Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts December 17, 2004 - August 5, 2005
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 523
From: Paul Adams
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:33 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Super Power
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:55:15 -0000, XXXX wrote:
>
>
> There is more to the matter of Super Power. See the following link:
>
> http://www.robertdam-cos.dk/Super%20Power.html
I will quote from the linked article, as I don't agree with the author.
QUOTE:
Then the PC will be seated in an electrical chair (not THE famous, but
a chair with electrical features) developed in cooperation with NASA.
This special chair was announced at several earlier Super Power
briefings. Then the PC will face a giant screen which flashes pictures
at him with enormous speed. It will move towards and away from him.
There will also be moving walls in the room.
END QUOTE
If the person is thrust into such a situation where it is not under
his own control, and it is restimulative, then yes, it would be
aberrative.
But to allow a person to explore an actual implant station, say, fully
under his own steam and at his own pace, reaching and withdrawing as
he feels appropriate, would be destimulative, not restimulative.
Similarly, an associated physical mock-up as is described above, with
flashing pictures and moving walls or whatever, could be used to
restimulate or destimulate or have no impact, depending on how it is
used. It is not intrinsically one or the other.
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 524
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Merry Christmas and a gift
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 23:48:36 -0000, XXXX wrote:
>
>
> Awesome, Paul!
>
> Howsa-bout you give us some reality on Rey's place. For instance,
> how big is it, how many staff? what's a normal day like?
Hi XXXX,
There isn't a typical day yet, as I just arrived and things are in a
state of flux. Rey has an auditing practise and he comes in and
audits daily. I have been coming in daily and working on checksheets
and other admin stuff. Currently there is one regular student, two
more who may start early next week, one who says he's going to be full
time but we will see; and three or four on Saturday. I'm expecting
lots more. My regular course schedule is 1:00 to 6:00 daily, with a
break from 3:30 to 3:45. I will expand this schedule as needed.
How big is the place? It is elastic. There is a picture of the whole
building at http://www.freezoneworldwide.com or
http://www.reyroblescenter.com. Rey controls the tenancy of each room
in the building. Currently the Center is using a suite of eight (I
think) rooms plus kitchen and bathroom, and there are a couple of
dozen other tenants (lawyers etc.) on relatively short-term leases.
As others move to Reno, there will be less lawyers etc. and more
freezone practitioners etc. If twenty or a hundred people were
realistically scheduled to arrive next month to start on course and
co-audit their way up the bridge, we would take over as much space as
we needed to deliver.
It's exciting!
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 525
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Merry Christmas and a gift
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 13:35:46 -0800, Paul Adams wrote:
Sorry, I didn't fully answer the question of how many staff.
Currently, apart from Rey and I, there's Leslie. Craig and Geraldine
help out part-time, Craig more than Geraldine, but are mainly tech
trainees.
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 526
From: Paul Adams
Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 8:45 am
Subject: Rey Robles Center Yahoo Group Formed
Hi guys,
Rey has started up his own group that he is posting to personally. All welcome.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reyroblescenter/
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 527
From: Paul Adams
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:45 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: [ifachat] Copyrights...relevant?
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:59:53 +1100, XXXX wrote:
> However the IFA has received an attack that almost removed the site so
> it was necessary for me, at least, and the IFA to confront it. It did
> not come from a local org but from Int Mgmt through their legal system.
> This coincided with the advertising placed by the IFA and which was
> producing some excellent results.
Yes, but as far as I know you were violating the law by using their
registered marks, either openly or as metatags. It's straight out of
the PTS/SP pack: what is the PTS person doing to the SP to provoke the
attacks?
If you promote that people can buy original Coca-Cola from individuals
and groups that you endorse, and it is better cola because the
Coca-Cola Company is being run by bad guys who have messed with the
original successful formula, you can't really complain when the
Coca-Cola Company's lawyers send you a cease and desist letter.
The CofS is required BY LAW to defend their marks in the face of
illegal usage, or they stand to lose them. They don't make a case out
of every little infringement as it is not cost-effective to do so, and
it is not necessary, but when the usage reaches a certain point, along
they come.
Complaining about how it shouldn't be that way is as silly as whining
about how bad the weather is.
As far as I can tell, the CofS isn't attacking the freezone or FZers
because of tech being delivered outside of their control, but they are
fulfilling their legal obligation to defend their marks. Once the
trademark violations are stopped, the attacks stop. Don't they?
I'm here in Reno delivering stuff. I've been very vocal in the FZ
about delivering tech. The CofS declared me recently, presumably for
what I have written on the Internet. I don't hold that against them:
it actually helped me by hastening my decision to move here. The only
personal comm or action I have received from the CofS since I started
posting to the Internet is a couple of polite letters from CJC WUS
about my declare, to which I replied in kind. I try to follow the
first policy of "Maintain friendly relations with the environment".
The CofS hasn't attacked me, and I don't think they will as long as I
continue to follow the law.
Just figure out how to do what you want to do within the law. It's
not that hard.
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 528
From: Paul Adams
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:04 am
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: [ifachat] Copyrights...relevant?
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:21:46 +1100, XXXX wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> The cease and desist order was regarding trademarks not copyright so was
> incorrect.
> ...
> Oh and BTW...I am not PTS. IF I were it would be for my C/S to make
> that indication. Otherwise it is a wrong item, even by inference.
Hi Michael,
I don't understand that bit about copyrights vs. trademarks. What was
incorrect about the cease and desist letter?
I would think that everyone on this planet is PTS. It's a question of
degree: some people are more PTS than others. How could one not be
PTS to some extent to the people wielding US domestic and foreign
policy or Monsanto's genetic insanities or those interfering with the
weather?
As for "wrong indications", that is something that should be
completely under one's own control. If someone calls me to my face a
flokking ganjwhiner, so what? If I am one and they have recognised
it, good on them. If I'm not, they are mistaken. If I am so unsure
of my own beingness that I need others to tell me who or what I am,
then I am setting myself up for trouble.
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 529
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:01 am
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Original Material
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:43:29 -0000, XXXX wrote:
>
>
> Mike there is nothing wrong with the new volumes except that the HCOB
> after 1986 and probably earlier weren't writting by Ron and they
> still make it look like he wrote them. They took the credits off at
> the bottom, where the initials said who assisted LRH, especially
> missing are David Mayo's initials. They don't put any initials so
> you don't know who is writing and revising bulletins.
>
> However, the people who are doing it are highly tech trained, and I
> haven't found anything in the new volumes that are "bad tech". There
> checksheets for the grades are the best checksheets I have seen. LRH
> never complied checksheets anyway, just approved them. There have
> been several grade checksheets.
>
> If you want to be assured you are only doing tech written by LRH then
> notice the date and stick to 1982 or before. But don't wipe out all
> the good in the new volumes. I haven't of course, read all of them,
> but the ones I have look very on tech.
>
> If you are not trained stick to the early versions until you are.
> Then you can always update on your own once you know enough to
> evaluate on your own.
>
> I have the new vols, and Ray has a set of the earlier vols, I use
> both.
>
> Hope this helps. With all the talk about how many things were
> changed sometimes one can overlook that there was a lot of good work
> done.
>
> Pat
Well said, Pat. If there is "bad tech" in the new vols I don't recall
what, although I'm willing to look if someone has examples to offer.
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 530
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: The Pilot's Self-Clearing?
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:47:51 -0000, XXXX wrote:
>
>
> --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote:
> >
> > Then why do you not publish them in course packs for all.
>
> Prolly becuz ALL can download and print up their OWN coursepaks.
You can buy professionally-printed Clearbird packs from
http://www.lulu.com/clearbird for a reasonable amount. It's a lot of
work to download, print out and bind a 450-page pack.
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 531
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:19 am
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: trumpet
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:48:09 -0000, XXXX wrote:
>
> Self-auditing on an unproven "Bridge" like The Pilot's is more
> comparable to teaching oneself to work on high tension power lines by
> figuring it out as you go along.
Is that an opinion or based on hard evidence? What about "The Mind's
Protection"?
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 532
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:19 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Original Material
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:52:53 -0800 (PST), XXXX wrote:
>
> What is troubling is that revisions are no longer
> printed in a different script. I have a set of new
> ones.
>
> I believe that in old vols there is a complete record
> of original statement and revision from the beginning.
>
> I would be wary of hcobs on the area of sec checks
> revised in 1991 and so on.
>
> Then someone posted somewhere that the A-J list of
> troublesome sources ( not allowed on COS lines) is
> now more like an A-Z list.
>
> bb
As I said, I'm totally willing to look afresh at any specific issues.
Does anyone want to discuss any specific HCOBs in the new vols which
have bad tech in them?My vols were published in 1991. Are there later
editions?
Is there a printed, issued HCOPL or HCOB with the "A-Z" list, or is it
a lesser issue type?
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 533
From: Paul Adams
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:47 am
Subject: Fwd: [FreezoneOrg] Re: trumpet
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:09:28 -0000, blindteddy wrote:
>
>
> Does "the mind's protection" still apply to the upper level
> materials?
There's an HCOB I don't have called something like "Solo Auditing",
which is on maybe the original R6EW course, probably others, that
answers this question. One thing from it (verbal tech) is that when
one is solo auditing there is a self-protecting mechanism, which is
that if one is ploughing in too deep, one goes anaten and is unable to
continue (i.e. one can't get ploughed in any deeper). I've certainly
experienced that while solo auditing. After a while it keys out
again.
[Ed--Later note: From HCO BULLETIN OF DECEMBER 8, 1964 SCIENTOLOGY VI, SOLO AUDITING AND R6 EW:
"While solo-auditing one is still self-protected to a large degree. One blunders,
becomes relatively incapable of going on, therefore doesn't keep plowing in."]
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 534
From: "fzglobalguy" >
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:45 pm
Subject: [reyroblescenter][FreezoneOrg]Exchange by Dynamics Commands
I wrote out a command sheet for Exchange by Dynamics.
For whatever reason, most people find it hard to do
this unmetered action without the commands
specifically laid out.
Feel free to download it and make use of it. It is at
http://www.freewebs.com/fzadmin/exchangebydynamics.htm
--
Paul
Course Sup
Ethics Officer
Snow Shoveler and more
at the Rey Robles Center
Message 535
From: Paul Adams
Date: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:24 am
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Exchange by Dynamics Commands
--- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote:
>
> Here's what it sez:
>
> We can isolate fout conditions of exchange.
Yes, thank you. Some freezone examples:
No exchange, something for nothing: Downloading all the tech from the
Internet and expecting it all for free forever.
Partial exchange: Auditing as a "Grad 4 Auditor" when one hasn't done
any of the courses but got away with delivering an Int RD once.
Selling a Mark VI meter for $500. Taking money for the "JKL Rundown"
(insert standard name of choice) and delivering a corrupted version of
it; apart from being a trademark violation and illegal it trashes the
subject's reputation.
Fair exchange: Delivering what's promised.
Exchange in Abundance: Giving auditing at $30 per hour that is far
better than one would have expected at any price.
In addition, it seems to me that there is a fifth condition. It is
the other side of "something for nothing", where someone gives freely
of their time and effort for no obvious personal exchange. Like
Clearbird or the old Freezone Bible Association people giving hundreds
or thousands of hours "to mankind" or however they see it.
Paul
Message 536
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: [formerscio] Re: Formerscio location
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:35:10 -0500, XXXX wrote:
>
> Would have to change the statement at the beginnin of it to better define
> its new track.
As in "new track as unilaterally postulated by LR"? What's wrong with
the track it's always been on? I don't *want* another
standard-tech-and-nothing-else list. What would be the point? You
might as well shut the list down and say "OK, all of you can now go
over to FreezoneOrg or IFAchat" as having yet another such list would
be a duplicative function, or a triplicative function or worse.
If I want to post on a standard-tech-and-nothing-else list I do so.
If I want to post something a bit wilder I mind my manners and go
elsewhere. I used to post on Mike's board before the neighborhood
went to the dogs. Formerscio is about the only sensible
not-necessarily-standard-tech forum left.
Google Groups (not unmoderated Usenet) has a "Scientology" group
(moderator unknown); a "Clearing" group (moderator friendly to
not-necessarily-standard tech); and a "Freezone" group (moderator
friendly). The real estate is there but very few tenants have moved
in so far. These groups are visible to anyone using Google and don't
attract ars-like entheta.
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 537
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 22:44:33 -0800 (PST)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: TECH outside COS. GAT free study in the
Freezone!
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> 2) they cannot be acquired in FZ. Because only orgs
> can own them,
> and the protection around them is like a vault.
> 3) therefore, public can be told that FZ hasn't got
> the real ability
> to deliver, because FZers don't have GAT materials.
Ah yes, I can see the org PR briefing now, after a
Friday-night graduation maybe:
"Here is an important R-factor. There are ex-CofS
tech people in the field called "freezoners"--oh, you
didn't know, well, look them up on the Internet--who
deliver training as it used to be delivered before we
made you pay for it again and do it all over, whether
you know the data or not. They charge reasonable
prices and service you without duress. But unlike
almost all the other materials including the advanced
levels, because of our state-of-the-art security
measures not one single GAT pack has been published on
the Internet and provided for free to anyone who
wanted it!
"Let's give a round of applause to Int Management!"
End of briefing.
Right.
Paul
Message 538
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 2:22 am
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: is there an echo in here?
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote:
> >
> > In fact part of its actions were to ask for
> donations
> > so they could send books to the stricken areas.
>
>
> I trust they are the older ones, copyright L. Ron
> Hubbard, that they
> are sending, and not the newer, BOTWO/L. Ron Hubbard
> Library, books
> as the only use for them right now is fuel for the
> fire, or perhaps
> insulation. And they surely don't want to get rid of
> the fancy new
> books with their glitter covers and altered texts.
>
> Somethng a bit more apropos would show better
> judgement.
From what I remember, it goes like this in CofS think:
1. We can't sell these old books to our regular
on-lines public as we are only allowed to sell the
latest editions of things.
2. However, we can ask for donations to cover the
cost of these old books--at full price, or maybe at a
reduced price--to be sent to "second-class" publics,
such as libraries; Criminon-type publics (e.g.
prisoners in jail); disaster victims etc.
3. Disasters are good for booksales as compassion is
a good button to push and it enables us to offload all
these old stocks that we otherwise wouldn't be able to
shift, without us losing money on them.
It's about as callous as that old Hollywood joke of
sincerity sells and if you can fake that then you've
really got it made.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 539
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sat Feb 5, 2005 8:53 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: The COS and TT
--- XXXX wrote:
> I read:
>
> "If Tommy Thompson has... please contact..."
>
That website uses a Tonga top level domain. I can
think of only one good reason for using such (it costs
$50 a year as opposed to maybe $9 for the more
valuable ".com" domain): there is no registry look-up
available. In other words, the person who registered
the domain name can remain anonymous. How brave of
these people. Maybe someone who likes the
cloak-and-dagger stuff could pretend to be a defector
from the FZ and find out what happens when one
responds to the call.
> If anyone has a gripe with anyone in Freezone, the
> correct place to
> report it is to IFA!
And what will happen then? It's a serious question.
Will someone wear the hat of putting in ethics on the
errant FZer?
Paul
Message 540
From: Paul Adams
Date: Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:40 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] tech
--- XXXX wrote:
> I have my reservations about stuff like
> metapsychology.
I don't disagree with the main thrust of your
argument.
One advantage of using "Metapsychology" is that it
avoids pushing buttons on new people connected to the
word "Scientology".
Yes, one can clear up the false data and point out the
differences between CofS actions and the philosophy
and technologies, but only if the new person hangs
around long enough. If he blows off on first hearing
the word, then he's gone.
If you manage to get him in session etc. by avoiding
Scn's tarnished name and he later comes across it and
ARCX's, he is more likely to stay around long enough
to learn the truth.
Paul
Message 541
From: Paul Adams
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:11 am
Subject: Re: [reyroblescenter]
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Though I appreciate your intent, please get your
> facts straight.
Hey guys,
Go and talk about IFA somewhere else. The IFAchat
list maybe?
Paul
Message 542
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:43 am
Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Auditing New People
It never dawned on me before, I hate to admit, but
there is really nothing in the Level 0 materials on
how to audit new people with a meter. I just came
face-to-face with this with a Level 0 student,
complete on the theory of the checksheet, auditing a
new pc on the practical section.
The specific points concern:
1. Scn (or Dn, for that matter) CS-1 or undercut;
2. Flying ruds or undercut;
3. Clearing commands.
If you have a Scientologist pc who knows to some
extent what it is all about, and who is about to
embark on a long journey up the Bridge, it's not
really a problem to do a full CS-1 followed by a White
Form and clearing word lists: he just accepts that he
has to wade through seven or more hours of relatively
boring crap before it starts to get interesting.
But you can't do this with a new person.
If one is doing metered auditing, my current thoughts
are:
1. To begin with, just avoid the whole subject of
"Scientology" and call it something else.
2. Explain the meter rapidly, and demonstrate it up
to the point where the person can connect a meter read
(the meter is facing him at this point) with one of
his own thoughts, so he has a reality on his own
thoughts--providing they are charged to some extent.
This can be done using a pinch test, if it works with
him. If that fails, do something like the "Consider
the events of today" drill, or even the CofS "Stress
Test" ("Think of something [very] stressful" and steer
on any instant or latent reads). Or if that fails, do
the Production of Needle Actions Drill (Think of a
loss; Ever had an operation? type of stuff). One can
also show how repeated contact can discharge
something, like repetitively thinking about the moment
of the pinch.
3. In my estimation, the most important part of
auditing to get across is that the pc should itsa
about whatever gets restimulated by the auditing
question, not something else. There may be a tendency
for the auditor to ask the question and the pc to see
something in his mind, then the pc decides that is not
a suitable answer for some reason and analytically
thinks of something else. No, no, no! The pc *must*
know to tell the auditor that first answer, even if it
doesn't make any sense to him. So explain this point
to him with demos as needed and make sure he gets it.
4. Give a brief r-factor on whatever procedure the
auditor is going to be doing, and handle any questions
the pc has.
5. On ruds, skip it as a rote procedure. Hopefully
he is interested by this time and "in session". If
his attention is on something, handle it in the
physical universe if appropriate or else by itsa e/s
itsa to flat, but don't insist on an F/N.
6. Don't clear any obvious words or commands: it
could come across as condescending. To ask a normal
adult the definition of "wall" is treating him like a
young child, in my estimation. If you are doubtful,
sure, go ahead, but not with the simple stuff. If the
pc later shows that he doesn't in fact understand the
auditing command, then explain it to him so that he
does. By "explain it to him" I mean "explain it to
him", exactly what it says *not* to do in the Clearing
Commands HCOB because it would be "evaluating for the
pc". If any words are obviously misunderstood,
explain the words, using a dictionary as needed, but
don't do formal word clearing steps. (This is often
called "Method 7", but it isn't).
OK, that's my view of it right now.
I'm happy to hear comments from those with more
experience of brand new pcs. I will probably refine
this procedure (1-6 above) in the light of further
comments and my own future experience.
Paul
Message 543
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Feb 20, 2005 10:28 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Auditing New People
> --- XXXX wrote:
>
> I never start a new person on level 0. First...
Point taken. But if you are training someone on Level
0, they get to do what the auditing requirements for
the checksheet are. Of course, if one is writing the
checksheet there is some wiggle room, but it would not
be appropriate for a Level 0 student auditor to do
things that don't increase his ability to audit Level
0.
One should also not tie him up doing other actions.
Paul
Message 544
From: Paul Adams
Date: Mon Feb 21, 2005 2:20 pm
Subject: [reyroblescenter]Psychic Fair
On Saturday I helped Rey at a Psychic Fair in South
Lake Tahoe, about 40 miles from Reno, at the Horizon
Hotel/Casino. We had a little booth promoting Rey's
courses/seminars and he gave a couple of lectures.
Rey also did a couple of past life regressions on
paying customers (both successful) and I did a bunch
of meter demos and answered questions and we collected
15-20 names/contact details.
It was only a small affair, as these things go, with
about a dozen vendors/presenters, but it was
interesting to see the different things people do and
sell, and to talk to new people about meters and minds
and mental/spiritual tech.
Among the demos I did, I tried a pinch test on four
people. None of them worked. Not one. I went on
instead to poking around to find something charged,
which was more successful. Does anyone here actually
find the pinch test useful?
The Fair continued on Sunday. Rey was going to go back
with Leslie, if the weather was OK. It was just
starting to snow in Tahoe as we left, with a forecast
of a foot being dropped overnight. It was fine back
in Reno.
Maybe Rey will fill us in on what else happened.
Does anyone else do these fairs?
Paul
Message 545
From: Paul Adams
Date: Mon Feb 21, 2005 6:21 pm
Subject: RE: [reyroblescenter] Psychic Fair
--- XXXX wrote:
> I, of course, got them to hold the cans and have
> them squeeze them, etc.,
> all the while letting them, "Watch the needle!".
> "Watch what the needle does
> when I give you a little pinch." Pinch "Did you
> see what the needle did?"
So that's what I was doing wrong. I should have had
them look at the needle instead of looking at the
ceiling! [JOKE]
Paul
Message 546
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 3:08 am
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: ATT - the rise and fall of
--- XXXX wrote:
> Hello!
> I was the original Ship's Rep in the Port Captains
> Office aboard the
> Freewinds. There is no asbestos on that ship. It was
> all removed.
>
> ARC
> XXXX
Hi XXXX,
http://xenutv.bogie.nl/interviews/lawrence-freewinds.htm
There is an affidavit from architect Lawrence
Woodcraft concerning the asbestos at the link above.
When was the asbestos removal done? Did you see it
being done personally? How do you know it was
completed?
I went to many briefings in the SO and sometimes
naively assumed something was so merely because
someone up the command lines *said* it was so. I was
just wondering where the certainty in your statement
came from.
Paul
Message 547
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Feb 6, 2005 5:33 am
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: ATT - the rise and fall of
--- XXXX wrote:
> Paul:
> I could not swear that it was completed. I can only
> state this much. I was
> there in meetings with Bitty Miscavidge, and know
> that she was aware of the
> problem, and handled it.
Thanks for your data, XXXX. After re-reading
Lawrence's affidavit about the Freewinds asbestos
problem, I will reserve judgment. I don't know
Lawrence personally, but have read his online
statements and affidavits about various matters. I
also knew his daughter Astra when we both worked at
ITO about ten years ago, and I respect them both for
their integrity.
I never met Bitty. But I know which of the two
usually loses out in the Sea Org when Integrity
clashes head-on with Mega-Dollar Expediency.
Paul
Message 548
From: Paul Adams
Date: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:23 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Auditing New People
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> On my level 0 checksheet there are about a dozen
> processes listed
> before you get to the Level 0 processes. Looks like
> life repair to
> me. What else would you suggest?
My emphasis is on the course aspect here, not the pc's
case. It is free student auditing for the pc, after
all.
We wanted to strike some kind of balance between
having the student audit three WD sessions and then
kick him out to sink or swim, and audit extensively
and get corrected along the way and wind up doing the
equivalent of an internship. Logistics came into it
too.
I had toyed with the idea of auditing the first SA
list, off the meter, to give practise in TRs and the
auditing comm cycle etc. I had a consideration about
time, in that for a year or so while I was sup'ing SO
staff, there was an HQS course that new SO members had
to do, to give them some reality on the tech.
(Wonderful idea, but it got taken off the line-up as
it "took too long".) On average it seemed to take
about 5-10 hours to EP that first list.
Anyway, the student said he had already audited
someone on SA off the meter, so we decided to let him
audit the first list metered on the pc. The idea was
to EP that list, then go onto some Level 0 processes
after. The arbitrary auditing requirements on the
checksheet (my checksheet) was 10 hours WD or VWD.
If he had done 10 hours WD on SA alone, I would still
have insisted on some regular Level 0 stuff in
addition, just so he got practise in auditing
something else. Not good form re the checksheet
maybe, but that's what I would have done.
As it turned out, the student had to leave early, but
we'll get it all wrapped up somehow.
What are the processes on your checksheet prior to
Level 0, and what is the rationale behind having them
there?
Paul
Message 549
From: Paul Adams
Date: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:05 pm
Subject: RE: [reyroblescenter] Psychic Fair
--- XXXX wrote:
> I've never had a pinch test that didn't work.
Well, I am feeling like an idiot if I can't even get a
pinch test to work. Your instructions are how I
understood it (and yes, Ray, I was messing with you),
and that is what I thought I was doing.
One person gave a nice fall before I even touched her,
but I couldn't get a repeat fall on trying to recall
the anticipation or whatever. The others didn't even
react on the actual pinch, let alone the recall. I
thought I was doing it hard enough, but maybe not.
They said it hurt. But I find I am more willing to
commit battery on a person's mind than on their body.
Maybe I need to suffer the indignity of being drilled
on it by someone with more experience and confidence.
Anyone know why the CofS seems to have dropped pinch
tests? Were the bruises considered to be bad PR, or a
possible legal liability, or something?
Paul
Message 550
From: Paul Adams
Date: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:32 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Auditing New People
--- XXXX wrote:
>
>
> When I was on the Sea Org Special Briefing Course at
> USLO in 1971
> Quentin came to talk to us, delivering messages from
> "daddy." One of
> the things he told us was to study the entire
> Briefing Course before
> auditing. Note, that was the Briefing Course, not
> the Acad levels.
That is very, very strange, considering the source, as
it is such an obvious violation of basic Study Tapes
data on balancing up significance and doingness.
Surely the SHSBC had auditing requirements on it too
at that time?
Paul
Message 551
From: Paul Adams
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:36 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Even the meters are robots.
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Chuck Beatty [re computer-generated F/Ns in
Tech Films].
Nice title, bb.
I didn't know about this at all. It certainly shows
Int Mgmt's true colors. It is utterly indefensible.
When you think about it, just that one simple thing is
a superlatively effective way to destroy Scn. A
very-hard-to-achieve EP for ANY process on ANY pc
manages to invalidate everyone on CofS tech lines as
well as their tech certainties.
Masterful!
Paul
Message 552
From: Paul Adams
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:24 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Auditing New People
--- XXXX wrote:
> ...it would seem to
> me that any P.C. should be run on the next item on
> his bridge.
>
> Further, I would think that the risk of a loss for
> both the P.C. and the
> auditor if the P.C. was not set up to run the level
> in question, is a
> possibility
I agree with the "should" part above. It would be
nice if there were a hundred pcs at different points
on the Bridge just waiting around in the room next
door, always sessionable, no scheduling problems, not
too many needing Int or List repairs done. Kinda like
picking the book you need off a bookshelf when you
need it, and the rest of the time it just quietly sits
there and doesn't need anything except an occasional
straightening up or dusting.
Unfortunately....
Paul
Message 553
From: Paul Adams
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:18 pm
Subject: Re: [reyroblescenter] Psychic Fair
--- XXXX wrote:
> I got curious and I thought let's try the pinch test
> Solo. What a weird
> idea, man ;-)
Yeah, weird. I just tried it too. The needle was
loose, but no anticipatory reads. I got a .3 div BD
on the actual pinch, which HURT, but nothing on
recalling it. Guess I'm dead in the head today.
Paul
Message 554
From: Paul Adams
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:00 am
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: The COS and TT
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> IFA has good stats in reconciliations and
> corrections.
>
> And they don't go running after and kicking to death
> those that
> WON'T be corrected. We simply refrain from
> recommending them.
Sorry for the delay in response. Thanks for this
data, XXXX.
Rey just sent Mike some data about someone who needs
correction. Let's see how this one pans out.
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.com or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 555
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:48:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Handling the Upstat competition. NOT!
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
CC: cofsbeverlyhills@earthlink.net
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> It's really a repeat of the mission blow up of 1982.
> Back then it was
> about money and control. RTC "won" by destoying the
> mission network.
> Obviously this is the case again on a smaller scale.
> It certainly
> isn't an attempt to service the public or clearing
> the planet.
>
> We should invite BH Mission to join the FZ.
>
> Oh-tee
Contact data:
Church of Scientology Mission of Beverly Hills
9885 Charleyville Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: 310-226-2464
Fax: 310-226-2468
E-mail: cofsbeverlyhills@earthlink.net
I supervised Vanessa on the VIII course, as well as
Hugh Whitt. Hugh was later the AO C/S at SH for
several years, and a very good one too. As far as I
know, Hugh has been at the Beverly Hills Mission for
well over a decade.
If you see this e-mail, Vanessa, Hi! You have done
wonderfully at furthering the aims of Scientology and
I am impressed with your production and success over
the years.
If you see this e-mail Hugh, Hi!!!!!! Long time no
see. I think the last time we spoke was outside the
parking structure by the Complex around ten years ago.
Please give my best to Gen.
I wasn't much of a sup back in 1985, but I am now, and
I am back on purpose freeing beings.
You would all be very welcome delivering the tech
outside of the CofS. People here believe in
Scientology LRH-style, rather than No-Scientology CofS
style. It's difficult to make the switch, but very
rewarding and supportive of one's integrity.
All the best,
Paul Adams
http://www.fzglobal.com or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 556
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:14:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Handling the Upstat competition. NOT!
--- Paul Adams wrote:
> You [Beverly Hills Mission staff] would all be very
> welcome delivering the tech
> outside of the CofS. People here believe in
> Scientology LRH-style, rather than No-Scientology
> CofS style. It's difficult to make the switch, but
> very rewarding and supportive of one's integrity.
This message is for anyone in the CofS wondering why I
have sent a provocative e-mail to some current CofS
terminal, as I don't normally do that.
Apart from the obvious reason that I am protesting
some very upstat people who have been heavily
penalized for stellar production, some of your
(CofS)recent antics here in Reno dev-t'd me a little,
so I am just doing a little flowback per my earlier
"Ground Rules" message on my site.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.com or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 557
To: reyroblescenter@yahoogroups.com
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:36:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [reyroblescenter] Upcoming 3rd Freezone Conference
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Hi, Rey et al:
>
> I'm going to do my best to get people to the
> conference. I expect we
> will have a good turnout.
>
> I have a suggestion and that is that we do NOT
> announce the date
> publically on newgroups. Do it by invitation only.
Why? We're not doing anything illegal. The
conference is likely to be a surveillance target
whatever is done to prevent it. Trying to set it up
to avoid scrutiny just leads to a false sense of
security.
Let the watchers in openly, give them a seat, stick
labels on them, and as long as they are civil let them
stay and observe. If they disrupt the proceedings,
our hired security guards will throw them out.
If one has to share the environment with mad dogs it
is better to have them visible than prowling around in
the shadows.
al
Message 567
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Correspondence Course.
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Correspondence course.
>
> Paul is currantly piloting a correspondence course
> on the book " Problems of Work"
>
> "Paul Adams"
>
> As its in pilot stage it won't cost anything. I
> have been doing this course and nearly finished it.
> I've found it an excellent course, and am quite
> impressed by it.
>
> However its better to be piloted by people
> relatively
> new to scientology as that is who the course has
> been
> designed for. "POW" is one of the basic scientology
> books. As an "old timer" whose read all the admin
> materials and just about all LRH books, I'm not
> really
> the best to Pilot this.
>
> So anyone, in particular those fairly new to the
> subject are welcome to get in touch with Paul and
> start this course. As it is a pilot its for the
> moment
> without charge.
>
> Paul spent 20 years or so working in tech, mostly
> as
> course sup, much of it in both St. Hill UK, and LA.
>
>
> The website for our internet Org.
> http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs/
I can still take on some more people at the moment if
anyone is interested.
Paul
Message 568
From: Paul Adams
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:27 pm
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Correspondence Course.
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> I am going to have to
> watch more tv with fictional work
> places as I dont know what they are
> - will 'The Office' do? - I mean
> the sitcom, not my workplace! - I
> havent had a shared workplace for
> more than 20 years but I am a
> writer so I can use my imagination
Hey XXXX,
Do whatever you need to do to make it possible, but
just keep it as real and related to your own real life
in the past and present as you can.
Paul
Message 558
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:06:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Correspondence Course.
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> I have a question; why do you call your academy
> 'squirrel academy', are you a squirrel? Do you
> consider yourself a squirrel? I am just curious
> about the significance of the name.
> XXXX
Hi XXXX,
I figured that if I was running an academy people in
the CofS would refer to it as my squirrel academy, and
since I deliver such things as an R3X course which
purists would turn their noses up at a similar
consideration may hold here in the FZ too.
In the study tapes LRH talked about starting off with
slang names rather than going through the via of
formal names first that would be discarded and
replaced by slang terms eventually anyway.
The name amuses me. General public approval is not
something I strive for and is incidental if it occurs
or doesn't occur.
bb just summed up the use of "squirrel" well, better
than I would have done actually.
It's OK with me if you don't like the name. I don't
like "XXXX" much either. :) I won't change mine if
you change yours, but I would respect you more for it.
Paul
Message 559
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 08:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] question about correspondance course - Paul
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX> wrote:
>
> Just started on the course - are
> my answers meant to start off 'L
> Ron Hubbard asserts etc' or are
> you after my thoughts on the text
I believe that you should have power of choice over
what you are reading. If you are doing some
correspondence course and you just cut and paste
answers out of the text it becomes a course in cutting
and pasting and a waste of time.
I have designed my course to personally involve the
reader and get him/her to look into his/her own life,
using possibly new ideas given in the text to give a
different viewpoint on experiences gained.
It seems to me that the given text is useful, i.e.
there are useful explanations of life in there in a
readily assimilable form that I have not seen
elsewhere. Otherwise I would not have gone to the
trouble of making up a course around the book. That
does not mean that I fully embrace every single
concept presented, but the majority of them I do.
In supervising the course, it is my job to understand
your answers and determine if they show that you have
an acceptable (to me) grasp of what is written. If it
seems to me that you have understood the text but your
life experience has been different to what the text
implies it should have been, that is perfectly
acceptable to me. If it seems to me that you have not
grasped the text and your complaint is based on what
you think the author is stating rather than what he is
actually stating, then it is my job to help you get
what he is actually stating.
I hope this answers your question.
Paul
Message 560
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Keith Rylance and Amy Rylance
To: freezoneorg@yahoogroups.com
I am writing about Keith Nigel Rylance and his wife
Amy in case these guys show up on your doorstep.
Keith is English, from Wigan,and is aged around 40.
Amy is from Brisbane, Australia, and is aged around
25. He sometimes uses the name "Richard".
The first I heard of them was a phone call from Keith
a couple of weeks ago, saying they had arrived in
Reno. They had come to visit. They didn't call
beforehand. Their car had broken down 40 miles
outside of Reno, although they had made it to Reno
without it. Could I pick them up? I couldn't and
they ended up walking the final couple of miles.
Keith explained his life to Rey and I, which included
having been in the Sea Org a couple of times and the
fact that he didn't need any auditing this lifetime.
Amy had had some Life Repair. He spoke a lot and
wasn't very good at listening. I found some of what
he said far-fetched. He had recently discovered the
freezone and wanted to help. Oh yes, and they were
destitute and could we help out?
He seemed full of energy and Amy seemed nice enough,
so I was willing to risk a few bucks. Rey found them
somewhere to sleep and I gave him $20. I believe Rey
did too.
I looked them up on Google that night.
The next morning one of the tenants was very upset
with Keith and Amy over a few things that were
relatively minor. I tried handling it with him and
after two minutes decided I didn't want anything
further to do with him as his reactions were so
abnormal. I walked off. I usually get on well with
people.
They ended up staying in the same apartment that I was
in (not my decision!) for a week. They were not
considerate about the amount of noise they made at
night.
Keith spun a wondrous tale to others about Elron Elray
and Sector Commanders and having to move to New York
and then on to a secret location in Spain, all at
another's great expense. He was very convincing, I am
told. In the end they were told to leave NOW, which
they did. They had been given a further $40 by
someone else and about $60 by another, possibly in
goods rather than cash. It could have been a lot
worse.
If you look up the names on Google, you will find an
interesting story involving Keith and Amy in
Australia, in which Amy was reportedly abducted by
aliens. After this they left Australia in a hurry.
Rey told me that Keith had admitted to him it was a
hoax, and another person in Reno told me the same. I
have not discussed it with Keith or Amy personally.
Interesting stuff, but deal with these people at your
peril.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 561
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Change of space
To: reyroblescenter@yahoogroups.com
I am no longer working with Rey at the Center (my
choice), even though all the snow has gone from
downtown and the sun is shining at last. Bad timing
on my part.
Rey is now the sole owner and moderator of this Yahoo
group.
I probably won't post here any more, but I'll continue
to post on FreezoneOrg and formerscio.
All the best,
Paul
Message 562
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Rey Robles
To: freezoneorg@yahoogroups.com
I worked with Rey in Reno between December 1, 2004 and
April 15, 2005.
Several times Rey said to me he wanted to put ethics
in on the Freezone, and have a website for ethics
reports. I didn't think it was necessarily a good
idea. Yes, it might help FZers wondering how good or
bad a particular terminal was, but it would also give
ammunition to the CofS in saying how bad it was over
there. Rey thought it should still be done.
My own think at this point is that this write-up is
better published than not. This might not be exactly
what Rey had in mind when he discussed the subject
with me, but here it is anyway.
If I had read something like this beforehand, and
found it credible, I would never have come to Reno to
work with Rey.
I chose to leave the Rey Robles Center (really Rey's
private practice) because I no longer wished to
associate with or be associated with Rey. I told him
the reasons yesterday (April 15): I think he is a
rip-off artist and his tech sucks, at least re OT2 and
OT3.
We discussed various tech things over the months and
he showed me some write-ups which he thinks were
written by LRH and I don't. We agreed on some things
and disagreed on others. I didn't receive any
auditing from him, and I have never seen him audit, so
cannot comment on it. His TRs in life are good.
We spoke for an hour, without HE&R, before I left.
Three times I invited him to give me a leaving sec
check--or whatever he wanted as an equivalent--to
satisfy himself that I wasn't leaving because of O/Ws
on him. He declined.
Over the months I did some work in the building,
shoveling snow and so forth. This was all paid for
promptly at a reasonable rate.
Here is a write-up on ALL the people I was involved
with technically at the Center in the 4 1/2 months I
was there. The sequence is not chronological, and I
haven't used any names. I have used "she" throughout
for each person, although some were male.
Most days I arrived in the office around 11:30 AM,
answered the phone and handled the occasional caller,
whether there was anyone on course or not, and left
around 6:00 PM or later. I neither asked for nor
received payment for this.
Note that all the time I was there Rey was not paying
rent on his office suite, including the course room.
[i.e. there was no need for me to wonder if I should
be paying him rent for using a room].
Person A arrived to get auditing and training. She got
auditing, which I was not involved with and will not
comment on. Rey sold her a Volunteer Ministers
Handbook for $75, saying it was rare and not sold any
more. There is one currently on auction on eBay with
36 hours to go and the bidding is at 99 cents: they
are not very expensive or rare at all. She did a VMH
course, which took about 20 hours of my supervision.
I checked her out on each issue and did some drills
too. She paid Rey $200 for the course; Rey gave me
$30.
Person A did the theory of Clearbird's Level 0. I
ordered a printed CB pack, which Rey said he would pay
for. He did, but it took 3 months to get the money
from him. Person A paid Rey $1000 for the course.
Rey gave me $200 promptly. I supervised about 75
hours in the courseroom, including a great deal of
one-on-one drilling on TRs, meter drills etc. At the
outset Rey agreed to provide pcs to audit and do the
student C/Sing. I kept him updated on when the first
pc would be needed. When the time came he had done
*nothing* on finding a pc, and then said it was the
supervisor's job to find one. The student instantly
found her own, and I wrote a C/S for the first
session. At my insistence Rey C/S'd the session, i.e.
he graded it and accepted my C/S for the next one.
The student had to leave before any more auditing was
done.
I supervised Person B for about 35 hours on the HSDC,
which she had obtained in a package deal with Rey. I
didn't do any drilling with her. Rey paid me nothing
for it. I also spent about 5 hours doing a one-on-one
ethics handling with her. I didn't ask for payment
for that, or receive any.
I supervised Person C for about 10 hours on the HSDC,
similar deal to Person B. Rey paid me nothing for it.
Person D: Rey had told her she couldn't progress at
all on study without getting auditing as she had too
much charge on the subject. I interviewed her and put
her on the correct gradient study program (Basic Study
Manual with a checksheet I wrote) and spent an hour or
so working with her. She was doing fine and didn't
need auditing in order to study. She didn't pay for
the study she did. Rey neither offered nor gave me
any money for this.
Person E: At Rey's request I interviewed her re her
training needs and worked out what she should do next.
She never started on course. Time spent about 30
minutes; no payment offered or given to me.
Person F: At Rey's request I interviewed her re her
study and worked out the correct study program for
her. I e-mailed her a checksheet I'd written. Time
spent about 30 minutes; no payment offered or given to
me.
Person G: I spent about 5 hours doing ethics handlings
with her. Rey deducted this time from auditing she
had paid for at his usual rates ($75 an hour, with a
10% bulk or prepayment discount). Rey neither offered
nor gave me any money for this.
Person H: She came for a couple of days. I determined
and she agreed her time would best be spent doing a
set of meter drills, estimated by me to take about ten
hours. Rey regged her for $500 for this, which she
paid on the spot . I spent about ten hours one-on-one
doing the drills. I asked Rey for $250 for this and
Rey paid me promptly a few days later.
Person J: She had been doing the equivalent of the
Clearing Course (CC) under Rey and failed at it. Rey
told her she needed to do auditor training and took
$6,000 from her for Levels 0-4, not yet delivered.
She arrived for a weekend to make some progress. Rey
asked me to work with her. I wasn't available on
Saturday but Sunday was OK. I asked about a meter and
Rey said he'd bring in a Mark VII for her to use. I
didn't discuss payment with Rey as I wanted to see
what he would do.
On Sunday Rey didn't bring in the meter, but later
asked his wife to bring it in. I interviewed Person J
re the CC and found out that she had done NO training
as a solo auditor and she said NO training on the CC.
Her only previous auditor training had been the HSDC
thirty years ago. I told her to her face she'd been
fucked over and that she needed to train as a solo
auditor, then train and drill thoroughly on CC theory,
then she would almost certainly have no trouble
auditing the CC, and Level 0-4 was an unnecessary
action in setting her up to solo audit. I showed her
where to find the Clearbird and Prometheus issues and
explained what they were.
I wrote out for her what she needed to do exactly.
She had about seven hours left on Sunday and I
determined that would best be spent doing a set of
meter drills, which I did intensively with her. She
was very happy when she left. A few days later Rey
asked me how much I thought he should pay me for what
I did. I avoided giving a figure, explained what I
had done with her and why, and said I would accept
whatever he offered. He gave me $40.
Person K arrived to do the equivalent of OT3 theory,
with very little time available to do it in. I found
out that she had previously paid Rey for the
equivalent of OT2, had gone home, and had audited on
the first part of the level only, not knowing she was
supposed to go onto the other parts. She did this, on
and off, for a whole year. I wrote an out-tech report
and cramming/retread/retrain order on Rey on the basis
that he obviously hadn't trained her on the theory,
and obviously didn't C/S the level at all or he would
have noticed it was being run so wrongly. Since the
materials were available on the Internet, and she
wasn't trained, and she wasn't C/Sed, what the hell
was she paying all the money for?
Before she started studying this time I interviewed
her about her solo auditing and determined that it
wasn't vital that she do any solo drilling, apart from
that needed for the level she was about to do.
I later found out she had paid Rey $1,500 for OT1 and
OT2. I have no data on what was delivered re OT1.
What about OT3? Rey had charged $2,800 which she
agreed to pay. She paid $1,000 immediately and $500 a
while later, with the rest promised. Rey gave her
some issues to read, including the platens, all
downloadable from the Internet as before. He didn't
check her out on anything and didn't drill her on
anything, but asked "Any questions?". I had not been
involved up to this point. Rey asked me to do a "Qual
Check", for which he would pay me $12 an hour. Rey
had also told her to do some solo meter drills.
First off I told her that the first time she was going
to be holding the cans was when she went into session
on III. It doesn't work to try solo meter drills when
you've just read the III materials for the first time
as *they* will read on the meter and not "The colors
in the room are brighter".
I then spent about ten hours intensively drilling her
on the level, referring her to the materials when she
didn't get it. I showed her the Prometheus materials
on the Internet. At the beginning she hadn't a clue
on what to do in session. At the end she was
competent and confident. I wrote a C/S, got her in
session, then afterwards went over the session with
her and the worksheets line by line, mark by mark. I
wrote the next C/S and repeated the procedure. She
was too blown out to go back in session the next day,
and then she had to go home.
She audited some more at home and had great wins. Rey
didn't ask to see any worksheets at all. Not once.
Rey paid me $150 for my work with Person K, $50 about
a week after I did it and $100 a month later. Note
that he did virtually nothing for the $2,800 he
charged!
Person K told me she had asked Rey some questions
about auditing OT2 and OT3 and got waffly no-answers.
I answered these questions simply and clearly as I
knew the answers and they were simple and concise.
Person L: She got some auditing from Rey and sat in
the courseroom listening to some tapes. She asked me
a couple of questions, which I answered. This took
about ten minutes of my time. No payment to me
relevant.
**********
Several times Rey said to me that he was willing to be
corrected on anything wrong with his tech. But note
that in the 4 1/2 months I was there he did not ask me
one single question on how to run or deliver OT2 or
OT3. I don't think Rey knows the tech of these levels
at all. To go through the worksheets line by line and
correct what has been done wrongly requires an
intimate knowledge of the levels, as does doing
thorough checkouts or drilling. Since Rey didn't do
ANY of this, I assume he just doesn't know how to.
His response to my cramming order on OT2 was that the
student had falsely attested the theory, and had
dropped out of comm after he went back home. In other
words, it all had nothing to do with Rey. If a CofS
tech person had done the equivalent of those things, I
think he would have been declared on the spot, as it
shows criminal and suppressive out-exchange and
out-tech.
**********
I have listed out the monies paid to Rey and what he
gave me. Rey considers his auditing time is worth $75
an hour. I haven't really worked out what I consider
my time is worth.
[LATER NOTE: I deliberately did not haggle with Rey
over each cycle as I wanted to see what he would do
if it was left entirely up to him. I was not desperate
for money.]
Rey gave me $40 for working for seven hours with
Person J, $6 an hour (!). It took me about five
minutes to determine that she had been fucked over (by
Rey) by not being trained on what she needed to do to
be successful on the Clearing Course and instead was
falsely sold $6,000 worth of something she didn't need
to do at this time (although it would be useful
later). Five minutes at $6 an hour is 50 cents. I
think somehow that that determination was worth more
than 50 cents to the individual concerned!
**********
Permission is granted to freely reproduce this
write-up intact on Freezone lists or websites or
e-mails, but not on ARS or ACT or critic sites and not
on any overt or covert CofS website or for any other
CofS purpose. These words probably won't mean dick if
push comes to shove, but I'll take the position
anyway.
Paul Adams
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 563
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Rey Robles
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> I didn't know that Paul was trained as a C/S.
> Even an upper level
> course supervisor is not a C/S, although they would
> probably know the
> materials well.
> He is not a trained C/S--upper level or any level as
> far as I know.
In terms of formal training, I have done no C/S
courses. I have done the C/Sing sections on formal
auditor courses, and studied the C/S Series
separately. There is also a lot of hands-on experience, detailed
later.
> The basics of c/sing have to be there for anyone to
> determine where
> someone is on the bridge and what should be done
> with them.
> Supervisor knowledge, while good for helping others
> understand the
> materials is not the same as a C/S.
The C/S for a new pc for a starting Level 0 student
would tend to be the same from pc to pc. You could
basically have the same C/S printed on a form with
blank lines to fill in his name and the date and
you're all set. Yes, auditing is for the pc, but the
primary focus in a courseroom is on the student. In
writing out such a C/S, one is basically being a xerox
machine. If the session went OK, the C/S would
correct the major student auditor mistakes (if any)
with the auditor, then continue the Level 0 action
that was being done.
If it was a paying pc who wanted life repair or
something similar, that would be a whole different
approach and the C/S would be tailored to the pc and
not the auditor. But I am not discussing this here,
although you might be, XXXX.
The hats of solo sup and solo C/S are different. But
while supervising I often had to correct solo
auditors--this should properly have been a Qual hat
but the reality was the sup (me) or the AO D of T
almost always did it as it was a lot quicker than
routing the solo auditor into cramming and having him
wait for half a day. We knew exactly what to do and
the one guy in Qual who knew what to do was usually
tied up with getting HGC auditors into session first
thing in the morning when we did this stuff.
The C/Sing was done by VIII's, at the time Richard
Reiss or Hugh Whitt, both excellent Solo C/Ses. I saw
and understood an awful lot of C/S instructions to
solo auditors in the two or three years I was involved
with solo delivery.
Almost all solo C/Sing on OT1, OT2 and OT3 is very
narrow in scope. What the solo auditor should be
doing in session is very pre-defined. The question
is, did he do it? You can't tell by seeing if he is
smiling when you meet him in the hallway. You
sometimes can't even tell by reading the worksheets,
especially when he's new and not that familiar with
the level. So you have to roll your sleeves up and
find out.
What does that squiggle mean on the worksheet there?
But what happened with that last cycle of action you
were working on--did you abandon it midway or did you
just omit writing down the EP on the worksheet? What
about this item on the C/S? Did you skip it or did
the question just F/N and you went on and didn't write
it down?
And so on. And on and on.
The next C/S is usually to end off any incomplete
cycles from the previous session and then continue
with the next action on the standard program. If it's
a mess and bogs, do the standard solo correction list
for the level. If the standard solo correction list
won't sort it out, then it's time for the review
auditor to step in.
In the CofS I didn't do any C/Sing. I didn't need to
as there were fully trained, competent C/Ses doing it.
In the FZ when the designated C/S apparently doesn't
have a clue about the nitty-gritty of the level and I
know it intimately, what am I supposed to do? Lie
down and die because I wasn't certificate trained?
Send the solo auditor to someone else across the
country who maybe also doesn't have a clue on what all
those squiggles mean on the worksheet, or what the
solo auditor should have been doing but wasn't, as
indicated by the lack of certain different squiggles?
I spent thirteen years working at a service org in the
days when students and pcs were serviced, and even
while later working ten years at a management org I
worked in a service department, not a management
department.
I service. It's in my blood.
Paul
Message 564
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Rey Robles
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Paul, what kind of report is this?
Read my post again. I think it adequately explains
itself.
And thank you XXXX for accurately addressing most of
XXXX's points that needed it.
> Reports do not go on public lines. They didn't in
> the COS, and they
> shouldn't be on a list that is shared by OSA.
My message wasn't a Staff Member Report. And if you
know of a broad comm line that FZers are privy to and
OSA isn't, I would be all ears (and incredulous).
Paul
Message 565
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:31:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: achievments
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> If you are ready for solo you should find yourself a
> CS anyway
> as it takes a CS to get through OT2-3 safely.
It takes having your case set up properly; correct
theory material study and drilling; and correct C/Sing
and fine-tuning of one's auditing ability once one has
started auditing the level. It may be the same person
providing all these technical services, but it is not
just the hat of C/S involved.
Paul
Message 566
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] In the Interest of Standard Tech
--- XXXX wrote:
>
>
As I have written a few times, in my experience of
delivering OT2 and OT3 people whose cases are not set
up properly don't do well on those levels, even if
well-trained. In the Church that is a disaster, as
they are in the Non-Interference Area, can't have
anything else run on them apart from the standard
correction lists for those levels, and they end off
attesting after getting little charge off on II and
finding very few to run on III. Then they sometimes
think Scn is a scam as they got no result from those
reportedly-wonderful levels.
If they somehow later get the missing lower grades put
in and then get to do II and III properly, then they
would have to pay 50% of the original costs, which in
the CofS are excessive.
However, in the FZ, rules on the Non-Interference Area
are not so rigidly enforced, and nor is that pricing
structure.
It is not Standard, but *could* be done on the basis
of: "Well OK, so you think you're Clear and maybe you
are but to be perfectly honest I can't tell for sure.
In my experience people who haven't been thoroughly
audited on lower levels with lots of charge taken off
there don't do well on upper ones and I would suggest
you get your lower grades done thoroughly first before
exploring upper levels. But I cannot force you to do
that. If you *insist* on going straight onto OT1 and
OT2, get well-trained and well-drilled and
well-experienced as a Solo Auditor, then do OT1, then
get well-trained and well-drilled on the theory of
OT2.
"See how it goes on auditing OT2. If it runs well,
then great. If it's a dog's breakfast trying to get
reads and nothing much happens, *despite your being
well-trained*, then let's get your lower grades (which
would include full expanded grades and maybe Dn) put
in properly and then have another go at OT2."
Note that being badly trained and unconfident as a
solo auditor can lead to failure on OT2 despite having
the case correctly set up, so it would be important to
be well-trained before doing the above.
I am not promoting a sloppy "Wheeeeeeee, let's all
suddenly throw out Standard Tech and leap right into
the OT Levels and if they run--great!--and if they
don't it's no big deal".
But it might take some of the heat off how crucial it
is to get a Clear Declare right. Yes, one should get
a Clear Declare right, but from observation some
people have a lot of attention on them and the issue
doesn't always resolve easily, even with the CCRD.
Apart from the status value, what benefits come from
having the label? In the CofS one gets to wear a
silver bracelet if one wishes, one gets forbidden to
run more Dn, and one gets to (maybe) advance onto the
OT Levels. In the FZ these restrictions don't
necessarily apply at all. One C/S might refuse to C/S
someone onto the OT Levels, but another might be
willing to. Or one can always go it alone, heaven
forbid. If one doesn't make it, OK, acknowledge that
one screwed up and put in the missing steps, with no
real harm done except to one's pride.
Oh, oh, oh, but a person might get exposed to upper
levels without being ready and could die from
pneumonia etc.!!!!! Yeah, well, I don't see people
dying by the thousand after the stuff hit the Internet
years ago. Do you?
Oh, oh, but you are degrading the whole concept of the
hallowed State of Clear!!!! Well, the concept is
muddied already, from noting that one personally
doesn't know *anyone* who matches up to the Book One
definition; changes in the definition of Clear over
the years; and also one's observation of numerous
false declares, undeclares, mis-declares and so on.
Oh, but if you have someone who is really Clear and it
isn't declared he might get run on--horror of
horrors-- Dianetics!!! I'm not going into this one on
this list! But this whole discussion has been more
about declaring someone Clear who really isn't than
failing to declare someone Clear who really is.
I am not proposing it as a new definition, but noting
that a well-trained Clear should be able to run OT2
and OT3 properly and a well-trained non-Clear wouldn't
(per the materials, not just my observation), should
be useful.
And to repeat myself, one's case should be properly
set up before going on to OT levels.
And to repeat myself again, one should get the Clear
Declare right.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 569
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 11:26:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Volunteer Minister's Handbook
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> With 19 hours to go, starting price $13 +
>
> 1976 first printing.
>
> Great book for training.
>
> XXXX
Yes. But I find the updated version, The Scientlogy
Handbook, much more useful and user-friendly. Usually
available on eBay for $20 or $30, plus shipping and
handling.
Paul
Message 570
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 16:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: The elusive ARC.
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> I believe the lecture you may be lookin for is
> 8Aug58 "Auditor
> Interest" where he uses letter registrars as an
> example of using
> interest on TR4.
I think not. I was on post as a Letter Registrar at
Saint Hill when that PL hit the baskets, and the gist
was exactly as Fritz stated. He gave the title
correctly. As far as I recall, the PL was a tape
transcript, the tape having the same title as the PL.
I remember being disappointed that the PL wasn't in
the new OEC vols when they came out, as I had
considered it the most useful item in my hat.
Apart from Letter Registration, the idea of expressing
one's exact reality on another works very well in life
generally, and I have used it often since first
reading the issue.
I cannot remember what filled up all of the seventeen
pages apart from several examples, as the simple
statement that Fritz gave is an adequate statement of
how to use the principle.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 571
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: The elusive ARC.
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Do you think the issue might be in the older set of
> OEC vols? Or is
> it as Fritz suggests a possible error in remimeo?
>
> XXXX
It came out after the original OEC vols were issued.
I assume there were no instructions by LRH to issue it
as a PL, so when the new OEC vols came out it was not
included in them.
It makes sense, as otherwise there would be issues in
HCO PL form of transcripts for "A Talk on a Basic
Qual" and many other hatting tapes. Restricting such
admin technology to tapes only, especially ones not
generally available, is not particularly a good idea,
but there is certainly a solid precedent with much
tech issued only in tape form and not in HCOBs.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 572
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Assists
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Don't forget this is a Div VI list.
It is?!!!
Since when?
If this is really a Div 6 list, and bb changes the
Yahoo Group descriptive blurb to reflect that, then I
shouldn't be here. I have no intention of rewording
my posts into language suitable for a Div 6 list.
If there is an intention to make this list Div 6 and
the IFAchat list Div 2, so to speak, then I haven't
heard about it. I don't read the IFAchat list often,
so may have missed something if it was announced
there.
Paul
Message 573
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:40:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Assists
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any ideas as to why assists work?
I think Touch Assists work by balancing up the energy
flows through the meridians, to some extent anyway.
I think the Contact Assist works by removing a local
blockage across a meridian caused by a very recent
injury, although it does not attempt any further
balancing.
I think the Nerve Assist works by stimulating the
flowing of energy through the meridians.
I have nothing to add to the usual explanation for a
Locational Assist.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 574
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Assists
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Its the same as it always has been. Its always
> been
> a div 6 forum. Initially all who joined were those
> who
> had left COS, and had long experience there. After a
>
> year or so we started getting many more people who
> were beginners in div 6 of COS. They found the COS
> too
> weird. Now I believe half the people who join are
> quite new to the subject.
>
> So you and your expertise with correspondence
> courses
> are very valuable here. :)
>
> In fact IFA management has decided that new people
> will be routed here, and those with some track with
> scn will be invited to IFA.
Oh. Well, it is not evident from what is generally
being posted. I will continue posting the same kind
of stuff that I have been doing for the time being,
and if the general flow of posted items evolves into
that postulated then I will change accordingly.
Of course, it could be that all the veterans chatting
away in undiluted ScienoSpeak act to discourage most
people new to Scn from offering any opinions on
anything at all.
Any comments from list members who are new to the
subject of Scientology and haven't posted here yet?
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 575
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] New poll for FreezoneOrg
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
There are over 350 people--or at least, separate
e-mail addresses--on this list. Let's see how many
have enough interest to answer this poll.
More than 25? Less than 25?
I commented recently about the possibility of
unfettered Scientology terminology in posts here
causing those who don't talk the talk to consider
their opinions not worth stating. This could be taken
as a bad thing.
But I consider a list "belongs" to those who post to
it, who keep its lifeblood flowing, not to those who
only lurk and never contribute anything to it.
It may be that over 250 people who read these posts
have never set foot in an org, have never heard the
words "This is the session" spoken in earnest, maybe
have never even read an entire LRH book. And maybe
one day they will, and maybe one day they won't.
It may be that over 250 people who read these posts
are *dying* to get into the chair if they could only
understand enough of the subject to find out how to,
but all they read are messages full of impenetrable
gibberish, written by people like me who have no
desire to water down their language on what they
consider to be "their" list.
Who knows? The list owner doesn't, per a phone
conversation I had with him yesterday. He says few
people fill out a simple survey he sends around to all
new list members.
So here is a poll. It is for those who post, but it
is also for YOU, Mr/Ms Silent Lurker. Your vote is
anonymous. This is not an intelligence operation run
by the CofS to garner names for some dirty-tricks
brigade. It is simply as stated.
Whatever this list is *supposed* to be, in reality its
tone and theme is determined by who posts and what is
said by the small percentage of list members who are
regular posters. It may be designated as a "Div 6
List", but if 95% of the people who post to it
continue to talk like they've been in Scientology for
thirty years, then that is the way it will remain and
it will never look like a Div 6 list. (Whatever a Div
6 list is supposed to look like--does anyone know???)
I don't want to post in baby language, so to speak,
and I won't. If the less experienced people want to
speak in whatever terms are natural, they are welcome
to. They have been invited to by the list owner, and
they have as much right to make appropriate posts on
whatever they wish as I do. If 100 previously-silent
list members want to talk here about whether you
should say "thayta" or "theeta", or who is this
"Mary-Sue", go right ahead: It's your list!
I can always go elsewhere for my daily chat with
fellow veterans. Most of the regular posters here
post on other forums. It makes sense to have
different lists for different purposes.
I would be interested to see if the new people here
brave enough to flex their fingers and hit Send are
interested in what dedicated Scientologists talk about
amongst themselves (i.e. pretty much what we have here
now), or if they would prefer a forum where they can
comfortably ask questions like we all had when we were
new to the subject.
Sorry to disappoint, but my telepathic connections to
all the new people reading this aren't working as well
as they should be, and the best way of finding out
your thoughts is to please fill out the poll and post
comments and also answer bb's simple survey. It's not
like he's asking for your credit card details or what
you keep at the back of that bedroom drawer and hope
the kids don't find.
The floor is yours.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewes.com/fzglobal
Message 576
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: New poll for FreezoneOrg
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> A "Good" author writes for the reader, not himself.
> Therefor its his goal to
> have himself understood by the recipient.
But which recipient, XXXX?
How would you care to reword something like "The only
set-up needed is taking a 53 to F/Ning list" so that a
non-Scientologist, unfamiliar with even the theory of
auditing, could get the author's exact intention?
And if you did manage to do that, at great length, how
many auditors would bother to read more than half of
the excruciatingly tedious (to them) resulting post?
Paul
Message 577
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:29:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Security Compromise
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Today I received no e-mails.
>
> I checked the websites of the lists that I am on and
> there were
> postings that should have been e-mailed to me.
>
> Therefore, my only conclusion is that someone has
> hacked my account.
It's possible, but I would look for other explanations
too. Were someone to hijack another's account with
the intention of causing mischief, as soon as the
hacker was into the account I would expect him to
immediately change the password(s) so that the
rightful owner would be denied access to the account.
Then I would expect him to pretend to be that person
and send out confusing e-mails in that person's name
at least.
It would take a while for the rightful owner to put
things to rights, if he ever could, probably with the
help of a friend he could telephone and whose e-mail
address was still trusted.
To hack an account with the intention of causing
mischief and then doing nothing except deleting the
day's e-mail traffic is kinda wishy-washy.
Paul
Message 578
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote:
> > Hi XXXX.
> >
> > Just a friendly reminder, that this list has been
> designated as the
> > one people new to the subject of LRH tech are
> routed.
> >
> > Some potential MU's for new people in this post.
> >
> > Since I believe you are still on the IFA members
> list, that might be
> > a better place for tech queries of this sort.
> >
> > I know there are just a few brand new to the
> subject on this list
> > now, but there will hopefully be lots more in the
> near future.
> >
> > ARC, XXXX
>
>
> well sed. I concur.
>
Well, I don't.
Last time I looked, EIGHTEEN people had answered up to
the poll on how much terminology they wanted to see in
a post. I haven't counted them, but I believe there
are more regular posters here than that. This poll
result is not likely to even be from a representative
sample of the people on this list.
18 out of 360 is FIVE PERCENT.
It would seem that 95% of the people on this list
don't even care enough about what is said on it to
bother spending two minutes and a few mouse clicks to
register their opinions. Or maybe they aren't willing
to spend the time to formulate an opinion.
The most common kind of answer in the poll was to not
use too much terminology and explain the hard stuff.
I assume that most of the people who voted were the
same people who post to the list anyway. I ask
you--is this really what YOU want to read on this
list? And also, what YOU want to write on this list?
Or are you just voting that way because you are a
social kind of person and it seems like the right
thing to do for the group even though you personally
aren't ecstatic about it?
As an example, dear regular poster who normally writes
in fluent ScienoSpeak, take your last few posts that
you wrote and rewrite them in accordance with the
guidelines that have the most votes in the terminology
poll. I don't mean mentally scan over them and note a
change or two: I mean actually type out fully the
revised version. You don't have to post
them--although it might be interesting to see the
results.
I want to continue to write as I have been writing and
read as I have been reading. A footnote to each post,
added in automatically by Yahoo at a moderator's
instigation, that refers to some online FAQ and
glossary would be no hindrance to the normal
communication flow here.
Do the regular posters here really want to read and
WRITE posts written only at an HQS-Course type level?
If the powers-that-be decide to implement this
threatened change--which in my book would be
tantamount to gutting this list--at least let it be
done with some idea of what the result is going to be.
A Div 2 IFAchat and a Div 6 FreezoneOrg might seem
like a good idea in someone's great white hope for the
Freezone, but I disagree. One great thing about the
Freezone is that it is, um, free. Everyone doesn't
just fit into The Master Plan. There's this wonderful
line in Battlefield Earth where someone is complaining
about all the new artisans setting up shop in a new
town and saying, "There is no controlling them!" And
the hero's response is, "Why control them?" I never
forgot that. Up to that point I had assumed everyone
needed to be tightly 8c'd. But they don't. We are
supposed to be increasing individuals'
self-determinism. To champion self-determinism on the
one hand and then try and run rigid control on
everyone on the other is doublethink worthy of the
CofS.
To my mind, this list ain't broke. Why fix it?
I happen to still be on the IFAchat list, although I
don't post there any more. But were I to apply newly
(and honestly), I would not be allowed on, as I don't
fit into the voluminous guidelines for new members.
Whether or not I would be a desirable member is beside
the point.
I have already pointed out that a list "belongs" to
those who create it--its regular posters--and to
radically change the guidelines for this list, even if
done with the best of intentions, would be
destructive.
I'm sorry, but in my mind those who only lurk on a
list have no say in how it is run. Even worse, to
change a list based on an ASSUMPTION about how those
silent lurkers ought to be catered to is lunacy.
A year ago I wanted to find out some real data about
Homeopathy. I ignored the layman-friendly lists and
joined the only one I could find where real live
practising homeopaths talk to each other in their
normal professional language. I don't pretend to
understand everything that is being said, but at least
I know it is the real deal.
How do you know that most of the forever-silent people
who read these posts don't want to just read the real
McCoy too and to hell with the bits they don't
immediately understand?
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 579
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Also there's the False Purpose Rundown, one must not
> overlook at that R/D either, as we don't want to
> send PCs onto the OT levels with evil purposes no?
Is there an HCOB, preferably one considered to have
something to do with LRH, that makes the False Purpose
RD a pre-req to OT levels? I know the CofS made
various pronouncements after various high-level SO
members defected and dared to tell the truth about
what they had seen and done while there, but is it
actually in an HCOB?
I know about the Stalled Dianetic Clear HCOB (CS
Series 118?), but that is not the same as making it a
pre-req.
Paul
Message 580
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Paul
>
> This has nothing to do with the defectors it has to
> do with the proper setting for the PC for the OT
> levels. What you are talking about is BPC on the 3rd
> Dynamic, I never let myself to be swayed by such
> with regarding to the application of the tech.
>
> The ref I gave is good enough, and there are more,
> but they were issued for CCRD auditors of course and
> I'll be happy to discuss with the trained people
> about those issues.
>
> It is best and easier that way, no?
>
> I ack to your opinon.
>
> A trained C/S like Chris would give best more refs
> for those who are auditors and are actually and
> dealing with Clears and CCRDs.
>
> ARC,
> XXXX
That comes across to me as obfuscation, not a "Yes" or
a "No" to the question, "Is there an HCOB making the
FPRD a pre-requisite to OT levels?"
In the post I was responding to, you only mentioned
one HCOB, C/S Ser 119 (not 118 as I thought earlier).
I got off my butt and dug up a copy. It talks about
"allowed handlings" such as False Purpose Checks
[which became the FPRD], which is not the same as
"mandatory pre-requisites". Other allowed handlings
include the Happiness RD and Method 1 Word-Clearing
and L10, L11 and L12, but those are not pre-requisites
to the OT Levels either.
Your original post, part of which I am quoting below,
would seem to give the idea that not doing the FPRD
before getting onto OT1 is a bad idea for anyone. I
was wondering if there was some HCOB I had missed that
said words to that broad effect.
QUOTE:
"You're not considering an HCOB called "The Stalled
Dianetic Clear" and it is a very important ref. as to
what to do with handling a clear, it is not as plain
as it appears, it is not complicated either.
"Also there's the False Purpose Rundown, one must not
overlook at that R/D either, as we don't want to send
PCs onto the OT levels with evil purposes no?"
UNQUOTE
If there is some CCRD issue that escaped my notice
that makes it an actual pre-req, maybe one that was
discovered in one of those caches of writings that LRH
buried in time capsules ten or twenty years ago that
RTC seem to unearth every now and then (shades of Hari
Seldon?), please quote the issue date and title at
least if you don't want to quote any of the text.
Paul
Message 581
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> > The entire intention is to get a person who is
> Clear through the no-
> > interference area, and it is my understanding it
> means just that,
> no
> > interference. No sending the person back to do
> grades, no major
> > actions.
>>
> > Per: Solo C/S 10RB under major actions it says:
> "It is very
> losing
> > game to throw a major rundown in between R6EW (or
> New OT 1 for
> those
> > who went Clear on NED) and OT III.
>>
> > Sunshine Rd. is a good little process, so I see no
> reason why
> someone
> > validated as Clear (other than by doing the CC
> course) shouldn't
> just
> > be c/sed for it--does anyone disagree?
> >
> > Love, XXXX
A person who goes clear on NED or some other Dianetics
is not in the "No Interference Area" as defined in my
copy of Solo C/S Ser 10RB in the new tech vols, p.250
of Subject Volume 1. That HCOB defines the
Non-Interference Area as between OT I and OT III for
someone who went clear on NED, or between R6EW and OT
III for one who didn't.
The well-thumbed registrar's copy of that HCOB that
says that Clears are at risk and need to be pushed up
through OTIII so they can receive NOTs does not
redefine the Non-Interference Area.
I partially disagree that the Sun RD should be done
weeks or months or years after a person attests to
Clear. Right after attesting, great, yes, do it. But
years later, no.
My reason is the HCOB giving the origin of the Sun RD.
Days or months after attesting Clear, life has
already provided more locational actions than the RD
could and it would surely be superfluous.
Paul
Message 582
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
I'm wondering if the pricing of OT Levels has anything
to do with the programming of Clears in the FZ.
Oh no, no, no, NO. How could you even THINK of such a
thing? Sheesh!!!
Well, I'll continue anyway. How do FZ delivery people
price the delivery of OT1-3? As far as I can see,
what is required in the delivery of OT2 and OT3 is:
1. Doing any needed set-ups;
2. C/Sing the person onto the level;
3. Having the correct materials available;
4. Training the person on the materials, both as a
solo auditor and then on the level itself, i.e.
checksheet and pack and supervision and checkouts and
drilling etc.;
5. C/Sing the person while he is on the premises so
he can get competent and confident at auditing the
level under close supervision;
6. C/Sing the person while he is auditing at home;
7. Getting the person to audit on the level and not
allow him to be off it for weeks or months or years at
a time;
8. Doing any needed reviews or cramming;
9. C/Sing for completion when achieved and getting it
declared properly.
This obviously takes a certain number of hours of the
delivery person(s)' time, impossible to predict
precisely ahead of time.
I expect most FZ people who deliver these levels
charge a flat rate.
But is there any good reason to price it differently
than in terms of the number of hours it takes [of the
delivery person's time], other than the fact that that
is how the CofS has always done it? The rate does not
have to be the same as the delivery person's regular
hourly rate, although it could be.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 583
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- Paul Adams wrote:
>
> 5. C/Sing the person while he is on the premises so
> he can get competent and confident at auditing the
> level under close supervision;
> 6. C/Sing the person while he is auditing at home;
Just a clarification. By "C/Sing" in this context I
mean reading every word of every worksheet and taking
the appropriate action to ensure the pre-OT is
auditing himself correctly, not phoning up once a
month and checking that the pc hasn't walked under a
truck or something technically inconvenient like that.
Paul
Message 584
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
> > One entry found for obfuscate.
> >
> > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?
> book=Dictionary&va=obfuscation&x=13&y=17
> > Main Entry: ob·fus·cate
> > Pronunciation: 'äb-f&-"skAt; äb-'f&s-"kAt, &b-
> > Function: transitive verb
> > Inflected Form(s): -cat·ed; -cat·ing
> > Etymology: Late Latin obfuscatus, past participle
> of obfuscare,
> from Latin
> > ob- in the way + fuscus dark brown -- more at OB-,
> DUSK
> > 1 a : DARKEN b : to make obscure
> > 2 : CONFUSE
> > - ob·fus·ca·tion /"äb-(")f&s-'kA-sh&n/ noun
> > - ob·fus·ca·to·ry /äb-'f&s-k&-"tOr-E, &b-,
> -"tor-/ adjective
A comment on dictionaries. I think that a belief that
dictionary entries like the above are generally useful
is very misguided.
It has been my experience that less enlightened
persons who have study troubles mistakenly think that
a college dictionary will somehow elevate their
comprehension.
For example, how many non-KTL grads can readily
define, from the above (I know the first three are not
from the dictionary entry itself):
1. http?
2. cgi-bin?
3. book=Dictionary&va=obfuscation&x=13&y=17?
4. the dots in the middle of "ob·fus·cate"?
5. the individual characters in "'äb-f&-"skAt;
äb-'f&s-"kAt, &b-" except by knowing how to pronounce
the word anyway and figuring them out backwards from
that?
6. transitive verb? [easy one!]
7. inflected?
8. the hyphen in "-cat·ed"?
9. etymology? [easy one for Scientologists]
10. Late Latin?
11. past participle?
12. the hyphen in "ob-"?
It is apropos that the word "obfuscate" is being
defined here in this way.
Paul
Message 585
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: clear etc.
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote:
>
> > My own opinion is that training is the most
> important
> > step missing from the OTIII failures I've known.
> I
> > think that if you get onto OTIII or worse NOTs
> without
> > having at least done a grad V interneship and LOTS
> of
> > auditing, particularly repair auditing, you are
> taking
> > a big risk.
> >
> > XXXX
>
>
>
> And I agree re training. It is a vital missing
> element re "OTs".
>
> XXXX
That should scare the crap out of most everybody here
within spitting distance of solo auditing!
Here we have a respected VI and VIII apparently both
stating that one ought to be a permanent Grad V
auditor with "LOTS" of auditing experience before
embarking on OT III or NOTs.
Even the rapacious, progress-hating CofS hasn't gone
that far.
Very little auditor training occurs in the FZ, as far
as I am aware. It is inconceivable to me that even 5%
of those FZers contemplating soloing on III and above
who had not already trained in the CofS would spend
the time now training through the equivalent of a Grad
V Interneship beforehand. How many have even done
Level 0 in the FZ (i.e. not the CofS)?
I have trained one person in the FZ on a Clearbird
Level 0. He was a good student, and it took about a
hundred hours to get through the theory and do a
session, then he had to go back home and we didn't
finish. I would guess it would take maybe 500-600
hours to get through Class IV, including reasonable
auditing requirements, not an internship.
How long would Grad IV and the NED Course take on top
of that? 1000 hours? (I'm guessing wildly here, as I
don't know).
And a thorough Grad V Interneship: another 500 hours?
I'm not disagreeing that one needs to thoroughly train
on a good Solo Course before starting on OT levels.
And train well on the theory--checksheet and pack and
checkouts and drilling--of each solo level before
auditing on it, and the better-trained one is the
better it will go on Solo.
But let's be realistic: Grad V ain't going to happen.
The only consequence I see of these statements from
XXXX and XXXX--both of whom I respect greatly--is
that people may get additionally scared to a lesser or
greater degree about starting to solo on III or NOTs
because they haven't trained through anywhere near
what these esteemed tech veterans suggest.
Any chance of you guys toning it down a bit?
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 586
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: clear etc.
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> We can throw up our hands and declare that it "ain't
> going to
> happen", or we can put our attention where it
> belongs, and that is
> on establishing training centres everywhere just as
> fast as we can.
Excellent idea, XXXX.
Are you going to personally open one and supervise
full-time in it?
Paul
Message 587
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Who put up the poll in the first place? Was it
> originated by you?
If you go to the poll page it will tell you.
> As part of
> the unanswering
> 95%, I didn't like yer inferences either.
Fancy that.
Paul
Message 588
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: clear etc.
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Its my observation that all who have done OT 2
> have
> had wonderful wins. I have never seen an FZ person
> say
> otherwise. If any have bad experiences please
> comment.:)
>
> I think a survey on OT 2 results would be usefull.
>
> You want to do one Paul?
Sorry--I'm going to pass on this one, XXXX.
I can't think of a useful or interesting way of
surveying OT2 on this open forum.
Like "Rate your wins on OT2 from 1 to 5"?
Or "Check all that apply:
1. Increased personal space
2. Increased affinity for others
3. Decreased personal anxiety
4. Extremities are warmer [this happened to someone I
knew and was a big win for her on OT2]
5. More tolerant of noisy children
6. Increased awareness of self as an immortal being,
etc."?
If someone wanted to do a survey like that, maybe bb
could provide all the OT2 Success Stories he has lying
around, and someone could cull them for phrases like
the above.
If someone does do this, remember there are two ways
of logging responses, one of which the poll-maker
chooses beforehand. Either a respondent can check
just one answer (maybe "Mark your biggest win"), or as
many as apply. If the poll-writer is going for the
second one, have a choice that everyone is supposed to
include so that you know how many people have
responded.
I don't remember what wins I personally got from OT2
25 years ago, although I remember it as a plus and not
a negative. Maybe others can remember more specific
wins.
Paul
Message 589
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Handling of Clears
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Could it be that polls just kinda get ignored?
Sure. Of all the single-choice polls there, none got
more than 20 responses. They were all ignored by
nine-tenths of the list members. Possibly they were
hotly debated in private e-mails or in
hastily-assembled focus groups before the people
concerned decided not to vote, but I would guess they
just got ignored.
I wonder sometimes why there are not more responses.
You think I should write a poll like, "Why don't you
ever respond to these goddam polls?"
Yes, it could be that the poll author and question and
answer choices are not as inspiring as they could be.
If someone else can write a poll that gets more than
20 responses, I would be full of admiration. Well,
maybe half-full. Go ahead XXXX, show us how it is done.
If you get more than 20 hits in a week, I will even
be publicly complimentary to you about it. Perhaps
some of those lurkers I dissed would relish the
opportunity to stick me one, so to speak, by
responding to it, whatever it is, even an updated
time-zone one.
Maybe it is a question of a pollee not wishing to be
the effect of the poll-writer or "the list" or "the
Internet" or whatever terminal that transfers to.
Only after I had been in Scn for years did I see the
Effect Scale in Scn 0-8 where "Can cause or receive
any effect" is at 40.0 and "Must cause total effect,
can receive none" is at 0.0. Prior to that I always
thought that not being the effect of anything or
anyone was more desirable and the way to go. Example:
"Hey Joe, would you hand me that wrench?" "Hell no,
roll out from under the truck, stand up, walk over to
where I'm sipping a beer and pick it off the rack
yourself." Or if not that extreme in refusing, at
least silently protesting while handing it down to
him.
I can't really think of any other reasons except
someone so in apathy or sub-apathy about Scn or the FZ
or life generally that "Why bother?" would be a
quality moment.
I still figure that goading a long-silent lurker into
spitting out a complaint about me is an improvement
over continued silence.
Paul
Message 590
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: clear etc.
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> First, I believe the Solo checksheet has Class 0 as
> a pre-req, or at
> least it used to in the 80s. So how many are keeping
> that pre-req
> in - or even the Student Hat and HQS - before
> starting Solo 1? That
> would be an interesting factoid to know.
I don't think Level 0 has been a pre-req to the Solo
Course since at least 1980, but it has been a pretty
meaty course since then. One could also ask how much
solo auditor training people who deliver solo levels
in the FZ are demanding before allowing people to solo
audit on those levels. The few instances I know about
in the FZ from asking individuals "What training did
you do as a solo auditor before starting on
R6EW/CC/OT2/OT3 Theory?" and "What did you actually do
on _____ Theory before solo auditing the level?"
horrified me.
> ...and
> that most of the training was done IN ORGS with the
> infrastructure
> there to ensure honest and full completion.
Very good point, XXXX.
Your other points were well taken too.
Paul
Message 591
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:34:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: New poll for FreezoneOrg
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> What is your fascination with
> polls?
Just curious about stuff.
The first one I did was about case and training levels
and whether people were currently reading LRH books or
giving or receiving auditing.
Since that one appeared to have only 21 people respond
(out of maybe 250 or 300), I tried one with the most
innocuous question I could think of, "What time-zone
are you in?" Since this information is transmitted by
one's browser anyway, I didn't think that people would
be intimidated by it or something. That one got 20
responses.
Conclusion? Few people here answer up to anything.
The one I just did was to find out how much lingo the
people who read these posts would prefer by asking
them, not by making assumptions about what they ought
to want. Like you find out what movie your friend
would like to see by asking him, "What movie would you
like to see?", not by doing a psychological profile of
what movies his socio-economic status would indicate
would be most likely.
It's not a very good method, as so few respond. If it
were a bunch of people in a room who don't like
talking much, one can just walk up to a "random"
sample, get into comm one by one, and find out that
way. On this list, there is no way. It's not like I
can phone up the ones who don't respond and ask them
for their considerations, is it?
It would possibly have been better not to write the
poll in the first place, as there may be people who
think the results mean something in terms of "the
average list member". They don't. It was nowhere
near a representative "random" sample. It was likely
approximately the same 20 people who answered the
earlier poll, maybe the same 20 people who post here.
Who knows?
Paul
Message 592
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 11:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Thetans' Rights
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
> --- XXXX wrote:
>
> > And in the Free Zone, we have men and women who
> are going to make a
> > universe where a thetan's rights are senior to
> anything else.
> >
> > XXXX
I must have been out getting a pizza or something and
missed the briefing on "thetan's rights" when I
entered this universe.
The dictionary definition here (Oxford Concise, 8th
Edition), assuming it to be the same one as that in
"human rights", is:
"A thing one may legally or morally claim; the state
of being entitled to a privilege or immunity or
authority to act. Examples: a right of reply, human
rights."
Mr. Google has nothing to say about "Thetans Rights"
except something imminent and Earth-shattering (but
unspecified) from the McClaughrys.
The CofS hasn't distributed a million booklets about a
"Universal Declaration of Thetan Rights", that might
somehow position them as having something to do with
the creation of the Universe.
Others have expressed agreement on what Peter wrote,
so I guess they had something in mind for what these
rights are.
I have ideas on the subject, but I'll keep quiet about
them for once. For now, anyway.
Any comments on "thetans' rights"?
Paul
Message 593
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Polls
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
---XXXX wrote:
>
> Wouldn't one 'broaden' the possible answers as
> 'other' would indicate
> that the existing answers were too narrow a field?
> Or do I have it
> backwards?
I'm sure you have it right.
It's like the "Something else wrong?" question at the
end of a 73-question correction list. Ideally, the
poll-writer has thought long and hard about the
possible responses, and the "Other?" option is just a
catch-all in the rare instance that something got
missed.
If the possible options don't cover pretty much the
whole gamut, then the poller didn't do his homework
well.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 594
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 17:38:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Thetans' Rights
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> I found this at
> http://freezoneamerica.org/ivy/24/bridge.html:
>
> "Rights of a thetan
>
> A more immediately helpful definition has emerged
> with the extension of
> the Bridge in recent years. This comes with a
> statement of the Rights
> of a Thetan. The three rights of a thetan are:
>
> 1. Right to one's own sanity and self-determinism
>
> 2. Right to leave a game when one chooses
>
> 3. Right to choose a new game or not choose a game
> as one wishes
>
> If one knows one has and can exercise these rights,
> and can grant these
> rights to others, one has freedom. Absolutes may not
> be attainable
> (Logic 6) but to the extent that one can achieve and
> grant these rights
> then to that extent one is free!"
>
> This was written by Eric Townsend, of England,
> published in IVy 24, Nov
> 1995.
>
> XXXX
Thanks very much, XXXX. I hadn't seen that before.
Anyone know whether those three items were originally
written by LRH and are therefore sacrosanct, or were
they written by anyone else and are therefore open for
comment?
I see part of them match up to bits from LR's
notebook. And if I had been a little less literal and
looked up "rights of a thetan" instead of "thetan
rights" on Google I would have had more success and
seen Capt. Bill mentioned bits too.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 595
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] word clearing
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Hi BB.
>
> It just occurred to me that a glossary might not be
> enough on your new
> 101 list. The newbies aren't going to have the study
> skills to push
> through on definitions the way they'll need to in
> order to duplicate
> the meanings. I think most of us remember the rude
> awakening when we
> were introduced to word clearing for the first time.
> Its a skill that
> must be learned.
>
> So I'd like to volunteer to help with word clearing
> on this list and
> the 101 list as well.( for those who haven't yet
> learned how)
Hi XXXX
Is this XXXX with a different e-mail address? If
it's been used before I don't remember it.
What exactly does "help with word clearing on this
list" mean? Does that mean you answering privately
e-mails sent to you personally by newbies with
questions(i.e. actions invisible to the rest of us)?
Or does it mean you originating additional posts on
this forum explaining any tricky bits that
intransigent uncommon-word-users like myself choose
not to?
If it is the former, or occurs on FZ101, I have no
problem with it. If it is the latter, I will have a
lot more to say about it.
Or did you have something else in mind?
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 596
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: Re: [FreezoneOrg] Re: word clearing
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
Hi XXXX--
--- XXXX wrote:
> BB has left an invitation open to those from FZ101
> to join this list
> and IFAchat as well.
Yes indeed. I believe he started FZ101 so that those
new to the subject could air their views in relative
freedom, and the general level of education needed in
Scn terminology would be minimal in order to
understand what was being said. By doing so, this
FreezoneOrg list would be able to continue on in much
the same way as before. Then any members of FZ101 new
to the subject would be able to move into the deeper
waters of the other two lists whenever they wished.
> And as long as new people choose to come here and
> play, I feel that
> they should at least have the chance to get some
> help with the
> inevitable MU's they will encounter.
I have no problem with that. As far as I recall, I
have also answered all queries I have received by
e-mail about something I or another said that may not
have been clear. I often leave posted queries that
others would know so that they can be answered by
others (not because I'm lazy but just so that others
can post too). Posted queries like "Who is Daniel
Dunglass Home", when the answer is immediately
obtained by putting the name into Google, I sometimes
ignore too.
But the question arises of clearing someone's mu when
they have not expressed any interest in having it
cleared. How far are you going to go in this? How do
you know you are not making it even worse by giving
two additional mu's in your explanation of the one you
assume needs clearing?
Have you done a thorough Key to Life Course? Do you
know just how many mu's the average person carries
around with them and still manages to somehow wake up
breathing the next day?
> Like the 4 conditions of existence descriptions
> provided for Sunny.
>
> She may need a hand with them. Most people I've seen
> encounter them
> for the first time, need a bit of help with them.
Me too. Despite hours with a Tech Dictionary on
repeated occasions, I didn't really get those until I
had read the relevant chapters in the old Phoenix
Lectures book with the benefit of added explanations
and examples. But I repeat--How far are you going to
go? Did Sunny ask for that data in that depth? Word
Clearing is supposed to be done under the Auditors
Code. It is personal--one person's mu needs a
different handling to another's. What about the other
300+ people on this list? Do they want all the
explanations written out ON THIS LIST? What about the
regular posters--do they want to see all the
explanations?
I was on a Yahoo list once that was supposed to be
about Scientology and there were 40 posts a day
talking about kittens and all kinds of other stuff
that had nothing to do with Scientology. I left it in
disgust as it was a colossal waste of time *in my
opinion*. Sure, some people use such lists to chat
over the garden fence with their friends. Some
moderators think that is OK on their lists, and some
don't.
> I hear you are a good supervisor. No way you got
> that way without
> understanding the value of word clearing, and the
> earlier in a
> persons exposure, the better.
Yeah, but this is an e-mail list, a discussion group,
where ideas about FZ Scn are discussed. It's not a
course. It's not a how-to book. It's not a group
word-clearing session. How many times have you
crammed someone on the "Group Word-Clearing" HCOB?
How often have you seen a copy of "The Group
Word-Clearer's Handbook" on eBay?
Have you tried enforcing word-clearing on someone who
doesn't know they need it and doesn't want it? How
does that fit in with the Auditor's Code? And over a
long-distance comm line when there is no feedback at
all?
> I don't think it particularly in the spirit of
> Service PL, as cited
> on the home page, to be thinking only of oneself,
> and what one would
> enjoy for themselves alone.
But what do the other list members want? We know my
views and your views, but what about the others?
> I'll help anyone clear words who needs and wants
> that help,
I don't have any problem with that in general terms.
But let's say one individual has a problem with one
thing that requires several back-and-forth e-mails,
and that thing is not of general interest. Should it
all be broadcast to 350 people? I would think
not--keep it back-channel.
And you say "...who needs and WANTS [my emphasis] that
help". I hope you have a good way of determining who
wants it.
> and will
> do it back channel, front channel or where ever it's
> handy to do it,
> without the slightest regard for anyone who chooses
> to stick,
> intransigently to the belief that they are the only
> one who matters
Maybe, but do have some regard to the wishes of the
others on this list too.
Whatever those wishes are, because I don't know,
beyond the fact that this list has been rolling along
merrily for a year or whatever in a particular manner
and now it seems you want to unilaterally change
something major in it.
Do you know what the wishes of the others in this
group are?
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 597
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: word clearing
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
> Yep, same old me.
>
> I was just helping my wife, who just joined this
> list and FZ101 get
> familiar with yahoo groups, and didn't switch back
> to my account before
> posting.
>
> I'm sure she'll introduce herself soon, unless she
> decides to "lurk" a
> while.
Thanks very much, XXXX. Hello to the missus.
Paul
Message 598
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul Adams"
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Thetans' Rights
To: FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com
--- XXXX wrote:
>
> Guess it is just a matter of which game one is
> playing, which rights
> a Thetan assumes.
Yes, XXXX. Also which definition one uses.
I suspect many people assume that the second one
exists, "The state of being entitled to a privilege or
immunity or authority to act".
I think that only the first one does, namely "A thing
one may legally or morally claim", with emphasis on
the "morally" here.
Rather like coming down to one's breakfast table in a
run-down Los Angeles apartment in mid-summer, and the
head cockroach presents one with a scratchy document
entitled "Universal Declaration of Cockroach Rights",
signed in excrement by the heads of all the major
roach families in the apartment, and he expects to be
taken seriously.
Whump! [Missed the sucker, of course].
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 599
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:38 pm
Subject: [fzclassifieds] Meters?
Anyone got any old meters (Clarity; Ability; other?) for sale?
I have an Azimuth I might sell. It's got a Mark V movement in it, and
worked the last time I checked. I'll have to fix the battery, though.
Paul
Message 600
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:39 pm
Subject: [fzflame] Hi guys
Don't you fuckers ever say anything?
Paul
Message 601
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:54 pm
Subject: [fzglobal] R3X etc.
I've been auditing a pc for a couple of hours a day for the past few
weeks, basically doing the Grade Chart with R3X added.
He had done some Life Repair and some Objectives before coming to me.
I did R3X Lifetime Scanning (face-to-face, metered, pc holding the
cans) in about 25 hours, then onto Expanded Grades. We're currently in
the middle of Expanded Grade 0, and it's all going very well.
After Exp. Grade 4, we'll do more R3X. I haven't really looked at
whether to do it instead of NED (including NED DRD) or in addition to
NED.
At an appropriate point, we'll do OT1, 2, 3.
After that, probably more R3X.
How to run R3X is covered pretty fully at
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/ .
It is very easy to audit, and is a good gradient for any auditor
wanting to get back into metered auditing but feeling a bit rusty.
Robert Ducharme has been auditing R3X full-time for years and years,
and makes a living doing so.
It is a real shame that more people don't audit it, as it is such a
useful process, and easy to learn and do.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 602
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Tue Jul 12, 2005 8:59 pm
Subject: [fzpoetry] Perpetuation
Rhyme gentlemen please.
P.
Message 603
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:08 pm
Subject: [OTList] Changes
I have removed membership restrictions to this group.
I haven't been checking membership requests for many months and there
are some people who have been ignored. My apologies.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 604
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:37 pm
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Join an unrestricted OT List at your own risk
I have had a Yahoo group for discussions concerning OT2/OT3 and above
for over a year now at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OTList . It is
for discussion, not for reading (or posting) copyrighted materials.
Some people had applied for membership and may have thought they were
being ignored as the applications were neither accepted nor denied.
Well, you were being ignored, but there was nothing personal in it,
as the group was not being used and I wasn't looking at applications
at all. I am getting it back into use now, if there is any need for
it.
There are no case requirements for membership now: no-one needs to be
approved in advance.
Join this unrestricted OT List at your own risk. It is debatable how
much risk that is.
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 608
From: "Paul Adams"
Date: Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:01 pm
Subject: Re: Congratulations to bb!!! :):):)
--- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote:
> Folks,,
>
> Please join me in congratulating bb for being the cause of bringing
about
> the highest ever communications on his FreezoneOrg list for the
month of
> July and it isn't even over yet.
>
> Wow!!! bb, you sure have done a marvelous job of not only
increasing the
> number of people but also the number of communications. I bow to
you, Sir!
Characteristics of products include Quantity, Quality and Viability.
Quantity is one out of three. Using only that indicator, the
addition of ten thousand e-mails to this group about a ripped-up wet
suit one has for sale, or what one usually eats for breakfast, or a
me-too trite acknowledgement would be a huge up-statistic and worthy
of celebration.
Every message here apparently goes to several hundred people. It
needs to be read or at least scanned, then deleted or filed or just
left unhandled in the Inbox by each one of those several hundred. It
doesn't take very long to do that with one message usually,
especially if one doesn't have to scroll through twenty screens of un-
snipped digest in the posted reply to see the sole comment "Well
done!" at the bottom, for example. To do it with ten messages a day
takes longer, to do it with a hundred messages a day takes longer
still.
Some messages are well worth reading. Some are so-so. Some should
never have been sent and merely waste everybody's time.
I think it's a bit like an auditing session, where the main activity
is running the processes on the C/S, along with enough dunnage to
keep the pc in session. The e-mail list analogue to the actual
process auditing is on-topic, useful discussion about points of
interest to the list members, and the counterpart to the dunnage is
the occasional "Well done!" or off-topic joke or an item of interest
to only one or two persons out of the several hundred readers.
That's the "Quality" aspect above.
When the ratio inverts, and the main course is nutritionless pap with
only a rare post being worthy of consumption, the value of the list
declines markedly. It can get to the point where one doesn't even
bother to read a list any more as the time and effort expended to
find the occasional appetizing morsel isn't worth it (that's
the "Viability" aspect).
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 609
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:01 am
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Getting Courses Done
Here are some approximate checksheet times from old
CofS checksheets (circa 1985):
Student Hat 80 hours
Pro TRs 160
E-Meter Course 40
Level 0 80
Level 1 80
Level 2 80
Level 3 80
Level 4 80
NED 160
Grad 5 ???
SHSBC Level A 260
SHSBC Level B 260
SHSBC Level C 260
SHSBC Level D 260
SHSBC Level E 260
SHSBC Level F 260
Some people can get through courses in checksheet
time, some are slower, but this is just meant to be a
rough guide.
While in the CofS I started and completed all of Level 0
except the final auditing requirement, and I started
and completed all of Level A except the final auditing
requirement. Blunted purposes. I gave up.
For the past eight weeks I have been auditing someone,
pretty much daily. It suddenly dawned on me a couple
of weeks ago that I could now get this Class IV
training cycle done: I merely had to do it. It's not
like I needed anyone's permission. So I finally
wrapped up Level 0 and I will have Level 1 wrapped up
when my pc completes Expanded Grade 1 shortly. And
after I get Levels 2 and 3 and 4 completed in the next
couple of months I can get back onto fulfilling that
20-year old dream of finishing the Briefing Course.
Rekindling the failed purpose did all those good
things that it is meant to.
I listed out those checksheet times above to make a
point, namely that doing something regularly for a
long period adds up to an appreciable total, and if
one can get through courses in a reasonable time one
can get a lot of courses done if one just sticks to it
every day.
If you like studying LRH materials you can study
things for years, bits of this and bits of that, and
kind of have nothing to show for it at the end. I've
certainly done my share of that. Or you can spend the
time studying things in a sensible sequence on some
course or other, including practicals and auditing
too, and end up trained in some subject, competent and
confident in one's ability to do it.
An hour a day for a year, with a couple of weeks off,
is 350 hours. An hour a day for five years is 1,750
hours. Two hours a day for a year is 700 hours, five
years 3,500 hours.
Some people work very long hours and don't even have
enough time to eat and sleep properly. Others watch
TV four hours a day, or sleep in an extra couple of
hours a day, or worse. Some are in between.
Maybe you want to learn and have the time but have no
course supervisor around?
See my next post (which isn't about having me as a
course sup).
--
Paul
http://www.fzglobal.org or
http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal
Message 610
From: Paul Adams
Date: Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:10 am
Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Good materials; study self-reliance; persistence
A friend recently bought a Robinson Curriculum, a set
of CDs on home schooling kids. I spend several hours
reading the introductory write-ups from the
Dr. Robinson concerned, and found them fascinating.
Briefly, as I remember it, this man had five or six
kids he wanted to home-school as well as a full-time
academic job, a 100-sheep, 20-cow farm to run, and a
recently deceased wife who had been going to do the
home-schooling. He worked out a st