Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts November 17, 2004 - December 16, 2004








Yahoo Groups (mostly) and FreezoneAmerica Board 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 450 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:09 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Digest Number 168 On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:15:23 EST, XXXX wrote: > > Every OTVIII i have met & worked with is in great shape. They are not > robotic as you suggest; they are the most at cause people I know. They made > it through OTVII and did well. I worked with a woman going through the new > OTVII and she was cranky the whole time but made it through and did well. An > intelligent person can see the difference in the annoyance of > staff policy & out-tech and the truth & still make gains if she is a truly > big thetan. hue Did you know these people before they started on OTVII and OTVIII? Were they very competent people before they started the levels as well as after? From your observation, not from what they say, do they appear to be more competent after the levels than before? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 451 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:14 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Some questions regarding OT V (NOTs) and OT VII (Solo-NOTs) XXXX wrote: "Anyway, I'd like to know by the people "in the know" how EVERYBODY having to do NOTs could be viewed at as a sensible or rational action?" Because trusted people say so. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 452 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:16 am Subject: [FZA Board][FreezoneOrg][formerscio] http://sorryforthecofs.blogspot.com This site, "Sorry for the C of S", at http://sorryforthecofs.blogspot.com , was inspired by www.sorryeverybody.com, which has touched a nerve with many and has reportedly racked up fifty million hits in ten days. If you are not familiar with it, take a look. Some of us appreciate the philosophy and technology of Scientology, but do not generally endorse what the Church of Scientology is doing and has been doing for decades. This new site is a simple way to register one's personal disapproval of the C of S. To submit an image, first get it hosted on the web and then e-mail the address to sorryforthecofs@gmail.com. A very simple free hosting service is at www.hostmyfile.net. Alternatively, e-mail the image to sorryforthecofs@gmail.com, and I will get it hosted at www.hostmyfile.net. Images will be displayed or not at my discretion. The idea is more to be able to apologize for your past support than to hurl mud at the CofS. I will be displaying only images, not images accompanied by text. Take a photo of yourself holding up a notice, or add text using image-editing software. Or something. Check the www.sorryeverybody.com site for ideas. If you e-mailed in an image and later change your mind and want it removed from the sorryforthecofs blog, e-mail again from the same address, referring to the Image # as shown in the blog. Currently I am allowing comments in the blog from anyone. This may change in the future. Thank you very much. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 453 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:28 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Theta/Entheta Ratio XXXX wrote: "XXXX sed > Hi FZ. Good to have you back. > > Soundz more like Pierre to me." That's the problem with people who won't even register a unique anonymous nick, let alone use their regular names. I suggest one just fast-forward over anyone who won't even register. I can understand someone choosing not to use their real name in this forum. But I don't give much credibility to someone not even willing to be there enough to register a unique nick and stick with that. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 454 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:28 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Some questions regarding OT V (NOTs) and OT VII (Solo-NOTs) XXXX wrote: "My biggest suggestion would be; you are probably better off not doing it than doing it with someone that hasn't studied it under a 1st or second generation instructor or CS and thoroughly understands the processes and purposes. I have never known of anyone who has completed more than Phoenix that didn't spin in and drop out that studied from anyone not very fully hatted. I don't think anyone can self-study the stuff." Is this because the stuff isn't well written-up, maybe with videos also, or because there is something instrinsically in the materials that doesn't lend itself to being transmitted via words and images? Not knowing the answer to that question, the whole thing looks to me like it could just be not well documented in the first place, and some individuals want to remain being some of the "few inititiates" for reasons of either money or status. I'm happy to be wrong here. Anyone willing to explain? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 455 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:24 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: I'm not sorry..... On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:49:12 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > I'm not sorry I trained some damn fine auditors, nor am I sorry I > cleared a number of people, sorted out many more bogged pcs, and made > some OTs. I'm not sorry I got involved, that I helped, and that I > supported the Aims of Scientology and LRH. > > The church became what it did for the reasons that it did. I'm not sorry for the similar things that I did either, XXXX But if a non-Scio asks me what I did during that time, I can't just proudly say "I worked full-time for the Church of Scientology for twenty-odd years" and leave it at that if I want to have any kind of sensible relationship with that person in the future. Why? Because the CofS has such a God-awful reputation now that I would have to explain at length how come what I did was OK even though what he reads now on the Net is so bad. It pains me that the CofS has fucked it all over so much. No-one there is going to officially apologize for any of it, unless demanded by a Court Order that they either can't wriggle out of or have decided it's not expedient to fight. It doesn't mean I am wallowing in regret for twenty years of life I lost, as I didn't and I'm not. But at least I can have some decency and humanity about it. They won't apologize, but I can. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 456 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:31 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] http://sorryforthecofs.blogspot.com On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 00:27:13 -0900, XXXX wrote: > >No apology Paul. I personally think it is a flunk! You probably didn't mean it to, XXXX, but that comes across with all the arrogance of the CofS. I know of no LRH reference that says "Never apologize" (except to avoid saying "I am sorry ..." when writing SO#1 letters). I have noticed that some people think that a point in the Auditor's Code says not to apologize, but it really says: "I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined", which is something else entirely. A pure apology does not include explanation, justification or excuses. Why is it headline news that "For the first time in nearly 2000 years of Christianity, a Roman Catholic pope asked forgiveness yesterday for destructive social sins that Catholics have committed over the ages."? An apology can be a big deal. I don't know if you took a look at that www.sorryeverybody.com site. It touched me because I live in the US and I am ashamed of what is now associated with the US across the world. And I'm not even an American. Why do you think it's had a reported 50 million hits in ten days? Or it currently reports traffic of 365 Gigs a day? That's maybe a million people a day. That is a LOT of interest for a site that has no sex, no big budget, and has been up for less than two weeks. In my experience, an apology includes a stated willingness to have been cause for a bad effect, where the effect is known but the cycle isn't ended because the cause apparently isn't fully known. A simple apology will often stop strong contention right there and then. No one person here in the FZ would be considered responsible for all the ills of the CofS. Nevertheless, have you considered Definition #1 of "Responsibility" in the Tech Dictionary lately? It is "the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics." The first part of the FSM Drill after you've contacted someone is "Handle". How many new people have heard only good things about the Church of Scientology? It is impossible to have a website that fully and completely explains, justifies or makes excuses for all the crap of the CofS. But it is possible to have one that delivers simple, hopefully heartfelt apologies. It does require someone to stick his neck out a bit, to stand up and be counted. It also requires someone to not only be the willing effect of a Paul Adams suggestion, but to be seen to be one by his/her peers. What a terrible thing that would be! Many years ago, before I read the Effect Scale, I had the positions for "Willing to be an effect" and "Unwilling to be an effect" (not verbatim) reversed. That was an eye-opener for me. If it makes it easier for anyone, it could be done anonymously. OK, I've said my piece. What a dull world it would be if we all saw eye-to-eye. You'll notice I didn't post my announcement on your chat list. You do your thing and I'll do mine. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 457 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:45 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: I'm not sorry..... On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:02:30 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote: > > This seems to me a wrong solution for several > reasons. If your asked about COS/SCN by a non > scientologist it would take several conversations to > explain. Putting up your picture won't help on that. Solution to what? I did not put up the site for my own personal healing, nor is it intended to be a cure-all or a magic one-shot dissemination tool. Some people live out the rest of their lives wishing that they had been able to tell someone they were sorry. Others wait in vain to be told. It can be a very charged area. I have provided a forum at http://sorryforthecofs.blogspot.com for a specific kind of message (I'm now including written ones). Some wish to give such messages; some wish to see such messages; some don't. That's all. It's an additional resource, not a substitute. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 458 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:19 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Stress Test and Latent Reads Nick wrote: > > It is true that the volcanoes we have today likely are not the exact > same ones as 75 million years ago. However, the map of the world as we > have it today was broadly recognisable. And, crucially, the tectonic > plate margins are in the same relative position to the continents as > they were back then. The tectonic plate margins are where the majority > of the volcanic activity takes place. Thus there would have been > volcanoes in the roughly the same relative positions. > > The above doesn't prove a thing about OT3 of course. However, it does > rather pick a gaping hole in Peter Forde's supposed disproof. He examines the evidence for each one listed, one by one. I don't see the gaping hole you suggest. > In any event, I don't regard the volcano locations as a terribly > important part of 3. In terms of how the level runs, I agree. But in terms of credibility.... > The main part of 3 (i.e. not Milazzo) is, in > effect, a narrative incident handling. Assuming you've done 2 > thoroughly enough, then looking late in the incident at volcano > locations will not pay anything like the same dividends as looking > early (earlier beginning - narrative dianetics tech). At least that > was my observation running it personally. I would dispute that beaming one's understanding of a fixed-in-stone written sequence of actions at a pc per the instructions rather than asking for what happened is a "narrative incident handling", but I don't know what you personally did in session. Similarly the standard part of the incident that one covers in the manner above is "Explosion to Pilot", except in the rare instance of getting into freewheel-type situations. Running incidents narrative from the very beginning of each, if that's what you were doing, might make a lot of theoretical Dianetics sense, but it isn't LRH OT3. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 459 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:23 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Questions on NOTs and Solo NOTs thread XXXX wrote: "Unfortunately, when people look and see what they see, all too often they will delete the data that disagrees with the way they think things should be. The willingness to think outside the box appears to be a recessive trait among humanoids. "Thank God PCs, at least when in session, tend to tell it like it is." What magic do you think is invoked by uttering the words "This is the session" that suddenly pulls the wool from in front of the eyes between your first and second paragraph? Why should it be any different in session? Do you think the "Auditor plus pc is greater than the bank" equation makes such a black-and-white difference? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 460 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 4:42 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Some questions regarding OT V (NOTs) and OT VII (Solo-NOTs) XXXX wrote: "I'm sure you know the answer already, but I'll indulge you anyway." Thanks, XXXX. It is kinda obvious, now that you lay it out like that, and I guess it would seem strange why I would ask such a question. Maybe I'd eaten too many chocolate biscuits [cookies], or something. You gave a good answer. But one thing that doesn't fit in is this, referring to some CofS auditing I've had. I've had a few sessions, worrying away at some situation or other, and the fog gradually lifts until all becomes clear, F/N VGIs. Great. Then a few days or weeks later on, the same situation comes up, more fog comes off that wasn't visible the first time, the fog lifts until all becomes clear, F/N VGIs. Great. Except the reality after the second series of sessions is very different to the first. "A higher reality" or a "more-encompassing reality" would be a diplomatic way of putting it and even possibly a way of trying to fob it off on a confused pc, but the truth is that for me it's like the first one was "Yes, I swallowed the whole lake one day" and the second one was "No, I didn't swallow the whole lake, just a mouthful". And I have had series of sessions where there would be a third one that explains to me how I *did* swallow the lake after all, F/N VGIs, perfectly happy. These are analogies, of course. Each time the auditing was fine, and non-evaluative, and the conclusions were my own and not evaluated for me by another in any way, and each time I was very happy--at the time, anyway--with the conclusions I made in session. But after this had happened a few times I ended up with the personal conviction that "truth" uncovered in session was valuable in its own way, but only in a unilateral sense and it didn't necessarily bear any relationship to truth in the physical universe or any other agreed-upon reality. This conflicted with Robert's second paragraph and so I wrote my question. Hah, the magic of communication: it wasn't the choccy biccies after all. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 461 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] http://sorryforthecofs.blogspot.com On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:42:02 +1100, XXXX wrote: > > I did not mean to come across with arrogance... And ... yes ... I can > apologies and do so if that was offensive. Fair enough. If it had been, I would accept. > ... > And Paul, You have nothing to apologize for. Your work and effort is what makes the freezone what it is. > > Free. Thank you, XXXX. As I said in an earlier post, I didn't put the site up as some kind of grandiose personal mea culpa. We'll see if it turns out to be useful at all. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 462 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:25 am Subject: Re: [formerscio] Effective anti-spam On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:17:56 -0000, XXXX wrote: [re list members spamming the list re their own pages instead of non-Scn spammers trying to sell insurance etc.] > > Oops, and how could I forget Paul??? :-) > > XXXX Thanks XXXX, I was beginning to feel left out there. But I'll tell you what. The next time I have something interesting (in my estimation) to say, I'll post a copy of it here as well as on one of my regular forums. If responses appear here that are worth following up, I will follow them up here. I'm not honor-bound to devote my time to one forum only and will quite happily go to wherever the action is. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal Fabulous new site at http://sorryforthecofs.blogspot.com !!! Hurry and get your submission in before the rush!!! Amusing image on the site but to avoid having to go to all the hassle of clicking twice, for today only you can see it by just clicking ONCE on http://www.hostmyfile.net/files/857.jpg !!!!!!!!






Message 463 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:38 am Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Digest Number 68 On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:00:26 +0000, XXXX wrote: > > There is evidence that human bodies have easily lived > 140 years ... OK, I'll bite. What evidence might that be, apart from maybe somewhat underfed lab rats living for a proportionately long time? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 464 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:05 pm Subject: Re: Theta/Entheta Ratio Why all this discussion about a person who isn't willing to even be a terminal? If you guys were discussing the *content* of an anonymous message, well OK. But this? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 465 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:38 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Digest Number 68 On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:17:48 +0000, XXXX wrote: > Hi Paul, > > How concrete do you like your evidence? I'm just curious as to what you have got. I'm not particularly challenging the statement that humans have lived to that age, but I'm not aware of any mainstream evidence to that effect. The Bible talks about people, presumably human, living extraordinarily long lives by today's standards. For example, Methusaleh lived to 969, and at the age of 187 his son Lamech was born, and then Lamech begat Noah, of Ark fame, at age 182. I guess people got frisky then when they reached 180 or so and began begetting at that age. It is easy to dismiss these accounts as mythical dribble. But Sitchin and later Lloyd Pye make interesting cases for such accounts having a factual basis. Glad you like the site. It's still growing. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 466 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:24 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Election Fraud On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 02:57:55 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > > Are these stories hosted on other sites as well or carried by other > news venues? It's hard to say. Putting the names Andy Stephenson and Kathleen Wynne into Google shows about 25 different sites that pop up on the subject. But Google sometimes comm lags a month before indexing stuff on the Web. I'll let you state your point before I respond to it.... -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 467 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:32 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Soaring TA I'll make my own comment now. If the pc is happy, and the TA is at 2.1, and I start in on a newprocess or something and the TA rapidly starts shooting up, I wouldn't wait until the TA got to "High" before checking for Overrun or Protest. I would assume I had a "Soaring" TA earlier than that. What bank mechanics would make it necessary for all that extra mass to kick in before the pc's protest would show on a meter? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 468 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:58 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Election Fraud On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:44:21 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > > Only point is that rense.com does have an agenda, as do most sites. > It's hard to find a source that doesn't somehow twist the facts and > numbers to present a story with a certain slant. I wouldn't put all > my eggs in one basket and believe rense.com outright so I usually > like to juxtapose these articles with other sources - not that I > would readily believe abc.com or foxnews.com either. I thought you > might have come across this on other sites as well. Fair enough, XXXX. I have never listened to Rense's radio show, and my experience of Limbaugh and King is limited to Jay Leno or Saturday Night Live. On his site he presents a lot of articles, rather than his own rewrites or opinions. Of course he has his own opinions, whatever they are, but he does present contrary comments about points made in articles as well as the original articles, without apparently making a stand either way. I don't just swallow things whole that appear on his site. Some make a lot of sense to me; some are ridiculous to me; and some are over my head and I have no idea either way. But at least he does present things that I don't find on mainstream sites, and I don't have to wade through a whole mountain of crap to find the one or two things worth reading on lesser sites. I first came across voting irregularites when I read the original Votescam book around 1996 or 1997. A good chunk of that book is available free online and is very interesting reading. It was the first time it had occurred to me that the voting procedure in the US was anything but above-board. Looking at it now, after following this subject for years, those two articles I referred to make sense in the whole context. If one is going to reject them rationally, then one has to give a basis for rejecting them. Did the author just flat-out lie about the events that took place? If they are lies, then they are libelous against the named public officials concerned. It's easy to casually say "Oh, he's mistaken". But mistaken about what? Did the person reporting mistake some old beer can for polling tapes in the trash? Were the films made completely fabricated? Is the Professor lying? Did he do the math wrong? He's a professional person with his neck on the line if he's wrong--it's not like me voicing an opinion in one of these groups and being wrong about something. The closer one looks the harder it is to come up with alternative explanations. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 469 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:20 pm Subject: [Freezone(Googlegroups)] Long-Lived Humans On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:16:12 +0100, Heidrun Beer wrote: > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:38:41 -0800, Paul Adams wrote in > <79845bae04111913383d0f9cad@mail.gmail.com>: > > >The Bible talks about people, presumably human, living extraordinarily > >long lives by today's standards. For example, Methusaleh lived to > >969, and at the age of 187 his son Lamech was born, and then Lamech > >begat Noah, of Ark fame, at age 182. I guess people got frisky then > >when they reached 180 or so and began begetting at that age. > > > I thought Noah had an ET father?!? > > Heidrun Beer > > Workgroup for Fundamental Spiritual Research and Mental Training > http://www.sgmt.at > Well maybe, Heidrun, but I didn't want to leap right into the subject on that list. Rather than keep this interesting subject restricted, I am posting it to this group, which could use some more traffic to it. Pye's idea is that the Annunaki genetically manipulated Neanderthals into Cro-Magnons, who then mated with the Annunaki to produce demi-gods, and the demi-gods over time mated with the "wild" Cro-Magnons (the rejects and runaways) to become humanity as we know it. I have this idea of Annunaki being 12 foot tall from somewhere, like the Sumerian cylinders maybe, so it is convenient to think of Cro-Magnons as being 4 foot tall, humanity as being 6 foot tall and demi-gods as 8 foot tall, whether that is accurate or not. So 4' (Cro) + 12' (An) makes 8' (Demi) Then 8' (Demi) + 4' (Cro) makes 6' (Human) The longevity would have to come from the Annunaki genes directly, so yes, one would assume Methusaleh's father at least was an Annunaki. I don't see that one of Noah's parent's would have to be, though. Couldn't the long-life genes be passed down through son and grand-son before being ultimately diluted down to invisibility through five hundred generations? Which makes the Annunaki, Cro-Magnons, demi-gods and humans all sexually compatible (i.e. can produce viable offspring), which by definition makes us all the same species! Welcome to godhood. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 470 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:44 am Subject: [FZA Board][Formerscio] Briefing Course Checksheets Here are some thoughts on checksheets for the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, that I wrote in response to a query complaining about the checksheets taking "too long". I never did more than Level A (almost), and didn't supervise it much, although I slept with a BC supervisor a few times. Any comments are welcome from those who have more experience. Or more opinions. A "concise Briefing Course" is an oxymoron and a quickie. The BC is supposed to include "all the data" as well as making a superb auditor with all the latest data at his fingertips, and to be able to whip through it in a month or so because it is inconvenient to have it be longer is a big degrade. But covering it all in 1965 or 1970 is not the same as covering it all in 1985 or, heaven forbid, 2005. Let's just take an arbitrary cutoff point from the early 80's, say. Why? Because a Briefing Course Grad is supposed to be able to run any non-confidential process, and a lot of tech came out after 1965 or 1970. To do a "Briefing Course" that only covers data up to 1965, consider yourself a Class VI, but not be able to do an End of Endless Int RD, audit FPRD, do False Data Stripping or Crashing Misunderstood Finding or any number of other actions is kinda silly. Maybe not for somone who did the BC in 1964, but yes for someone who does it in 2004. This is all my view, of course. Someone who did do the BC in 1964 might have a different view of things. But if you cut off data at 1965, say, look at what you miss out! Now, for "all the data" to be ALL the data, i.e. every book, tape and HCOB, is prohibitive and also not necessary or desirable. Excruciatingly detailed excursions into arcane processes that haven't been used for four decades or more are not what the BC is about. Maybe there is lost tech in there that could be explored thoroughly and might yield a hidden bounty, but that isn't the purpose of the BC. The purpose is to make a superb auditor with an excellent command of the philosophic background of what he is auditing, not to equip one to become the Pilot Mark II (that's not an insult to Ken). Somehow one has to strike a balance between having it all and not having enough. There has to be at least enough to give the philosophic background behind the main research line, with more data on what is used today in auditing the Grade Chart and less data on what is rarely used today. For example, apart from the OT Doctorate Course and that Exteriorization and Phenomena of Space (?) Course that AOs deliver, there are also the dozen or more of the Freewinds-only courses based on various tape series issued over the years. Should something similar be on the BC? No, because it would make it too long. Maybe the one or two key tapes from each series, but not the whole lot. So that gives you in general terms what should be on the checksheets. Traditionally the BC checksheets, at least since the days when the "Senior SHSBC" came out and was then dropped in name because it was a degrade to the name "SHSBC", have included four or five hundred tapes, I believe, not thousands. They have included all the LRH books. They have included a majority of the HCOBs, I believe, but never all of them. And they have included lots of auditing. Lots and lots and lots. One major problem is how to work the practical in, as well as doing the theory. The theory is supposed to be a chronological study, as that is the way LRH one says it should be, following along the research line in order to get a full comprehension of relative importances of things in conjunction with the practical experience of lots and lots of auditing. That is relatively easy, at least in theory. But the practical is something else. Modern auditing, with model session, F/N everything but don't overrun, rudiments, standard word-clearing etc., if done strictly at the appropriate point in the theory, wouldn't get started on until maybe 90% of the way through. Alternatively, to strictly audit the processes one is studying about, with the methodology extant at the time, is not workable either. So somehow, one has to compromise. The BC checksheets that were extant in the early 80s seemed to have it about right, in that each checksheet had a theory section and a practical section, and one did them concurrently. The only one I am intimately familiar with is Level A, the first one, as I did it. The theory covered up to 1954 or whenever, all in chronological order, and the practical section was devoted to basic auditing theory and all methods of word-clearing. For the practical requirements of the checksheet, one had to audit a pc through Method One Word-Clearing. There were practicals on the other methods too, but that was the long one. Similarly, each of the other checksheets had an independent theory and practical section. The later BC checksheets, at least the pre-GAT ones (maybe it is still the same and they just got GATted up), had a horrible imbalance, with there being NO practical until Level M or something. This might have served a PR or monetary purpose in not giving people problems in getting through the checksheets (i.e. forcing them to audit!) until they only had a couple of levels left, but it throws out the balance of significance/mass/doingness talked about on the Study Tapes. If you have them available, I would suggest doing something based on the 80s-era checksheets, as they seemed sensible to me. Maybe there was too much in them on the early 60s goals stuff, in that there's a lot of significance there that doesn't see the light of day much today, except in Semmering maybe, but maybe not. Maybe they were too light on the early 50s stuff, as in 1980 or so there weren't all those tapes that are so readily available today That's my opinion on the subject, anyway, for what it's worth. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 471 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:04 am Subject: [FZA Board] Saint Hill 2004 I heard from one of my spies in the UK recently that SH now has 200 staff, with around 40 at Flag training to be sups and NOTs auditors. I know that when I visited SH in February 2003 it was pretty busy, certainly busier than Februaries in the 80s when I was there. Do you ever look in on them, Nick? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 472 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:24 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Once Upon A Time... ...there was a little village, and after a hard day's work some of the villagers would gather around in a local tavern and talk about this and that and they generally got on well with each other and everything was just fine. One day a stranger appeared. The villagers, friendly and generous as they were, bid welcome to the stranger and invited him in to share their discussions. His viewpoints were a little strange sometimes, but he was civil enough, so they let him share their table, thinking that the spice was beneficial. But after a while, they noticed that the discussions were becoming filled with rancor, which had been a rarity before. And after this had gone on for a while, they decided to oust the stranger from their midst and bid him adieu and not come back. He left cursing. The next day the stranger returned. He was wearing his hair differently. The villagers very rapidly saw that it was the same stranger, but they were possessed by the sweetness of the ale they were drinking, and they welcomed him into their circle once more. They tried to include him in their conversation, but again his strange viewpoints confused them. Still, he was civil again, so they tolerated him. But soon the rancor started up, and after a while it grew to be too much, so they sent him away forever. He left cursing. The next day the stranger came back. He was wearing a green hat this time and wielded a strange power, for they welcomed him into their circle, forgetting completely what had happened before. He was civil at first, although he refused to explain his strange ways when politely requested by the villagers, and grew abusive again. Finally he was thrown out and told never to darken their door again. He left cursing. The next day.... -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 473 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Digest Number 166 On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 16:59:20 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > I would hope that OT1 is still delivered the way LRH wrote it in his own > handwriting, but nevertheless there is a "New OT1" that is typed but not > formatted as one would expect an official HCOB to be. Not even with the name > of L Ron Hubbard on it. It is as follows: > > NEW OT 1 INSTRUCTIONS > > 0. Make a list of terminals who have had ARC Breaks, PTPs or have committed > overts against you to Fly Ruds on them. > > 1. Assess the first terminal and if reading on ARCX then fly Rud to F/N. > > eg: Mother > > "Does ( Mother ) have an ARC Break with me?" > If reading, then ARCU, CDEINR E/S to F/N, VGIs and no more reads. > > 2. Assess SAME terminal for PTP and if reading fly Rud to F/N. > eg: Mother > > "Does ( Mother ) have a Present Time Problem with me?" > If reading, then Itsa E/S Itsa to F/N VGIs and no more reads. > > 3. Assess SAME terminal for W/Hs and if reading fly Rud to F/N. > eg: Mother > > "Does ( Mother ) have a Withhold from me?" > If reading, then get What, When, All, Who to F/N, VGIs and no more reads. > > Then take the NEXT terminal from your list and do 1 to 4 on IT. > Do this action until you have a big win, persistent F/N and cognition on > doing the action. > > Good Luck! It is a degrade of "OT Levels" to call that "OT1". It is not from any HCOB I've seen or heard of. It certainly isn't the OT1 that replaced the 13-step objective one. I assume it's something some FZer invented. It might be useful in its own way, but if it is being labeled "OT1" because of some assumed equivalence to the current version, it is a misnomer. The current CofS "New OT1", introduced around 1982, after flying Quad Ruds starts similarly. The pre-OT, on the meter, lists out terminals who are or have been antagonistic to him, noting the reads as he lists (not an L&N list). This list goes to the C/S. Note that if anyone is going to have some pre-OT do this, unless the pre-OT has been well-drilled and well-coached in this action of listing (not L&N) items solo and noting all reads, it will get screwed up. I say this as a very experienced solo supervisor. Without getting into the exact mechanics, each reading terminal is run in a series of problems processes, just regular, ordinary Grade 1-type problems processes, the best-reading terminal first. There are ten or twenty processes detailed on the level. Each process is taken to a normal EP. The charged terminal is taken to an EP. It might take ten processes and five or ten hours to EP a terminal, although it might be quicker. Then the next terminal is run on the first problems process. Then on the second process. Then on the third process. And so on until that terminal is EP'd. Then the next terminal similarly. And so on. The flying ruds-type action on antagonistic terminals is a whisk-broom key-out type of approach, not the heavy TA-draining action of the full problems processes. Whether or not this series of actions should be called an "OT Level" is debatable. If one was trying to justify the label, it does deal with the thing/counter-thing of GPMs. However, I think it belongs in the OT Preps area, as it has more the character of Grade 1 or a PTS RD/Suppressed Person RD than the R6-dramo-handling or entity-handling or thetan-drilling of the other published solo Levels (OT8 excepted). It was put into the line-up at a time when many Dn Clears were getting onto the OT Levels with incomplete set-ups and not doing very well, and at a time after the Sunshine RD had been introduced. The OT1 it replaced was a relatively lightweight level, and it was a way of getting this de-PTSing done without "invalidating the Dn Clear" and making it look like he was going back down the Grace Chart instead of up. That's my take on it all. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 474 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:01 pm Subject: {FZA Board] Once Upon A Time... My little story was intended to draw attention to the irrational actions of some posters here being apparently happy to see the anonymous one banned, then being apparently happy to see him immediately back using a different anonymous nick, as if it were somehow a different person. I didn't do a careful analysis of exactly who appeared to have been flip-flopping. If anyone objects to the generality of "some posters here", then they are welcome to post such an analysis. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 475 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:46 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Briefing Course Checksheets Thanks, XXXX. I have some further questions, about "specialist courses" like the EST Rundown one or the FPRD. Such specialist course checksheets must contain in the Theory section, whoever writes them, official CofS or FZer, the new HCOBs (new at the time) that deal specifically with the things that haven't been released before. For example, process commands, and the new theory they are based on, or more likely the old theory they are based on. Accompanying those would be a second category of items: the previously issued HCOBs/Tapes/Book Chapters etc. that specifically cover the areas that need to be emphasized to see the rundown in its proper context. Plus any practical drills that might need special emphasis, maybe reading through an F/N for instance. That would be the essential stuff. On top of that would be third-category items stemming from considerations like, "Jesus, it would only take an experienced Grad V half a day to do that stuff apart from the auditing requirements, so we have to pad it out with some other stuff that looks like it belongs there so it doesn't seem like a rip-off to charge $2000 for this whole new course." It would seem to me that the third category of items could easily be left off an honest version, but the first two categories of items couldn't. To just insert the new issues at the relevent chronological point in the checksheet is easy, but it would miss out on the extra-emphasis items that might have been studied scattered over a year or two of real time when the student did the earlier BC checksheets. I like the principle of *everything* (within reason, as clarified in my earlier post) being on the checksheets, but it seems wrong to me to leave out that second category of item. I would be inclined to suggest that any new BC checksheets include the issues in their correct chronological place, without the additional second category of re-emphasized old items. The auditing requirements would require a similar quantity of auditing of that new rundown as other rundowns on the level. Then, on the Class VI Internship, at the point that particular rundown is addressed, maybe those second-category items could be studied then. I know an Internship isn't for studying new theory, but they would be items that had been studied on the BC already anyway, just not all together. I really don't know how a Class VI Internship traditionally works. Does one just high-crime [*rate and word-clear Method 4] all the "key" issues that haven't already been high-crimed; then audit until one can do high-volume flubless hours of everything on the level, say all rundowns and repairs below Solo? From your experience, what do you think? Would that work regarding the specialist rundowns, or do you think they should just be done separately?






Message 476 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:14 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Once Upon A Time.... > Be sensible now and find a more appreciative audience somewhere else. > Don't waste your time here among this rabble. Hmmm. Looks like time for a new name.... -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 477 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 7:33 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Briefing Course Checksheets On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:59:28 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote: > I would say that an early checksheet, approved by > LRH is the right action. One has the basics solidly, > and the history of the tech development. Well, if no-one else is going to respond.... Do you know of such a checksheet, XXXX? I don't even know of one existing in theory, let alone, "Oh yes, Ethel's got one in her memorabilia drawer." -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 478 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Briefing Course Checksheets On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 05:12:23 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote: > > What about the original first BC? Didn't LRH write > a checksheet for that? Or at least approve it? > That is a very reasonable assumption. It's just that I've never seen one or heard of one. I recall an LRH checksheet for the "Hubbard Causative Leadership Course" in an LRH ED, and that's it. Maybe there are more LRH checksheets, but I don't know of any. > There is a HCOPL 1972 checksheet,cancelled and > revised in 1975 by a BPL. ( didn't know that was > possible) There were issues not written by LRH, issued as HCOPLs and HCOBs, with the author correctly noted. I'm not talking about issues that say they were written by LRH but were in fact written by others, just ones plainly written by others. Then the Board Policy Letters and Board Technical Bulletins came out, I think shortly after the Tech Correction Round-up HCOB (1975?), which drew attention to this authorship fact and "made it illegal" for others to issue things in LRH's name or on his color-flash (red-on-white or green-on-white or blue-on-white). One of the results was that BPLs began canceling HCOPLs, but only those issued with others credited as author. So it was really BPLs canceling "otherPLs" and not BPLs canceling HCOPLs. > This seems to be a combined level 5 and SHBC > checksheet. Not sure what class 5 meant back then. > > It has the R factor that the class 5 checksheet is > a theory checksheet which the SHBC student studies > during > the first part of the day. The class VI checksheet is > done during the second part of the day and consists of > practical drills and auditing. I'm not sure about that Class V designation either. I think it was a back-formation. Maybe someone could look it up in an OEC Vol 4, which should contain the timeline of the designations. I believe Class VI indicated an auditor who could handle the R6 stuff, 1964 R6 not 1967 R6. When Power was introduced, since Class VI was a pre-req, it made sense to call it Class VII, even though it handled Grade 5 (Power). Classes 0-IV matched Grades 0-4, but I don't know if that pre-dated or post-dated the Class VI designation. Class V wasn't attached to anything in the 60s, as far as I know. Then someone probably noticed that there was a gap at 5 and decided to attach it to something for aesthetic reasons. I remember in the mid-70s there was a checksheet change: the SHSBC became the "SHSBC", which covered "all" the materials up to 1965, and the "Senior SHSBC", which covered all the rest. The reason for this was possibly monetary. At SH at the time the SHSBC was being sold for 275 pounds, and by breaking it up like this it made it possible to sell it for #550, or #275 each. Then the label "Class V" went with the SHSBC, and "Class VI" with the Senior SHSBC. Also, with all the new issues that kept coming out, there must have been hundreds that would have to be added by hand to the checksheets, so it would have been time for a new checksheet in order to make the additions look official and not so sloppy. There may have been other reasons that prompted the change. Then the next checksheet evolution divided the course up into many levels, not just two, and once again "Class V" became orphaned with nothing to attach itself to. Then NED came out. Sometime after that, possibly with the introduction of the Grade Chart change that put Dianetics (NED) after the Grades instead of before, NED became Grade V in effect (although not in name as Power was called Grade V and the name was too well-entrenched) and a graduate of the NED Course became a Class V. Around the same time, I believe, all the repair actions got lumped into a "Grad V" course, which was smart. It provided a formal course an auditor could do to get those skills, instead of just high-criming a large number of issues, and gave a recognizable label and status to auditors who could do them. Then a bit later all the Class IV orgs were renamed Class V orgs, and maybe should have been called "Class Grad V" orgs, but that's getting a bit unwieldy. And now "Class V" could never be changed as it is in there too solidly. It found a home at last. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 479 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:31 pm Subject: Re: Don't Feed the Trolls XXXX: "I actually think that now would be a good time to monitor who posts if they're gonna keep coming in on various isp's." Presumably Mike did what he thought he could. He has said that he doesn't want to restrict the board to registered posters only, and obviously whatever ISP-banning choices he has available aren't sufficient. A way to get rid of people you don't want around is to make nothing of them and thereby invalidate them. But directing a communication at someone and saying "You ..." can be both validation and invalidation. The mere fact of recognizing their existence is validation, whatever one says. Definition 4 of "Invalidation" in the Tech Dictionary starts off "basically, non-attention". It is the same as "religious shunning". If such a "non-person" stands in front of you, you look right through him. If he blocks your way you treat the obstacle as if it were a thing of no import. I have had it happen to me after I left the SO: some (not all) people who had been my friends for years would not acknowledge my existence when I stood right by them. The shunned person does not feel comfortable at all as he can cause no effect: it's like being a dead person in a movie like "Ghost" and not being able to communicate to the living. The solution is to move somewhere else where one gets attention. Any poster on this board who even acknowledges the existence of a specific troll is feeding him. That includes me, to the extent that I am posting this message, although I am being as non-specific as I can. If it were my board, I would: 1. Post a message like this to my loyal customers; 2. Delete any persistent troll's future posts as soon as I could; 3. Delete any persistent troll's past posts, maybe ten or so a day until he stopped posting; i.e. if he stops posting now the board will still contain his past posts and at least his past words, but if he continues to post then they will daily dwindle in number until they are all gone; 4. If that doesn't handle it, set it up so that ALL posts go through a moderator. It doesn't have to just be one person, but the moderator would have the instruction to filter out ONLY that person's posts, in his best judgment. Then there would be the dancing-girls to distract people from the housecleaning! -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 480 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Briefing Course Checksheets On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:34:00 -0500, XXXX wrote: > It's rare I say something here but I agree with that too! > > > > > > > Very well sed, XXXX. I agree. > > > > > >> Today's freezoners ( I can't speak for members of the church) with > >> their > >> "I want it all now, and I don't want to pay for it, and I won't > >> expend > >> any effort to get it" attitude, leave me speechless. I worked hard > >> to do > >> the courses; I paid my dues. Just because someone can download 3 > >> gigs of > >> data from some site in Europe doesn't make the data more available > >> or > >> assimilable. If you haven't audited PCs in the bathroom at a > >> delapidated > >> ASHO, audited into the night to end on a win, practiced and > >> practiced > >> your craft, you really have nothing to give. Reading words and > >> demoing > >> them with paperclips is not a substittute for practical seat of the > >> pants > >> authority. With all this agreement going on, maybe someone could explain to me what point is being made. I agree that some people want something for nothing; that is not a new phenomenon. And of course some things have to be learned the hard way and earned the hard way and there is no substitute for experience. "Today's freezoners" is a big generality. It includes me, bb, Ed, LR, and Powlow too. Am I being accused of wanting it all for free and not being willing to expend any effort? Is bb? Pierre? Ralph? Rey? Tommy? The RO people in Europe? Two deadbeats that Ed knows? Who? This thread was started to explore the best format for a BC checksheet, or checksheets. I stated that it should have lots of auditing on it. Has anyone suggested it be cut down? bb has suggested using the 1975 checksheet as a basis: I don't know what the auditing requirements of that checksheet are. Maybe someone could say. Clarification please. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 481 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:16 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Briefing Course Checksheets On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:58:58 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote: > I think tech correction round up was 1979. We'll split the difference, XXXX: it was 25 Jan 1977. I should have taken the time earlier to look it up on Google. It took less time than it has taken me to type out this paragraph. Paul -- http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 482 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:38 pm Subject: Re: Download LRH materials here.... XXXX: "I can come up with three reasons why the COS would not want this information posted in a public domain for free. 1) It cuts into their revenues. 2) It is susceptible to alteration by who ever. 3) If some one wants to study it that some one will not be subjected to their oversight. They will not have control over whether or not the some one can have the information. Fear of a Charles Manson type scenario might ensue." My comments on those points: 1) Agreed. But there is a way of doing it that would not cut into the revenues but would also get the tech out there more. See http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040917-041116.htm#^379 . 2) Not really. If all the written (including tape transcripts) materials were available for free either on CD/DVD or on a CofS website, or both, any query about whether something was "original" or not could be resolved by referring to "source". Yes, such is subject to alteration by the CofS, but that is the case in any legal scenario anyway. 3) The only situation in which the CofS has oversight now is when someone does a course at an org. There is no control over people reading books at home or listening to tapes at home, and these materials are readily available to anyone with the cash anyway. The only difference is that people with less money would be able to have ready access. Also, we're not talking about some data on how you can combine some household chemicals to make napalm. I don't see some LA Blood gang members enthusiastically learning Scn tech so they can run reverse processes on kidnapped Cripps. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 483 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:51 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Don't Feed the Trolls One more time... 1. Here's a quote, from PDC-24: "The theory of validation processing arose in 1951. It was based on this, I...I concocted it because I saw that the more you validated something, why, the stronger it got, as a basic theory." 2. Tech Dictionary definition of Invalidation: "Basically, non-attention." So, if non-attention is invalidation, then attention is validation. And the more attention you give something, the stronger it gets. "Gay Pride is good" is giving attention; "Gay Pride is bad" is giving attention; "I don't think we should talk about Gay Pride" is giving attention. If you don't want Gay Pride being promoted, then cut all mention of it off comm lines that you control. You might not be able to control the newspaper, but you can stop writing letters to the Editor about it. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 484 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:22 pm Subject: Re: Briefing Course Checksheets Thanks for your comments, XXXX. I get info'd of new posts to this board by e-mail, so I will see any that you make on any thread. If you're catching up on stuff you missed, I would suggest you at least read the recent "Don't Feed the Trolls" thread. When did you do the BC? You say you started the practical about halfway through. Is that halfway through the day or halfway through the course? I'm not being funny: I've seen both. As a general rule, I believe that all the tapes labelled as numbered "SHSBC" ones are included on current and recent BC checksheets. Do you consider all those goals tapes should be on the checksheet? I get the point about a thorough understanding of the history of assessments, and listing, and nulling, being necessary to a full appreciation of the modern techniques of assessment and L&N, as well as handling buttons and prepchecks etc., but do ALL those tapes need to be on there? I would ask a similar question about the goals HCOBs, but I don't know how many are on the checksheet at all. I'm just guessing that the Flag/Int Compilations people simply rounded up all the tapes of lectures given to BC students over the years, decided they were important from that fact alone, and that's why they are on the course. As opposed to a careful assessment of what needs to be on the course to give enough data and what should be taken off it as it detracts from the intended product rather than helping to create it. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 485 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:42 pm Subject: Re: [Spiritual Tech] session notes On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:51:27 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > this has been a problem for Scientologists who keep complicated > notes. i would like to introduce "hy-speed longhand". this was > office proven in the 1930s until "shorthand" took over dictation. > books can still be found, i have one. it is easy to learn and use. I've been lurking on this list for a week or so. I've read most of the PEAT manual. I don't have any PEAT practical experience yet, but I am familiar with acupuncture points and meridians and so on from "Touch for Health" and other areas. I do have a background in Scientology. And have spoken with XXXX recently. With regard to session notes, it all depends on who needs to be understanding them at a later date. If it is just oneself, I wouldn't think it matters what system one uses, as long as one isn't going to have forgotten it in a month or year or whatever. But if one wishes the session notes to be legible to others, any shorthand system that is not intuitive is going to fall down on that point. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 486 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:16 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] IDEAL HUMAN DIET RESEARCH ? On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:06:20 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > > As LRH > says - "Almost all mammals live about six times their period of > growth. Man lives only three and one-third times his growth period. > As other mammals than man are under the same or greater stress, but > are usually uniform in diet while healthy, it can be assumed that man > has departed from his natural diet." Well, here is an answer you probably weren't expecting. In the above quote, LRH is making the assumption that Man as a creature could be considered in similar ways to regular animal mammals, and rules that apply to mammals could be applied to the bodily aspects of men. It is a natural enough assumption to make. Later research has some different ideas, though. Take a look at this essay, for instance: http://www.lloydpye.com/A-Literal.htm It is very credible, as is the book he wrote that expands on the essay. It probably won't help you with your diet, but it might answer some other questions. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 487 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 25, 2004 7:19 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Cover of 8-8008 ? On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:18:20 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > Hullo - this may be annoying, like a child asking what the grown-ups > are talking about, but could someone elaborate as to just what they > feel the angel & the soldier represent on the cover of LRH's 8- > 8008. Is the angel infinite beingness, energy? & the soldier MEST - > condensed energy? You can get more data by searching in Google Groups with the search terms "Ziff R6 symbols" (without the quote marks). There's an LRH tape called "Symbols", about some OT3 data, but I doubt if reading those messages on Google will cave anyone in. I heard the tape in the early 80s, but I don't have a copy of it or know of anyone outside the SO with a copy. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 488 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 26, 2004 1:18 am Subject: [FZA Board] Briefing Course Checksheets I happened to glance through a current CofS Level M BC checksheet recently. It wasn't surprising, but I'm just noting what I recall being on it for the record. It was letter size, not legal size, about half an inch thick, spiral-bound. It contained issues about word-clearing correction, FDSing, NED, CCRD, GF 40, and other stuff I forget. No practical [i.e. auditing] at all, just theory, as expected. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 489 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:11 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Cover of 8-8008 ? On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:56:38 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > > --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, Paul Adams > wrote: > > You can get more data by searching in Google Groups with the search > > terms "Ziff R6 symbols" (without the quote marks). > Hey FZglobalguy - (yr photo sure is impressively scary! Like > something outa Battlefield Earth & I am in the rare few that do not > disparage said movie.) Thanks for that link ref. I just did a > search on that suggestion and it gives this - > > http://www.fza.org/doc101.html > > not good but something anyway. What happened?! Even bigger booger > men?! Try that Google search again in Google Groups, not Google Web. I hope you are referring to the animated photo on the Freezone America Discussion board at http://www.freezoneamerica.org/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi and not the static version on my main website! -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 490 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:32 pm Subject: Re: CofS Stats XXXX wrote: "erm...mebbe they never heard of paypal?" They probably haven't. Many of my non-staff friends, who are not especially Net-savvy although they go online frequently, hadn't when I asked. Including non-Scn ones as well, not just churchies with Net-phobia. Just like they hadn't ever even looked on eBay. The SO guys like those receiving the IHELP weekly reports probably don't have more than regular e-mail access, and maybe not even that. What I mean by "even that" is that maybe all e-mail goes through an HCO person acting as a filter, who vets it to make sure it's not entheta. An intended recipient of an e-mail could just get a printout in their comm basket. Those IHELP reports would maybe get printed out hard-copy anyway, as the stats given on each would have to be aggregated by hand into grand totals in different weekly categories, and the reports either filed by individual group or electronically scanned and the record saved that way. Anyone know how staff e-mail access works these days? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 491 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 26, 2004 4:48 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Election Fraud From ABC News today: QUOTE: Bush, speaking to reporters covering his vacation visit here, said he hopes a clear and credible winner would emerge. "There's just a lot of allegations of vote fraud that placed the result of the election in doubt," he said as he entered a restaurant near his ranch. UNQUOTE And one from Colin Powell in the same ABC story: QUOTE "We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse," Powell said in a statement read to reporters. UNQUOTE Of course, they are referring to recent events in the Ukraine, and not the US. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 492 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 26, 2004 9:43 pm Subject: Paul Gets Declared at Last It's not like I wasn't expecting this to happen sometime. Do you think they didn't like my 500 FZ posts? Maybe it was the OT3 checksheet. My "Sorry for the CofS" site perhaps? I got a letter from the Continental Justice Chief West US today, saying that per Senior HCO WUS Ethics Order 230 dated November 22, 2004 I had been declared an SP. The letter was dated the same day, three days ago. With true efficiency, she didn't include a copy of the issue, so now I will write back and ask for a copy for my records, saying if it isn't written it isn't true and if she doesn't mail me one soon I'll just have to walk in the front door at CLO WUS (or whatever they call it now) and ask for one. I would be civil, polite even, as always, but they might not see it in that light. This changes the Ground Rules a bit, per my post webbed at: http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040717-040816.htm#^295 . In that post, "the neighbors" refers to the CofS, in case anyone is wondering. As far as I remember, the supposed purpose of an SP Declare is twofold: first to warn the group members to stay away from this person as he suppresses others, i.e. reduces their survival potential; and secondly (and less importantly) to help the SP see exactly what he is doing, i.e. insane dramatizations, so that he can come to his senses and knock it off and do the actions needed to get back into good graces. The written ethics order should also contain enough specifics so that the group members can see that the declare is just, and possibly will blow charge for them as it will align with their observations of that person. I often thought it would be useful to list out the general characteristics of the social and anti-social personality on such an order, and characterize the declaree's behavior with many specific observations. However, that never happens on an ethics order as if the person displays more social characteristics than anti-social ones, it makes the issuing authority look silly. So they usually just lie about it, which doesn't blow charge for anyone as it doesn't align with anything except previous false declares. In my case, they could easily just state the unvarnished truth: it's all documented on my web site. There is plenty there which violates the rules and is of sufficient magnitude to warrant a declare. We won't split hairs here on whether they or I are doing the more suppressing. When I get a copy I'll let you know how accurate it is. But back at the ranch.... I am not going to promote this on my own lines with churchie friends at all. I am talking about it here with my FZ friends, but that's different, as it is just something to talk about here and is not really entheta. But for me to promote it on my own lines outside the FZ would be silly. The announcement isn't going to blow any charge for anyone: it's just going to enturbulate people who know me. My actions don't fit those SP characteristics all carefully laid out in that PTS/SP Course the CofS is pushing people to do again. Again. Of course, one way or another they will all find out sooner or later and will all disconnect, either from me or from the CofS, depending on which way things go. That won't be a big deal for me, as I don't have any family or real close friends who are churchies, not now anyway. This forces my hand a bit, in that I will obviously be moving soon. Maybe I can't be legally thrown out by my landlord, but digging my heels in isn't going to enhance anyone's life, mine included. And only an SP would enjoy watching others suffer. :) But what then? Let me guess what the situation will be like six months from now: 1. I will be working in some capacity delivering the tech in the FZ much more than I am at the moment. I had been restraining myself somewhat as I didn't want to have lots of FZ phone calls and lots of FZ visitors talking loudly and upsetting my roommates. 2. All my churchie friends will have found out about it, and will be disturbed because although I have some weird ideas I probably seem like a nice, sensible guy to most of them. 3. Maybe I will have started posting to ars or other forums. The only FZers I'm aware of that post there are Fluffy and bb. There is sometimes some sensible and interesting commentary there in among all the hoo-hah. 4. On top of that, maybe I will be talking to churchies about the benefits of leaving the CofS and getting services in the FZ. I haven't been doing that at all up to now, except to one ex-friend who threw in his lot with the CofS and prompted my coming out openly in the FZ. Overall, I will have benefited; the FZ will have benefited; and the CofS will have lost even more ground. Way to go, guys! -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 493 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Nov 26, 2004 11:23 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Paul Gets Declared at Last XXXX: "Welcome to the club, Paul. We're an elite group." Thanks, XXXX. This will be fun! -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 494 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 27, 2004 2:18 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Paul Gets Declared at Last On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 01:57:52 -0800, XXXX wrote: > > Ah-hah! Another good man lost for good from the Church! Of course, as you > will soon learn in your upcoming briefing, my fine Anglo friend, you have > joined the group that works for the greatest good of all dynamics. The group > that Ron foresaw rising up and taking over the task at hand, the only game > worth playing. Here in the growing and unstoppable FREEZONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Viva la Revolucion! That's a possibility. Alternatively, I could find $200,000 and give it to them as an exchange for me being allowed to work 100-hour weeks for them for 20+ years; get a bunch more money and pay it in so I could redo all my training from the bottom up; completely unmock the Freezone and get everybody back onto Church lines as a bonus before I did any further advanced courses; and be considered a complete dog by both sides while doing that. Hmmmmmm. Decisions...decisions.... -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 495 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:34 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Fair Game For once, I am in full agreement with XXXX here also. I remember being touched by the compassion shown in one of the R/Sers HCOBs when it came out, in terms of treating SPs decently (it was the one about not vilifying such persons). That was the point I first realized it would be a good thing to do. It is most powerfully expressed, to me, in the biblical "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 496 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:38 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Paul Gets Declared at Last XXXX: "I offered Rey at Freezone WW in Reno, $200 to fly you up and see if you would like work there." You did?!! Well, thank you very much. I will be going up to take a look in a few days (seriously). -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 497 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:46 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Paul Gets Declared at Last XXXX: "Doesn't Paul want to supe R3X? Dunno if Rey would go for that. BC for shure, tho." Some people are able to control their environment to such an extent that they can impose their will on all those around them. I belong to a lesser band of mortals and make various compromises in order to get by. If I had been inundated with requests from people falling over themselves to learn R3X it might be a different story. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 498 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Paul Gets Declared at Last On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:38:35 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote: > > Then something I never considered. Yeah, needs a > Kamikazi, but these declares open up COS for libel > actions? Am I right? I was thinking a similar thing just before I read this. Legally, you are probably right, if it is blatant enough. I would be very unlikely to attempt a libel action though, even if warranted. If one won such an action, with all its Pyrrhic ramifications, there may be some compensatory financial reward but the real damage would have been done. Although the piece of paper might make it into print, the CofS would never publish a retraction that would have the same travelling power as the original chunk of juicy gossip. Who could enforce a court order like that? Who would oversee the distribution of the issue, even, let alone the word of mouth? The one benefit might be that if anyone did win such an action, then the CofS would be more careful in the future to write defensible damning statements, but I doubt if decency would figure into it much. I just look on it as part of the cost of doing business as an SP, so to speak. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 499 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:21 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Excalibur and "Thelemic Alchemy" On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 01:49:30 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > Yes, indeed, but to be somewhat technical, it is not theoretically > against Scientology Ethics to make a chart of "correspondences", as > it is only against Ethics to actually "mix" or consolidate > information with standard tech. That "theoretically" is a big word. You might win an argument along those lines in a FZ forum, but not in any CofS Ethics Office. Anyway, it's interesting stuff, XXXX. Thanks for the different viewpoint. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 500 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 27, 2004 7:41 pm Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Paul Gets Declared at Last XXXX: Good luck with the transition, and I hope you make a lot of new friends (to replace the ones who will be afraid to talk to you). PS. Your old friends are still your friends, they are just far away from you. Artificial distance. Like they moved to China. Thanks, XXXX. I think I'll do just fine with acquiring new friends to replace the old ones, from what I've seen so far. China can be a long way off, sometimes, even with instantaneous communication readily available. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 501 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Excalibur and "Thelemic Alchemy" On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 04:53:32 -0000, XXXX wrote: > "Ethics" is the root of the mysterious word "XINU", > which is taken from Magick, not science fiction, and its processes > are very real and as well as somewhat frightening (similar to the > natural processes of killing another animal violently for food). "XI" > is the roman numeral for 11, the number of "NU" (Dark Goddess), which > is essentally the counterpart of the Thetan aside from MEST. "XINU" > is, by correspondence, negative-charged Theta. Liber (XI) NU, > or "XINU", is actually a set of "negative charged" theta handling > processes. In theory, one could actually "absorb" anothers "theta", > (in Magick it is termed "soul-ripping"), which involves laying on top > of a person and through various processes actually absorbing thier > Theta. The book, Liber "XI NU", is primarily designed to transcend > reason and annihilate self-limiting ethics/beliefs. "XINU" is > therefore the destructor of ethics, enemy of body(s), and creator of > the reactive mind, and (native state) of the implanter. Fascinating, Steve. Do any of the following names of people have any Magickal connotations? I took them from "Revolt in the Stars": Ap Arn Ax Chi Chu Dahn Min Mish Mol Rawl Sna Sten Stug Sty Tonlin Tring (Xenu) Zel (or Zell) I deliberately did not give any context. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 502 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:58 am Subject: [FZA Board] Re: Briefing Course Checksheets XXXX: "But I may be misunderstanding here - are you saying that all the new "Tech Specialist Courses" (FPRD, EST, Asthma, etc.) be included in this wise on the BC checksheets? If so, I'd suggest that the BC should be to make a flubless VI auditor, able to handle any normal grade chart action and repair." Thanks for all that data, XXXX. I'm nearly done--just a bit more. I did start off with the idea that the BC should enable one to audit everything, but your comments gave me pause. I am very familiar with sec-checking tech, from the time I spend supervising the Sec-Checker school in NWC, personally doing the course and spending some time on the internship, which I didn't complete. One can learn to do sec-checking on Class 2; and on the BC; and on the HSSC and Internship, each one being more thorough than the previous one. It makes sense that a few of those specialist courses should remain intact, per your suggestion. I'm going to pick this up later when I've dug up some more data elsewhere. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 503 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:02 pm Subject: [FZA Board]{FreezoneOrg] Re: Paul Gets Declared at Last Just thought I'd keep my friends up to date with the latest happenings in this new little chapter of the SPosphere [ess-pee'-us-fear]. I had noticed that my house has been rather quiet for the past couple of days, and guessed what was going on. This morning I went to speak to my landlord, Ron Yoder, at his invitation. The other Scios in the house had been ordered to move out until I left. They are currently sleeping on couches, etc., which isn't too comfortable. Ron was concerned that if I stayed beyond the end of the month, even for another 60 days at least, as I could legally do, it would cost him a lot of money in missed rent as the other tenants would just find somewhere else to live. I kept to myself the observation that if the CofS had said to those concerned, "Hi there, because of blah-blah-blah, we're going to declare Paul in four weeks' time on ____, and you can interact with him somewhat normally until then in order to wrap up incomplete cycles, but after that time it's Shunsville," then all this inconvenience could have been avoided. But no, they had to do their thing. To me it evokes pictures of villagers cowering behind barred doors and shuttered windows; a few brave souls daring to peer out through the cracks; and the bravest huddled together terrified in the village square carrying flaming torches, led by the stalwart priest fortified by the thrice-blessed holy water and saint's relics, and confronting the visiting fiend from the nether world with silver crosses thrust out in the vain hope that he will flinch back and do them no harm. Lightning fractures the sky while thunder crashes all around. A full symphony orchestra stationed behind the church bell-tower plays menacing music. The rains torrents down, but doesn't put out the torches. Or squelch the percussion section. Meanwhile the Evil One is thinking, "Jesus Christ, can't a guy just take a quiet leak around here?" And the more a certain kind of behavior is demanded, the more it gets presented. Punkt! Whoosh! Splat! I guess I'm too new at this game, as I was very agreeable and said I'd move out by the end of the month. Ron is being very decent, giving me a ride over to the storage place, arranging a guy to help with the heavy lifting, offered any other help I needed, and offered some cash too. I'll accept the cash, but will probably give him some of it back later, when all the blood and guts have been shoveled and mopped up and I can see the whole cycle in proper perspective and can figure out what is fair. So I'll be homeless in a couple of days. Rather than living under a local underpass, I'll be visiting Reno to see if I will fit in, and if that looks promising I'll shift all my gear up there. Thanks again to the CofS for forcing this change and probable expansion of the FZ. It's happening much sooner than it would have without their help. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 504 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Dec 2, 2004 11:30 pm Subject: [FZA Board] [After MUCH posting to and from the main troll, who is now being as obnoxious as ever] Man, I go away for a couple of days and this feeding frenzy develops. Do all you guys really have such short memories? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 505 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Dec 3, 2004 11:06 am Subject: Re: [formerscio] Fwd: IVySubs: freezone entry assistance On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 08:17:57 -0800, XXXX wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: I am relatively new to the Freezone, and I had similar questions and frustration at not being able to quickly find out what was available. It's one thing to hear that so-and-so delivers "Sciodinics", but quite another to find out what it is in terms that are understandable to someone with a frame of reference based in LRH tech. To remedy that lack, I created a comparison checklist, a "Basic Elements of Standard Tech" checklist. I started off by breaking down Standard Tech into its various parts, then looking at different groups--including the CofS--and seeing how they measured up in terms of delivering 100% Standard Tech. I just started with four different "groups": 1) the CofS cicra 1975, 2) the CofS in PT, 3) A hypothetical "typical" FZ practitioner delivering the usual Grade Chart stuff 4) Robert Ducharme, as an example of a non-typical FZer delivering something pretty much based on standard tech but generally considered "squirrel tech" by FZers. By adding up the points, I was able to quantify how "standard" these different entities are/were. I added in columns for other FZ techs like ROs, TROM, PEAT etc., as I really wanted to know what these were about. I asked some people, but no-one was willing to help me fill out the column, so they are blank still. A later refinement of the checklist was to add a weighting factor to the scoring on each point, as some items (like no inval/eval in session) are more important that other items (e.g. Is full clearing of word lists done in session per HCOB Clearing Commands?). That was all several months ago, and I haven't touched the checklist since. I am more familiar with TROM and PEAT now, and to do them justice I would have to make some major changes to the checklist. Some people may find the idea and data useful. The checklist is webbed at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/comparison.htm and the quantified results are available via a link at the bottom of that page. There is also considerable discussion about the checklist, and I have webbed some of it here (make sure you let the page load fully}: http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040617-040716.htm#^176 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040617-040716.htm#^038 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040617-040716.htm#^041 http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040617-040716.htm#^045 I hope this helps. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 506 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 12:14 pm Subject: Re: [formerscio] Fwd: IVySubs: freezone entry assistance On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 19:09:24 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > Not sure that FZers generally consider R3XD itself to be squirrel. > It is pretty solidly based on LRH tech after all. > > Some do have arguments about how Robert applies it - which though > somewhat related - is not quite the same kettle of fish. That's a refreshingly accurate distinction, XXXX. I'm quite willing to be wrong here, but I think that few FZers who know something about R3X have made the same distinction. The few I have spoken to about it in person thought that the telephone/telepathy aspect was an inseparable part of standard R3X procedure and it was news to them when I told them it could just be run face to face like any other Dn procedure. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 507 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 6:01 am Subject: Re: [formerscio] Fwd: IVySubs: freezone entry assistance On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:01:52 +0100, XXXX wrote: > > For a person who has a concept of an all-one-ness composed of > individual viewpoints, the underlying principle of ALL case > is certainly the principle of fragmentation. > > Somebody who - in present time - is so solidly fragmented > that everybody else is most certainly perceived outside of > himself, must understand the idea of a "composite case". > > The key question is always "How big am I?" > > The current "skin" around awareness of awareness units makes > for the distinction between fragmented case (smaller than "me", > or units inside "me") and composite case (bigger than "me", or > units outside "me"). > > Somebody not used to these concepts may be surprised that there > are different viewpoints (entities, identities, CBR's "body org") > inside himself, or in other words, that he is not homogenous. > > He may be even more surprised that whole dynamics - a family, > village, town, country, even a planet - have a layer of > consciousness in common which can be addressed in session > as an identity or a oneness. > > In the mind of a computer programmer, all this is totally > simple. He would see it as recursive creation of viewpoints. > > Recursive = a function calls itself. > > In nature, this is what a tree does. Out of one root comes > one sprout. It sprouts, say, three branches. As the tree > grows, each of these branches sprout twigs, and so on, > until we have the classic image of a tree. > > An awareness of awareness unit at the outer level could say > "I am a twig" or "I am a branch" or "I am the tree", and all > of these statements would be true. It's a question of its > awareness horizon (how far it looks) or "how big am I?" > whether it would have an awareness of other twigs or branches > being part of the same "me". > > However, in processing, each of the splitting points where > individuals separate from each other would have to be taken > in consideration, because some of the self determinism that > the root has goes forth into each of the branches. Processing > works only if that piece of self determinism is honored when > the attempt is made to change a condition. > > A condition could be roughly defined as a the vibratory state > (tone level) of a certain space regarding a certain subject. > The self determinism controlling that space must be called > in order to start/change/stop anything contained in it > at a chosen (not dictated) time. Very interesting, Heidrun. Could you explain more about the last three paragraphs? I follow what you are saying up to there, but then it gets a bit hazy for me. I (erroneously) tend to equate "me" with my body, because that is the most obvious limit of my self-determinism, broadly speaking. I can direct my right little toe to wiggle (or not) and it wiggles (or not) on cue, mostly. I can't get, say, Arnold Schwartzenegger to wiggle (or not) on cue, so consider him as separate from me, although in an analytical way I could consider us both as part of a larger unity. What processing are you referring to? How does one "honor" that piece of extruded self-determinism? What do you mean by "calling" self-determinism here? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 508 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] confused On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:25:24 -0000, XXXX wrote: > Good question. I don't believe there is such an animal as an "organically-based illness". An illness has roots in organic factors (such as toxins, parasites, genetic imperfections, complications from physical injuries like breaking a leg) as well as spiritual/energetic factors (such as upsets, engrams, subtle energy manifestations, intentions to harm self, others' thoughts etc.}. Some of these factors may be clear and some may be very subtle. Holistic methods that try to address all the factors are in the right ballpark, although any specific practitioner may or may not have enough tools available to do the job well. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 509 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg]ADHD - should it be treated? On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 20:03:46 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > The essence of ADD, as far as I am concerned and the essence of ADHD > (in my opinion) is dispersal of attention. I'm just taking a stab in the dark here. As a course supervisor, I commonly observed that a student would have his interest and attention on something, then he would go by a misunderstood something, or see something that triggered an earlier misunderstood something, and his attention would instantly disperse off the original item of interest onto something else. One would note the dispersal as an indicator, and if he didn't catch it himself, then go in and handle it by locating the misunderstood something or the earlier restimulated misunderstood something. It is tempting to make the mental leap that if someone continually has their attention getting dispersed off things, then maybe there is a chain of misunderstood somethings at work, and if these misunderstood somethings could be located and cleared up, then maybe the dispersals would lessen and eventually disappear. Even just locating the misunderstood something(s) would help. One can get fixated into written words or symbols on a page as being the only things that can be misunderstood, but I don't see why similar phenomena could not be caused by other items. What happens when most people see things in life they don't understand? Or things they invent explanations for? The parallels with types of m/u seem interesting, but I haven't done a serious study of it. A young child lacking knowledge of the world around him would naturally be surrounded by misunderstood things. Could this possibly contribute to why he has a "short attention span"? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 510 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 11:37 pm Subject: [Freezone@googlegroups] fzglobal joins fzww Well, here I am up in Reno. I've been here a week, and the snow is melting fast. It's been quite a shock after LA, but I hear it will be fairly warm tomorrow. I'm going to stay and help Rey out, supervising and stuff. I might stay permanently. I might not. We'll see. Rey's got lots of exciting stuff planned. Stay tuned. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 511 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:31 am Subject: Legal Forms Needed Hi guys, I'm looking to put together a collection of legal docs for a FZ delivery unit: enrolment forms, release forms, non-disclosure forms for proprietary information, that kind of thing. The idea is not to have some kind of "legal" flim-flam to camouflage illegal activities, but just to get some legal ruds in, to safeguard a FZ delivery unit providing legal counseling/training services. Public comments and advice welcome, or private e-mails too. Thanks very much. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 512 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:13 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Legal Forms Needed > because any discussion on this matter and any descions made will be observed > possibly by osa and I have no desire to instruct them in how we go about > handling this sort of thing and giving them the opportunity to place stops in the > way. > XXXX I don't care if OSA views the discussion. I'm not doing anything illegal and I am not putting any attention on attacking the CofS. I believe I can out-think them in some areas but I don't kid myself that my attempts at legal things are likely to be better than a posse of $400-an-hour soulless guns-for-hire. If it comes down to a legal battle with the CofS you are in REAL big trouble. Whether or not you are right is irrelevant; even whether or not you finally win is irrelevant. However it finally plays out, the cost to you will have been enormous. I'm not interested in that kind of game. From what I can determine, with the FZ the CofS legal people are protecting their trademarks. They are required by law to do so if they want to retain them. As long as you don't misrepresent THEIR registered marks you don't get into legal trouble with the CofS, whether you are delivering Hyper-Squirrel technology or super-standard Scn technology. Deliver whatever you like, but don't label it with their marks. Let's say someone wants to get "L-10" in the field. How do they determine who to get it from? Asking around and finding out who gives good results is the only sensible way of doing it. Per Class VIII technology that's not the right way: one should inspect and ensure that the standard technology is being delivered standardly and rave results will follow automatically. But that isn't going to happen in the FZ with the current scene. In the CofS, "L-10" means something. In the field, it doesn't. Anyone can deliver some pile of crap that someone posted on the Net and (illegally) call it "L-10", so that mark is meaningless in the FZ, both legally and factually. On the other hand, "Johnny K. Johnson's Lambda-10", assuming it is consistent, means something, whether good or bad. I actually agree with the CofS policing their marks. It is legally and factually misrepresentation for a FZ unit to deliver something and call it by the original name. Within the CofS they police their marks: that's what Cramming is all about. Whether or not they always police them well is beside the point. They don't use Legal within the CofS as they don't have to; outside the CofS, Legal is all they have got. I object to some FZer delivering a pile of crap and misrepresenting it as "The Key to Life Course" or "The L-10 Rundown". It gives the subject a bad name. Do the same thing but call it "Johnny K. Johnson's Key Lime Course". That differentiates it from "Kristie J. Kreen's Keep Living Course", which may be heaps better or heaps worse. It's more honest and you don't have to worry about Moxon and Kobrin. The problem with marks in the FZ is that there is no consistency, no policing really. It's easy to get all arrogant and boast that "The Freezone is the only place where you can get Standard Tech." It may be true in places, but it is not true broadly at all, and with the current scene there is no way it could be. The only sensible way of picking a FZ service provider is asking around, comparing notes, even visiting a lot of people, getting trial sessions from people. It's a load of dev-t, but until something better is in operation, caveat emptor. Back to legal forms. As far as I can see, the CofS's purpose with legal forms is solely to protect the CofS from assholes, whether justified in their assholism or not. I'm in Reno working with Rey. Rey wants legal protection from assholes too. My view is that in the FZ it's a two-way street. Yes, the service provider should be protected from assholes, but in the FZ the client should also be protected from assholes. Radical idea. As far as I can see, what is needed in the FZ is a form that specifies a legal contract between the service provider and the client, with protection against assholes, whether on the provider side or the client side. Service providers who deliver a good product would have nothing to worry about, and should even welcome it as it will keep them on their toes. I envisage a client saying, "Hey, I'm not going to sign your one-way form. Why won't you use this fair contract? Does your tech suck that much? Were you intending to rip me off? If you won't use it I'm going to a more competent and honest provider." My main intention with this form is an upgrade of quality throughout the FZ, with protection from client assholes being the lesser goal, and protection from OSA Legal being a pipe dream. The way you protect yourself from the Government or the Mafia is you don't do things that excite their ire. Unless you have the resources of a nation, and even then it is iffy. "Protection from the CofS" is not a Legal goal, as it is impossible. If they want to tie you up in Legal, they will do so, whatever you do. Why do you think they haven't done so already? Without looking too hard, I can think of three reasons: 1. If it comes to a legal battle, they might find themselves up against a Bob Minton or a Ken Dandar or a Larry Wollersheim. If they lost a significant case, they might end up in a worse position re trademarks/copyrights than they currently hold. 2. Some SO members might think along the lines of, "Well, although these people are horrible SPs, at least they are trying to free beings, or say they are. It's not like they are electroshocking people." They have lots of critics attacking them directly to keep them busy: all we're doing--or should be doing--is delivering tech. We aren't going after the same publics: we're not even competition to them. 3. It would be a PR NIGHTMARE: a Church suing ex-members for practising the same religion! They have much more to lose than a FZer, from their viewpoint anyway. I suspect #3 is the main reason. So, no Michael, I will not discuss this backchannel as I want input from actual or potential FZ service providers and clients. My intention is to create a form that is useful for anyone in the FZ, not just for Rey and myself. I will post a separate message with a proposed form, and then collect comments after that. I haven't written a first draft yet, so it won't be in the next five minutes. In the meantime, guys, start thinking about what you would like to see in a fair contract with protection against assholes. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 513 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:02 am Subject: [Freezone][FreezoneOrg][formerscio] Course Prices How much should a course cost? There are various LRH policies stating how much auditing and training should cost in relation to the average income. In following that policy, the average income in Thailand is not the same as the average income in Saudi Arabia, so that should be taken into account. In a multi-national service environment like that of the CofS, one runs into problems with citizens of more affluent nations going to orgs of poorer nations for service in order to get the benefit of the lower prices. Sometimes there is a policy that one pays the price of the country of origin rather than the country in which the service is being given, but only when it means more money to the org and not less. The CofS has a monopoly pricing structure, whatever else it is based on, which allows a wide-ranging freedom of choice. In the FZ, people set their own prices, based on sensible parameters or by whim. But there is also a free market factor, in that if Johnny charges $5,000 for a course similar to Kristie's at $1,500, then Johnny is not likely to have a full courseroom. For several months I was kind of in charge of setting some course prices at ITO. There was an issued price list, in that ITO used Flag's prices as a basis. I don't remember if 10% was added or not. That was fine as far as it went, but there were a lot of courses that weren't on Flag's price list. Like the "Sea Org Etiquette Course", or the "Incomm Basic Computer User's Course". No cash changed hands, but these things had to be invoiced with a price on them, even though it was a no charge invoice. Then if the SO member ever left the SO before he died he could be presented with a legally uncollectable bill for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that he might possibly be hoodwinked into paying on or even paying off if he was gullible enough. So what is a defensible price for the "Sea Org Etiquette Course"? I won't use the word "fair", but "defensible" covers it. My thinking went like this: For almost all courses, the effective cost of delivery is roughly proportional to the amount of time the student spends on course. This would include normal supervision, i.e. if there were twenty students on course the student would be entitled to about 1/20th of the supervisor's time and about 1/20th of the word-clearer's time. If he needed much more personalized attention than that, he would be routed to Qual and would get some intensive one-on-one care with the Cramming Officer or Qual Word-Clearer, which would be invoiced separately at whatever the prevailing rates were. Using the Flag training price list, and the official "checksheet time" printed on the checksheet for how long the course was supposed to take, I computed the average cost per hour (actually the cost per 2 1/2 hour study period) for the listed courses. It came to about $80 or $100 per course period, if I remember correctly. So now it was easy to price courses. If the checksheet time was five study periods, then the price became $500. With longer courses, there was a discount, in that a two-week course should logically be priced at $3200 (at $100 per study period), but in reality it would be charged at $2000, say, as the "correct" figure seemed too high. In the FZ, how much should a course cost? For a routine course, like one similar to the Student Hat, I think the cost should be in two parts. First would be the basic cost, which should be roughly proportional to the length of the course. Then on top of that would be a per-day cost if the student exceeds the allotted basic time. Why? Because courseroom spaces cost money, and if Student Z spends 30 days doing a course that Students A, B, C and D get through in 10 days, then Student Z should pay for the additional resources he is consuming, not Students A, B, C and D. Why not just charge the whole thing on a per-day basis anyway? Because then Student P might try and quickie the course as every single day there would cost him more money. Similarly, the service provider might try and keep the student longer on course because that would make more money in the short-term. A flat rate which includes an amount of time in which 80% of the students can get through the course properly, with a per-day rate for time needed after that, would be fair. Why 80%. Because 80/20 seems to be a general ratio for that kind of thing. What if the student needs extensive personal attention? It depends on how many students are in the courseroom and what other demands there are on the sup's and word-clearer's time. If there are five students in the courseroom and four are flying and one needs extensive word-clearing, no problem. The courseroom word-clearer needs someone to word-clear, so the non-flying student can get lots of attention. If there are twenty students, and four need some word-clearing from the word-clearer that can't be done on a twinned basis, then the word-clearer cannot devote most of his time to only one of them. If there is one student in the courseroom, it's a different situation to there being twenty. There are pluses and minuses: twenty students means less personalized supervisor attention, but it also means more people for checkouts, drills, practicals, twinned word-clearing or false data stripping, and people to do student auditing with. So it's a trade-off. It's also much more fun in a large courseroom than a small one. How much would I charge for a course? Let's say I considered my professional time supervising was worth $320 a day, or $40 an hour for an eight-hour day. An auditor might charge more per hour, but it is easier for a supervisor to work eight hours a day than an auditor. Let's say that a good sup with good assistance from a courseroom word-clearer and Qual can give excellent service to twenty students. Yes, I know one can handle a larger courseroom and I have supervised fifty or more students at a time, but the quality goes way, way down with that many. $40 an hour is a reasonable rate for one-on-one word clearing, maybe a bit high but not too much. $40 an hour is also not unreasonable for a well-qualified tutor. So whether I am supervising 20 students or working one-on-one with one student, that is reasonable. $40 an hour is a reasonable rate for one-on-one work, but it is not a reasonable rate for a student to pay in a courseroom with 19 other students, where the student might reasonably expect 1/20 of the services of the supervisor and 1/20 of the services of the word-clearer. Out of an eight hour day, that is an expectation of about 24 minutes one-on-one time with the sup and about 24 minutes one-on-one time with the word-clearer. If the student paid for 48 minutes a day at $40 an hour, that would be $32 a day or $4 an hour. Let's say the theory section of something similar to Level 0 takes two weeks and the auditing take two weeks. That is four weeks, 20 days, 160 hours. 160 hours at $4 an hour is $640. That figure allows nothing for overhead, but just pays a good living to the sup and the word-clearer. Let's be real now. In the FZ there isn't likely to be a word-clearer. There isn't likely to be a Qual. There is likely to be one service provider who does it all, with maybe a second person available to sometimes do word-clearing and admin etc., maybe help out with some drilling. The course room is likely to be set up in the person's home and won't usually include any extra expense for the basic space and some furniture, although there would be some capital outlay involved. A full-time successful auditor charging $60 - $80 an hour, with no admin back-up but running the whole thing himself, could maybe expect to audit 25 hours a week average. That would give him a weekly income of $1500 - $2000. A full-time successful sup with 20 students but no admin back-up would be run ragged if in addition to supervision he has to do promo, registration, course admin, both theory suping and also practical suping and wearing the auditing supervisor hat too. Two people could maybe handle it, or one person with just ten students. $640 a day split between two people is $1600 a week each. So $32 a day seems like a fair and reasonable charge to me, comparable with auditing fees in the FZ. If the course sup is not that good, and only has at most one or two students on course, he is not going to make much money. That is as it should be. Highly qualified and competent technical staff are entitled to charge more than less-competent ones, but they should also deliver a higher-quality product. Plus there are people who will undercut others, whatever is being charged. There is not much one can do about that. So how much should a regular course cost? The formula explained above, for a small unit with no huge overheads above personnel costs of one person with up to ten students and two people with up to twenty students, is to compute the number of days that 80% of the regular students could get through the course in, then multiply that by $32, and that's the basic course cost. Extra days cost $32 each, for regular supervision and courseroom word-clearing. If the student requires extensive one-on-one help, like the equivalent of Qual Cramming, it would be charged for at $40 an hour and up, depending on the qualifications and competence of the person doing the word-clearing/cramming/review. Although I included it above, one person on his own has no real business trying to deliver a course with more than a few students as one of them is likely to require extensive one-on-one attention at times and to give it when needed is to deprive the others of the sup's attention and to not give it is bad service. How about non-regular courses? I would define those as courses either requiring an extraordinary amount of competence on the part of the supervisor or requiring an extraordinary amount of recouping of investment. The same general principles above could be used. How about large delivery units, with more staff and overhead? As long as the quality of the service is higher, more could reasonably be charged. And that is how I think courses should be priced in the FZ. The same principle would work in the CofS too, of determining the number of days in which 80% of normal students would finish and calling that the checksheet time, multiplying it by $30 or $40 or $whatever to get the basic cost for the course, then charging the student additionally for each day he takes over that. Such a pricing scheme would be fair and predictable. It would encourage a student to get through his course in a reasonable time, by rewarding the better students with a lower basic cost and making the slower students pay a fair exchange for the extra work required to get them through. It would also encourage students to brush up on study tech or needed pre-requisites before they arrived. Despite the fact that you probably think I live on another planet if I imagine I will ever have a FZ courseroom with twenty students in it all at once, I think it's all rather neat. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 514 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:34 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Legal Forms Needed On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:49:19 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > > ??? No. Curious. Are you concerned about the COS response to this? > Unnecessary worry. You should be more concerned about the COS > response if we didn't do it. Me concerned about a possible CofS response to something I write or do?!! Hardly. I did spent 23+ years being concerned and that's quite enough PTSness for one lifetime. As I have stated many times, I'm interested in getting tech delivered in the FZ and I am not into attacking the CofS, and it's not worth their while to attack me and piss me off enough to provoke a significant response. "First Reciprocal" and all that stuff for the Clausewitz buffs. I was thinking more of IFA members' response to someone in the FZ showing initiative on a needed cycle and then Mr. IFA blithely assuming it was his right to take over the cycle without so much as a by-your-leave. The normal reactive response to a senior doing something like that to a junior is for the junior to think fuck you and never bother to show any initiative again. Since I am not particularly reactive and I still choose not to belong to IFA, I'm intending to pretty much ignore the idiocy apart from making the comments I already have. I'm still working on the first draft. Someone sent me a copy of the form that they use, which is helpful. I would appreciate it if other people e-mailed me privately the forms they use too. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 515 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:44 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Course Prices/Course Timesheets 1 of 2 On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:47:14 -0800 (PST),XXXX wrote: > > One thing I'd like to add, is that when I was on > course I was used as an unofficial word clearer. I was > a good student, and I was good at non metered word > clearing and enjoyed it. So I was often asked to help > some of the students with difficulties, who were not > my twin. Service PL would certainly cover this as Pat > says. :) Maybe the good students doing this could get > some credits towards their course costs. > > You might wish to post approximate costs per your > method for Student HAT, Levels, etc. I certainly can't > remember checksheet times. On checksheet times, I wouldn't want to say right now. For me at least, it will need some piloting. The CofS is crazy on the subject of checksheet times. I think they pilot a new course at Int or Flag on the best students with RTC Inspectors breathing down their necks and then average those completion times to compute "the checksheet time". My formula calls for the time in which 80% of normal people could reasonably be expected to get through, not 20% or less. It is something that each service provider should work out for himself. It doesn't need to be done centrally, although copying will likely occur and is fine. That's a very good idea about the credits for helping out other students. I hadn't thought of it. Guess I was so stuck in the usual system of the veteran student being penalized in the courseroom because he's the only one available to do various drills, practicals etc. There is no reason a student should be penalized financially for helping another student, over and above a fair amount of exchange for his own coaching received. Each student should have a timesheet, stapled to the checksheet, on which to keep track of his own times and hours on course, and also the drilling/practical items and exchanges done. The same sheet would work well for both. It would have his name and course at the top, and lines/columns for roughly: *Date *Time started *Time ended *Other student's name *Other student's course *An indication of whether it is his own or another's checksheet item *Checksheet section *Checksheet section item # *Name/description of item or action done *Time spent on own checksheet (i.e. end time minus start time) *Time spent on the other guy's checksheet * (only one of the above two items would have a figure in it) *Own initials, written by self *Other student's initials, written by the other student *Running total of outflows *Running total of inflows The supervisor should check on these every now and then to make sure they are being kept correctly, i.e. filled out at the time with reference to the courseroom clock and not "Oh, last week I spent a couple of hours drilling something with Georgie, didn't we?" A simple way to check is to make sure that the different timesheets are consistent one to the other, and the student's own record of attendance times agrees with the sup's record. This would also be a way of checking how much time a student spent on any particular twinned item worth logging. With only a couple of students the supervisor would know this from personal observation, but with the randomity of a full courseroom things can get missed. There are some more particulars, but I will put them in a second post. I don't have time right now to finish it off. It's all a bit of extra admin, but it isn't admin just for the sake of admin, and I think it would be worth the trouble. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 516 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:49 am Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg]Legal Forms Needed On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:21:39 +1100, XXXX wrote: > > Let me know next time you're visiting Reno and I'll stock up and we can have a big custard pie fight. :) -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 517 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:06 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Course Prices/Course Timesheets 1 of 2 On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 11:39:08 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote: > > Then one can get into chains of following up data. > I probably put some time in qual library chasing info > on GPM tech. I don't think I went overboard on that > one. But went into more depth on other areas. Its hard > to quantify these things,and ideally one shouldn't > penalise those who wish to look a bit further. I beg to differ. If someone is studying the Student Hat in the CofS, or some similar study course in the FZ, the supposed purpose is to learn how to study exceedingly well. Anything else is off-purpose and dev-t and if the sup countenances it he/she's a lousy sup. The sup isn't there to allow the student to have a good time studying anything he or she wants to: it's a Q&A, usually engendered by mu's. The sup is there to get the student to have understood the materials of the course and to be able to produce the product of whatever the course is about, and to do it all very well indeed and as rapidly as possible. That doesn't mean quickie: if it takes eight hours to do a drill properly then so be it. But that is eight hours doing the drill, not one hour doing the drill and seven hours waffling around. It costs most people money to be on course, as they are away from home but still have to pay for the housing there, they aren't earning money at work if they're full-time on course, and they have a certain time limit to make a certain goal. A sup who doesn't do his damnedest to keep the student on purpose is doing a great disservice. It is possible to get really sidetracked in the study tapes and learn all about organs and photographic chemicals and so on, and it is all dev-t. Sure it's interesting for some, but quite honestly pipe organs are no more important than race-cars on Markab, and less interesting for most. It's not OK to spend four hours learning what LRH said about Markab while learning how to be a student, so why should it be OK to spend four hours learning about organ pedal-boards and so on? Yes, clear up any mu that needs it, but the depth of understanding needed of the word "bellows" while studying a study course is not the same as the depth of understanding needed of the word "duplication" on the same course. Similarly, if one were doing an organ-building course, the positions would be reversed. "Full conceptual understanding" is a kind of misnomer as it sounds like an absolute and it isn't. "Full conceptual understanding" of the acronym "GPM" for a fifteen-year-old foreign language student is not the same as that for a veteran Class VI from R2-12 days and up. The amount of understanding of "GPM" needed on a Student Hat course is minimal. > I'm still puzzled about the seemingly artificially > low times of COS checksheets. On what I would imagine > is a spread out bell curve, they've taken a result > skewed to the top achievement end. I can't figure out > any reason why. I feel I've missed something important > here. Offhand, I can think of two LRH comments on checksheet times. One is for the Class VIII course, which he said should be able to be done in three weeks, so that is the time on the checksheet, as far as I know. I don't know if the course is today significantly different to the original, or if he was having a bad day when he made the comment, but I haven't seen anyone get remotely near to that time. The other is a comment made, something like "I can get someone's TRs in in a week or ten days", or something like that. I don't have the reference handy, but it's in one of the newer TRs HCOBs (TRs Basics Resurrected?). So a Pro TRs course gets targeted out at two or three weeks with the Clay Table thrown in. It usually takes people something like two months, full time, from my observation. There is a purpose in setting a stiff checksheet target. If the student goes for it, but doesn't quickie things along the way, it raises the tone level of the place, and gets the student home quicker or with more tech under his belt. But if it is totally unreal, the students and sups just get into apathy about checksheet times and ignore them. I believe checksheet times really are computed in the CofS in a manner similar to that which I described. Why? Who knows. Maybe because of LRH examples, like the ones I gave. Maybe because someone up there thinks that impossibly-stiff checksheet times will raise necessity level of sups and students all over the world. Maybe because they are set by SPs who want to give almost everyone a lose. Maybe there's an LRH advice on how to do it that we don't know about. I dunno. But we don't have to make the same mistake as the CofS. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 518 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 7:19 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Course Prices On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 13:49:25 +1100, XXXX> wrote: > > Paul > > Training starts in the course room and you are primed to be the best person to lead the charge in this area in the Freezone. > > I believe that one should move away from the CofS stance and work it a different way. Pat , I think it was, suggested charging for Course Supervisor Time rather than the courses themselves. > > I can see some advantages to that. > > 1. There is less inclination to quickie the course completion > 2. Courses are completed at the speed of the student. > 3. Fast students would pay less and so would not be penalised for the same rate as slow students who would, of course, paymore. > 4. The course supervisor is more likely to get paid (depending on the pay arrangements of course) and more likely to deiver a course as per �What is a Course� PL as the pressure to complete fast is not there but the pressure to make an effective student would be. > 5. Legally there is far less chance of any issues arising as one is not selling technology, but simply administering it. I don't understand the point that is being made. I've laid out my pilot model in detail, although it is not finished. It says 1 of 2 on it. I've been working on the second half today but it is not finished and I haven't made any definite conclusions. 1. What exactly is meant by selling sup time not courses? Is this just mincing words or is it a different set-up? 2. Do you mean to charge each student by the hour or day, say, rather than a basic flat fee irrespective of how long it takes (like the CofS) or a flat fee for most students but the slower ones pay by the day after that (like my first model)? 3. Do you intend the delivery of complete courses, even if they are not charged a flat rate but by how long each student takes? Or just that the student arrives for a few days, gets interviewed, checks out and drills some stuff, then goes home again? This latter is a valid action, but it's an action like cramming or a retread or a brush-up, not a course. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 519 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:48 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Course Prices On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 03:38:43 +0000, XXXX wrote: > > Paul, > > It is really very simple! > > We give the Courses for free. > > We only wish to be compensated for our time as Sups. > > Think about the above: > > Can we legally charge for Courses??? I have thought about it. This is not clear at all. It requires more words of explanation to get your idea through to me, not merely a repetition of the same ones. It made the same amount of sense to me when you said it, Mike said it, or Pat said it. "A course" is a complex concept. It includes at least a supervisor, a set-up courseroom, students, a schedule, and materials like roll books and reference books, as well as an individual pack for each student and an individual checksheet for each student that the student/sup can sign off and can be referred to later when needed. I suspect all the confusion lies in the words "checksheet and pack", and the contortions gone through to avoid legal liability for trademark and copyright law violations. As far as I can tell, one would be free of OSA Legal in delivering something similar to what the CofS calls Academy Levels by doing any one of the below. For each one, call it in one's promotion or publications by some name that is NOT trademarked, and dissimilar enough to the trademarked one to avoid legal liability under Trademark Law, or at least dissimilar enough to avoid getting leaned on by CofS Legal. 1. Use something like the Clearbird materials as the basic form of the course, with the Clearbird checksheet or some variation on it. One can print out an unlimited number of such checksheets and packs, thanks to Clearbird's hard work. 2. Use an original CofS pack of HCOBs etc., and an original checksheet. That does not include any kind of copy of any issues or the checksheet. This idea of course does not work very well as you can't store too many signatures on one checksheet. 3. Use an original CofS pack of HCOBs etc., and an original checksheet. That does not include any kind of copy of any issues or the checksheet. Laminate the checksheet so it will be preserved and not written on any further. Make up a dummy checksheet that refers to the laminated checksheet, but is not a copy of it. Like "Section 1. 1. Issue _____ (sign-off line) 2. Issue _____ 3. Issue ______ 4. Demo _____ 5. Issue ______ Section 2. 1. Issue _____ 2. Clay Demo _____ etc." The student/sup can sign off the dummy checksheet to their hearts' content. It's a hassle, but it's legal, although the shortage of packs is a severe limitation. 4. Use an original CofS pack of HCOBs etc. and write your own checksheet from scratch that uses the same HCOBs in the same sequence. Do not reword the existing checksheet as it will just look like you copied it. This doesn't work if you have more than a small number of students, who would have to share the same pack, broken down into sections maybe, even though they could each have their very own checksheet. 5. Gather together all the original issues that you have, and compile a new checksheet and pack from those, in any order. Don't just copy an existing checksheet. Otherwise similar to #3. 6. Use one of the two legal methods to have a checksheet [write one afresh, including using a Clearbird (CB) one, or one of mine even; or go the laminate route]. For a "pack", use the Tech Vols or equivalent (as in original tech vol books, not some illegal copy). This is out-tech and a hassle, but you're not likely to incur the wrath of some roving Tech Inspector for violating What Is a Course PL. That's all I can think of. The easiest to do is #1. We've had this discussion before. See, for instance, http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/w040717-040816.htm#^306 . One thing I will probably do very soon is to tweak the CB checksheets a bit, maybe tweak the CB materials a bit but maybe not, print off some packs, then INDEX the packs by subject. This is so that when the student says, "Oh, where in the pack does it say what you do when the TA starts soaring?" I don't go up the wall trying to find the correct CB issue and instead just resort to pulling out a copy of C/S Series 1 because I know it's there at least. Once the pack is indexed by subject, I will make sure I know where every single point made can be found in an LRH reference. I won't write this down at first as it will be a hell of a lot of work, and I already probably know most of the references anyway. Then when the students arrive it will probably go like this: "What's this shit?" [I explain] "I want to use LRH references only!" [I explain the advantages of using the CB materials, as well as all the reasons why I'm not going to break the law even if others have in the past, and that the way of the future is via CB.] "Well, this line here, how do I know this is correct?" [I immediately pull out an LRH reference that says the same thing, but in different words.] "OK. But what about this bit here?" [I immediately pull out an LRH reference that says the same thing, but in different words.] "Hmmm. How about this one?" [I immediately pull out an LRH reference that says the same thing, but in different words.] "Well, I'll try it and see how it goes". And it will go just fine. Violating or even twisting the law cuts one's reach. I don't want to deliver a course to one student with the curtains drawn, flinching at every outside footfall. I want a bright, sunny courseroom piled high with happy students, who wave at the 24/7 webcam in reception as they dash past openly clutching their own checksheets and packs. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 520 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Course Prices On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:21:34 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > Thanks very much for all that, XXXX. I hadn't seen this post before I started and finished that last long one I wrote. I won't mess up Rey's operation. I'm not shy about explaining my ideas to people, and I won't do big new things that affect it without his approval. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 521 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Dec 13, 2004 6:23 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Course Prices On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:08:52 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > > Kudos to freeing beings, Rey. The R*ys are getting confused, unless this was a typo. I, Paul, started this recent course prices cycle. I am up in Reno, as is Rey Robles. I have never seen a post from Rey on one of these groups. Ray Krenik has more hair than Rey Robles. > I don't see these complicated calculations of price going over very > well, however. That is back office calulations and should be kept in > the back office. For Div 6 public, I agree. For Div 2, I'm not sure. If it was just a few bucks or something relatively unimportant, I wouldn't care. But it isn't, and I want to get it right. $XX per hour or day isn't complicated. $YYY for four weeks full-time and then $XX per day isn't complicated. I haven't finished post #2 yet, and that might be complicated, or it might not. I'm looking at other factors and all the exchanges involved. It sure is complicated right now. Currently in the CofS, a course costs the same for Student A who spends fifty hours inflowing help from other students and outflowing next to nothing and Student B who spends fifty hours outflowing help to other students and inflowing next to nothing. Is it fair to charge the upstat student the same as the downstat student? > A normal ad or catalog would contain duration, schedule, price and a > short description of curiculum and benefits. Maybee a remark > of "scholarships available". That is basically what people need and > want to know. That is what they *expect* to see. Normal ads/catalogs don't contain the Scn system of twin drilling, where a person doing a course can end up spending days helping another student he has no prior connection with for no exchange other than a spiritual one. Haven't you ever gotten pissed off on a course by some extensive out-exchange on whatever flow? > CoS runs it differently with "enroll at any time" and no time limit > but to completion. That takes a larger operation to work. > > RO Russia recently held an "OT Camp" with 150 attendees as BB > documented with pictures. CoS does crash training programs from time > to time. TT holds clinics, including training, around the world. So > there are several models out there. Yup. It doesn't mean that the best possible model has ever been thought of or tried, though. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 522 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Course Prices On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 04:20:48 -0000, XXXX wrote: > > The "Coaching" HCOB was supposed to handle some of that, as well as > supe tech/policy. But as you intimate, it didn't/doesn't. Perhaps a > solution would be on the checksheet to have two lines, one for > coaching another and one for being coached, both to passes, on all > drills. Might even out the flows. > > > > Yup. It doesn't mean that the best possible model has ever been > > thought of or tried, though. > > It's more likely a dynamic process of continual evolution of models. > You're next, Paul. The mandatory two-way coaching/practical idea works with some things, but not all. There's that HCOB about "coaching with reality". A neophyte isn't going to be able to coach with reality because he hasn't really got any yet. The model just signed a release and will be off the catwalk for three days. I have to handle something and will be offline until Thursday afternoon or evening, most likely. Sorry. Life gets in the way sometimes. Be back soon. -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal





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

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


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