Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts 0903-0950

Yahoo Groups Posted Messages

Message 908 Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:13 am [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Kremnis Superlearning, Filbert / LRH and Standard-Tech --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I do not know what this means "je ne regrette rien de rien" > > XXXX I know this has been answered, XXXX, but a more general online solution is to: 1. Stick the phrase into Google. You might get lucky. If not, 2. Find out what language it is in, via Google. This is often as simple as finding which (non-English) country's top-level-domain comes up most if you just pick out one of the longer words. 3. Google for free online translation, or something like that. If it is an uncommon language, say Czech, Google for czech translation. 4. Copy and paste the phrase or passage in question into the free online translation box, selecting **** to English, and out comes a free machine translation. These translations aren't perfect, but they are often perfectly adequate. If you are translating the other way, say from English to Russian-- and you don't speak a word of Russian and can't even read the script- -and it is important that you don't accidentally make a faux pas, take the output and feed it back in the other way and see how it comes out and make adjustments as appropriate. For example, maybe you want to say in French, "Let's fuck". You select English-to-French and get "Baisons". You then select French- to-English and put in "Baisons". Out comes "Let's kiss". Well, that's no good. So you try "Let's copulate". That gives "Copulons". You put in "Copulons" and it gives, as an English translation, "Copulons". This looks more promising (in this case) if the programme censored its own output. And so on. If you get creative, and have the time, by using both the English-to-Foreign and the Foreign-to-English boxes, you can get a pretty good translation into a language you don't speak a single word of. Paul
Message 903 Thu Oct 26, 2006 10:27 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Scientology/dianetics site for wogs --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Channel 4 who made 'The Beginner's Guide to L Ron Hubbard' are in the > business of being aware of viewers' sensibilities. > Why not follow the lead of the pro's?: > 'The Beginner's Guide to Scientology'. > > BINGO!! > > *The Beginners Guide to Scientology!* > ** > (Any better suggestions? If not, strike that one off the list) The Channel 4 programme is really a beginner's guide to Scientology, not LRH. I suspect they chose the less descriptive name "Beginner's Guide to L. Ron Hubbard" deliberately, on legal advice, to avoid trademark hassles. Paul

Message 904 Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:43 pm Re: Scientology Orientation Video available here. --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > From: Patty Pieniadz - view profile > Date: Sat, Oct 7 2006 12:23 pm > Email: "Patty Pieniadz" > Groups: alt.religion.scientology > > I remember seeing this video when I was IN Scn and > thought that it would chase new people away. > > It shows how completely out of touch Scn > is with people. > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=- 3463204714566011542&q=scient... > > Patty P The Orientation video is still available on Google Video after 24 days in the slimelight. It is marked as having 2,482 views, with 66 yesterday. It is rated 4 1/2 stars out of 5. Huh? My initial thought was that the CofS had decided to turn the bad exposure into a PR coup by not threatening Google over copyright and leaving it up but recruiting members of the flock to keep voting it oodles of stars. Then I looked at the comments. The first comment gives 5 stars, and starts, "What a bunch of BS doubletalk." The second comment gives 5 stars and ends, "this religion truely is: a dangerous cult." So maybe the churchies are giving it 5 stars because they want to support the CofS, and the critics are giving it 5 stars because it shows how off-planet the CofS is. Or maybe something else. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org

Message 906 Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:49 pm [XSO] [Re link not working] What usually happens in such cases is that the link has been broken into two lines, although it may have been on one line when you sent it. The first line usually shows as clickable, i.e. blue and underlined normally, and the second line (the remaining part of the address) shows as regular text. Even though the "clickable" bit won't go anywhere. As in: http://www.nonworkingexampleonly.com/only_part- and_here_is_the_rest.htm To get through, copy and paste the address manually into your browser's address window, making sure by eyeball you have got all of it. Paul

Message 905 Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:36 pm [Advanced Freezone] Re: Right and Left Brain - FWD --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > In upper levels you can get very distinctive releases > of charge and NO reaction on the meter - because the > process happens not even in the body field. It is real to me that charge can be released without showing on the meter. I have observed that apparently happening in solo auditing, as well as a session years ago when I was just being a pc and couldn't see the meter but was line-charging for many minutes and it felt like lots of masses were blowing miles and miles--million of miles--away. I commented at the time to the auditor that it might not be showing on the meter because of the distance but it felt like a huge amount of mass discharging. It would be a convenient phenomenon too, as a couple of times I have held the cans while using the Yawn Machine and it felt like chunks of charge were disappearing but nothing was showing particularly on the (loose) needle. To demand that charge blowing is imaginary if it doesn't show on the meter would invalidate those Yawn Machine gains. To be fair, yes, it could all be imaginary and in reality only meter- shown charge actually exists, but I have seen no proof of that. Asserting that that is the way it is because someone says so isn't proof! I say "apparently" in the first paragraph as there is no objective evidence to validate (or invalidate) the subjective reality. In an auditor/pc sense, one shouldn't require a MEST validation of one's perceptions. But for research purposes, they are very helpful. It cannot be purely a body phenomenon in the sense of the masses being too far away to register. What about auditing remote entities using meter reads to guide one's actions? I assume these work because of pre-existing comm lines (chakra cords, "heartstrings" for example). But there must also be comm lines of some kind to remote masses, otherwise they wouldn't be "one's" masses. No? Paul

Message 909 Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:54 pm [FreezoneOrg]Re: Freezone Dissemination Site --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > As long as we don't do it the way the cos does with no tech > applied but lots of "words" taken out of context. I still like > the idea of pictures like in KTL/LOC. I think ClearBird has that > throughout their site also. The lack of words means less risk of > keying some bloke in who doesn't know any better. The pictures can also move. Flash .swf files are very small for the amount one can pack into them. It is true that not everyone has Flash, but most people do (it's free to download off the Net), and one could make the site so that the Flash bits are not essential to the presentation, but a useful addition. It's 2006. We might as well make use of 2006 Net technology, especially when it's free or low cost. Paul

Message 907 Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:27 am [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Right and Left Brain - FWD --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > it seems to me that the base of the sweat glands theory > might explain how the can squeeze for sensitivity setting works. I would be interested in any sensible explanation for that. All I could come up with is the simple observation that when one puts more skin on the cans, the TA goes down (i.e. a "fall"), and squeezing the cans does nothing more esoteric than temporarily putting more skin on the cans. Paul

Message 917 Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:39 pm [XSO] [Re SH staff] [In response to a query re some posts and staff] I visited SH a few years ago for the first time in about 16 years. I shared a tearful hug with Isla Pryde, still on the same post of Solo DofP since 1968 (no musical chairs there!). And had a chinese meal in town with John Harvey and Dave Skull. I haven't been in comm with them since my declare, so any OSA ex-friends of mine reading this don't need to harass them over it. I've got a photo of Isla somewhere. And a video of John and Dave. Alec McRae was the Advanced Scheduling Registrar.. He left staff in the mid-70s. Rufus Price (non-SO) took over his post. Margaret Hodkin was the one who founded the EG Scn school, Greenfields. Her husband was Mike Neal. I shared an office with Mike for a year when I was FBO AOSHUK and he was FBO SHF. Paul

Message 910 Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:05 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Right and Left Brain - FWD --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi Paul! > I believe normal sweating is largely to eliminate toxins,and > excessive sweating largely for cooling.The degree of polarization of the > membrane at the base of a sweat gland would then be the mechanism for > regulating the degree of sweating,mediated by the autonomic system. > If so,then it seems to me that a can squeeze would first of all close > the top of some sweat glands that had been open to atmospheric pressure,and > then the increasing pressure would force some sweat back through the basal > membranes,thus causing a fall in electrical resistance through the skin. > My guess - and that is all it is - is that this is what would account > for most of the fall,and more skin contact,and also more contact with any > sweat present,would account for the rest. Hi XXXX, That sounds awfully complex to me. I suppose you could test it out by doing can squeezes with the pores as open as possible, and also with them as closed as possible, and seeing how the squeezes compare. You can close the pores up by rubbing animal fat (regular animal fat soap would do) over the hands, i.e. washing them well with hot water and lots of soap, then drying them off, covering them with talc etc. Then exfoliate, getting rid of the top layers of dead skin, and then get all the gunk out of the pores using your favourite method (mine is Masters Miracle soap and no, I don't sell it any more). That should allow the skin to move the sweat freely both ways in your model. Obviously the TA will be lower. Then compare the lengths of fall, with an allowance made for the differences in TA. But I doubt if anyone will actually perform the test! Paul

Message 918 [FreezoneOrg] Re: Mike's Gold Century Press Wed Nov 1, 2006 11:42 am --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" wrote: > > Announcing the launch of the Gold Century Press website for the > Freezone. The copyright to Ruth Minshull's "Miracles for Breakfast" is owned by CST, as I posted a week ago, along with the registration information. You might consider removing it from your list of works described as having "no relationship to the copyrights held by the RTC trading as the Library of L. Ron Hubbard", Mike. The US Copyright Office search engine is at: http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html "Ups and Downs" does not appear in their catalog. I don't know who owns that copyright. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org

Message 911 Wed Nov 1, 2006 12:02 pm [FreezoneOrg] Light reading - beware of excessive zeros --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hello All, > > I came across these cofs pages - and found them... well ... did I > really spend that much?? > > http://www.scientology-asho.org/registration_donationrates.htm > > Someone has lost the plot! > > > XXXX Hi XXXX, So how much do you charge for training? I see from your linked site that you have a course room available for full-time training, 10am to 10pm, but I didn't see any prices. They might be on a page I didn't find. Let's take ASHO's Academy Starter Package, consisting of the Student Hat Course, Hubbard Professional TR Course, Upper Indoc TR Course and Hubbard Professional Metering Course. Their package cost is $4,375. Allowing very roughly the number of hours for each of the courses above, respectively, as 80, 240, 40, 40, that comes out to about $10 per hour of courseroom time. If it takes twice as long, it's $5 per hour. Paul

Message 915 Wed Nov 1, 2006 10:14 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Mike's Gold Century Press --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, "XXXX wrote: > > The other point is that they are not sold. > There are provided as is and there is no commercial profit to be gained > from them. > They are also available over the net. > > I doubt the RTC would make an issue of it unless they want to be > particularly vindictive. One could ask them on what basis they claim > authorship. Yes, sorry, the copyright records use the word "claimant" and not "owner". The basis for claiming the copyright is probably that of derivative works. But I would think that the onus of proof would be on anyone challenging a claim such as: Registration Number: RE-58-781 Title: Tone scale of indecision. By acLafayette Ronald Hubbard & D. Folgere, pseud. of Richard DeMille. Series: Professional course, technique 88, scientology booklet 35 Claimant: L. Ron Hubbard (A) Effective Registration Date: 19May80 Original Registration Date: 28Sep52; Original Registration Number: A133653. Original Class: A rather than the other way around. Similarly, with Gillham. Although this book is now registered in 2001 instead of 1973: Registration Number: TX-5-344-845 Title: Fundamentals of success. By aPeter F. Gillham. Note: C.O. corres. Claimant: acL. Ron Hubbard , 1911-1986 Supplement to Registration: A441318, 1973 Effective Registration Date: 2Jan01 Author on (c) Application: L. Ron Hubbard & Peter F. Gillham (on original appl.: Peter F. Gillham) (additional author) Special Codes: 1/B/X It seems he was the original sole author, which was then revised, presumably by you-know-who. These records don't say who the original claimant was. There are various transfer of copyright documents for this title, found under a search for "Fundamentals of Success", such as: Item 5 OF 9 V3463 P747 (COHD) Date Recorded: 10Jan01 Date Executed: 28Dec00 Party 1: Peter F. Gillham. Party 2: Church of Spiritual Technology (Los Angeles) d.b.a. L. Ron Hubbard Library. Note: Tell it like it is & 1 other title. Written by Peter F. Gillham, containing original & previously unpub. material written by the late L. Ron Hubbard. Document Location: (V3463 D747 P1-2) Will RTC bother to challenge your providing these materials? I don't know. There's an easy, if lazy, way to find out. And RTC vindictive? Surely not. Wouldn't that be aberrated? Paul

Message 913 Thu Nov 2, 2006 11:15 am [XSO] [Re faith] [In response to a comment that the relaying of anecdotes is a hallmark of faith, not evidence]. Well, how about this, XXXX? This is an unsolicited win from a non-Scientologist, in two parts: "Only 40 minutes and I discharged an age old stress I was carrying around. Reminds me a bit of NLP." "[This] has become even more mysterious. The problem I was auditing was about relationship patterns of mine. One very important person regarding this pattern I had tried to get in contact with (to clear things up) for 10 years now asking everybody I thought could help including web-searches etc. without success. She mailed me about 5 hours after I finished the audit. Blew my socks off!" Not particularly extraordinary. But get this: The auditing was done by a robot auditor that I put on the web, not by me directly. The individual concerned found my site through a search engine. His full name is on that page at http://fzglobal.org/robot How is this a question of faith when it is a non-Scientologist using a mechanical procedure without another live person being involved? To pre-empt needless discussion here, let me draw attention to a FAQ going into my rationale about calling it a "robot auditor" and how it is possible and so forth at http://www.fzglobal.org/faq_tech.html Paul

Message 916 Thu Nov 2, 2006 7:39 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Light reading - beware of excessive zeros --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I think your figures are quite conservative. Student > hat in two weeks is great going. Two weeks on > professional metering course? Is not usually done in > less than a year from various reports I've seen over > the years. But thats another story. I presume you are > using "standard" checksheet times. Well, when *I* had to redo the Student Hat after having all my tech certs suspended for looking down a student's blouse it only took me.... Point taken, XXXX. I don't even know what the checksheet times for these courses are any more. My estimates were based on what I remember, not necessarily the checksheet times. The Pro TRs Course, for instance, had a ridiculous checksheet time of two or three weeks, I think, although it tended to take nearer eight or ten. On the metering course, isn't there a "regular" Pro Metering Course and a *Flag* Pro Metering Course, where the regular one is doable and the Flag one takes that significant chunk of a lifetime? I was getting around to making a point about it being very time- consuming and labour-intensive to deliver training properly. XXXX didn't post his own training prices after complaining about the CofS's, so I didn't get the chance. :) Maybe next time. Paul

Message 921 Thu Nov 2, 2006 9:54 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Light reading - beware of excessive zeros --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Well if one has the volume....? Well yes, if you have twenty paying students in the courseroom it can all work out very well for all concerned. > Some, many in ROs, including some of us in UK are > using the HSDC as a starter course. It uses basic > study manual, 10 meter drills, and then one quickly > gets into co-audit, making auditors. It has the added > advantage of handling peoples body problems, somatics, > easily. And they won't be stuck at clear not being able to use > dianetics for this. Also I gather covers rudiments. I'm definitely in favour of a short training line-up that rapidly gets people in the chair auditing, and they can work on improving the quality as they go along, getting that all-important experience. I probably shouldn't ask what is being used for checksheets and packs. That was the main problem I had in delivering the HSDC. I never got around to writing a substitute checksheet using legally- available and up-to-date materials, that would cover basic study, TRs, metering, auditing basics, Dn theory and then wham bam This_Is_The_Session ma'am. Maybe I'll do it as part of my Net remote training project.... Paul

Message 912 Fri Nov 3, 2006 11:22 am [AdvancedFreezone] My R3X experience --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > If anyone is curious about R3X (what is it, etc) I suggest you just > give it a go - you cannot lose anything (except charge) by doing so > &, therefore, can only gain from that point forward. There is a checksheet with linked materials covering the full procedure at http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x If you don't have the time to read the materials, you can get an idea of what is involved from looking through the checksheet drills. Reading the checksheet is not the same as *doing* the checksheet, but it's better than nothing. Paul

Message 914 Sat Nov 4, 2006 12:21 am [FreezoneOrg] Scientology Copyrights I've put up some Scientology copyright pages on my main FZ site, providing public data from the Library of Congress copyrights database. This information has not been readily available on the web up to now, that I have been able to find anyway. It has been available through the Library of Congress database online, but the word "readily" is not one I would apply in this case. It's not complete, but there's enough there to be useful, I think. There are over 13,500 short records of individual titles, covering four pages. These are only the responses to the search term "L. Ron Hubbard" with minor variations. The page sizes are given on the intro page at: http://www.fzglobal.org/copyrights.htm They are large to make it easier to search for individual items, once the page has loaded. I will be reducing the page size to probably 100 KB fairly soon, which will mean spreading the data out over more than 35 pages instead of the current 6. There is also a page giving only the registration numbers in sequence. There is also a page giving all the 334 transfers of copyright to CST. I'll offer an opinion on how useful all this is (or isn't) later! Paul

Message 940 Sat Nov 4, 2006 10:22 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Theta ad --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > If anyone has a clue as to exactly why this happens, and how to work > around it... please do tell. I've never had a problem with these links using IE6. The obvious explanation, distasteful as it is, is that Microsoft coded Internet Explorer better than the Firefox people with respect to this aspect. A less tenable explanation is that YouTube got paid off by Microsoft to make links IE-friendly and Firefox-hating. Maybe you could resurrect IE and just keep it for unusual circumstances. I haven't figured out how to get Firefox to render the audio in Paul's Robot Auditor, although it works fine with IE. On principle, I would love to dump IE completely. However.... Paul Still going strong http://fzglobal.org/robot

Message 920 Sun Nov 5, 2006 2:19 pm [XSO] [Re GO "versus" SO] I was AOSHUK staff from 1972 until 1986, when I moved to the SO in LA. With GOWW a hundred yards down the road, the GO always seemed more important than the SO, until the various missions arrived and the GO and its influence got shredded. Rather literally, as mountains of blue GO issues got shredded and then the shred got trucked down to a concrete slab near the Stables and burned. Lots of shred. Lots. Lots. Lots. In 1973-4 I worked in Dept 8. I spent hours getting and keeping up to date an AOSHUK Reserve A/C breakdown, showing what the money in the account was set aside for. No computers then. Twice that I recall, Herbie (DGFWW) pounced on it and took money from it. Once to repair/replace the wrought-iron gates at the top of the front drive (not the one that was in main use by everyone); and once to replace the carpet in his office. The money for one of these came from the "SO Uniform" setasides--wiped it out, in fact. Which is more important: SO Uniforms or Herbie's carpet? Ummm, decisions, decisions.... And about the nearest I came to anything involving Jane personally was when I was HCO Cope Officer around 1978 trying to man up a babywatch, OT3 and above staff only. The "baby" was actually a hulking great woman, who got violent, and the (male) attendant ended up on the floor with her, finally subduing her with a Half-Nelson (wrestling hold). Jane RPF'd me for that, which was somewhat of a relief as I had been on four hours sleep a night for months and I could see getting 7 or 8 hours sleep a night again. It's all very well to say he shouldn't have done that, but as has been pointed out, service orgs are not equipped to deal with people who have lost it for the time being, and what was he supposed to do in that situation? It wasn't covered in the hat write-up! Paul

Message 919 Mon Nov 6, 2006 12:35 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Theta ad --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Evidently the reason your mp3s aren't working in firefox is because you > are using Microsoft only html code, i.e. bgsound is non-standard html > and is recognised ONLY by IE. > > Evidently the standard way to refer to audio files in html is via the > embed tag, although I haven't tried this one myself. Thanks a lot, XXXX. I tried using an embed tag and it sorta worked, but it changed the graphics as well as playing the audio and I didn't want that. For now, I will just stick with what I've got, although I did add "subtitles" for those not wanting to use IE. In other words, one can use the graphics version but without the audio enabled. Paul

Message 925 Mon Nov 6, 2006 12:50 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Theta ad --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > My poor conscience... On the one hand, I want to say "Ha-ha, see, Firefox is not inferior!" > > Then on the other... "Hey! Don't help Paul fix that abomination! " > > :P > > -XXXX Hi XXXX, Here's an unsolicited win in two parts from a non-Scientologist who found the abominable no-man via a Search Engine. His full name is on my site. He then phoned me wanting to come over and buy some auditing from me. "Only 40 minutes and I discharged an age old stress I was carrying around. Reminds me a bit of NLP. Thanx for putting this up on the web!" "[This] has become even more mysterious. The problem I was auditing was about relationship patterns of mine. One very important person regarding this pattern I had tried to get in contact with (to clear things up) for 10 years now asking everybody I thought could help including web-searches etc. without success. She mailed me about 5 hours after I finished the audit. Blew my socks off!" Paul Effects created 24/7 http://fzglobal.org/robot

Message 927 Mon Nov 6, 2006 1:23 am [XSO] [Re UK ban on foreign Scientolgists] I was the "Hot Prospect Letter Reg" AOSHUK (actual post title but not the title under my signature) during those times. I would often dictate letters saying, "When you come into the country, it is important not to say that you are a Scientologist. Say you are visiting London, and don't carry any Scientology materials with you." I said it so many times--thirty years ago--I can still remember it verbatim. So one day, 7/7/77 or just before, one of the letter reg typists goes to the East Grinstead Courier and tells them. Nice juicy front page story, of course. David Gaiman's printed response to the story was something like, "It's not policy, but I can't guarantee that no- one ever said it. I mean, I'm not going to go through every folder in central files to check it out!" So things being as they were, there was a humongous all hands starting the day the story broke which went on for three days and nights, if I recall, to go through EVERY folder in CF and toss all the incriminating carbon copies out. Maybe at the beginning records were kept of important information that might have got tossed with the naughty stuff, but as time wore on and people wore down so did the work quality. "I'm not going to go through every file to check it out!" Very true. He didn't. Paul

Message 922 Mon Nov 6, 2006 1:41 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Robot Auditor Win --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > What I'm really curious about is how the project is going, how much > feedback Paul has gotten from users, and what level of tweaking might > have been going on so far. From the standpoint of having a forum > where this would be "on topic", I can't think of a better place than > here to do that. I have posted on the site's front page at http://fzglobal.org/robot the specific wins received from using it. There aren't many. I have not done a lot of tweaking as I don't have much feedback to base tweaking on--it's mainly been my own experience. My own responses may or may not be typical, but generalizing from the effects on one case only isn't too sound in principle. There is also the whole background of Scn theory and practical experience as well, so it's not quite as loony as it might appear at first sight. I know of about ten or twelve people who have used it (or the Yawn Machine). There is only one who has complained of no result, and that person won't allow me to telephone to try and debug it and see if the instructions are being followed properly. Before concluding it didn't work, one has to find out exactly *what* didn't work. On the site I have presented it as a Div 6 technique. This was mainly for PR reasons as I didn't want to freak out regular FZers too much (target not necessarily achieved!). In reality, I see it as useful all the way up. I have audited over 50 hours using the procedure, on all sorts of subjects, and found it very useful throughout. I don't see it as a curiosity that one does a single session with, then if one got a win that is the EP of using Paul's Robot Auditor. In my opinion, it would cease to be personally useful at the point where it no longer efficiently handled charge. That might be after fifty hours, five hundred hours, or fifty thousand hours. I don't know. One important point is rubbing one's nose in the subject to be discharged, in order to stir it up and restimulate it enough so that the charge can be erased. If one is just going for the surface charge, one could be doing no more than dusting off light locks. I addressed the R2-60 items like this (hidden sex, protected eating, etc.). At first sight, there was nothing there. Try it yourself-- does "protected eating?" get a read, even a mental read if you don't keep a meter next to your computer screen? But then I spent two or three minutes rubbing my nose in the item: How does this apply to me? What kind of thing would it analytically include, and then have I experienced in life (or past lives) anything like this? What terminals and events would be, and then were, involved? After a few minutes of this, either the item would then run--often for twenty or thirty minutes--or it would be uncharged and I would go on to the next one. The beauty of using physical discharges (yawns etc) as an indicator is that it is simple to see if the subject is initially charged; to run it for as long as it continues to be charged; and to stop running it when it is no longer charged. One doesn't then get into processing "think" for ages. The EP I use is no more available charge on the subject at that time, i.e no yawn etc. after using the different parts of the procedure thoroughly for a minute or two. Cogs are irrelevant--they happen or they don't happen (they usually do!), but are not used as a determining factor in ending off the process. Usually one feels keyed-out and "EP'd" on the subject, but the feeling is not used as the determining factor on when to end off. Anyway, on the R2-60 items, about two-thirds of them were charged and I ran over thirty hours on them. If I had addressed them using the regular grades approach of clearing the question and checking for a read, I would probably have run very few if any of them. And this *is* one of the grades processes, more or less. I tried taking some other scale and addressing the items on it with the same procedure, but what happened was that out of the first ten items only one "read". Since it took three minutes or so to assess each item, this was too much time spent looking for something to run, and the signal-noise ratio in the session was too out of balance, so I abandoned it as a general method of finding stuff to run. The current method of finding stuff to run with Paul's Robot Auditor is to either have it determined before the session (maybe an out- rud, or something obviously charged because it makes one yawn or sleepy just to think of it), or start the session and go with whatever one gets as a flash answer to the question, "What should we take up in this session, right now?" The Yawn Machine can be used similarly. That seems to work quite well. But the more data I have from others, the better I will be able to improve it. Hint :) Rascally Paul

Message 923 Mon Nov 6, 2006 3:07 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Robot Auditor Win --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I'll take it for a spin as soon as I have a couple days to kill, > and give you some feedback afterwards. Great, thanks. My sessions now tend to run from 15-30 minutes each, so maybe you won't need to set aside quite so long. You would have to be sessionable though, of course. > My head still spins when I consider the thing from a programmer's > point of view, though! :) How so? Paul

Message 930 Mon Nov 6, 2006 3:10 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Theta ad --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > > [Paul:] On principle, I would love to dump IE completely. > > However.... > > And on principle, I'd love to dump Paul's Robot Auditor. That was funny, XXXX. :) Paul

Message 924 Mon Nov 6, 2006 10:24 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Robot Auditor Win --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I just have a mockup of me not being there to observe the PC, but > instead programming responses and trying to cover all the > possibilities. Yikes! Oh, I see. Thank you. Well, if I missed anything significant, do let me know! Trying to determine the possibilities without extensive background experience would indeed be mind-boggling. Paul Skype ID: Dulloldfart

Message 928 Mon Nov 6, 2006 10:29 pm [FreezoneOrg]Re: Re Freezone Scientologist Website --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I would like to acknowledge some contributions with out which it would > not be nearly so useful or comprehensive. > > XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and a special thank you to Claire Bird > of Clearbird Publishing for allowing me to use an extract from her > forthcoming book, "What makes you tick?", an extensive glossary and some > useful piccies. "Claire Bird"! Clever. Paul

Message 926 Wed Nov 8, 2006 8:15 pm [XSO] [Re mocking up mental mass] Interesting idea. Leaving aside for the moment the question of Randi's integrity, how much additional mass did you mock up--and I assume unmock--in how little time? Paul

Message 931 Thu Nov 9, 2006 6:32 pm [XSO] [re zero point energy] [Re there being no theory for zero-point energy] Never read Bearden? http://www.cheniere.org/ There's enough theory there to blow your teeth out. I have a paperback of his, "Energy From the Vacuum", 952 pages thick. Paul

Message 929 Thu Nov 9, 2006 6:54 pm [XSO] [re mocking up mental mass] [re creative processing] I discovered the remedy for the residue (havingness processing) and incorporated it in Paul's Robot Auditor, which no-one will ever bother to look at, of course. But I like it. Later I discovered LRH gave the remedy in the same HCOB, and the next sentence in fact, after cancelling creative processing in HCOB 11 Feb 1960, Create and Confront. [re LRH proposed this experiment] Yes, I remember. But how much mass in how little time was not specifically given, that I recall. [re a pound or two in a few minutes] Yes, that would be ample in a properly-done study. [re it being enough evidence for spiritual mass] I disagree. In a properly-controlled study it would show one example of something strange going on. Getting broad agreement that it is spiritual mass is very optimistic, in my opinion. Paul

Message 932 Thu Nov 9, 2006 11:17 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Another online movie for you freedom fighters --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > You're not confronting the fact that your voting amounts to > nothing more than a waste of time, unless you are doing it to > further support the myth that it has an effect on who gets into > any particular office of more consequence than trash collector > or dog catcher. How do you know? I'm not asking out of simple ignorance. My introduction to the subject was reading the book "Votescam" in 1997 or 1998, and in recent years I have read much on the Net from Bev Harris and others. I agree that *in theory* it would seem to be a coincidence with current absurdly-insecure voting software and systems if one's vote is finally tallied as one intended. It would seem to me that this year there was such a dramatic swing, along with increased public attention on votery-pokery, that the powers-that-be couldn't manage to uphold the status quo this time. Although I agree that it makes damn-all difference to thee and me which party gets to feed at the trough for the next term. Will Bush now be impeached? Will the Military Commissions Act now get revoked? Will the NAFTA Superhighway get slowed down? Will.... Ho ho ho. Paul

Message 933 Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:34 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Excalibur v OT IV-VIII? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Doesn't anyone want to know Exactly what is wrong with Larry West's > "version". I learned of the so-called "alterations" from someone who > was trained by West on it and he explained what those alterations > actually were and of the why for alteration. > > Do you, Sam, know the nature of those exact alterations w/o getting > into confidential data here? Or are you denigrating someone because of > a personal vendetta and "knows best" attitude? So stick it on a web site somewhere and post the URL, XXXX. You know how to code HTML and there are many, many hosting possibilities. I dislike all this secrecy for reasons of personal greed (not yours, XXXX). "Yes, I have developed the answer, the unification of previously disparate technologies, and there is now no need for further conflict! All you have to do is pay me.... Hell, I'm not going to give it away for free. I spent hours figuring this out and my time is valuable. Spiritual salvation don't come cheap, you know." Paul

Message 936 Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:07 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Excalibur v OT IV-VIII? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > There's other reasons than greed, Paul. And as a former > course supe, you should know some of them. And as a C/S > I can think of a couple more. I do agree, however, if > someone has that intention, that it be > best posted to some other site. Well, let's list out the possible reasons for secrecy. If I miss anything significant, I'm always willing to learn. 1. Personal financial reasons, whether as an individual or part of a small group. This is perfectly acceptable in a general commercial sense--vital, even--but it doesn't harmonize with spiritual goals of welcoming as many beings as possible benefiting from one's knowledge and largesse. 2. Generally saving the individual from possible personal harm from reading details by himself. Specifically: A. The Clear Cog. B. Specific implant items, such as on the Clearing Course or OT2. C. Entity general data. (OT3, NOTs, RO levels, others). D. Other levels I don't have enough data about. There is always the possibility that an individual will take some piece of tech and try and run it on himself inappropriately. Inappropriate at least from the viewpoint of a C/S following standard tech, but it also falls under the self-determinism of the individual. While in the Sea Org I ran lots of things on myself from the 50s as I read about them, some with interesting results. Not while I was actively undergoing some proper C/S'd auditing programme, needless to say. I never got into trouble for it, case- wise or ethics-wise, although maybe I should have. My point is that there are considerations on how much potentially dangerous activity one is willing to expose other consenting adults to. The lazy answer is to just follow what is done in the CofS. The reality nowadays is that the Internet is a free-for-all, and you never know what you will suddenly come across. Some people post warning notices, and some don't. Some might think warning notices are necessary; some might think similarly but maliciously leave them out; some might think they are superfluous. Personally, I am for posting everything, with full warning notices so that the reader has informed consent. I don't think it is a good idea for a non-Clear person to study up on the Clear Cog. But it is his choice. He can also go out and buy a beer. Or a pizza. Or throw himself under a truck or burn down a house. This is life. It's not a kindergarten. I think the dangers of reading about entity materials are way overblown. How many people have got caved in by reading such details prematurely ***when they didn't know in advance they were SUPPOSED to get caved in***? I got very caved in one day by reading an R6EW HCOB that I shouldn't have that I came across in a stack of mimeo returns at Saint Hill. I saw the same bulletin years later when I was OT3 and there was nothing restimulative in it. I don't mean the data no longer was able to restimulate me, I mean it was completely innocuous. It was just the IDEA that it was above my level that caved me in as I *knew* that that was supposed to happen. Pfft. Compare that to the number of people who benefit from knowing the information. Some benefit from just knowing what is withheld from churchies except on payment of years of dedication and thousands upon thousands of dollars. Some benefit from being able to critically view and apply logic to the sci-fi stuff that now looks ludicrous to me but some swear by. But some also benefit from knowing that they are not crazy because for years it seemed like other beings lived in their heads. One has to weigh up both sides before deciding that suppression of the information is beneficial. 3. Generally saving the individual from possible personal harm from being audited by unqualified auditors. This could apply to any level, but the potential for harm would be greater with some tech than others. Again, informed consent fits in here. One can get butchered by a bad auditor at any level. Some levels have more potential for butchering than others. I'm not really qualified to assess this information properly. One would have to compare the possibility for abuse with other items of comparable magnitude. One can get horribly caved in by being yelled at continually in an invalidative manner: "You're no good! You've wrecked our children's lives!" etc. One can get ripped off in many areas, not just by an unqualified auditor. You can't shut people off from life just because they might get hurt by something you can't control. I am in favour of more information and communication rather than less. Someone recently posted that they had got ripped off by someone doing "L's" auditing, and finally got wonderful results from Pierre. Great. Who was the auditor? When? Has that person, perhaps, now been corrected so that he/she now delivers a good product? Or does this person continue to rip off unsuspecting pcs unhindered because no-one has ever posted a warning notice? Some might consider it bad form to publicise information about abuse in the FZ. I don't. I seem to recall news stories about the results of witholding publicity over the abusive and unchecked activities of some Catholic priests, if you want a datum of vaguely comparable magnitude. If I recall correctly, Pierre wrote somewhere that L's auditing requires a certain training and that he is qualified to assess an auditor's ability to deliver it, and he would release the materials that only he has to people he confirms as qualified. I don't know how true it is that this monopoly position is justified. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. As I said, I don't know. But I do know that there is precious little info generally available on the subject, certainly not enough to allow an informed opinion. As with the entity data, does the potential for good outweigh the potential for harm? If it does--and I'm not asserting that it does-- and fairly obviously so, then a cry of needed confidentiality would be nothing more than a grubby desire for spiritual monopoly, whether for money or status or both. Paul Lots of free stuff: http://www.fzglobal.org

Message 934 Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:55 pm [XSO] [Re Canteen I/C pay] I remember a period at the HGB (around 1990) when the SO member holding the post of Canteen I/C got paid a percentage of the take, based on some FO relating to an earlier and smaller ship-board scene. This amounted to literally thousands of dollars a month at the time. Did this happen at Int too? Paul

Message 935 Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:09 pm [XSO] [Re OT2/OT3--equivalent--checksheets] Hi XXXX, I've had that site up since early 2004 and have been adding to it every now and then. The last thing I added a couple of weeks ago was a list of 13,000+ Scn copyrighted items and associated data taken from the US Copyrights Office public records, to complement the Scn trademarks research I have there. There are three checksheets I wrote in late 2004. Two are for the equivalents of OT2 and OT3, with links to online re-writes of the original materials (not originated by me), based on my years of supervising those levels in the SO. I didn't link to the original materials as it is arguably illegal to possess them outside the CofS and they are not readily available online, but the re-writes are freely so. The third checksheet is for R3X, a powerful extension of Dianetic auditing coupled with creative processing--again, not originated by me--with links to the relevant materials available online. They are all freely available, and have been since I wrote them, at: http://www.freewebs.com/squirrelacademy Paul

Message 942 Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:09 am [XSO] Morgellons Has anyone been following this at all? It seems to be something else our wonderful powers-that-be have been cooking up for us. As to what exactly, I wouldn't like to guess right now, beyond the general idea that we're unlikely to enjoy it much. If you only have time for a very quick peek, take a look at the photographs here: http://www.rense.com/general74/morg6-5.htm It makes more sense to read some of the back story, and look at the five pages of photos in sequence. And if you have some more time and interest, to listen to the two interviews that Jeff Rense has made available on his site. They are at http://www.rense.com, in the boxed section on Morgellons in the centre. Wow, oh wow. I've been following it with casual interest for a month or so, but it just got a whole lot more fascinating after listening to those two programme items. Paul

Message 943 Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:41 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: off topic, freedom mest --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > Also, I don't know but if you are the > > recipient of en theta, then treat it as > > such.......Cut the commline! > > Thats extremely workable. Can you recall where > LRH says that? One place is Chart of Human Evaluation and the relevant section in Science of Survival. Too lazy to look it up, but as far as I remember it's the column on handling of communication, tone 4.0, something like "cuts entheta lines". Paul

Message 937 Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:55 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: JW (was - Nip Tuck) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I think the only possible worse thing that the CofS could do for > it's PR is to take a hint from them and start going door-to-door. A friend of mine in the SO from the 70s told me at the time he'd been a JW going door to door and met a Scientologist one day who he had an interesting discussion with. Result: he upgraded his philosophy. My friend is still in the SO. One more upgrade to go.... Talking of CofS PR, I was looking at some video sites like YouTube, and one of the popular videos is called something like "Scientology-- What are Your Crimes?" and consists of three OSA types harassing a cameraman critic by mainly ignoring his mostly-legitimate questions and accusing him of crimes, mostly unspecified, but some invented items. The OSA types come across as total whack-jobs if you don't know the green-on-white they are following. If you do know the policy, they just come across as idiots for robotically following a policy inappropriately. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org

Message 949 Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:05 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Nip Tuck --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Now now, before you puff your chest out too far; how can you be sure the > Lord's hand was not in this assist? LOL I once gave some assists to a sceptical non-Scn couple--friends left over from University, before I blew them off by being too over-the-top. The guy was drunk and I did a locational that helped. Another time one of them had a headache and I said, "Oh I can fix that" and gave a touch assist (this was before the HCOB on not doing TA's on headaches), and blew the headache. Another time the wife had a sore throat, and I said, "Oh, I can fix that", gave her a short touch assist and fixed it. I was feeling pretty pleased with myself, and thought, "Aha, now they will HAVE to acknowledge that Scn works". So what did she say in response to my comment about how wonderful the tech was? "Oh no, Paul, you've just got HEALING HANDS!" And she was quite serious. Another twist on the "God did it" angle. Paul

Message 948 Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:20 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: off topic, freedom mest --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I've got tough manual man hands. In contrast to your frail, delicate body? (If you don't know him, there's a photo of bb at Saint Hill here: http://www.fzglobal.org/bnp_sh3.jpg For comparison, I'm the guy on the right, six foot tall and 180 lb.) Paul

Message 938 Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:25 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: JW (was - Nip Tuck) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Those goons being robots is a good demonstration as to why robot > auditing won't work. No real communication. Anyway, just being a > joker here (as one couldn't do it otherwheres). I'll twist it around and take the opportunity to respond to it as a straight comment. Like some other unmentionable piece of technology, this works in practice but doesn't work in theory. I'll put you on the spot, XXXX :). Do you consider that the people who give wins from using my Robot Auditor are deliberately lying, or merely deluded? Wouldn't it have to be one or the other in your estimation? Two questions, one easier than the other, and don't wriggle around them. Unless you do it so adroitly that I become overwhelmed with admiration and let it pass! > I've watched some of those vids too. Too bad they didn't just > answer the questions, except I'm sure it's for "legal" reasons. Ultimately, probably so. But it is also likely that they don't know enough about the subject to hand to respond sensibly. Take the Lisa M. case, for instance. I think that I have a pretty good understanding of what happened, but that is only because I have seen a lot of original documentation, and subsequent comment, on the Net. The data is freely available, but will only be read and assimilated by someone freely willing to access it. One also needs an understanding of the tech/policies concerning such cases, and the practical experience of trying to follow the laid-down procedures in a real-life situation when some public person or staff member seriously flips out. Maybe one of them could have got around the legal question by showing (not just stating) he genuinely understood the petitioner's concern, and saying something sensible with the disclaimer that he was offering a personal comment and not speaking as a spokesman of the CofS. This would require actually knowing what he was talking about, which would take more than signing out and star-rating a one- page sanitized briefing sheet. Letting such OSA people freely research these things so they are thoroughly briefed would not be without risk for the CofS, as some people have a nasty habit of coming to their own conclusions about data presented from multiple viewpoints. But it is the only way to appear somewhat sensible in such filmed confrontations. And as it becomes more and more possible to upload such amusing encounters to high-traffic sites, the CofS is going to look sillier and sillier, unless they get smart about this. Yeah, yeah, I know. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org

Message 941 Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:55 pm [XSO] Re: Morgellons I watched the BUG trailer on Yahoo. I didn't bother posting a link to it. It is not one hundredth as scary as this real life shit, if as unreal. These cute little critters photographed at: http://www.rense.com/general74/morg6-5.htm remind me of the creature bursting out of the crew member's stomach to such good (dramatic) effect in "Alien". I assume they won't grow to the same adult size. Or have such corrosive blood. Although, who knows? :) Please excuse my making less of this. It's hard to confront the whole evil operation full-on, especially when there are so many unknowns connected with it. Paul

Message 939 Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:42 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: finding old friends --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I have SO wanted to find (or create) something like LinkedIn.com for > current/past Scn people. Wouldn't it be neat to have a place to go > where you could look for your people-connections and - with > permission - re-establish the comm lines? Well there is, really. It's called Google. Assuming you want to be found, it is relatively easy to be available. One of the first things I did when I got net savvy was to put up a "Looking for old friends" page on a website, full of key words including my name, their names and obvious variations, key locations etc. And an e-mail address where I could be contacted. I got a few replies too, mostly from third parties giving enough contact data for me to be able to contact the old friends concerned. Most people are vain enough to put their own name into Google to see what comes up, and then if they want to contact you they can easily do so. They don't even have to be vain--it's a good idea to see what others will find if they Google one's own name, even if the data pertains to someone else. It could be unfortunate to share the same name and city with a known scoundrel, for instance. If you haven't been pro-active in putting stuff online that will reflect well on yourself, and the only stuff is negative, well, that's life. If your name is "John Smith", it's a bit trickier to be found than if your name is, oh, "XXXX". If you are a non-entity as far as Google is concerned (unlike XXXX), it might be a good idea to become, er, an entity instead. I assume that anyone wanting to find me can easily at least discover my e-mail address. Plus every now and then I go trawling for these old friends. I get amazed sometimes that so many of them don't even have one mention of their name in Google. Oh well. One day.... Paul

Message 947 Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:58 am Re: My R3X experience --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi XXXX! > Sounds good,and I may try it one day. > Have read good reports before,but one guy who tried it in the States > didn`t sound very happy. > One problem for me could be that one R3x auditor in the UK,where I > live,used to be an instructor when I was on the HPA course in the`60s,and he > has several MUs about me.Still,there are other R3X auditors in the UK.I am > on the list,but have it set for "No e-mails" at present. > Are you planning to become an R3X auditor? > > XXXX Hey XXXX, Are you sure you are talking about the R3X developed by Robert Ducharme over the past several years and not some other procedure? There is a full write-up of the R3X procedure available at: http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x Look at the checksheet, click on any of the linked issues, or scan over the drills to get an idea of the doingness of the procedure. As far as I know, I am the only auditor in the UK who ever audits R3X. Paul

Message 945 Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:54 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: finding old friends --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > When your name is Michael Moore it is like looking for a needle in a > haystack. > > A ceetain American takes top billing in the google dept. > > Mike > IFA Well yes, but one has to apply a little creativity too. What are you well known for by the people you want to look you up? ***michael moore scientology*** gets you the top two hits; ***"michael moore" "big dick"*** gets the other fellow (re Dick Cheney. What were *you* thinking?); ***"michael moore" gold*** you get #4, one above the other fellow; and so on. I've got worse and worse in Google/Yahoo rankings re my name. Last November it was #3 in Yahoo and #8 in Google (out of about 30,000,000). Last time I looked it was #416 on Google and I stopped looking on Yahoo at 500. It works OK in the Images search for both Yahoo and Google. Back to the main web search, searching for ***paul adams scientology*** finds me easily enough, and it is the obvious search term for most if they don't think of checking the Images search. ***paul adams big dick*** doesn't find me at all. Oh well. I do have some other things that rank well: ***shepherd cube*** gets my page at #4 (out of 560,000) ***food replicator*** gets my page at #1 (out of 450,000), but only #3 out of 87 in the images, and that took a year to get there. Enough. Paul

Message 944 Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:49 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: JW (was - Nip Tuck) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > First, I don't consider they are deluded or lying. I believe they got > wins. Ron says on tape 4 of the VIII course that 22 1/2% of people > will get better eating ice cream. That was an analogy. Point was that > a lot of things produced wins, including education and change of > environment. > > Second, I think it was in KSW that Ron said that what was producing > gains was buried under a lot of off-beat practices. So the basic > principles of auditing, which are embedded in your robot auditor, are > what is giving wins. > > But I don't think it's a way out. Maybe it wasn't built for that. > Maybe it's like those new video-on-demand posts in the new Div 6es, > an interactive computerized module. Maybe in that case it's good. As > an intro level assist type action. If that steers people towards the > Bridge and Scientology, then maybe I have to change my perspective on > it too. > > Hope this answers without the wiggle. ;) > > XXXX Wow. Thank you very much for your thoughtful answer, XXXX. Further, deviant sayeth naught. Paul

Message 950 Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:39 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Nip Tuck (perfect date) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > How about where Jesus walked into an inn, tossed three nails on > the desk and asked "Hey, can you put me up for the night?" I wonder if people on Christian chat lists post jokes like, "What did L. Ron Hubbard say shortly after his murder, as The Devil showed him where he would be spending the rest of eternity?" Paul (who laughed at the gruesome Jesus jokes)

Message 946 Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:54 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Nip Tuck (perfect date) --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Same with the BC. When I was there, there were over 300 > students on course. It took almost a half hour to call roll. With only a few students, it doesn't matter much. With a significant number, it is an overt not to call roll as fast as possible. Anything over ten minutes for 300 names is inexcusable. Even if they are mostly foreign and "hard" names. I got to be really good at it. Part of it is knowing who should be there, so you are not calling loads of names needlessly. Part of it is knowing how to pronounce the names correctly, or if you don't care, at least you and the student being certain as to how you are going to say them. Part of it is prediction on the student's part, i.e. there is a known sequence, and the student knows when to expect his name and when to respond. There are actually lots of parts to it I can think of that I am not listing. There is a drill where a sup practices calling roll, and it is so easy to brush it off as it looks like a superfluous drill. But 20-30 minutes for 300 names shows it is an important drill that was never done properly. Sloppy sup. 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.