Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts 0851-0902

Yahoo Groups Posted Messages

Message 851 Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:18 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: To Bob - To Fluffy --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Maybe we're talking about a "missed withold of nothing" here? Or > going just a step further into black scn, caving someone in by > cleaning that clean intentionally, insisting the person has W/H, > M/W/H, overts not revealed... constantly hammering at them by > insisting on never ending sec-checks... I mean, the very > first "missed withold of nothing" ARC breaks the person. So it > would be an overt to use this mechanism to introvert someone. Trying to get some comparative measure of overts gets tricky. "My overt is bigger than yours, nyah, nyah!" "No it's not!!" "It is so!!!" It can be done on a personal basis, as in what one has more attention on, or gets more relief from in session (or even a non-Scn confession to someone as long as it allows the withhold to be gotten off). Or an auditor's comparison by noting the relative amounts of TA or difficulty the pc had in giving them up. But it all depends on the reality and moral code of the pc. Hypothetically, my reaction to accidentally killing someone in a car crash I had caused is not likely to be the same as some inner-city Crip who kills people regularly. Society has it sorted out to some extent. Stealing a loaf of bread is not as bad these days as murdering someone you're not allowed to, or publicly criticising Emperor W. Having consensual sex in some places with a girl aged 17 years and 364 days is a felony punishable by years in prison whereas if you had waited till after the weekend you wouldn't have to be concerned about it every now and then for the rest of your life. Like when you think she might tell if you piss her off too much. And so on. Analytically, hijacking for twenty years the main thrust of a highly workable spiritual technology that had the potential of significantly helping a planetary population ranks up there with wiping out said population. There aren't too many people guilty of that particular overt. But who hasn't tried to make someone guilty of committing some overt? How does it rank on one's own personal tally sheet, when compared to stealing someone's husband, or embezzling the company's funds, or crashing a friend's car, or whatever whoopsies one has done and feels/felt bad about? My idea is that it isn't so hot, certainly not as bad as it is painted by various theoreticians. Paul

Message 852 Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:41 am [easy_tech_setup] Re: Hello from Paul Adams --- In easy_tech_setup@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I had a discussion going some time ago with someone on T4R > who is very advanced - and who says, that every yawning is a MWH. Very advanced at what? Paul http://www.fzglobal.org

Message 853 Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:14 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: FWD: Running out Scn --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > To be serious, in my experience it just doesn't do any > good to rub someone's face in their transgressions. I agree with you, XXXX. But that wasn't my point. Why is it such a *huge* overt? Looking over my own overts, it's hard to even find times I committed such a supposedly-heinous crime. I have done it, but the effects weren't observably huge. On the reverse flow, looking at times others have tried to make me guilty of committing an overt, yeah, sometimes there was a protest of mine on it, but the amount of charge involved was small compared with other things being addressed in the same routine session. Am I unusual in this regard? Do others have very different experiences? Paul

Message 854 Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:04 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Hiya and Fora (Hiyums and Forums?) Hi guys, It will be interesting to see how this group turns out. There isn't really a useful Freezone forum which isn't overly "standard-tech" oriented right now. Mike Hunsaker's Freezone America Forum almost fitted the bill a year or so ago, but he refused to moderate it at all and it was effectively destroyed as a forum. A forum which is completely unmoderated might score points in the free speech realm, but can be heavy going. Witness the newsgroups alt.religion.scientology and alt.clearing.technology. Yahoo groups seems to be the forum of choice. Google has a few Scientology groups moderated by someone friendly, but these are not promoted and have little traffic. The main Yahoo Scn groups are Freezone Org and IFAchat, both dominated by the Conservative Standard Tech crowd, and the idea of building on the existing knowledge base of Scn is mostly seen as edgy at best. Formerscio is more open, but has little traffic. So there is certainly room for this group. We'll have to see how things turn out. Hey XXXX--Am I allowed to challenge your clarification of standard tech as being "LRH/Filbert"? Paul

Message 855 Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:55 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Paul's Robot Auditor win There's a nice pair of success stories posted on my robot page. It is by a non-Scientologist who happened upon the site through a Google search. I had a nice chat to him (Sam) on the phone yesterday. Paul Free Robot auditing 24/7 http://www.fzglobal.org/robot

Message 856 Mon Oct 9, 2006 4:55 pm [easy_tech_setup] Hello from Paul Adams Well, with all these nice things being said about my Robot Auditor, how could I fail to join in? Note that the audio version is not supported by the Firefox browser, although it works fine with IE. If anyone knows how to get the audio to work with Firefox, (and the background colour), please let me know. Paul Free Robot Auditing 24/7 http://www.fzglobal.org/robot

Message 857 Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:57 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: FWD: Running out Scn --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > If I may for 1 sec make a point - lets look at this from the point > of view of static - what does that make everything else. > > A mock-up, creation, something not static etc... > > Therefore it gets dealt with,looked at, as-issed. A positive can > just as much be a trap ie admiration, curious about,re-inforced or > forced. > > If it holds a thetans attention it needs to be dealt with. Could you define exactly what you mean in your earlier post by "positive" and "negative"? It would seem to fit into the Factors dichotomies of good/evil etc. having no basis beyond opinion, although much has general agreement. As in, it's positive to love children and negative to eat too many cookies. In my view, with my (common) definitions, I don't see how one can take charge off *anything* that is positive, although one can take charge off negative reactions to positive things. Because there *isn't* any charge on something that is 100% positive, by definition. Of course, something that is 98% positive has the 2% that can be addressed. And what do you mean by "dealt with"? Let's say I have had a burning desire to clear the planet for decades. I haven't, but we'll pretend. The moment I wake up, I leap out of bed and whirl into action getting auditors into session and students onto course and spreading the word as widely as I can. This consumes most of my attention. I am driven. I long ago took off all the charge I could find connected with this activity, and find it joyful in the extreme, but it's an uphill struggle. Still, as a life's work, there are less worthwhile pursuits. On what basis would this drive need to be dealt with? Yes, insomuch as I feel the need to change something, this is not an attitude from the no-games-condition state of Static which is serene with things as they are. But I'm with Pat here: What's the point of being alive on this planet if one's ideal state is something like one of complete nothingness with infinite potential? Maybe, looking at your nick and recent comments, that is your ideal state! I'm not trying to insult you (too much). Is it? It's not mine. Paul

Message 858 Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:48 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: Hiya and Fora (Hiyums and Forums?) --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Well, I wouldn't say that Yahoo is the forum of choice. It's > certainly the path of least resistance, since it's free and > doesn't require handholding. Yahoo is notorious for dropping > messages, and sometimes it will post them whenever it bloody-well > feels like it. Well, XXXX, I agree that Yahoo has its limitations, but these do seem to be the lists most used by FZers. Unless there is a popular non-Yahoo one that has somehow escaped my notice. I left freezoneaoint off my list by mistake. I find moderation after the fact acceptable. If I don't like how the moderation is occurring I can say my piece about it, and if it doesn't change I can post elsewhere. Assuming I don't get rapidly nuked by the moderator! That has only happened to me on the ICAUSE list. Paul

Message 859 Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:00 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: Robot auditor WIN! --- In easy_tech_setup@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Yes XXXX - SCN does work. > > If one day it does not - go back in session and see, what else > is connected to the subject - or what is keyed in again and rehab > the former key out. This is a special SCN tech. > > Cheers > XXXX > > XXXX wrote: > > I just wanted to give an update on my first session with > > the robot auditor that I did last weekend. I audited an issue > > that was very personal and private, and hoped that it would help > > things get better. Today, I realized just how much of a difference > > I have seen in just a few short days since my hour long session. > > Totally amazing. Scientology works!!! > > > > ARC, > > > > XXXX Let's not mix techs here. The procedure of Paul's Robot Auditor is very precise, even though within that precision is a certain amount of latitude. It is not accurate to call it "Scientology", both legally and factually, although it is based on Scientology principles. The Yawn Machine looks even less like Scientology. Rehab by counting and Rehab '65 style are Scientology procedures. Neither are part of Paul's Robot Auditor procedure. Even the idea of rehabbing something is not part of the procedure, although I'm not saying a rehab could not occur while doing the routine actions and if one wanted to address an overrun or underrun one could certainly do so. But the EP of a session with Paul's Robot Auditor is basically no more charge available that can be dug up and reduced by the procedure. I have no idea if it is broadly possible to rehab former states using it. Paul

Message 860 Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:23 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: FWD: Running out Scn --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > There is a level, where ANY stable data is a limitation. A comment I forgot to make earlier. False Data Stripping, for example, addresses stable data. False stable data. Other auditing addresses stable data that are false too, although not usually as the first point of address. An example would be the postulate one takes off as the last action in handling a Dianetic chain with NED. If I remember correctly, the stable datum is put there to hold back a confusion. Basic "Problems of Work" stuff. A stable datum can be aberrated, or it can be sane. By its very nature, it is a limitation at any level. It limits the number of things one need have attention on. Paul

Message 861 Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:06 am [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: PseudoNew Study Technology --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > since I've been known to have a hard time understanding things, I > thought I'd revamp the study tech and the Primary Rundown. > > Currently I have three different checksheets for study tech. Two > from LHR, and one from Ron's Org. I plan on combining these, as > well as a few other HCO's into a single checksheet and labelling where > each one came from. Hi XXXX, Well, you're a guy with big dreams! Good to see. I've written lots of checksheets. One aspect of a good checksheet involves a correct evaluation of importances. Some parts of a subject are more important than other parts, and need to have more time and attention directed to them. Unfortunately, in order to be able to assess the relative importances correctly, one needs to have a good command of the subject. It is comparatively easy to round up most of the materials relating to a subject and basically list them out in some sort of order, and while this could be useful it doesn't make a good checksheet. I wrote a post once which includes some of the things a good checksheet needs and why. It is message #322 at: http://www.fzglobal.org/w040817-040916.htm#^322 Solo auditing Method 1 Word Clearing as a first action for someone who has never given or received any auditing would be tricky, to put it mildly. If that is what you intended. I'm reading between the lines a bit here. If you want some suggestions for a path more likely to succeed, feel free to ask, either on the list or by e-mail. I have a lot of experience with study and course supervision. I wouldn't suggest this on one of the FZ lists devoted to Classic Standard Tech, but you could try addressing the subject of study with Paul's Robot Auditor. It is unlikely to give you an instant ability to rapidly devour whole subjects, but it could take some charge off the area if it exists. And you can't beat the price. And don't feel personally invalidated because I'm crapping on your ideas! You look like you will go far. Paul Free Robot Auditing 24/7 http://fzglobal.org/robot

Message 865 Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:44 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: clay table in the Key to life course --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Does every PC do the 2BC clay table auditing commands booklet in Key > to Life or is it just for those who have trouble with english or > grammer? Does anyone out there have the 2BC clay table auditing > commands booklet? thanks, XXXX. When I did KTL at ITO around 1992 everyone did it, as far as I know. I don't know what the CofS does now. Good luck with finding the commands booklets. I have never heard of one in the FZ, although the commands have been pretty much pieced together without them and you should be able to find them if you ask around (I don't have them). I have extreme doubts of anything being delivered in the FZ getting anywhere near to a proper KTL course per the issues. It was hard enough trying to deliver it properly in the CofS with dedicated courserooms and well-trained full-time staff. One can kinda do some of the actions with benefit in the FZ, but don't think that you will then have done the Key to Life Course. You can complete many courses very well in the FZ, but this isn't one of them. At least, in the US. There may be acceptable courserooms in EU where one can do a course comparable to KTL properly, but if so I haven't heard of any. Paul

Message 864 Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:01 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: "Welcome to Ron's Org (TM)" --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Has anybody received the new brochure from Flag by the above > title? I just did and it's the first comm I've received from > the church in years. Whoa! Smart thinking, Batman. Guess it's time I checked to see what else they have registered. I was only keeping track of the ones registered before around a year ago. Here's some data today from the US Patent and Trademark Office: Thank you for your request. Here are the latest results from the TARR web server. This page was generated by the TARR system on 2006-10-19 13:55:01 ET Serial Number: 78804956 Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE [i.e. it's not registered yet]) Mark (words only): RON'S ORG Standard Character claim: Yes Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made. Date of Status: 2006-07-25 Filing Date: 2006-02-01 Paul Not quite up-to-date trademark info: http://www.fzglobal.org/trademarks.htm

Message 862 Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:05 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: "Welcome to Ron's Org (TM)" --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > This has been going on for some months, btw. It was an issue that > came up when I first started poking my head around the FZ, and has > been known to RO terminals since before then. Good. Would it be safe to assume that some RO terminals are handling it? How about SCIENTOLOGIST? RTC finally got around to filing that one in April 2006, but again it is held up: *************** Thank you for your request. Here are the latest results from the TARR web server. This page was generated by the TARR system on 2006-10-19 14:56:16 ET Serial Number: 78859440 Registration Number: (NOT AVAILABLE) Mark (words only): SCIENTOLOGIST Standard Character claim: Yes Current Status: A non-final action has been mailed. This is a letter from the examining attorney requesting additional information and/or making an initial refusal. However, no final determination as to the registrability of the mark has been made. Date of Status: 2006-07-30 Filing Date: 2006-04-11 Transformed into a National Application: No Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE) ************* Any news on a handling for SCIENTOLOGIST? I had assumed--silly me-- that because there was no record of a filing having been done by the CofS they were unable to. It didn't occur to me at the time that they just never got around to it. I just checked, and there aren't any other marks RTC has filed for, which are still live, that haven't received registrations. I haven't checked other CofS entities. Paul

Message 863 Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:16 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: "Welcome to Ron's Org (TM)" --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > If they trademarked RON's ORG with the apostrophy that is different > than the RONS ORG that is in the freezone. Wouldn't effect the RONS > ORGs at all. Nice try, XXXX, but no LA GLORIA CABANA. Trademark infringement using a similar (attempted) mark occurs when there is a "likelihood of confusion". There's a page written in English here about it: http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/infringe.html Maybe you wouldn't get confused by the difference between "Ron's Org" and "Rons Org" but I doubt if a judge would see it your way. Paul

Message 866 Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:39 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: "Welcome to Ron's Org (TM)" --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > It seems to me though that they want public and former > church members to get the idea that "Ron's Org" is Flag, > and not a large and successful Freezone group of organizations. It seems to me that RTC just filed it as a mark--since no-one else has- -and it ran into the snag when it got looked at properly for registration that the CofS had never actually used it as a mark. Maybe it didn't matter too much to them before, but with the threat of the Channel 4 programme looming and their reference to the words "Ron's orgs", it might have impinged enough to prompt action. Remember they don't seem to give a toss about keeping their own marks in force! Anyway, they would need to demonstrate real world use of the mark. So since one of the filed uses is in the category of magazines, they tossed out a magazine using it. It might seem like they are twenty years too late to claim first use, but it isn't necessarily as simple as it may seem at first glance. "Ron's Org" is descriptive of an organization, so wouldn't immediately work as a trademark for an organization, although it would work as a trademark for candy, say. Or magazines. Or auditing/training services. See section on descriptive trademarks here: http://www.registeringatrademark.com/trademark-law-basics.shtml Casually looking at http://www.ronsorg.nl/ they are not primarily using the string "RON's Org" as a trademark either. A correct use would be something like "Get your RON's org auditing in the wonderful Netherlands", where the mark is used as an ADJECTIVE. They are using it as a noun, as in "For those who want to know what a RON'S Org is click here". Great English but lousy trademark practise. "But they don't care about trademarks; they just want to get on with training and auditing people!" Laudable. But if the CofS successfully registered as a trademark, say, "Paul's Squirrel Academy" and threatened me if I didn't stop using it, what do you think I would do? (After I'd stopped laughing). Moral: pay attention to Legal Ruds. Plus I now just read through that page I referenced instead of taking it all out of my head. And it says, "Trademark rights are granted to the first to use the trademark and/or first to file a trademark application". That's easy with the "and" choice; but take the "or" choice where it gets not so simple. That would then say, "Trademark rights are granted to the first to use the trademark or first to file a trademark application." Great. Clear as mud. It's not all grim, though. The legal arena is messy, but there's also the PR arena. The CofS's PR sucks bigtime and they definitely would not have the advantage here, despite the money available. Paul

Message 867 Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:23 am [easy_tech_setup] Re: Cmeter / RH=Ralph Hilton --- In easy_tech_setup@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I consider everyone my friend who are using clearing devices to > the benefit of all. > > ...I own and use a C-meter, the one of RH (Ralph Hilton). > Sorry, I thought that abbreviation is known. Hi XXXX, I ordered (and paid for) one yesterday. I consider it a big pluspoint that Ralph is part of this group and responds rapidly and satisfactorily to customer requests such as Mark's recently. I'd never heard of "RH" either. With Mark calling all computer- based meters by the generic-term "c-meters", maybe one could refer to Ralph's as the "CRH meter". I had heard about Ralph's long before I knew of others, so "C-meter" to me still means his rather than a generic term. But in the long run I think "c-meter" or "C- meter" as a generic term will generally win. It gets tricky hanging onto generic-sounding names for a specific brand. I assume you didn't originally intend the meaning to stretch this far, but would you consider Paul's Robot Auditor a clearing device? (I would). I'd be interested in your comparative meter review. Paul Free Robot Auditing 24/7 http://fzglobal.org/robot

Message 868 Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:24 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: "Welcome to Ron's Org (TM)" --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > Ron´s Org is a registered trademark already. Where? It isn't in the US on a national level. Paul

Message 869 Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:40 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Petition to FDA --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > In my periodic search for news regarding Scientology, I ran across > this yesterday... > > > > ...regarding a petition that has been submitted to the FDA that > Scientology be obligated with a "warning label". Relax. No need to get our knickers in a twist. If you check out the FDA website page at: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/voice.html it gives details about such petitions. The opening sentence is, "As a regulatory agency, FDA publishes rules that establish or modify the way it regulates foods, drugs, biologics, cosmetics, radiation- emitting electronic products, and medical devices--commodities close to the daily lives of all Americans." The usual services delivered by the CofS and FZers do not fit in here at all, unless one construes the meter as a medical device. This is not a petition signed by four million worried Americans. It was presented by ONE individual. If you read the whole thing, which wouldn't take long as it is very short, it is laughable in its non- compliance to FDA regulations regarding submitting petitions. At the end, the petitioner has to include, 'The following official certification statement--"The undersigned certifies, that, to the best knowledge and belief of the undersigned, this petition includes all information and views on which the petition relies, and that it includes representative data and information known to the petition which are unfavorable to the petition."' He did include that statement, true, but he didn't include the information that the statement pertains to. I won't go into further reasons why there is no need to worry about this petition. Paul

Message 870 Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:47 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: The Yawn Machine --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > XXXX, > > Check for MU's. I'm sure Paul wrote the instructions to be of the > proper gradient, so MU's are probably blocking understanding, or you > have an inhibition to some aspect of the instructions. Whoa there! This is new technology in a beta testing phase. Let's not get too assertive about this is the way it is and if you don't agree you're in the wrong universe. Paul

Message 872 Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:02 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: The Yawn Machine --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Ha Ha, Mark - you really do get it - yawning that is. > > Well - I have followed the instructions three times now & I stop > at the point just following "find an item of loss" where you are > asked to "Yawn". There is nothing there - no yawns. Hi XXXX, The "item of loss" is an example, chosen by me as it should be fairly common. Near the end of the instructions is the question and answer: "Q. I'll go away and try it properly. It works with other stuff? "A. It should work with any topic that makes you yawn or feel sleepy when you think about it." Your case is your case, and what can usefully be addressed next depends on the way it is stacked up. I'm not going for a one-size- fits-all approach. Probably the Robot Auditor procedure of "What should I be addressing in this session?" and going with whatever instant answer you get would work. It does with me. I will reword that on the site to make it more clear. But you can use the procedure on anything you want. I've recently been using it on seeing auras, chakra cord connections to remote terminals, stuff related to "the GE" and more. Paul Exercise your jaw at: http://www.yawnmachine.com

Message 871 Fri Oct 20, 2006 3:17 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: Marks FILE --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Ok - now everyone can see who I am - hm - I mean - was... :-)) > If you have the patience to read it.... Wowsa. What a life. Nice to see that the Yawn Machine works well on someone who has done OT12 in the CBR programme. Do you have any photos of your current home, XXXX? It sounds idyllic. Paul

Message 873 Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:17 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Petition to FDA --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Generally, one could expect some level of sanity to prevail > regarding the bulk of the petitions that agencies typically > receive each year, but I would hardly trust that sanity prevails > within the realms of how a US government agency may rule regarding > anything to do with scientology. I don't see this one as any more (or less) likely than some US government agency making it illegal to fart on Sundays. But if you want to try and drum up some action over this, go for it. Paul

Message 875 Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:22 am [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: The Yawn Machine --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Sorry, I wasn't intending an attack. This was to XXXX. I was > writing under the assumption that it was working for all those that > used it as instructed. I have not worked with it myself and I would > not discount it even if it didn't work for me. > > I apologize for any offense. > XXXX Apology accepted. I hadn't taken it personally: I just wanted to do some Keeping Yawnology Working. It could be that it will work well for 98-100% of the people who follow the instructions exactly, but I don't have enough evidence to state that. You can help if you like. Try it out and see for yourself.... Paul Reduction of World Stress or Just More Hype? http://www.yawnmachine.com

Message 876 Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:50 am [easy_tech_setup] Re: What is a clearing device --- In easy_tech_setup@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Paul, > > Great that you purchased a Cmeter! THAT IS a precision tool to > detect charge. That is a clearing device. > > As to your questione: > "would you consider Paul's Robot Auditor a clearing device?" my > answer is NO. It does not locate/detect charge, only stirs up charge. Thank you for your answer, XXXX. My reasoning for stating I do consider it a clearing device is that the procedure does clear charge. It does detect charged areas, but the assessment procedure is much slower and less precise than an instant read noted by an auditor who can read a meter properly and determine what it read on. It relieves stirred up charge as well as stirring it up. If it only stirred it up it would be suppressive. (At least, it relieves the charge if one uses it. If the mere idea of the thing stirs up charge, that doesn't count!) The Tech FAQ reproduced in Message 152 in this group's archives gives more data. It doesn't replace a good meter in the hands of a properly-trained auditor. Nor does it replace the Grade Chart. But it does have its uses. Paul

Message 874 Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:18 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: The Yawn Machine Yes, often feeling somewhat mischievous, I do deliberately push buttons. :) But I challenge this datum that yawning is generally undesirable. I don't challenge the idea that some have long considered it so. My idea that it is beneficial comes from practical experience. My reasoning--my theory to try and explain the observed phenomena--is well covered on the two sites in question and mentioned in recent posts. If there is a conflict between my (and others') experience and someone else's theory, I would consider that the theory is in error. Others might consider we are all mistaken about the benefits, or lying. Someone determined only to follow a strict LRH regime would probably be barred from trying it for themselves to get a personal reality. Plus I assume that someone *extremely* determined to not experience the expected effects would get no result, although giving it a good try while sceptical still seems to work OK. Paul For brave souls only: http://www.yawnmachine.com

Message 879 Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:36 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: PseudoNew Study Technology --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > ...and using Paul's work to provide information directly > to the subconcious Well, you could drop a couple of ferrets down your trousers to provide information directly to your subconscious if you wanted to! That line of yours reminded me once of an idea I had while at university. It was close to finals, the culmination of three years hard application of myself to sex, drugs and rock & roll. Actually, I didn't work hard at those either. I had heard about learning through the subconscious. So I took some LSD, and spent about six hours going through all my maths and physics textbooks and all my lecture notes-- the lectures I had managed to get up in time for. I didn't want to get slowed down by what the words and symbols meant, so I scanned through them all upside down. I can almost read fluently upside down, but it's a bit trickier than right-way up. That's the materials upside down, not my eyeballs. So that was my grand experiment into subconscious learning. The result? Didn't make a blind bit of difference. I failed miserably. Later I learned study tech, and agree with Esther that it is wonderful. "Paul's work" here (Robot, Yawn Machine) involves the flow of pulling information out of the subconscious and making it conscious, rather than taking facts (as from books etc.) and assimilating them. There must exist techniques for assimilating data other than via the hard slog analytical conscious understanding route. Pulling it off one's own track; pulling it off others' tracks--Akashic Records--; radionics/radiesthesia techniques; and so on. I've dabbled in radionics as part of my food replicator research (http://foodreplicator.blogspot.com) but it isn't part of the yawn- based techniques I've been discussing. Nor is that quaint English pastime involving vicious furry animals and at-risk body parts. Paul No ferrets needed 24/7 http://fzglobal.org/robot

Message 882 Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:16 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: The Yawn Machine --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > The point is this: lets see a PC that I get in my hands after > using any of those machines and lets see the amount of BPC to be > audited off, measured in auditing hours, TA count, etc. > ... > What is the issue you are trying to solve with the robot auditor > and the yawn machine? That is the real question! Why are they needed > in the first place? How can they replace real live comm, face to face, > taking care of an individual in front of you? Part of my Tech FAQ for the Robot includes the following (edited) question and answer: "Q. Isn't it irresponsible to make available a tool like this? What if someone caves in after using it? Or commits suicide? Have you fully tested it? "A. ... The valid question is, Is the world better off overall with this Robot Auditor technology available and in use, or worse off?" Similarly, you may find someone who had some BPC developed using a yawn technique, that you clear up with standard Scn tech. I don't think you would find anyone who had followed the instructions fully who would need much--if any--clean-up, but I don't claim it could never happen. It wouldn't be too hard to take someone who has used one of those yawn techniques and prepcheck it etc. Unless he had complained about it or some BPC was discovered, it wouldn't be auditing for the pc, but if he cared about it on a research basis, it wouldn't be unethical unless beaten to death. If you are ever visiting Newcastle, for instance, XXXX, you are welcome to stick me on the cans and check for any associated BPC. I wouldn't pay for it, but I don't have a problem with you checking for YOUR interest (it wouldn't be mine beyond demonstrating rightness). For a better study, one should probably take a dozen people who have never used one of these yawn techniques, who are willing to honestly try it, and have each address things (to a comparable depth) they have supposedly flattened using regular Scn techniques, and see if any significant amount of further charge came off. And also take a dozen people who have used a yawn technique on some area, and address the area (to a comparable depth) using regular Scn techniques, and see if any significant amount of further charge came off there. One or two anecdotal cases reported to someone with a vested interest (like me) aren't enough for a good assessment. Especially when the "experiment" wasn't done under controlled conditions. ("What did you really do?" etc.) What problem am I trying to solve? Six billion unaudited pcs and how many active auditors? A hundred? Ten thousand? Plus maybe not too long now before the Elite have World War III smoking along. Again, these do not supplant trained auditors. But they do supplant NOTHING. Paul Less Charge for No Charge: http://www.yawnmachine.com

Message 877 Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:27 am Re: PseudoNew Study Technology --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I'm just clarifying that by "Paul's work" I'm referring to paul > scheele. Ah. That makes more sense! Thank you. I've just been reading up on Photoreading on the Net, but not enough to comment yet. Paul

Message 878 Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:59 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: Yawning --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Having studied DMSMH I know that yawning is also boil-off & that > it can arise as a symptom of contacting "unconsciousness" in an area. > What I don't understand as per the Yawn Machine instructions is that > you think of an item of loss & then are told to YAWN, yawn, yawn. Hi XXXX, Let's do it like this. Let's debug what could be improved in your use of the Yawn Machine and get it running well for you. When it is running well for you, then maybe you could usefully take up the theory and try and figure out exactly what is happening. If you are spending $5,000,000,000 to build a super-collider to study sub-atomic particles, you'd better get the specifications right or you will have wasted a great deal of time and money. But it is not necessary to try and figure out how the Yawn Machine works before using it. You can drive a car without knowing about the principles the internal combustion engine supposedly runs on, although you do have to know how to drive to get anywhere and the rules of the road if you want to enjoy it. Taking up a loss is an EXAMPLE. It is an example, not a necessary part of the procedure. You said it doesn't work for you to take up a loss. So don't do it. Don't take up a loss. Use something else that makes you yawn or sleepy. My comments on what yawning is are oversimplified in the Yawn Machine instructions compared to the Robot Auditor Tech FAQ. They are written for different publics. The Yawn Machine is written for the general public, not a Scn public. The Robot Auditor Tech FAQ is more precise and written for a public versed in Scn principles. A full explanation of what I THINK is going on does not belong with the Yawn Machine. The Yawn Machine is intended to be a practical tool anyone can use, with a minimum of explanation to go with the action, not an academic thesis. If you check online, there is no general scientific agreement on what yawning is (not that general agreement necessarily indicates truth). There isn't any general agreement in the holistic community, shall we say, either. LRH made some statements about it fifty years ago. There isn't even an HCOB or tape called "Yawning". He obviously didn't consider it a subject worthy of much comment. LRH's statement on something is not the last word on that subject. Well, it is in some places, but not on this list, for instance. In the Robot Auditor Tech FAQ, I have written what I THINK is going on. It makes sense to me, and it matches my experience. Others have written what they THINK is going on, which matches their experience (if they are perceptive and honest). LRH wrote what he THOUGHT was going on, which matched his experience (if he was honest; I know he was generally very perceptive). Worry about the theory later. First, get it going properly. And you don't have to take up the subject of losses. Find something that makes you yawn or feel sleepy, and go with that. The "forced yawning" is partly a clumsy attempt to overcome the social conditioning that it is impolite to yawn and it should be suppressed. It also comes once you have a juicy subject and the intitial charge has come off and you are now shifting the various aspects of it around until you find a part that prompts a yawn, or more than one, when you do the different parts of the procedure (out-theres; touch- stuff; tell-it) with your attention on that aspect. When that part is flat, find another aspect that produces a yawn when you do the out-theres, touch-stuffs, and tell-its. When you can't find any more aspects that produce yawns when you do the out-theres, touch- stuffs and tell-its, it's flat for now. Oh, and did I say, don't take up losses if they don't work for you? Paul No losses needed: http://www.yawnmachine.com

Message 881 Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:34 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Repost from IFA - NOTS VS EXCALIBUR: UNIFICATION From Pierre: > The only issue I have with any tech (whether by CBR or > anyone else for that matter) is whether or not the > Techniques actually violates Core Tech principles (Auditor Code, > Axioms, Auditing Comm cycle, PTS Tech, etc...). :) Paul

Message 880 Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:38 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Plug for Intensive Auditing --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > XXXX invites you to get Intensive Auditing. We deliver standard > auditing on Class 0-V basis. > > 25 hours delivered during one week costs £1500 > > 50 hours delivered during two weeks - £2550 (£51 for hour, 15% > discount) > > 100 hours delivered during four weeks £4000 (£40 for hour, 33% > discount) That's great, XXXX. Are you going to put these prices on your Scienowiki auditor's page? For others' info, it's at: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/XXXX Paul Plug for Scienowiki: http://www.scienowiki.org

Message 883 Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:50 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: Yawning --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > I have been through it 3 times now. I stop at the command > to "Yawn, yawn, yawn". I have also read through all the instructions > below that point. The only item that I have (& I have looked around for > others) is the one which contains yawning as it's only indication > of "not being right". Yet when asked to recall that item & > then "yawn" I do not have any yawns arising AND as I have said, I > even tried "mocking up" yawns but with no result besides feeling > pretty silly. Hi XXXX, See if you can call me cheaply somehow and we can discuss it that way. I think it would be more useful. I agree that pretending to yawn or mocking up yawning is pretty useless. "Recalling an item" is not part of this procedure. Paul

Message 889 Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:53 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: Yawning --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > So: isn't yawning just the lowest, the body-approach - > which has no other benefit, than freeing the body from the > nasty spirit bothering him? No. The yawn is an indicator, nothing more. There are three parts to the technique: 1. "Tell-its". Basically itsa. 2. "Touch stuff". Havingness. 3. "Out-theres". Mock-up processing. There isn't a #4 that says "yawns". It is a result of applying the three parts of the technique to a suitable area. I have found that doing the "touch stuff" not on a strict MEST level, but using the very light awareness of the different levels of the aura interacting with MEST, also produces yawns when getting rid of the final available bits of charge, rather like the time-shifting part of Paul's Robot Auditor. If you hold your hands apart a few inches up to a couple of feet and slowly move them together or apart, you can feel the changes on the backs of the hands as they pass through the different layers of the human energy field. This gives enough delicate "havingness" to produce more yawns in the visible physical body (I'm not sure what a yawn looks like on an auric level). This can also be done using a nearby wall or ceiling. I use the Yawn Machine to take charge off very delicate, ethereal areas as well as things like accidentally sticking a finger in a meat grinder. Paul Get closer to angels: http://www.yawnmachine.com

Message 888 Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:53 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: About accepting to be C/Sed - a case/session experience --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi - here just something that happend to me yeasterday/today > > I had a some mailing going with someone backchannel - and it was about, that anyone does need a C/S ...and the implemented question was, if I would accept to be C/Sed.... Good for you, XXXX. :) I'm not referring to any HCOBs here, just writing from my own understanding (plus I've read and used the HCOBs, but not as much as a long-experienced Scn C/S). I will try and make it clear when I am using "C/S" to mean the person and "C/S" to mean his instructions. My understanding is that a "C/S" in some field--this can be extended beyond merely Scn--is an expert *in that specific field*, and provides directions to be followed according to the rules of that field to achieve the results expected in that field. How useful they are depends on the validity of that field and how expert he is in getting the principles of that field applied. In Scn, he also has a hat of training auditors to themselves become more adept at following the rules and applying the procedures exactly. As an example close to home, I am currently acting as a C/S with regard to the Yawn Machine, in terms of trying to get people to follow the procedures exactly. I have not been directing exactly what is to be run in individual cases beyond the general idea of finding something that produces yawns or makes the individual sleepy when attention is directed to it. "The Bridge" in Scn, at least up to OT3, is fairly well laid out, with agreed-upon steps and procedures. There are many people expert in its principles and rules. It is relatively easy to C/S. (Relatively. There is a wide variation in ability between a novice C/S and a long-term, competent, highly-qualified one). After OT3 there are variations in the Freezone, but there are still people expert in the various principles and rules. When you depart from straight Scn, and are addressing mental things with other techniques, whether Idenics, R3X, PEAT, EFT, Aspectics, even Touch for Health, and many others, one still needs the help of someone expert in the principles and procedures of that field in order to get the usual results in that field. This expert can be oneself, provided one knows the material well enough. If one chooses to go it alone without studying up on that field and becoming an expert, and also without consulting an expert to oversee one's doingness, if there are no beneficial results it is not necessarily because of any shortcomings in that field--one just didn't give it a fair trial. XXXX, my friend, you would probably rate as an expert in Scn tech, and quite capable of looking after yourself, as you just demonstrated. I am getting on fine by myself with the Yawn Machine and sometimes Paul's Robot Auditor (basically the same procedures), running off a C/S for each session pretty much, once the session has started, of taking up whatever flash answer comes up in response to the question, "What subject should I take up right now in this session?" My last session yesterday, for instance, yielded at outset the subject "Pores". Huh? Pores, the holes in the skin that allow the skin to breathe unless blocked up with animal fat from normal soap, for instance. It didn't make much sense to me why I should run it, but I didn't Q&A with the C/S and ran it using the regular procedure. The usual amount of charge came off in the session and after a short while it became clear to me why I was running it and how it fitted into the stuff I've been addressing overall recently (chakras, human energy field, remote connections etc.) Great session--I still smile thinking about it. If it gets to the point that I fall on my head and can't dig myself out of whatever I have gotten into, I will ask someone in some field I trust to help. In the meantime, it's going along fine, so why change anything? An expert in regular Scn could say that I am "off the bridge" in investigating the human energy field and so forth as it is not on the "Bridge to Total Freedom" and doesn't lead to OT. My response is that the fabled Bridge might (and it might not) lead in the right direction, but it arrives nowhere near the stated goal. The goal is eminently laudable, but the assertion that it is generally reached or even approached is pure marketing bullshit. Doing a regular Scn "Bridge" can still produce wonderful gains, however. Someone who is not an expert in some field would be foolish to go it alone for very long. In regular Scn, running Self Analysis or Handbook for Preclears is relatively self-explanatory, and if one can follow instructions unaided one can get a bunch of it done alone and have some great wins. After that, it isn't going to work without some expert help. And remember that in consulting a C/S, one is consulting someone who is an expert (to whatever degree) in that one limited field. A long- term trained Scientologist might consider that this field contains all that is useful to know about the mind and spirit. Other beg to differ. All I would say is that if what you are doing isn't working out, do something different. Maybe you aren't following the laid-down procedures correctly. Maybe the laid-down procedures aren't the best ones to address what you need addressed. Maybe those laid-down procedures would be perfect but your present life circumstances don't allow you to get them applied. If what are doing is working out fine and you're moving along in the direction you want to be moving, good for you, why change anything? But if it isn't working out, do something different! Paul One something diffent: http://www.yawnmachine.com http://fzglobal.org/robot

Message 884 Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:35 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: Yawning --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Interesting. But it still is just a Key-Out. > You agree? No. But it should be easy enough for you (or anyone) to check. If something is keyed out it can be keyed in again. Take something you have *thoroughly* addressed and discharged and try to key it in again or take more charge off it. I haven't been able to with things I have addressed using this procedure. I haven't tried it with everything I have run as there's a protest on cleaning a clean and there's a limit to how much I will do to myself in the name of experimentation. There may be some underlying postulates or whatever that weren't touched and are still there (or there may not be), but I have no way of knowing. At the time there is nothing more I can find, and so far, for me, it hasn't come back later. Paul Seems to be gone for good: http://www.yawnmachine.com

Message 891 Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:40 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Diana /KTL --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I strongly suggest > to anyone looking to rewrite the course that they first do the > delivery training in full. The lineup I had going for my guys was > KTL/LOC and then the Data Series Evaluators Course - 1,2,3. Well, OK, I did KTL/LOC, the KTL Delivery Course and (Elementary) DSEC at ITO in the early 90s. But why would anyone in the FZ seek to rewrite KTL? That would be one daunting task. Clearbird rewrote the basic Scn stuff up to Clear. This consolidated the data into a more readable form, and by making it available on the Net made the materials much more accessible. There are also the Prometheus materials up to the level of OT DRD. Making these broadly available was a great service. They stay on the Net because they are free of copyright hassles (to date). But KTL? The bulk of it is contained in the two hefty books covering the small common words and grammar. The books are relatively expensive, but not that much compared to the cost of paying someone to deliver the guts of the course. There is no real need to consolidate or rewrite the data, and the lack of easy availablity is not a huge barrier. Yes it would be nice, but.... One can compare the KTL definitions of the small common words with those in the large Oxford English Dictionary, and find a few wrinkles LRH omitted, but by and large the definitions are pretty thorough and well-stated and simply-stated (unlike the OED in some cases). Why rewrite them? Plus the OED is one of the few common "books" heavier and more expensive than the KTL ones! The only purpose I could see in rewriting the definitions would be so that one could put them on the Net without copyright hassles. That would be a good thing. But the rewrite would have to be pretty damn good to achieve the same result as the original, without inviting copyright troubles by merely copying the original with a few words changed here and there. I'm not going to do it! Hi XXXX, by the way. I don't think I know you--I left NWC around 1988. Paul

Message 885 Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:30 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Diana /KTL --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hello Paul - I was over at AOLA in 88 doing Cl VIII internship and > such. Went over to NWC to do the Pro TRs and then KTL/LOC release. OK, thanks. > Let me clarify: I do not think the course needs to be rewritten. I > was saying if anyone was thinking of a rewrite the prereq must be > the delivery course in order to get THAT information before any attempt > is made. I think that would be the end of it. Oh I see! Quite. Paul

Message 887 Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:16 am [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: Yawning - to Paul --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Thanks Paul. > I have to take a 'leave of absence' of his thread for a while - but I will probably come back to it... > I still don't understand the function. > But we will let it be at that for the moment. That's OK, XXXX. There's the basic analysis of: Understanding is composed of Affinity, Reality and Communication. The best way to get reality on the Yawn Machine is to follow the instructions exactly and use it many times. If it doesn't seem to be working, and you think you are following the instructions correctly, ask me (this goes for anyone). Once you have it working properly, you will then have a good practical reality on it. At that point, with a higher ARC than that obtainable from just thinking about it, start delving deeper into the theory of why it works, if you wish. Or doesn't work. But don't decide it doesn't work from your personal experience without getting in comm with me about it. This isn't just so I can be right about it. I am intensely interested in debugging any problems with it so I can improve it for all. And I don't mean just all on this list. Paul http://www.yawnmachine.com Skype ID: dulloldfart

Message 892 Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:29 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: On-Line Clearing Centre --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > What can not be done over the NET is a TRs Course...LOL Oh, I don't know. What about good webcams? If you are considering auditing through the Net, it would seem to be a good idea to practise, er, Webcam TRs. Upper Indocs would be kinda tricky though. Paul

Message 890 Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:57 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: I thought I was the illusioness --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Until the CofS put out info in the press that they opened 1,300 new missions in last year: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1928956,00.html? gusrc=rss&feed=11 Maybe they did, C. And then closed them again! It was very lazy journalism on the part of that reporter. There are 368 missions listed on the CofS mission locator page, easily found through Google. The data is supposedly up to date as of a couple of months ago. There is full contact data given, so it should be fairly easy for people to check out what exists at the address and/or phone number given. There are also many e-mail addresses, mostly filtered through the CofS management people, but apparently not all. The names (usually cities), by country, are in Scienowiki at: http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Scientology_Missions_International The numbers by country are: Africa 1 Africa (South) 6 Australia 4 Austria 2 Belorussia 2 Brazil 1 Canada 5 Chile 1 Colombia 2 Costa Rica 2 Croatia 1 Czech Republic 5 Denmark 3 Ecuador 1 England 6 Finland 2 France 6 Germany 10 Georgia 1 Guatemala 2 Hungary 21 India 4 Ireland 2 Italy 48 Japan 5 Kazakhstan 9 Kyrgyzstan 2 Latvia 1 Lithuania 1 Macedonia 2 Mexico 6 Nepal 1 New Zealand 1 Nigeria 1 Pakistan 1 Rep. Dominica 1 Romania 1 Russia 41 Slovenia 1 Slovakia 14 Spain 5 Switzerland 6 Taiwan 14 Tanzania 1 Thailand 1 Ukraine 14 US (East) 37 US (West) 64 Paul Feed Scienowiki at http://www.scienowiki.org

Message 898 Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:57 pm [easy_tech_setup] Re: some meter data --- In easy_tech_setup@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > ... or by walking the Moebius hyperstrings of the hologram of the > tao Now doesn't that sound sexier than "GPMs handling" or "Deep PEAT"? Great name! Paul

Message 893 Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:20 am [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: On-Line Clearing Centre --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Actually, when I was reading STCC, I thought about using a webcam > setup for the earlier TR's that could be done solo. It would simply > require a program to compare each frame from the webcam with the one > before it to detect movement. I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of just doing regular TRs 0- 4 with a twin, except the twin doesn't have to be three feet away. It wouldn't work well with OT TR0. Paul

Message 896 Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:30 am [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: On-Line Clearing Centre --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Oh, I forgot to mention that the possibility of this on-line Course > Supervisor function came about when I first picked up Clearbird Level > 0 & found that I needed a C/S [Ed-course sup] to sign off on important points of the > checksheets. Hi XXXX, I will be exploring online course supervision soon. By the way, "C/S" is not a recognised abbreviation for "course supervisor" as it gets confused with "case supervisor". [Sounds of laughter from list members who didn't really get your post]. It is slower, but you can get your metering checked out remotely by mailing off a video VHS tape. A quicker but higher-tech version would be to put a high-quality video online and the reviewer could then check it out over the Net. Paul

Message 902 Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:34 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: I thought I was the illusioness --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Great work Paul, > > Good to see is growing. > > I recommend people go there and add their piece. I did! > > A thought. > > Do you have a link from there to the copyrights and trademarks you > have listed for the RTC/CSI on your website? (Snotty remark meant to encourage "Look, don't listen"): Why not look at a trademark page and see for yourself? There aren't any copyright pages. [I did later add copyright pages on November 4, 2006] But thank you for the support! Paul

Message 894 Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:01 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Scientology/dianetics site for non-Scientologists --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I agree, it's a good idea. Something that plainly lays out > what the tech is about and simple explanations about what > the books cover and how one can get involved in the FZ. > The channel 4 show, dunno, might have to get permission > from the production company, which AFAIK doesn't mind > copies being passed around for personal use, but doesn't > want it up on the web. Getting permission to host > Ruth Minshull's books would be awesome, they're easy > to read and relatively short and engaging. The owner of the rights to Ruth Minshull's books is more or less the same as the owner of the domain name "freezonescientology.org" (see below). Good luck with getting permission to use excerpts on the intro site for non-Scientologists! (I hate the term "wogs" too. It demeans the user as well as the target). The copyright data comes from the online Library of Congress catalog, and the domain registration data from whois.net. It's easy enough to put up a site, with or without Dreamweaver. The content is more important than the graphics. One person does the overall site (not me) and other people send him content. You can't use pure LRH for copyright reasons, nor the Scn Handbook for that matter. You can use Clearbird, or write your own. It would be worthwhile to survey it, to discover what a person new to the subject wants to find out, rather than just assuming it. There are quite a few videos on Scn on Youtube and Google. Not so many of them are appealing. Are there any professional film-makers in the FZ? And it's nice to see you're going to learn webwork, XXXX. I'll remind you of it next time I call. :) Great idea overall. Paul ------------------------------------- 1. Registration Number: RE-774-931 Title: What is scientology? Text: Ruth E. Minshull, ill.: James Reeves. Claimant: acChurch of Spiritual Technology (PWH) Effective Registration Date: 29Dec97 Original Registration Date: 30Sep69; Original Registration Number: A134251. --------------------------------------- 2. Registration Number: RE-781-339 Title: When in doubt, communicate. By aRuth Minshull, aEdward M. Lefson. Claimant: acChurch of Spiritual Technology (Los Angeles) (PWH) Effective Registration Date: 31Dec97 Original Registration Date: 20Jun69; Original Registration Number: A87106. --------------------------------------- 3. Registration Number: RE-781-340 Title: What every preclear should know. By aRuth E. Minshull. Claimant: acChurch of Spiritual Technology (Los Angeles) (PWH) Effective Registration Date: 31Dec97 Original Registration Date: 12Aug69; Original Registration Number: A103010. ----------------------------------------- 4. Registration Number: RE-806-835 Title: Miracles for breakfast. By aRuth E. Minshull. Claimant: acChurch of Spiritual Technology (Los Angeles) (PWH) Effective Registration Date: 24Feb99 Original Registration Date: 20Apr68; Original Registration Number: A986837. ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- Domain ID:D81427350-LROR Domain Name:FREEZONESCIENTOLOGY.ORG Created On:20-Dec-2001 10:36:34 UTC Last Updated On:19-Dec-2005 23:53:09 UTC Expiration Date:20-Dec-2006 10:36:34 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Intercosmos Media Group Inc. (R48-LROR) Registrant Name:CSI DOMAIN DIRECTOR Registrant Organization:Church of Scientology Int'l Registrant Street1:6331 Hollywood Blvd ----------------------------------------

Message 895 Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:57 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: On-Line Clearing Centre --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > How many other people laughed when reading my post? I think there is > an ARC break between myself & Paul & his YawnMachine. I meant the laughter (like a minor relief) in spotting the personal mu, not laughing directly at you or your post, XXXX. As in someone reading your original post, not quite getting it, re-reading it and still not quite getting it, then continuing anyway. Then later having the mu pointed out. I rarely laugh directly at people's mistakes and even less rarely make fun of them online to others. E-mail me your phone number and I'll call you re debugging the Yawn Machine. Paul Not a member: http:/www.completeasshole.com

Message 900 Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:00 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: On-Line Clearing Centre --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Paul - we have to do better than that. > C-Meter and remote connection / recording sessions for C/Sing. True. But many people have limited resources and can't just buy all the hardware needed. Paul

Message 897 Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:41 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: Overt-Withhold System- Karma - and the CofS --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > [Forwarded article re karma and LRH data on the Overt-Motivator Sequence] Well, yes, LRH does say that the overt-motivator sequence is installed by an implant that is addressed on OT2. And it is addressed to the extent that one runs it. But does it relieve one of the consequences of committing overts after running it? Is someone pushing the idea that the concept of karma is merely a little old implant that can be surmounted by getting off a bit of charge? That there is no personal comeback, so one can commit overts with impunity? I would consider that view quite short-sighted. Whatever LRH said or didn't say. Paul

Message 901 Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:55 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Scientology/dianetics site for wogs --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > It's a term that has absolutely no meaning in America outside the > area of scientology in which it simply means "non-scientologist". But we now live in the Internet Age. Pop "wog" into Google, and the first hit is the extensive Wikipedia definition. Its use in Scn is pejorative: "He's only a wog." Us and them, and them's inferior. Paul

Message 899 Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:31 pm [AdvancedFreeZone] Re: About accepting to be C/Sed - a case/session experience --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Doing the session I used for the first time in a real session my "Klick-Bridge" - (The CS53 is already in). I had the question popping up on the screen one by one with a klick - and it was SOO EASY to see, if they read or not. Klick Read or no Read - Klick, Read or no Read - the questions just beside the c-meter on the screen - it's divine!! at least for me.. :-)). I cannot imagine a simpler easier way to audit - the C-Meter so big, the needle so big and clear - no fiddling around with papers, no covering the next questions I should not read now, no turning of the head from left to right - very very easy. > ... > And: if one tries to audit going higher up, exponentially, instead of in a linear way: If there is an ARCx and one can spot the SF behind it, why not look at it? And the goal will not be far away ....HA! LOL That made your Klick-Bridge more real. I remember the last 53 I solo'd and it was quite a hassle uncovering the items one by one. Not enough hands. When I get the C-meter I'll get more data from you. I find the idea very attractive. I heartily endorse the policy of writing (or getting) a C/S before the session and sticking to it. It is bad form to do otherwise. Deciding what to run or how to run it is not best done while one is anaten from some restim. The normal purpose of flying an ARCX is to just lightly key it out and get it out of the way so one can get on with the major action of the session. Taking it earlier to erase some GPM terminal is a huge Q&A. Unless the purpose of the session is to use an ARCX as a lead- in to address GPMs. Or unless the (unwritten) C/S is "Dick around for a bit and see if you can find some charge and get rid of it." :) 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 ©2004-6 by Paul Adams. All Rights Reserved.