Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts September 17, 2004 - November 17, 2004

Yahoo Groups and Freezone America (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 379 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] LRH Quotes On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:15:22 +0100, xxx@xxx wrote: > > On 15 Sep 2004 at 19:09, xxxx wrote: > > > > How far can we safely quote LRH. How about the following Two? > > None of us are lawyers as far as I know, much less lawyers expert in > copyright law as it applies in the relatively international > environment of the internet. > > "Fair Use" quotes are allowed. What is fair use and how big the > quotes can be probably depends on the context. Thus there is > probably no definitive right and wrong that can be defined in terms > of number of sentences. {PLAIN} A more pragmatic approach might be to look at what prompts the CofS legal people to take action and what doesn't. The direct copying and posting of materials considered confidential--OT3, NOTs etc.--are pursued with vigor. If you do a Google search, you will generally not find *any* such materials webbed, and that cannot be coincidental. Sometimes you can find these materials on the Web, but not usually for long. Their position is different with regard to non-confidential materials. Sometimes anti-Scn critics post some of the more extreme quotes to poke fun at them, and any action taken against people hosting such comments on their sites are understandable, although Fair Use allows such commentary and so many examples are visible on the Web. But with non-extreme quotes, the position becomes more conflicted. On the one hand, one would think that a CofS staff member would be happy about LRH materials being more widely disseminated in a mostly respectful manner. Usually they are done so with correct attribution. On the other hand, if the CofS allowed copying without restriction, all LRH materials including tape transcripts would soon be posted online. I don't know how commercially significant in terms of reduced sales that would be. Churchies would not download the materials, especially if they knew that they risked the expensive ethics/sec check penalties for doing so. FZers would probably download them, but how much would they have spent on tape series at org bookstores anyway? The CofS marketing people might think of this idea in ten years' time, but they could do worse than the iTunes model. Have all the thousands of tapes, voice and transcript, available for download from one of their official sites only, at 99 cents each. (Not $25 each). Maybe a whole series at 99 cents a lecture or pick and choose lectures at $2.49 each. Each tape could be listed with a synopsis, maybe an excerpt. The rules that go with it would allow personal use only, say allowing one to burn it onto a CD for listening at home or in the car or print it out for personal study but not to burn CDs for friends or e-mail it to another or put it on the web. The price could be surveyed, but the basic idea should be to maximize the number of lectures that each household gets and the amount of money they spend on them. (I know that if the CofS was really in the planet-clearing business they would put it all up on their web-site and allow downloads at cost or even free, but let's be somewhat real about this). 99 cents each sounds good to me. If there are 3000 lectures, then that is $3000. I bet the CofS would get that $3000 from many more people than would pay $3000 for five or ten current lecture series. For example, I wouldn't dream of spending $500 on 25 lectures on CD in some series, and I would never even spend $20 on one lecture/CD. But I would certainly consider giving a fair-dealing-in-this-case CofS $500 for 500 lectures that I could legally download. They might just be surprised at how much money they would make. Maybe in 2014 they will do it, but at the $25 rate, not the 99 cent rate, and completely miss the point. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 380 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:53 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] LRH Quotes On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:33:00 -0700, Paul Adams wrote: > > They might just be surprised at how much money they would make. {PLAIN} There's another point that I just thought of. I was naively assuming that people buy these lectures because they want to listen to them, and then, having bought them, they do listen to them. If the main reason that people buy them is because they feel obliged to buy them, and then the lectures just sit on the shelf, then that is a different story. I have seen a lot of push to buy lectures. I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a push to listen to them. I remember at Saint Hill around 1984 or 1985, the AO (i.e. Chris Burton and me) put on some "Classic OT Lectures", where we played tapes like "The Free Being" or "The State of OT". I think we even played "Between Lives Implants". This took place one evening mid-week, Tuesday I think, at 7:30 PM. It wasn't a big reg-fest, merely that we thought it was a good idea to have some of these juicy tapes reach a wider audience than Briefing Course students, as they weren't generally available at the time. Plus get some bodies in the shop. We had only two or three people turn up, and despite the high quality of the sound reproduction, they manifested mu phenomena. We discontinued the tape plays after a few weeks. Does anyone know how much unforced listening to LRH tapes occurs? {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 381 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:39 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Church of Squirreling Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:34 pm: {PLAIN} Hi Cal, I'm inclined to endorse LR's idea of checking out Robert's techniques. They are not intended to be run solo, but sometimes merely looking over different methods of addressing charge can blow some for one. They did for me. There's a checksheet and lots of Robert's materials available at http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 382 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:34 am Subject: [FZA Board] TA Positions 2.0 and 3.0 {PLAIN} I could never understand how come a male cadaver would have a resistance of exactly 12,500 ohms and a female one 5,000 ohms. I joined a Yahoo group about dead bodies ("The Biology of Death") hoping someone there would give some data about electrical resistance in cadavers, but no joy. Does anyone know of any empirical data in this area? Or have access to cadavers and be willing to put some wrist-straps connected to an ohmmeter on a few? {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 383 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [ifachat] Running Program On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:06:15 -0000, xxxx wrote: > What was it? Are there any documents on it? I was on it, was only > ever told to run around the pole and nothing else. {PLAIN} When I worked at New World Corps, in 1986 I read a few pilot issues on the Running Program (the name later became the "Cause Resurgence Rundown", I believe). From what I recall, the whole rundown is about the physical handling of a long-ago implant. The handling involves moving the body around in a circle about a central point, like a pole. The "running track" is supposed to be exactly 200 feet in diameter. It is not important if the person move the body under his own steam or if it is pushed in a wheelchair. The implant has to do with handling of energy in the MEST universe. And there was one issue about taking minerals, mentioning that minerals were very important in the biochemical communications in the endocrine system, and possibly minerals were more important than vitamins to the body. My comments re the above: After listening to the "Dead Doctors Don't Lie" tape, and remembering that issue above, I've been taking liquid colloidal minerals pretty much daily since leaving the SO, and notice the difference if I stop taking them. I never did the RD. I spoke to one person I remember who had done it, 5 hours daily running for a couple of months, and he said he found it beneficial. But I wouldn't have expected him to say it was a load of crap if he had found it so. Also, I once trained for a marathon about 20 years ago, and I felt really great with the increased physical fitness from running several miles around East Grinstead each evening. The physical benefits of that carried over to mental benefits too. It would be interesting to test out that issue on the RD by having a mechanical device like a Merry-Go-Round, with seats at the stated 100 feet from a pole in the center, and then see what results come from solely the five hours a day of going around in a circle without simultaneously exercising one's physical body to any extent. I don't recall anything in the issues on what one was supposed to think about, so whether or not it would be OK to chat with others or watch TV even, I don't know. But I can't imagine Flag public paying $5,000 or some such, when they finally get the SP building open for business, to spend five hours a day sitting on a carousel watching TV! {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 384 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 4:21 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] The RPF Insider Newsletter # 4 On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:52:43 -0700 (PDT), xxxx wrote: > > Back in the sixties, I recall sharing a train > carriage with 2 ex st hill RPFers. They had quite fond > memories of their time in the RPF. Now it seems > different. {PLAIN} I was in the PAC RPF for several months in 1996. To start with, it was miserable indeed on a daily basis. There are different aspects to life in the RPF: sleeping and toilet/shower arrangements; work; eating; study. In the RPF the main men's dorm contained about 45 men in three-high bunks, crammed together. There was just enough space between the bunks to stand. I was in a top bunk, with my head about six inches from a noisy ventilation outlet pipe. Work was not fun. I was assigned to the "mudding" unit, the unit responsible for throwing up stud-and-track walls and plastering them. I wasn't very good at it at all, and it was very messy. The showers after work were OK, but at night there was one men's bathroom to use for about twenty guys at a time all trying to clean their teeth, use the toilet etc. at the same time. It was very degrading and dehumanizing. The RPF food was the same as the rest of the crew, and was decently prepared and presented. Eating it was a hassle, as the space was cramped and if someone walked by you had to shuffle your chair around to make room. With a hundred RPFers or so, there was a long chow line to actually get the food onto one's plate, so there wasn't much time to eat it. It was barely tolerable, but could have been worse. A year ago I was reading about conditions in a US prison, and I was thinking how luxurious it sounded by comparison, in terms of freedom to make phone calls, etc. That's not the whole story, as I would fear for my life in a US prison, but didn't in the RPF. Study was frustrating. The buzzword was working towards "Redemption". It went fine for a couple of weeks, then I went into session with my twin. My twin had a tight needle with a high TA and I was unable to overcome it. It was all my fault, of course, but I couldn't fix it. I'm not a wimpy kind of guy, but I was literally in tears several times over a couple of months, frustrated at making no progress. All this changed radically the day after LRH's birthday, when I wrote a request to route out. I was assigned to the RPF's RPF, as was normal when an RPFer wanted to leave instead of being with the redemption program. The RPF's RPF is supposed to be even more miserable than the RPF, but in my case everything was an immediate upgrade. There were only half a dozen or so of us, mostly girls, with myself and another guy being the only men. The other guy was Jamie Didcoate, 20 year-old son of ex-UK long-term SO members Richard and Kathy Didcoate, currently on the PAC RPF per RPF Insider. Since single men and women cannot share the same room, Jamie and I were the only people in the bedroom. Now, only two people in a room is a luxury I had not had in the previous 23 years in the SO! For most of the time I was in PAC I had been in a dorm in Lebanon Hall (room 617), initially with 8-11 other guys and then 5-8 after we tossed out one of the 3-bed bunks one day. When I started there, the RPF's RPF ate before the regular RPF, but from the same food. We only had 20 minutes to eat instead of 30, but with no waiting this didn't add up to less time actually eating, and being there first we got the pick of the food, as much to eat of the best stuff as we wanted. The work was hard and messy, but the person in charge of the RPF's RPF was Sylvia Grout, who I had known from the UK twenty years earlier. She was in-valence and a decent person, an auditor, unlike some of the sadists who had senior positions in the regular RPF. She wasn't soft, but she was fair. We spent a day in the famous Rats' Alley once, which was memorable. It isn't an alley, but a space about 60 feet by 50 under the kitchens, with hot water pipes running through it so it was hot. The ceiling was about five feet high, but there were beams hanging down a foot or so and with the water-pipes that were too hot to touch you couldn't walk around in there, but got around lying face-down on makeshift wheeled boards. I didn't see any rats, but there were plenty of those giant cockroach-like creatures called "Palmetto Bugs". Palmetto Bugs are remarkable insects. One is two or three inches long, armored so it doesn't squish easily, and it can *fly* for God's sake! The day I was there, the walls of Rats Alley were full of them. When I say "full", I mean pretty much every available inch of wall-space was covered with them--there must have been tens of thousands of them. Fortunately they didn't move around much, but they were certainly alive. We had to brush up the stagnant water and some dead bugs on the floor, maybe an inch or two deep in large puddles. We had a hose and washed the floor down with fresh water, and pushed the resulting mixture down a drain. Pushing your way around, you had to travel under many of these beams covered in Palmetto bugs, twitching away a few inches above your head. I was very uncomfortable to begin with, but after about twenty minutes of running "Hellos and OKs" silently on the bugs while I was working it became tolerable (I was very glad I knew that bit of tech!). We went back in there a month or so later for a couple of hours and there wasn't one bug in sight. The floor was covered with white powder, supposedly safe for humans, but I was glad to be away from it. Since I was routing out, I had to get a Leaving Sec Check. This I got from Sylvia, who was a decent auditor. I was allowed extra sleep to be sessionable, so this was fine. Life was grand (by comparison) for about a month. Then I finished my sec check and was in waiting mode, waiting to be allowed to leave. It eventually took about six weeks from sec-check completion to getting out of the door. More on this later. Suddenly conditions changed. There was some purge or other and over the space of a week the RPF's RPF swelled in size to fifty or so and life became a bit of a nightmare again. But the berthing was OK still as Jamie and I had to be segregated from the others since we were leaving and a possible bad influence. It was more tolerable though as there was light at the end of the tunnel, and in a few weeks or so I knew I would be out of there, free at last. Jamie used to joke about it being like the Hotel California, in that you could check out but could never leave, and at times it seemed like that was really true. There were some who had expressed a wish to leave, but were told that if they left they would be declared, even though the policy was that if you routed out properly you could do that and wouldn't be declared. At the time it seemed important. One stop on leaving was what the RPF Insider calls the $500 "severance pay". It's not really severance pay, although that might be the spin put on it. When you leave they demand that you sign a waiver, which basically says you are signing this of your own free will (hah!), you are a real bad-ass and the decent, hard-working, considerate people in the CofS have bent over backwards trying to help you but you have refused their help and it's all your own fault and not theirs, and you will not breathe a word of what you have observed during your time in the SO, including posting to the Internet. Because you are giving up a valuable right, you have to be compensated with a valuable consideration, i.e. the $500, presumably the least they felt they could get away with. Getting $500 on some org's FP for this is almost impossible. The worst crime you can commit in the SO is to leave it, and no-one in the SO cares a hoot about someone leaving as long as they don't create a PR flap. I wrote a letter to RTC saying I didn't care about getting $500 cash--and I didn't--and if they packaged up a pile of dog shit and said it was worth $500 I would have agreed to it. Eventually I got a couple of second-hand KTL books, which they considered were equivalent in value. My dog-shit idea didn't fly. I didn't need the money as I had some credit cards available and I could live off those until I got a job etc. I eventually got out after working straight through a couple of days and nights with the others and collapsing. They knew I had high blood pressure, and I had joked that the way I could get out of there was to overdo the work and have a heart attack, and I sometimes made a show of working extra-hard as if I was actively pursuing that goal. I wasn't stupid enough to really do that, but they could probably have believed that I was. They probably decided to get rid of me quick in case I really did have a heart attack or something. I've been enjoying reading the RPF Insider's newsletters. They each ring true. I have a hard time believing that they are actually written by someone on the RPF, as the amount of time you have to yourself to write something like that longhand is virtually nil. There is no time when you are alone. Maybe someone close to the RPF, like in PAC Renos or whatever they call the non-RPF Estates construction guys these days. Unless it is one of those chronically sick people who just lie in bed all day and are allowed to do nothing. I guess we'll find out sooner or later. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 385 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Oct 6, 2004 7:52 pm Subject: Certainty of Own Rightness --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, Roland Aldridge wrote: > Re the RPF newsletter, > > Indeed, great post bb. How utterly insane it all > is. If you look at that letter in (as we say) a new > unit of time, as if it was written by a jew in > Hitler's Germany, for example, it would seem no more > crazy. > > A question we must all face is - how do we make sure > we avoid this insanity, where the certainty of our own > rightness blinds us to everything? > > Roland {PLAIN} The question of the certainty of one's own rightness blinding one to any other viewpoint possessing any possible validity is a profound one. I have been completely certain of many things this life, only to change my mind later in the light of better evidence. "Facts" as presented by the CofS is only one thing among many. Here's a brief list of "Everybody Knowses", at least among Scios, although not everyone may share these views: 1. Lifeforms on Earth undergo evolution on some kind of survival-of-the-fittest basis; 2. The physical universe is constantly expanding; 3. Americans walked on the moon a couple of decades ago; 4. Arab terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 events; 5. A thetan creates energy from nothing (MEST-wise); 6. After Life Repair, Expanded Grades/NED and Clear, one must adopt a lengthy, entity-based approach to a person to make case progress. My own viewpoints on these fit into four categories: A. I disagreed from the outset; after reviewing the evidence extensively, I still disagree (1 case). B. Initially I just parroted the widely-held view and my certainty came from that and not from personal evaluation; after reviewing the evidence somewhat for myself in a new unit of time, I'm not sure (1 case). C. Initially I just parroted the widely-held view and my certainty came from that and not from personal evaluation; after reviewing the evidence somewhat for myself in a new unit of time, I'm not sure but am tending to disagree (2 cases). D. Initially I just parroted the widely-held view and my certainty came from that and not from personal evaluation; after reviewing the evidence for myself extensively in a new unit of time, I disagree (2 cases). Which viewpoint relates to which item is not really important to the subject at hand. The point is that on some things that I consider important, things I was certain about, even some I would have staked my life on, I am now doubtful about or have completely changed my mind about. My conclusion is that a person who never changes his mind in the light of better data is an idiot, although vacillating between merely parroting the views of one opinion leader and a contrary one, without personal evaluation of the subject, is equally silly. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 386 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 6:26 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: The RPF Insider Newsletter # 4 On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:35:36 -0000, xxxx wrote: > > Oh, joy. MORE crap about the CoX. Just what I want on a list of > folks who are supposed to be getting better using the tech of Scn. > > --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, Paul Adams > wrote: > > > > I was in the PAC RPF for several months in 1996. To start with, it > was > > miserable indeed on a daily basis. There are different aspects > to > > life in the RPF: sleeping and toilet/shower arrangements; work; > > eating; study. > > crap snipt {PLAIN} Hi XX, OK, if you want to play that sort of game, I'm in for a bit of fun. Some enjoy this kind of sparring. You don't have to respond. [Nullification starts:] There had been a spate of uptone-looking XX posts recently, and I was getting concerned that one of your pet entities had taken over. I'm relieved that you're back in valence. I've got two questions for you. The first is about your quaint spelling affectation. I noticed in some long-ago post on Google, apparently before you were affected, that your spell-checker was very buggy. Did you start the deliberate mis-spelling to disguise your own? The second involves "caselessness".... Actually, I'll be considerate and ask it next time. Maybe you should invite that entity back to be a guest host for a while. [:Nullification ends] {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 387 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Oct 7, 2004 7:53 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: The RPF Insider Newsletter # 4 On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 11:48:44 -0700 (PDT), XXXX wrote: > > > --- Paul Adams wrote: > > > On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 02:35:36 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > Oh! Shit! You guys are making me stick on my least > favorite hat, Moderator. > > One rule here is one dosn't attack any FZer whether > on this forum or not. You've both slightly overstepped > the limit. > > Vigorous debate would generally be fine. If this is > changed to a debate on why Pauls post is crap, > preferably with a less pejoritive adjective would be > OK. > > Course its all my fault for starting the thread! :) > > I've already planned to post insiders other threads. {PLAIN} Aw gee, Daddy, just when it was starting to be fun! My transgression was worse than XX's and unwarranted. Apologies. I have reverted to my regular polite mode. {/PLAIN} Paul

Message 388 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Oct 8, 2004 1:44 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: The RPF Insider Newsletter # 4 On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:32:55 -0000, XXXX wrote: > I say we need another > COSI list to kick this stuff around on, where folks can go who want > to read this stuff, and folks can argue about what a bad dude LRH > was or wasn't. This isn't the list for that. {PLAIN} This list is for whatever the list owner wants it to be. What's wrong with making it different to the IFAchat one? It's dev-t having two or more Yahoo lists with the same slant, all with the same people on them. Duplicative functions. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 389 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 4:42 pm Subject: [FZA Board]Re: SOLO-OT-FPRD {PLAIN} My thesaurus gives four choices for "become": 1. turn or change or transform into (the princess kissed the prince, who immediately became a frog). 2. grow or develop or evolve into; mature or ripen into (at last the acorn had become an oak tree). 3. enhance, suit, fit, befit, be proper or appropriate for, behoove (moonlight becomes you; it goes with your hair). 4. grace, adorn (Wallingford was a man who became the dignity of his function as a doorman). Which one or ones of those the encompasses the idea, Robert, that "To be is different from to be an identity, however. To be an identity is becomingness rather than beingness", in your estimation? I always understood that line from the Factors in the rough sense of you are what you are now and it has value, rather than dreaming about what you might turn into it; live in the present. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 390 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] re: confidentiality history On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 09:52:21 -0700 (PDT), XXXX wrote: > I don't know, and I think this may never have been > researched, how many have been restimmed by non > confidential data? {PLAIN} This isn't exactly what you are asking, but very similar. Around 1975, a few years after I'd been in Scn and the SO, I was in the Mimeo garage at Saint Hill, sorting through a pile of returned mimeo. The "returned mimeo" piles were huge, dozens of linear feet of them, and contained anything that people had dropped into the various "return mimeo" baskets around the org over the past several years. There was an ongoing project to sort through the piles and return bulletins and so on to the files. I came across a very short HCOB, which I read in glancing at it, then I noticed the distribution, which was something like R6EW--Confidential. I suddenly felt sick, and like I had been physically struck. I felt caved in for several hours, then decided I could rise above it, and nobly did so. But I was very careful what I read in piles of mimeo returns after that, at least until I had got onto OT3. Later I saw that HCOB again, as far as I could determine. It was completely innocuous! By that I don't mean that I was now of a case level where I wouldn't be restimulated any more, but that there wasn't anything possibly restimulative in the issue. It's like the Solo NOTs (OTVI Part 1) checksheet I saw once--apart from the heading and distribution, it was identical to the regular Solo Course Part One, but you certainly didn't see them lying around like Solo One checksheets. So it would seem to me that there is a factor of "Oh, now I am supposed to be restimulated...ooh, ooh, help, I feel terrible", except the first part of that is below one's level of awareness. That might be a factor in some CofS people getting restimulated by exposure to "upper levels" whereas non-Scios who don't know they're supposed to be affected suffer no ill-effects and make jokes about where are the millions of Internet-reading people dying of pneumonia. Does anyone personally know of anyone getting restimmed by upper-level material who didn't believe ahead of time that they were supposed to be? {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 391 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:29 am Subject: [FZA Board] SOLO-OT-FPRD {PLAIN} The False Purpose RD isn't about "False" purposes. It's about evil purposes. A key question asked in the procedure is "Was there some evil purpose or destructive intention that prompted you to commit that overt?" In the same issue, FPRD Series 5R, is the line: "An evil purpose is a destructive purpose, intention or postulate." "Evil purposes" were mentioned in Expanded Dianetics around 1972. I don't know if they were mentioned before then. Just before the FPRD came out they were mentioned with regard to Sec Checking, and I recall a period of confusion as to how one handled an ev purp in sec checking as sec checking requires "dones" and an ev purp is not a done although it may have prompted them. Then the FPRD came out and resolved the question. At the time I assumed the name "False Purpose RD" was used instead of "Evil Purpose RD" for PR purposes as it sounded more marketable. Also "EP" means "End Phenomenon/a" to most Scios and an "EP Rundown" sounds like some grand Rehab-fest. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 392 From: Paul Adams Date: Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:53 pm: Subject: [FZA Board] What is Standard Tech? {PLAIN} Where is Standard Tech to be found? This isn't meant to be a stupid question. "In the books, tapes and HCOBs of LRH" seems an acceptable answer at first, but when one looks a bit deeper it gets a bit murky. The books and tapes part is basically OK, but how about the HCOBs? There is fairly widespread agreement in the FZ that after maybe 1981 HCOB authorship is in definite question, so new issues or revisions after then are generally ignored (I believe). But how about before 1981? How does a Standard-Tech type person know which issues were actually authored or personally approved by LRH and which weren't? {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 393 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:33 am Subject: [FZA Board] What is standard tech Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 10:30 pm: XX wrote: "Paul - you added the "in". It is not in Robert's post, so ergo, he left nuthin out..." {PLAIN} It is not now in Robert's post, I agree. I see you implied I had made a mistake instead of noting that Robert had edited out the typo. But I suppose that would go along with the generalized make-nothing of the remainder of your post. What's the purpose of typing the smiley mark instead of the former period at the end of your posts? Do you think it somehow mitigates your invalidation? Or hope your reputation will magically change into something warm and fuzzy? The black spot was more appropriate. :) {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 394 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:05 am Subject: [FZA Board]Re: Clear Bird Publishing XXXX wrote: "Where did you come by that datum? I know he has mentioned something about Xenu's identity having a limp, but I don't remember him mentioning FDR in that context." {PLAIN} I'm not aware of anything published in the usual manner by LRH on the subject. [Ed. note later: Xenu walks with a cane in "Revolt in The Stars"] If you put the terms "FDR Xenu" (without the quote marks) into Google, you get some CBR writings which mention the subject. It is hearsay. Believe it or not at your whim. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 395 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:28 am Subject: [FZA Board] R3X Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:11 pm: XXXX wrote: "Researchers have conducted such tests on plants and proven the telepathic ability of various plants." {PLAIN} It's funny that you just wrote that. Earlier this afternoon, I was chatting with one of my (telephone) R3X pc's after session. This guy is not a Scio, but is familiar with various non-mainstream subjects, including Cleve Backster's plant research. He wondered if it would work to have a potted plant in the room with the auditor, with a meter hooked up to the plant (like Backster and others have done), interface the pc with the plant by using a speakerphone, and see the pc's reads that way. I'm not suggesting anyone try it out, as it's surely easier for the auditor to hold the cans than to add in yet another via with a plant, but it's just interesting that Robert's message was posted about fifteen minutes before my friend made the suggestion. And I would be very surprised if he even knows of the FZA board. Hey--if it did work, that might present a case against the argument that it's the auditor reacting on the meter and not the pc. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 396 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:27 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Re: LRH Quotes On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:56:30 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > > Hi, > > This is a quote (at the bottom of the message), which is said to be > from LRH (can it be confirmed?). {PLAIN} It's genuine, although I didn't check that it was a verbatim copy. > I heard that the cover of books of LRH usually (if not always) contain > symbols from the bank, which therefore people can react to (I don't > know whether it happened from the beginning of publishing LRH books, > or when did it start?). > Isn't it another way of control? Yes. I heard a confidential LRH tape around 1983 or so, when I was in the SO, about the use of R6 symbols in book marketing. There is a mention in OEC Volume 7, in an issue called "Immigration Note" or something like that, about using one of the "new" book covers to speed one's way through such interviews. This data explains why the book covers show the volcano (DMSMH); the train (Scn 0-8); the person in the animal suit (COHA); and so on. I'm guessing that the new covers came in around 1968 or so. Do they work as they are supposed to? I don't know. I doubt if anyone has ever done any double-blind tests to determine any effect. I used the Immigration Note idea once when I had a green card interview to go to and it went surprisingly easily, but that isn't exactly a scientific test. Is it ethical to attempt to control people like that? That's not an easy answer. Pushing buttons is standard operating procedure in marketing, Scn and non-Scn alike. How much button-pushing is done is not usually influenced by ethical considerations, but by how good the research is. It is all very well to say "I think people should be allowed to make up their own minds without being unduly influenced", but if one agrees with the idea that most people are more-or-less completely full-time dramatizing their implants anyway, "free will" takes on another dimension. > Did enyone here feel that "My future (ethernity) is doomed without > Scn.?". Marketing by fear is common practise. Life Insurance salesman use it. The US Government has been doing a lot of it since 9/11 to sell increasingly-repressive legislation. The CofS excels in it, because it is the main glue that holds the whole rotten house of cards together. It's not just the "Clears are at risk until they get through OT3" spiel, but the entire suppression of communication in not talking about case; not reading critical sites; not voicing any criticism re the CofS, etc. Do I feel that my future eternity is doomed without Scn? Since I've been in Scn for 30 years, "without the CofS" or "without access to LRH materials" is not the same as "without Scn". In any event, I don't feel my future eternity is doomed. Do I feel that my non-Scn neighbor's eternity is doomed without Scn? No. But it would surely be brighter with the use of workable technologies. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 397 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] The one criticism On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:43:37 +0200, XXXX wrote: > > One, perhaps the only criticsism of Scn (the subject, rather than the Church) > that has any sticking power is "Where are the OTs?" I mean real OTs that > can knock the proverbial hat off at 50 paces. > > Well LRH was on working on this in the early 50s and the material is still > there. Unfortunately it doesn't get used much. The OT courses are popular > on the ship - but the people don't actually do the processes and drills. > They get to do clay demos. {PLAIN} For the sake of simplicity and gradients, let's just take the idea of being able to move a paper clip without touching it, at will, where one couldn't before. Has anyone achieved that ability by doing these processes and drills? As a comparison, which I will probably be criticized for daring to mention, there's a guy called Jack Houck who conducts spoon-bending parties, and over hundreds of parties he found about 85% of participants--that's regular people, with no particular training--can bend spoons etc. without physical means. See, for example, this URL: http://www.uri-geller.com/content/research/houck1.htm I am interested in becoming OT. Are there any stats to show that attending such a seminar would produce that result? I know this is the first ACC and not the 200th, but I assume some people have been doing these drills and processes in the past five or fifty years. I'm not asking for the whole deal of banging planets together in three weeks or whatever, but I would be impressed if I attended such a seminar, and after three weeks, I found I could move a paper clip after working on it for half an hour. I would assume that with more practise it would get easier. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 398 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:07 am Subject: [FZA Board]Re: CSW: cc: Mike H. - R.O. - CoS -Independents {PLAIN} Besides which, the quaint Big Bang theory is certainly not proven. See, for example, the work of [Halton] Arp, or the Shapiro Effect as an alternative explanation to the Doppler Effect for the observed red-shift of galaxies. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 399 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:53 pm Subject: [FZA Board]Re: CSW: cc: Mike H. - R.O. - CoS -Independents [Re the animated gif of my photo that accompanies each FZA Board post] xxx wrote: "Paul I think your pic has been in a wormhole." {PLAIN} Yeah. Ten minutes ago I made it four times as wormy and halved its speed. I hope it doesn't exceed Robert's bandwidth requirements. {PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 400 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:35 pm Subject: [FZA Board]Re: Spot/Recognize AB#1-7d Shawn wrote: "I'm sorry but the whole Xenu story just doesn't fly.... It has everything to do with that story not adding up scientifically." {PLAIN} I have to agree with Shawn here, that it doesn't fly for me either, for the same reason. I had great wins on OT2 and OT3, and I am not invalidating them now, or the wins of anyone else on those levels, including the hundred or so people I helped get through them. *Something* is happening that is beneficial when one does those levels exactly per the materials. I haven't yet figured out exactly what. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 401 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:48 pm Subject: Re: The Real or Unreal OT Case {PLAIN} Weird religious beliefs are more the norm than the exception, if you examine even those of the world's major religions. If the CofS acted responsibly, I don't think you would see significant protest about Scn whole-track beliefs anywhere. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 402 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:07 pm Subject: [FZA Board] The Real or Unreal OT Case {PLAIN} Unfortunately, it's not as black and white as that. Even "Science" isn't scientific: maybe in theory, but as practiced on this planet in PT it is part science, part religion, part politics at least. "Evolution", as generally recognized, supposedly scientific, doesn't hold up to close inspection, but the only major competitor in the general view is Creationism, which certainly doesn't hold up to close inspection and was never designed to. And try to get an honest answer on some health-related subject, say if you've been diagnosed with cancer or some such. Scn contains, at least, workable techniques based on theory; theory/philosophy based on axioms; and various ideas from LRH, some of which are unverifiable. Anecdotal "proof" in the form of "Yeah, I ran something like that in session once so it's true" doesn't count as it is so easy to find plausible alternative reasons for the "recall". Scn does deal with the spiritual nature of a person, both in theory and in practice, and fits into some definitions of "religion", which is not an easy word to define. Parts of Scn are science; parts are religion; parts are science and religion with some overlap, and some parts are neither religious nor scientific. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 403 [duplicate]

Message 404 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:18 am Subject: [FZA Board] 20% of the population are antisocial Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 02:14 am: {PLAIN} In the US, "the crime rate" is reported as falling. I would cynically expect the reported stats to be as valid as government/media reports of minimal inflation, but I don't see articles published online on false reports on crime rate figures, and have never seen even one on the subject. I don't see why the crime rate should be falling. A very interesting article I just read called "The False Promise of Gun Control" at http://www.sightm1911.com/docs/False_Promise.htm states with regard to the root cause of crime: "...bad education and lack of job opportunities and the disintegration of families.... The root cause of crime is that for certain people, predation is a rational occupational choice." I don't have any better ideas on that, but if anyone else does I'll listen. Those factors are surely deteriorating in most areas of the world, so why is the reported crime rate not going up? {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 405 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:19 am Subject: [FZA Board] CSW: cc: Mike H. - R.O. - CoS -Independents Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 11:13 pm: XXXX wrote: "Lots of static on the site. Wonder who the G.O. person is? err....make that OSA. I like the attention, means they see this site as a threat." {PLAIN} I don't see that there necessarily are any posting here. Bitching at other posters is common on the Net, Scn and non-Scn forums alike. While there may be hundreds of OSA staff world-wide, with hundreds more public who help out on OSA projects, giving one the mandate to "join such-and-such a group on the Net, read the posts so you fit in, then disrupt it so it doesn't look like the CofS organizing it" is very dangerous. They might end up with another Tory/Magoo, someone who did online work for OSA, woke up, then exposed on ars and in the press (and is still very vocal years later) all the dirty tricks she knew about in OSA Int's super-secret Internet Unit. Real bad PR. I would be surprised if more than a handful of RTC/OSA Int staff, if that, had free rein to read whatever they wanted on the Net. There is plainly at least one OSA posting op running on ars. It is not obvious that any others are running in the FZ online groups/message boards, although I would imagine all the major ones are monitored by some poor soul who probably gets sec-checked weekly to make sure he isn't getting any funny thinking-for-oneself ideas. Getting print-outs of selected messages in an executive summary is one thing; unfettered access is quite another. {PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 406 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:08 am Subject: [FZA Board] Solo - OT - FPRD Posted on Friday, October 22, 2004 - 03:03 am: [Re date of KT Boundary per mainstream science around 1965] {PLAIN} Thanks for that, but the source is a little obscure: I'm looking for what the mainstream estimate was. The best source seems to be Arthur Holmes' book, "The Principles of Physical Geology", 2nd edition published in 1965. In a 1990 book by W. B. Harland et al., "A Geologic Time Scale", there seems to be in "Figures 1.5 and 1.6" a history of geologic time scales, which includes Holmes' work. I searched online for an hour or so but couldn't find out anything more. You would think that somebody would at least have reproduced a basic outline of his table. That was surprising as that point in time, the KT boundary, is not the largest extinction event by any means, but it is the most well-known because of bye-bye dinos. I tried an online "Ask the Librarian" chat utility, and started a conversation with a San Diego county librarian, but the software didn't like the fact that I wasn't using Internet Explorer (it said) and disconnected me. So I'll have to do it the old-fashioned way. I'll make a trip to a local library soon and see what I can dig up. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 407 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:56 am Subject: [FZA Board]Re: Indians vs. Inc. I & II XXXX wrote: "And yes, everyone in this U got Inc 1." {PLAIN} How do you know? Did you ask them all? And if you did, how do you know they were telling the truth? I can go along with the idea that one would have to agree with the laws of a universe in order to live in that universe under those laws, but I don't see anything intrinsically in Inc 1 that would require a similar agreement. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 408 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:00 am Subject: [FZA Board] SOLO-OT-FPRD {PLAIN} Yeah Leon, I was thinking the same thing myself today at the library. I spent a few hours there, and although I wasn't totally happy with what I could find it seems to me right now that the K-T boundary was generally assumed in 1965 to be at around 64-66 million years ago. The problem is that if you take every word of the Class VIII "Assists" tape literally, Inc 2 would have been an ecological catastrophe of the extinction variety for a significant number of species. Since there isn't a generally-accepted event around 75 Ma visible in the fossil record, it is very tempting to assume that Inc 2 is the K-T boundary one, and the scientists have just got their dates wrong by 15%. I know I made that assumption until very recently. {PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 409 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:32 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] The Freezone watchdog Committee. On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT), XXXX wrote: > > Taken from ARS. I've never heard of the FZ watchdog > committee. Or PR leap. Anyone know why there is a > phone no.given as an e-mail address? {PLAIN} PR.Leap is an online service for distributing online press releases. A press release is only as useful as it gets published and read by whoever one's target audience is. This item is basically just an e-mail sent to a free online service, reviewed by them to ensure it doesn't contain porn etc., then published as-is. Their blurb says that if they reject something, they will tell you how to correct it so they will publish it. Not exactly a tough publication policy. The author is noted as "wippersnipper88@hotmail.com" or similar. I vaguely remember a "whippersnapper" on ars, so that e-mail address may be a take-off on that name. Possibly the FZ WDC got invented because "news releases" sound better coming from an organization that no-one has heard of (but sounds half-way plausible) than an individual no-one has heard of. It's like making a really cheap, lousy, independent movie, have it star "Tam Cruise" and call it "Born on Independence Day"--if you don't look too carefully it seems well-known. The "345 556 765" or whatever it is is not a US phone number. "345" is not a US area code, and the last group of numbers would have to have four digits and not three. Possibly it is just some individual mixing his messages and associating the FZ with attempting reform of the CofS's human rights abuses. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 410 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:47 am Subject: [FZA Board] Church Policy--true or false? Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 02:42 am: {PLAIN} This idea of "When every org is SH-sized..." has always been completely undoable. In a hugely-thriving CofS organizational scene (in some alternate universe as it ain't gonna happen here), there is lots of expansion going on. That means lots of new Scios being made; lots of new groups forming; groups expanding and becoming missions; missions expanding and becoming small orgs; small orgs becoming big orgs; big orgs going SH-size; and SH-size orgs ultimately becoming SHs and AOs as the demand swamps the existing ones. It used to be that a SH-sized org delivered 1,000 WDAHs a week. If it took 250 WDAHs to make a Clear, that's 4 a week, 200 a year, 1,000 in five years. Five million SH-sized orgs would then produce five billion Clears within five years. These are very rough figures and don't include field or Mission auditing. A "Cleared Planet" is not really defined clearly. Some people see it as a planet with pretty much all the adult population as Clear or above. Also, targets like "Clearing the Planet within the next five years" were being thrown about some years ago. That's why I made the above calculation. If there were a thousand SH-sized orgs being made a week (yeah, I know), it would take a century to make five million SH-sized orgs. And if Int Mgmt kept to their promise, even with a million SH-sized orgs, there would still be hundreds of thousands or millions of orgs that were not SH-sized, and so OT9 and above (ho, ho) would not have to be released. "All the *current* orgs being SH-sized" is theoretically doable. "150 SH-sized orgs" is theoretically doable. However, "All the orgs being SH-sized" is a completely impossible target, even in that hypothetical alternate universe, and it was completely impossible even in that alternate universe the moment it was written. It just goes to show that no-one down there in Int Mgmt ever intended it to happen. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 411 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:04 am Subject: [FZA Board] SOLO-OT-FPRD Posted on Monday, October 25, 2004 - 11:03 pm: {PLAIN} I'll put this on the same thread as before. I had another look in the library today for the estimated K-T boundary date around 1965. Arthur Holmes, in 1960, in "A Revised Geologic Time Scale", Edinburgh Geol. Soc. Trans., v.17, pt.3, pp. 183-216, puts the date at 70 million years ago. All the dates in that chart are in round figures ending in 0 or 5, with no ranges given. The 1973 edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica in the Geology entry, under the section for Geologic Column and Scale of Time, says the Paleocene era (1st era of the Tertiary period) began "65-70" million years ago. The "Dinosaurs" entry says the Mesozoic era ended (K-T boundary) "about 70,000,000 years ago". Collins Encyclopedia, 1992 edition, refers to a 1964 paper. Under "Geology", there is a chart of a geologic time scale based on that presented in "The Phanerozoic Time-Scale", Geological Society of London, 1964, which gives the K-T boundary date as "65 million" years ago. I cannot tell if this date is approximated to the nearest 5 million or not: the date below is 38 million and all those above end in 5 or 0. In summary, the general agreement for the K-T boundary, around the time LRH wrote up OT3, was 65 or 70 million years ago. I saw no reference in the library going as high as 75. Note that I did not check what the assumed date was in the 50s or 40s or 30s. Also, in the 60s as now, the dinos were generally reckoned as going extinct at the same time (K-T boundary). In the 60s the cause was generally agreed as unknown. The date now is put at 65.5 Ma, plus or minus about 0.3. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 412 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:38 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: TECH outside COS. Exterior Perception !! On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:05:42 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > > HCOB 24/09/1978R - THE STATE OF CLEAR > ISSUE IV REVISED 2 OCTOBER 1980 CONFIDENTIAL > > "The State of Clear . . . can be achieved prior to doing the Clearing > Course. It can occur on Dianetic auditing, especially New Era > Dianetics. Sometimes it has occurred on Goals Processing, and even on > Objective Processes." > > XXXX > Is it the one you are searching? > XXXX {PLAIN} Without trying to get into a discussion of what one can go Clear on as opposed to what one is supposed to go Clear on, didn't that issue get cancelled? If I recall correctly it started a trend of people attesting based on all kinds of weird stuff, and this then got stomped on, rightly or wrongly. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 413 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:08 am Subject: New People In {PLAIN} A couple of weeks ago Cerridwen on ars made a comment about CofS completions. Cerri has been posting completions lists for ages. She said that she edits them in MS Word, and runs the names through the spell-checker. This picks up typos, as well as new names. She said that lately she was noticing only a couple of new names in the lists each month. (You can read her post by putting in the search box in Google Groups the characters between the ~~~~~marks: ~~~~~Cerridwen "MS Word"~~~~~). I assume this comment would apply to SHs, AOs, CCInt, Flag and the ship, as these are the lists she routinely puts on ars. These orgs don't primarily reach out to new Scios as it's not their job, but they don't say no either. A couple of months ago I was commenting, as was bb, that the FZ didn't have to promote to raw public as the CofS was spending lots of money doing that, and it would be most economical to let them do all the initial promotion. Then they would ARCX the people by doing their regular actions and blow them off lines, and they would then flow into the FZ. Well, that isn't necessarily true any more if Cerri's right. If it was ever really workable in the first place. Are there many people in the FZ who deliver to raw public? What services? {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 414 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:35 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: TECH outside COS. Exterior Perception !! On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:49:43 +0000, XXXX wrote: > > Paul and or Chris, > > Please answer this: > > WHAT Bulletin cancels HCO B 24 SEPTEMBER, 1978R - THE STATE OF CLEAR > ISSUE IV REVISED 2 OCTOBER, 1980 CONFIDENTIAL ??? > > I have seen no reference that cancels it. {PLAIN} Well, if we're being picky XXXX, you probably haven't seen HCOB 24 Sep 78 Iss IV either. It's not in the Tech Vols as it's confidential, which is the main reason I referenced my memory rather than a particular issue. I believe that issue was part of the CCRD course [DCSI course?] and was confidential at that level, rather than being the OT3-level confidential issue about Clears and Dn auditing. When the 2 Oct 80 revision was cancelled, I don't recall if the issue was further revised to an RA version, saying somewhere in it something like, "Another, now departed, revised the original issue to ..."; or whether some other issue type came out saying it was a mimeo error and the LRH Comm ran around the org collecting up all the copies of the revision and destroying them, or what. If you think the procedure of revising the HCOB was irregular, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. So what? Maybe the procedure of issuing the [RA] revision was irregular too. Who's to know? One would hope that a FZ C/S sorting out Clear states knows what they are doing, whatever the truth concerning that bulletin. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 415 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:58 am Subject: Training and Auditing Poll {PLAIN} I wrote it. When I introduced it as an anonymous polll, I meant your answers are anonymous, not the guy who wrote it. The only way to tell how many people have answered it is if everyone who answers checks one and only one of the first two questions. The percentages shown next to the answers on this poll can be ignored. I'll probably leave it up there for a week. Comments welcome. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 416 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:05 am Subject: [FZA Board] New Google Groups Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 04:01 am: {PLAIN} A day or so ago Google started doing "groups", similar to Yahoo. Of course, Google owns Usenet, but this is different. [Ed. note--maybe they started in May 2004 and I didn't notice before] Here is a great opportunity to get in at the beginning. There is a "Scientology" group. I don't know who the owner is, but from the brief description it's not the CofS. Maybe some FZers could post something appropriate on there and set a good tone. As online Scios begin to learn about the new Google groups, they will probably at least check out the "Scientology" one to see what it's like, so .... There is a "Clearing" group, which is for discussion of Clearing tech. Unlike a.c.t., it is moderated, so hopefully it will be usable. There's a "Theta" one for wins and successes etc. Just the usual theta crap. If bb posted some success stories there, it would help. I'm not suggesting these as a replacement for the FZA Board, but they do have their uses. Especially as they are not run by churchies. Just go to Google, click on "Groups", then on the "Groups BETA" link. There is a "Group Lookup" box to find groups. Start your own group if you like. It's real easy. Lots of names not taken yet.... {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 417 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Who owns the list, or moderates it? On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:12:24 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote: > Was wondering since we've been getting debt > consolidation spam for a while now. They obviously > have to join the list to post there. I don't think > Caffy T manages the list anymore. So who does it or > can they just automatically sign up? > > The email addresses are always alphabet soup type > things. Wonder if there's a way to filter them out, or > have a subscription has to be approved type thing. Not > sure. > > Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? > > XXXX {PLAIN} Bob H owns it. He is now into Reiki, I assume, as he was raving about it a couple of months ago, so maybe he doesn't look in on the list very often now. The incidence of spam is similar to that of other Yahoo groups. Anyone can just sign up. If there were 20 messages a day on the list one spam message a week wouldn't be noticed. No-one posts much on this list, anyway. Talking of lists, Google, in addition to doing Usenet, has now started doing moderated groups, much like Yahoo. It looks a bit better than Yahoo. It's easier to use. You use an e-mail address as a username. The message archive has a great search utility. There's a "Scientology" group: I don't know who started it but the one line description says Scn seems to be a "pernicious cult", so it's obviously not the CofS. Maybe it was someone in Google, so they can control it, and ban/delete the "Truthseeker"s and Barbara Schwar[t]z's etc. There's a "Theta" group for wins and successes and good news and stuff, but with a difference. There's a "Clearing" group, intended to be similar to a.c.t., but without all the entheta and KP. To access all the goodies, go to Google and click on groups. There's a new link just under the regular groups search box. Once you have a Google password there is a new search box labeled "Group Lookup". If you put "Scientology" in there, for instance, you will get 12 hits (last time I checked), which includes the usual Usenet ones and the new one. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 418 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 12:01 am Subject: [FZA Board] "Animal Thetans" Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 04:00 pm: {PLAIN} This is a continuation of a thread entitled "Humor" in the general section. The topic was a dog wondering why humans didn't respond to the multitude of distinct scents that a dog would. It reminds me of a sci-fi book I read where a regular human-type got spiritually translated into the body of a horse, and sometimes got overwhelmed by the needs of the horse's body, and also got frustrated by not having hands and not being able to speak. A regular thetan suddenly running an animal body is not too hard to think with. One reads stories of unusually smart animals, and I remember a Jay Leno Tonight show with a dog that recognized photos of different people. I also remember supervising an HQS student once on Self Analysis auditing. Sometimes when there weren't many students I did a bit of coaching personally. Along with the usual teddy bears there was a brightly-colored toy exotic bird, and I was using that as it was more interesting. So the trainee auditor was giving commands like "Recall a time when you were happy" and I was mocking up answers that I thought would be real for the bird, the equivalent of "fruit answers". We did a few commands like this, no big deal. Suddenly I was immersed in a vivid, very real jungle tree-top scenario, and I gave a couple of answers that seemed to be straight out of my own back-track rather than ones of pure invention. I had the choice of going along with it or backing out, and I decided to go along with it to see what would happen. I then gave a real cognition about a bird has a rough life as it has no way of giving up withholds as it can't talk etc. The student didn't notice anything unusual, and I didn't say anything about it as it wouldn't have been appropriate, but it seemed to me that I had gone into session as that bird identity, and had EP'd a Self Analysis session. It *felt* like a Cog F/N VGIs EP (it was unmetered, of course). It was very interesting at the time, as I had assumed that I had been running only human bodies in the relatively recent past. The other scenario of a "dog thetan" running a human body is something else entirely. I don't even know if there is such a thing as a "dog thetan", as opposed to a regular thetan taking over a dog body in a rare case. I think not. LRH in Fundamentals of Thought says it's just a GE. Obviously there's some theta there as a dog is a life unit, but dismissing the whole subject with a wave of the hand and sticking a familiar label on it doesn't explain too much. {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 419 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 8:05 am Subject: New legal blurb? {PLAIN} I just saw this legal notice tacked on the end of a promo piece posted on ars: ©2004 CSFSO. All Rights Reserved. SCIENTOLOGY, FLAG and SAINT HILL are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center and are used with its permission. SCIENTOLOGIST is a collective membership mark designating members of the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology. Services relating to Scientology religious philosophy are delivered throughout the world exclusively by licensees of the Church of Scientology International with the permission of Religious Technology Center, holder of the SCIENTOLOGY and DIANETICS trademarks. Printed in U.S.A. Note the bit about services being delivered exclusively by licensees. I don't recall seeing that before. Maybe bb's "Tech Outside the CofS" stuff is having some effect! {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 420 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 5, 2004 8:58 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Success Story On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 07:19:36 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote: > > Hi XXXX: > > Thank you. Yes, indeed FDS is a very good tool which I use often with very > good results, I highly recommend everyone to do it on any area. {PLAIN} I agree. I've given and received hundreds of hours of FDSing. It came out in 1979 while I was at SH. It might have been used in Cramming a bit, but I didn't receive any or hear of anyone using it until I moved to NWC in LA in 1986. At New World Corps it was used extensively. It was standard practise to have each student M4 and star-rate the HCOB, then drill it and get a pass on the drilling from the sup. Thereafter, the students would FDS each other (usually unmetered) in the courseroom under the eye of the Practical Sup. The relevant HCOB and PL volumes were marked at the FDS pages by the dirt of constant use. Similarly, when I was supervising at the International Training Org, students would twin up and FDS each other (usually unmetered). I don't recall one FDSing session that bogged irretrievably, requiring a session to sort out. Sometimes a student would run into difficulty with his twin and I would have to debug it, but I never had to do anything other than go over the same questions that the FDSer was asking and get them answered properly, and then hand the FDSing session back to the student. It's good stuff, and well worth the little bit of effort it takes to learn the procedure. One line from the HCOB I used to pound into people is "False Data Stripping should be used extensively in all hatting and training activities", often with emphasis on "All...all...what does ALL mean?" {/PLAIN} -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 421 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 6, 2004 6:35 am Subject: HGB Staff 1994 I just posted on my main FZ website a list of Upper Middle Management staff--Sea Org members--from around 1994. The list is too long to reformat into a form that will look acceptable here. The list includes about 578 staff who worked daily in the Hollywood Guarantee Building, along with 32 from INCOMM and 71 from Bridge Publications who studied there at the time (or should have). Some of you may have friends here and find the list interesting. By org, the breakdown is: ABLE--18 Bridge--71 CMO IXU--68 FB--149 FCB--30 HGB Estates--32 INCOMM--32 Int Finance Office--7 ITO--85 OSA Int--132 SMI--16 WISE--30 Misc--12 It is at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/hgbstaff1994.htm -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 422 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 6, 2004 8:47 am Subject: [FZA Board] Direction and BTs XX wrote: "What exactly was so invalidative about my statement, according to the almighty morality of Paul Adams?" It wasn't the most invalidative thing you have written, and I'm not complaining about Nick. But you just wrote another three posts to different people, every single one of which contained invalidation. I sometimes read a post of yours and consider to myself: "Has my ARC for life generally been increased or decreased?" Those recent posts of yours providing references that had been asked for, that was great, and my ARC definitely improved. Those three posts just now, well no. If someone says something you don't like and maybe it was uncalled for, why not ignore it? If you react to it at a tone level of antagonism or anger or worse, what does it accomplish? There is now another piece of crap floating around out there, and if the person it was aimed at responds reactively, we get yet a further piece of crap. What's the point? There is no analytical reason for furthering an entheta line, which leaves reactivity only. And one would think that most of us are above that by now. I only start having a go at you when the accumulated protest builds up past my tolerance level. You'll notice that I don't have a go at anyone else. Paul

Message 423 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Nov 8, 2004 10:35 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Materials On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:42:57 -0800, XXXX wrote: > > So, I don't mean to lay my paranoia on everyone but how do we know that this > isn't an OSA sting operation? They post this site and then trace all the IP > addresses that download all this copyrighted material. It just stuck me > (and my hubby) as too easy and too obvious. I need a reassurance or two > here before I plough forth. The obvious answer is that you don't. Equally so, it might be a perfectly transparent operation of what it says it is, and then in two weeks' time the CofS tracks down the website owners and says, with supporting documentation: "Hi, you have violated such and such a law and we think that based on such and such prior events that there is a 90% chance of you going to jail and/or being fined $xxx - $xxxx. Here's an offer: take your site down at once and turn over all the logs you haven't destroyed and we'll call it quits; alternatively, don't play ball and we'll try and screw you as much as we can via the legal system." In such a scenario one would hope that the website owners would have destroyed all the relevant records, as it is unlikely they would go the legal battle route to the bitter end. My opinion is that it is highly unlikely to be an OSA sting operation and the website owners are what they appear to be and would rapidly destroy all copies of any traffic logs that could possibly be used to identify ISPs. However, trafficking in this stuff is illegal, and the CofS is guaranteed to at least take this site down as soon as they can. If you break the law you're sticking your neck out, whatever justifications exist. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 424 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 9, 2004 4:14 am Subject: [FZA Board] [in response to a troll] Fol-de-rol diddle dee Fol-de-rol fie Troll on and riddle me Troll off and ... -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 425 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 9, 2004 10:41 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Direction and BTs XXXX wrote: "And Paul, no, having some type of policy where troublemakers, joker degraders, just plain assholes, can't come on a board and lose half or more of your posters over it, is not a bad thing." Hi XXXX, I agree. But we don't need new rules that won't be followed either. All that's needed is to enforce the old rules. If the rules are something like: 1) Stay reasonably on-topic 2) Be civil to others, then most people here will do that naturally, occasionally straying too close to the edge maybe but not as a matter of course. If a small number of people continaully flout obvious rules of civilized behavior, then they don't belong here, even if they do sometimes make interesting or intelligent comments. It's a moderator's job. This is a moderated forum. How it is moderated is up to Mike. Unmoderated forums like Usenet exist where unrestrained communications can occur. If it were my forum I would look at the contributions from the different people involved and decide which ones I wanted to piss off. "Keeping everyone happy" is not part of the job description. "Keeping one's loyal customer base intact" should be. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 426 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:06 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: KRC for C/S/X/J [Regarding kicking troublesome posters off the board] Wise move, Mike. There are different ways of playing the "make-nothing" game. One is to delete the posts as soon as you see them. They would still come through on e-mail, but if no-one responds or acknowledges the existence of undesired posters, and the posts don't stay for very long, they will eventually leave, as no effect will be seen to have been created, apart from the deletion. Of course you can't stay hovering over the board 24 hours a day, but I suspect such "making nothing of" would have the desired effect. Especially if it included the past posts too. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 427 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:40 am Subject: [IFAChat] Re: International Freezone Assoc - google ad --- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > We have a google ad on google. > > You will see it when you type in scientology. That's great, XXXX. When I click on Google Web, it shows the IFA ad and the eBay one, not the Cof S one. If I reload the page, sometimes the IFA one disappears and just leaves the eBay one. I reloaded it about ten times, and it shows the IFA one over half the time and the eBay one never disappears. When I click on Google Groups, there's the IFA one, the CofS one, and the eBay one. Reloading the page usually flips the order of the CofS one and the IFA one, with eBay remaining at #3. Google Froogle is similar to Google Web. Sometimes these change completely, like I just reloaded the Google Web again a few times and first only the eBay ad remained, then they all went, then the IFA one came back. Moral: don't draw any conclusions from just one viewing. Although it is very interesting to see NO CofS ad on Google Web... -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 428 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 11, 2004 1:46 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Election Fraud On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:26:43 -0500, XXXX wrote: > You know, today I thought about that and it suddenly dawned on me what a > fiendishly clever conspiracy that could indicate. The way you could throw > the election into question would be to organize a group to take false > polls, making sure you do it only at polls that have unauditable electronic > voting machines, and then claim that there was voting machine fraud on the > part of the opponents. That would at least have the effect of throwing the > election into the courts, giving the Democrats a long shot chance to win > after having already lost. > > Let's face it, the Demos are one desperate bunch at this stage of the > game. The very survival of their vision for a socialist America is at > stake. I wouldn't put anything past them. This is all getting far-fetched. Look at the obvious result of having electronic voting machines, with no auditable paper trail, where even the voter on the spot can't tell which way the machine recorded the vote, with secret softare and lousy security, made by a company that makes other machines like ATMs which do have good security and perfectly decent paper trails, along with all the other outpoints that show up if you do a bit of research in places other than the national media and don't dismiss all the data because it looks like a "conspiracy". Politics hasn't been a battle between the Reps and the Dems for decades, if ever. It's a battle between humanity (like thee and me) and the elite, whatever name you want to call them by. It's been a very long time since humanity won a US Presidential election. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 429 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:06 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Election Fraud On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 12:53:14 +1100, XXXX wrote: > WE are the other group. > > Our weapon is enlightenment and making more clears than they can possible 'recruit'. > > Hence the urgent need to get as many up to OT 3 and beyond as possible. > > Hence in the final analysis. It does not matter what party or group is running the show. It only matters that we clear this planet. > > *That* is the entrance point. I agree with the bits I snipped. I agree that most of humanity needs to be de-aberrated and enlightened. But Clearing someone does not mean that he will automatically see through skillful propaganda, and the stuff that gets pumped out to the US public in particular is very ably done. I know many Scn Clears and OTs (as the term is normally used) who believe most of what they are told by the "reputable" media. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 430 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 11, 2004 2:37 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Soaring TA An interesting thing that used to come up when I was on tech lines in the SO was the question of can you have a "Soaring TA" without a High TA, i.e. if the TA is at 2.1 and the pc's happy and then the TA starts going up madly but is still below 3.0, does this count as "Soaring TA"? I have my own answer to this now, but I would be interested in how others see it. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 431 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 11, 2004 3:10 am Subject: Re: Lone Ranger's Case XXXX says: >"It's basic scientology. You get what you validate. What doesn't get > validated tends to drop away. " I'll give an example, XXXX. From HCOB 29 Sep 58, VITAL TRAINING DATA: "Every time you as an instructor get interested in the student's CASE, you make him put up his engrams for your inspection. Every time you get interested in his auditing skill only, you make him put up auditing skill for your interest."

Message 432 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 11, 2004 11:33 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Newbie E-Meters XXXX: "But personally I think it's better to record all and edit it down to one process or assessment before sending." It depends what you are trying to achieve. You can spend ten hours videoing/recording one minute of acceptable tech, which the critiquer can't find anything wrong with beyond it being too short to tell anything useful except you're not a complete novice. Or you can just record the entirety of your next two-hour session and send that. In this case, a hurried critiquer might say the commands for the can squeeze are wrong and go to Cramming etc. and send the next one in. A more useful critique would be one that reviews enough of the recording to be able to point out the most major outness and enable that to be corrected, rather than listing out every single little outpoint and caving in the student auditor/intern who is trying to do his best. I've had it both ways. I certainly found the overall critique the more useful. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 433 From: Paul Adams Date: Thursday, November 11, 2004 - 05:16 pm Subject: [FZA Board] International Tech Errors This is a copy of a write-up I did and sent in sixteen years ago. I haven't been on the lines for eight years and I don't know how much of it is applicable today. In the interests of accuracy, I have changed nothing in it beyond the formatting. 28 June 1988 IG Tech cc Snr C/S Int CMOI cc LRH Tech Corr Dir CMOI cc Int Flub Catch Off CMOI cc RTRC Dir CMOI cc Tech Reports Officer CMOI -- HSSC Intern ITO INTERNATIONAL TECH ERRORS Dear Sirs Over the years I have noticed a few tech errors which seem to be widespread and in case they are not all known I realised I had better write them up. I have supervised at AOSH UK in the Solo Tech Div for 15 months and at New World Corps in the Sec Checker School for 18 months just prior to its incorporation into ITO, and have observed auditors trained at many different places on the planet, including Flag, and these observations are based on that experience. I am not reporting any outnesses found in isolated cases and readily corrected by simple reference to the obvious Source issues or tapes. E-METER CANS Per HCOB 24 Oct 1971RA Rev 25 May 1980 FALSE TA: "For a normal or large handed pc the can size is about 4 7/8ths inches by 2 5/8ths inches or 12 1/2cm. by 7 cm. This can be altered as big as 4 B= inches by 3 inches diameter or 11cm. by 8 cm. This is standard. "This can is too large for people with small hands. These should use a can 3 B> inches by 2 1/8 inches or 9 cm by 5 cm diameter or thereabouts." The cans provided with the Mark VI are 5 B= inches by 2 1/8 inches or 14 cm by 5 B= cm. Apart from the solo cans, these are the ONLY cans sold by Bridge. Per the quoted reference, these are for people with small hands. The LRH reference is totally clear, and of course auditors should follow it and get their own soup cans from the store in the correct sizes. However, very few do. The can sold by Bridge, and also provided with the Mark VI when you buy it, has become the "normal" can. It is not promoted or sold specifically as "Regular size cans as stated by LRH", but personally I would think that if this was the only size sold by Pubs Orgs it would be the normal size and not the small one. Anyway, the current life isness is that these cans ARE accepted as "normal size" and most pcs have become accustomed to using them. Maybe they are too small for a very large number of pcs, but few check it out because this is the accepted size of can to use, and such pcs and their auditors are not aware that the can size is wrong. Unless of course peoples' hands have shrunk in the past decade. (Joke). From memory the change occurred with the introduction of the Mark VI. Possibly the smaller cans were provided with the case because the larger ones would not fit into the available case. This is pure conjecture on my part. Obviously the Mark Super VII has a good range of standard cans provided, but these are not available separately as a Bookstore item b although by rapid local survey this would be a popular item with auditorsband after speaking with a guy who was on mission making these super-plated cans (he shared my dorm for a while) it does not seem likely that they shortly will be. HANDLING OF BUTTONS This is a very common error. The last person I spoke to on the subject was a Flag auditor, Ellen Almquist, Class IX, who got through her HSSC Internship in 8 days at ITO so is certainly no slouch. She told me I was wrong but couldn't actually produce an LRH reference to support her remark. Example: Auditor: Is there a Present Time Problem? (No Read) Auditor: On the question "Is there a PTP" has anything been suppressed? (Read) (Looks up expectantly at pc) Pc: (Doesn't answer) Auditor: Is there a Present Time Problem? Quite honestly I have not met one single auditor or C/S who thinks there is anything wrong with that. But it's off-Source! HCOB 29 Jan 1970 NULL LISTS IN DIANETICS" gives examples of checking such buttons: "On the item 'painful head' has anything been suppressed? That reads." PC: "Yes, I suppress it all the time." Auditor: "Painful head. That reads. Are you interested in running that item?" PC: "Yes! I kept wondering why it never read." The Auditing Comm Cycle consists in getting an answer to the question asked before going on to another question. The question that restimulated the charge and got the read was "...has anything been suppressed?" and the pc should be allowed to answer it before being asked another question. Ah yes, one could say, but the laws of listing and nulling say that... So let's have a look at what exactly they do say: "9. On an item that is suppressed or invalidated the read will transfer exactly from the item to the button and when the button is gotten in the item will again read." When the button is gotten in. Not asked, but gotten in. HCOB CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE defines this as "simply get what the pc has to say and acknowledge." Quite apart from all this, surely if a charged PTP (for example) is suppressed, then the pc has no reality on it, which is why it doesn't read. If it is charged, and is real, and the auditor's TRs are in etc. it would read. If it is suppressed, and charged, and would be real if it weren't suppressed, then it reads on suppress. Now, if you direct the pc's attention to the suppression he can itsa it off, or maybe has already blown it by the indication of the auditor asking about it, and now the PTP is in sight because the suppress has gone. But if, having gotten a read on suppress you just ask the pc if he has a PTP, he's looking for this item which is maybe still suppressed so cannot necessarily find it. I know from personal experience that sometimes just knowing there has been a suppress because the auditor has picked up on it has been enough to blow it, and sometimes it has not been enough and I have actually had to locate and itsa the suppress in order to bring the item to view. The handling in HCOB CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE is fine, in that the pc can itsa it off if he needs to and if it's already gone can just get on straight with running the item or question. But nobody I have seen does this, except now on sec-checking because it specifically says it (and then I have seen many people not noticing the HCOB says to do that). A month ago I was upbraided by the ITO Tech Export Sup (Peter Albert, Flag-trained Class VI) for coaching a student to ask for the suppress if it read on a rudbusing the above referencesbbecause "there was no reference to support doing it like that except for when you are doing confessional procedure." HCOB METHOD 5 HCOB 21 June 1972 Issue I, Word Clearing Series 38, METHOD 5, has as its last paragraph: This method is the method used to clear words or auditing commands or auditing lists." It says this in the Tech Volumes and also in SIR. SURELY the "or" is a typo for "of", because any method of word-clearing clears words and it just doesn't make any sense for LRH to say that Method 5 is the method used to clear words? Also, of course, Method 5 IS the method used to clear words of auditing commands or auditing lists. PC EXAMINER E-METER SENSITIVITY There is no extant issue giving the sensitivity that an E-meter should be set to when giving pc exams. Survey of a few examiners brings up the observation that all set it to 8. But there is no issue stating that! There is a reference for it being 8 in DIANETICS TODAY, but that is really the BTB that got revised into the BTB currently in Vol IX page 31 THE EXAM REPORT. However, what it got revised into is the sensitivity is set by pc can squeeze! Obviously that would violate LRH Examiner procedure, and I have never observed or heard of an examiner actually doing that. Apart from obvious outnesses in this BTB, there is also a statement that the examiner should note the pc's last grade obtained. I don't know how an examiner is meant to get that data without the pc folder to hand. I believe at one time exams were done with the pc folder to hand, in which case it would have been possible for the examiner to get this data, but it seems kinda silly to have it still on the exam form since the examiner just does not have access to the data and is not going to ask the pc and is not going to ask the auditor. The C/S doesn't need the data from the examiner because the auditor writes it on the ARF anyway. It seems redundant on the exam form, particularly as no examiner that I have seen fills it out. IGNORING CHARGED AREAS Per HCOB UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS, HCOB UNREADING FLOWS one does not run an unreading question or item. With the sensitivity set for one third of a dial drop on can squeeze, if the read is not B< inch or better then there is either not sufficient pc charge or sufficient pc reality to run anything. If one gets a read of 1/8 inch, one puts in Suppress and Inval, maybe Misunderstood, and if still no read leaves it. Now, in a confessional, one ADJUSTS the sensitivity. The lowest sensitivity one uses is that determined by can squeeze to give a third of a dial drop. The highest is well, per HCOB SECURITY QUESTIONS MUST BE NULLED, 16 (which at the time on the Mark IV was the highest available sensitivity); per EME Chapter H it is a "high sensitivity knobband you DO turn up the knob on the question that didn't respond well at first and then turn it back before you go on to the next." Per HCOB 28 Sept 1961 it is one dial drop or more on can squeeze. Let us take an example, and let us say the can squeeze sensitivity is 8, one is rechecking questions at 16, and we shall assume that sens 16 is twice as sensitive as sens 8. In this example the pc HAS kicked a cat, there is some charge on the fact, and he has some reality on it, and his ruds aren't out and the auditor's TRs are in and so forth. The auditor asks the question "Have you ever kicked a cat?" and the pc/bank reacts with an electrical impulse which affects the meter. A. The sens is set at 8, and the needle falls 1/8 inch. B. The sens is set at 16, and the needle falls B< inch. Per HCOB CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE the handlings are different. Point 7 states that one shouldn't assume one has a read because one has a tick. Put in suppress etc. and it will either read or the tick will vanish. In B one takes it up straight away; in A one continues with buttons trying to get an "acceptable" read or an F/N. This doesn't make sense. The PC's reaction to the question is TOTALLY independent of the mechanical settings on the E-Meter. E-METER ESSENTIALS, both original and current version, says "In running rudiments, when suspicious, set the sensitivity knob higher... In looking for suspected withholds in particular, read with a high knob." I do not know if one still checks for and handles out-ruds at any sensitivity level. I have seen references later than this which say one is not trying to run the case with rudiments, so keep it to a third of a dial drop, and I have seen a reference which says that sens 16 is needed to get the ruds in so the pc knows it. If the datum now is that one does check for out-ruds at higher sensitivity than one third dial can squeeze, then my comments stand as written below. If this datum is not now true then the paragraph above should be changed. The original version, Chapter F, under FALL, point 4, says "a falling needle makes a dip to the right as you face the meter. A fall may consist of half a division (about one-eighth of an inch) or may consist of fifteen dials... It is still a fall." Point 8 says "ANY fall denotes there is something there. Any fall at ANY sensitivity level on rudiments questions denotes the presence of a bad reaction to the room, an ARC break, a withhold or a present time problem and MUST BE CLEARED no matter what the preclear says." Now the current edition of EME has changed these points to "A fall may consist of about a quarter of an inch..." and "ANY sF, F, LF or LFBD denotes there is something there. ANY of these at ANY sensitivity level...." There is no effective difference between a 1/8 fall at sens 8, a B< inch fall at sens 16, and a B= inch fall at sens 32 (assuming sens 32 to be twice sens 16, and sens 16 to be twice sens 8). So it is silly to limit it to a sF at any sensitivity level and will result in the auditor ignoring a charged question. Very recently I checked a mid-session MWH rud questionbactually at sensitivity 1band got a 1/8 inch fall, which I took up and it ran fine. I got a cram on it from the Tech C/S ITO, ref C/S Series 24. But if I had doubled the sensitivity before asking the question and thereby created a B< inch fall I certainly would not have been crammed on it! Let us take another example. One is mid a confessional question. One cannot get the question "Have you ever kicked a cat?" to read or F/N. One puts in buttons, but gets no read, no F/N. The reason for this is the pc has a M/W/H, but of course one doesn't know that. Let's say that in the course of checking for various things one checks for M/W/Hs. If the sens is at 8, say, maybe this would happen: "Has a W/H been missed?" (1/8 inch fall) "On the question 'Has a W/H been missed' has anything been suppressed?" (x) "On the question 'Has a W/H been missed?' has anything been invalidated?" (x) (or maybe 1/8 inch fall now) Maybe one checks other buttons, or varies the question, but they won't necessarily develop the read into a quarter inch fall or better. So then one gets into checking for false reads and ARC Breaks etc., having probably missed a withhold on the pc. If the sensitivity had been set to 16, one instead would have gotten: "Has a W/H been missed?" (1/4 inch fall) and of course one takes it up and gets off the W/H and all is well. Now, per the original LRH references in EME, one can take up an 1/8 inch fall on a rudiment question, and the situation just described above would not occur. Since there is no effective difference between an 1/8 inch fall at sens 8 and a B< inch fall at sens 16, and per EME the sensitivity knob is just a magnifying glass for the needle, why is one no longer allowed to do so? On correction lists, per C/S Series 1, "Rudiments = setting the case up for the session action. This includes ARC Breaks, PTPs, W/Hs, GF or O/R listing or any prepared list (such as L1C, etc.)" Per EME one can take up any fall at any sensitivity level on rudiments, so one should be able to take up a tick on a correction list being used as rudiments without putting in buttons to see if "it develops into a sF etc." The HCOB that gives the method of handling a correction list Method 3, HCOB 3 July 1971R AUDITING BY LISTS, even says that one can take up a tick, and this HCOB postdates HCOB UNREADING QUESTIONS AND ITEMS, which is dated 27 May 1970. Today I received a cram from Bridget Sheriff, Snr C/S OSA Int, for taking up a tick on an LCRE. The Cramming Officer, Elane Woodruff, very reluctantly allowed me to do it because of HCOB AUDITING BY LISTS. I later in the interview asked her if there was any reference stating that I couldn't increase the sensitivity before doing an LCRE and she saw nothing wrong in that whatsoever. But since the sensitivity knob is just a magnifying glass for the needle there is no difference at all in 1/8 inch at sens 8 and B< inch at sens 16! To summarize, my understanding of these materials is that: 1. For most purposes one sets the sensitivity to one third dial drop and doesn't take up reads less than B< inch (one can put in buttons to see if a sF or better develops) because the reality/charge of the pc is not enough to allow it to run profitably. 2. For rudiments, especially withholds, including correction lists and for confessional questions, one should take up and clear ANY fall reaction, a fall being defined in EME as "makes a dip to the right as you face the meter." Unless there is later LRH data modifying the issues I have quoted, then the current edition (1988) of EME and Point 7 of HCOB CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE will result in auditors failing to take up charged questions at the point they should be taken up, and possibly failing to take them up at all. FALSE BASAL METABOLISM TEST This situation improved with the revision of HCOB 4 Dec 1977 CHECKLIST FOR SETTING UP SESSIONS AND AN E-METER but still exists to some extent. Per HCOB 27 Dec 1965 VITAMINS "Oxygen causes the body to attract mental image pictures less. Carbon dioxide pulls mental images hard in on the body." My understanding of what happens when one takes in a deep breath is that the oxygen goes into the lungs and into the system a little bit, providing there is food in there, and this causes the mental image pictures around the body to be attracted less so there is less resistance to the current from the meter and one gets a fall. As the oxygen rapidly gets used up and a state of normality returns, then the pictures get pulled in again as before and the needle returns to its previous position, the time varying with the individual. If the body is tired or starving then the energy masses of these pictures are held onto for grim death and of course there will be no fall as the pictures are not being allowed to be attracted less. And of course there are shades of grey in between. When one exhales one lets carbon dioxide out of the body, again causing these pictures to be attracted less. One can easily check out this idea by taking a good deep breath and holding it. The needle falls (if one has a good high basal metab, of course). Then blowing out the carbon dioxide causes another fall. Now, even per wog references one is measuring oxygen intake with a test of basal metabolism, so the exhale of breath has nothing whatsoever to do with it. HCOB 4 Dec 1977R covers this perfectly by saying "Have pc take a deep breath, hold it for just a moment, then let it out through his mouth. See if needle gives a latent fall (which it should)." I have seen many pcs and staff being word-cleared do a metab test by taking a deep breath then blowing forcibly out through the mouth. Indeed this gives a bigger fall than just doing what it says in the HCOB. But it is false and does not measure the oxygen intake alone. There used to be a situation at NWC and AOSHUK and most likely elsewhere too that one would only take a valid metab read after the pc had finished exhaling. I know personally when being a pc at NWC/ITO in late 1987 that in order to get through the metab test (normally I breathe very slowly) I had to rapidly fill 2/3 of my lungs, wait 1/5 second, rapidly and noisily expel some breath to make it look like I had breathed out and then let the rest out quietly so the auditor didn't notice it. Only in this way could I get a fall on the meter after I had appeared to breathe out. This was only with one auditor (Lynne Thompson). Obviously it wasn't correct but I did not succeed in correcting it with her and in the end gave up and contrived the above method of passing the test so that I could be audited. I gave up the W/H later! I am no longer a DTS (I was once and saw this in operation when one auditor's pcs failed at their metab tests approx. 3 times the rate of any of the other auditorsbat NOTs Div AOSHUK in 1982), so do not know the exact stats on pcs getting flunked for no metab if they breathe out slowly and thus have a "prior" fall, and I also do not know the stats on pcs who do a false metab drill and get audited when they are not actually sessionable. This last should be visible on video though, as one can often see a fall due to inhale (correct) and a fall, later, due to expulsion, and the fact of the pc blowing out forcibly instead of just letting the air out should also be plainly visible. As a footnote to all this, the new EME includes some useful data on this subject, and says the fall is due to a surge of physical energy. I have not seen this datum elsewhere. I confess I do not understand what it means, whether it means the thetan emanates a further flow, or the body does, or the GE does, or the anchor points get rearranged a bit, or the mental masses shed a bit of charge, or what! I am quite happy to be wrong about the mental image pictures getting attracted to the body less, but it does align well with the LRH data I have and also with practical experiment. The main point of course is pcs being denied auditing when they are sessionable and also unsessionable pcs being audited or word-cleared when they are not fully sessionable. ADJUSTING PC'S CHAIR Per HCOB 4 Dec 77R CHECKLIST FOR SETTING UP SESSIONS AND AN E-METER after handling the comfort of the chair with the pc one adjusts it. This is in plain sight in this HCOB. The adjustment even has its own number and line after handling the pc's comfort. The reason for it is given in Tech Vol 4 p.41, "Never let him place it. If he does, give it another slight shift as a control point"; on the tape FLOWS, and probably in many other places too I haven't yet come across. However, only one of my fifty-odd auditors since 1972 has ever adjusted my chair at the start of a session. (Bill Tucker, NWC, 1987). Since the routing of this checklist is all levels, all auditors, this point should be better known. METHOD ONE WORD-CLEARING There is a quote from the LRH tape 7109C05 A TALK ON BASIC QUAL, p. 13 of the transcript, which states: "Now, it's a misnomer to some degree when we say clearing we think in terms of an absolute. All you've done with Method 1 Word-Clearing is get the fundamental basics out that have been hanging them up for the last few billion and you get those out of the road so that it is easy to do 2 [Method 2 W/C]. So it doesn't take you seven hours to clear the word 'the' because it is hung up on the word 'gug'. Way, way, way, way back. Do you follow? "Actually you're just doing a whole track clearing on this subject so that he can think on this subject." However, in HCO PL 25 Sept 1970RB Issue II METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING, the first paragraph states "Method One Word Clearing is the action taken to clean up all misunderstoods in every subject one has studied." These two data are very contradictory! Also, later in the PL it states "A Fast Flow student is one who may attest to the theory and practical items on his course when he has fully covered the materials and can apply them. There is no examination. This applies to any course checksheet, any training." Very recently I had a student show me this as a reference to prove he did not have to do ANY of the drills or practicals on a checksheet he was doing. This seemed odd to me, particularly as recent checksheets issued say fast flow students may sign off theory items covered in prior courses but must do any drills and practicals. So something is wrong here. It could be that the HCOPL is non-LRH and is incorrect. I have no data on that point at all apart from the contrary facts I have given. Or maybe it is LRH, and he has changed the purpose of Method One over the years. Either way, there is some inconsistency on the matter of fast flow students and drills and practicals. If a fast flow student can attest to the practical items on his checksheet when he has fully covered the materials and can apply them then it is different to say he has to fully do all the drills and practicals on the checksheet. NEW E-METER DRILL BOOK ERRORS This is a beautiful book, far easier to read than the old one, but does have some errors in it. Per the new E-Meter Drill 7, one is expected to read the TA knob of a Mark 5 and a Mark 6 to 1/100 of a division! I had enough trouble reading my old British Mark 5 (with TA counter attached which made it more difficult because it raised the Tone Arm further off the dial) to the nearest tenth. I cannot really believe homo sap is expected to read it to one hundredth of a division by eyeball. There is a chart on page 44 which shows the sensitivity ranges available on a Mark 5, 6 and Super 7. It uses the words "actual sensitivity". This is a false report. A simple test on my Mark 6 shows a sensitivity increase of a factor of 11 from Sens 1 to Sens 32, not a factor of 32. I did the same on my Mark 5 a few years ago and it was similar, from recall. I checked over a fellow student's Super 7 a month or so ago and the factor was again 11 or 13. The test is very easy to make on a Super 7 with its digital TA position counterbone merely sees how far the needle falls to register a fixed drop in TA, say from 3.0 to 2.99 or 2.9 or whatever, as long as one keeps the TA starting position the same and doesn't adjust the trim knob as these affect the results if they are adjusted too. For practical purposes that I have come across it doesn't matter at all, in that if one needs a greater sens one just jacks it up some without calculating the exact factor required, and it all works out just fine. Obviously I don't know if it makes any difference on OT IX which requires the use of a Super 7. E-METER ESSENTIALS Some of the outnesses in this book have been mentioned elsewhere in this report, specifically the section on "Ignoring Charged Areas". In addition to this I would mention: 1. Page 15 talks about an "F/N with False TA" and states that any F/N with the TA over 3.0 is caused by False TA. HCOB 2 Dec 1980 FLOATING NEEDLE AND TA POSITION MODIFIED says: "Some recent tests I conducted have shown that a floating needle is a floating needle regardless of tone arm position. "This changes an earlier belief that, in order to be valid, the tone arm had to be between 2.0 and 3.0 for it to be called a floating needle." HCOB 23 Nov 73RB DRY AND WET HANDS MAKE FALSE TA states: "Hi TAs and Lo TAs do not widely F/N." It does not state that they do not F/N at all. HCOB 17 Sep 1968 OVERRUN PROCESS states: "It is run by taking each reading item and getting the time or times it was released. Run each to clean needle or F/N. ... "The odd phenomenon of high TA "F/Ns" must be looked for and tell you when an item is rehabbed enough. Eventually after many are rehabbed a real and normal F/N will occur with TA between 2 and 3. TA action will then have ceased." So this issue talks about "F/Ns", which in the light of HCOB 2 Dec 1980 are actually F/Ns without the quotation marks, above 3.0. 2. There's a minor typo on p.21 where the word "Process" has been omitted after the word "Havingness" in line 2. 3. Section H. CONFESSIONALS starts off: "In using the meter for Confessionals you establish needle response to common (nonmeaningfull) questions. Seeing this, you do not mistake a real fall when it comes." I have never done this! Maybe it is supposed to just apply to the Joburg. If it does just apply to the Joburg, then the paragraph in EME should say so. If it applies more widely, then it's a bit of lost tech because I have not heard of it actually being used in the 18 months I supervised in the Sec Checker School, apart from maybe the Joburg. COURSEROOM METER CHECKS While supervising at NWC I had been told to do "daily 7RA checks." I do not remember the exact source of such orders, but seem to recall them coming from elsewhere than NWC alone, possibly from Mr. Pat Bromley when LRH Tech Corr Dir. Now, W/C Series 7RA says nothing about doing such a thing daily. It talks about handling a courseroom freshly, starting with the fastest students first, then the slower ones, until eventually all the students have their words ironed out. There are other issues, W/C Series 4R and 5R which talk about meter checks which can be done daily or as the need arises, like a student has his stats down. Why I mention this subject is that the Mini W/C Course Checksheet has a 7RA section which gets the student W/Cer to read this issue then do a few checks per the issue. He of course checks some students in his courseroom, and if he gets a read tells the student to go back to the first page and list out his mu's. The student, if he got meter-checked the prior day and was found clean, promptly ARC breaks, as it would only be real to him to go back to maybe the point of yesterday's meter check and list forward from there. Or the W/Cer Q's and A's with the student's HE&R, just has the student clear that word and maybe study forward from that point in his materials, AND THINKS HE IS COMMITTING AN OVERT BECAUSE HE IS NOT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE IN W/C SERIES 7RA! In reality the W/Cer is doing a meter check per W/C Series 4R when this is being done on a daily basis, not per 7RA. Quote: "I had set up a test so that each student was brought up to the D of T who had a meter on his desk and he'd ask them if they had anything they misunderstoodband see if they got a read on the meter. If it didn't clear up at once he'd send them back to get the definitions and look the thing up and of course use the word in a couple of sentences and THEN if it didn't clear up he'd send them back to the word-clearer and really get them worked over because it goes way back." Unquote. The only trouble in calling it a 7RA check is that W/C Series 7RA gets pulled out as a reference, and the handling is to send the guy back to the beginning and list out his words, whereas this is NOT the handling for a routine m/u check as covered in the other two issues, and Base Order 2 US also, and possibly more I don't know about. PTS/SP CHECKSHEET PART ONE In this issue, SPD 139, the top drill on page 4 is "Do a set of Mood Drills from the bottom of the Tone Scale on up to the top." This violates HCOB 31 Jan 1979 MOOD DRILLS which states: "You start low on the scale and do TRs at each tone level IN THAT TONE, then up to the next tone, and the next, i.e. TR1 done over and over at "Dying," then at the tone of "Useless," and so on up the scale." This complaint is not merely academic. A couple of months back I supervising and came across a couple of students having trouble trying to do TR1 at Minus 40 on the Tone Scale. There is also a minor typo on the bottom of page 4 where item 32 and item 3 are the identical demo. ** Possibly I have made some errors in the above. I am not a Class XII with years and years of auditing and C/Sing experience. However, it is certainly not all wrong, and I hope it is useful in correcting any non-LRH tech in use around the world. This is OK Much love Paul Adams END OF WRITE-UP. So what happened as a result of this? A few months after I sent it, Bridge started selling sets of cans, which may be purely coincidental. Personally, I received a polite reply from Ray Mithoff, saying thanks very much and maybe Cramming could help me and maybe I'd like to join RTRC uplines and help out there. I spent some hours with the Cramming Officer and he didn't have any references to refute what I had said. I wrote back to Mithoff and said that, and also that I didn't think I'd make it at RTRC. I ended up getting a long sec check and apparently narrowly avoided getting RPF'd. I didn't learn anything new about the tech matters mentioned, but I certainly learned to keep my mouth shut in matters outside of my own direct post. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 434 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 12, 2004 2:17 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Election Fraud On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:30:31 -0500, XXXX wrote: > And I know of many more (Gawd, they're everywhere lately) who believe in > every conspiracy theory on the net, as long as it backs their beliefs. > > XXXX But where do the beliefs come from? Little Mary believes in the Tooth Fairy because Mommy, the most trusted terminal in her life, told her so. Later, possessing more data, she disabuses herself of believing in the Tooth Fairy. I used to believe Columbus discovered America because that was the simple datum I learned at school. Later, I discovered there was a bunch of evidence that he didn't. Right now I don't really care either way, and haven't reviewed the evidence enough to have a firm opinion on the matter, but I definitely don't have that simple belief any more. "Conspiracy Theory" is a neat label to stick on an uncomfortable explanation for some geopolitical insanity, as it means one doesn't then have to confront the evidence and weigh it up oneself. One can just dismiss the subject outright. It's a not-is button. A geopolitical event like 9/11 has a huge amount of information connected to it, as the event and its ramifications significantly affected a large number of people. Accounts at the time are recorded for future review, and subsequent events and investigations add to these accounts. There are official government accounts as reported by the usual media outlets, and there are independent investigations done by concerned citizens. Then there is the misinformation and the disinformation purveyors. The Internet helps enormously in making sense of all the conflicting data. If one restricts one's view to the official government versions, and ignores the inconsistencies, one will get one viewpoint. If one examines all the data that is available, or at least includes data that is not being pointed up by the major media sources, and evaluates it in terms of what makes the most sense in explaining it all, one ends up with a different viewpoint to the simple one pushed by Mr. Major Network News Anchor. Something labelled a "Conspiracy Theory" might make much better sense than the "official" version at explaining all the data available. (Look at the Warren Commision's famous "Magic Bullet" for an example of an official version that is patently ridiculous). On the other hand, someone might have a conspiracy theory about the President really being a Reptiloid Shape-Shifter. I reject that one because it is not necessary to invoke something so far-fetched to explain what is going on, and there is no evidence explainable by that theory alone and not by anything else. Some individuals in the 1.1 band might like conspiracies purely because they are conspiracies. I like theories that make sense to me and explain all the facts that seem true, and whether those theories are popular or not is irrelevant. If one's beliefs are based on limited data but are firmly-held ones, especially if one is just in effect parroting without personal inspection what one is told to believe in, then one can end up firmly believing in the Tooth Fairy. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 435 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 12, 2004 6:23 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Clearing Carnival down Andre's Way in Brasil On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 05:40:39 -0000, XXXX wrote: > I wish there were this many posts about organizing a Clearing > Carnival down Andre's way in Brasil. (Hint Hint) > > ARC, David Here you go, David. Now, what exactly is a "Clearing Carnival"? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 436 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:23 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Our Abilities as a Species XXXX: "What we could call "mainstream Scientology" has long been a tad suspicious of people with abilities such as those evidenced by Ingo." Envy maybe? The first definition of "Operating Thetan" in the Tech Dictionary is "[A] thetan exterior who can have but doesn't have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space and time." Reports of Ingo's exterior perceptions, and of his physical manipulation of a deeply-buried, shielded, inaccessible (by normal means) magnetometer, assuming them to be true, would indicate that at those times he was a thetan exterior who could at least manipulate matter, energy, space and time. I don't see how you can discount this and say it isn't about being OT. You also say the route to OTness doesn't go the way of developing specific abilities. That would imply that there is a sure and tested route to get there. If there is one, where is it? Who (incarnate today) exactly has applied that technology and made it to the point of being able to consistently operate exterior to a body? In general terms, I would assume the route to OT involves getting rid of mental/spiritual baggage to the point where one is capable of reaching outside the body ethically, and then drilling those capabilities using methods shown to be successful in the past, incrementally increasing those abilities. What exactly do you consider "Full OT" to be, XXXX?

Message 437 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 14, 2004 5:10 am Subject: [FZA Board] Stress Test and Latent Reads I had a Stress Test today. I was with a friend at the Glendale Marketplace and saw a Stress Test table, presumably from the local mission. I was curious how they worked it, so sat down and got one without disclosing I had any prior knowledge. "What's your name?" "Paul" "Hi, I'm Abraham. Just hold these cans, and look at the needle here." [Hands me the cans; there's a Mk 7, sens at 12] "I'm going to ask a question. You don't have to say an answer aloud. Look at the needle. 'Think of something very stressful.'" [There was no instant read. We looked at the needle for ten seconds, some F/Ning, a Dirty needle, a sF. He called the sF]: "What was that?" "Dunno. I didn't see anything I thought of." "OK. Think of something very stressful." We repeated the procedure, then I stood up and made some comment, thanked him and left. Now, the only use of latent reads that I know of in regular auditing is in steering when a latent read duplicates an earlier instant read, after the pc hasn't been able to spot what caused the original question to read. The "Consider the events of today" E-Meter drill is basically what today's Stress Test was. I assume that there was once an auditing procedure that used that technique, but it's, um, old and not used any more. Plus there's the OT3 basic procedure of looking over the body and using a read as an entity-locator. Whether that's an instant read or a latent read is a moot point, and not relevant here. My question is, is there any standard LRH process in currently-extant tech where a latent read is used, as in that meter drill? I think not, but is there one I'm not aware of? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 438 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 14, 2004 7:48 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Stress Test and Latent Reads Posted by XXXX on Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 10:25 am: > > Well, what about OT2 Paul? > > You leave an item that is reading all over the place just because the > reads are prior or latent? As far as I recall the idea is to do a > metered version of book one repeater technique and the product of > flattening an item is that it is flat - period. No mention whatsoever > of reads having to be instant anywhere in the relevant materials. > > In fact, now you mention it, that an item *doesn't* read when first > called is also, in effect, a read. An indicator that a previous item > is unflat. You're quite correct about OT2, XXXX. Thank you. I was thinking more of some process where the command is of the order of "Think of ____" or "Look around here and locate ____" and the pc looks around (mentally or physically) for a second or ten, and when there's a meter read the auditor picks it up with something like "What was that?", at which point further steering with the same read could be used. Such a procedure would obviously lead in the direction of meter dependence. Maybe that is part of why it was abandoned. Since it is included in the meter drills, I would assume that at one time there was such a procedure used in auditing. I just don't remember coming across any process using that technique explicitly stated in the HCOBs and tapes I have reviewed. Maybe it was just common practise to take up reads that occurred seconds after a command, before the emphasis on Instant Reads started (1961?), and it applied to ALL metered questions, and so there was no need to ever mention it up to that point. It would make sense to discontinue meter drills that teach skills that are never used in session, as their inclusion in the training line-up would tend to legitimize their use in real life, especially for new auditors, and even more so in a climate where one is scared to say, somewhat apologetically, "I know the drill is on the checksheet but look at this HCOB where it says we don't ever do that any more." -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 439 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:26 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Stress Test and Latent Reads XXXX wrote: "Repeater technique in Book One was used solely to obtain movement on the time track, not to discharge any incident. Is there a reference somewhere which says one can use it to discharge an incident?" The Clearing Course Instruction Booklet refers to the main process of the level as "repeater technique". Per the CCIB, the CC Implant was assumed to be "Basic-Basic", the first incident on the track. This first incident is then gone through instant by instant, as it were, with the first instant being flattened (theoretically *erased* per the CCIB) before going on to the second instant. Some items are called aloud repetitively, some spotted silently repetitively. It is assumed that the incident was well-mapped out and the pc just has to follow the platen and not look for himself and run whatever he finds. The technique doesn't lend itself to running any incident without a platen. Spotting the earliest moment of some random incident repeatedly until it doesn't read any more, then the next earliest moment similarly, and so on second by second for an incident of duration of minutes, hours, days or longer is unwieldy and overkill for almost any incident. Plus it is very evaluative to say that this a certain pattern of specific word concepts (or equivalent) exists in the banks being addressed. My understanding of the current standard theory is that on the CC, there is assumed to be one incident. On OT2, originally the incidents as covered on the platens were assumed to occur at different points up and down the track, then this was "corrected" to be they occurred at one point only, namely approx. 75 mill. My personal idea currently is that the OT2 procedure takes charge off the items on the platens from different points on the track than 75 mill, but I couldn't be more specific as to when. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 440 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:54 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Stress Test and Latent Reads Posted by XXXX on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 08:10 am: > > As far as I know OT 2 deals with the "composite case". You run out the > charge of entities connected to you. OT2 and OT3 run properly, on a well-trained person with case set up, take a lot of TA off and produce great gains, from what I have seen. I got a lot of wins from them myself. I am not denying these two points. As for what is really happening when one runs these levels, though, I don't know. The theory of it all, Inc 2 and Inc 1 and all that, is problematic, to put it mildly. I know the theory of OT2 and OT3 very well, and I used to accept it all as presented. Then I started to look at it more closely, not in terms of my "own" case and what read on the meter and what I could see on the track, but just in terms of the laws of physics and logistics and astronomy and plate tectonics and so on. And there is a lot that doesn't add up. But I am not suggesting everyone stop running the standard OT2 and OT3. If I thought that I would say so and I would also take down the checksheets I wrote. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 441 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:13 pm Subject: [FZA Board][FreezoneOrg] OT7 and Cancer Someone commented online today on Dr. Gene Denk recently dying of cancer, and said it was another example of an OT7 dying of cancer. I have seen many other comments in the past few years to the effect that there seem to have been a lot of OT7s and OT8s who have died of cancer. I have never seen anyone do any kind of comparison with the general public, so I thought I'd have a go at making some assumptions and throwing some figures around. There are some neat tables online of things people die from in the general population, divided into smokers and non-smokers, men and women, in five year increments from ages 20 to 90. See: http://www.usrf.org/breakingnews/bn_020708_perspective/bn_020708_perspective.html I made the following assumptions and approximations: 1. 4000 people on OT7 or completed with it; 2. Half of them are smokers, half non-smokers; 3. 2000 are aged 40; 1000 aged 50; 1000 aged 60; 4. Half are men, half women. In summary, from the published tables, over a ten year period one would expect 85 deaths from cancer out of a total of 360 deaths from all causes. The figure of deaths from cancer includes the more common forms of cancer, but not all. So to have 85 OT7s/OT8s die of cancer in the last ten years would appear to be par for the course. These figures are only very rough, and a more precise calculation would yield better figures, but I would guess that the incidence of cancer-related death among OT7s/OT8s is not higher than in the general population. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 442 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:42 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] OT7 and Cancer On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:10:36 -0800 (PST), Roland Aldridge wrote: > > Sorry to hear of Dr Denk. > > When I was auditing at AOLA I commented to a NOTs > auditor there that the CoS should release a study > showing how OT's fare better than the general public. > She said that in fact they had done such a stuxy but > found to their horror that the reality was that OT's > did quite a lot worse. Shortly after this the "New > Rundowns" for NOTs were released. > > I also discussed things with the two c/ses in my HGC, > who were OT3 or 4 at the time, and who had decided > that they were not going to get started on NOTs until > they could complete it, because too many people who > started and got held up got cancer and died. > > Roland Interesting anecdote--thanks very much, Roland. It would be useful to get more data. Like to find out if those conclusions were justified by the raw data, and if so, whether a further study was done after the new NOTs rundowns were released to see if the situation changed any. When were the new NOTs RD's released: 1990? 1991? An eval which would have the result of discouraging people from going up the Bridge would be dynamite and would certainly be severely restricted, but if it was common knowledge in the NOTs HGC at AOLA I would think it would be spoken about in a hush elsewhere as well, say among NOTs Auditors and C/Ses at other AOs or the FSO at least. I'm not holding my breath, but does Pierre have anything useful to say on the subject? Does anyone know any ex-NOTs staff who have left since the early 90s and who might talk?

Message 443 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:53 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] OT7 and Cancer On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 01:38:50 +0100 XXXX wrote: > Hi all > > My neigbours wife will die because of cancer. I am not > an trained auditor but i am interested if Ron did say > anything about cancer. Maybe there is something in his > materials that i can apply for her in order to do > something about it, i thouht. I have had a few conversations with churchies about the causes of cancer. Sometimes they say, in a knowing way, "Ah yes, Ron says ..." and repeat something about cells and the second dynamic. My response is always along the line of, "That may well be true, but it is difficult to *apply* that information in such a way as to fix the problem." I decided it was best to be diplomatic about it. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 444 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:02 am Subject: [FZA Board] Theta/Entheta Ratio I'm looking at the Advance! 175 mag, just received. In the AOLA News section, part of the copy reads, "10,000 pre-OTs on or through Solo NOTs is what it will take to actually tip the theta-entheta ratio on this planet so planetary clearing can take place for real. Any Solo NOTs pre-OT or OT VIII completion will tell you this is absolutely true." Sure, this is just the usual hyperbole, and the people on OT7 and above who read it are probably raising their eyebrows and thinking "I will?" and hoping no-one dares ask them to confirm the outrageous statement. But apart from all that, what does it mean? Is a freshly-blown BT now considered "Theta" whereas before it was conjured up it was considered "Entheta"? Is all the unhandled case associated with the planetary population considered to be the "entheta" part of the ratio? I'm aware of the theta/entheta ratio bit of the Chart of Human Evaluation, as it applies to a single person anyway. Is this just being aggregated somehow for the 5 or 6 billion people alive and unspecified number of other case-bearing entities connected with this planet? Any ideas? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 445 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:55 am Subject: [FZA Board] Theta/Entheta Ratio XXXX: "I'd be wont to think that they are saying that "we will need 10,000 pre-OTs on or through Solo NOTs before we will release Super Power."" Now that is something I hadn't thought of, and something along those lines makes sense. It would be yet another PR nightmare for them to have this vast, vast building with only a few people on lines, with the occasional voice echoing down long, empty cavernous hallways. Maybe that's why they've stopped building the SP edifice. Case-wise Solo NOTs might not be a pre-req for Super Power, but the majority of their moneyed public is probably the OT7/OT8 crowd, and people would have to finish OT7 before getting it, once started on Audited NOTs. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 446 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:45 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] OT7 and Cancer On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:54:16 -0800, XXXX wrote: > > Sooooooo, does anyone know where the reference is that says something like > "there should be no auditing until your ethics condition is at or above > Non-E". There used to be a 16 November 1971RA PL called "Conditions: Awards and Penances". It was very useful as a staff member, as it listed out what org services one could or could not get, condition by condition. Like, "May receive ethics handlings or cramming, but not auditing" (not verbatim). It was a good stable datum. Then it got cancelled for being a BPL and nothing really replaced it. Although from what I recall staff generally still operated on those guidelines as they made good sense, it just was no longer available as a legal reference. I think that is the one you are probably looking for, XXXX. If you want to find it, it would be in an old OEC Vol 0. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 447 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] OT7 and Cancer Thank you all for your comments. I've shifted my viewpoint on this now. Originally I thought that there was no good reason for there being more cancer among CofS OT7s than in the general population. I was looking for something intrinsically connected with the auditing itself, rather than taking a broader view. Now that I consider the stresses from being on the level in the CofS, like the expense and case disturbance of mandatory 6-month checks, as well as the general environmental stress associated with being a churchie, it would make sense for this to recoil upon the body in some palpable way. Again, I have seen no figures from a properly done study. The figures I threw together were just a very rough approximation and may be considerably off. As for the causes of cancer, I tend to favor Hulda Clark's approach (the causes of any chronic disease are a combination of certain parasites and toxins) for the physical aspects. It would seem clear that direct mental/spiritual factors, which may read on a meter, would play a part in predisposition, precipitation and prolongation. Apart from the obvious CofS stress ones, there is also a possible consideration that "all medicos are bad and should be avoided at all costs". There are also other influences like electromagnetic pollution and subtle energies that wouldn't read on a meter if the pc had no reality on them, but that does not mean they aren't there and contributory. How to fix it? In general terms, as best one can, find and address the mental/spiritual factors, for example by doing the actions in the Assist Checklist HCOB; arrest the decline by finding and removing any ongoing physical causative factor, like if you've got lung cancer and smoking irritates the lungs, continuing to smoke two packs a day is not going to help, nor is drinking Diet Coke; and boost the body's immune system to repair the damage already done to the body as quickly as possible. As for the subtle influences, do what you can: If you sleep in a transformer hut or have chunks of steel permanently pierced through your body over significant acupuncture points and disrupting the normal energy flows, you might want to change that. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 448 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:33 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: OT7 and Cancer XXXX wrote: "Who wants to live forever in one body?" Here are some of my considerations about the supposedly minor logistical problem of getting another one: 1. It is tempting to think that a significant proportion of my current knowledge and abilities would be available to me at an early age the next time I pick up a body, but looking around I don't see Scn kids of ten or fifteen demonstrating it. Nor ghetto kids of that age, for that matter. The logical conclusion is that while it is probably true that all that knowledge is potentially available next time, it won't be obviously there. The hard-won knowledge that I have spent many years accumulating is useful to me, and I don't want to throw it away for no good reason. 2. The body I have right now is not ideal, but at least it mostly works and is acceptable. There is no guarantee that I wouldn't pick up one far worse. 3. Similarly the culture I am in and so on. I wouldn't wish to trade my lifestyle for that of a Calcutta untouchable or worse. Yes, exceptional people have made their way to the top despite such backgrounds, but I'm not such a person, based on past experience. 4. The comm lag. Yes, in theory, once dead one could survey the available prospects, find a nice, rich 18 year old who is pretty healthy apart from being comatose or something (I know that's silly), just walk in to the body and take over the life without dispossessing some thetan with a prior claim. It would be great if it were possible to do that, carrying all one's knowledge and ability and case gain from this lifetime and transplanting it whole into a nice young adult body and taking it from there with a huge head start. Dream on! Meanwhile, as would seem reasonable, if one got so-so parents in some Western country, one would get fed with junk food and junk data and dosed with mercury-laden vaccines etc. and most likely would end up at the age of 15 or 18 in a far worse state than at a similar age this lifetime. 5. But this one is the real big deal about the comm lag, and the most important consideration, to me anyway. Eighteen years from now is 2022 on Planet Earth. If you look at long-term statistics of natural resources, pollution, economies, the genetic insanities of Monsanto and so on, the current US imperialistic strike-first policies, etc. etc., the future isn't looking so rosy. It is not improbable to me that in five, ten or fifteen years there will not be nearly as many people alive here as there are today. It's not just a question of there being more competition for bodies, but if this future doesn't include grid-based electricity then it would be impossible to start again from scratch in building a technical civilization as the needed easily-accessible raw materials to redo an Industrial Revolution with low-tech extraction methods aren't available any more. Oh OK, we just go on to Target Two, another planet, and set up shop there. Great. Where do we find it? How do we guarantee to get there? Of course, we've existed for trillions of years and will exist for trillions more. and ultimately these questions will get resolved, one way or another. But compared to past experiences, even in this lifetime, what I've got right now is OK, thank you very much. So, go ahead without me XXXX. I think I'll just wait up for a bit. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 449 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:47 am Subject: Re: Stress Test and Latent Reads XXXX wrote: "What problem do you have with plate tectonics in relation to 3?" Rather than a long list of items, let's just start with Peter Forde's critique re plate tectonics, and ignore any of his obvious added inapplicable personal bias in there. There is a copy at: http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/forde_volcanos.html In addition to that, I've noticed a distinct sloppiness with regard to volcanoes in people running the level. If you're involved with a surgeon, for instance, you would be horrified to find him poking around behind the ovaries looking for a pineal gland. But give the usual OT3-savvy Scio a modern world map, five OT3 volcano names and one minute to stick pins in the correct areas, you get a similar result to asking a modern US high-school student to find five not-so-important countries on it. On the level, one can wave away the apparent outpoint of not knowing exactly where these things are and assume that there's some mental machinery that makes it all work out right, like in translating whole-track units in dating and locating into miles and years. And experience indeed shows that it is not important to know exactly where they are! Phew, no need to look into it any further.... Similarly, if one has heard about Pangea, one can dismiss any concerns about differences by assuming that LRH just gave modern location names to points that existed then but have since, um, just moved a bit, without looking too closely at what did exist then. But I did give it a closer look. In general terms, that's my problem with plate tectonics and OT3. -- 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 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