Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts 0951-1000








Yahoo Groups Posted Messages










Message 953 Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:39 am [AdvancedFreezone] Re: My R3X experience --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Anyway,I`m doing quite well at the moment, and what I really > want to do is to find something that looks as if it will work > for my lady-friend,and then try to persuade her to try it, or > try to run it on her myself. (The latter option is probably > not a good idea.) She has been having a lot of entity trouble > for about twenty years, and nobody has been able to help her. Have her try Paul's Robot Auditor. I'm serious. It's free. It's not a toy, and seems to work well for many different situations. You can help by being there and ensuring she follows the instructions exactly as given, without Q&A. Try it out yourself first if you like. Make sure you follow the instructions! It's at http://fzglobal.org/robot Paul






Message 951 Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:45 am [AdvancedFreezone] Re: My R3X experience --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi Paul, > I can`t find the auditor in question on the R3X list site,so I > reckon I must have read that he had qualified as an 3X auditor in > "International Viewpoints".If I remember rightly,they did an article about > R3X and RD several years ago,and announced that three more audutors had > qualified in the UK. Thanks, XXXX. What "R3X list site" are you referring to? I talk on the phone to RD every week or so, and the only people I know about who audit R3X are RD, me, Leon Swart, and some guy in Australia who solo'd it 6 hours a day for a year(!). There may be dozens of others doing it on the quiet, but one would expect them to have communicated the fact. Paul






Message 956 Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:38 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Nip Tuck --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Actually, sloppy reporting. Sloppy me. I can't remember not being in > my chair within usually 15, maybe 20 minutes. The "almost" half an > hour was to express grandeur at the number of students and regardless > where some suped before, 300 was pretty damn big. So no, Chris wasn't > a slppy supe. If you knew her you'd know that that wasn't her in the > slightest. Sorry for exaggerating. I'll tone it down next time. Like > saying something like "it took 10 seconds to call roll in the FZ > course room. ;) Fair enough, XXXX. I agree, 300 is a damn big course. Paul






Message 957 Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:42 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Nip Tuck --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXX wrote: > > > [XXXX] But one can get the same sensation without sex, > > >from other create-type actions. > > [XXX] See, I just didn't know. > > > > Tell me some of the create type actions that will > > provide me with the same sensation. > > [XXXX] Being OT, you can figure that one out, TB. wriggle, wriggle.... :) I wondered how you were going to get out of that one, XXXX. I tend to side with her on this. Surely the "same sensation[s]" are impossible to duplicate outside of sex, although higher harmonics are attainable. There's an interesting write-up on Wilhem Reich at http://www.orgonelab.org/wrhistory.htm Although he is probably best known--in circles where he is known at all--for his work on Orgone, his focus was often on sex, producing such books as "The Function of the Orgasm". I had a book of his containing various essays, and I remember reading about his ideas on how valuable the orgasm was in discharging ridges (very roughly). At the time I discounted this area of his work. However, recently I was looking over "Hands of Light" by Barbara Ann Brennan. I quoted from it a couple of months back that little drill on perceiving the human energy field by holding the fingers a few inches apart with arms outstretched. The author was a physicist at NASA before getting into perceiving and manipulating various manifestations of the human energy field, and her two books are generally nuts-and-bolts practical ones rather than being full of airy-fairy esoteric gossamer nothings that one cannot satisfactorily grasp. Anyway, I will quote a couple of relevant paragraphs on one of the chakras (these are energy vortexes that facilitate energy exchange between the human energy field(s) and others): "The pubic center (chakra 2A) is related to the quality of love for the opposite sex that the person is able to have. When it is open, it facilitates giving and receiving sexual and physicl pleasure. If this center is open, the person will probably enjoy sexual intercourse and probably be orgasmic. However, full body orgasm requires that all centers be open. "The sacral center (chakra 2B) is related to the quantity of sexual energy of a person. With this center open, a person feels his sexual power. If he blocks this particular chakra, whatever sexual force and potency he has will be weak and disappointing. He will probably not have much sexual drive, tend to avoid sex and disclaim its importance and pleasure, resulting in under-nourishment in that area. Since the orgasm bathes the body in life energy, the body will not be nourished in this way, and it will not receive the psychological nourishment of communion and body contact with another. ... "For the great majority of humanity, the sexual energy moves through, charges and discharges in orgasm through these two sexual chakras. This movement revitalizes and cleanses the body with an energy bath. It rids the body system of clogged energy, waste products and deep tension. Sexual orgasm is important for the physical well-being of the person." There is a lot more, including more on the spiritual aspects, the Tantric tradition, and so forth, that I am omitting. Anyway, coming soon, Paul's Robot .... Paul http://www.fzglobal.org






Message 954 Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:33 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: LRH on Cancer --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > Can you direct me to anything LRH wrote on Cancer? > > A friend of mine has skin cancer and a tumor in her spine, but has > refused chemotherapy and drugs. > > We are working together using Emotional Freedom Technique but I am > looking for information from all sources, and I have found Scientology > useful in the past. > > (Any advice will be interpreted as opinions and not medical advice) > > Thanks in advance, By all means have the subject addressed in auditing, or study up on what LRH said about it. But take a look at the statistics of Scientologists who have addressed it mainly with auditing and not also with physical remedies. I recall a friend with a cancer-afflicted friend trying to tell me that cancer was caused by some second-dynamic aberration that LRH had written about (I don't recall the quote). My response to her, trying to be non-critical of LRH's blanket assignment of cause here, was along the lines of: "Well, maybe it is, but I have never seen that data *used* in such a way as to benefit the patient significantly". I can't point to exact figures, but I know that if it were me diagnosed with cancer and I had unlimited access to top notch auditors and C/Ses to address the cancer situation (and not general bridge progress) I would certainly get some auditing to take as much charge off the subject or body parts as possible, rapidly. But then I would say thank you very much, now can you guys help me with this physical treatment? That would go for other non-physical healing modalities too, not just auditing. By physical treatment I mean things addressing the body directly, whatever your research indicates as best to you. I'm a Hulda Clark fan myself, but each to his own. Paul






Message 952 Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:11 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Session with Robot Auditor Hi XXXX, Great! I will respond below your points. --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi Paul > > Very interesting!! > I did a 'real session' with the RO-AU. > > Beside noting my success with it - which I certainly had!! I will mention a few things that I noticed: > > First comes the long intro - too long for me the 2nd time through! > I would suggest to make a possibility, where all these things are on one page you can just read through as a reminder... > But this is not important. > Anyway I noted down the Website address where the things starts for real - and will in future go directly to the 'tits' > [link] and suck from there... The pre-session pages are written, not spoken. It only takes a few seconds to click through them. I deliberately did not provide a "quick link" to the start-of-session page as it is important to have the pre-session points in and if one can easily bypass the pages there could be a tendency to skip being sessionable too. > Note: Discharge can ALSO be laughing, (sometimes, when something > is highly charged, laughing and screaming can alternate) - and does > not necesseraly indicate that the thing is now flat. Not at all! > > The repeating of the command 'touch the physical universe > firmly' (I did run it with voice - which seems to give a good > impact) came a bit as 'forced in a new unit of time' - I first > thought it was my computer making the mistake of repeating it.... :-)) > Anyway I got used to it. That command only repeats on the "shutting down" (going anaten) screen. There is just a single command on the other hav screens. My thought was that it would help keep someone awake if they were *really* anaten. You can shut off the repeat by clicking the red X (stop) icon on your browser. > If you start 'shutting down' - I did not understand what was > meant first. If you can think of a couple of non-Scn English words that mean "going anaten" and are more expressive than "shutting down", I'm happy to change it. > After some discharge took place - for 3 times - no more > discharge was happening and I clicked 'Null' for the first time. > The page coming up (with a lot of explanations) did then not > make sense to me (not applicable to my situation). I reworded it to make it more clear. I changed that choice from "Null" to "Null (= No Discharge)". You clicked the wrong choice, which is why the instructions you saw were not applicable. > I am not yet comfortable somehow (but can't yet explain it > really) with the commands I have to click. I had to study which one > was applicable (this is either/or/and: my non familiaryty with it - > or there could be a whole of a command set with more inheritant > logic. This is no critic - I am not sure what I am pointing at > there.... > > Sometimes in between I thought, if I would do this alone, I > would now do some havingness. Perhaps this should be given as an > option. > Optional havingness was already given in the procedure. See http://www.fzglobal.org/robot_audio1/above.html I wrote a few more words in the instructions that weren't there before. But it is not as free-form as the Yawn Machine. When you really know what you are doing, the Yawn Machine is better as it gives you more control. The structure is more rigid in Paul's Robot Auditor deliberately. > General remark: To have a RobotAuditor somehow helps to bring up > the most spontaneous response, as there is seemingly no one there > before whom to have to justify it...not a real auditor - and not > even oneself as the auditor...So it is easier to trick oneself in > beeing straight and spontaneous, as it 'doesn't matter anyway'.... :-)) > > The tech seems to really work fine. Going back to doing > havingness everytime a command can not be executed does indeed bring > the command to work (reminds me of TROM). > > I had a LOT of discharge going on and needed a LOT of havingness. > > (And my TA came nicely down - I put the Meter beside it on the > Screen, leaving only the right side of the RO-AU on the left side of > my screen). > > I took up the item of not beeing happy with my progress at the > moment - I am on the T4r list and can see the difference there > between me and the leading people... I came to my days in school, > where I was allways in the position of 'having to catch up'. These > Schooldays were heavily charged. Very heavy. > I got most of it - but somehow I ended the process a bit too > early - after about 1h. > > I feel, there is a cog behind it I have not yet gotten. So I will go in once more on the same subject. I now feel a bit tired, but very very relaxed. A lot of charge away. > > I do have a general question so: > This kind of processing is obviously very much work. > Let me ask a stupid question: is this necessary??? > > I am not convinced it is. > I know, that running an incident narrative (Book 1), is much heavier, than running it R3R. > And running the same thing with some SCN tech is again much easier. > So running the same thing on a higher level could resolve it > perhaps much easier (no need to go into every thing. I am not > looking at all the cells dying continuosly and routinely in my > body ... also). Is all the hard work necessary? Well, I can't think of a better way of doing it--I'm open to all suggestions. Whatever you come up with, for my purposes it would have to fit into the framework of being self-contained and self-explanatory to a non-Scientologist and able to get charge off pretty much anything the pc comes up with, from the bottom of the bridge right up to the top. I want a Robot Auditor, that will do the above, that can be made available to anyone on the planet with a computer of moderate power and capability. This way it becomes possible to reach hundreds of millions of people and enable them to improve their lives by handling charge on whatever is real to them and they want to address. It will never replace a trained auditor with a meter, on the spot and able to take the pc into session. But there aren't a hundred million auditors available, while there could easily be a hundred million copies of Paul's Robot Auditor (including translations) available. > On the other side, if the charge is so easily availbale - better > get rid of it? > I am not sure about this. I think so. If charge is available and there's an easy way available to get rid of it, why hang on to it as if it were precious? And if seems like it IS precious, time for some havingness! Paul






Message 959 Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:43 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Addition to my session with the ROBOT-AUDITOR --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi Paul > > In re to my session, what comes in my mind, is: > > If I get a big charge on something this lifetime (very big) - the charge very probably is NOT from this LT. > > So just going on with the RO-AU Tech, means, the possibility to go near and see, what it really IS - is not given. True one is only handling the charge as a package - not as-ising the incident. But this package should still - in my estimation - contain the 'first of this kind of charge' - otherwise it is grinding. > > So I have now two questions about the tech used in the RO-AU: > > 1st: Shouldn't there be the possibillity to go earlier, if id does not resolve fast...? Take the earliest beginning of this charge and put it in the package...or something like that. In other words: more like the real R3X... :-)) > > 2nd: Is it really the right tech, to just stay on the level of the mass and not go into significance? If I would look, what was the significance for me in re to this charge, and may be look at the SF involved and the Goals - and perhaps merge the main polarities involved, it would bring me to a key out or as-ising and cognition much faster. > > Anyway: I will go on with a seccond session exactly in the same way - following the instructions. > And we will see. > > XXXX Hi XXXX, Re going earlier, I'll quote from the instructions in the text version. The audio/graphics version does not have as many instructions as the text version, which is why the pc is advised to run through the text version first and read all the instructions. "All right. You are now putting this overall idea to the right of you. You can include real or imaginary efforts, and emotions, and thoughts, if you wish, those of others as well as your own. Others' viewpoints are fine as long as they seem relevant to you. If it seems like one or more incidents are coming from a past life, that is fine, no problem, toss them into the mix. Just as long as it is relevant to the subject you have chosen, anything is fine. Don't try and run your whole life in one session--there can be other sessions. Keep to the exact same overall subject that you started with until it is fully discharged before taking up another area. It is OK if the overall idea has changed from the last time you put it out there, or some aspect of it seems more important or less important than it did before." There is no R3R, no Dianetics, no running through incidents in the Robot Auditor procedure. This is not R3X, although it does include the 6-direction process in it. It is not possible to incorporate R3R into the Robot Auditor procedure. If you are running through incidents as in Dianetics while doing the Robot Auditor, then you are not following the instructions! I'm not saying you can't benefit from solo Dianetics, just that it isn't part of the Robot Auditor instructions, and I would look on it as mixing practices! The Robot Auditor instructions allow you to address individual incidents, including earlier similars, including past lives, even including factors that may be imaginary (this allows the pc to add in things like entities, past lives, angels, whatever, that in fact are contributing to the charge but the pc can't analytically understand what's going on or doesn't want to assert that some crazy thing is true). The addressing of incidents is in putting them out there, one or many copies, and looking at whatever aspects of them seem important, but not in sequentially running through them from beginning to end. Handling significance gets tricky. C/S Series 6 covers the C/S's target. I set up the procedure to use obvious physical indicators only, otherwise the pc can get lost in figure-figure and spend an hour thinking and thinking and get no charge off at all. Personally, I usually get cogs and find postulates from incidents while running through the procedure, without looking for significances specifically. Paul's Robot Auditor does not replace all auditing. It doesn't replace the Grade Chart. I don't know if it can be used to address and resolve GPMs or polarities directly. My main target is the lower end of the bridge, people who have had no auditing whatsoever. There are six billion of them on this planet! Billions will never be sessionable, and clean running water would do more for them than a robot auditor. But that still leaves hundreds of millions who could benefit. I think it's pretty damn good that people like me can usefully use it too to get charge off. I believe the main therapeutic part of it at this level (you, me) is the creative processing part, with the hav just in there to give enough puff to allow the creative processing to get off the charge. Who knows what the limits are? Paul






Message 958 Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:12 pm [XSO] [Re body weight loss at moment of death] [In response to a question on documentation] MacDougall D. "Hypothesis concerning soul substance together with experimental evidence of such substance". American Medicine 1907;13:240–3. There is a copy of the paper here: http://www.ghostweb.com/soul.html LRH's comment, from the Phoenix Lectures, was: "A thetan is very, very close to being a pure Static. He has practically no wavelength. Actually a thetan is in a very, very small amount of mass. From some experiments conducted about fifteen or twenty years ago--a thetan weighed about 1.5 ounces! Who made these experiments? Well, a doctor made these experiments. He weighed people before and after death, retaining any mass. He weighed the person, bed and all, and he found that the weight dropped at the moment of death about 1.5 ounces and some of them 2 ounces. (Those were heavy thetans.)" Paul






Message 960 Sun Nov 19, 2006 6:36 pm [XSO] [re the weight of a thought] [in response to mass/energy equivalents being used to quantify thoughts in usual physics terms] I can't get much mileage out of the idea of a thought weighing a billionth of pound being in some way equivalent to 40,000 Joules. But it did remind me of some thoughts I had regarding Bearden's work. One of his points is that any dipole extracts energy from the vacuum. Just put search terms into Google like ***dipole vacuum bearden***. Or see for example: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/vacprob1.htm I wonder sometimes if that is the actual mechanism behind mental charge, i.e. a thetan (on an automaticity) mentally creating and holding dipoles. For example, if one is protesting something, there are ideas of different potentials or polarities there. If there is no protest, there will be no charge: "If rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it", and all that. Paul






Message 955 Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:05 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Nip Tuck and 2d --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > One tends to forget that the body is a life form on its own. It is a > mammal. A member of the higher ape family. It has eating and mating > habits which the thetan has to adapt to. We obtain sensations from > the body. It has an evolutionary history which is not the same as the > devolutionary history of the thetan. (tongue in cheek) Doll bodies > never ate or had sex. :) > > We have altered the procreational sexual dynamic of the ape to a > recreational one. This is assuming that man's current body form is a direct evolutionary descendant of some member(s) of the ape family. I dispute evolution as a valid overall mechanism. "Evolution" and "Creationism" together do not encompass all possibilities: indeed, neither one makes a whole lot of sense. "Evolution" might make a neat theory, but there is a marked lack of physical evidence for it. Pick your own holes in Creationism. Or not. As for man's body form, as well as evolution, one really should read this essay by Lloyd Pye, "The Literal Creation of Mankind": http://www.lloydpye.com/A-Literal.htm The book he refers to covers such things as: ***** If you are interested, you can actually read the entire book online. Just change the page number at the end of the link here as needed: http://books.iuniverse.com/viewgiftoc.asp?isbn=0595127495&page=1 [Note--this worked at the time of posting but doesn't always] That first page shows the table of contents. Paul






Message 962 Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:34 pm [XSO] [re blindly accepting LRH's data] [In response to someone quoting what LRH said in response to something I had written] Yeah, I'm familiar with LRH's ideas on the subject. A while ago I tried to stop blindly accepting everything he wrote. That doesn't mean I automatically discount everything he wrote, either. Some of his teachings make perfect sense. Some are wacko. A great deal of it I don't have enough corroborative evidence to have an informed opinion about beyond "Ron said it so that must be the way it is". Paul






Message 963 Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:39 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Nip Tuck --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > It is definitely a "Provisional" Class IV Midget, XXXX. Oh, I don't know. Half of the above is permanent. Paul






Message 965 Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:48 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: My R3X experience --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > XXXX,Paul, > Telepathy? > I`m not saying it isn`t,but wouldn`t an NLP practitioner say it is a > form of "Pacing"? > And wouldn`t it be better PR to call it Pacing or something > similar,and explai how it works,rather than calling it telepathy,even if you > believe it is telepathy? > XXXX That is the first time I have seen the word "pacing" in the NLP sense. I have never studied NLP. I just spent a few minutes now reading about pacing. It seems dishonest to me, less than open, and for that reason I don't like it. I don't care if others have found it effective in handling people to do what they want. It's like doing TR-9: I can do it but find it offensive as it violates the other's self-determinism, even if such violation could be considered to the other's benefit. The articles on telepathy linked on the R3X checksheet, mostly by Robert with one by myself, explain it as best we can (it's the best I can do, anyway. If Robert is holding back I don't know about it). We use the language we are familiar with--they were all written with a Scientology audience in mind. I have thought of translating the whole R3X thing into non-Scientology terms, but I haven't started on the project as it is a huge cycle involving not only the R3X checksheet and associated materials but all the pre-requisites and the assumed understandings that go into them too. If you can explain telepathy better than is done there, please do so in a post. If it *is* better, I will read it with rapt attention. Paul






Message 961 Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:12 pm [XSO][Re Chris Grout] He was auditing at ITO for many years around 1990. He had married Sylvia Collins, daughter of Lyn Collins from SH. I used to play Bridge (card game) with Sylvia in the early 70s, and she was the RPF's RPF MAA and audited my leaving sec check in 1996. Chris had remarried, a girl in CMO IXU called Jenny Roper. Sylvia too to Richard Crundall, son of Dawn Crundall (also UK). Since people are posting lists, I've had a list of 681 HGB staff from around 1994 posted on my FZ site for a couple of years: http://www.fzglobal.org/hgbstaff1994.htm Maybe I'll try a "people I remember from 1972-1985 at Saint Hill" list. Interesting mental exercise. Then again, maybe I won't! Paul






Message 964 Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:45 pm [XSO] [re weight of a thetan] [In response to a link to a counterpoint article re McDougall's work at: http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp and also a comment about LRH's quotes being scientific] I read the "rebuttal" (my word, not yours). As McDougall noted, the experiment should be repeated, but I don't consider it wholly without value. As for *what* a positive result would show, though, I wouldn't care to state with certainty. As a course sup, that LRH quote was one of the main ones I used when people wanted to know the difference between a static and a thetan. The other main quote was in the basic auditing series about the magic of communication and the thetan considering himself MEST, etc. I had two main purposes in showing students such quotes. One was to enlighten them (in my estimation at the time). The other was to satisfy them (in their own estimation) that their query had been answered fully so they could happily get on with their course. It never bothered me if a student disagreed with something LRH wrote. I would try very hard to duplicate the student's point of view. Sometimes I could see that he hadn't understood what the text said, so I needed to clear up what he didn't get, whatever that took. If I could see that he did understand it, but disagreed for some reason, that was fine with me. I never considered it my job to instill slavish belief--quite the reverse, in fact. There were few enough students who dared to originate disagreement--it was quite refreshing when one would, with what I could accept as a valid disagreement (i.e. based on the student's thinking for himself and not some m/u). Whoever put the "Is there anything in ___ that you disagree with?" question in the Method 4 procedure and demanded a rote handling on a "yes" answer did not base it on the study tapes (re importance of the student's power of choice over accepting or rejecting data). Nowadays, I am much more choosy about what to accept from LRH. But I sometimes still find myself operating from an idea I just absorbed whole from LRH without bothering to inspect it for myself. Twenty or twenty-five years of studying millions of words of data on life, the universe and everything through a filter of "This is from LRH so it is almost certainly correct" leaves its toll on one's thought processes and accumulated mental database. Paul






Message 976 Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:14 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: To Paul - short note about Ro[b]by --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > 6-Direction above head does not work - so I go to making havingness. > In doing havingness I have discharge. I klick 'discharge' - do this several times. > Next time I click null (no discharge, as it is flat) and expect to try it again over the head. But the next things that comes now, is to stir up the subjecvt. > I guess there is missing the 'flat' beside 'discharge' and 'null' ?? > > XXXX Thank you very much for finding this error, XXXX. It should be fixed now. I had set the "Discharge" button to click through to the wrong page. Please do continue to post any more errors you find! This is what beta testing is all about (free help when the software maker screws up and hasn't noticed). Paul






Message 966 Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:31 am [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Life-Repair Process -- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > If you are willing to experiment and take the risk - being keyed in for some time, perhaps a few days, if things go wrong - you could also try to work with the Robot Auditor on it. > > I will later write something about it - here only so much: some people will be able to work with it quite easily, but others will have too much things restimulated with this method IMO, and even if the session goes very well - more BPC (byepassed charge) will be present than in a 'normal session'. > > Once you have learned what LIfe Repair IS and how to do it, you > could combine it with the Robot Auditor. Paul might protest, because > the Robot-Auditor works with 'What has to be adressed in this > moment' and is not thought for auditing on a 'program'. But Im sure > this can be done. > > The best - by far the best way for handling case fast and > professionally - would of course be, to find an auditor. I agree with the last paragraph--a properly trained and available auditor with a meter is far better than the other options. However, often one is reduced to the less-than-ideal choices in life. I don't know what Mark has in mind re combining Life Repair with Paul's Robot Auditor. The technique in Paul's Robot Auditor is very specific, although it can be applied to many, many different subjects. If you try and use a different technique, it is no longer Paul's Robot Auditor: maybe John's Robot Auditor or Sarah's Robot Auditor, but not Paul's. It's included in the instructions (read the text version as well as the audio/graphics version) to start the session with something in mind to address, if you wish. It can be a good idea. The problem is that one has to parallel the mind and the case of the person going into session at that moment. A cookie-cutter approach will not necessarily be correct, although it may be. If one has decided to take charge off a bad car accident, for instance, but one's attention is much more tied up in cheating with a friend's spouse, it's not going to work out too well. You might find it useful to borrow from Robert Ducharme's Lifetime Clearing in R3X. He audits this as a routine action. It is covered in Section 2 of the R3X checksheet here: http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/R3XChecksheetV.htm Note that, again, this is not a beginner's checksheet, and many technical terms are given without explanation, it being assumed that the reader/student knows what they mean. Anyway, transposing R3X Lifetime Clearing into use with Paul's Robot Auditor ("Roby" for short), one would: 1. First, get accustomed to using Roby, by taking up some specific incident or series of incidents. Use incident(s) you consciously recall; it's OK if you don't remember all (or even most) of the details. But don't take up something you were told happened but don't personally remember. If your attention is strongly on something, like the argument you just had with your wife, or the money you just "borrowed" from your employer, or whatever, take that up before anything else, even if it means not getting through your intended programme. The reason is that it ain't going to work to try and address something else if you are fixated on this recent item. 2. OK, so now you know how it works, and your attention isn't all tied up in paying back the loan shark before tomorrow noon. Next, take a chunk of years, say from birth to your tenth birthday. Use Roby's procedure on that time period. If a specific incident or series of similar incidents leaps to the fore, then reduce that. Then take up the ten-year period again and you'll find another specific incident or series of similar incidents will predominate. So take the charge off that area. Then back to the first ten-year period again, and so on. Eventually, no specific incidents will stick up any more, and you'll be able to flatten the whole ten year period. This will take more than one session! That's fine. End off each session at a good point, then pick up next session where you left off, when you feel like auditing again. 3. Now take the next ten-year period and treat it similarly. 4. And so on, up to present time. The reason for starting at birth and coming forward, rather than starting at present time and working back, is that later incidents often have earlier-similars, and it is cleaner this way. 5. You can then take the ten-year chunks and address them by flows. Flow 1, another to self, things happening to you; Flow 2, self to another or others, things you caused to happen to another or others; Flow 3, another or others to themselves or others, things you observed but didn't personally cause; Flow 0, self to self, things you caused to happen to yourself. You will probably find more stuff pops up that you hadn't seen before. Just handle it in exactly the same way. If nothing comes up for a particular flow in a particular time period, that's fine, don't worry about it. You don't have to use ten years. You can use "The nearly five years I lived in Cambodia" if you wish. Just break your life up into bite- sized chunks, not too large, not too small, your choice. *********** Then you're done with it. If you bang through the above, probably taking maybe ten or twenty or thirty hours total, you could well consider that you have completed a "Life Repair": You will have addressed your entire life to date and taken off all the available charge (available by that method, anyway). All the major incidents, all the major people, all the major places. It sounds good to me! Paul Roby available 24/7 http://fzglobal.org/robot






Message 974 Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:56 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Sex and survival --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXX wrote: > > > > XXXX wrote: > > > > Besides, the > > greatest particle is admiration, if memory serves me correctly. > > > > And if memory serves me, isn't love a combination of admiration > and repsect? > > Reference? > > XXXX. > > > > XXX. My turn to mosey down Main Street in VerbalTechsville: My recall is that love was described as being a mixture of admiration and sympathy, and for a demonstration alternate rapidly between holding those two concepts in relation to some subject in order to rapidly turn on a strong "love" for that subject. I couldn't find a reference. The data originally came from a flier mailed to me in the US from AOSHUK. It was a quote from a tape, but I don't know which tape. One reference that ties together sympathy and love is this: Tape lecture 30 Aug 1950, Preventive Dianetics: "The repeater phrase, 'I love you,' gets the PC into a sympathy engram." The admiration element seems self-evident. Paul






Message 973 Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:37 pm [XSO] [Re DM's SP Declare] [In response to a suggestion that an SP Declare be written on DM , and that maybe I would host it on my website] There was an SP Declare done on David Miscavige in 1984. It's easy enough to find if you Google for it. I guess it could be updated if someone thinks it worth the effort. I don't think I would host one on my website, XXXX. There are plenty of critical sites around. Paul






Message 972 Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:55 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: My R3X experience --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Wonder if you and Paul are doing a "NLP = NLP practitioner or > writer." I don't even know enough about NLP to do an A=A=A on it, beyond a vague idea that it addresses the mind rather than, say, something one does in the gym or with a karaoke machine. I don't think it is valuable. I don't think it is worthless. I don't think with it at all. It's not part of my database apart from what the letters stand for; what I wrote above; the little I read about "pacing"; and the fact that a guy I don't know called XXXX keeps going on about it! Paul






Message 981 Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:23 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Life-Repair Process --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Thanks Paul for all this! > > Yes - for me it was - from your text in the Roby - not clear at first, that there are 2 versions and that the first version should be read first. > You give the choice to start and then just underneath, to start > with Sound - and as nothing is written, that the soundless version > is much more in details, I went to the seccond choice directly. > > Re your suggestion I will have something to say - but just now > have to leave for 4 days... > > Back soon! > XXXX Thanks for making that point, XXXX. I have changed a pre-session page to stress the sequence one should follow, i.e. don't start with the audio/graphics version. Paul






Message 980 Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:53 pm [XSO] [re speaking out] I have a comment on laying low and not being visible, in case some OSA lurker reports the fact and one might become inconvenienced or harassed or whatever. About a year ago I posted here and elsewhere some messages on what I considered the best way to dethrone DM, based on Milgram's conclusions from his famous experiment on obedience to authority even when the orders being obeyed were clearly harmful. The first is: http://www.fzglobal.org/w0700-0750.htm#736 I haven't changed my opinion on this in the year since I wrote it. Part of my solution--based on the Milgram data--included people ceasing to hide and coming out into the open. And the more the merrier. Yes, it is true that some few critics have been harassed by the CofS. But it is a small number. Personally I found the results of openly posting my thoughts to e- mail groups and a website very uplifting and empowering in a de- PTSing way. I got declared for it and lost a few comm lines, but gained many more in their place. And real friends instead of the part-time ones. To date I have not received one single piece of harassment from the CofS. (I don't count getting declared, or snarly thoughts). There can be very good reasons for not posting openly. But in my opinion, the more people who openly defy DM, even in something as small as this, the nearer his demise as the CofS decision-maker. Paul






Message 967 Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:06 am [FreezoneOrg] Re: Sex, Pain and correction lists --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXX wrote: > > > The Green green form is I believe the > > primary handling tool for OT 3 on up. > > Actually, the LDN is the valid correction list for OT 3 and New OT IV. > NOTs has it's own correction list. The Green Green Form had a specific > purpose as covered on the Class VIII course and would be C/Sed for use, > as opposed to the auditor (or solo auditor) using the proper correction > list (in this case, the LDN) when needed in session, per HCOB Prepared > Lists, Their Use and Value. > > XXXX Did the LDN instructions get revised, XXXX? The last time I saw them, the GGF (Revised) was the solo OT3 correction list that could also be used in review, and the LDN OT III RB was for review only, and never, ever done solo. Although who knows what those squirrels in the FZ will get up to. Paul






Message 968 Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:23 pm [FreezoneOrg] Re: Day to day life --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I think Freezoners are better off forming "real" (6th and other dynamic) 3rd dynamics. Actually getting together and doing stuff where possible. Too many folks complain about "There's no auditors near me" and stuff, and they get tempted into all kinds of squirreling or just stop reaching for the tech. Chatting here is nice, but it's even better when people actually coordinate and make plans and come together to start doing Scientology. The resources and the comm lines are here for us to utilize. > > ARC, > -XXXX Let's take a look at some options here. It seems to me there is a gradient scale of choices for someone who firmly believes in the value of the tech, from the ideal right down to the pits. Somewhere near the top would be living in a Scn-based community doing Scn 24 hours a day, helping others and yourself with the tech. And somewhere near the bottom would be not having any communication with others of like mind and never doing anything with the tech. There probably wouldn't be too much disagreement over the top and bottom areas, in a theoretical sense. When reality intrudes, we often have factors like a dearly-loved non-Scn spouse, or family members who cannot be abandoned, or various obligations we consider must be carried out. It would be best to get all your auditing and training from top-flight experts. For a very few, that is a reality. For the rest of us comes the question of compromise. This is where the intervening points of this scale come in: Which points belong higher on the scale and which belong lower, or indeed, do they belong on the scale at all? (I'm not showing an actual scale here). Which is better: getting "auditing" from your non-Scn wife who loves you and is willing to help you out, or getting auditing over the phone from someone who's been doing it for twenty years with a very high success rate? How about trying to solo audit the grades; versus trying to get them over the Internet using a C-meter (pc holding the cans, remote auditor seeing the reads, pc and auditor visible and speaking to each other via some webcam arrangement)? Or getting auditing from your new husband who was once a Class IV but hasn't audited in twenty years on a Mark V that kinda works apart from that dead spot; versus getting auditing from someone who was never formally trained but who audits a lot and sometimes get good results when she's not drinking? Or getting training by yourself from a highly-experienced professional Course Sup and classed auditor but over the Internet; versus you and your partner trying to do it yourselves from the original materials but with no sup at all. None of the last eight situations is standard; none is as good as doing it properly. The question is: Is doing it to some extent correctly better, or worse, than not doing it at all? It is all very well to look down loftily and say there is only one way to do it and that is to do it *perfectly*, but let's be real. How many people consider that they are not able to change their circumstances so they can do it perfectly, and instead are left with the "only other option" of doing NOTHING? Paul






Message 970 Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:24 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Lifetime Relief by Creative Yawning "Creative Yawning" is an overall name for the techniques used in The Yawn Machine and Paul's Robot Auditor. It includes ample havingness per the existing write-ups. "Lifetime Relief" is a (pilot) procedure for use by anyone, whether new to auditing or an old hand. An old hand should not in theory find much to run, but you might be surprised. I was. The purpose of Lifetime Relief is to take charge off the major things in a person's life, the people, the places, the events, whatever the pc's attention is tied up in. It would include any prior this-lifetime auditing as a matter of course. It is somewhat similar to Lifetime Clearing in R3X. I changed the name for two reasons: One, to differentiate it from R3X; and secondly because I think "Lifetime Clearing" is an overstatement of what can be achieved with similar procedures, miraculous as the results may be. It is more of a low-level process than a high-level process, in that it can be done by a pc with a comparatively low reality. It does not require a prior reality on spiritual existence, as in past lives or connections with other entities. However, it is not exclusively a lower-level process, in that awareness of these spiritual factors does not preclude getting good gains from it. Indeed, it seems to me to be an altered sequence to be a addressing entity connections beyond Arcturus (say) while still being hung up in the loss of getting dumped by some past love, or whatever. Obvious case pre-requisites would be not in the middle of some ongoing action, and not out-ruds. I would not call an incomplete auditing action from twenty years ago an "ongoing action". But if one's attention is heavily tied up in such an action, it can always be addressed with Creative Yawning first to clean it up, before embarking on Lifetime Relief. Overview: one breaks up one's life into bite-sized chunks, maybe of around five or ten years each. The chunks can run by the calendar, as in "from 1st January 1970 to 31st December 1979", or by description, as in "the several years I lived in Kansas", as long as it is clear what is intended. The idea is to cover the whole of this lifetime from birth to PT. For this example, I'll use the calendar, and someone born on 5 July 1982. First, take the period from 5 Jul 82 to 31 Dec 89. Get an idea of the main people, places and events from that time period and run Creative Yawning on it. Different aspects of one's life will flicker through, and most likely one's attention will fix on a particular terminal or event. Zoom in on that particular factor and take the charge off it using the regular Creative Yawning procedure. When it is discharged, take up that general period again- -flick, flick, flick--and another aspect will draw one's attention. Zoom in on that one aspect, discharge it as usual, then zoom out and look at the general overall time period of that chunk again. And so on until no aspect of that entire chunk of one's life sticks one's attention any more. This may take one session, or it may take many sessions. Then take the chunk from 1 Jan 90 to 31 Dec 99. Address it as above. Then from 1 Jan 2000 to PT. After addressing one's life generally, one can address it by flows: Flow 1, Flow 2, Flow 3, Flow 0. There may be other useful ways of compartmenting one's life like this. I will write further posts on this subject when I have done further research. One thing that comes up with more aware pcs is the subject of past lives. Birth is OK as a starting point for a new pc, and it is not a problem if he can't remember anything earlier than age six, but someone who has recalled many past lives might be tempted to start earlier. My advice is to try and keep to the overall C/S programme of addressing this-lifetime events. There's nothing wrong with wanting to address, say, the between-lives area, but recognise that it would be a Q&A to go exploring there while doing this programme and you can always take it up later. So let's say that one has resisted the temptation to go diving earlier than birth at the outset. But after a few sessions one is maybe addressing an event at age 15 and suddenly some past-life factor comes into play. It is OK to include it in the Creative Yawning procedure, as whatever comes up is whatever comes up. That event or terminal, with whatever past-life earlier similars poke their way in, should discharge relatively easily and one can then continue with the chunk of this lifetime that one is addressing. Running as in Dianetics, i.e. from the beginning of a period of time until the end of that period of time, is no part of the Creative Yawning procedure. One zooms in on whatever item comes to the fore while addressing a particular overall period of time. It may be later in time than the last thing that came up, or it may be earlier. The case stacks up however it stacks up, and whatever presents itself to be run next is whatever presents itself. I have been running this Lifetime Relief by Creative Yawning on myself for the past couple of weeks. It has been a surprise to find charge coming off, as I thought I had cleaned up this lifetime already in over 500 hours of Dianetics and Grades. I'll write more when I have more. Paul http://www.yawnmachine.com http://fzglobal.org/robot






Message 978 Fri Dec 15, 2006 4:11 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Lifetime Relief by Creative Yawning --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Thanks for this, Paul! > > There is not much I can say to it. The Principle is tempting - > but how well it works for beginners we will have to see. > > I would like to try it out with someone who is not only new to > all this, but who we would probably have to call an E-Level being. > > At the moment I try to coach him through TR0 - and he goes to > sleep every time... And as I have only one or two hrs a week..... > Well - we will see. I have to get him through, its biting, and I am > not going to change the 'C/S' now. > > The other thing so, that you still had charge on this life > items' - is not surprising for me in the least. Things that happened > to us this lifetime are 'entrance points' to the case. > Going over them on LR is only a very superficious key-out. > Even if you R3R it as per LRH you create the connected NOTs > Case...LOL > and even if the NOTs Case is handled you have not yet handled > the underlaying 'Absolutes' - the riding of the primal Urges behind > it... > > Cheers > XXXX It is true that I have no information on new people doing this, but the idea obviously came from Lifetime Clearing in Robert's R3X. And there is a great deal of experience there of its usefulness and success with new people. It is just an application of the usual Creative Yawning procedure, nothing particularly new involved. Since it works well with me, because of the above parallels, I predict it will work well with pretty much anyone who is up to following the instructions exactly. As for the other stuff, I never had a Life Repair as such, but I have spent those hundreds of hours of R3R and Grades, mostly addressing this-lifetime incidents. Paul






Message 969 Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:38 am [AdvancedFreezone] Bye Bye "Body Thetans" Are "body thetans" just chakra cords? I've been wondering this for a year or two. Hubbard makes little mention of chakras or the human energy field(s) and meridian system, although he does talk about "anchor points". Several times I have quoted from the two books of Barbara Ann Brennan, who graduated from being a NASA physicist to a healer and then running her own school of healing. Her works explain very well what is going on with the human energy field(s) and chakras and chakra cords, but curiously omit any mention of other beings inhabiting the body. Both researchers are unusually perceptive in their own fields. That each would be more or less completely unaware of such significant phenomena is unlikely. More likely is that they saw these phenomena in terms of their own systems and classified them accordingly. And quite frankly, Brennan's version makes more sense and does not require the sci-fi concepts (including Inc 2 and Inc 1) that inspire so much ridicule on the Internet. Indeed, the concept of chakra cords or strings, the connections of golden light between beings with or without bodies that form and dissolve (and get messed up in various ways) as a natural part of social interaction, is long- standing. It is quite interesting to view the BT/Cluster paradigm in this light. The Pilot's "Point to the being you separated from" command takes on new meaning and its usefulness is explained well. Brennan's two books are "Hands of Light" and "Light Emerging". I find her field interesting, but a healer works pretty much on a passive patient. The patient has to be willing to be treated, but unlike Scn and related fields does not contribute significantly to the action. I prefer empowering people over merely fixing them. These chakra connections can be beneficially addressed as such with Creative Yawning, of course. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org






Message 982 Sat Dec 16, 2006 6:44 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Bye Bye "Body Thetans" --- In AdvancedFreeZone@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Hi Paul > > I do not agree. here you are really confusing things. > > Watch it: there are 2 different directions: up toward Higher Self - and 'down' toward Lower Self ('lower' is in fact a wrong expression, it's 'the other side up'). > > You tend to negiate the Spiritual. The 'yawning' is not for spiritual Benefit - it is to gain more peace for the Body. > > I tried again and again to communicate that to you - but you didn't understand this point so far. (But processiong CAN also be done through the body - it's just not the same purpose behind). > > Here is, what is in my WHOAT about BT's etc. > > Have fun. > > XXXX Hi XXXX, Remember I can understand a different point of view without agreeing with it, or someone insisting on it. I don't see a two-state existence here, with something being either "physical" or "spiritual". There is a gradient scale of interconnection. High-level intentions can manifest in the physical universe via various systems (one can easily move a body around, for instance, especially one's own). I look at another person and see their physical body. I also often see some of the denser parts of the multi-layer flickering aura around that body. Does that count as "physical" or "spiritual" in your system? If I audit my Creative Yawning procedure on a topic including other people, I often include their spiritual aspects (aura, their spiritual connections etc.) too. My attention on these spiritual aspects produces yawns in my body. How is this some form of degraded body-oriented physical action? The point I usually leave off is being blown out, not able to audit anything more at that time, with the topic being handled at that time. On whether it is a key-out or erasure, I can only say that I have never felt the need to re-address the things I have addressed before with Creative Yawning. The few times--for research purposes--that I deliberately tried to key in things I had addressed and maybe only "keyed out" I was unable to do so, implying that they weren't there to be keyed in and had in fact been erased, not keyed out. It is impossible to prove a negative. Maybe they were only keyed out and will key in tomorrow, or next year, or a hundred lifetimes from now. But as I said, for all intents and purposes, they seem to be gone. There may be more charge at a deeper level, but it is not the same stuff, with me anyway. I can't speak for anyone else. I agree that I am not addressing things at a perceived level of polarities. You might be going for more peace for the body, but I'm not. I couldn't really give a shit about my body providing it is not in pain or otherwise acting as a distraction. You say "processing CAN also be done through the body". Surely pretty much all processing being done is through the body?! Certainly all processing using a meter is, unless you know of anyone in PT using some kind of beep meter that works without being hooked up touching a meat body. Your WHOAT quotes include the "fact" that misownership precludes the running of Dn on Clears or above. I agree there is an HCOB stating one shouldn't do it and why, and all by itself it makes sense. But how come in thousands of hours of R3X being run on Clears and above Robert D never runs into misownership troubles? In the hundred hours or so I ran on R3X and similar solo actions I have never had a moment's trouble with misownership. If some theory doesn't fit the facts, then the theory is incomplete. Or wrong. It seems to me that in my past few hundred hours of auditing (outside the CofS) I have been addressing mainly my own charge, whatever LRH wrote in 1978. Mayo has an interesting article online on the subject at: http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html I am not asserting that one cannot ever have another being in one's space. I am suggesting that the whole BT/Cluster paradigm, with each individual being infested with thousands or hundreds of thousands of separate beings in his space is incorrect. I am not disputing the thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands of spiritual connections to other beings, some of which could use repair of some kind, though. I first noticed this around 2000. I was flying ruds on myself, and not getting any reads or indication of charge on the choices "Is the charge Mine? a BT's? a Cluster's? I suddenly got the idea to add "a Connected's?" to the list, and started getting reads and as-isness of charge. I didn't really know what I meant by the term "a Connected" beyond it being some kind of connected being that didn't qualify as a BT or cluster, and it was lousy English, but since it seemed to work well I kept the terminology and procedure. At the time I exchanged some e-mails with a friend (OT3+) who also found it workable. It wasn't until 2004 that I started reading about chakra cords, and I found that eye-opening. How could LRH have missed such a significant subject as chakra cords in his own research? I don't think he did, just that he saw the phenomena in terms of his own data. A year ago I read "Future of the Body" by Michael Murphy, supposedly the definitive book on human extraordinary abilities. One thing I found interesting was that the different categories of people examined (from memory: religious mystics, world-class athletes, and paranormal researchers) experienced similar extraordinary phenomena (exteriorization etc.) but perceived/interpreted the manifestations in the terminology they were familiar with. Just as an unenlightened scribe in India 10,000 years ago seeing a flying- machine moving through the atmosphere would describe it in terms of a "huge bird", as he would have no other terms of reference. All for now. Dispute away! Paul






Message 984 Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:53 pm [AdvancedFreezone] Re: Lifetime Relief by Creative Yawning I'll just wrap up a couple of cycles here if this list is not dead yet. I finished off this Lifetime Relief cycle successfully in just under six hours, spread out over three weeks. It was very satisfying. Paul






Message 985 Tue Dec 19, 2006 10:23 pm [AdvancedFreezone] "Self Analysis Lists", a Mock-Up Version I've read about a mock-up version of "Self Analysis" from the early 50s. I thought I'd try it out after I had finished the Lifetime Relief cycle I was working on. So I finally had a go at it this evening, and found a way of running it that worked. The instructions I was trying to follow were something like: Take the regular SA book, but use "mock up" instead of "recall"; reject any actual incidents; use the perceptics list as usual. Well, maybe someone could make that work, but I couldn't. What I tried was based on the first three questions, namely: (Can you) recall a time... 1. You were happy. 2. You had just finished constructing something. 3. Life was cheerful. First try: I used the commands: 1. (With attention on SIGHT) Mock up being happy. 2. (With attention on SMELL) Mock up just having finished constructing something. 3. (With attention on TOUCH) Mock up life being cheerful. I felt OK doing these, a slight protest as I have audited these very thoroughly in the past (recall version), but nothing happened-- cleaning a clean. Second try: I tried it Yawn Machine style, using a strong "touch stuff" hav addition. Same commands as in the first try. Again, nothing much happened, still cleaning a clean. I did these 1 1 2 2 3 3 with the two alternatives above, rather than 1 2 3 1 2 3. Third try: I started with Q3 after trying the other two methods, which produced nothing of interest at all, beyond confirming the protest at running these ideas again, even as a mock up instead of a recall. By this time, I had changed the mock-up to "Life is cheerful", which isn't necessarily any change of concept at all even though different words are used. I dropped the perceptics emphasis too, figuring that if something bit I could add it in, but it seemed like dev-t at this time to keep it. And this time I also looked at the opposite of what I was mocking up, or if not the opposite then at least a strong contrast. So suddenly what came into view were times when life definitely was NOT cheerful and maybe I was mocking up at that time how life could be cheerful, or whatever. But it was the simultaneous holding of the two differing viewpoints that produced a good discharge (yawning), which I handled with the usual Creative Yawning procedure. This form of mock-up basically allowed me to get off protest from times when life was NOT cheerful. I don't know how the out-of-ARC command. "Recall times life was not cheerful" would have worked, but doing what I did worked very well. I went back and tried the first two questions again, with a similar set-up of allowing a contrasting mock-up to be included as well (two contrasting mock-ups at once), and got charge off both these questions too, basically a 3 out of 3 success rate. I hadn't expected that at all. So, that is my experience with mock-up Self Analysis. Your mileage may vary, as they say. And goodbye to this list. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org






Message 979 Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:35 pm [XSO] [re Doug Long suicide] I have no clue as to why he died. In late 2001, I shared an office at David Morse & Associates in Glendale with Doug, Mick Coventry, and a (basically) non-Scn guy. I chatted a bit with Doug. One thing that stuck with me was that he had joined the SO as a Class VI, and had been in the SO for nine years. He said he was in full-time training for EIGHT of those years. I stayed with DM&A until they fired me in December 2003. I think Doug left DM&A sometime in 2002. His last position there was to do with getting the new comm system installed and operational in their new place in Glassell Park (a few miles down the road, still in LA). I wasn't exactly a happy CofS camper, but wasn't especially vocal about it. I was interested in the FZ, but didn't openly post there until around April 2004. I got a friendly e-mail from Doug out of the blue a few months ago. Both at DM&A and in that last e-mail or two he didn't seem like a gung-ho churchie, but there again if he swung the other way he never accepted any of my hints on the subject and spoke about it. I never asked him a direct question. If he wanted to, it was easy enough to look me up on Google and discover my current Scn persuasion, not in 2001 but certainly after mid-2004. I just looked up our e-mail exchanges. He said he was on the XSO list, but if he posted could not do so more than once because of "other commitments" (unstated). This was in his last email to me, from 25 October. He had earlier in 2006 originated a comm to me about an (Alex Jones) Prison Planet 9/11 video, so I guess we had some agreements over that. Actually on the day it happened in 2001 we were watching it unfold in our DM&A office. Mick had a TV in the office as part of his job and my comments were along the lines of I bet it is an inside job and the media will lie about it. Surprise, surprise. Do I think he became over-active in the "9/11 Truth" field and so got "suicided"? No data. Paul






Message 975 Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:01 am [XSO] [re 1969 moon hoax] in response to a comment about some people even believing that people didn't walk on the moon in 1969] That includes me, I'm afraid, although I never had a problem with the green cheese. From 1969 until around 1998 I endorsed the usual NASA story. One idle Saturday I thought I'd survey the various "moon hoax" Internet sites and write a summary of the pros and cons for an e-mail list I was on that discussed such things. I didn't particularly care one way or the other which way the evidence leaned. So I looked through these various sites for a couple of hours listing out the various arguments and the evidence or "evidence" cited and then had a stunning realization that it was a hoax. I wrote it all up and posted it to the e-mail list. As I said, I didn't particularly care one way or the other, but it wasn't even a close call once you look at all the outpoints. And I still don't really care--if I find enough evidence to swing it the other way, I don't have a problem with flipping to the original viewpoint, but this time with a lot more data than just blind belief and the consideration that it couldn't *possibly* have been faked. One of the most interesting pieces of evidence was a NASA photograph showing footprints in sand under the lunar module that had supposedly blasted down to the surface. Footprints in sand means soft sand. And there's an awful lot of blast to support the weight of that lander, even in a lowered gravity field. I think it would have scoured the surface out down to the bedrock. Someone on the list rejoined that was a space physicist? How did I know? After muttering a bit to myself about how dare this upstart challenge my assertion, I e-mailed twenty US university professors, actual space scientists, the best-qualified I could find. I lied a bit and said the query came from a kid and I couldn't answer it, and I didn't mention that I wanted their help in proving/disproving a hoax, but how come all that sand was still there? And I got the most AMAZING answers back from about eight of these guys that took the trouble to answer. They all pretty much said that they hadn't done any experimentation, but off the cuff maybe [weird theory]. I'm not a space scientist, but I did do physics at a university level and I'm not a complete dummy, and I was literally amazed at the wild theories these guys put forward to try and explain what I considered unexplainable. I wanted to say to each of them, "Would you honestly stand up in front of your peers and present this to them with a straight face?" I would have been willing to accept a good explanation, by the way. But I didn't see one. Anyway, enough. Paul






Message 971 Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:18 am [XSO] [re LRH quotes on death] To answer your first question: 1. In the book "Have You Lived Before This Life", not the book proper but in some editions there is an LRH article entitled "Death". 2. The first few chapters of the book "History of Man". 3. The SHSBC Tape "Between Lives Implants", SHSBC #317, 23 July 1963. 4. HCOB Aug 24 1963, ROUTINE 3N, THE TRAIN GPMs, THE MARCAB BETWEEN LIVES IMPLANTS, which is in the new Tech Vols but not the old. You may be able to find bits of these online. Those are the main references I am aware of. Paul






Message 977 Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:40 pm [XSO] [re 1969 moon hoax] Your questions are fine, XXXX, and I did take these things into account at the time. I'm not going to repeat the research right now, but the data was available online of how much the lander weighed with and after burning the fuel, its (reported) downward and lateral velocity, as well as the normal velocity of ejection of burnt fuel particles in such rocket engines. That data probably still is available. From memory, the lander's dry weight was around 20,000 lb. with another 20,000 lb. of fuel when detached, with maybe a third of it burned before touchdown. Again from memory, the downward and lateral velocities were of the order of a few feet per second. There was a lateral component. Again, this wasn't the only outpoint, just the one I found most glaring. As in: Footprints? FOOTPRINTS?? Why the flock are there footprints seen Under that big-ass nozzle? The blast would have scoured the surface clean Right down to the bedrock wozzle Of it a scam? Paul






Message 983 Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:38 am [XSO] [re 9/11] [in response to a request for clarification] Hi XXXX, Please amplify your question if I don't cover it here. There are many videos online at Google and elsewhere showing the impossibility of the official stories re 9/11. There are hundreds, thousands, of articles online that do the same. I'm not going to repeat the arguments here at great length--they are easy enough to look up using any likely search term. Paul






Message 986






Message 987



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.