Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts 0640-0699








Yahoo Groups (mostly) and FreezoneAmerica Board Posted Messages










Message 640 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 6, 2005 1:57 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Discussion talk --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I am sorry to hear you grabbed that as an order as it was not intended > as such as most people would realise. Sorry for misunderstanding. It's hard enough to discern the meaning sometimes when someone uses irony and deliberately says the exact opposite of what they mean. If most people here can extract your intentions when you use words with meanings different to their regular ones, I must find the rabbit hole to head down. Oh, and LR, not that you give a rat's ass but you had been so nice lately I was just about to re-index my posts about you on my website, and now you done gone and spoiled it. PAUL!!! THAT'S ENOUGH! SHAKE HANDS WITH MICHAEL AND LR THIS INSTANT AND SAY SORRY. <3 point type> sorry michael, sorry lr <3 point type ends> HMMMM. SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 641 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 6, 2005 12:11 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Discussion talk --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > > HMMMM. SIT DOWN AND BE QUIET. > > > > Paul > > > Good boy. > > > . That was funny, XXXX. I laughed. Paul






Message 642 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Aug 6, 2005 6:50 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Abilities Gained and Rattlesnakes When I was a full-time supervisor, I often made use of the "Product" wording of the course with a student. It was the goal to keep in mind, and sometimes answered the question of how much time and effort one should spend on something that was encountered while doing the course. In auditing a pc on a particular grade, where going for a specific EP, is the stated EP similarly useful? I remember when I was getting Expanded Grades twenty-five years ago, when I was not completely ignorant of the tech, but would not call myself trained either. I would get auditing on a level, then when it was probably over I would sit at the Examiner and read over the Abilities Gained (4 Flows) on that Chart of Abilities Gained HCOB/HCOPL and decide if I had made it or not. It wasn't exactly the first time I had seen those abilities listed out, but it wasn't like on a course where the end result is clearly stated upfront and on the checksheet every time one studies. My question here is intended for those with more auditing experience than I: Other things being equal, would it make any difference in auditing Expanded Grades for the pc to be very well aware of the EP of the level he was being audited on, all the time he was being audited on it? Maybe by having the full abilities gained--four flows--printed up and placed in front of the meter or something like that? Having it thrust down his throat in a make-wrong fashion obviously wouldn't work and is not what I had in mind. Writing this out brings to mind a similar question. In sec checking, one presses home the question to the pc, to restimulate any overts/withholds that are there to be picked up. It is not like flying a rud, when one is trying to only destimulate. In doing a sec check, one deliberately involves the pc personally in the question, to try and stir up anything that may be somewhat hidden but is capable of being flushed into view. If there is nothing there, of course, then there is nothing there, and one is not trying to put something there that isn't. (A reference on this pressing home the question is HCOB 30 Nov 78R, Confessional Procedure). As far as I know, a similar procedure is not done on other regular Grades processes, beyond a routine clearing of the commands and checking for read/interest. One does not say, for example, "OK, this next command here we just cleared on helping rattlesnakes, if you did happen to be involved with rattlesnakes, how might that apply to you?" "_______". "Fair enough. And in what sort of circumstances, for example, might it be needed to help a rattlesnake?" "_______". "OK, very good, let me check the question here...." To do that with every single question would probably drive the pc up the wall, so it would be unworkable. But I'm thinking of some general processes that per the HCOBs introducing them should be WOW!!! processes. But in session maybe that star process didn't read and didn't have the pc's interest, although analytically it seems (to the auditor) like it should have, especially if the pc would just read the HCOB and know what the process was supposed to do. Assuming the pc is in-session and not out-ruds, usually one drops it and goes on to the next one. If the pc is hell-bent on being a "Grade ___" completion and is short of time or money or something, this wouldn't work. But maybe the pc is interested in getting as much as he/she can out of the grades instead. If not done to the point of pc protest or inval, could such an approach be workable? Has anyone taken regular grades processes that had previously not impinged on the pc, and made them impinge, to the pc's benefit? Paul






Message 643 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Aug 6, 2005 5:28 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Marilyn Monroe I read an interesting article today. It purported to contain almost verbatim transcripts of some tapes Marilyn Monroe had sent to her psychiatrist. Assuming this to be an accurate transcription of her words, she sure was no bimbo. She also was convinced she had discovered a new therapy, namely she just itsa'd on and on about whatever she wanted to (she termed it "free association"), then sent the tape{s) to the therapist, who would then do his thing with it. She was pleased with the result, in that she solved a problem she had by talking about it on the tape intended for him. It could well be an improvement over a regular therapy involving interrupting the patient's communication to evaluate for him/her and invalidate his/her own perceptions! Although nowhere near as valuable as the directed communication a pc would itsa in a session, of course. I don't want to provide a specific link as the one I had used has now gone, but I found it by searching on Google with the terms --Marilyn Monroe tapes Miner--. It was/is a link to a very recent LA Times article, which is available right now but when it becomes a back article I believe it will only be available by subscription. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 644 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 7, 2005 2:59 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Is this a Div. VI list again? :):):) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > People are attracted by theta, repelled by entheta. We want lots of > people on this list so we will create this list safe, safe, safe. Safe, safe, safe is dull, dull, dull. Disney is safe, or rather old-time Disney is safe. Most adults don't relish dull, dull, dull. Freezone101 could well be safe, safe, safe. I have no idea as I consider it not my playground and have never gone there. One can avoid entheta without being safe. Look around the world today, preferably not through the via of the mainstream media. Look at the direction overall stats are going, and extrapolate them. Look at the environment changes, and society's changes. As I read somewhere yesterday, "Oh well, never mind, I wasn't using that civil liberty anyway." KSW1 talks about only the tigers surviving. The real ones on this planet are dying out. Safe ain't the way to go. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 645 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 7, 2005 6:37 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Is this a Div. VI list again? :):):) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > We want lots of > people on this list so we will create this list safe, safe, safe. Safe, safe, safe is dull, dull, dull. Adventure isn't safe. And one can be unsafe without writing entheta. Look around you at the changes in the world, both cultural and environmental, preferably not solely through the highly-filtered content of the mainstream media. The stats are fairly steeply trending, and it is not an affluence condition. Note the weather extremes of the past couple of years. And as I read yesterday, "Oh well, never mind, I wasn't using that civil liberty anyway". Remember that quote about only the tigers surviving, and even they have a rough time? Here's something I just lifted off the Net: "Did you know that there are only between fifty and sixty South China tigers left in Chinese zoos and that none have been seen in the wild for over twenty years? "I've never even heard of the South China tiger!" I hear you cry-- don't worry you're not alone. "Of the eight subspecies of tiger, three are now extinct. The Bali tiger was wiped out from the effects of deforestation and poaching in the 1940's, the Caspian in the 1970's and the Javan tiger in the 1980's. The remaining five are the Bengal, Siberian, Sumatran, Indochinese and the South China tiger." The tigers are having a real rough time. Safe ain't the way to go, XXXX. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 646 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 7, 2005 7:39 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Is this a Div. VI list again? :):):) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams" wrote: > > > Safe, safe, safe is dull, dull, dull. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I already said that. This message took a trip to the twilight zone for a few hours, at least from my computer. I wondered if I had hit delete or something instead of send, so wrote another response. Then the original one decided to come back four hours later, grinning away, without a care in the world. Sometimes you can't control them--you just have to trust them to find their own way in the world. Paul






Message 647 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Aug 8, 2005 11:02 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Is this a Div. VI list again? :):):) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > When it comes to lists, they need to be a safe place. No one is > going to want to stay here if they get invalidated, or chopped up. Oh, I don't know about that. Some people love dishing out and receiving comm in the band from 1.1 and [to] 2.0. But I agree that it can become a bit much, especially when the one being chopped up does no chopping on his/her own part and apparently does not merit the rough treatment. In addition, the old adage of "It takes two to make a fight" was exemplified on this list over the past week. There are few people here who get picked on out of the blue. To be completely safe here, don't say a word about anything, beyond "Well done!" or something equally innocuous. Of course, you still might feel cut up by someone complaining about a waste of bandwidth, or someone complaining about 90% of the list being silent lurkers.... Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 648 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Aug 8, 2005 11:13 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Abilities Gained and Rattlesnakes Thank you Roland, Doc, Chris and Dennis for your responses. Yes Chris, I am auditing someone pretty much daily on Expanded Grades from 0 to 4 (on Grade 2 currently) and it is going very well. I had forgotten how rewarding it is to audit others. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 649 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:54 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Implanting Technology and global control? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > well give me some direction, kinda pompus to state i > need to do some research without providing > references.... Allow me.... The use of "implant" in the Digital Angel sense refers to placing an electronic device, size approximately that of a grain or so of rice, under the skin. What it does is fairly clear. There are photographs and stories on the Net of implants reportedly recovered from people that were supposedly placed under their skin by aliens. The purpose of these devices is not so clear at all. The Tech Dictionary "implant" does not refer to a device placed under the skin, but to "an intentional installation of fixed ideas...", either the means of doing it or the mental residue installed. As in, "Man, I managed to run out that whole track electronic implant with Dianetics, but it was only a little one, comparatively." Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 650 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:23 pm Subject: Re: [freezoneaoint] Me! On 8/12/05, XXXX wrote: > I hope to lear where I can start with reading and > what > books I should NOT be reading because of editing by the organisation. Welcome, XXXX. I wouldn't worry too much about bad editing of LRH's books by the Church. There are significant changes in "Introduction to Scientology Ethics" from edition to edition, but this is only in the sense of what to put in there. The regular books, authored by LRH, are pretty much unchanged apart from the odd word here and there, which does not change the meaning much. The later edition(s) of "History of Man" have an extra chapter or two; "New Slant on Life" is just a collection of articles and which articles go in there changes over the years. The title of "Dianetics, The Original Thesis" changed to "The Dynamics of Life", I guess because the word "thesis" might turn off some potential readers. The Scientology Handbook is a "BOTWO" book, "based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard." Its contents have been rewritten from LRH works, without even the original works being referenced. Some purists rail against it because it "isn't LRH". I find it very useful, and I don't have that problem with it as I haven't found anything in it that violates any LRH books or issues. Some tapes have been edited very slightly for political reasons, but this does not change the tech any. The most significant changes, that affect how the tech is being (badly) delivered by the Church now, or not being delivered at all, are not written in LRH books. So go ahead and get hold of the books on eBay or wherever and have fun! -- Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 651 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:01 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Safeguarding Technology, HCO PL 14 Fre/ 1965 --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > XXXX and I went over this Policy and he has no m/us. We > cleared "remimeo". This should satisfy even the most critical. I guess it depends on how picky you want to get. What's the definition of [almost] the first word on the page, the word "Saint", for instance, as in "Saint Hill"? I hear it is now correctly defined in the new dictionary they have in a CofS Academy, the replacement for the Tech and Admin dictionaries that have been about twenty years in the works. I haven't seen this dictionary, although I remember seeing a list of upcoming releases around 1990 in an internal SO issue and it was on there. It's a bit overdue. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 652 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:15 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Getting Tech In--My Opinion --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > Please forgive me for the stupid banner below. I failed to delete it > before sending. But I note that you managed to post it yet again in this "Oops, so sorry" message. And furthermore, several people posted it several times more for you in making their own comments. Masterful, XXXX! Isn't it wonderful when others even help you spam and no-one seems to notice? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 653 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:24 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Safeguarding Technology, HCO PL 14 Fre/ 1965 --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > What I get is that Ron was leaving room for Scientology to be improved > on as a system. The policy makes it clear, at least in my eyes, that > LRH wanted Scientology presented as "a workable system". I can't > imagine anyone disagreeing with this. I agree. If LRH hasn't shown up by now, 19 1/2 years after leaving, I get the idea his Second Coming is not going to take place much before the other guy's. So who is supposed to do this improving on, in your (or anyone else's) opinion? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 654 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:48 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: A New Scientology Term --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I'm also not sure that Standard Tech Freezoners is like calling a bird a > fish. It's exactly what we do: practice Standard Tech in the (Scientology) > Freezone. It's not the whole story, and of course we should take every > opportunity to explain that an "STF" (or whatever) is a Scientologist who > practicies 100 % Standard, On Source, unadulterated, (roughly) pre- 1982 LRH > tech and philosophy outside the Church structure. I dispute the "100% Standard Tech" line, apart from as some theoretical absolute. Loosely stated, yeah, sure, we in the FZ practise 100% Standard Tech rah, rah, and the church doesn't, nyah, nyah. But in reality? Does this viewpoint stand up to close scrutiny? A year ago I did as careful an analysis as I could then as to how closely various entities adhered to "100% Standard Tech". I developed a checklist of about 200 points that I considered would have to be in for the tech being delivered at any location to be labeled "100% Standard". I compiled this list with input from other list members. I then looked at various entities and tried to see how they would measure up. The two hundred points were not given equal weight--some are more important than others. I don't claim that this list is the last word in analysis, but it could be used by an individual FZer to see how his/her tech delivery matches up to this theoretical absolute of "100% Standard Tech". This is all posted on my website at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/comparison.htm and I will quote the summary of results for those of you who dislike clicking on links: "In summary, as fairly as I could do this, I assessed the CofS in the 1970s as delivering 83% Standard Tech; the CofS in PT as delivering 70% Standard Tech; a hypothetical "typical" FZ practitioner today as delivering 87% Standard Tech; Robert Ducharme as delivering 85% Standard Tech; and Ron's Orgs at 87% (based on a comment that the only difference between Ron's Orgs and other FZ people is they do an entity handling different to NOTs and also do some OT Courses.)" Does anyone here claim to merit a better score than 87% by actually answering the questions point by point and tallying it up? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 655 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 23, 2005 3:06 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Misunderstood Word, was it me or Hubbard? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > In anyone's opinion, if Ron had responded, would he have looked it up, > admitted his error, and issued a correction? > > I would like to think he ran QC on his terminology. In my opinion, no. How I used to handle that particular question [the use of "genus" to mean "origin"] as a course sup was to kinda shrug and tell people to look at the derivation, and that always seemed to work. The other main example that comes to mind of the wrong word apparently being used is "Latent", as in "Latent Read". It was always interesting to me to observe the mental contortions some people would go through making the dictionary definition of "Latent" somehow fit in the context of "similar to but opposite of prior". Anyone up to the challenge? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 656 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:37 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Misunderstood Word, was it me or Hubbard? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX> wrote: > > At the end of the day it comes back to one of the basic > propositions of Scn - if its true for you its true ... It's a matter of judgment. If your command of English is very good, and your command of the subset of Scientology or life being discussed is very good, you're on fairly safe ground calling it as you see it. But what if your command of English or the subject isn't? I used to supervise hundreds of students each week, ranging across the whole gamut right down to overwhelmed struggling newbies imported from overseas, new to English, new to the US, new to the Sea Org, new to Scientology. Fortunately, the materials were consistently almost 100% typo-free, and there was very little need for this kind of judgment call. With the CofS general mindset of "If it doesn't make sense you've got an m/u and that's the end of it", even though Hubbard didn't say that in Study Tech, most students worked very hard to understand something exactly as written. As an analogy, if I were trying to understand a text written in informal French (I studied French for five years at school but am nowhere near fluent in it), and I had good reason to believe the text was accurate, if I couldn't get a bit of it straight I would assume first off it was because of my lack of command of French, not an error in the text. It would be quite a while and a lot of work with several dictionaries before I would begin to seriously entertain the idea of the text being wrong. As a supervisor, I would sometimes come across a student deciding Hubbard was wrong, while the actual problem was that the student had an m/u. I would tell the student to operate in the future on the principle that the man wasn't infallible, but if the student couldn't get something and was about to resolve it by deciding that Hubbard had made a mistake, to check it with me first. Of course I wasn't infallible either, but you have to start somewhere. That works fine in a courseroom with a somewhat savvy supervisor, but how about a FZer studying by himself? I would suggest that one adopts the principle of being very wary of making the assumption that Hubbard used the wrong word or it's a typo in written materials (excluding the 1968 "Phoenix Lectures" book, which was riddled with typos). Yes, it did happen, but it didn't happen that often. "Genus" and "latent" are the two glaring examples, and although there may be more none come to mind right now of words that he consistently used wrongly. Spoken lectures are far more likely to contain errors, and it is trickier to make the call sometimes. But the good news is that it usually is not crucial. If it's important, it will be usually be discussed elsewhere many times. And there are always fellow FZers to discuss things with. The "If it's true for you" principle opens up a can of rats. If you put that term into Google, you'll find some interesting viewpoints. I remember a staff member who was a truly terrible student, for years, struggling through virtually anything she had to study. I was clearing some word on her and I was floored when she told me she didn't believe in electrons, and she used the words that as an idea it just wasn't true for her. Now, one could present a case for the non-existence of electrons on some level, maybe probability clouds in some quantum mechanical view as opposed to discrete particles, or maybe the idea of there only being some vibration of nothingness in the ether rather than a solid particle. But she hadn't thought it through at this kind of level: she had just decided that they didn't exist and that was that. Not-isness at work. Something is inconvenient: Poof! One doesn't have to consider it exists anymore. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 659 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 26, 2005 2:16 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Misunderstood Word, was it me or Hubbard? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > Paul where did you supervise were you ever at ASHO day ? I only supervised in ASHO D for literally a few hours when some senior thought it would be a good idea for us to go into ASHO and "Show them how it was done", a great way to lower ARC. I first supervised at Saint Hill (UK), mainly Solo through OT3 and the OT Doctorate Course, for a few years up to the end of 1985. Then in LA at New World Corps in the Sec Checker School and the International Training Organization. In LA I only supervised staff: At NWC outer-org trainees on Academy Levels (and pre-requisites like Student Hat, metering course and Pro TRs) and the Sec Checker Pilot course; in ITO the Upper Middle Management Level crew on whatever they had to study, mainly admin courses but also some tech courses and Solo through OT3 again; and then some outer-org trainees mainly on PR or other specialist training, but also some OEC/FEBC students. I left the Sea Org in 1996 and stopped supervising for many years. Then I did some more up in Reno at Rey's place for four months earlier this year. Currently I'm not supervising anyone and have no immediate plans to, although I will doubtless do so again. I enjoy it. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 661 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:50 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: LRH Etrhics Quotes --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I suggest that ex SO people and others who have been > on staff - and everyone else too, come to that - be > given an FPRD 3rd D list that does address these > issues, with questions such as "Have you agreed with a > policy you knew was wrong?" "Have you gone along with > others against your misgivings?" and so forth. Maybe > we can in the FZ avoid running into these 3rd D > debacles. Good points, Roland. It wouldn't be too difficult to mock up such questions. But how often is FPRD delivered in the FZ? Has anyone on this list delivered or received a whole FPRD list in the FZ? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 663 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:51 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: LRH Etrhics Quotes --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > It would seem that Admin. terminals want to keep people trapped and Tech. > terminals want to free people. Huh? How so, XXXX? Paul






Message 665 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:42 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Grade Process Checklists in New Tech Volumes I've now found something horribly bad in the new Tech Volumes, after saying before that they seemed fine to me generally. The Grades Process Checklists, dated 14 November 1987, contain many, many examples like the below, this one from Expanded ARC Straightwire. I don't have a copy of the former BTB that listed out such processes to compare this current one with. The original process, from HCOB 20 October 1959, is "What would you like to confront?" It has been quadded up in the checklist, which I guess is OK in principle, but what it is published as and what those flows actually are is: "F1" What would you like to confront? (Flow 2) "F2" What would another like to confront? (Flow 3) "F3" What would others like to confront? (Flow 3) "F0" What about yourself would you like to confront? (Flow 0) The "F2" and "F3" commands could run as Flow 1 if they were taken to mean "What would another/others like to confront about you", but the "about you" limiter isn't specified and should be in, say, the "another" command. So a correct version would be: F1: What would another like to confront about you? F2: What would you like to confront? F3: What would others like to confront? F0: What about yourself would you like to confront? This is no doubt old news to the auditors here. But if there have been discussions on this somewhere I've missed them. There are *many* instances of the flows being screwed up in these new checklists in a similar manner to that shown, not just a few. It is a consistent error throughout. How something so basic could be so wrong and still make it into the volumes is a very interesting question. This isn't particularly a problem in the FZ, as one can just correct the commands before using them. Or use some other list of processes. But what on Earth happened/happens in the CofS where one can't just note the idiocy and adjust the commands? How did/does an auditor or C/S cope with these? Just grit one's teeth and run it wrongly? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 666 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:06 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Grade Process Checklists in New Tech Volumes --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > Hi Paul, > > I think there may be a bit of confusion as to what > flow means, versus what the action of the question is. Yeah, but it's a very minor point. It doesn't really matter if what is stated as a Flow 1 is really a Flow 2, or vice versa, assuming each of the four flows is being checked and run as needed. Let's consider the famous example of being interested versus being interesting, the former being an outflow, the latter an inflow. "Recall being interesting" seems like a Flow 1 command, and "Recall being interested" seems like a Flow 2 command. Simple enough. (I don't know if these are actual standard processes or not. I am not proposing them as such if they are not!) But how about if the command "Recall being interesting" brings up an incident where the pc as a pretty girl dressed herself up in full battle dress of high heels, short skirt, low-cut top and killer make-up topped off with a liberal sprinkling of Chanel's "Bitch in Heat", then walked into an air traffic control room and started flirting? Is that still Flow 1? The four flows as generally stated in commands are abbreviated. The simple ideas could be stated as Inflow, Outflow, Crossflow, Noflow. A fuller command form, not that any are given like this as it is too unwieldy, could be: F1: Recall being kissed by another or others. F2: Recall kissing another or others. F3: Recall another kissing another or another kissing himself/herself or another kissing others or others kissing another or others kissing others or others kissing themselves, whether because of you or not. F0: Recall kissing yourself. If the pc hasn't been grooved in to view the command "Recall others kissing others" as in the expanded form here, then he is missing out on possibly charged areas. Just as if the Flow 3 command is given as "Recall Dad hitting another", what about Flow 3 incidents of another (or others) hitting Dad? The example I gave in my prior post, as written in the 1987 HCOB, has two Flow 3 commands and omits either Flow 1 or Flow 2. Unless someone wants to dub in that "What would another like to confront?" and "What would others like to confront?" are really different flows because of a tacit assumption that one of them includes the pc as the object of the confronting. This is getting interesting. I've been using the commands as given in my auditing of another for a couple of months, with it impinging somewhat on my awareness that something was awry but I wasn't willing to fully confront it until yesterday. I remember first noticing this years ago, maybe 1980(?), so it must have been similar with the BTB checklists. I never really had to deal with it in the CofS, so it was easy to not-is the outpoints. Looking on the Web, Clearbird has changed most of the commands to reflect the flows accurately (without me thinking too hard about whether "Try not to recall failing to help another refuse to confront you" is Flow 1 or Flow 2), but not all of them. Your turn XXXX, my friend. Unless someone else wants to put me in my place. :) Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 668 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:49 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Grade Process Checklists in New Tech Volumes --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > Dear Paul, > > Is there a differance between another to another and another ot others I see the differance as to the number of people involved but the flow to me is the same > > XXXX Hi XXXX, I don't see a difference in the flow either. But someone should who is insisting the 1987 HCOB is correct, despite lines like a "Flow 2" command of "What motion has another been responsible for?" and a Flow 3 command of "What motion have others been responsible for?" (Subject volume 4, page 93, arbitrary example). I'm really looking forward to someone trying to defend that position! Roland? Chris? Pat? LR? Anyone? I'm also interested in what happened in the CofS. Did everyone just run the processes per the HCOB, without complaint? Even Pierre? Dare I ask the question if everyone has continued to in the FZ? I know I shouldn't ask such questions, the Freezone being 100% Standard Tech and people trying to look good to prospective pcs and all, but I'm like that. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 670 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 28, 2005 3:19 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Grade Process Checklists in New Tech Volumes --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > I suppose my real take on it is that we are straining > at unimportant differences here. If the flows aren't > obvious due to the nature of the subject of the > question then it probably doesn't actually matter > whether you cover them or not. I agree that whether something is Flow 1 or Flow 2 is unimportant, as long as both flows are being checked anyway. I disagree about the importance of the rest, though. If I were a C/S, would I give my green Academy students license to work with the basics and not give process commands exactly as written? Hell, no! Who would know exactly what was being run? But along with that I'd make sure they had correct command sheets. (Not realistically possible in the CofS. Hooray for the FZ). It would be a different matter with a seasoned Class VI auditor who I fully trusted, especially if we had to play the game of apparently following command sheets that must have been approved by tech guys who'd been up for three nights straight. But let's take, for example, this process, part of 31 Mar. 60 Problems Processes on Level 1: "F1 What motion have you been responsible for? "F2 What motion has another been responsible for? "F3 What motion have others been responsible for? "F0 What motion of yours have you been responsible for?" Ignoring the unimportant fact that this F1 command looks like a F2 to me, a correct second command would read "What motion *of yours* has another been responsible for?", not as per the text. Let's make the not unreasonable assumption that a lot of pcs had the command rotely used on them, and were not exposed to the idea of another being responsible for some motions of theirs. On to C/S series 33RB, Triple and Quad Reruns. The first words are, "LAW: WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOUR FLOWS OF AN ITEM OR GRADE ARE LEFT UNRUN, WHEN USED IN LATER PROCESSES THE EARLIER UNRUN ONES RESTIMULATE AND MAKE MASS." Later on, again in caps, "ANY LATER GRADE RUN WITH MORE FLOWS THAN USED IN EARLIER ACTIONS CAN THROW THE EARLIER UNFLAT FLOWS INTO RESTIM, PILE UP MASS GIVING HIGH TA AND BPC GIVING ARC BREAKS." Followed by: "The more the condition is *repaired* [italics] by L1C, L4BRB, etc., etc., the *worse* [italics] the mass gets. "Thus high TAs have three principal sources: 1. Overruns 2. Auditing past exterior 3. Earlier unrun flows restimulated by those flows used in later actions." So having Grades process checklists that actually omit flows while camouflaging the fact by repeating a Flow 3 command would perpetrate that #3 item of earlier unrun flows restimulated automatically on all pcs who fail to run those unstated flow commands, if charged. How serious is this? Hell if I know. I doubt if anyone even bothers to check that point #3 above much. If the pc appears to have been quadded up "properly" then neither the pc nor the auditor nor the C/S is likely to look at the possibility of earlier unrun flows, I would think. It is not given as a line on the C/S 53RM short form or long form. Mainly though, it offends against my sense of the fitness of things to have these sloppy checklists still extant after 29 years. I got to look at the BTB checklists, and some of the flow commands are fine and some aren't. It's not like we're discussing some obscure yellowing prepared list that languishes at the back of some dusty box, maybe a Pate-Polishers Confessional (earlier version). It's every single Grades checklist that gets run on every single Grades pc! Since I'm the only one who seems to care about it much, I'll shut up now. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 672 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:08 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Making Clears with NED --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > Could this be why some don't go clear on NED? XXXX, could you amplify that question? I'm not sure what you are getting at. In message 6777, XXXX talks about making Clears, and about NED. I had to read it a couple of times, and I'm not sure how much NED he has audited on how many people, just that he personally hasn't made any Clears with NED. I did a NED Course around 1980, but haven't audited more than a handful of hours of NED, so my personal experience with auditing it doesn't count. I always had the idea that NED was far faster than Standard Dianetics, and one of its "problems" was that after Expanded Grades people tended to go Clear after only an intensive or two of NED, before they had had a chance to run the juicier rundowns. Is that idea accurate? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 673 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:48 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Confessionals in Expanded Grade 2 I've just started my Expanded Grade 2 pc on a Jo'burg, per the 1987 Grades processes checklist. I haven't done any sec checking in nearly 20 years, and it is fun. Do you guys still do full confessional lists as a routine part of Expanded Grade 2? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 674 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 30, 2005 2:52 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Confessionals in Expanded Grade 2 --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Full, as compared to what, partial? Or do you mean, as included with > the rest of the grade? Sorry, don't understand. Grade 2 is where they > should get done, if anywhere. I add them. Plus any tailor-made ones > and/or FPRD as the pc's case demands. Yeah, I meant full-blown exactly like Freezoner 01 just posted about, rather than some kind of wishy-washy five question "tailor-made" because we're in the Freezone and pulling withholds is some nasty activity that happened far too much in the CofS and we don't want to do *that* again, do we? Yes, they should get done as part of Grade 2. My question really is, but are they? "As the pc's case demands" is a correct answer, but it's not what I am looking for. I would like an answer like, "In the past three years I have audited (or C/S'd) nine pcs on Expanded Grade 2, and on seven of them we ran a Jo'burg and several more lists in three cases. Fabulous wins on most, although one was very nattery at the end and unfortunately hasn't been cleaned up yet--we're working on it." Or, "Well actually, I've audited 18 pcs in the past five years on Expanded Grade 2, and none of them seemed to need a Confessional and so we didn't do one." I'm curious to see if it is somewhat of a lost tech in the FZ, outside of Scio5's area anyway. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 675 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:13 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Confessionals in Expanded Grade 2 --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , wrote: > > Ok. How about "I don't do wishy-washy, and I don't care if it's the > FZ or the CoS, I don't do wishy-washy." How's that? > > And "The preclear's auditing on Expanded Grade II must include > Confessional processing, including a Joburg, done at an appropriate > point during the Grade." (Ref: Expanded Grade II Process Checklist). > Per this reference, one does a Joburg and "[a]ny other Confessional > forms, as programmed by the C/S." I.e., as the pc's case demands. > > I C/S and program per the C/S series and that doesn't change when I > audit. So yes, I do confessionals. Do you think it's a lost tech in > the FZ? Or, maybe a better question is "Why do you think it may be > a lost tech in the FZ?" > > XXXX > > P.S. Are you auditing professionally or a friend? Do you have a C/S > who programs and C/Ses your sessions? Just a hunch. No-one answered up to my question of was anyone actually delivering FPRD in the FZ. In my years online I've seen people complaining about doing O/W write-ups and getting sec-checks in the CofS, and I haven't seen much "Yes, we've been doing sec checks without the duress and make-wrong and it's great!" No-one answered up to my taunt about does anyone by actual count insist they are delivering better than 87% Standard Tech. In fairness, I looked over that checklist again recently, and it should probably be simplified to make it more user-friendly. I may do it or I may not. I wrote that checklist and the associated posts before I had ever met any FZ tech delivery people. Having met many now, there are some changes I would make. I have a better reality on tech delivery in the FZ than I had before. I'm no tech angel and I don't pretend to be. But I do object to the falsity of presenting a front of 100% Standard Tech somewhere it isn't. I'm not aiming this at you, Chris. I have no personal experience of your technical operation apart from what I have read of your posts, and in those you have only ever said exactly what I would expect a well-trained VIII to say. I have read lots of other praise about you, both as an auditor and C/S, but one doesn't judge the technical prowess of an VIII by his pc's wins. I would like tech standards to improve in the FZ. But if no-one ever admits anything is wrong in the first place, we never even get to square one. I ran my current pc on the Expanded Grades up through most of Grade 2 using the exact flow commands in the 1987 HCOB, as I said recently. Some of the commands happen to be wrong. It was out- tech. I goofed. I'll fix it up for the rest of the Grades, now that I realize it was wrong. Can't anyone else come out and say the same thing? It's not that hard. Especially as it's almost like giving up someone else's overt! I'm auditing a friend. I'm not well-trained enough or experienced enough to audit professionally. I have done my own programming, don't use a separate examiner, and C/S my own sessions. It's a one- man band. So far it's been working out great. If it ever stops working out great, I'll rethink it. Is this ideal? Maybe not. Would I recommend that some FZer who wants to learn to audit do it exactly like this? In general terms, without knowing anything about the person, no I wouldn't. In some particular case, it might work. It's working for me and my pc. Just lucky, I guess.... Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 676 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:20 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Question --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , "XXXX wrote: > > I was kind of looking for a confidential EP. Like how would a c/s > know that a person should attest to Clear OT? Technically, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. It's not defined as any EP that I know of. The routine lower grade chart stuff, no real problem, although it is subjective. You run the processes and the pc attests or he doesn't. If he doesn't you sort it out and/or run more until he does. There isn't usually a lot of argument about it, that I'm aware of. Has any C/S ever said, "Man, you've attested to Expanded Grade 0 but you can't comm worth a damn to even a mirror, so I've just suspended your cert until you get some more auditing and improve your comm level (only stated more diplomatically)? I'm aware of auditor certs being suspended, but I don't know about case certs. Does it happen, apart from with Clear attests? Apart from Clear attests, it's not really a big deal as far as I know. People aren't usually taken to task if they don't always live up to the things they've attested to. Anything with some kind of objective EP, no problem. "EP=Can lift on demand a regular size paperback up in the air without regular physical means and hold it there for ten seconds by the clock" might not satisfy a lawyer but it is good enough to see if a person with baby OT powers can do something relatively small but definitely non-negligible. But what is a "Ninth Dynamic Clear"? Or a "Cleared Theta Body with Honors" I recall at Saint Hill for a short period maybe 30 years ago there were a bunch of people attesting to all sorts of weird states like these, who would write their names on the completions board just next to the Examiner booth and Qual entrance. I don't know if they had any kind of C/S OK or not. My own observations at the time, from knowing many of the people who attested to such things, was that these people tended towards the theetie-weetie end of the spectrum. As in, "Real men don't attest to non-Grade Chart states." Of course that is very opinionated, and invalidative too of such cases, but those were my thoughts at the time. Your mileage may vary, as they say. My idea of an OT is someone who can do all, or at least *some* of the tricks that one might have yearned for when one first heard of OT states, and later learned that they aren't exactly ripe for the plucking yet. I would prefer to be associated technically with someone who attests to something with "OT" in it that isn't on the Grade Chart when he can actually do OT things on demand, in front of an audience if needed. To say, "Sure, I've just been juggling three uninhabited planets in the Andromeda galaxy and no, sorry, it is beneath me to demonstrate right now to you with a paperclip" doesn't cut it with me. "Operating Thetan" is defined in the Tech Dictionary, and elsewhere. Definition 1 is "a thetan exterior who can have but doesn't have to have a body in order to control or operate thought, life, matter, energy, space and time." At least part of that is objective--"Hey Joe, can you move this paperclip from over there." Yes, yes, but look at this, definition 4, 'a Clear who has been refamiliarized with his capabilities'...here's my Clear cert and I read about my capabilities in this Advance Mag--wanna star-rate me on the OT Phenomena page?" ... The state of OT is already demeaned by the whole system of calling people "OTs" who have completed "OT Levels" or "pre-OT Levels". I attested to Section III OT 20 years ago. Did I make OT III then? Per the OT III pack, yes I did. Was I then, or am I now, an OT? Hell, no. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 677 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 31, 2005 2:24 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Confessionals in Expanded Grade 2 --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Hey, Book 1 was done the same way. Maybe you could set up a hot spur > line in the event anything does happen you need a hand with. There's > plenty around that could be a terminal, I'm sure. Meanwhile, just > make sure you read the relevant issues about the process or procedure > and drill it and you should be fine. And keep the admin in. If that's > out we know for sure the tech is out. :) Thanks, XXXX. You never know, you might get an urgent e-mail from me! Do you have a PayPal account? My admin is in, with everything one would expect, except for an FES. The session grade spaces are there on each auditor C/S sheet, but blank of course. Hey, the folder even has a yellow sheet in it, and the folder summary entries say "No Exam" instead of the relevant exam result. I added some lines to the top of the ARF though, things that I sometimes thought would be useful while I was in the CofS but couldn't do anything about. The stuff I currently have at the top is pc name, date, auditor, session length, total hours current auditor, total hours paid to current auditor, total hours current grade/action, pc's grade, total TA this session, TA per hour this session. I was thinking of adding total TA this auditor and total TA this grade/action, to be compared with the appropriate hours totals. Is aggregated TA per hour useful in any way from a diagnostic viewpoint (found by dividing the total TA for the grade by the total hours for the grade, not by averaging the session TA per hour figures)? As in, "Let's see, he was getting around 8 divs per hour average right up through Grade 2, then we did that assist action for his aggravated mugwumps, and he's been getting around an average of 5 divs per hour ever since, although he still seems to be winning. Let's redo the FES of that assist or just before or see what else was going on in his life at that time. It's got to be something around that time period." Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 678 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:13 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg} Re: Question --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > All that OT ability didn't cure him of being a sloth. While we might > want to cultivate that kind of ability for our own satisfaction, it > sure isn't the end all of end all. True, but just one real OT could control the planet, all by himself. While lying in bed too. He wouldn't even have to be able to do things like "pull the air cover" off the planet. Let's say this one hypothetical OT could only really do two things under complete control remotely with the source undetectable: send e- mails and kill people on demand. "Dear Mr. Gene-Tamperer, I notice your corporation has been very busy the past few years dangerously messing with the planet's food supply, and now you have even started in on living creatures by trying to patent a pig. I don't like it. If you don't publicly announce in the general media by midnight tomorrow that you are terminating these programs immediately, you personally are toast. Sincerely, Mr. Death" The CEO laughs it off of course, until midnight, when his heart stops or his eyeballs heat up to 10,000 degrees or whatever. The next CEO gets a similar e-mail. It wouldn't take long before things begin to happen real fast. It probably wouldn't work out like this, though. Most likely someone would pull the Armageddon plug on the basis of, "Well, if I'm going down, all you are going down with me." There are articles online about the CIA being very interested in Scientology's OT levels, with this being the reason that the IRS apparently controls CST. Google the terms "Veritas" and "Scientology" together for details. The arguments based on the supporting documentation are very convincing. Plus Ingo Swann's statements online about the CIA in regard to the remote viewing program at Stanford with Hal Puthoff and Pat Price, all three graduates of the OT Levels, I believe, all add up to it not being crystal clear what influences have been at work over the years. But, as we know too well, it's all hypothetical. The scenario I wrote above is pure fiction. If someone could actually do what I wrote, the actual long-term ramifications would be very hard to predict. "Oh, I made a little error in judgement last week and someone toasted a billion people as a consequence. Anyone want to sign a liability formula? No?" Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 679 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Sep 2, 2005 1:46 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Contents of http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/090205_bet_life.shtml --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > Dear all, > > I was horrified last night to see how the poor of New Orleans are being treated. > But chills ran up my spine while reading an essay on the above website. How > is your confront of evil doing ? My confront of evil is unchanged. But events like this do lift the veil on what's really going on and open the eyes of many. A little, anyway. I suggest a long-term daily dose of http://www.rense.com , taking in whatever can be tolerated and rejecting that which cannot. It seems that the US government considers it the #1 misinformation site in the US: praise indeed. Paul






Message 680 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Sep 2, 2005 2:51 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Confessionals in Expanded Grade 2 --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > ...I try to keep as much of the C/S 56 line in as well. I re-read that. Interesting points for a FZ auditor all on his tod. Thanks for the other words of wisdom too. Paul






Message 681 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Sep 4, 2005 2:30 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: My Side --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > My error was in not asking for Pat's training class before I paid for > her solo C/Sing. A Class VI can make Clears. A Class VIII can make > OTIIIs. I don't know your case or training levels, Peter, so I am speaking generally and not necessarily addressing this to you specifically. To get through OT3 properly you need: 1. Case set ups including Expanded Grades, NED etc., and OT Preps including any needed sort-out of Clear. 2. Thorough training and drilling as a Solo Auditor on the equivalent of Solo Part One (theory and drilling) and Solo Part Two (mostly tightly supervised solo auditing on non-confidential type actions). The equivalent of Solo Part One should also have prerequisites like Student Hat (or equivalent) and some tech training. Step 2 is a LONG step. 3. Through training and drilling on OT1 Theory, and good C/Sing on OT1 Auditing. Note that there are different things called "OT1" in the FZ, some better than others. 4. Thorough training and drilling on OT2 Theory, and good C/Sing on OT2 auditing. This means C/Sing daily or so, with the C/S reading every page and every line and every squiggle on the worksheets, and taking the appropriate action based on what is there, not a phone call once a week or month to "see how it is going". 5. Thorough training and drilling on OT3 Theory, and good C/Sing on OT3 auditing. This means C/Sing daily or so, with the C/S reading every page and every line and every squiggle on the worksheets, and taking the appropriate action based on what is there, not a phone call once a week or month to "see how it is going". Item 1 requires someone trained in those actions. Someone less than a Class VI may be able to do them well. Someone with a Class VI cert may not. Item 2 requires someone qualified to supervise solo auditing, who may or may not be a Class VI. I give the example of myself, not yet a Class IV, but I have successfully trained well over a hundred solo auditors on Solo-OT3 and am very good at it. (I'm not vying for your business, or anyone's right now). Items 3, 4, and 5 require someone who can supervise those levels; someone who can C/S them; and possibly someone who can do review auditing on them. I'm assuming the supervisor would be capable of doing any cramming/retread type actions needed. Not necessarily the same person needs to do the supervising, review auditing, C/Sing. Again, it needs someone trained in the actions. In the CofS, it would need to be an VIII and someone who has done the Solo C/S Course for the C/Sing and the AO Review Auditor's Course for the auditing, I believe. In the FZ, who knows? Make sure you ask the right questions of whichever person(s) you finally decide on. If someone says you don't need to do any of the above then they are not familiar with the tech involved. Sure, some "Tech person" can say, "You don't need to do all that crap" and take someone who had a win after five hours on Self Analysis, have them do some Solo meter drills, have them nervously fly some ruds on someone they didn't like and say they're done on OT1, then have them read some stuff about OT2 and then after lunch start them on OT2 auditing and then on OT3 tomorrow and declare them complete on OT3 a few days later when they can't find anything much to run. Yeah, that can be done. But it ain't Scientology. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 682 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Sep 4, 2005 2:16 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Paul's statement.:) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Always good to see an Ideal Scene:) Yes, XXXX, and one that should be very familiar. If a tech delivery person's existing scene falls short of it, they should be ashamed of themselves. In what follows, the "you" is not aimed at XXXX particularly. Here's a simple, off-the-cuff checklist. It is not one of my well- researched and carefully-thought-out efforts, but was just thrown together to make a point. Each question scores 0-5 points: 5 points = fully in each session, each pc 4 points = pretty much in, slips a bit sometimes 3 points = we try, it's more in than out 2 points = we kinda try, but it's more out than in 1 point = it's in a bit, we do the best we can, you know 0 points = you gotta be kidding! This is the FZ--We don't do that here! In Question 1, the word "equivalent" has its dictionary meaning; it does not mean "not". ***Rough and Ready FZ Auditor Standard Tech Assessment*** 1. Auditor is certificate trained or equivalent for all actions being delivered if auditing professionally. If auditing as a student, is on a proper course. 2. Auditor has minimally read, word-cleared and drilled all actions being delivered. 3. Auditor goes to Cramming/gets standard correction for session flubs. 4. Auditor has and uses a separate person as C/S if auditing professionally. 5. Auditor has and uses a separate person as Examiner after session if auditing professionally. Auditor has admin in for each pc and pc folder, including: 6. Each session written up by the end of the day, with worksheets, ARF, C/S form, folder summary updated. 7. Each folder has current program, yellow sheet, up-to-date FES, lists etc. pulled forward. 8. Auditor has a reference library covering what is being delivered. 9. Auditor has audited at least one pc in the past three months. 10. Auditor uses standard C/S Series C/Sing and Grade Chart programming. 11. Auditor uses standard HCOB-based Model Session. 12. Auditor clears commands per HCOB Clearing Commands. 13. Auditor delivers a full Scn and Dn CS-1 on new Scn and Dn pcs exactly per those issues. 14. Auditor delivers a full PTS CS-1 before doing a PTS Handling. 15. Auditor delivers standard processes exactly as written. 16. Auditor's TRs are excellent and the previous session done would pass a video. 17. Auditor's metering is excellent and the previous session done would pass a video. 18. Auditor's application of technical data including Auditors Code is excellent and would pass a video. 19. Auditor has all points of "Setting up a session" checklist in. 20. Auditor's pcs are uniformly winning and are doing or scheduling training as auditors themselves. Add up your score. If you get 100 points, congratulations, you're delivering 100% Standard Tech! If you scored, say, 38% and think you're delivering 100% Standard Tech, then you're full of shit. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 683 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Sep 4, 2005 3:13 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Paul's statement.:) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > Add up your score. If you get 100 points, congratulations, you're > delivering 100% Standard Tech! > > If you scored, say, 38% and think you're delivering 100% Standard > Tech, then you're full of shit. So who's got the balls to post their score? I just figured mine at 72%. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 684 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Sep 5, 2005 3:36 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Paul's statement - Standard tech scores --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: Hi XXXX, Nice to hear from you on this, although I am not surprised. When I first spoke with you I rapidly decided you had bigger balls than I did. > Paul and Chris, great for your honesty and confront. A good example. Presumed honesty. How do you know I didn't really get 41% and am lying about it? > Re. examiner - no idea how to put that in. It's a tricky one. One possibility is for the tech terminals interested in participating to each get a C-meter and webcam. After session, the after-session exam can then get done online by whoever is available. It won't be a perfect system but it could be workable to some extent. It would also be very easy to "video" the exam so the auditor can't insist that the examiner must have missed the F/N as the pc was VVGIs and widely F/Ning at end of session. > But I am not sure if an auditor report form on each session is > equally important in standard tech than metering, TRs, keeping > a PC in session, and good C/S-ing. The auditor code and the 5 GAE's > should get more weight in the survey, those 5 points give the > backbone of standard tech - that is my point of view. True. One problem though is that such a checklist has to be fairly user-friendly or no-one will make use of it. I wrote one a year ago with about 190 questions, with each point separately weighted. It was more thorough and exact than this one, but it's also far too cumbersome to use except as part of some doctoral thesis maybe. So for practical purposes I will settle on one like this with 20 or 25 items, each scoring 0-5 or 0-4 points to total 100. I reworked the 20 item one a little, combining the two admin items 6 and 7 into one admin item 6 (I look on the Examiner as a tech point, not an admin one); added item 7; and added an arbitrary study bit to item 8. I consider the five GAE points already covered in the original 20 points: to put them into the list as regularly worded does not communicate as well, in my estimation. Those three reworked items come out as: 6. Each session written up by the end of the day, with full admin per HCOB, and pc folders have full cover admin in per HCOB. 7. Auditor really wants to do a good job and help the pc, and does not have more attention on making money from the pc. 8. Auditor has a reference library covering at minimum what is being delivered and studies from it at least a couple of hours weekly. The points about the C/S and Examiner should also state "qualified C/S" and "qualified Examiner". And in the item about auditing someone in the past three months I would add "in formal session", to differentiate it from things like counting as a locational talking to a friend in a bar and saying, "Man, look at the tits on her!" Any other suggestions? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 685 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Sep 6, 2005 5:33 am Subject: [IFAchat] Re: Non-E, The Current State of Affairs, Superman et al. --- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > I have assembled a new report on Magnetic Flips on > my website at: > > http://www.astrosciences.info/magflips.htm Hi guys, Don't worry, I'm not staying. I just wanted to comment on a couple of Bill's recent posts, and this article. I've seen no evidence that the Earth will flip magnetic poles in 2012. There is evidence that they have flipped 170 times in the past 100 million years; that they flip roughly every quarter million and the last time was 780,000 years ago and the next may be overdue. But there was a period of 10 million years when they didn't even flip once. The intensity of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased 10% in the past 150 years to 90% its usual intensity. A geologist found that 16 million years ago at one point the magnetic field changed direction 60 degrees in about ten days while it was behaving erratically when its intensity was maybe 10% (not 90%) of its usual intensity. The sun's magnetic field does flip every 11 years, and the next flip is scheduled for 2012. This is true. So what? Earth's magnetic field didn't flip last time the sun's did: why should it this time? It hasn't flipped in 780,000 years! The Mayan calendar reaches a special point, seemingly at Dec 21, 2012. This calendar does not stop dead at that point, but rolls over to the next cycle, like an odometer changing from 4999.9 to 5000.0 and then 5000.1 and so on. On this date an extremely close conjunction of the winter solstice sun with the crossing point of the Galactic Equator and the ecliptic occurs, an event that has not occurred for thousands of years. I don't know exactly how often this event does occur. Whatever significance this date had to the Mayans seems astrological, there being no records indicating anything else. Bill quotes an author called Geryl who predicts a catastrophe on this date, for no good reason. Geryl doesn't seem to know the difference between magnetic poles and axial ones, and says the only way the poles could flip would be if the Earth started rotating the other way, an impossible violation of conservation of angular momentum. Bill refers to astronomical cycles that take thousands or millions of years to occur, with the 62 million-year ones maybe being responsible for large-scale extinction events. I have no quibble with that--it sounds very reasonable--but I don't see how a repetitive long-term cycle of 26,000 years, of the solar system bobbing up and down in the Milky Way, could be predicted to have a serious effect on Earth within such a specific small time frame as "the year 2012". Bill states, 'As the earth moves "up" in this bobbing motion, the earth's magnetic field would be oriented one way -- "north" or "south". As the earth moves "down" in this bobbing motion, the earth's magnetic field would be oriented the opposite way -- "north" or "south". ' Without getting into the physics of this induction, surely such a mechanism would give a 13,000 year regularity to the field flips that is not seen in the geological record. It doesn't surprise me that those of the elite who can are building their arks in preparation for the Armageddon they are seeking, and bringing on. Whatever floats your boat, as the saying goes. Other stuff: Yes, agreed Bill, the biosphere is being toasted as are civil liberties and we might not last out till 2012 anyway. Also, there's an interesting website at http://www.the-electric-universe.info/ if you're open to different ideas. And very good on all the training and auditing, you guys. Bye. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 686 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Sep 6, 2005 3:56 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Paul's statement - Standard tech scores --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > I'll chop off the body parts bit before it goes somewhere naughty. > Re. examiner - one can do it self AFAIK, changing the hat from > auditor to examiner. But it is not really ideal. Thus in the FZ > many field auditor omits it, noting the end of session indicators > instead. Yes. Seems funky for the auditor to do "an exam" and think it means anything more than what he wrote at the end of the session. > I would add one more somewhere: > Getting PCs through Bridge PROGRAMS with raving results proven with > success stories. I mean Grade completions, Clears, etc. Not > just "auditing by the book" - but GETTING SOMEONE THROUGH a > program. Yes, that's good. I added it into point 20. I can still squeeze some more into 20 items by making an adjustment here and there if anyone has any other good points. > I would love to see more standard tech scores. Any more brave > FZ-ers who dare to look and confront their standardness? The silence speaks loudly, huh? > Paul, pls send the survey once more to the list! Thanks, > > XXXX My next post. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 687 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Sep 7, 2005 4:35 am Subject: [IFAchat] Re: Non-E, The Current State of Affairs, Superman et al. --- In ifachat@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Adams" wrote: > > It doesn't surprise me that those of the elite who can are building > their arks in preparation for the Armageddon they are seeking, and > bringing on. Whatever floats your boat, as the saying goes. Sorry, that paragraph doesn't make sense. I was thinking of the supposed fundamentalist-Christian-leaning thinking among the global elite that it doesn't matter that they are destroying the planet because it will hasten the Second Coming of Christ and the Rapture, where they will rise up into the air in their current bodies and meet the guy. I don't know what happens after that, but presumably they don't just stay for cocktails and then go back to work on the surface. People preparing arks must have different beliefs if they are planning on prolonging their lives via more mundane methods. I'll try and stay gone. Paul






Message 688 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Sep 7, 2005 8:23 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Auditor Standard Tech Assessment Checklist Auditor Standard Tech Assessment Checklist This checklist can be used to assess how well an auditor is adhering to Standard Tech. The assessment can be done by the auditor personally, or it can be used by anyone familiar with that auditor's operation. In assessing someone's tech, use the last session and pc, not one tomorrow. Mark each item in or out on a gradient scale of 0-5 points: 5 points = fully in each session, each pc 4 points = pretty much in, slips a bit sometimes 3 points = does try, with it more in than out 2 points = kinda tries, but it's more out than in 1 point = it's in a bit, at least 0 points = you gotta be kidding--that's not done here! Add up the total. You can compare scores auditor to auditor, but make sure you are comparing like with like. One person's assessment of a scene might not match another's assessment of the same scene. An auditor could use this list to assess his or her own operation over a period of time and improve it by working on each point in turn until all are fully in. Simply recording the total each time would give a quantitative measure of progress towards a genuine Ideal Scene of 100% Standard Tech. Date_____________ Auditor____________________________ Total_______ 1. Auditor is certificate trained or full equivalent for all actions being delivered if auditing professionally._______ 2. Auditor really wants to do a good job and help the pc, is professional in dress and manner, doesn't discuss pc cases and doesn't screw his or her clients. _______ 3. Auditor uses standard C/S Series and Grade Chart programming and C/Sing. _______ 4. Auditor has minimally read, word-cleared and fully drilled all actions being delivered. _______ 5. Auditor has and uses a separate qualified person as C/S if auditing professionally. _______ 6. Auditor has all points of HCOB "Checklist for Setting Up Sessions and an E-Meter" in. This is by visual checklist unless auditor can quote it verbatim. _______ 7. Auditor always uses standard Model Session per HCOB Model Session. _______ 8. Auditor clears all commands per HCOB Clearing Commands._______ 9. Auditor delivers a full Scn CS-1 and Dn CS-1 on new Scn and Dn pcs exactly per those issues. _______ 10. Auditor delivers a full PTS CS-1 before doing a PTS Handling. _______ 11. Auditor delivers only standard processes exactly as laid out in books, tapes and HCOBs. _______ 12. Auditor's TRs are uniformly excellent and the last session done would pass a video. _______ 13. Auditor's metering is uniformly excellent and the last session done would pass a video. _______ 14. Auditor's application of technical data including Auditors Code is uniformly excellent and would pass a video. _______ 15. Auditor has and uses a separate qualified person as Examiner after session if auditing professionally. _______ 16. Each session is written up by the end of the day, with full admin in per Auditor Admin Series HCOBs on the session write-ups and the pc folder inside covers. _______ 17. Auditor goes to Cramming/gets standard correction for session flubs. _______ 18. Auditor has a reference library covering at minimum what is being delivered and studies from it at least a couple of hours weekly. _______ 19. Auditor has audited at least one pc in formal session in the past three months. _______ 20. Auditor's pcs are completing full program steps, winning, and while moving up the Bridge are doing or planning training as auditors themselves. _______ Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 689 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Sep 8, 2005 6:32 pm Subject: Course Supervisor Standard Tech Assessment Checklist Course Supervisor Standard Tech Assessment Checklist Here is a checklist that can be used to assess how well a course supervisor is adhering to Standard Tech. This assessment can be done by the sup himself, or it can be used by anyone familiar with that sup's operation. It is not necessarily in its final form, but it is workable as it stands. Any updates will be visible at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/supassessment.htm/ In assessing someone's tech, use the last course period and students, not those tomorrow. Each question scores 0-5 points: 5 points = fully in each day, each student 4 points = pretty much in, slips a bit sometimes 3 points = does try, with it more in than out 2 points = kinda tries, but it's more out than in 1 point = it's in a bit, at least 0 points = you gotta be kidding--this is the FZ and we don't do that here! Add up the total. You can compare scores sup to sup, but make sure you are comparing like with like. One person's assessment of a scene might not match another's assessment of the same scene. A sup could assess his/her own operation and decide to improve it by working on each point in turn until all are fully in. Simply recording the total each time would give a quantitative measure of progress towards a genuine Ideal Scene of 100% Standard Tech. If there is one sup in a course room, he is responsible for everything in the courseroom. If there are several sups, the responsibilities overlap and must be shared in such a way that everything is well covered. Date___________ Course Sup__________________ Total________ 1. Sup is Pro Word Clearer certificate trained or full equivalent if supervising professionally. _______ 2. Sup is HPCSC certificate trained or full equivalent if supervising professionally. _______ 3. Sup really wants to do a good job and help the students, is professional in dress and manner, and doesn't screw his clients. _______ 4. Sup uses standard course sup tech in handling students. Sup has minimally read, word-cleared and fully drilled all sup actions being delivered. _______ 5. The courseroom is set up per WIAC PL, including each student with his own checksheet and complete pack and enough materials available, and has a posted schedule. The sup is available for students in the courseroom throughout each posted course period, and is not tied up auditing, for example. _______ 6. Sup has and uses a separate qualified word-clearer if sup'ing professionally. _______ 7. Sup has all points of HCOPL "What is a Course" in. This is by visual checklist unless sup can quote it verbatim. _______ 8. Sup has all points of HCOB "Courses, Their Ideal Scene" in. This is by visual checklist unless sup can quote it verbatim. _______ 9. Sup knows the manifestations of each Barrier to Study perfectly and can recognise them instantly in students. _______ 10. Sup insists each student learn thorough study tech, i.e. Student Hat or full equivalent, before starting on Academy Level-type training or Solo levels, and apply it correctly on courses thereafter. _______ 11. If delivering Solo levels, sup insists on a thorough, complete Solo course with full theory, checkouts and drilling, followed by thorough study with drilling and checkouts on checksheets that cover all solo actions detailed in the materials for the solo level. _______ 12. Sup insists all checkouts are tough and drills are done to their full result and neither are skimped or brushed off. Sup writes pink sheets daily (would include ones with no assignment if none needed). _______ 13. Supervisor's TRs and Sup 2WC and metering are uniformly excellent and the last action done on a student would pass a video. Sup does study meter checks daily on students, and debugs students as needed. _______ 14. Sup ensures students get what help they need to graduate their courses with minimum lost time. Sup doesn't dump students forever into ethics or cramming; sup ensures there are pcs and so forth for auditing requirements or twins for drills and practicals and makes it happen. _______ 15. Sup's application of technical data including Supervisor's Code is uniformly excellent and the entire courseroom area the sup was responsible for last course period would have passed an on-the-spot inspection. _______ 16. Sup knows the Supervisor's Code verbatim and could quote any point or all of it at any time without hesitation. _______ 17. Sup goes to Cramming/gets standard correction for courseroom flubs. _______ 18. Sup studies source materials at least a couple of hours weekly to make self more qualified. _______ 19. Supervisor has sup'd at least one student in a proper scheduled courseroom on a formal course with checksheet and pack in the past three months. _______ 20. Sup rapidly gets students through full courses, who then apply the course data routinely in life after course completion. _______ Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 690 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:45 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg]FZ Auditor Training Line-up I was writing a kind of TIP (Technical Individual Program) for someone recently, and realized I hadn't ever seen a general guideline for such in the FZ. Yes, there's the Grade and Class Chart for a very general, overall view, but it's missing some things. And the current CofS line-up where it takes three years of crud, sweat and tears before one gives up without ever auditing anyone is just suppressive out-tech. So here is my idea of how it should go, in general terms. I am not calling this a TIP, as it isn't individual, but I do think it is a good general guideline for someone wanting to train from scratch or train further in the FZ. If you find yourself in the middle with earlier steps undone, fill them in first before going further, or you'll end up as the auditor equivalent of the "OT7" who can't talk, has problems and upsets and makes others wrong etc. When I write "XYZ Course" below, I mean doing a proper course with checksheet and pack, studied with full study tech, with checkouts and full drilling and practicals completed, as would be required in a proper certificate course. Not just reading through some stuff. It is too lengthy to write "Certificate-trained on XYZ Course or full FZ equivalent" each time, but that is what is meant. Auditor: 1. Intro: Assists, Book One, Self-Analysis, VM-type stuff from Volunteer Minister Handbook or Scn Handbook etc., Basic Study Manual-type study skills needed; 2. TRs 0-9 on the TRs and Objectives Co-Audit or on separate TRs courses. TR skills are needed at a level sufficient to get one's twin through the Objectives Co-Audit and maybe a Scn Drug Rundown Co-Audit, no more, no less; 3. Full Student Hat or equivalent plus Method 1 Word-Clearing; 4. Harder TRs course, but full Pro TRs level not needed yet; 5. Full metering course, but this can be incorporated into the Levels checksheets. Just make sure you know how to use the meter well for the level you will audit with it; 6. Level 0-5. These are basically fast courses on technique, sliding by on philosophic theory. One gets the full philosophic theory and becomes a superb auditor on the SHSBC, not on these levels. (This is per a 1968 or 1969 LRH ED, not my weird new idea). Each Level still has auditing requirements, of course. The 1987 0-4 checksheets seem about right; 7. Now we get serious. Full Pro TRs and Pro Upper Indoc TRs course. Lots of auditing and some kind of competent correction, maybe not a full internship, but enough to get competent and confident with the materials up to NED, not including the specialized and repair actions of Grad 5 or Class 6; 8. Grad 5 or full SHSBC. If doing the SHSBC, something like the 1980 checksheets should be used, that give a good balance of theory and practical. Throwing together something much shorter and calling it an "SHSBC" is a degrade and rip-off. Lots and lots of auditing and cramming after graduation, maybe doing the equivalent of an internship or working full-time in an HGC for 3 or 6 months or more, should be done after completing the Grad 5 course or SHSBC. If doing the SHSBC route, here is where one becomes a superb all-round auditor; 9. Class 8, but I have no idea how one can do a Class 8 course in the FZ. Just reading issues from and signing off a checksheet and listening to the tapes--without studying the LRH C/Ses or getting the correct emphasis of the course by doing the whole trip in a proper Class 8 environment--doesn't make a Class 8; 10. Good Class 6's and 8's interested in delivering Power or the FZ equivalent of the Ls should know enough to be able to find their own way! NOTs Auditor: Should be an experienced Grad 5, which means after point 8 above. 9. NOTs Auditor Course and lots of auditing/correction at this level until competent and confident. I don't know how much of the tech since the original issues came out is available in the FZ, so this step isn't as clear-cut as the earlier ones. AO Review Auditor: Should be done after Class 8 Course, but realistically could be done after Class 6 or even Grad 5 at a pinch, but not Class 4, even though someone with less training than Grad 5 might get away with a successful AO Review session here and there. 9. AO Review Auditor Course and lots of auditing/correction at this level. C/S Training: The CofS has C/S courses and internships for Class 4, Class 5, Grad 5, Grad 5A (Grad 5 plus XDn), Class 6, Class 8, and above. If desired, they could be done after one is experienced and competent at auditing at a particular level. I haven't seen checksheets for all these C/S courses in the FZ, but they shouldn't be too hard to write. They would need to be done under the guidance of a competent C/S, and include lots of practical C/Sing for many different auditors and pcs. Note that anyone C/Sing Solo-OT3 needs to be well-trained in C/Sing those particular levels, and able to understand the nitty-gritty of and take the appropriate action for anything that comes up in a pre-OT's Solo session. Having just some regular C/S cert and solo auditing these levels personally does NOT qualify one to C/S them. I've written about this before. Anyway, I hope this is all helpful. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 691 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:16 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg]FZ Course Supervisor Training Line-Up Here is the general training line-up that I would expect someone wanting to sup professionally in the FZ ought to do, and the sequence it should be done in, in my estimation. It is "Standard Tech" that a course sup does not need to be a graduate and exponent of a course he is supervising, although he cannot be totally ignorant of the subject. This tends to mean that in the CofS people get trained as sups primarily and the auditor bit gets skimped. However, part of the sup's code is being able to answer any question by directing the student to the actual source of the data, and if it is all Greek to him he won't be able to do that. Other points are that the sup should be "an accomplished auditor"--which doesn't just mean he achieved a checksheet completion--and "The Supervisor should at all times be perfectly willing and able to do anything he tells his students to do." I have incorporated those points into this training line-up, and so it differs slightly from a CofS line-up. A CofS line-up would still include points 3, 7, a quickie 8, Pro W/C Course and Internship and Pro Sup Course and Internship, and KTL though. It is assumed here that the sup intends to concentrate on training people in regular auditor tech, not to be Crop Circle Pattern Designers or somesuch. If the tech is in some area other than auditing, make the appropriate substitutions. 1. Some kind of tech and study tech familiarity and training; 2. Some kind of sup training; 3. Student Hat or full FZ equivalent; 4. Mini Word-Clearing Course and some word-clearing; 5. Mini Course Sup Course and some supervising; 6. Lots of supervising and word-clearing and correction of both, and becoming familiar with the common books and tapes and HCOBs and even policies to some extent; 7. Pro TRs Course and Pro Upper Indoc TRs course; 8. Becoming an accomplished auditor, whatever that takes; 9. Pro W/C Course and giving lots more word-clearing (and being crammed/corrected) at this level, giving all methods of W/Cing; 10. Pro Sup Course and doing lots more supervision and being crammed/corrected at this level, using all the sup tools, done in a fully standard courseroom put and kept there by the sup; 11. Key to Life Course or FZ equivalent (yeah, well, I can dream, can't I?); 12. The CofS sup line-up then goes on into the Professor line-up, from memory including Life Orientation Course and Primary Rundown. I figure that any FZ sup who makes it through to point 11 would be able to figure his own way from there. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 692 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:43 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: FZ Course Supervisor Training Line-Up --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , basic basic wrote: > > Thanks Paul. Currantly the english speaking FZ is > barely capable of this unless one starts with someone > with a fair degree of training. What you write is a > long and valid runway. I disagree with the word here, bb. A runway is something you move along trying to build up enough speed to reach takeoff. At takeoff you start on the journey to your destination. Once you have arrived, only then can you do what you need to--all the rest is preparation. You can be of quite some use in the FZ as a supervisor if you know nothing much at all about study tech or Scientology, and all you do is provide a quiet space and materials and twins and make sure people show up on time and tell them to get on with it. If someone dopes off or asks a question just kick them or shrug. It's not exactly great supervision but for some people it would be better than nothing. The "supervisor", assuming this is what he wants to do, would then work through the training line-up, getting better all the time, and sooner or later wouldn't have to shrug or kick. But he doesn't have to be an HPCSC before he announces "Rollcall!" I actually started supervising Solo-OT3 at Saint Hill while I was Solo Tech Sec, before I had even done a mini Word-Clearing Course or Mini Course Sup Course. I sup'd for a year like that, a few hours a day. I hated the admin/exec side of being the AO Tech Sec, but loved the tech itself and did OK as a "sup", which is why I was allowed to continue to do it. The RTC Rep eventually got all uppity about it, but I wriggled out of any serious trouble by pointing to the "Service PL" that bb loves and quotes every now and then. Someone finally saw the light and I got taken off that exec post and finally did some formal sup training in 1984, after being in the courseroom for a year. I did an MCSC Internship in 1984, almost all of it while on post supervising in the same Solo-OT3 courseroom(s). Later I did the rest of the training lineup in bits and pieces over the years apart from a final burst of about a month full-time training in which I did the Pro W/C Course and Internship and the Pro Sup Course and Internship, but it took until about 1994 after I'd been sup'ing for ten years before I finally had that HPCSC cert with a gold seal on it. If it's possible to get away with sup'ing Solo-OT3 for a year in the SO without any formal sup training, it should be possible for a FZer to grab some friends and invite them over, tell the wife and kids to stay out of the room for a couple of hours, provide some copies of Self Analysis and paper and pens and have at it. Or get some of the Scn Handbook booklets on assists or something and use those. If you gave a touch assist once and these other people haven't even heard of the idea, you're an expert to them! Paul






Message 693 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:47 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: FZ Auditor Training Line-up --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > Paul, I understand gradients, but then TRs are TRs. Just have the > person do them right once, and they will never have to do them > again. I don't mean overdoing or blinkless, just a good 100 hour > course. They will make great gains they can use in life, too. If you can get the average student's TRs in for life, at full Pro TRs level, in 100 hours from scratch, my hat is off to you XXXX. I spent 100 hours on TRs on the HAS Course, my first course in Scn. I had great wins, and joined the SO without even finishing the course, but I didn't get anywhere near Pro TRs level at that time. Paul






Message 694 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:27 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Tales from an Auditor --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , basic basic wrote: > > I'm very happy to say that Victor Ruiz has.... > Wow. That's what it's all about. Associating with the CofS for many years one can so easily get into the frame of mind that the tech should be applied exactly, with all the t's neatly crossed, and it is surely better to do nothing at all than to take a chance on making a mistake. Wrong think! Just do it. Paul






Message 695 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:01 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: FZ Auditor Training Line-up --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , Paul Adams wrote: > 6. Level 0-5. These are basically fast courses on > technique, sliding by on philosophic theory. One gets the > full philosophic theory and becomes a superb auditor on the > SHSBC, not on these levels. (This is per a 1968 or 1969 LRH > ED, not my weird new idea). I finally dug up a copy of this issue. The exact quote is from LRHED 81 INT 20 Jan 1969 A VITAL TARGET: "The REAL design of training (if anybody would really do it this way) is: "Dianetics: Fast Course on Technique. Slide by on philosophic data. "Academy: Fast Courses on Technique. Learn all the motions. "SHSBC: A course taking in ALL the data, philosophic, with polishing of Technique. "Class VIII: Sharp rapid STANDARDIZATION of auditing and case supervising with 100% gains. "When you try to standardize Class VIII style the Dianetic course, or SHSBC, the Academy courses, you slow people down to nowhere." End Quote. Note the current CofS curriculum in relation to the last paragraph. Paul






Message 696 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:22 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Conspiracy Against Rights --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > Wow, I am stunned. You can know that a law must exsists but to have it stated so clearly. Yeah, but it's as clear as mud. It is so suppressively wide-ranging that it is just one more piece of intimidation to make one afraid of the legal/justice system, and one more tool with which to perpetrate injustice. If a couple of guys in OSA talk about visiting an upcoming Freezone event, and they do so, and they don't do anything much there but some FZers are uncomfortable about it, then haven't these OSA guys conspired to oppress the FZers' rights under the Constitution to freely practise their religion? And if a couple of FZers at the event discuss what to do about it, then go over to the OSA people and make the OSA people feel uncomfortable one way or another, even if everyone is civil, didn't the FZers conspire to oppress the churchies' rights to practise *their* religion? Sure it's silly. But try proving you *didn't* do it! If five people of supposedly excellent character are willing to falsely swear up and down they overheard two people talking together about setting fire to the Old Folks Home down the street, and the two people were seen leaving a convenience store together--caught on video tape--with one carrying a can of lighter fluid, even though nothing bad happened in the physical universe except the barbecued steaks was late, the two guys could be easily framed. I hate "conspiracy" laws. Gee, I hope I haven't just committed a hate crime. Paul






Message 697 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:34 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Free POW Correspondence Course Released I have now released the Correspondence Course based on the book Problems of Work. It is free for anyone to use. If someone wants to charge for their time *supervising* someone on it they may do so, but they may not charge for the text of the course. In other words, don't hide the fact that the entire text is freely available on the Net although your supervision may be charged for. It is at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/POW.htm or http://www.freewebs.com/squirrelacademy/POW.htm Please note the license under which it is being issued. Paul






Message 698 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Oct 7, 2005 7:35 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Exp. Grade 2 Success My pc attested to Grade 2 Exp. today. This included about 30 hrs. on a Jo'burg, which was not as grueling as it sounds, and produced the best gains on the Grade. Grade 2 Success Story: "Have made a very substantial amount of cognition and have gained lot of freedom from others. I'll mention only some which will be just a small fraction of the gains I have. "The freedom from past events and their negative effects on me is greatly reduced. "Have re-realized how I am the sole cause behind the things I do. Influence from others or not it is I who have done/do what I do. (I know this sounds simple but I had many doingness in my past that I have at least partly blamed on the influence). "Gained the ability to withold at will--when it is necessary--and not feel bad about it. (Not feel like I have to share/confess). "Had many cognitions on engrams and have observed their action on me up to present time. "Had relief from negative effects of engrams. And/or began to counter do their effects on me. "Had some cognitions having to do with my goals and the way I wish to reach them. "Overall I feel like I have regained an earlier state of mind wich I have posessed when I was younger in my school days when "life" was a piece of cake. "Had some potential multi-million dollar ideas. "(Signed, A.S.)"






Message 699 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Oct 7, 2005 8:42 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: mystery symbol --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > http://personal.linkline.com/frice/tremcirc.jpg > Anyone know what the cst symbol means? They are carved in the ground at > the bunkers. Ever see them anywhere else? thanks, XXXX. I don't know what the symbol represents. I saw it at ASI one time I went on a tour there and saw some of the archive materials. It is a trademark registered to CST, and their logo, I believe. If you go to the search engine for the US Patent and Trademark office at http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=56v1o.1.1 [Note: Just look up USPTO in Google and use that URL] and punch in the numbers 73507434 and 73507435 (two separate searches) in the Search Term box, then select "Serial or Registration Number" in the Field box, it will bring up this symbol. Paul







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.