constraints > > set for them by the incorrect Einstein-Fitzgerald > > Equations.(limits to time-speed-and mass)). There > > are > > no constraints there is misleading or incorrect > > tech. > > > And what exactly are the correct equations? > > Just saying something is wrong without saying what is > right is not very helpful. {PLAIN} The correct equations would be Maxwell's original 20 field equations from 1865 in quaternion notation. I was going to cut and paste them here but the mathematical operators don't have ASCII symbols and I'm not going through the hassle of rewording them into something that is ASCII-transcribable. Particularly as I don't understand them. Anyone interested can look them up at this link: http://www.aw-verlag.ch/Documents/Notation%20of%20Maxwell%20Field%20Equations.PD\ F They are the equations near the beginning numbered 1.1, 1.2, ...,1.20. These equations were later simplified by Maxwell, then after his death by Heaviside and Lorentz. According to Tom Bearden the "simplification" was also a truncation, throwing away much useful insight. The four remnants today simply called "Maxwell's Equations" aren't. I enthuse about Bearden a bit, finding his work fascinating. Or at least, I find the little I can understand of it fascinating. See my comments on my site--with more to come--on "dipoles". (Click the tag "writings", and use the linked Index). Couple this truncation with Miller's experimental refutation of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment "proving" the non-existence of the ether (see http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm ) and Einstein's footing is looking decidedly shaky. Miller's experiment was conducted over 24 years, on and off, and involved over 200,000 different readings from 12,000 turns of a large interferometer. Michelson-Morley's experiment was conducted over six hours of readings, and involved 36 turns of their interferometer. Even then they still got a positive result, which modern science has chosen to ignore. Einstein's comment was "My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid." Does that answer your question enough, Roland?. {PLAIN} Paul

Message 283 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 5, 2004 5:46 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] A Strange Idea - Red Herring --- XXXX wrote: > Hello, > > I haven't gone over the whole site yet (Below- IRS runs Scientology) > > But before any untrue assumptions are made I would like to > point out one major point here. > > That the Board of Directors of CST is made up of > Wogs (non Scientologists) means absolutely > NOTHING! {PLAIN} I just want to make a general comment here. I say things of my own and I quote things from other people and usually comment on the quotes and I give links in various messages about this and that. Sometimes people contradict what I say, sometimes I contradict what they say. In other words, just the usual give and take of a discussion list. Now, here for example, I posted something and commented on it, and XXXX contradicted what I said, which he is perfectly entitled to do. In this case, I don't agree with his statement. I'm not making a big deal about it and normally I wouldn't comment on it. I just wouldn't want anyone to get into the frame of mind that because I don't comment on something and let it by, it means that I agree with it. Sometimes I pounce on things that others say that I consider silly, and sometimes I let them by. I assume others do this too. But I have some vague idea that I *ought* to correct wrong ideas that I see, but I don't always do it. Maybe it's from the idea of a student handing in an essay on course. The student is doing "The Sea Org Etiquette Course", say, and there is an essay on the different ways of introducing one person to another. (In actuality there is such a course, but this item is a drill, if I remember it correctly). If the supervisor knows the course materials, he can look over the essay, accept it as-is if it's OK, or get any errors in the student's understanding corrected if not. If the supervisor hasn't done the course, what then? There is no exact policy on the handling of essays unless one got written since I was last supervising at ITO in 1995. There is no such post as "Essays I/C" where you can send them for review. Maybe you could have a graduate student read it and OK it, but it is not convenient to do that. Usually I'd read them myself as I usually knew the course materials, but sometimes I didn't. And we are talking about maybe 30 essays a day. They add up fast! I would go through them when I could but sometimes I felt that I'd just turned my thetan off and wasn't picking up things I should have. Probably it was just m/u phenomena. It's one thing to carefully study pages and pages of carefully-written typewritten text; it is quite another to fully duplicate pages and pages of hand-written scribble made by a foreign- language student who isn't even necessarily fully literate in his own language. One supervisor at ITO told me he just filed essays without even reading them, and that was a good sup. I was surprised as I had always at least tried to make some effort over them. Anyway, enough of this. Sometimes I let you get away with murder, XXXX! (and others too, but XXXX posts some interesting stuff sometimes that invites comment but doesn't always get it). {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 284 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 5, 2004 6:02 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Upset? --- XXXX wrote: > > Is anyone out there upset with me over my recent posts > or attitude an this list or any other FZ lists. {PLAIN} Yes, but only on the font you use. I wince every time I open one of your posts. I hate Arial or any similar sans-serif font as a general reading font as I find it hard on the eyes for anything except headings. It is very rare that an entire book is published in a sans-serif font, presumably for this reason. Maybe there's some way I can turn off your font my end but if so I haven't found it out yet. I usually read posts in some Yahoo account but post from another such as this Hushmail one, so it's the Yahoo account that needs tweaking if it is tweakable any more. I'm all tweakied-out on Yahoo, in my estimation. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 285 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 5, 2004 7:34 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] online resources- TEMPEST --- Roland Aldridge wrote: > Thanks Paul > > > > Does that answer your question enough, Roland?. > > > > However quarternions have never really lived up to > their promise, apparently, and according to the > article you quoted Maxwell didn't really use them > satisfactorily either. It's a shame because they are > such a nice idea. > > > Anyhow, I still don't see just what is in fact wrong > with relativity! {PLAIN, except the apparent anger is a joke} Dammit Roland! Look at this: http://www.freewebs.com/dammit_roland_look_at_this/index.htm You were supposed to just say thank you very much, how impressive. Not to actually _think_ about it. Man, I couldn't take you anywhere! That site with the convenient name above quotes the Cliff Notes' version of the first of many interesting papers trashing Einstein. A link at the bottom of the page gives the URL for the rest of the papers, both the original versions and the layman's versions. The first site also talks about trashing the Michelson-Morley experiment, but doesn't mention that Miller experiment which does it so much more thoroughly. For a comment on quaterions, see this slightly edited quote from Bearden's website at http://www.cheniere.org : "Not a single one of the present so-called "Maxwell's" vector equations ever appeared in a book or paper by James Clerk Maxwell. "For some years the author [Bearden] has worked on an extended electromagnetics theory, involving the scalar component of the quaternion. "In Maxwell's original quaternion theory, this scalar component often remains when the directional components zero. Further, it then enfolds vectors and functions of vectors inside, in a hidden variable manner. Specifically, the author has patterned a unified field theory concept upon the previously unnoticed but remarkable early work of E.T. Whittaker. "In two fundamental papers in 1903 and 1904, Whittaker showed that all present vector EM can be replaced by scalar potential interferometry, and that bidirectional harmonic EM plane wave sets could be used to produce a standing wave of force-field-free potential)." There's lots more on Bearden's site, with a search engine too, enough to keep anyone seriously into free energy satiated for months. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}*Now* will you lay down and die? {/JOKE} Paul

Message 286 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 5, 2004 9:17 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] online resources- TEMPEST --- XXXX> wrote: > > Thank you both for all these wonderful MUs. > > I shall sleep well tonight! ...lol... {PLAIN} Oh, sorry. From Study Tape 11 August 1964, Study: Evaluation of Information: BEGIN QUOTE "[Y]our understanding of understanding can get very subtle indeed... You are reading about the engineering works of the early Egyptians... and you want to learn something about the bridge building of the early Egyptian, see, and this thing is strewn with words that have to do with stresses and strains of various kinds, and torsional -gahhh!.... "Of course, what I did was not worry about the fact that I didn't understand it, I just laughed in his face via his textbook. In other words, I wasn't so obsessed on the line that I couldn't skip it, and I was sufficiently informed on the subject of study that I knew if I ran into a liability of having skipped it, I knew what the liability would be, see, so I could go back and run it out if it got in my road. In, other words, I could walk through this bunch of bayonets." END QUOTE So, don't for heaven's sake worry about trying to clear up what those things were in the previous posts that Roland and I were slinging at each other. Even Maxwell's scientific peers didn't all understand them, so he had to water his equations down a bit. If for some reason you do have to clear up any of it, use the equivalent of a junior dictionary for the job, not a college level one if you don't have a college-level education in the subject in question. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 287 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 4:19 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Another Recent CoS outpoint/Assessing Drills --- Roland Aldridge wrote: > ... > My ideas of the collapse of the neural wave function > seem to explain this kind of read better than the mass > ideas in the emeter books. {PLAIN} I searched the message archives of ifachat and FreezoneOrg with "neural", and separately with "collapse", and didn't strike paydirt. If there are webbed archives of "Roland's Wisdom" (which there should be), I don't know where. The two Google hits on "collapse of the neural wave function" weren't enlightening to me. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}I tried accessing your mind for the data telepathically, but that didn't work either. My e-mail to NSA to borrow their modified and updated tepaphone went unanswered. {/JOKE} {PLAIN}So I am reduced to asking: What are you talking about? {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 288 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 4:56 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] (Quaternions/Bearden) --- XXXX wrote: > I wish I could understand this as I always had an interest in such > things. > > But I do have one question. > > Will this give us the warp drive to go to the stars? {JOKE} Yes.{/JOKE} Paul

Message 289 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 4:57 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] (Quaternions/Bearden) --- XXXX wrote: > I wish I could understand this as I always had an interest in such > things. > > But I do have one question. > > Will this give us the warp drive to go to the stars? {JOKE}No.{/JOKE} Paul

Message 290 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 4:59 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] (Quaternions/Bearden) --- XXXX wrote: > I wish I could understand this as I always had an interest in such > things. > > But I do have one question. > > Will this give us the warp drive to go to the stars? {JOKE}Maybe.{/JOKE} Paul

Message 291 From: First Reciprocal Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 8:38 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Upper bridge in the FZ -----Original Message----- From: XXXX To: xxx@xxx Sent: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 20:41:33 -0600 Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Upper bridge in the FZ > Someone has done a "Clearbird" on the upper bridge. Please see: > http://www.freezoneamerica.org/Prometheus04/ {PLAIN} I read through the LRH-based articles from R6EW through OT3 all fairly thoroughly. I can't comment on the Power section as I don't know it that well; and I'm not commenting much on the OT DRD section as I don't remember the exact rundown but it looks OK. I'm not commenting on the Filbert or L. Kin or Pilot writings as I don't know them very well. But the rest of it seems like a pretty damn good research job. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 292 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 7:31 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Another Recent CoS outpoint/Assessing Drills --- XXXX wrote: > After laughing histerically at the humor in the last 2 posts, I do > have > to admit the tone level (1.1) is a bit below what we like to see here > on ifachat. > > May I respectfully suggest you guys turn the tone level dial up a > bit. > Or, if you are truly enjoying yourselves, perhaps you could engage in > a spirited and humerous reparte on fzflame? > > XXXX {PLAIN} 1.1 is a tone level of covert nullification. Who or what exactly do I appear to be trying to covertly nullify, XXXX? I genuinely did not understand the point Roland was trying to make. I usually find Roland's posts remarkably astute and useful. I did search the ifachat and FreezoneOrg archives in the manner described. I did check that search term on Google. I did look up Roland on the web. I made a joke about the telepathy and the NSA thing, but even that doesn't attempt to nullify anything, overtly or covertly. Unless you count the slight criticism implied by the statement that NSA didn't answer my (fictitious) kooky e-mail. I agree that my dry sense of humor is sometimes confusing to some. But I'm not about to change it. A good rule of thumb would be that if something I write could be read in two different ways, one that covertly nullifies someone or something generally held to be "good", and one that is a joke, it is the joke that is meant. If I want to make a point of knocking the crap out of something, I usually don't do it covertly or half-heartedly. {/PLAIN} Paul > On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 21:31:42 -0700 XXXX > wrote: > >Do I perceive a touch of humor?:) > > > >I missed the original message, what was the read? Rise, stick, > >fall, > >rise, stick, fall, rise, stick, fall? > > > >XXXX > > > >-- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams" wrote: > >> --- Roland Aldridge wrote: > >> > ... > >> > My ideas of the collapse of the neural wave function > >> > seem to explain this kind of read better than the mass > >> > ideas in the emeter books. > >> > >> I searched the message archives of ifachat and FreezoneOrg > >with "neural", > >> and separately with "collapse", and didn't strike paydirt. If > >> > >there > >> are webbed archives of "Roland's Wisdom" (which there should be), > > I > >don't > >> know where. The two Google hits on "collapse of the neural wave > >> > >function" > >> weren't enlightening to me. I tried accessing your mind for the > >> > >data > >> telepathically, but that didn't work either. My e-mail to NSA > >to > >borrow > >> their modified and updated tepaphone went unanswered. > >> > >> So I am reduced to asking: What are you talking about? > >> > >> Paul

Message 293 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 1:23 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] online resources- TEMPEST --- XXXX wrote: > Whilst on the subject - do you think that the universe could be > divided > into any concept and its absence? {JOKE}Sure, why not--have a beer! {/JOKE} {PLAIN} That idea at the basis of TROM looks like it has a workability in auditing, but this answer is theoretical and not based on my experience of running any TROM. Logically it looks good, at least on an Aristotlean basis. However, there's a problem. If we denote "any concept" by "A", and its absence by "Not A", that seems reasonable so far. We could show this diagrammatically with a Venn diagram thus: _________________________ | | | | A | Not A | |___________|_____________| I don't know if this diagram will be preserved in the original e-mail or not, but the intention should be clear even if it gets a bit distorted. Now consider the dividing line between "A" and "Not A". It is both wholly included in "A", and wholly included in "Not A". Which it can't logically be. Removing the dividing line completely doesn't work. So one could say that the answer to your question of dividing the universe into any concept and its absence falls down when considering the demarcation between those two. How important that line of demarcation is, I wouldn't like to say. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 294 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 7:09 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] TEMPEST and the STARS. --- XXXX wrote: > Paul, & others, > > Theory of relativity for the Laymen. > It really is very simple if put in > simple words. {PLAIN} I (Paul) have summarized your (XXXX's) post. I am not trying to do a straw-man reduction of what you said, just making it easier to deal with. I have left out some relatively minor stuff. "I" below means "XXXX". 1. I got excited by the prospect of Bearden's work; then I read it. 2. I spent 6 years studying math/physics. My brother is also an authority. I found Bearden's work on free energy silly dribble. I won't give any specifics. 3. I know from my whole-track recall that free energy exists, though. 4. Wog understanding of the physical universe is a far cry from the understanding one gains from knowing the Scn definitions of Space, Energy and Time. I am not going to say why or give any examples. 5. "The Michelson-Morley experiments are the original basis for the Theory of Relativity". Morley proved light travels with a constant speed irrespective of its direction. Your sources are wrong. I am not saying what is wrong in your sources, just asserting that they are wrong. The Doppler effect applies to sound but not to light. Other experiments prove the same result as Michelson-Morley, but I'm not naming them. 6. To explain this phenomenon MM demonstrated, Einstein "introduced the incorrect Theory of [Special] Relativity". I'm not stating what was incorrect about it. 7. This incorrect theory was not accepted by the science community until 10 years later when Einstein released the General Theory of Relativity. In it he predicted a hitherto-unobserved phenomenon concerning light from a distant star being bent, which was subsequently observed. The scientific community took this as proof of the General Theory of Relativity. 8. Here is a brief example of what Einstein's theory would predict (no MEST items travelling faster than light). 9. This example contradicts my recall. 10. A particular experiment (mu-mesons) supported Einstein's theory. 11. Atomic spectra show a different view in a laboratory and when observed in the stars, when they are red-shifted. The Expanding-Universe idea comes from this, but it is wrong. I'm not saying why the red-shift occurs, or why the expanding-universe idea or the silly Big Bang is wrong. 12. The basic lies in Science are from these wrong definitions of space, energy and time. But I'm not (yet) saying what these are. Anyone interested? XXXX. ************* From here until the end of this post, "I" means "Paul" again. Point by point, my comments are: 1. OK. 2. I know Bearden's work isn't mainstream physics. You conveniently dismiss it with the word, "dribble", presumably because it doesn't agree with mainstream physics. Please give me your explanation (or even *anybody's* explanation) of the "source charge" problem (see Google), which Bearden explains so neatly with his work. I bet you cop out of this one. 3. OK. 4. If we are having a logical discussion about things, you have to give a reasoned argument to support a contentious point. The more outrageous the point, the more argument is needed. *No* argument whatsoever, just a bald assertion, won't fly. 5. Bald assertions again. How about some specifics that can be examined? 6. Bald assertion. 7. OK. 8. OK. 9. OK. 10. OK. 11. I agree the Big Bang theory is idiotic; and I agree that the evidence for an expanding universe is hyped. But again you just make the assertions without any explanation or evidence. If this is a point to bolster your argument on something, it needs more than the bald assertions as your statements are controversial. If it isn't, it's just added inapplicable data. 12. XXXX's mystery sandwich #2. Well, I'm interested, XXXX. Make a logical, useful post about point #12 and the reworking of where basic science went astray and I won't chew on you too much more over the rest. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 295 To: ifachat@yahoogroups.com CC: From: "Paul Adams" Add to Address Book Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 02:03:38 -0700 Subject: [ifachat] Ground Rules {PLAIN} I thought I would clarify a few things about the potentialities of my current relationship with "the neighbors", mainly for the benefit of the few individuals there who know of my FZ activities and make the decisions on how to interact with me (or not). If this is all hot air and no-one there cares the slightest about what I say or do, that's just fine with me. Here are a couple of rough charts laying out examples of possible actions that could be taken by me, or regarding me. INFLOW (things happening to me): Level 0. Nothing perceptible to me on any channel. Level 1. Minor annoyances, like spam, that could also happen for innocuous reasons. Level 2. Major annoyances, like pickets at my home, harrassing phone calls, something interrupting my auditing or requiring noticeable time or expense to deal with. Level 3. Minor property damage; attack by minor lawsuit/deposition etc. or "official" harassment; my non-Scn friends/family even being contacted because of my FZ connections. Level 4. Physical assault or battery on my person, minor or major; major property damage; major legal attack; any harassment of my non-Scn friends/family. OUTFLOW (things I do to others). Note that none of these items involve illegal actions by me or others in the FZ, and none involve any threats to a person or property. These actions involve solely the lawful communication of lawful ideas. Class E: Nothing objectively perceptible by anyone. Class D: Posts containing occasional derogatory comments about the neighbors on FZ lists/boards or my FZ website amid a daily flow of comment and assistance in getting FZ people trained/audited or entertained/informed. There is no real overt attack on the neighbors or their main income sources beyond this. There is no comm to active non-FZ Scn-ists about the FZ, not even any hints of same. Class C: Postings to ARS or other on-line forums/websites; minor press items; minor pickets; minor comms to active non-FZ Scns regarding tech outside the totalitarian channels. Class B: Lawsuits; major press; horribly bad PR regarding religious discrimination; unrestricted comm to active non-FZ Scn-ists on any applicable comm line. Class A: "The Big One"; if I am dead, targeted "haunting" by me in addition to "The Big One" performed by others in the FZ from write-ups and items already distributed and requiring no further input from me than knowledge of my untimely departure. These divisions are a guideline. I am listing them out to show that I recognise there are differences, similarities and identities here. Just because I receive more spam than usual or even a computer virus one day does not mean I will inappropriately respond with the extreme action I have called, "The Big One". My current level of operation--things I do--is at the lowest levels, namely Class E and Class D. I perceive actions occurring to me to be at Level 0 or 1. The same things that make up Level 1 could bump it up to Level 2 if increased in volume, but it's mostly pretty quiet and nowhere near that. I understand that a State or general could be in readiness mode to maybe initiate warfare with a neighboring country, with both sides having troops along their borders, and some trigger-happy patrol could fire on the enemy in an unauthorised manner. It would be short-sighted to consider this an act of war. Similarly, I have not over-reacted to an over-zealous active non-FZ field Scn-ist a few days ago deciding I should be ousted from my rented accommodation by assuming this to be an attack on me from the neighbors. My reaction included an e-mail to four field non-FZ Scn-ists, two active and two not, who already knew of my FZ auditing--a minute excursion into Class C--but no more than that. If my house manager acts badly towards me and stays that way, I will consider this Level 2, as we have been on the best of terms for a couple of years now. If not, and it all blows over soon, then it's just routine Level 1, and no big deal. It could be argued that if I were to be suddenly mugged on the street, say, there would likely be no proof that any particular person or group set it up, and it was instead merely one of the random{/PLAIN} {IRONY}joys{/IRONY} {PLAIN}of living in LA. My response is that this is true about the proof, but since nothing like this has happened to me so far in life, and the only major change would have been my move to the FZ, I would draw the obvious conclusion. Now, doesn't it just bum you out that I would even consider posting something like this? Man! Let's get back to discussing XXXX's electronic rabbit piss. Whoops, wrong forum. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 296 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 6:17 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] 2D policies in SO --- XXXX wrote: > LOL - I had the idea that a certain degree of rigidity existed on > this list. > I have been disabused of that notion. {JOKE} Chris! CHRIS!! H - E - L - P!! C - H - R - I - I - I - S!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! {/JOKE} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 297 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 6:53 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Ground Rules --- XXXX> wrote: > Why not just handle this with some tech? Perhaps Robert could write a > program for you. Or maybe handle the out-ruds prior to R3XD. What > dynamic are you working on now anyway? > > XXXX {PLAIN} What on Earth are you talking about? If some mad dog barks at me, I'm not going to go and waste precious auditing time trying to handle the dog by addressing it in my universe. I would ignore it if minor; handle the dog's owner if the dog's annoyance became major; or maim/kill it on the spot in self-defense if it was insane enough to seriously physically attack me. I didn't even have out-ruds over the landlord thing. If I had it could have been cleaned up at the start of session using R3X in a minute maybe, but it wasn't even worth mentioning in session. This post of yours that I am responding to annoyed me more than it has. Your assertion that I had out-ruds resulting in my choosing R3XD might sound good in theory, but I defy you to find them on a meter. I live in LA and I'm not a fragile pc and I'm quite happy to be guinea-pigged over it by one of your brave friends. With me holding the cans and the auditor in the same room. I'm serious, although if you want to back down behind a "It would be out-tech to interject a random repair program like that into your R3XD program", you're welcome to the logical inconsistency of that. I'm nearly done with the 4D, to answer your question.{/PLAIN} :) Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 298 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 5:23 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] KTL {PLAIN} Maybe this will help, XXXX. I did KTL and the KTL delivery course at ITO, but never supervised it. Although I did supervise across the hallway for a few years! Here's a brief summary as best as I can do at the moment. I only have the three big books and none of the little ones. The rest is from memory and I welcome better data from anyone. The only things kept confidential about the course are the EP's of the Clay Table processes, as knowing them in advance wrecks the student's case gain. The student does the clay reps in session as a repetitive process, until the specific EPs are reached. The entire course is done twinned, both giving and receiving. If one twin goes to ethics, the other twin goes to ethics. If you lose your twin, you have to get another one. If you're six months ahead of him, that's just tough, you spend six months getting him caught up before you can progress any. You definitely feel like you have accomplished something when you finish this course. 1-5. Wordless orientation to the course and the courseroom from picture books. Orientation to the Clay Table, and learn how to do a Clay Representation. Receive CT1, the first Clay Table set of processes, to EP. Receive CT2, the second Clay Table set of processes, to EP. Deliver CT1, the first Clay Table set of processes, to EP. Deliver CT2, the second Clay Table set of processes, to EP. 6A. Read the first 88 pages of the "6C" book. It shows how to clear words from the KTL books, which define all the words used in KTL. Drill the alphabet. 6B. Drill clearing words with a twin, turn-about style (Joe clears definition 1 on Sally; Sally clears defs 1 and 2 on Joe; Joe clears defs 2 and 3 on Sally; and so on.) This is not Method 9 word-clearing, but close, in that if one twin doesn't really understand some word he thoroughly clears it up by looking at each definition and using the word in sentences until he's got it. 6C. The famous 6C. Clear the given 810 definitions (including the derivation and idioms) for the 60 small common words turnabout with your twin. (The words are: the, a, of, to, and, in, that, for, he, is, I, was, it, as, on, with, his, but, you, be, at, an, by, have, had, they, from, this, said, all, or, are, would, not, him, what, has, out, about, there, were, who, so, one, its, will, their, up, been, do, if, her, she, which, off, than, then, just, even, though). Each word is followed by a drill. In this drill are some sentences using the word just studied in different ways and the student has to give the correct definition without looking it up (the answers are given at the bottom to prevent arguments, but not in such a way as to allow cheating). If he flunks, both the student and his twin have to re-clear *each* definition of that word. Then try the drill for that word again. 6D. A drill where one twin picks a small common word and has the other use it in different ways concerning the immediate environment. Once this is done easily, another word is picked. After 20 words, the twins turn about. Any flunk results in both twins fully clearing the word again. 6E. There are 40 sentences given, containing 119 marked small common words. There are other small words that are not marked. The students are to correctly define each marked word in the sense used, the coach referring to the answers at the bottom of the page to ensure the correct meaning is given. On any flunks, both twins re-clear each definition of the word, as usual. Example sentences, where the word to define has an asterisk after it: He will* have to live off* bread and* milk for* a long time. What* is he trying to* say? What* did they* want to do* that for*? 6F. Call the supervisor and say you're done. At this point, if I remember it correctly, there is a written test administered by the Supervisor on Joe and Sally. If Joe gets it reasonably correct, both Joe and Sally just re-clear each definition of the few words missed and that's it for section 6, once Sally has done the same. If either really screw up, they both redo the whole of 6C through 6F again. Most of the time is spent doing 6C. The small, common words are usually each "fully" cleared several times in the process of getting through section 6. It's a big win to get through section 6. 7A. This is a book on how to use a regular dictionary and what every single general word and symbol in a simple dictionary means. This isn't all the words defined in the dictionary, but the things like the parts of speech, pronunciation key, abbreviations used, etc. It is read aloud with one's twin, as usual on KTL. There are lots and lots of drills. 8. ? 9A. "The New Grammar". It's about 600 pages long, but it's big print. It's all done reading aloud, clearing words and doing drills as before. Lots of drills! This is the no-holds-barred section, where you learn the standard language for the different variations and understand how to name the parts of and construct a sentence like "She wondered whether she would have been being screwed over still if she had not left." 9B?--?. Fairly quick other things, but I forget what. 9B?-? +1. Final exam. No fast flow for anyone. If you screw up a bit, it's a small correction cycle. If you screw up a lot--guess what?!! Note that there is no drill where you pick up any HCOB, say, and define each of the small common words in it in the way it is used in the HCOB. It might be tempting to add that in, but the course does not stretch to that hard of a gradient. But it is tough enough. It is VERY hard to deliver the KTL course standardly. A bulletin in the delivery course about earlier pilot courses said that if the delivery terminals had not each personally completed a standard course, they uniformly screwed up students doing the course under them. Each of the three main delivery terminals (sup, C/S, auditor) had to have done the KTL course standardly first. Run right, with spot-on tech from all concerned, it can be done in 3 weeks (I think it was 3 weeks). But this was on a Sea Org FULL-TIME schedule with 15 minute meal-breaks and approx. 7 hours sleep and NOTHING else except getting up and dressed, getting to course, going home at the end of the day and straight to bed. The students were RPF members who were told that if they got through the course on time they would be reprieved from the RPF and put on post at ITO delivering the KTL course; and if they didn't they would get dumped in the RPFs RPF (or something dire). The delivery team were tech missionaires from Int. There was a lot of incentive to get through fast! Maybe some ex-KTL delivery people here could fill in some more details. From my observation, it was hard to get KTL delivered standardly at Class V orgs. Hell, it was hard getting it delivered standardly at ITO! I would imagine it is next to impossible to get anything approaching a standard KTL course in the FZ. The good news is that the books are readily available and not confidential, although expensive. A new set from the publisher costs $1250 per their website. One could maybe buy a second-hand set for $300 to $400, or borrow/rent one from a friendly FZer. One could just use the 6C book to clear definitions of the small words and do drills. There are LOTS of drills in the books. Similarly for the 9A grammar book to read up on and practise grammar. It would be a high crime to cherry-pick bits like that in the CofS and call it a KTL course, and I'm sure they don't deliver anything other than the full course, but what's new? It wouldn't be doing anything close to the KTL course, but there again you wouldn't be starting on a possible 3-year cycle that in the CofS you would HAVE to finish before doing anything else. So that is one option. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 299 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 6:41 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Ground Rules --- XXXX wrote: > > Thanks. I wish you well with the rest. At some point will you be > continuing with LRH's bridge and OT 4/5? (I can't remember if you did > OT4 yet.) > > XXXX {PLAIN} Thanks, XXXX. I did do OT4. At some point will I be continuing with OT5? I honestly don't know right now. Try me again in six months' time and maybe I will know then. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 300 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 6:52 am Subject: The Phil Embick Squirrel Academy {PLAIN} Prudence would dictate that I take things easy and lie low for a bit right now. However, Prudence is off-source and doesn't apply the LRH tech of what to do in the face of suppression: Flourish and Prosper! So she can take a hike. I want to be supervising soon in a full-time FZ academy. [Down Craig, Down!] I am considering delivering the usual fare, using Clearbird materials or the regular ones if existing as originals (not photocopies) and provided by the student; as well as a brand new R3X/R3XD course. The R3X/R3XD checksheet will teach first the familiar method of delivery and then the optional method of delivery. {JOKE}Or maybe the other way around.{/JOKE} I don't have a location yet. But if anyone is interested in either providing space or coming on course, please e-mail me soon. The name "The Phil Embick Squirrel Academy" will not be permanent. There may be legal hassles and besides, it's a waste of a name. But I think it is amusing, and fitting, as without his help I would not be considering such a move at this point. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}It is tempting to set it up with a big glowing neon sign on L. Ron Hubbard Way or near Hollywood and Vine or somewhere like that, but that wouldn't be at all prudent. Hmmm. {/JOKE} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 301 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] KTL > What's the benefit to KTL as opposed to > simply having a decent education and knowing how to use a dictionary? {PLAIN} Someone asked me this privately, and since it should be of general interest I am giving a public answer. Before I started KTL I considered that I had had a decent education and knew how to use a dictionary. I will answer the question based on my personal experience, not on my observation of before/after differences with others. I wasn't particularly excited about doing KTL at all. It was ordered that ALL the staff do it as soon as possible, and it was made uncomfortable if one didn't, i.e. one was looked upon with disfavor by personnel enhancement people and seniors if one wasn't on KTL. About the only acceptable exception was to be out in the boonies on a long mission, or to be auditing daily and as fast as possible on some uninterruptible action like OT3 or NOTs. I assume the seniors had silly, undoable program targets they got yelled at daily on, like "Get all staff started ASAP" and they couldn't comply until it had occurred, even though 95% of the staff were on it. And *their* seniors would have had similar targets and heat to get it done. All the way to the top. I was mid-OT4 for about 10 years. I started it around 1980 or so with Julie Price, a NOTs auditor at AOSHUK before she eloped with Bob Ainsworth (I think it was Bob). I later had a co-audit-type session or maybe two. It didn't get finished at SH. I moved to LA and I didn't "make it go right" to continue with it until there was a lot of pressure to get everyone onto KTL. I finally helped set up a little staff co-audit on OT4 for a few weeks before someone decided it was out-tech and stopped it, but I just got it completed in time. {/PLAIN} {IRONY}This was a routine application of the standard SO policy of "'Standard CofS' auditing is better than 'Non-Standard CofS' auditing, but no auditing at all is best."{/IRONY} {PLAIN} It took me 10 years to get maybe 10 hours of auditing on OT4. So everyone was happy that I attested OT4 and routed onto KTL, including me. Nobody except my auditor cared, including me, if I got anything out of those final sessions. (They're all cleaned up now). I spent about 100 hours as a pc on CT1 and about 10 hours on CT2. CT1 was discovered in a 30-minute review to have been overrun by about 80 hours. It was repaired in the same review. CT2 was fine. I got some gains from both CT1 and CT2, even though I wasn't really PTS and was well-trained and thought I knew the theory of what I was being audited on (I didn't know the EPs). Including the couple of months' wait for a review, which I finally received from an ITO trainee after exchanging some high-crime checkouts with him, all that took me maybe six months part-time, some of it at 5 hours a day. If the HCOBs I studied in the KTL delivery course had been followed, I would have been sent to review after about 25 hours instead of being sent out on another walk and the whole cycle would have taken maybe three weeks. It then took another couple of months to deliver CT1/2 on another, which was relatively uneventful. 6C (small common words) and 9A (grammar) took me about another year. I got more out of 6C than 9A. I learned some stuff on 9A, but not much that I didn't already know. At the end I noticed that reading something generally comprehensible- -bulletin, novel, newspaper etc.--was pretty much effortless, and any mu's jumped straight off the page and held my attention. Similarly with listening to anyone speak. This was a change from before I had done the course, even though beforehand I didn't think I had any trouble reading and understanding things. I suspect this comes from doing 6C. The little words don't get noticed much because they are ubiquitous, and because they really are mu's if they haven't been thoroughly, thoroughly cleared. So, because they are everywhere, one goes around in a permanent mental fog all the time. I had never noticed it before completing KTL, even though I had done that whole little-word trip as detailed in the post webbed at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040617-040716.htm#^043 and considered myself very educated and literate. It's like living in LA and not noticing the air quality until you fly up out of it in a plane and see the orange-brown sludge you've been breathing for years and never noticed. I can imagine others less literate or with less prior case gain got more out of the course than I did. For someone who is genuinely out of communication with the world around him because he does not understand what he sees or hears and cannot communicate clearly his thoughts to others, the name "Key to Life" is not a misnomer or PR gimmick. The CT processing on the course is not duplicated by other processing. The whole small common word trip is not duplicated on any other course-- the definitions are clearer and more precise than in a regular dictionary and the clearing of them is done far more thoroughly than just sitting down with a dictionary and "clearing to full conceptual understanding" each of the sixty words that I listed out in the previous post. I found 9A, the grammar section, is more thorough in the twined word-clearing and drilling than any normal grammar course, and again the material is laid out well, but it wasn't as different as the other two sections. I forget whatever other short stuff is on the course. In the CofS, you HAD to do the Life Orientation Course as a next action, which again took a year or something with the reading aloud and twinning. Is that worth doing? I didn't have any choice. Personally I found nothing much new on LOC and it was a big pain in the nuts. Others thought it was great. I'm not going to write a summary for LOC like I did for KTL. Is KTL worth doing? Well, it depends on what you have to give up to do it. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 302 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 7:21 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Re: Psych Legislation alert --- XXXX wrote: > Who are they anyway? If they want to come to the EU, why not > get the cash together and buy a castle or something? They sell > them relatively cheaply because they are so expensive to maintain. {PLAIN} No, she wasn't kidding. There are maybe 20 properties listed at the example site below, with estimated buying costs and renovations costs, and subsidies available. {/PLAIN}{JOKE}I would contribute $500 and some jokes if a few others could pay the other $999,500 or so.{/JOKE} {PLAIN}See http://www.poshjourneys.com/castles_as_an_investment.htm . {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 303 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 8:33 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Psych Legislation alert --- XXXX wrote: > > Well some of them would make a great place for an academy or auditing > centre! {JOKE} Yeah. The problem is deciding between Schloss SquirrelischeAkademie or Castle Jungfrauleinmitdiegrossentitten. The usual story. {/JOKE} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 304 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:09 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Pro Word Clearer Pack & more . . . --- XXXX wrote: > --- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Great items you're finding however I've got a question. It came > to > > my attn about a yr ago that LRH material is being altered and this > I > > found out for myself w/a book I had comparing it w/a much older > > copyright. So I always check copyright now. What do you think > > about items such as "taped" material and "course packages" > w/recent > > copyright? Could this material also be altered? > > > Definuttly. Tapes have been found with sentences removed. This > went so far as having students cutting up the reel2reel Cl8 tapes > when they were replaced with clearsound cassettes. {PLAIN} Oh come on--this is silly. The alterations are insignificant tech-wise. There's a sentence or two taken out. What about Clearbird's wholesale re-writes? In the present circumstances, anything that gets across the message clearly is acceptable. I think Clearbird's stuff is great. And the changes are completely insignificant politically compared to the wholesale suppression of auditing and training in the orgs by GOAT and ridiculous prices and arbitraries on getting up the Bridge; on Solo NOTs with the 6-months checks; and in the field with mandatory GOAT retraining and other inducements to just plain STOP AUDITING. Plus other suppressions I can't be bothered to list out. Losing a sentence or two that might make Int Mgmt look bad if someone read it--and also thought for themselves what it might mean--is utterly inconsequential. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 305 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 10, 2004 4:45 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Pro Word Clearer Pack & more . . . --- XXXX wrote: > Paul, > > I see your point. I really do. But, please answer for yourself this > question: > > If you were offered a choice between materials that you knew were > altered, and at an inflated price, or materials that you had a > reasonable certainty of being completely original, at a "discounted" > price because they were "earlier editions" - which would you choose? {PLAIN} But it isn't as black and white as that. If the text of the two choices is more or less identical, it really doesn't matter. Buy the one that matches your wallpaper. If you have to choose between something like the Intro to Scn Ethics book, which started out very thin, and now is a monster and not just because of bigger print and thicker paper, it is not a simple decision. If the old one is $5, and the new one is $40 but you *really* want the data in there in one convenient book form, what then? I have a copy of the old Study Tapes transcripts, with a plain dark blue cover with white lettering on it. I like it because in the next edition one tape has been edited to remove some GPM stuff that is out-gradient and irrelevant to someone learning how to study, and one paragraph just doesn't make sense with that material removed. It will not clear up on a student who is studying it carefully unless one refers to the old transcript. I have 7 of the new tech volumes. The 1976 tech volumes, even with the update packs, are way out of date. I have a Tech Volume XIII, 1985-1991. Did LRH personally write all those HCOBs or oversee their revision and re-issue? Of course not. Do you think he did before 1982?! But the volume is very useful. I'm not going to not use it just because someone says it's not politically correct among FZ group blah-blah to open the cover in case all Pandora's evils fly into my preclears. If there's an issue or revision in there I don't like, I won't use it. I would exercise my power of choice. The 1968(?) edition of The Phoenix Lectures book is riddled with typos- -it is a horrible overt product. The nice shiny new Phoenix Lectures casette tapes were issued without a transcript--an insane oversight, especially as the book was never reprinted that I know of. But if you ignore the typos, the book is an accurate rendition of the lectures and so is very useful. Which is better--the book or the tapes? I don't know--it depends what you want. I could do more, but I hope that is enough. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 306 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 11, 2004 3:26 am Subject: Re: Pro Word Clearer Pack & more . . . --- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > I take my LRH straight up, thank you. You are welcome to clearbird. {PLAIN} That is fine as a first-dynamic solution, but what about when you want to train others? How would you handle twenty people all together you've never seen before who want to train up to Class IV RIGHT NOW? With cash in hand? What do you use for a checksheet? What do you use for course packs? You don't want to break the law regarding copyright, and 20 people can't share the one old pack or one set of tech volumes that you have. What do you do? {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 307 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 11, 2004 6:13 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] Red Herring --- XXXX wrote: > Then CoX made a deal with IRS, the particulars of > which are hard to come by. {PLAIN} Are you referring to the particulars in the 72-page agreement that are available from the first hit you get when you put "Scientology made a deal with IRS" or "church made a deal with IRS" (without the quote marks) into Google? {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 308 From: [Paul] Date: Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:03 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] About KTL --- XXXX wrote: > Thoes who feel that KTL is about clearing small words may have missed > the > point. It's about the Clay Table auditing. {PLAIN} It's about the whole course. The CT auditing is done as a set-up to learning how to clear words and the small-words section, because people suffering from what that auditing handles were found not to be able to properly duplicate the small words. The CT auditing is not just thrown in as a bonus because Flag had this great rundown and they had to make money from it so they bundled it with the nearest course--that isn't how it happened. This course was piloted for *years* until they got it right. The small-words section is a set-up to the grammar section. Without knowing the small words--the glue that holds the big words in place in sentences and gives structure and richness of meaning--the grammar section will not be duplicated. The smaller sections have their place too. > I understand that getting the materials for delivering the KTL is > still > difficult in the FZ. Some attention should be put on this. > > Those materials should be available to anyone. I agree that the materials *should* be available to anyone, but unless you have a very persuasive manner with the copyright holder or an unusual billionaire for a friend, I can't think how it is going to happen. What would you suggest that is legal and doable? {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 309 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:01 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] 2d-rules re-instated --- XXXX wrote: > What say others? {PLAIN} I say that the idea of the eight dynamics is an arbitrary division of the whole of life into eight sections to make life easier to analyze, or deal with in auditing. Each dynamic is supposed to include those beneath it, as in a series of concentric circles with the first dynamic in the middle. I have trouble making this make sense with regard to the sixth and seventh dynamics, but it's not a big deal. In auditing, if you are running some process that addresses "life, the universe and everything" by dynamics, you have to make sure that the pc understands that when you get to the end, *everything* has to have been addressed. Beyond that, apart from general agreement on what the terms mean, who cares what dynamic a Denebian exotic dancer saying a prayer before going on stage to make money to support her family and pets belongs in? {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 310 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 11, 2004 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] GSR-10 e-meter --- XXXX wrote: > I'd be interested in their meter for NOTS auditing. > > $96 is an EXCELLENT price, but still hard on someone who is out of > work. > > I will see if I can work it out. > > XXXX {PLAIN} Has anyone seen any independent reviews of this meter? I agree that $96 is an excellent price for a reliable meter that does what it is supposed to do. Is this one? {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 311 From: {Paul] Date: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:54 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: fwd -LRH ED 350 --- XXXX wrote: > Just for clarity - I didn't post it. I thought this would be obvious > as my questions were in response to another email - I didn't > originate the chain. > > I only just got in touch with the FZ, saw this, and simply asked some > obvious questions. Those who knew Ron personally would be in the > best position to answer the questions. In the absence of this > individuals can answer the questions for themselves. > > Had I come across this document I would have been highly suspicious > (otherwise why ask the questions I did). I'm not in the position of > posting anything anyway. > > Thanks for making me, at least, aware of its previous appearance(s). > If its actual provenance could be determined and proven it would end > debate, but I suspect it can't, so it will just persist. > > Based on the level and quality of communication on the FZ at present > I think I'll just observe for now... {PLAIN} Hi XXXX, Don't get scared off by an unrepresentative sample. If you post well-written and insightful comm, you will bring up the quality of discussion by increasing the theta/entheta or the signal/noise ratio. Someone who habitually litters might think twice about it upon seeing an upgraded environment. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}Besides, we need some more Brits posting. Can't let those damn Yanks have the run of the place. {/JOKE} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 312 From: [Paul] Date: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:23 pm Subject: [freezoneorg][ifachat]Upper-Level Writings {PLAIN} I have made my FZ upper-level postings freely available on my site. If you're not Clear at least, I would not recommend you read them. As usual, they are indexed. But the upper-level writings are on a separate page to the regular ones and also indexed separately so that no-one will accidentally get confronted with precision OT2 procedure when all they were looking for was the Alpha Draconis meat-buying guide. Subjects covered so far are an extensive critique of TT's IC2 and several detailed posts on the delivery of OT2 and OT3, mainly OT2. Soon to appear are OT2 and OT3 checksheets. You can find my regular writings by clicking on the "Writings" tab; and the upper-level writings by clicking on the {JOKE}"Reptiloids for World Peace" tab. If that one is down, the{/JOKE} "Upper-Level Writings" tab will work. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 313 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:16 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Upper-Level Writings --- XXXX wrote: > I don't mind you putting IC2 stuff on your website, even with > the asnine comments you make about it. > > It is rather stupid actually, what you and ralph say, and it is > not a critique at all, but just some ramblings about a procedure that > is not even fully described to you. You "critique" something you > obviously do not understand. > > But, since you seem to feature me extensively, the least you > could do is put a link to me on it. > You can use http://icause.net/ {PLAIN} Sure. There's now a link in the article and one on my links page. I've labelled it "Tommy Thompson's site"--if you would prefer an alternative wording, just let me know. I need to overhaul the links page, but when it's done the link to http://icause.net will still be there. I never did find out what Pierre thought of IC2. He doesn't seem to have made a public announcement about it. Has he told you? {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 314 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:57 pm Subject: [ifachat]Communication Quality {JOKE} What did that prick say about "well-written and insightful" communication? It's fine for HIM to say that as all that stuff just rolls off his tongue or at least off his keyboard, but what about those of us who aren't quite so eloquent? Are we just supposed to go to another list? Who the hell does he think he is? "Any communication is better than no communication" is what I say. {/JOKE} :) Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 315 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Communication Quality --- XXXX wrote: > I agree that "Any communication is better than no communication," > but > do you realize the question at the beginning of your post comes out > as > having been deliberately worded to be confrontational? I'm not > saying > that this was your intent, but that is how it reads. Were you really > wanting to insult, and ARCX others? {PLAIN} Who exactly do you think I insulted, or ARCX? {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 316 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:35 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Communication Quality --- XXXX wrote: > I'm also confused - Did I miss a post? Or did my mailer quarantine a > post > due to a virus? > > Who and what are you referring to Paul? {PLAIN} Whoops. My goof. I was referring to a post I had made, and the person I was being rude to was myself (which is not supposed to be offensive, of course, but it is only inoffensive if one knows that). I would never, ever post a serious message like that outside of FZ Flame, but FZ Flame isn't a serious group anyway. Unfortunately the prior post was to a different group (FreezoneOrg), and I thought I had made it to ifachat. In the interests of clarity I include it here: START OF PRIOR POST Hi XXXX, Don't get scared off by an unrepresentative sample. If you post well-written and insightful comm, you will bring up the quality of discussion by increasing the theta/entheta or the signal/noise ratio. Someone who habitually litters might think twice about it upon seeing an upgraded environment. Besides, we need some more Brits posting. Can't let those damn Yanks have the run of the place. Paul END OF PRIOR POST I don't think I'll go back to FreezoneOrg and repeat this mess there. {/PLAIN} {JOKE}Maybe tomorrow if I get bored.{/JOKE} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 317 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:00 pm Subject: New OT2 Checksheet {PLAIN} I have written a new OT2 checksheet, based on the Clearbird/Prometheus Reports materials. You can find it at http://www.freewebs.com/squirrelacademy/checksheet- ot2.htm . [Editor's note--link changed to http://www.freewebs.com/squirrelacademy/OT2checksheet.htm [link now dead 2014] {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 318 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] New OT2 Checksheet --- XXXX wrote: > Link doesn't work. > > If link contains hyphens they should probably be taken out. {PLAIN} . http://www.freewebs.com/squirrelacademy/OT2checksheet.htm {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 319 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:30 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Tempest and the Stars --- XXXX wrote: > If not, I am wasting my time and need not go on! {PLAIN} Yeah, I think you are wasting your time with the likes of Roland, XXXX and myself, XXXX. My vote is you talk about something else. {/PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 320 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:23 am Subject: Re: [ifachat] New OT2 Checksheet --- XXXX wrote: > Not related to XXXX's post, but to the subject. > > I found several definitions for KSW in my special dictionary: > > 1) KSW (according to top management): Keep Scientology for the > Wealthy > > 2) KSW (according to IRS) Keep Scientology a Withhold > > 3) KSW (according to FZ) Keep Scientology on the Web > > 3 KSW (according to LRH) "For Gods sakes you knuckle heads. Keep > Sceintology Working by keeping it in plain view and in use." > > I prefer definition 3 and 4 myself. > > XXXX {PLAIN} Well said. Also note that I wrote the checksheet from my knowledge of the original materials and experience of getting the original materials applied. I refer to the Prometheus articles on the checksheet and not the originals, but that does not mean I used the Prometheus articles as my source references for it. But if you don't like my checksheet, XXXX or XXXX or XXXX, no-one is forcing you to use it. {/PLAIN} {IRONY}Use your own or any of the dozens of others that are on the Web.{/IRONY} {PLAIN}The FZ is still the Scn Land of Choice. Wait a minute, you say that there aren't dozens of others on the Web? Oh. I wonder why that is? /PLAIN} Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

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