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: ob7fus7cate > > Pronunciation: 'db-f&-"skAt; db-'f&s-"kAt, &b- > > Function: transitive verb > > Inflected Form(s): -cat7ed; -cat7ing > > 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 > > - ob7fus7ca7tion /"db-(")f&s-'kA-sh&n/ noun > > - ob7fus7ca7to7ry /db-'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 "ob7fus7cate"? 5. the individual characters in "'db-f&-"skAt; db-'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 "-cat7ed"? 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 study methodology which took up a maximum of 15 minutes a day total of his time, in which the kids basically taught themselves from written materials, without the benefit of study tech. This methodology was phenomenally successful. He said his oldest kid was no genius and found it very hard to memorize things. At the time of his write-up his oldest kid was half-way though a PhD at a very reputable university, having entered university two years early and achieved a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry in two years (i.e. four years earlier than average). On his entrance exam for graduate school he had scored 800 out of 800 on two tests and only 780 (?) on the last one as it was a verbal one and he had only had time to revise up to the letter "P" (and the only questions missed were those involving words after "P"). The other younger kids seemed to be doing as well. The father, who has several advanced degrees and worked for years teaching physics as university faculty staff, wrote that every one of his kids had surpassed where he had been academically at a similar age. I'm not going to give all the methodology here, but three very relevant points are that the students had good materials and then had to work things out for themselves, and they had to persist at it until they did. These factors seem to me to be the main ones that got that kid to the point of academic excellence, not the fact that he naturally brilliant (which he wasn't). Good materials; study self-reliance; persistence. Note that this was done WITHOUT STUDY TECH. Dr. Robinson's solution for daydreaming, for example, was to just let the kid daydream. The kid still had to get done the study assignment, and if he had wasted two hours daydreaming it came out of his own time, and eventually the kid came to realize that daydreaming in school time wasn't a good idea and he should get his attention back onto study and he had better get what he had missed, whatever it took. I am writing all this to make the point that yes, it is nice to have a nearby standard courseroom with a properly trained course supervisor to hold your hand and make sure you attend course on time and don't go by misunderstoods you shouldn't and remedy the lack of mass when you need to, and you can get checked out on your duplication of things and so forth. Not only is it nice, but for most it is far better than not having one. But, but, but, IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL. Millions of people the world over without any study tech at all study by themselves without courserooms and have done so for ages. If you are not already doing so, why can't you? -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 611 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:53 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] GAT in 1962? From HCOB 3 May 1962, ARC BREAKS, MISSED WITHHOLDS: "Further, every pc action has an exact auditor response. And each of these has its own drill by which it can be learned." It says "has" its own drill. What drills were these? Was this a postulate that these drills *would* exist, or did they actually exist at that time? I don't remember seeing them ten or so years later when I started in Scn. Did they disappear? Did someone switch planets when I wasn't looking? Anyone know? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 613 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:04 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: GAT in 1962? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > folks were drillin processes all along, and doin TRs. I assume that > is what he meant. Yeah, that had been my default position too. Later in that HCOB he mentioned the usefulness of "standardized responses" (in the medical profession), and that coupled with the particular wording I quoted before made me wonder if perhaps some precise patter drills had been compiled and later withdrawn that I hadn't seen or heard about. I guess not. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 614 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Aug 1, 2005 1:47 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Resolving Freezone Disputes Someone recently brought up the question of what to do with a Freezoner who was apparently not delivering what had been promised. I'm sorry I don't have the original post to hand. I thought about this subject many months ago and wrote it up twice in e-mails to different people but don't have any copies left. I don't intend to lose this one! In the CofS, the "Staff Member Report" mechanism (per the HCO PL Staff Member Reports) works great in theory and works to a greater or lesser extent in practice. One writes up a detailed, factual report of the perceived violation of ethics or tech or policy, without rancor, labels it as to type of report so it can be handled appropriately, and sends it to the Ethics Officer with a copy to the person via the originator's and transgressor's seniors. The Ethics Officer is supposed to act appropriately on these reports to put things to rights. If the system is followed properly it works, but only if the participants all agree to play the same game, to follow the rules as laid out in policy. If they don't, it breaks down, as many involved with CofS ethics and justice cycles can testify. In the FZ, if the offending person doesn't give a hoot, writing up a perceived transgression in a similar manner to the CofS achieves nothing useful. So let's say some FZer has been royally ripped off by another FZer and wants to do something about it, what can he/she do? I would propose the following gradient scale of actions be done, in sequence, going on to the next one if the previous one doesn't bear fruit. Let's say "Sally" has a dispute with "John" over some agreement she perceives to have been broken. 1. Sally tries to sort it out with John with regular communication, by mail or telephone or in person, the usual thing that would occur anyway. She should probably inform him of the later steps in this list, assuming she intends to follow them. If the matter doesn't sort out satisfactorily after a reasonable period of time, then... 2. Sally writes it all up and sends it to some "authority" (not federal or state or local government) that might have some sway over John, with a copy to John. This authority would be expected to try and get John's version of events and try and sort it out one way or another. The authority might be some FZ entity; it might be John's wife; it might be John's employer; a mutual friend; etc. This Step 2 might or might not turn out to be much the same as Step 3. 3. Mediation: Sally and John agree on a third person to help them come to a resolution of their dispute. The Mediator has no power to enforce a resolution, but can help the two parties to communicate and can offer suggestions. This can be done in person, or by mail, e-mail, three-way phone calls etc. Each party should probably document their side of the story, just like one would do in a regular Court of Law, as much as is feasible. If Sally and John cannot agree on a mediator, then they each select an umpire and the two umpires will agree on a Mediator. If this doesn't work out in a reasonable time, then... 4. Arbitration: Sally and John agree on a third person to help them come to a resolution of their dispute. They agree to be bound by the Arbitrator's decision in the matter. If they cannot agree on an Arbitrator, then they each select an umpire and the two umpires will agree on an Arbitrator. This would work similarly to Arbitration above, except that the Arbitrator decides the settlement, and this settlement does not have to have the agreement of both parties (although each is agreeing to be bound by it). If this doesn't resolve in a reasonable time, then ... 5. Small Claims Court etc. This is the normal way of trying to resolve a dispute with an unwilling party--you just sue his ass. The above steps are a bit more civilized, but if the other party is not up to it, there is little choice. 6. If nothing has worked by now, it can get really messy, maybe with Protest PR (pickets etc.) and so on. Would Sally want to continue with this kind of thing, or just cut her losses and get on with her life? Her choice. Realistically, anyone wearing the hat of Mediator or Arbitrator should be paid for his time at whatever rate he chooses and agrees with the parties concerned. If it's too high, get someone else. Initially each party (i.e. Sally and John here) should share the costs equally, with the Mediator/Arbitrator being paid a reasonable fee upfront. The final resolution of the dispute would include how the total costs of the proceedings are to be shared, and the whole matter should not be considered settled until the Mediator or Arbitrator has been paid in full as well. Note that *anyone* could be selected as Mediator or Arbitrator, as long as this is agreed on by those concerned. And unless he's a dingbat, it would be more cost-effective to have the same person as Mediator and Arbitrator if needed later, as a new person would have to spend time getting up to speed. Also note that if the dispute is over $50, most people would not want to pay $50 or $250 to a mediator to try and help sort it out, and might want to just drop it or might want to go straight to Small Claims Court. What about Sally writing up how she was wronged by John and posting it to the Internet in one form or another, maybe on a website, maybe on ARS, maybe on a forum like this one? Should it be done, and if so, at what point in the above scale of actions? Should it not be done? Well, this gets tricky, and the pros and cons should be weighed up first. As I see it, possible reasons for making John's actions more broadly known include: 1. It could make Sally feel better one way or another; 2. It could warn others as to what John might do with them, as even if Sally's personal dispute had been settled there is no guarantee he wouldn't do the exact same thing with his next client. Reasons for not making John's actions broadly known include: 1. Such a write-up could be considered entheta and not appropriate to the comm line chosen; 2. It might give the CofS ammunition in some "Smear the Squirrels" campaign. And if Sally is going to post a write-up, at what point should it be done? The threat of posting it could be used as leverage in negotiating a settlement with John. This may or may not be ethical, depending on the situation. Or once it has been posted, John might be so pissed off as to delay or deny settlement. On the other hand, Sally's promise to put a further notice in the same place saying John did do what she said before but made it totally right very soon after, might speed a settlement along rapidly. So when to post such a notice? Hell if I know! How about "As circumstances dictate"? Those are all my thoughts for now. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 615 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Aug 1, 2005 10:06 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Resolving Freezone Disputes --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Frankly Paul, I don't see the point. > > Individuals have the right to resolve disputes (or not) for themselves. > They are certainly free to select mediators to aid them in resolving > their disputes. Freezone organizations and individuals are free to > offer reconciliation services. Several already do. Individuals are free > to make use of them as they wish. > > ANY attempt to enforce, coerce or pressure (however lightly) > scientologists into the use of such a service, is ethically unacceptable > conduct. > > Leave that nonsense to the churchies. This practice was never anything > other than an attempt to enforce the centrality of the Co$ on all > scientology practitioners. I agree with you entirely, Mark. I made no mention of a mediation/arbitration service being provided and it was not my intention to promote the use of any specific one. I think the Freezone should be FREE and its individuals not bound up in some rigid monster once more. If you think I said something different, please read what I wrote again. That's good that you know all about mediation and arbitration. I only found out a few years ago about the possibilities after I started working as a Claims Adjuster and had to deal with disputes over car accidents ending up in Court. I made the assumption that most of the people here were not aware of the alternatives available. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 616 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Aug 2, 2005 12:57 am Subject: Big snowballs And now for something completely different. Take it seriously or not, as you wish. I was just going over a tape on Level II, 26 October 1961, Security Checking--Auditing Errors, and there's a comment near the end about freezing people up in ice cubes and dumping them in the ocean on another planet. This subject is also mentioned in the book History of Man, Chapter 8, regarding beings being transported to a new area by being frozen in ice and dumped in the ocean. This reminded me of some research done by a Professor Louis Frank at the University of Iowa, that there were (and presumably still are) house-sized chunks of snow or ice hitting the Earth's atmosphere at the rate of approximately twenty a minute. This research is disputed, of course. You can read about it on the Net via Google. http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/komwater.html seems fairly comprehensive but isn't necessarily the best link. The first time I read about Frank's theory back in 1999 I wondered if there was any connection between his ideas and Hubbard's. Frank's explanation for the source of these snowballs is that they are comets, that being an obvious assumption to make. Little green aliens tossing them out of space ships doesn't have an awful lot of scientific credibility. One problem with Frank's idea is the apparent observation that none of these objects appear to be hitting the moon, and if the cause was comets they ought to. I was wondering if the source of these snowballs was visitors just getting close enough to Earth to ensure that the cargo would fall within Earth's gravity well and not the sun's or moon's, and not bothering to get any closer. That could explain the absense of snowballs hitting the moon. How many beings can you fit into a snowball? I don't know. I have never seen any specific data on it anywhere or done any personal research into it (duh). We could do some more wild speculating. The global birth rate is about five a second or 300 a minute; the global death rate is about two per second. These snowballs are supposedly forty feet in diameter each, about 3,200 cubic feet. If the current birth rate matches the number of beings being dumped, that would be fifteen per snowball, around twenty cubic feet each, which seems far too much space to me. Could be there's no connection at all. Oh well.... Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 618 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Aug 2, 2005 9:43 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: GAT in 1962? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > It comes as a surprise, and a little hard to swallow that LRH would > go to all the lengths he did to put training there,as such a precise > activity, and then leave such a crucial aspect as checksheets to > others. I found it hard to swallow too, so when I was in the SO I tried to discover which checksheets had been written by LRH personally. The only one I found that I had some degree of confidence in it having been written by LRH himself was Admin Know-How Series 32R, HCO PL 5 December 1973R, Rev. 12 Dec 74, Q and A Checksheet, Checksheet of the Hubbard Causative Leadership Course. This doesn't mean that I knew with any great degree of certainty that it had been authored by LRH. It wasn't just idle curiosity on my part. As a practising course sup I felt I needed to get examples of LRH checksheets, so I asked around. Other sups were interested too. The above is all I came up with. Some issues that now are published in green ink on white paper or red ink on white paper and say "L. RON HUBBARD Founder" at the end as if he wrote them had been originally issued with different authors noted. One that comes instantly to mind is the bulletin entitled something like "Checklist for Setting up a Solo Session" from around 1982. The original mimeo'd issue that came into the baskets had David Mayo's name at the end from the post of Snr C/S Int. I disageed violently with the issue as it went into such silly details as the exact location on the table you had to place your stapler and you were supposed to divide the worksheet in two only by drawing a line an inch long at the top. Such items qualify as "putting a datum where a being should be" and are inane. When the new Tech Volumes came out, lo and behold that piece of idiocy had become dignified with the name "LRH Tech" for eternity, or at least for as eternally (infernally?) long as robots continue to edit the Tech Volumes being published. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 619 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Aug 2, 2005 9:57 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Resolving Freezone Disputes --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > It is up to a person to keep their own ethics in, and make pro- > > survival decisions. > > > > If they refuse, the matter becomes, correctly, a group justice > > action. > > > > What group? Incisive thinking, Batman. You really should post here more often, XXXX. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 620 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Aug 2, 2005 10:13 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: LRH Administrative Technology --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > "The secondary valuable final product of trs is: > > "A person with the session and social presence of a > professional auditor, and that presence can be summed > up as a being who can handle anyone with > communication alone and whose communication can stand > up faultlessly to any session or social situation no > matter how rough. > > "THE END PHENOMENA OF TRs is: > > "A being who knows he can achieve both of the above > flawlessly and from here on out." > > > This is almost a statement of an absolute. Its also > one may consider a high OT ability. {I added some quote marks to XXXX's post). It's also nigh on impossible and pretty much guaranteed to give any graduate with some sense of reality a lifetime of missed withholds, at least while in the CofS. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 621 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Aug 2, 2005 10:45 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Pulling it in. --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > Hey XXXX. > > It seems so far that you are correct about LRH never having used the > term "pulling it in". He might not have used those exact words, but take a look at, for example, PAB 23 HAVINGNESS: "As we saw in Acceptance Level Processing (PAB 15) only certain energy forms may be acceptable to the thetan. This is regulated by the screens he has erected against things. By setting up a resistance to certain energies, he creates an eventual appetite for them. He sets up screens to resist the form and the screen becomes plus for the form on the far side and negative for the form on the near side. As the screen caves in upon him (by being pounded by the unwanted form) it eventually causes an appetite (vacuum) for the form." I took the liberty of making a fair use quote. Would this not qualify as "pulling it in"? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 622 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Aug 2, 2005 11:12 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: KSW --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > --- XXXX wrote: > > > XXXX. > > > > Can you show me a policy that LRH wrote that > > prevents tech from > > going in? > > > > XXXX > > Disconnection. Expell/ declare. > > XXXX Au contraire, mon ami, I thought the exact opposite applied. I don't have the policy to hand, but I thought the original idea of labeling a person suppressive was two-fold: one to protect the group from one who would suppress the group members in their quest for freedom; and two, to allow the being with the label to be able to cognite on his dramatizations and have a shot at spiritual freedom himself, even if difficult. Without the label, beings who really do qualify as anti-social supposedly never have the chance to make it. Of course the perversion of SP Declares in present time is something else, but the original post was about written LRH policy, not current or even former practice. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 623 From: "fzglobalguy" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2005 2:50 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Sun Tzu --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, (original subject line, "Re: KSW") XXXX wrote: > > Another advantage of a tighter group is that the FZ would be harder > to kick around at CofS's whim if we were working together, and they > knew that. I don't know about that. If there are a hundred entities, whether individuals or groups, all doing different--if similar--things, that is one hundred dispersed targets and one hundred different plans of attack needed and also one hundred different follow-up actions needed. If there is one entity, the attack planning and follow-up becomes much simpler. "United we stand, divided we fall" sounds comfortingly familiar and in some situations is appropriate. But let's take a look at some quotes from Sun Tzu's seminal book, "The Art of War". Why? Or, "'ere John, wot's all this cobblers then?" as one of my former countrymen might have said. Well, that book, along with Clausewitz's "On War" is recommended by LRH for OSA types (I forget where), and both are on the hat checksheet of every person one is likely to come up against in OSA directing operations. I remember supervising many of these people in OSA Int on their hat checksheets, and most struggled mightily with "On War" as it is a pig of a book to get through, but "The Art of War" is far more digestible, especially on insufficient sleep (note point #36). They should be applying analogues of these tactics in any kind of Intel, PR or Legal operation against any FZer (or critic), or at least they should have a healthy respect for any FZer (or critic) showing a workable knowledge of them. On the other side of things, this is a good part of the tech on how you win a battle against a non-trivial opponent. I have excerpted what I think is applicable to any kind of CofS- versus-FZers scene. I have numbered the points here to make them easier to refer to, if anyone wishes to make any comments beyond how long and off-topic this post is and how dare I quote anyone but LRH. So someone can simply say, "Look at #40. Fritz was right!" Note points #4, #22 and #33. In my opinion, it is preferable by far to avoid "battle" altogether, but this is more reliably achieved by being well prepared, not by crossing one's fingers and thinking nice thoughts. "If you know the tech it will protect you", to quote someone else. Note also that in invaded Iraq, the supposedly greatest and most- expensively-equipped army that ever polluted the face of the Earth is being trounced by a home-defending rabble that is imperfectly applying some of these points (guerrilla tactics). There are a few words of explanation of mine in square brackets [ ]. Now on to Master Sun Tzu: 1. "A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective". 2. "When they are fulfilled, be prepared against them; when they are strong, avoid them". 3. "The formation and procedure used by the military should not be divulged beforehand". 4. "Therefore those who win every battle are not really skillful-- those who render others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all". 5. {Zhang Yu commentary: 'The best military operation is to attack strategically, meaning to use unusual tactics and secret calculations to seize victory without even battling'.) "The next best is to attack alliances". 6. "So the rule for use of the military is that if you outnumber the opponent ten to one, then surround them; five to one, attack; two to one, divide". 7. "If you are equal, then fight if you are able. If you are fewer, then keep away if you are able. If you are not as good, then flee if you are able". 8. "So it is said that if you know others and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know others but know yourself, you win one and lose one; if you do not know others and do not know yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle". 9. "In ancient times skillful warriors first made themselves invincible, and then watched for vulnerability in their opponents". 10. "Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent". 11. "Therefore skillful warriors are able to be invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable". 12. "Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack". 13. "Defense is for times of insufficiency, attack is for times of surplus". 14. "Therefore the victories of good warriors are not noted for cleverness or bravery. Therefore their victories in battle are not flukes. Their victories are not flukes because they position themselves where they will surely win, prevailing over those who have already lost". 15. "So it is that good warriors take their stand on ground where they cannot lose, and do not overlook conditions that make an opponent prone to defeat". 16. "Therefore a victorious army first wins and then seeks battle; a defeated army first battles and then seeks victory". 17. "Therefore good warriors cause others to come to them, and do not go to others". 18. "What causes opponents to come of their own accord is the prospect of gain. What discourages opponents from coming is the prospect of harm". 19. "To unfailingly take what you attack, attack where there is no defense. For unfailingly secure defense, defend where there is no attack". 20 "So in the case of those who are skilled in attack, their opponents do not know where to defend. In the case of those skilled in defense, their opponents do not know where to attack". 21. "If you can strike few with many, you will thus minimize the number of those with whom you do battle". 22. "Even if opponents are numerous, they can be made not to fight". 23. "Test them to find out where they are sufficient and where they are lacking". 24. "Therefore the consummation of forming an army is to arrive at formlessness. When you have no form, undercover espionage cannot find out anything, intelligence cannot form a strategy". 25. "Military formation is like water--the form of water is to avoid the high and go to the low, the form of a military force is to avoid the full and attack the empty; the flow of water is determined by the earth, the victory of a military force is determined by the opponent". 26. "So a military force has no constant formation, water has no constant shape: the ability to gain victory by changing and adapting according to the opponent is called genius". 27. "So if you do not know the plans of your competitors, you cannot make informed alliances". 28. "Avoiding confrontation with orderly ranks and not attacking great formations is mastering adaptation". 29. "So the rule for military operations is not to face a high hill and not to oppose those with their backs to a hill". 30. "Do not follow a feigned retreat. Do not attack crack troops". 31. "A surrounded army must be given a way out". 32. "Do not press a desperate enemy". 33. "So the rule of military operations is not to count on opponents not coming, but to rely on having ways of dealing with them; not to count on opponents not attacking, but to rely on having what cannot be attacked". 34. "Those who come seeking peace without a treaty are plotting". 35. "If the army is unsettled, it means the general is not taken seriously". 36. "If their emissaries are irritable, it means they are tired". 37. "The individualist without strategy who takes opponents lightly will inevitably become the captive of others". 38. "The contour of the land is an aid to an army; sizing up opponents to determine victory, assessing dangers and distances, is the proper course of action for military leaders. Those who do battle knowing these will win, those who do battle without knowing these will lose". 39. "It may be asked, when a large, well-organized opponent is about to come to you, how do you deal with it? The answer is that you first take away what they like, and then they will listen to you". 40. "Therefore those skilled in military operations achieve cooperation in a group so that directing the group is like directing a single individual with no other choice". 41. "The business of the general is quiet and secret, fair and orderly". 42. "He [the general] changes his actions and revises his plans, so that people will not recognize them. He changes his abode and goes by a circuitous route, so that people cannot anticipate him". 43. "They [an enlightened government] do not mobilize when there is no advantage, do not act when there is nothing to gain, do not fight when there is no danger". 44. "A government should not mobilize an army out of anger, military leaders should not provoke war out of wrath. Act when it is beneficial, desist if it is not. Anger can revert to joy, wrath can revert to delight, but a nation destroyed cannot be restored to existence, and the dead cannot be restored to life. Therefore an enlightened government is careful about this, a good military leadership is alert to this. This is the way to secure a nation and keep the armed forces whole". 45. "So what enables an intelligent government and a wise military leadership to overcome others and achieve extraordinary accomplishments is foreknowledge. Foreknowledge cannot be gotten from ghosts and spirits, cannot be had by analogy, cannot be found out by calculation. It must be obtained from people, people who know the conditions of the enemy". 46. "Therefore no one in the armed forces is treated as familiarly as spies, no one is given rewards as rich as those given to spies, and no matter is more secret than espionage". 47. "You must seek out enemy agents who have come to spy on you, bribe them and induce them to stay with you, so you can use them as reverse spies". 48. "It is essential for a leader to know about the five kinds of espionage [not all detailed in these extracts], and this knowledge depends on reverse spies, so reverse spies must be treated well". 49. "So only a brilliant ruler or a wise general who can use the highly intelligent for espionage is sure of great success. This is essential for military operations, and the armies depend on this in their actions". Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 624 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Aug 3, 2005 3:11 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: GAT in 1962? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Actually, although it is a pain, that checklist to set up a session > is like all the steps you need to know to run your car. If you learn > them properly, you just do them without hardly thinking about it > later, and it really does help with how to set up your meter, and the > location of materials, what is the most convenient way for you. There already existed an HCOB checklist for setting up a session and E- meter, and now there is also a Tech film and drill film about it, or there was in 1995 anyway. I remember seeing the film over and over and drilling the checklist over and over, stopwatch ticking away, to get it down rapidly and precisely from memory. I agree it's a good idea to have such a checklist. I was complaining about the particular version that was issued for Solo auditors, not about the idea of having one. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 625 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Aug 3, 2005 12:51 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: KSW --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > KSW seems central to the disagreements that prevent the FZ from > becoming a 3rd dynamic, as opposed to a bunch of seprarate little > going concerns. > > I think discussing it is on topic, beneficial and can only lead to > better understanding among the various factions taking opposing > views. I agree that discussing KSW is on-topic, if likely to be fractious. But "Ability to understand and evaluate reality of others and to change viewpoints" lies at 3.5 on the Chart of Human Evaluation and viewpoint change is admitted so rarely I suspect that it occurs rarely too. I find LRH's analysis of those ten points very useful; it is not only Scn that is prone to losing technology. But for overall commentary on KSW1 I can only endorse the anonymous article that bb posted. Note that "KSW" can mean either the first issue in the "KSW Series", or the whole notion of applying the principles, as in "His KSW was out". My objections to KSW1, the issue, do not necessarily apply to the whole notion. I say "necessarily" because I have not looked at those objections in regard to the whole shebang. It is a curiosity that the only three people I recall publicly supporting that article here are all British (Roland, bb and myself), and those objecting to it are not (as far as I know). Is it only the British who can think clearly? Although I am becomingly almost as ashamed of being associated with the antics of NWO lackey Prime Minister Blair as some Americans are of NWO lackey President Cheney. Sorry, couldn't resist the bits of mischief. I'll stop stoking the fires now. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 626 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2005 11:31 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Pulling it in. --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > Would this not qualify as "pulling it in"? > > > No. In that quote he is referrin to masses and etc in one's mind. Thanks for explaining the distinction, XXXX. I stand corrected. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 627 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 3, 2005 11:39 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Pulling it in. --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > LR (or anyone), perhaps you can find the reference easier than I. > There's an HCO B or PL where Ron mentions that someone may think they > caused an accident when they were only in one, and others may think > they were only in one when they caused it. The usual reference is HCOB 20 May 1968, Overt-Motivator Sequence. One I found very helpful for students in trying to understand the mechanism is the book Scientology 8-80, Chapter 2. anyone http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 628 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 1:57 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Gist --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I am doing that but I had to go through about 175 posts and it has > taken me hours to do this. So you want to know who's been flooding your in-box, Barb? Here is a list of who sent the last 500 posts. Note that half these posts came from only six people. You might care to adopt a recent suggestion and turn off the e-mail deluge and visit the group site online instead. I did that a couple of weeks ago. Then go down this list below, poster by poster, and see if you find that person's posts generally worth reading, garbage, or pot luck (i.e. sometimes good and sometimes not). Make a note by your computer of your assessments. You don't have to do everybody. Then select the simple message format in Yahoo so you get lots of messages on a page, and zip through the message list accordingly, always opening the ones from people that are likely to be worthwhile for you; always ignoring the ones from people that are likely to generate garbage in your estimation; and opening the unassessed others and finding some gems and some crud. You can always do a re-assessment at any time. The quality posters may hit a bad spot and the ones assigned to the "Ignore" pile may have had a cognition. P... 66 F... 46 P... 43 M... 38 R... 33 C... 32 T... 32 W... 26 B... 24 L... 20 Paul 19 F... 18 N... 16 K... 14 D... 13 C.. 12 B... 12 M... 7 T... 7 R... 4 T... 4 B... 3 N... 2 E... 2 T... 1 J... 1 B... 1 M... 1 P... 1 S... 1 M... 1 -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 629 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 2:38 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Gist --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams" wrote: > > Then select the simple message format in Yahoo so you get lots of > messages on a page, and zip through the message list accordingly... What I found useful with the recent monsoon is to go to the Yahoo Group message index, locate the last message I read, then come forward by hitting the "Next Message" tab. It doesn't take long to note the author of the message, and if it is someone I've decided to unconditionally ignore, I just hit the "Next Message" tab again. It's very quick if you don't move the cursor. With some people I often decide whether to devote more time to that message or not based on what's visible on the screen without scrolling down. Or I might scroll down. If it's a usually reliable person, I will scroll down, of course. I scribble down the message number and the poster and a few words of subject matter if I am considering posting a reply. When I get to the end of the message list, if I still want to respond, it's easy to put the appropriate message number in Yahoo's search box and pull up the message. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 630 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 12:26 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Rgarding KSW 1 --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I am a newby not clear pc grade zero, and I want to learn from clears and OT, how to behave, how to act.... and how to be better. > > Is there in the upper levels someone that fit my needs ? > Can I count on those FZ OTs ? Form your own opinions of individuals based on how you observe them to behave. I would suggest not using any "OT" label as anything more than a very rough guide. Personally, I have found that in very general terms Scientologists tend to be "nicer" people than non-Scientologists, and I have found that those who have done OT Levels tend to be saner than those who haven't. But this is only in very general terms. Some of the apparently nicest and sanest people you have ever heard of seem to have no interest in Scientolgy at all, and some of the most effective Scientologists have had very little auditing. So as far as you can, just take individuals as you find them and don't have huge expectations just because they have a certificate saying they completed such-and-such a level. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 631 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 7:05 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: "LRH and I" by Julie Gillespie Mayo. --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > "LRH and I" by Julie Gillespie Mayo. I was surprised to see that article here, XXXX. Thank you very much for posting it. It speaks volumes (none of it bad!) that *you* would post that *here*. Some may have the not-quite-perceived attitude towards it of "Don't confuse me with facts", although a regular churchie could have the easy out of saying the author was declared so the article need be given no credence at all. However, if one is to believe her--and I have no reason not to--she makes the point that HCOB "LRH tech", i.e. the written words, did not always come from LRH. I'm not trying to belittle the man--how could one? And I'm not trying to belittle the tech: I still think enough of it to spend several hours each day studying it. But the principle that if it was issued in LRH's name before 1980 (say) it is sacrosanct, and if it was issued in his name after then it is not suitable for real Scientologists, is certainly open for more debate. Particularly as it is central to some stated personal philosophies. I will repeat my personal position, not that I am trying to enforce it on anyone but just for the record, that as long as it works I don't care if it was written by Mary-Sue's corgi. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 632 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 7:25 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Beliefnet Victory --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > --- XXXX wrote: > > > > Dunno who makes B'net more nervous- me or CofS... > > I guess we have to say you. :) > > This is an enormous win for the FZ. This is > currantly no 6, right on first page, of a google of > scn. Yes! And as far as I can tell, the only CofS site on that first Google page of ten hits is the first one. > I must issue a commendation for Fluffy, for > initiation of this project, Agreed. Kowtows and kudos to Fluffy. She persists more than the dust-bunnies under my bed. [Note--This is a compliment]. > and Michael for his > wonderful posts from his hat as Freezone president. I didn't read them so won't comment. But he is NOT Freezone president. He is President of IFA. The Freezone has no president, and no spokesman. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 633 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 4, 2005 7:38 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Indoctrination --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Book one should be C/Sed per book one, not per Level 0 or later > Dianetics. Why? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 634 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 5, 2005 1:52 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Fw: Fw: Intent=the real tone level? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > This is not for BPI, by the way. > I understand! > > > Oh I don't know. I think it's quite interesting to see what some people think but are afraid to say publicly. Every now and then someone accidentally posts something that was meant to be private and ends up mortified over it. I don't like to encourage mortification but it is sometimes valuable to see some straight considerations, even if they are misguided :). Hmmm. Maybe I should stop being so conventional and thoughtful of others' feelings and sacred cows and post what I really think about things.... Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 635 From: "Paul Adams" Paul, every level has its own c/sing. You wouldn't c/s OT III with > Nots information, right? > > I don't know how to direct you to the answer to that. Now there is > where a good cramming officer might come in handy. I am familiar with that principle (C/S Series 115, Mixing Rundowns and Repairs). But let me quote an example from it: "A pc was C/Sed for Book One Dianetics, was audited halfway down a chain and was left there. Then, because he was upset, was C/Sed to be "repaired" by flying Scientology ruds instead of a Dianetics repair prepared list!" Your turn.... Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 636 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 5, 2005 2:29 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Fwd: A grevious error. --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > XXXX, > > Also, you apologized to the list, which is fine, but > there were only one or two people in your e-mail that > were affected directly. Appologize to them! I think the intended recipient of the e-mail was more put out than the two persons named in it. For years bb has been posting FZ success stories and responding to critics on Usenet's alt.religion.scientology, the equivalent of waving dripping entrails in the lions' den. A thick-skinned rhino trapped in a pen with salivating lions would soon be lunch. That bb survives there seems to be because he has risen above it all as a game-playing thetan, where sharp teeth meet no resistance whatsoever. And me? I deliberately tread on peoples' toes. This is not as a troll, trying to foment discord and reveling in the reaction, but because often I think some are too fixed in their ideas and missing an important viewpoint and maybe I can jar them into taking a fresh look at things. People here are more restrained in what they post than on ars, but the gnashing of teeth pointed in my direction sometimes comes through one way or another. If I were particularly concerned about it, I wouldn't post what I do. If someone feels they should apologise to me, I would accept the apology as it ends the comm cycle and prevents an unintentional withhold, but there are no noses out of joint on this side of the hill. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 637 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 5, 2005 3:11 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: "LRH and I" by Julie Gillespie Mayo. --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Not necessarily. While I have no misconceptions and prefer not to > look through rose-colorued glasses, I also don't see the purpose or > need in "refreshing ourselves" of such memories in order to get the > job done. While some of the better-informed may look on it as refreshing, to many it is a new view, one never before considered. Why deny others the opportunity to become as well-read on such an important topic? Those who find the news discomforting can always reject it out of hand. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 638 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 5, 2005 4:03 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Indoctrination --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Haven't time to look it up right now. Was that supposed to be a good > thing or a bad? That depends on one's viewpoint. In 1950, Dianetics was audited Book 1-style (duh). There was no separate C/S overseeing it, no drilled TRs, no Auditor Admin series, no postulate-off-equals-erasure, no Dianetics Repair List, and while there is a rudimentary Auditor's Code in DMSMH it was not as drilled-in and sophisticated as it is with auditors now. XXXX, you know all this better than I do. It's not for you personally that I am listing out these details. Auditing Book 1 as a purist would mean not-ising *all* the later tech refinements and putting oneself into the shoes of a May 1950 pioneer. It might be an interesting--and difficult--intellectual exercise, but I don't see that it would mean greater case gain for the pc. Far from it. People auditing Book 1 in 2005 don't do it exactly per Book 1. The approach is different. Exactly how different would vary from auditor to auditor, org to org, C/S to C/S, maybe even fad to fad. Assuming the differences are based on regular tech in use today, what is "correct" would depend solely on which authority is dictating correctness. Why audit Book 1 Dianetics on someone? Well, as detailed in LRH's "Ridge on the Bridge", it is a good entrance point. Mental image pictures are often real to new people, and someone who has been reading about 1950 Dianetics tech would tend to be more open to receiving auditing in a style that is familiar than something more esoteric. It is also relatively easy for someone to learn to deliver it. It can be done with books/videos/tapes without even going near an org, or meeting an auditor personally. Someone can become a professional Book 1 auditor without having to do the Student Hat or a professional TRs course or learning how to use a meter and make a very satisfying career out of auditing people on Book 1. It can give great gains to pcs and auditors alike. Should you make use of a full Dianetics Repair List on a pc? If the auditing is for the pc, the pc can afford it and won't be overwhelmed by the increased sophistication and so forth, and the problem cannot be resolved with the Book 1 auditors available, sure. If you're trying to recreate the tech environment of 1950, for a movie maybe, or for intellectual curiosity, or because someone with veto power over you says not to, then no. I think it comes down to which game you want to play. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

Message 639 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 5, 2005 11:03 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Discussion talk --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > The prime purposes on which we should be focusing our attention on are: > I think I'll write this one so it can be read in a different tone level to my usual reasoned discourse, and maybe you'll get the point, XXXX. Who the fuck are you to dictate what we should or should not be focusing our attention on? I don't recall hiring you as my mentor, or subjugating myself to any organization you created. I am not complaining about the activities you are trying to command us to do, but I am complaining about your assumption that you have some kind of right to issue such orders here. You are welcome to be the head of your household, boss of your company and the guy who runs IFA, and orders you issue to people who agree to receive them would be expected. In the CofS one grows accustomed to "We should be...", especially on staff. But this is a mere discussion group. A DISCUSSION GROUP!!! Not part of some totalitarian set-up. The members of this group are not your juniors. There are various guidelines covering what should be posted and the manner in which it should be posted (one of which I am probably violating with this post), and a needed "you're supposed to follow such-and-such a guideline" is perfectly acceptable. But more than that isn't. In the future, I suggest that you put "I suggest that..." or "I think that..." or suchlike in the front of such edicts. After a while, you may find your viewpoint has shifted a bit. Sheesh. (Feel free to delete this from the archives if you wish, bb). Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal

DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology. Dianetics®, Scientology® and others are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center.

Robot Tech Menu | Trademarks | POW Correspondence Course | Auditor Assessment Checklist | Course Supervisor Assessment Checklist | Abilities | Comparison | Writings | Upper Level Writings | Poetry | Food Replicator | Rubik's Shepherd | Rubik's Tartan | Pix | HGB Staff in 1994 | Links | Home | Paul's Scn Quals | Paul's ID | Paul's Pix | FZ Admin | Paul's Squirrel Academy | Scienowiki

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