HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 2 MARCH 1984RBREVISED 14 DECEMBER 2001

(Also issued as an HCO PL,of the same date and title.)

REMIMEOALL STAFF

HCOETHICS OFFICERS/MAAsTECH/QUAL

(Revised to include the full procedure for OIW write-upmeter checks. Revisions in script.)

O/W WRITE-UPS

References:HCOBHCOPLHCOBHCOB

3 Jan. 6022 July 6315 Oct. 6121 Jan. 60 I

A THIRD DYNAMIC FOR SCIENTOLOGYYOU CAN BE RIGHTCLEAN HANDS MAKE A HAPPY LIFEJUSTIFICATION

It has been longstanding knowledge in Scientology that in the presence of overtsand withholds no gains occur.

An overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for.the least number of dynamics or the most harm. to the greatest number of dynamics.Overts are the biggest reason a person restrains and withholds himself from action.

Man is baSically good. When people commit overts and then withhold them it isbecause they conceive that telling them would be another overt act. By withholdingovert acts, these are kept afloat in the universe and are themselves, as withholds,entirely the cause of continued evil.

A person who has overts and withholds becomes less able to influence his dynamicsand falls out of communication with those people and things he has committed overtsagainst.

Writing up one's averts and withholds offers a road out. By confronting the truthan individual can experience relief and a return of responsibility.

BASIC THEORY

The theory behind the action of writing up one's overts and withholds is containedin the Scientology Axioms, published in their entirety in the book Scientology 0-8:The Book of Basics.

Axiom 38 is particularly applicable:

1: Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration.

2: Mechanical definition: Stupidity is the unknownness of time, place, form andevent.

to 1984, 1986, 1990, 19911. Ron Hubbard Library.Unpublished revisions: @ created 1996, 2001 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

HCOB 2.3. 1984RBRev. 14.12.2001

1: Truth is the exact consideration.

-2-

2: Truth is the exact time, place. form and event.

Thus we see that failure to discover truth brings about stupidity.

Thus we see that the discovery of truth would bring about an as-isness by actualexperiment.

Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.

Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask atruth.

Lying is an alteration of time, place, event or form.

Lying becomes alter-isness, becomes stupidity.

(The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case's own or another's lies.)

Anything which persists must avoid as-isness.

Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.

Writing up one's overts and withholds can accomplish an as-isness and therebyrelieve a person of the burden of his transgressions.

O/W WRITE-UP FORMAT

When people do OIW write-ups, abuses can occur if the specifics of the action arenot known and followed.

The first step to be done before one undertakes the action of an OIW write-up isto word clear exactly how such write-ups are done. Experience has proven that peoplehave run into trouble on O/w write-ups when the format (including the key wordsand terms) was not word cleared before embarking on the action.

Format:

The format for doing an OIW write-up is as follows:

1. Write down the exact overt of commission or omission.

2. Then state explicitly the specifics regarding the action or inaction,including:

a. time: n. the moment of an event, process or condition. A definite moment,hour, day or year as indicated or fixed by a clock or calendar; a preciseinstant or date; the period during which something (as an action) exists orcontinues.

b. place: n. the location of occurrence or action. A specific location; a particularportion of space or the earth's surface of a definite or indefinite size but ofdefinite position.

c. form: n. the arrangement of things; the way in which parts of a whole areorganized. In general, the arrangement of or relationship between theparts of anything as distinguished from the parts themselves. A specificformation or arrangement.

HCOB 2.3.1984RBRev. 14.12.2001

- 3-

d. event: n. something that happens or comes to pass; a distinct incident. Amore or less important or noteworthy occurrence. The actual outcome orfinal result.

One has to get the time, place) form and event and one has to get a done or afailure in order to get as-isness.

Example:

"1. I hit a friend's car when backing out of my parking space at work and causedabout five hundred dollars worth of damage to his car.

"2. On the 30th of june 1987, when I was leaving work, I was backing out of myparking space and hit the back end of my friend joe's car. There was no oneelse around and the parking lot was almost empty. I drove away withoutleaving a note or telling joe, knowing that I caused about five hundred dollarsdamage to his car which he had to pay for."

or, when there is a withhold or withholds to be gotten off:

1. Write down the withhold.

2. Then state explicitly the specifics regarding the action or inaction withheld,including:

a. Time

b. Place

c. Form

d. Event.

For example:

"1. I cheated on my wife (Sally) by seeing another woman and never told herabout this.

"2. Three years ago, when I was first married to Sally, I cheated on her by seeinganother woman. I have never told Sally about this. One morning (in june1985) I had told Sally I would take her to the movies that night and on myway home from work, when I was at jones' Department Store, I saw an oldgirlfriend of mine (Barbara). I asked Barbara to go out to dinner with me thatnight and she accepted. (She did not know that I was married.) I told her Iwould pick 'her up at 8:00 pm that night. When I got home from the store Itold Sally J had to go back to work to get some things done and would not beable to go to the movies with her.

"I then went out to dinner in another city with Barbara (at the 'Country Inn')so that I would not risk seeing any of my friends."

ADMINISTERING OIW WRITE-UPS

The action of writing up one's overts and withholds can be applied to anyone,and the breadth of its application is unlimited.

HCOB 2.3.1984RBRev. 14.12.2001

Examples:

-4-

A person is assigned a Danger condition and is instructed to write up his OlWsper HCO PL 9 Apr. 72R, CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING.

A person is brutally critical and blows course and the Ethics Officer has him writeup his OlWs.

CIS Okay:

It is the responsibility of the person administering the OIW write-up, whetherthis is the Ethics Officer/MAA, an Esto, the person's senior or a Supervisor, to get theperson's pc folder checked by a qualified CIS to ensure that they are not in the middleof a major case action such as Int repair or List repair or in the middle of anincomplete listing action, any of which would need to be completed before the pcstarted on an O/W write-up. (Ref: HCOB 10 June 71 I, CIS Series 44R, CIS RULES,PROGRAMING FROM PREPARED LISTS)

This is not to be construed as a rule that someone needs a as okay to gethandled in Ethics. It simply means that the CIS and Ethics must be coordinated whenhandling a pc who needs to do an OIW write-up as fully covered in HCOB 13 Oct. 82,CIS Series 116, ETHICS AND THE as.

End Phenomena:

In doing an OIW write-up a person writes up his averts and withholds until he issatisfied that they are complete. The person will feel very good about it and experiencerelief. One would not engage in carrying on an OIW write-up past this point

Meter Check:

The final step in administering an O/W write-up is always a meter check to l1zake su:rethe write-up is complete. The person who does this meter check must have TRs that will rnakea meter respond properly, and must be able to read a lneter accurately.

The exact procedure for the 1neter checker is:

a. Read the OIW write-up.

b. Put the person on the mete1~ set the sensitivity perE-Meter Drill5RB.

c. Ask "In this OIW write-up has anything been missed?"

d. If there is a read (sF, F, LF or BD) on the question, tell the person to complete theoIltV write-up and when he has, to corne back for another check.

e. r( any sign ofprotest, check for False l?ead or Protest or Invalidation on the questionand get yourFIN

f If there is no read, and no FIN on the question, check Suppress and Invalidate andit should FIN.

g. After the meter chech is cOlnpleted to an FIN send the person to the Exarniner.

The original copy of the OIW write-up must go into the person's pc folder,regardless of whether or not any copy is additionally given to the MAA or EthicsOfficer. (Ref: IiCOB 28 Oct. 76, CIS Series 98, Auditor Admin Series 26, AUDITINGFOLDERS, OMISSIONS IN COMPLETENESS)

HCOB 2.3.19B4RBRev. 14.12.2001

Repair:

- 5-

Any bogs not resolved with the standard D/W write-up procedure and meter check, areresolved with a Confessional Repair List. (Ref: HCOB 23 July BOR, CONFESSIONALREPAIR LIST-LCRE)

If the person gets sick or falls on his head shortly after completing an D/W tvrite-up, hemust be repaired at once.

OIW WRITE-UP PROCEDURE

The following steps are the full procedure for getting a person to do an OIWwrite-up:

O. The first action is for the person administering the OIW write-up to: (a) studyand word clear this HCOB, (b) clear the words included in step 4 below, (c)word clear the OIW write-up format.

1. Get a qualified CIS to check the person's pc folder to ensure that the person isnot in the middle of a major case action such as lnt repair or List repair or inthe middle of an incomplete listing action that would be interrupted by anOIW write-up.

2. Ensure that a space is provided where a person can write up his overts andwithholds undistracted.

3. Provide paper and pen.

4. Have the person clear the following words in the Tech Dictionary: overt,withhold, motivator, justification, overt-motivator sequence.

5. Have the person read this HCOB and word clear the OIW write-up format ascovered above, to full understanding.

6. Have the person write up his OlWs, exactly per the OIW write-up formatabove. This is done until the person is satisfied that he has written them upcompletely and he feels very good about it.

7. Get the person a meter check once the OIW write-up is complete.

8. See that the original copy of the OIW write-up is filed in the pc's folder alongwith the worksheets of his meter check.

SUMMARY

Writing up one's overts and withholds is a simple procedure that has unlimitedapplication. O/w write-ups can bring about great relief and enable a person to achievegreater happiness.

.L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Revision assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

LRH:RTRC:cp.ab

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAsT GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 MARCH 1984RAREVISED 12 AUGUST 1996

(Also issued as an HeO Bulletin, of the same date and title)

REMIMEO

ALL STAFF

HeOETHICS OFFICERS/MAAs

TECH/QUAL

O/W WRITE-UPS

Refs:HCOB

HCOPLHCOBHCOB

3Jan.60

22 july 63 I5 Oct. 6121 jan. 60 I

A THIRD DYNAMIC FORSCIENTOLOGYYOU CAN BE RIGHTCLEAN HANDS MAKE A HAPPY LIFEJUSTIFICATION

It has been longstanding knowledge in Scientology that in the presence of overtsand withholds no gains occur.

An overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good forthe least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics.Overts are the biggest reason a person restrains and withholds himself from action.

Man is basically good. When people commit overts and then withhold them it isbecause they conceive that telling them would be another overt act. By withholdingovert acts, these are kept afloat in the universe and are themselves, as withholds,entirely the cause of continued evil.

A person who has overts and withholds becomes less able to influence hisdynamics and falls out of communication with those people and things he hascommitted overts against.

Writing up one's averts and withholds offers a road out. By confronting the truthan individual can experience relief and a return of responsibility.

BASIC THEORY

The theory behind the action of writing up one's overts and withholds iscontained in the Scientology Axioms, published in their entirety in the bookScientology 0-8: The Book of Basics.

© 1986, 1991, 1999 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

Axiom 38 is particularly applicable:

1: Stupidity is the unknownness of consideration.

2: Mechanical definition: Stupidity is the unknownness of time, place, form andevent.

1: Truth is the exact consideration.

2: Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.

Thus we see that failure to discover truth brings about stupidit~

Thus we see that the discovery of truth would bring about an as-isness by actualexperiment.

Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place, form or event.

Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask atruth.

Lying is an alteration of time, place, event or form.

Lying becomes alter-isness, becomes stupidity.

(The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case's own or another's lies.)

Anything which persists must avoid as-isness.

Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.

Writing up one's overts and withholds can accomplish an as-isness and therebyrelieve a person of the burden of his transgressions.

O/W WRITE-UP FORMAT

When people do O/W write-ups, abuses can occur if the specifics of the actionare not known and followed.

The first step to be done before one undertakes the action of an O/W write-up isto word clear exactly how such write-ups are done.

Experience has proven that people have run into trouble on O/W write-ups whenthe format (including the key words and terms) was not word cleared beforeembarking on the action.

Format:

The format for doing an O/W write-up is as follows:

1. Write down the exact overt of commission or omission.

2. Then state explicitly the specifics regarding the action or inaction, including:

a. time: n. the moment of an event, process or condition. A definitemoment, hour, day or year as indicated or fixed by a clock or calendar; a

precise instant or date; the period during which something (as an action)exists or continues.

b. place: n. the location of occurrence or action. A specific location; aparticular portion of space or the earth's surface of a definite or indefinitesize but of definite position.

c. form: n. the arrangement of things; the way in which parts of a whole areorganized. In general, the arrangement of or relationship between theparts of anything as distinguished from the parts themselves. A specificformation or arrangement.

d. event: n. something that happens or comes to pass; a distinct incident.A more or less important or noteworthy occurrence. The actual outcomeor final result.

One has to get the time, place, form and event and one has to get a done or afailure in order to get as-isness.

Example:

"1. I hit a friend's car when backing out of my parking space at work and causedabout five hundred dollars worth of damage to his car.

"2. On the 30th ofJune 1987, when I was leaving work, I was backing out of myparking space and hit the back end of my friend]oes car. There was no oneelse around and the parking lot was almost empty: I drove away withoutleaving a note or telling Joe, knowing that I caused about five hundreddollars damage to his car which he had to pay for."

or, when there is a withhold or withholds to be gotten off:

1. Write down the withhold.

2. Then state explicitly the specifics regarding the action or inaction withheld,including:

a. Time

b. Place

c. Form

d. Event.

For example:

"1. I cheated on my wife (Sally) by seeing another woman and never told herabout this.

"2. Three years ago, when I was first married to Sally) I cheated on her by seeinganother woman. I have never told Sally about this. One morning (in June1985) I had told Sally I would take her to the movies that night and on myway home from work, when I was at Jones' Department Store, I saw an oldgirlfriend of mine (Barbara). I asked Barbara to go out to dinner with me thatnight and she accepted. (She did not know that I was married.) I told her

I would pick her up at 8:00 RM. that night. When I got home from the store Itold Sally I had to go back to work to get some things done and would notbe able to go to the movies with her.

"I then went out to dinner in another city with Barbara (at the 'Country Inn')so that I would not risk seeing any of my friends."

ADMINISTERING O/W WRITE-UPS

The action of writing up one's averts and withholds can be applied to anyone,and the breadth of its application is unlimited.

Examples:

A person is assigned a Danger condition and is instructed to write up his O/Wsper HCO PL 9 Apr. 72R, CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING.

A person is brutally critical and blows course and the Ethics Officer has himwrite up his O/Ws.

CIS Okay:

It is the responsibility of the person administering the O/W write-up, whetherthis is the Ethics Officer/MAA, an Esto, the person's senior or a Supervisor, to getthe person's pc folder checked by a qualified CIS to ensure that they are not in themiddle of a major case action such as Int repair or List repair or in the middle of anincomplete listing action, any of which would need to be completed before the pcstarted on an O/W write-up. (Ref: HCOB 10 June 71 I, CIS Series 44R, CIS RULES,PROGRAMING FROM PREPARED LISTS)

This is not to be construed as a rule that someone needs a CIS okay to gethandled in Ethics. It simply means that the CIS and Ethics must be coordinatedwhen handling a pc who needs to do an OIW write-up as fully covered in HCOB 13Oct. 82, CIS Series 116, ETHICS AND THE CIS.

End Phenomena:

In doing an O/W write-up a person writes up his overts and withholds until he issatisfied that they are complete. The person will feel very good about it and experiencerelief. One would not engage in carrying on an O/W write-up past this point.

Meter Check:

When a person has completed writing up his overts of commission and omissionhe gets meter checked by someone who can correctly operate a meter. QiFt~v'~~~:~m."",··

,thiS; 'O/W writ~-t1p/.h~'~l1ythingbeenmissed'" If it reads or doesn't FIN, send. the person to complete the O/W write-up. (Once the O/W write-up is complete, themeter check is done again.) When the question FINs that is the end of the check.

The original copy of the O/W write-up must go into the person's pc folder,regardless of whether or not any copy is additionally given to the MAA or EthicsOfficer. (Ref: HCOB 28 Oct. 76, CIS Series 98, Auditor Admin Series 26, AUDITINGFOLDERS, OMISSIONS IN COMPLETENESS)

Repair:

When a person doing an O/W write-up bogs on the action at any point or getssick or falls on his head shortly after doing an O/W write-up, he must be repaired atonce by a qualified auditor using a Confessional Repair List. (Ref: HCOB 23 July80R, CONFESSIONAL REPAIR LIST-LCRE)

O/W WRITE-UP PROCEDURE

The following steps are the full procedure for getting a person to do an O/Wwrite-up:

o. The fi~st action is for the person administering the O/W write-up to: (a)study and word clear this HCO PL, (b) clear the words included in step 4below, (c) word clear the O/W write-up format.

1. Get a qualified CIS to check the person's pc folder to ensure that the personis not in the middle of a major case action such as Int repair or List repair orin the middle of an incomplete listing action that would be interrupted by anO/W write-up.

2. Ensure that a space is provided where a person can write up his overts andwithholds undistracted.

3. Provide paper and pen.

4. Have the person clear the following words in the Tech Dictionary: overt,withhold, motivator, justification, overt - motivator sequence.

5. Have the person read this HCO PL and word clear the O/W write-up formatas covered above, to full understanding.

6. Have the person write up his O/Ws, exactly per the O/W write-up formatabove. This is done until the person is satisfied that he has written them upcompletely and he feels very good about it.

7. Get the person a meter check once the O/W write-up is complete.

8. See that the original copy of the O/W write-up is filed in the pc's folder alongwith the worksheets of his meter check.

SUMMARY

Writing up one's averts and withholds is a simple procedure that has unlimitedapplication. O/W write-ups can bring about great relief and enable a person toachieve greater happiness.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Revision assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 19 OCTOBER 1974

REMIMEO

URGENT

THE DRAMATIZATION OF WITHHOLDSON VITAL INFORMATION LINES

I have recently unearthed a widespread aberration that underlies the withholdor obstruction of vital information and wanted to warn you to be on the lookoutfor it.

It is, simply stated, DRAMATIZATION OF WITHHOLDS.

This is not just the person with withholds, this is the person who DRAMATIZESwithholds by preventing the relay, exposure or free distribution of vital information.

To DRAMATIZE means to act under the influence of past incidents asdictated by those incidents in the bank. The guy is replaying something now thathappened in the past, out of its time and context and out of his control. A persondramatizing withholds would be acting out withholding information now, when theactual withholds or incidents of withholding are in the past.

VITAL INFORMATION

Vital information is vital because survival depends on it. Examples include:HCOBs, HCO Pis, books, tapes, course checksheets and packs, hats, OECVolumes, LRH EDs and FOs and other issues, Flag programs and EDs, stats, weeklyreports, compliance reports, situation reports, CSWs, evals, even despatches that containimportant information that must be known.

Also, an org requires other vital data like accurate CF and Addressos, up-to-datefiles, broad, hard-sell promotion and magazines, accurate accounts files and records,monthly statements, tech data that gives pc and student results, Word Clearing andcramming results, a Qual library, broad public dissemination and promotion, toname a few.

Data that is VITAL must be relayed, must be made known without alter-is orbarriers. You can't survive without it.

@ 1976 L. Ron Hubbard library.All Rights Reserved.

THE DRAMATIZATION

There are probably as many different ways to dramatize withholds as there arepeople who do it. You should know of the main ones I've come across lately.

First is a failure to relay. This can be simply not routing on a mail pack ordespatch, not sending out the org's letters or mailings, backlogging Mimeo so newissues don't get seen, having poor tape recorders in the Academy or simply refusingto train or process public and staff.

A deadly one is losing tech personnel or not recruiting them. That way nobodyis there to relay the tech to the students and pes. A few orgs are very busy doing thatone.

Never making the auditors and C/Ses and Supervisors do their daily TRs, highcrimes and training is another one. It denies the tech people data they need and alsodenies standard tech to the public, especially in terms of results on pes.

Not hatting or cramming staff is another one. So is falsifying stats, notpromoting, failure to sell training, not calling paid-up public in for service, notreporting what is happening in the org.

When you see this happening WATCH OUT. Someone is dramatizing withholdsand withholding vital information.

The worst example of course would be not to have an org there at all.

AN ORG'S MAIN PRODUCT

The main product of an org is knowledge, and the results obtained with it.

Any post in an org contributes to this product. It is the most valuable product wehave to exchange with the public.

Knowledge and its results are what public and staff want. It is valuablebecause without it there can be no survival.

REMEDY

The Vital Information Rundown, HCOB 6 Oct. 74, is the remedy for the dramati­zation of withholds.

Train your auditors on it thoroughly and get it delivered where you arehaving this problem.

If you don't have any auditors to deliver it or no one to train them, you havealready been hit by this dramatization.

Your only hope is to get an auditor and train him and get it delivered.

YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION IS TO OPEN UP YOUR VITAL INFORMATIONLINES NOW.

SUMMARY

Look over your org and see if this mechanism has affected your operation.

Don't tolerate it. Expose it and relay the vital information.

DON'T PERMIT THE DRAMATIZATION OF WITHHOLDS TO BLOCK THEFLOW OF VITAL INFORMATION.

Your'survival depends on it.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

RemimeoAll Executive Hats

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESaint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

BCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 JUNE 1965Issue II

ALL DIVISIONS

ENTHETA LETTERS

AND THE DEAD FILE, HANDLING OF

DEFINITIONS

AN ENTHETA LETTER = is a letter containing insult, discourtesy, chopor nastiness about an org, its personnel, Scientology or the principal figures inScientology. En = enturbulated; theta = Greek for thought or life. An enthetaletter's nastiness is aimed at the org, its personnel, Scientology or the principalfigures of Scientology. It is different from an ethics report (below). It is routedonly as given in this policy letter.

AN ETHICS REPORT = is a report to Ethics (or by error to the org) con­cerning the misuse or abuse of technology or the misconduct of a Scientologist.This is routed directly to the Ethics Section and becomes a subject for investigation.Such a report is not dead-filed (as will be explained) but may become a dead file.

A MIXED LETTER = is a letter which is an entheta letter (couchedin nasty terms to the org or its personnel) which also contains a report pretend­ing to be an ethics report. "You awful people have an awful auditor in thefield ." A mixed letter is always routed to dead files as given in thispolicy letter. It is simply routed like any dead file letter. However, no namesmentioned in it are dead-filed only because they occur in the letter.

A PETITION = is a polite request to have something handled by the Officeof LRH or the org. If it is not polite, it is not a petition and is not covered by thepetition policy letters. An impolite "petition" is handled as an entheta letter always.

IMPORTANT = It is important not to dead-file a Scientologist for reportinga bad breach of ethics. This should be encouraged. However, people on our sidemake such reports without accusing us. When such reports are also accusative ofus, they are dead-filed.

HISTORICAL

Every movement amongst man runs into the phenomena that when you try tohelp some people-or help them-they react like mad dogs. Trying to assist themis like trying to give a mad dog medicine. You are liable to be bitten.

The more successful a movement is, the more violent this phenomena be­comes.

© 1965 L Ron Hubbard LibraryAll Rights Reserved

Such people are suppressives or belong to suppressive groups. Things thatmake people better put them in terror, as to them it means that if others aroundthem were stronger these would devour the person. This is highly irrational. It isa dramatization of an engram the person is defending himself in. People whenprocessed grow stronger but also more rational and less destructive.

Such people number about 20% but make such a fuss they seem like 110%and thus seek to deny the decent 80% service.

This 20% can be processed and can recover only 0\1 the Power Processesadministered by a Class VII Auditor working in an environment well under Ethicscontrol. But even so, this policy letter still applies as I doubt they deserve thereward, and remember, we don't owe the human race a thing. Handling themeven under optimum conditions is rough and hard 00 an org. I prefer to leavethem until later. There is nothing reasonable about their attitude from our pointof view. We do our best in a very eoturbulated world.

ADMINISTRATION

Efforts to handle the 20% are time consuming.

They take up vast amounts of time. They are not worth it.

When they get too bad we act, using suppressive person declarations andpotential trouble source declarations.

The fast thing to do is get them off our lines and out of the teeth of staffmembers and deny them information and communication such as mailings orletters without troubling to consume even Ethics time on them.

If they still get into the cogwheels, we act more energetically.

The fast way to handle, we call the DEAD FILE SYSTEM which is describedherein.

PLAN OFORG

Built into our org pattern is the principle of fast flow. We move slow ortroublesome particles off the assembly line and into special slots.

We let the main traffic flow untroubled by checks designed to restrain thevery few. This is quite opposite to usual wog organization where the many arepenalized to restrain the few.

We could wreck the whole pattern of our orgs by not using it correctly. TheQualifications Division exists to handle flat ball bearings turned out by Tech orold patterns or checksheets or special cases. That keeps the assembly line roaringalong. The flat ball bearings are shunted to Review. The round ones keep rollingon the assembly line to a finished product.

The bulk of the public is quite decent. They are polite and appreciative. Thebulk of our results are excellent and the 80% majority is pleased with us. That80% must be served.

The 20% who are mad dogs also have a place to go- the Ethics Section. It isimportant not to let them into the admin flow lines. It is important to box theminto Ethics. Otherwise they mess up the flow badly.

In the old days when a squawk came through, org personnel rushed it to thehead of the line, or to the Registrar or anywhere in the org. This gave a weirdview. The head of the org or the Registrar or executives began to think it was allmad dog. They only had the 20%. Nobody showed them the 80%. Because the20% required uspecial action" and consumed time, Registrars would soon believethe Academy and HGC contained only mobs of dissatisfied people. Heads of orgswould begin to believe the public was sour on them. They'd react accordingly. Theynever went down to CF and really looked. So they got a twisted idea of the state ofthe org, the workability of tech. They let down. They tended to stop trying, con­vinced by the minority 20% it was not working.

I recall the shock it was to one org's executives when they found that theyhad thousands and thousands of highly appreciative letters in their files, appreciatingScientology and what we did and how we did it. That whole executive group hadbeen handed only the entheta letters and people- because there was no place toput them but into executives' hands. They never got the 80% that were sincerethank-you's. They were quite stunned. Scientology had been working well intheir org for some time. The top brass hadn't found it out.

Therefore it is illegal as can be to handle entheta letters or ethics reports inany other way than to and by Ethics.

And Ethics personnel now and then must be shown the big wins the org isgetting. Otherwise they will begin to think too that all is sour, since they handlethe sour.

The org pattern is made to flow fast. It can only flow fast if its lines are in.

Hence, this handling of entheta letters and mixed letters. They must not behandled in any other way.

THE DEAD FILE

Ethics files shall include a DEAD FILE.

This file includes all persons who write nasty or choppy letters to an org orits personnel.

Rather than go to the trouble of issuing a suppressive person order or eveninvestigating, we assign writers of choppy letters to the DEAD FILE. When theirarea is enturbulated or we want to locate a suppressive, we can always consultour DEAD FILE for possible candidates and then investigate and issue an order.

The DEAD FILE is by sections of the area or the world and alphabetical inthose sections.

The actual action is simply to cut comm. You can always let entheta linesdrop. Entheta means en = enturbulated; theta = thought or life.

About 20% of the human race is inclined to natter. About 2Y2o/0 at a guessare suppressive. Under our fast flow system of management, we can't tie our­selves up with 20% of the correspondence. All the decent people, all the serviceand help should go to the 80%. This is also financially sound. The 20% lose usmoney. An insolvent org is entirely involved with the 20% and is neglecting the80%!

We just don't comm with the entheta line. I can show you many instances ofwhere we were seriously at fault to do so as later years proved.

DEAD FILE NONCO-OP

We used to have an HCO ,category known as "Nonco-op," meaning no co­operation from US. People who demanded 90% of our time comprised only asmall percent of our people. Such we put on a private noncooperate list. We justdidn't do anything for -them. When they called and demanded action, we'd say"ub-huh" and forget it. After a while they'd wander off our lines and we'd befree of them.

Dead file is actually only an extension of "nonco-op.u

It was we who didn't cooperate.

WHAT IT DOESN'T COVER

Dead file does not cover business firms demanding bills, governmentsquawks or dangerous suits or situations. It covers only entheta public lettersreceived on any line including SO # J .

ROUTING

HCO personnel or the Letter Registrar or any part of the org receiving anentheta letter routes it as follows:

1. Receiver stamps it with a big rubber stamp:

"ENTHETATo Central FilesTo Address thenTo ETHICS DEAD FILES"

2. Central Files receives it, draws a pencil through "To Central Files" andlooks in the files. If the person has a folder, CF picks up the folder andstamps it with a big rubber stamp:

"ENTHETATo Central FilesTo AddressTo ETHICS DEAD FILES"

crosses off "To Central Files" and hands the letter and folder to Address.

If the person has no folder in CF, CF makes a mustard-colored dum my,puts the person's name in it and stamps the dummy:

"ENTHETATo Central FilesTo AddressTo ETHICS DEAD FILES"

and also the letter.

If the person has a CF DEAD FILE dummy already, the letter is simi­larly forwarded to Address.

.The dummy of course is kept in CF in the regular files. (CF has no DeadFile as such.)

3. Address, on receiving a folder marked DEAD FILE ETHICS, crossesoff "To Address" on the stamping, pulls the person's address plate fromthe regular address plate file and puts it in a separate plate drawermarked DEAD FILE PLATES and forwards the folder to Ethics by leav­ing the "To Ethics" reading on the stamp.

If Address receives a letter marked with the stamp' as above, it crossesoff "To Address," looks in the regular plate files to be sure the person'sname has not crept in and, if so, moves it to the DEAD FILE platedrawer. If not in the regular file, Address looks in the DEAD FILE platedrawer and makes a plate or changes any address needful on the DEADFILE plate and sends the letter to Ethics.

•4. Ethics on receiving a folder marked with the stamp simply files it in the

DEAD FILES.

If a letter so marked is received by Ethics from Address, it is filed in theperson's folder in the DEAD FILE.

ETHICS ACTION

Ethics receiving ajolder or a letter marked with the ENTHETA stamp takesthe following action:

Writes a surface-mail postcard, colored an ugly mustard yellow, to any or­ganizations where the person's name may be part of CF, stamped on the back asfollows:

From (name of org)ENTHETATo Ceritral FilesTo AddressTo ETHICS DEAD FILE

and writes the person's name and address under it. Do NOT put two names onone card. One card = one name.

On receipt of such a card by an org, it follows the routine channels in the orgas though it were the folder or letter.

However, if Ethics finds the person is not in its DEAD FILE and all it hasreceived is a card, ETHICS makes a folder and puts the card in it. That way theDEAD FILE of an org tells one that there is other material in another org andknows what org.

For instance, Saint Hill receiving an entheta letter from Minnesota would, asabove, with a card, advise DC, NY, LA and Detroit, and Twin Cities especially.The person is likely to write any of these orgs.

Any org on any DEAD FILE always advises Saint Hill with a card.

ETHICS ACTION

Ethics does not even bother to read the letter or examine the folder on re­ceiving a DEAD FILE folder or letter.

This is, after all, a fast flow system of management. With the DEAD FILEsystem, one just parks the name in a folder in the DEAD FILES as inactive untilthere is a reason to do otherwise.

SU.CH LETTERS MUST NOT BE CIRCULATED ON THE LINESOTHER THAN AS ABOVE.

It is the business of the Ethics Officer to see that the HCO Sec, the LetterReg, the Distribution Division and allY other contact point where an entheta lettermay arrive is. equipped with a rubber stamp:

ENTHETATo Central FilesTo AddressTo ETHICS DEAD FILES

and that the Ethics Section has a rubber stamp reading:

From (name of org)ENTHETATo Central FilesTo AddressTo ETHICS DEAD FILES

Ethics makes sure all entheta letters (except business letters and governmentletters) are so stamped by people receiving in the org and so routed AND NOTANSWERED.

Ethics seeing somebpdy answer an entheta letter for SO # 1 or procurementor distribution or for any other reason, should order a hearing on the person.

Any executive who is not a mail receipt-point having an entheta letter for­warded to him by a staff member must turn in a dev-t report on that staff mem­ber to Ethics and forward it and the report to Ethics. Ethics then stamps it and

routes it to eF, etc., with the standard stamp (Ethics must not just file it in deadfiles). The dev-t report goes into the staff member's Ethics folder.

It is the full intention that:

1. All choppy, nattery, rumormongery letters dead-end in the DEAD FILE.

2. That no further magazines or procurement letters go to the person.

3. That no staff personnel be enturbulated by the content of such letters.

4. That the line be cut completely.

5. That a record remain in Ethics.

LETTER REG ANSWERING

When a Letter Reg, in answering some letter, calls for the folder and finds itis a mustard-colored DEAD FILE DUMMY, the letter to be answered is simplystamped with the above entheta stamp no matter what it says, and is routed withthe dummy on through as though it were an entheta letter regardless of what thenew letter says. Short of releasing and clearing, these mad dogs don't changetheir froth.

EXPIRED MEMBERSHIPS, ETC.

Expired memberships are not dead-filed. Dead file does not mean theystopped communicating with us. It means we stopped communicating with them.

Expired memberships go into the Qual Div expired membership file.

Retired files (last year's) must never be called DEAD FILES.

DEAD FILE USEFULNESS

The DEAD FILE is the best possible file for tracing trouble in an investigation.

Only when a hot investigation comes up is it looked at by Ethics. Then allnames found in at" area are cross-referenced by making copies of the letters theycontain and fHint:, ~hose under the new names, and the suppressive is located bythe simple expedient of thus finding the fattest file and an order is issued.

DEPT OF ESTIMATIONSDEAD FILE NAMES

The Dept of Estimations occasionally calls for a runoff of the DEAD FILEdrawer from Address and when a student or pc turns up, looks over this DEAD­FILE list for the person's name. That is for every applicant for training orprocessing.

If the name is found in the DEAD FILE list, the person must have an Ethicsclearance before being trained or processed. The person found in the DEADFILE list by the Dept of Estimations is sent directly to Ethics and Ethics is told why.

Ethics looks up the folder and takes whatever action is indicated, giving theperson a chance to disconnect if a PTS or A to E if a suppressive or makehimself or herself more agreeable to the org by any proper action such as anamends project. Or Ethics simply informs Estimations of the matter and forbidstraining or processing. The last is by far the more usual course. Processing ishard to do on a PTS or SP and the whole Academy can be turned upside downby one.

SUPPRESSIVES AND POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES

All suppressive persons and groups are filed in the DEAD FILE but with theEthics Order. The Ethics Order is stamped with the ENTHETA stamp as abovebut with the additional stamp Suppressive.

This is the usual "Entheta, To Central Files, To Address, To ETHICS DEADFILES n stamp. Remember, every suppressive person Ethics Order issued by Eth­ics is so handled. One copy of that order is stamped with the stamp and put onthe lines to CF.

CF handles it just like it would any other letter so stamped.

Address handles it exactly as any other letter or folder but types SP on theplate before it goes into the DEAD FILE drawer.

Then the order and any folder goes back to Ethics as before, and Ethics evencards it to other orgs even though they got the SP order itself.

A potential trouble source order is not given the entheta DEAD FILE routingunless the person refuses to disconnect or handle. At this time the person's nameis put on a despatch stamped with the entheta stamp and is routed to CF, etc., asabove. Sometimes a PTS refusing to disconnect is declared suppressive and insuch a case it is handled as an SP above.

Therefore, all SPs, PTSes and entheta letters all wind up in the DEAD FILE.

This cuts their comm and still keeps track of them.

RELEASE AND CLEARDECLARATIONS

When a Release declaration or a Clear declaration is made by the Dept ofCertificates and Awards, a copy is always sent to CF.

If it collides there with a DEAD FILE DUMMY, the Dept of Certs andAwards declaration is pinned to it and it goes to ETHICS.

Ethics removes the person's folder from the ETHICS DEAD FILE androutes it to Address with the Release or Clear declaration on top and stamped"To Address, then to Central Files. Restore to good standing."

Address takes the plate out of its DEAD FILE drawer and puts it back in itsproper position in the regular address files, removes any SP on the plate, marks

the order "Address Restored" and sends it to Central Files. The dummy is halvedand put in the folder and folder (with half a dummy in it) is put back into CF.

Nothing short of releasing or clearing ever really cures these people. Sowhen an SP does A to E and is restored to training or processing, he or she isstill a DEAD FILE until a Release or Clear declaration is issued.

SUSPENSION

No action by DEAD FILE is taken because of a suspension or other disci­pline. No Ethics Order but one for SP or an uncooperating PTS is handed toDead File. All other types of Ethics Orders go to different Ethics Section files.

PETITION

A petition is never ~ petition if it is discourteous and contains entheta. Don'tattach a petition PL to it. Just stamp it ENTHETA and send it the route as con­tained herein.

STUDENT NOTES

Notes from students or pcs now on course or in the HOC containing enthetaare routed to Ethics for a Court of Ethics action.

Only if they result in SP are they routed to CF, Address and DEAD FILE.

RESULTS OF DEAD FILE

Being DEAD-FILED does not result in action but neither does it debar fur­ther action.

DEAD FILE is the first place to look in cases of trouble. Further action maythen be taken such as an Ethics Order.

By using the DEAD FILE system we keep our lines cleaner.

GETTING OUT OF DEAD FILE

How does a person ever get out of the Dead File?

One could somehow discover without our help he or she was in the dead file(we never inform them). If so, he or she could take it up with the Ethics Officer.But the probable outcome may just be more Dead File.

How do you resurrect the dead? Release and clear of course. How can theyget it then if turned off by Estimations? Well, a cleared cannibal is still only acleared cannibal, so who needs them?

I'd rather solve the problems of those who were decent to us. We didn't putthem in the shape they're in. That's their problem..

L. RON HUBBARDFounder

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

Heo BULLETIN OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1965RISSUE I

REVISED 16 FEBRUARY 1981

(Also issued as Heo PL,same date, same title)

REMIMEO

VITAL DATA FOR

TECH SEes

DSOFP

HGC TRAINING OFFICERS

Ds oFT

COURSE SUPERVISORS

ALL STUDENTS

TECH/QUAL

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING SERIES 26

OUT-TECHAND HOW TO GET IT IN

The term "OUT-TECH" means that Scientology is not being applied or is notbeing correctly applied. When tech is IN, we mean that Scientology is being appliedand is being correctly applied. By TECH is meant technology, referring of course tothe application of the precise scientific drills and processes of Scientology. Technologymeans the methods of application of an art or science as opposed to mere knowledgeof the science or art itself. One could know all about the theory of motor cars andthe science of building them and the art of designing them and still not be able tobuild, plan or drive one. The practices of building, planning or driving a motor carare quite distinct from the theory, science and art of motor cars.

An auditor is not just a Scientologist. He or she is one who can apply it. Thus,the technology of Scientology is its actual application to oneself, a preclear or thesituations one encounters in life.

Tech implies USE. There is a wide gap between mere knowledge and the applicationof that knowledge.

When we say tech is out, we might also say, "While that unit or person mayknow all about Scientology, that person does not actually apply it."

A skilled auditor knows not only Scientology but how to apply the technologyto self, pes and life.

Many persons auditing have not yet crossed over from "knowing about" to"applying." Thus, you see them fooling about with pes. When a skilled auditor sees

© 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

HCOB 13.9.65R IRev. 16.2.81

-2-

a critical pc, he knows BANG-pc has a withhold and pulls it. That's because thisauditor's tech is in. Meaning he knows what to do with his data.

Some other person, who knows a lot of Scientology, has had courses and allthat, yet sees a critical pc and then tries to add up everything he knows about pesand stumbles about and then decides, on a Zero pc, it's a new thing that's wrongthat's never been seen before.

What's the difference here? It's the difference between a person who knows butcannot apply and a skilled technician who can apply the knowledge.

Most golfers know that you have to keep your eye on the ball just before, duringand after you hit it. That's the basic datum of powerful, long drives down the failWay.So if this is so well known, then why do so few golfers do it? They have arrived at apoint of knowing they must. They have not yet arrived at a point of being able to. Thentheir heads get so scrambled, seeing all their bad drives which didn't go down thefailWay, that they buy rabbits' feet or new clubs or study ballistics. In short, not beingable to do it, they disperse and do something else.

All auditors go through this. All of them, once trained, know the right processes.Then they have to graduate up to doing the right processes.

Observation plays an enormous role in this. The auditor is so all thumbs withhis meter and unfamiliar tools he has no time or attention to see what goes on withthe pc. So for fifteen years lots of auditors made releases without ever noticing it.They were so involved in knowing and so unskilled in applying, they never saw theball go down the failWay for a 200-yard drive!

So they began to do something else and squirreL There was the pc going Release,but the auditor, unskilled as a technician for all his knowledge of the science, never sawthe auditing work even though even the auditing done that badly did work.

Do you get the point?

You have to know your tools very, very well to see past them! An auditor whosquirrels, who fools about with a pc, who fumbles around and seldom gets results,just isn't suffiCiently familiar with a session, its patter, his meter and the mind to seepast them to the pc.

Drill overcomes this. The keynote of the skilled technician is that he is aproduct of practice. He has to know what he is trying to do and what elements he ishandling. Then he can produce a result.

I'll give you an example: I told an auditor to look over a past session of knowndate on a pc and find what was missed in that session. Something must have beenmissed as the pc's tone arm action collapsed in that session and ever aftelWards wasnil. So this auditor looked for a t'missed withhold from the auditor in that session."The ordered repair was a complete dud. Why? This auditor did not know thatanything could be missed except a withhold of the hidden-overt type. He didn'tknow there could be an inadvertent withhold wherein the pc thinks he is withholdingbecause the auditor didn't hear or acknowledge. This auditor didn't know that anitem on a list could be missed and tie up TA. But if he did know these things, hedidn't know them well enough to do them. A second more-skilled auditor took overand bang! the missed item on the list was quickly found. The more skilled auditor

HCOB 13.9.65R IRev. 16.2.81

-3-

simply asked, "In that session what was missed?" and promptly got it. The formerauditor had taken a simple order, "Find what was missed in that session," and turnedit into something else: "What withhold was missed in that session?" His skill did notinclude applying a simple direct order, as auditing looked very complex to him ashe had so much trouble with doing it.

You can train somebody in all the data and not have an auditor. A real auditorhas to be able to apply the data to the pc.

Importances play a huge part in this. I had a newly graduated darkroomphotographic technician at work. It was pathetic to see the inability to apply importantdata. The virtues of ancient equipment and strange tricks to get seldom-requiredeffects were all at his fingertips. But he did not know that you wiped developer offyour hands before loading fresh film. Consequently, he ruined every picture takenwith any film he loaded. He did not know you washed chemicals out of bottlesbefore you put different chemicals in them. Yet he could quote by the yard formulasnot in use for fifty years! He knew photography. He could not apply what he knew.Soon he was straying all over the place trying to find new developers and papersand new methods. Whereas all he had to do was learn how to wash his hands anddry them before handling new film.

I also recall a ninety-day wonder in World War II who came aboard in freshnew gold braid and with popped eyes stared at the wheel and compass. He said he'dstudied all about them but had never seen any before and had often wondered ifthey really were used. How he imagined ships were steered and guided beyond thesight of land is a mystery. Maybe he thought it was all done by telepathy or an orderfrom the Bureau of Navigation t

Alter-is and poor results do not really come from not-know. They come fromcan't-apply.

Drills, drills, drills and the continual repetition of the important data handlethis condition of can't-apply. If you drill auditors hard and repeat often enough basicauditing facts, they eventually disentangle themselves and begin to do a job ofapplication.

IMPORTANT DATA

The truly important data in an auditing session are so few that one could easilymemorize them in a few minutes.

From Case Supervisor or auditor viewpoint:

1. If an auditor isn't getting results, either he or the pc is doing somethingelse.

2. There is no substitute for knowing how to run and read a meter perfectly.

3. An auditor must be able to read, comprehend and apply HCOBs andinstructions.

4. An auditor must be familiar enough with what he's doing and the mechanicsof the mind to be able to observe what is happening with the pc.

HCOB 13.9.65R IRev. 16.2.81

-4-

5. There is no substitute for perfect TRs.

6. An auditor must be able to duplicate the auditing command and observewhat is happening and continue or end processes according to their resultson the pc.

7. An auditor must be able to see when he's released the pc and end off quicklyand easily with no shock or overrun.

8. An auditor must have observed results of his standard auditing and haveconfidence in it.

CASE REACTION

The auditor and the Case Supervisor must know the only six reasons a casedoes not advance. They are:

1. Pc is suppressive.

2. Pc is ALWAYS a potential trouble source if he roller-coasters and onlyfinding the RIGHT suppressive will clean it up. No other action will. Thereare no other reasons for a roller coaster (loss of gain obtained in auditing).

3. One must never audit an ARC broken pc for a minute even but must locateand indicate the bypassed charge at once. To do otherwise will injure thepc's case.

4. A present time problem of long duration prevents good gain and sends thepc into the backtrack.

5. The only reasons a pc is critical are a withhold or a misunderstood wordand there is NO reason other than those. And in trying to locate a withholdit is not a motivator done to the pc but something the pc has done.

6. Continuing overts hidden from view are the cause of no case gain (seenumber 1, suppressive).

The only other possible reason a pc does not gain on standard processing is thepc or the auditor failed to appear for the session.

Now honestly, aren't those easy?

But a trainee fumbling about with meter and what he learned in a bog ofunfamiliarity will always tell you it is something else than the above. Such pullmotivators, audit ARC broken pcs who won't even look at them, think roller coasteris caused by eating the wrong cereal and remedy it all with some new wonderfulaction that collapses the lot.

ASSESSMENT

You could meter assess the first group (1) to (8) on an auditor and the rightone would fall and you could fix it up.

HCOB 13.9.65R IRev. 16.2.81

-5-

You could meter assess the second group (1) to (6) on a pc and get the rightanswer every time that would remedy the case.

You have a CIS Series 53 which lists any general thing that can be aberrated ina thetan and you have a Green Form which covers the things bugging a case. Plusthere are dozens of other prepared lists which are designed to handle various thingsthat can be wrong in a case, an auditing action or a session. HCOB 29 Apr. 80,PREPARED LISTS, THEIR VALUE AND PURPOSE, summarizes the various typesof prepared lists and their use.

When I tell you these are the answers, I mean it. I don't use anything else. AndI catch my sinning auditor or bogged-down pc every time.

To give you an idea of the simplicity of it, a pc says she is "tired" and thereforehas a somatic. Well, that can't be it because it's still there. So I ask for a problem andafter a few given the pc hasn't changed so it's not a problem. I ask for an ARC breakand bang! I find one. Knowing the principles of the mind, and as I observe pes, I seeit's better but not gone and ask for a previous one like it. Bang! That's the one andit blows completely. I know that if the pc says it's A and it doesn't blow, it must besomething else. I know that it's one of six things. I assess by starting down the list.I know when I've got it by looking at the pc's reactions (or the meter's). And I handleit accordingly.

Also, quite vitally, I know it's a limited number of things. And even more vitallyI know by long experience as a technician that I can handle it fully and proceed todo so.

There is no "magic" touch in auditing like the psychiatrist believes. There isonly skilled touch, using known data and applying it.

Until you have an auditor familiar with his tools, cases and results, you don'thave an auditor. You have a collected confusion of hope and despair rampantamongst nonstable data.

Study, drill and familiarity overcome these things. A skilled technician knowswhat gets results and gets them.

So drill them. Drill into them the above data until they chant them in theirsleep. And finally comes the dawn. They observe the pc before them, they applystandard tech. And wonderful to behold, there are the results of Scientology, complete.Tech is IN.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 MAY 1968

REMIMEO

COACHING

In order to help you to do the best you possibly can in the course as far as beinga coach is concerned, below you will find a few data that will assist you:

1. Coach with a purpose.

a. Have for your goal when you are coaching that the student is going to getthe training drill correct; be purposeful in working toward obtaining this goal.Whenever you correct the student as a coach, just don't do it with no reason, withno purpose. Have the purpose in mind for the student to get a better understandingof the training drill and to do it to the best of his ability.

2. Coach with reality.

a. Be realistic in your coaching. When you give an origination to a student,really make it an origination, not just something that the sheet said you should say,so that it is as if the student was having to handle it exactly as you say under realconditions and circumstances. This does not mean, however, that you really feel thethings that you are giving the student, such as saying to him "My leg hurts." Thisdoes not mean that your leg should hurt, but you should say it in such a manner asto convey to the student that your leg hurts. Another thing about this is do not useany experiences from your past to coach with. Be inventive in present time.

3. Coach with an intention.

a. Behind all your coaching should be your intention that by the end of thesession your student will be aware that he is doing better at the end of it than he didat the beginning. The student must have a feeling that he has accomplished somethingin the training step, no matter how small it is. It is your intention and always shouldbe while coaching that the student you are coaching be a more able person and havea greater understanding of that on which he is being coached.

4. In coaching take up only one thing at a time.

a. For example: Using TR 4, if the student arrives at the goal set up for TR 4,then check over, one at a time, the earlier TRs. Is he confronting you? Does heoriginate the question to you each time as his own and did he really intend for you

C> 1976 L. Ron Hubbard Library.AU Rights Reserved.

HCOB 24.5.68 -2-

to receive it? Are his acknowledgments ending the cycles of communication, etc.But only coach these things one at a time, never two or more at a time. Make surethat the student does each thing you coach him on correctly before going on to thenext training step. The better a student gets at a particular drill or a particular partof a drill you should demand, as a coach, a higher standard of ability. This does notmean that you should be "never satisfied." It does mean that a person can always getbetter, and once you have reached a certain plateau of ability, then work toward anew plateau.

As a coach you should always work in the direction of better and more precisecoaching. Never allow yourself to do a sloppy job of coaching because you would bedoing your student a disservice, and we doubt that you would like the same disservice.If you are ever in doubt about the correctness of what he is doing or of what you aredoing, then the best thing is to ask the Supervisor. He will be very glad to assist youby referring you to the correct materials.

In coaching never give an opinion, as such, but always give your directions as adirect statement, rather than saying "I think" or "Well, maybe it might be this way,"etc.

As a coach you are primarily responsible for the session and the results that areobtained on the student. This does not mean, of course, that you are totally responsiblebut that you do have a responsibility toward the student and the session. Make sureyou always run good control on the student and give him good directions.

Once in a while the student will start to rationalize and justify what he is doingif he is doing something wrong. He will give you reasons why andbecauses. Talking about such things at great length does not accomplish verymuch. The only thing that does accomplish the goals of the TR and resolves anydifferences is doing the training drill. You will get further by doing it than by talkingabout it.

In the training drills the coach should coach with the material given under"Training Stress" and "Purpose" on the training sheet.

These training drills occasionally have a tendency to upset the student. There isa possibility that during a drill a student may become angry or extremely upset orexperience some misemotion. Should this occur, the coach must not "back off." Heshould continue the training drill until he can do it without stress or duress and hefeels "good about it." So, don't uback off" but push the student through whateverdifficulty he may be having.

There is a small thing that most people forget to do and that is telling thestudent when he has gotten the drill right or he has done a good job on a particularstep. Besides correcting wrongnesses, there is also complimenting rightness.

You very definitely "flunk" the student for anything that amounts to uself­coaching." The reason for this is that the student will tend to introvert and will looktoo much at how he is doing and what he is doing rather. than just doing it.

As a coach keep your attention on the student and how he is doing and don'tbecome so interested in what you yourself are doing that you neglect the studentand are unaware of his ability or inability to do the drill correctly. It is easy to

HCOB 24.5.68 -3-

become Uinteresting" to a student, to make him laugh and act up a bit. But yourmain job as a coach is to see how good he can get in each training drill and that iswhat you should have your attention on; that, and how well he is doing.

To a large degree the progress of the student is determined by the standard ofcoaching. Being a good coach produces auditors who will in turn produce goodresults on their preclears. Good results produce better people.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 MAY 1962

CENOCONMISSIONS

PRACTICAL AUDITING SKILLS

HOW TO USE THIS POLICY LETTER

Issue the following form to all auditors, students, etc., for their own insight, andissue it routinely.

PRACTICAL AUDITING SKILLSA SELF APPRECIATION

These are the total doingness skills of "the Perfect Auditor."

Any auditor would do well to check himself or herself out on his or her doingnessofan auditing session as an auditor. Theory is easier to confront than doingness. Therefore,mark yourself honestly on these points and then practice doing what you need untilyou are satisfied. Then do another sheet and practice those. BE HONEST WITHYOURSELF. Auditing is a precise doingness of the following items:

TRs

TRO:

TR1:

TR2:

TR3:

TR4:

CCHs

CCH 1:

CCH2:

CCH3:

CCH4:

SCS:

Op Pro by Dup:

Two-Way Comm in CCHs:

co 1974 l. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

CALM FAIR UNSURE

E-METER

Trimming:

On-Off Switch:

Sensitivity Knob:

Tone Arm Handling:

Needle Pattern Reading:

Null Needle:

Theta Bops:

Rock Slams:

Falls:

Rises:

Speeded Rise:

Speeded Fall:

Slowed Rise:

Slowed Fall:

Ticks:

Free Needle:

Stuck Needle:

Body Motion:

Tiny Reads:

Testing for a Clean Needle:

MODEL SESSION

Beginning Ruds:

Body of Session:

End Ruds:

Two-Way Comm:

CALM FAIR UNSURE

HANDLING PC

Detecting Missed W/Hs:

ARC Breaky Pcs:

Getting Off Missed W/Hs:

Getting Off Invalidations:

Q-and-Aing with Pc:

PRACTICAL PROCESSES

PTP Process:

ARC Break Action:

Finding Overts:

Forming What Questions:

When All Appear Who System:

Finding Bottom of Chain:

Finding Havingness Process:

Prehav Assessment:

Listing:

Testing Completeness:

Nulling:

Checking:

Getting Missed W/Hs Off:

Getting Item Invalidations Off:

Getting Suppressions Off:

Cleaning a Needle Reaction:

Cleaning a Dirty Needle:

Getting More Goals or Items:

Getting Pc Into Session:

Getting Pc Out of Session:

Controlling Pc's Attention:

CALM FAIR UNSURE

HANDLING PC

Creating R-factor:

Holding up againstPc's Suggestions:

Holding Constantagainst Adversity:

CALM FAIR UNSURE

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1964RREVISED 15 NOVEMBER 1987

REMIMEO

ALL STAFF

MISSIONS

ACADEMY STUDENTS

FIELD AUDITORS

FSMs

POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITYAND SOURCES OF TROUBLE

Cancels and replaces:HCO PL 27 Oct. 64

HCOPL

HCOPL

HCOPL

27 Oct. 64Reiss. 23.6.67

21 Feb. 69

7 May 69

POLICIES ON PHYSICALHEALING, INSANITY AND'TROUBLESOME SOURCES"POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING,INSANITY AND POTENTIALTROUBLE SOURCESCANCELlATION OF"CORRECTIONS TO HCO POLICYLETTERS," POL LTR OFNOVEMBERS, 1964POLICIES ON "SOURCES OFTROUBLE"

It has been the longstanding policy of Central Organizations to handle physicalillness and insanity in the following manner.

HEALING

Any process labeled "healing," old or new, refers to healing by mental andspiritual means and should therefore be looked upon as the relief of difficultiesarising from mental and spiritual causes.

The proper procedure in being requested to heal some complained-of physicaldisability is as follows:

1. Require a physical examination from whatever practitioners of the physicalhealing arts may be competent and available;

2. Clearly establish that the disability does not stem from immediately physicalcauses;

3. If the disability is pronounced to be curable within the skill of the physicalpractitioner and is in actual fact a disease or illness which surrenders to

© 1974, 1991 L Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

contemporary physical treatment, to require the person to be so treatedbefore Scientology processing may be undertaken;

4. If, however, the physical practitioner's recommendation includes surgeryor treatment of an unproven nature or the illness or disease cannot beaccurately diagnosed as a specific physical illness or disease with a knowncure, the person may be accepted for processing on the reasonable assumptionthat no purely physical illness is proven to exist, and that it is probablymental or spiritual in origin.

POLICIES REGARDING THE INSANE

With insane persons or persons with a proven record of insanity, do the following:

1. Establish to the best of your ability within reasonable administrative limitsand known tests that any HGC pc accepted for processing does not have ahistory of deserved institutionalization in an insane asylum or similar place;

2. Process only those persons who have no such history;

3. Do not recommend any other treatment by practitioners in the field ofinsanity where there exists any evidence that such practitioners injure,disable or maltreat patients by violently reacting drugs, by painful shocks,surgery or other barbaric and outdated means of "mental treatment";

4. If no recommendation is possible under (3) above, recommend only restand a change of environment, but not in a professional capacity.

SOURCES OF TROUBLE

Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types ofpersons who have caused us considerable trouble.

These persons can be grouped under "sources of trouble." They include:

a. Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties)of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. Inpractice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendlyfashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them bypersons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains inprocessing, and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonisticelement wrong.

They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run astheir own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses toeffectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot bereached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not beaccepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

b. Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so manyundetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate

case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizationsor auditors.

c. Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or whohave publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all theirimmediate families should never be accepted for processing by a CentralOrganization or an auditor. They have a history of only serving other endsthan case gain and commonly again tum on the organization or auditor.They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientologyand are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept helpfrom those they have tried to injure.

d. Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes fortheir condition too often to be acceptable. By responsible-for-conditioncases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is "whollyresponsible for the terrible condition I am in." Such cases demand unusualfavors, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review ofthese cases shows that they were in the same or worse condition long beforeauditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing fornothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonismextends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establishthe rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

e. Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liabilityas they are forced into being processed by some other person and have nopersonal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary, they usually wantonly to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not getbetter. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the personwill not benefit.

f. Persons who "want to be processed to see if Scientology works" as theironly reason for being audited have never been known to make gains asthey do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They shouldnot be audited.

g. Persons who claim that "if you help such and such a case" (at great andyour expense) because somebody is rich or influential or the neighborswould be electrified should be ignored. Processing is deSigned for betteringindividuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance.Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinaryeffort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for nonnalreasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it hasthe unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment.

h. Persons who "have an open mind" but no personal hopes or desires forauditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don't have anopen mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldomfound to be very responsible and waste anyone's efforts "to convince them."

i. Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have apurpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor's and so, in this

conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained, they use theirtraining to degrade others. Thus, they should not be accepted for trainingor auditing.

j. Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attemptingto investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One shouldnot seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards,newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful orinstructive have done nothing beneficial, as their first idea is a firm "I don'tknow" and this usually ends with an equally firm "I don't know." If a personcan't see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not havesufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legalmatters, only take the obvious effective steps-carry on no crusades incourt. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them anytime, contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leavetheir editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say bysaying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much.Policy is very definite. Ignore.

To summarize sources of trouble, the policy in general is to cut communication,as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where thetypes of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction. I know ofmany cases where they were handled by firm legal stands, by ignoring them untilthey changed their minds, or just turning one's back.

In applying such a policy of cut-communication, one must also use judgmentas there are exceptions in all things, and to fail to handle a person's momentaryupset in life or with us can be quite fatal. So these policies refer to non-Scientologypersons in the main or persons who appear on the outer fringes and push towardus. When such a person bears any of the above designations, we and the many arebetter off to ignore them.

Scientology works. You don't have to prove it to everyone. People don't deserveto have Scientology as a divine right, you know. They have to earn it. This has beentrue in every philosophy that sought to better man.

And the less enturbulence you put on your lines, the better, and the morepeople you will eventually help.

THE STRESS OF POLICY

All the above "sources of trouble" are also forbidden training, and when aperson being trained or audited is detected to belong under the above headings(a) to (j), he or she should be advised to terminate and accept refund which must bepaid at once and the full explanation should be given them at that time. Thus, thefew may not, in their own turmoil, impede service to and the advance of the many.

Scientology is an applied philosophy designed and developed to make the ablemore able. In this sphere it is tremendously successful.

Efforts to involve philosophy with medical imperialism, psychiatric sadism, thebigoted churchman, bring about a slowing of our progress.

These people are sick spiritually because of their own continuous harmfulactions against patients and the society and are beyond our normal means to help.

These policies will continue in existence until such time as those interestedcare to invest the time and treasure necessary to build the institutions and reeducatethe professions which now practice medical and physical mental healing, and this isdefinitely not within our time, but would belong to some remote future when moremen are sane.

However, such a program would depend upon the continued existence of themedical imperialist and the psychiatrist, and as their more reprehensible activitiesare rather new and very radical, they may be abandoned by public and governmentlong before Scientology could help them. This is probably the more likely occurrenceas even in Russia the communist has now forsworn all violent treatments of theinsane according to their delegates to the London Medical Conference of this year,and Russian practitioners look with contempt and scorn upon the Western psychiatrist.The medical doctor of England, taken over by socialism, has lost his ambition formedical imperialism and has no contest with Scientology. In the United States theAmerican Medical Association has become locked in mortal combat with the governmentand probably will be socialized entirely in a few years due to fee abuses and lack ofgains. The medical doctor remains strong only in more backward small nations suchas Australia where world trends are late in arriving.

Even the Church in Rome is considering a surrender of principles and amalgamationwith other faiths in an effort to save a dwindling religious membership.

Thus, there may be no medical practitioner as we know him left in a fewdecades. Membership in the psychiatric profession is declining.

In the place of these institutions, if we ever get around to them, we may findourselves dealing with completely different practices in the fields of physical healingand the treatment of the insane. All we ask of them is that they are competent intheir treatments and less greedy for monopoly than their predecessors. And if this isso, then our policies will then remain fully in force, but in a spirit of cooperation,not with the desire to protect ourselves and the public from them and the productsof their bungling.

Ours are the powerful communication lines. They are powerful because theyare theta lines. Entheta (enturbulated theta) obtains all its apparent power by beingparasitic on theta lines. Only when you add the power of our lines to the weaknessof entheta lines can they then have strength.

Example: It was the FCDC communication to its own field about that governmentraid that (a) cost the most in cash and (b) did the most damage. You can actuallyignore an entheta line in almost all cases without the faintest consequence. It onlyhas power when we let it have power by answering it.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1964RREVISED 15 NOVEMBER 1987

REMIMEO

ALL STAFF

MISSIONS

ACADEMY STUDENTS

FIELD AUDITORS

FSMs

POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITYAND SOURCES OF TROUBLE

Cancels and replaces:HCO PL 27 Oct. 64

HCOPL

HCOPL

HCOPL

27 Oct. 64Reiss. 23.6.67

21 Feb. 69

7 May 69

POLICIES ON PHYSICALHEALING, INSANITY AND"TROUBLESOME SOURCES"POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING,INSANITY AND POTENTIALTROUBLE SOURCESCANCELLATION OF"CORRECTIONS TO HCO POLICYLETTERS," POL LTR OFNOVEMBER 5,1964POLICIES ON "SOURCES OFTROUBLE"

It has been the longstanding policy of Central Organizations to handle physicalillness and insanity in the following manner.

HEALING

Any process labeled "healing," old or new, refers to healing by mental andspiritual means and should therefore be looked upon as the relief of difficultiesarising from mental and spiritual causes.

The proper procedure in being requested to heal some complained-of physicaldisability is as follows:

1. Require a physical examination from whatever practitioners of the physicalhealing arts may be competent and available;

2. Clearly establish that the disability does not stem from immediately physicalcauses;

3. If the disability is pronounced to be curable within the skill of the physicalpractitioner and is in actual fact a disease or illness which surrenders to

© 1974, 1991 L. Ron Hubbard library.All Rights Reserved.

contemporary physical treatment, to require the person to be so treatedbefore Scientology processing may be undertaken;

4. If, however, the physical practitioner's recommendation includes surgeryor treatment of an unproven nature or the illness or disease cannot beaccurately diagnosed as a specific physical illness or disease with a knowncure, the person may be accepted for processing on the reasonable assumptionthat no purely physical illness is proven to exist, and that it is probablymental or spiritual in origin.

POLICIES REGARDING THE INSANE

With insane persons or persons with a proven record of insanity, do the following:

1. Establish to the best of your ability within reasonable administrative limitsand known tests that any HGC pc accepted for processing does not have ahistory of deserved institutionalization in an insane asylum or similar place;

2. Process only those persons who have no such history;

3. Do not recommend any other treatment by practitioners in the field ofinsanity where there exists any evidence that such practitioners injure,disable or maltreat patients by violently reacting drugs, by painful shocks,surgery or other barbaric and outdated means of "mental treatment";

4. If no recommendation is possible under (3) above, recommend only restand a change of environment, but not in a professional capacity.

SOURCES OF TROUBLE

Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types ofpersons who have caused us considerable trouble.

These persons can be grouped under "sources of trouble." They include:

a. Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties)of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. Inpractice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendlyfashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them bypersons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains inprocessing, and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonisticelement wrong.

They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run astheir own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses toeffectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot bereached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not beaccepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

b. Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so manyundetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate

case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizationsor auditors.

c. Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or whohave publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all theirimmediate families should never be accepted for processing by a CentralOrganization or an auditor. They have a history of only serving other endsthan case gain and commonly again tum on the organization or auditor.They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientologyand are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept helpfrom those they have tried to injure.

d. Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes fortheir condition too often to be acceptable. By responsible-for-conditioncases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is "whollyresponsible for the terrible condition I am in." Such cases demand unusualfavors, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review ofthese cases shows that they were in the same or worse condition long beforeauditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing fornothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonismextends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establishthe rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

e. Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liabilityas they are forced into being processed by some other person and have nopersonal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary, they usually wantonly to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not getbetter. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the personwill not benefit.

f. Persons who "want to be processed to see if Scientology works" as theironly reason for being audited have never been known to make gains asthey do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They shouldnot be audited.

g. Persons who claim that "if you help such and such a case" (at great andyour expense) because somebody is rich or influential or the neighborswould be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for betteringindividuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance.Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinaryeffort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normalreasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it hasthe unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment.

h. Persons who "have an open mind" but no personal hopes or desires forauditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don't have anopen mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldomfound to be very responsible and waste anyone's efforts "to convince them."

i. Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have apurpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor's and so, in this

conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained, they use theirtraining to degrade others. Thus, they should not be accepted for trainingor auditing.

j. Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attemptingto investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One shouldnot seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards,newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful orinstructive have done nothing beneficial, as their first idea is a finn "I don'tknow" and this usually ends with an equally firm "I don't know." If a personcan't see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not havesufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legalmatters, only take the obvious effective steps-carry on no crusades incourt. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them anytime, contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leavetheir editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say bysaying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much.Policy is very definite. Ignore.

To summarize sources of trouble, the policy in general is to cut communication,as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where thetypes of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction. I know ofmany cases where they were handled by firm legal stands, by ignoring them untilthey changed their minds, or just turning one's back.

In applying such a policy of cut-communication, one must also use judgmentas there are exceptions in all things, and to fail to handle a person's momentaryupset in life or with us can be quite fatal. So these policies refer to non-Scientologypersons in the main or persons who appear on the outer fringes and push towardus. When such a person bears any of the above designations, we and the many arebetter off to ignore them.

Scientology works. You don't have to prove it to everyone. People don't deserveto have Scientology as a divine right, you know. They have to earn it. This has beentrue in every philosophy that sought to better man.

And the less enturbulence you put on your lines, the better, and the morepeople you will eventually help.

THE STRESS OF POLICY

All the above "sources of trouble" are also forbidden training, and when aperson being trained or audited is detected to belong under the above headings(a) to (j), he or she should be advised to terminate and accept refund which must bepaid at once and the full explanation should be given them at that time. Thus, thefew may not, in their own turmoil, impede service to and the advance of the many.

Scientology is an applied philosophy designed and developed to make the ablemore able. In this sphere it is tremendously successful.

Efforts to involve philosophy with medical imperialism, psychiatric sadism, thebigoted churchman, bring about a slowing of our progress.

These people are sick spiritually because of their own continuous harmfulactions against patients and the society and are beyond our normal means to help.

These policies will continue in existence until such time as those interestedcare to invest the time and treasure necessary to build the institutions and reeducatethe professions which now practice medical and physical mental healing, and this isdefinitely not within our time, but would belong to some remote future when moremen are sane.

However, such a program would depend upon the continued existence of themedical imperialist and the psychiatrist, and as their more reprehensible activitiesare rather new and very radical, they may be abandoned by public and governmentlong before Scientology could help them. This is probably the more likely occurrenceas even in Russia the communist has now forsworn all violent treatments of theinsane according to their delegates to the London Medical Conference of this year,and Russian practitioners look with contempt and scorn upon the Western psychiatrist.The medical doctor of England, taken over by socialism, has lost his ambition formedical imperialism and has no contest with Scientology. In the United States theAmerican Medical Association has become locked in mortal combat with the governmentand probably will be socialized entirely in a few years due to fee abuses and lack ofgains. The medical doctor remains strong only in more backward small nations suchas Australia where world trends are late in arriving.

Even the Church in Rome is considering a surrender ofprinciples and amalgamationwith other faiths in an effort to save a dwindling religious membership.

Thus, there may be no medical practitioner as we know him left in a fewdecades. Membership in the psychiatric profession is declining.

In the place of these institutions, if we ever get around to them, we may findourselves dealing with completely different practices in the fields of physical healingand the treatment of the insane. All we ask of them is that they are competent intheir treatments and less greedy for monopoly than their predecessors. And if this isso, then our policies will then remain fully in force, but in a spirit of cooperation,not with the desire to protect ourselves and the public from them and the productsof their bungling.

Ours are the powerful communication lines. They are powerful because theyare theta lines. Entheta (enturbulated theta) obtains all its apparent power by beingparasitic on theta lines. Only when you add the power of our lines to the weaknessof entheta lines can they then have strength.

Example: It was the FCDC communication to its own field about that governmentraid that (a) cost the most in cash and (b) did the most damage. You can actuallyignore an entheta line in almost all cases without the faintest consequence. It onlyhas power when we let it have power by answering it.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 15 JULY 1971REISSUE III

REVISED 24 MAY 1998

REMIMEO

NED CHECKSHEETS

ALL NED AUDITORS

ALL C/SES

IMPORTANTURGENT

CIS SERIES 48RF

NEW ERA DIANETICS SERIES 9RD

DRUG HANDLING

Refs:HCOB 28 Aug. 68 II DRUGSHCOB 29 Aug. 68 DRUG DATAHCOB 23 Sept. 68 I DRUGS AND TRIPPERSHCOB 19 May 69RB DRUG AND ALCOHOL CASES

Rev. 14.11.78 PRIOR ASSESSINGHCOB 8 Sept. 7IR II CASE SUPERVISOR ACTIONS

Rev. 20.5.75HCOB 2 Nov. 57RA AN OBJECTIVE RUNDOWN

Rev. 22.2.75HCOB 3 july 59 GENERAL INFORMATIONHCOB 11 june 57 TRAINING AND CCH PROCESSESHCOB 19 Sept. 78R I THE END OF ENDLESS DRUG RDs

Rev. 31.1.79HCOB 12 Nov.8IRD GRADE CHART STREAMLINED

Rev. 20.4.90 FOR LOWER GRADES

A person who has been on drugs is one of the "seven types of resistive cases."(These types are found on the Scientology Green Form No. 40.)

A person who has been on drugs, alcohol or medicines seldom runs on anyother type of engram, seldom goes backtrack well and is subject to somatic, emotionaland perceptic shut-offs making any other type of Dianetic running a vain activity.

Drugs since 1962 have been in very widespread use. Before then they were rare.A worldwide spread of drugs occurred. A large percentage of people became and aredrug takers.

By drugs (to mention a few) are meant-tranquilizers, opium, cocaine,marijuana, peyote, amphetamine and the psychiatrist's gifts to man, LSD and angeldust, which are the worst. Any medical drugs are included. Drugs are drugs. Thereare thousands of trade names and slang terms for these drugs.

@ 1976, 1980, 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library.Unpublished revisions: @ created 1998 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

ALCOHOL is included as a drug and receives the same treatment inauditing.

By alcohol (to mention a few) is meant whiskey, beer, wine, vodka, rum, gin,etc.-in other words, any fermented or distilled liquor or drink of any kind or fumesof such with some percentage of alcohol content.

Drugs are supposed to do wonderful things but all they really do is ruin theperson.

Even someone off drugs for years still has "blank periods." The abilities toconcentrate or to balance are injured.

The moral part of it has nothing to do with auditing. The facts are that:

a. People who have been on drugs can be a liability until the condition ishandled in auditing.

b. A former drug user is a resistive case that does not make stable gains untilthe condition is handled.

c. Auditing is the only successful means ever developed for handling drugdamage.

DRUG ENGRAMS

People who have been on drugs are sometimes afraid of running engrams.

In fact, it is almost a way to detect a "druggie."

The drugs, particularly LSD and even sometimes antibiotics or other medicinesto which the person has an allergy, can turn on whole track pictures violently.

These tend to overwhelm the person and make him feel crazy. Some of thesepeople are afraid to confront the bank again.

If a person "doesn't like Dianetics" and doesn't want to be run on engrams, it isnecessary to put him through the Purification Rundown, TRs 0-9, Objectives andthe Scientology Drug Rundown or get these FESed and repaired if done earlier. IfDianetics has been run but poorly, it should of course be repaired fully with anL3RH (list used to correct Dianetic errors). But if the person still flinches, thePurification Rundown, TRs 0-9, Objectives and the Scientology Drug Rundownsuccessfully completed will handle.

THOSE ON DRUGS

Objective Processes are numerous. It may be necessary to run these on a personstill on drugs and even put the person through TRs 0-9 to get the person off drugs.Doing this usually avoids the painful "withdrawal symptoms" particularly present incoming off heroin or psychiatric "treatment" drugs. (Note: Some persons have been

put on some therapeutic drug by an MD-such as insulin-and possibly shouldremain on it until well advanced into auditing. But these are not the usual drug. Itis up to the pc, the auditor and the doctor what should be done in such cases.Tranquilizers are not acceptable, however.)

DONE FIRST

Drugs are done first.

Why? Because drugs make a resistive case! Other Dianetic actions and Scientologyas well will get loses if drugs are not handled first.

Any current Dianetic case failures are from nubby Dianetic auditing or theperson has been on drugs or alcohol which were not handled by Dianetics.

It hasn't harmed anyone to omit drug handling. But it made it hard or impossibleto get stable case gain.

THUS ANY DIANETIC PC WHO HAS HAD DRUG HANDLING OMITTEDMUST BE RUN ON DRUGS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BEFORE MORE AUDITINGIS GIVEN.

I repeat, drugs or alcohol in most instances make a resistive case so the pointmust be handled before the case will attain and hold case gain.

NED DRUG RUNDOWN AND EXPANDED GRADES

It may happen that a person with a heavy drug history will not be successful atrunning Expanded Grades before his drugs have been run out with NED.

If the person runs into trouble due to unhandled drugs while running ExpandedARC Straightwire and Expanded Grades O-IV he could be switched to the NEDDRD. In some cases one would handle the drugs with a NED DRD, then resumeExpanded Grades and then go back to NED. If the person went Clear while doingthe NED DRD one would simply skip the remaining Expanded Grades, do a CCRD,Sunshine RD and that would be that.

ANY PC WHO IS NOT MAKING IT IN AUDITING SHOULD BE CHECKEDFOR A DRUG OR ALCOHOL HISTORY.

DISCOVERY

In investigating a series of cases who were not making it, I found in each onethat the person had been on drugs or alcohol and that the drugs or the alcohol hadnot been run out.

Drug data was not covered fully enough in the Dianetics pack. Only priorassessment to drugs was given.

Thus I have found several Dianetic pcs were only run on the prior assessmentto drugs. This is not good enough as it is only a partial handling.

FULL NED DRUG RUNDOWN

Here is the full New Era Dianetics Drug Rundown.

O. The Original Assessment Sheet. Ask the pc each question on the Original AssessmentSheet. Mark all reads. Make sure you get specific and complete answers to yourquestions.

NOTE: On Item E, do not ask the pc for whole track drugs. You want onlydrugs, medicine or alcohol he has taken this lifetime.

1. Objective ARC. (Ref: HCOB 19 June 78, NED Series 3, OBJECTIVE ARC) (Note:This process is now part of the full battery of Objectives which follow thePurification Rundown and is part of Expanded Grade I. The CIS should verifywhether or not it has been run on the pc to EP; if it has not been, it is run atthis point in the NED Drug Rundown.)

Purif RD Series lRTHE PURIFICATION RUNDOWNREPLACES THE SWEAT PROGRAMGRADE CHART STREAMLINED FORLOWER GRADES

HCOB 12 Nov. 81RDRev. 20.4.90

2. Purification Rundown. The only cases that would not require the PurificationRundown are those with no heavy drug history and whose OCA scores are allin the upper half of the graph. (Ref: HCOB 12 Nov. 81RD, GRADE CHARTSTREAMLINED FOR LOWER GRADES) (Note: This rundown is most oftendone early in a pc's progress up the Grade Chart. The CIS should verify whetheror not the pc has done the rundown to EP; if the pc has not, it is run at thispoint in the NED Drug Rundown steps.)

Refs:HCOB 6 Feb. 78RD

Rev. 27.3.90

3. A battery of Objective Processes. This includes CCHs 1-10, SCS on an Objectand SCS. (Note: Many pcs will have had a full battery of Objectives earlier intheir auditing, following the Purification Rundown or as part of ExpandedGrade I. The CIS should verify whether Objectives have already been run toEP; if they have not been, they are run at this point in the NED Drug Rundown.)

(SOP 8-C and Op Pro by Dup are included in later steps of the NED DrugRundown.)

UPPER INDOC TRs

TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED

4. TRs 0-9. (Note: Some pcs may have done IRs 0-9 earlier in their progress upthe Grade Chart. The CIS should verify whether or not the pc has done TRs0-9; if the pc has not, they are done at this point in the NED Drug Rundown.)

Refs:HCOB 16 Aug. 71R II

Rev. 5.7.78HCOB 7 May 68R

Rev. 2.4.90

5. Full Dianetic C/S-l to educate the pc so he fully understands Dianetic procedureand is able and willing to be audited successfully.

Ref:HCOB 9 July 78RA NED Series 21

Rev. 8.4.88 DIANETIC C/S-l

6. Narrative handling on drugs-first. All drugs, medicine and alcohol which thepc has taken in this lifetime have been listed on the Original Assessment Sheet.

At this point, choose the best reading drug, alcohol or medicine from theOriginal Assessment Sheet and run it out Narrative R3RA Quad. (For example:"Return to the time you took whiskey and tell me when you are there.")

YOU DO NOT CHECK INTEREST ON DRUG ITEMS.

RUN OUT EACH READING DRUG, ALCOHOL OR MEDICINE ON THE DRUGLIST (IN ORDER OF READ) BY NARRATIVE R3RA QUAD FIRST. Otherwise,you can end up spinning the pc way down the track.

In running Narrative on this lifetime drug, medicine or alcohol individual items,you will find that it is easier to do if you run earlier beginning and earlierincident rather than attempt to limit him to the first this-lifetime incident hecomes up with, as there will usually be more than one incident when he tookwhiskey, for example. So you always ask earlier beginning but if it is necessaryyou ask earlier incident with the question, "Is there an earlier incident whenyou took whiskey?" Pcs commonly tend to wind up way back down the wholetrack at this stage of their auditing and that is not what you're aiming for hereeither. What you're interested in is this lifetime, this body. But this doesn't meanyou don't run track on the NED Drug Rundown; just don't push it. And neverinsist the pc run any type of chain when he says there's nothing there. When allreading drugs, medicines and alcohols on the list have been run to EP byNarrative R3RA Quad, go on to the next step.

7. Preassessment on each reading drug, medicine or alcohol taken in this lifetime.

A. Choose the best reading drug, alcohol or medicine from the Original AssessmentSheet and do a preassessment on it.

"ARE (preassessment item) CONNECTED WITH TAKING (the drug,medicine or alcohol)?"

is the preassessment question.

B. Take the best reading preassessment item off the preassessment and askthe pc:

"WHAT (best reading preassessment item) ARE CONNECTED WITHTAKING (the drug, medicine or alcohol)?"

This is the running item list question for that particular drug. You writethis question at the top of the page and write down exactly what the pcsaid, noting any read that occurred when he said it.

c. Take up the best reading running item (make sure you noted reads as thepc gave you the items) and run it R3RA Quad.

DO NOT CHECK INTEREST ON DRUG ITEMS.

D. Handle all reading running items found in step B in order of read withR3RA Quad.

E. Using that same original drug item, repeat step A.

F. Repeat steps B to E.

Fa. Using the first original item continue steps A, B, C, D, E, until the PreassessmentList simply FINs.

Fb. Take the next individual drug, medicine or alcohol item that read on theoriginal list and repeat steps A to Fa on it until you have handled everyitem that read on the Original Assessment Sheet.

G. When there are no more items unhandled on the original list that read andno further items reading, but there are some unrun original items on thelist, null with Suppress and Invalidate buttons.

H. Run any now-reading items with steps A to Fb.

I. Use up the whole list of drugs in this way, doing the preassessment andsteps B to H on all reading drugs. Reassess the drug list. Handle per aboveinstructions any drug which now reads. This is done until the entire druglist FINs when called. (Note: If, during the rundown, the pc thinks of otherdrugs he has taken in this lifetime, add them to the original list with theirreads noted and handle them in turn according to size of read, ensuringyou run them Narrative R3RA Quad first.)

8. The Prior Assessment.

A. Using the drug list obtained on the Original Assessment, take up the largestreading drug, medicine or alcohol and ask the pc the following preassessmentquestion:

"PRIOR TO TAKING (the best reading drug, medicine or alcohol)WERE THERE (preassessment item)?"

B. Take the best reading preassessment item and ask:

"WHAT (preassessment item) DID YOU HAVE PRIOR TO TAKING(the drug, medicine or alcohoI)?"

C. Use full preassessment steps and run out all reading running items R3RAQuad.

D. Reassess any remaining unrun items found in step B to see if they nowread. If they do, run them. Also check for any more items the pc has to addto the list, and mark down their reads as the pc gives them.

E. Repeat above steps on any items that now read.

F. When there are no more items to add and no more items reading, but thereare some unrun items on the list, null with Suppress and Invalidate buttons.

G. Run any now-reading items R3RA Quad.

H. Reassess the Preassessment List, using the drug, medicine or alcohol in step A.Follow remaining steps until all reading items are taken to EP and there are nofurther reads on reassessment of the Preassessment List.

I. Take up the next best-reading drug, medicine or alcohol from step A.Repeat steps B to I.

The above Prior Assessment steps are done on each drug, medicine oralcohol that has read. They are handled in order of largest read.

9. More Objectives. The final step of the NED Drug Rundown, when all above stepsare fully complete, is to run another set of Objectives on the pc.

These are:

A. SOP 8-C

B. OP PRO BY DUP

run in that order, each to its complete EP.

If the pc has already had these processes run to EP earlier, he is run on theprocess Spotting Objects. This process is run in a place with ample spaceand objects, using the command "Spot an object." The EP of the process isFIN, cog and VGIs. (Ref: Operational Bulletin No.4, 11 Nov. 55, SIXLEVELS OF PROCESSING-ISSUE 5)

This Objective Processing is done to bring the pc fully into present time,and it will be a present time which he is now far better able to confront.

This completes the New Era Dianetics Drug Rundown.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Revision assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 13 AUGUST 1972RCREVISED 21 MARCH 1999

REMIMEO

BPI

ALL STUDENTS

TECH DEPT

QUAL

THE AUDlTOR

REGISTRARS

FAST FLOW TRAINING

Refs:HCOPl

HCOPL

HCOPlHCOPlHCOPlHCOB

HCOB

HCOB

HCOB

HCOB

25 Sept. 79RB IIRev. 1.7.8529 Mar. 65 II

6 Feb. 687 Feb. 6811 Mar. 687 Sept. 74

4 Apr. 72R IRev. 30.5.7230 Mar. 72RRev. 30.5.72

20 July 72 I

15 July 71 RE IIIRev. 24.5.98

Word Clearing Series 34METHOD ONE WORD CLEARINGFLOWS AND EXPANSIONTHE FAST FLOW SYSTEMORGANIZATION-THE FLAWFAST FLOW AND ETHICSFALSE ATTESTATIONWord Clearing Series 54SUPERLITERACY AND THECLEARED WORDPRIMARY RUNDOWN (REVISED)

Study Series SRTHE PRIMARY CORRECTIONRUNDOWN, REVISEDPRIMARY CORRECTIONRUNDOWN HANDLINGCIS Series 48RFNED Series 9RDDRUG HANDLING

So that there is NO question about what is meant by FAST FLOW TRAINING:

ANY STUDENT WHO HONESTLY COMPLETES THE STUDENT HAT ANDMETHOD ONE WORD CLEARING OR THE PRIMARY RUNDOWN OR THEPRIMARY CORRECTION RUNDOWN IS THEREAFTER DESIGNATED A "FASTFLOW STUDENT."

The fast flow student passes courses by attestation at Certs and Awards to theeffect that he has (a) enrolled properly on the course, (b) has paid for the course,(c) has studied and understands the materials, Cd) has done the drills, (e) canproduce the result required in the materials.

The student is given a PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE. This looks like any othercertificate but is not gold sealed and has Provisional plainly on it.

© 1972, 1991, 1999 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Righ 15 Reserved.

In the case of an auditor, an internship or formal auditing experience is required.When actual honest evidence is presented to C&A that he has demonstrated that hecan produce flubless results, his certificate is VALIDATED with a gold seal and is apermanent certificate.

In administrative courses or courses of any kind not having to do with auditing,the same procedure is followed and a PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE is issued byC&A.

The person must now demonstrate that he can apply the materials studied byproducing an honest, actual statistic in the materials studied. He presents this evidenceto C&A and receives a VALIDATION gold seal on his certificate.

Provisional certificates EXPIRE after one year if not validated.

The fast flow student studies within his knowledge of study tech. He is assistedby Supervisors. Any Word Clearing action needed can be done on him. He can besent to Qual and crammed. He can be star-rated and made to clay demo by theSupervisor.

He does not however have to have a twin on theory, he does not automaticallystar-rate star-rate items, he does not have to have an examination.

The fast flow system makes for very rapid training. This becomes possible dueto the developments of Method One Word Clearing and the Student Hat, the PrimaryRundown and the Primary Correction Rundown.

PREREQUISITES

The Student Hat is mandatory for all major courses (Ref: HCOB 24 Jan. 77,TECH CORRECTION ROUNDUP).

The Student Hat and Method One Word Clearing or the Primary Rundown orthe Primary Correction Rundown are required for the student to fast flow hiscourses.

Note: Method One Word Clearing is a prerequisite for Academy Levels O-IV,DEC and higher-level tech and admin training. (Ref: RCO PL 25 Sept. 79RB II,Word Clearing Series 34, METHOD ONE WORD CLEARING)

STUDENTS WHO ARE NOT FAST FLOW

Those students who have not had Method One and Student Hat, or a PrimaryRundown or Primary Correction Rundown, must star-rate, clay demo and go throughthe materials as many times as required, using the entirety of the Student Hat (orBasic Study Manual for staff hatting).

It is much faster to do Method One and Student Hat or the PRD or PCRD first.

DRUG CASES

Where a drug case cannot be gotten through Method One Word Clearing dueto case, it is usual to get him through the Purification Rundown, Objectives and in

some cases a Drug Rundown. (Refs: HCOB 12 Nov. 8IRD, GRADE CHARTSTREAMLINED FOR LOWER GRADES, and HCOB 4 Apr. 72R I, PRIMARY RUNDOWN[REVISED])

DESIGNATION

The FAST FLOW STUDENT should be given a blue lapel award and wear it inclass. It should say FFS on it in black letters.

This gives the green light to rapid and effective completion of courses for theFAST FLOW STUDENT.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Revision assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 30 NOVEMBER 1978RAREVISED 26 AUGUST 1996

C/SES

TECH/QUAL

AUDITORS

HCOs

LEVEL II

CHECKSHEETS

CONFESSIONAL

COURSES

(This bulletin does not include everything there is to knowabout Confessionals. The full subject is covered on theHubbard Senior Sec Checker Course and on the Saint HillSpecial Briefing Course. This HCOB does, however, givethe modern procedure and all basic steps for delivering aConfessional. It is how to audit any Confessional.)

CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE

Refs:HCOB 5 Aug. 78 INSTANT READSHCOB 28 Feb. 71 CIS Series 24

METERING READING ITEMSHCOB 8 Feb. 62 MISSED WITHHOLDSHCOB 12 Feb. 62 HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDS

AND MISSED WITHHOLDSHCOB 3 May 62R ARC BREAKS. MISSED

Rev. 5.9.78 WITHHOLDSHCOB 11 Aug. 78 I RUDIMENTS. DEFINITIONS AND

PATTERHCOB 20 Sept. 78 I AN INSTANT FIN IS A READHCOB 14 Mar. 71R FIN EVERYTHING

Rev. 25.7.73HCOB 3 Sept. 78 DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAMHCOB 10 Aug. 76R RISes. WHAT THEY MEAN

Rev. 5.9.78HCOB 17 May 69 TRs AND DIRTY NEEDLESHCOB 6 Sept. 78 I FOLLOWING UP ON DIRTY

NEEDLESHCOB 23 July 80R CONFESSIONAL REPAIR

Rev. 26.7.86 LlST-LCREHCOB 10 Nov. 78RA I PROCLAMATION, POWER TO

Rev. 26.7.86 FORGIVEHCOB 28 Nov. 78 AUDITORS WHO MISS

WITHHOLDS. PENALTYBook: The Book of E-Meter DrillsSec Checking HCOBs. Sec Checking tapes and tape demos since 1961

Cancels:8TB 31 Aug. 72RB CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE

"Sec Checking," "Integrity Processing" and "Confessionals" are all the exactsame procedure and any materials on these subjects are interchangeable under thesetitles. (HCOB 24 Jan. 77, TECH CORRECTION ROUNDUP)

© 1980, 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library.Unpublished revisions: © created 1996 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

Withholds don't just add up to withholds. They add up to overts; they add upto secrecies; they add up to individuations; they add up to games conditions; theyadd up to a lot more things than O/W.

You are straightening out somebody on a moral code, the "Now-rm-supposed-to's."They've transgressed on a series of "Now-l'm-supposed-to's." Having so transgressed,they are now individuated. If their individuation is too obsessive, they snap in andbecome the terminal. All of these cycles exist around the idea of the transgressionagainst the "Now-rm-supposed-to's." That is what a Confessional clears up and that isall it clears up. It's a great deal more than a withhold. (HCOB 1Mar. 77 III, FORMULATINGCONFESSIONAL QUESTIONS)

PROCEDURE

A Confessional must be done by someone who is a well-trained auditor, skilledin TRs, basic auditing and metering, who can make a prepared list read and who hasbeen fully checked out and drilled on these techniques.

Every question of a Confessional is FINed. The original question must be takento FIN, not some other question.

Here is the basic procedure for a Confessional:

1. Set up the room with the auditor seated closer to the door than the pc, sothat he can gently put the pc back in his chair if he tries to blow the session.Ensure all the necessary materials are to hand, per HCOB 4 Dec. 77RA,Rev. 23.4.96, CHECKLIST FOR SETTING UP SESSIONS AND AN E-METER.

2. Make sure the person is well fed and well rested, that his hands are not toodry or moist, that the cans are the correct size and that the person knowshow to hold them. Include all the steps of HCOB 4 Dec. 77RA, Rev. 23.4.96,CHECKLIST FOR SETTING UP SESSIONS AND AN E-METER. (Also ref:False TA HCOBs)

3. Start the Confessional. Model Session and rudiments are used. (Ref: HCOB11 Aug. 78 II, MODEL SESSION) If the TA is high or low, do a CIS Series53RM, assess and handle. If you are not trained in doing a CIS Series 53,end off for CIS instruction. If the pc's last session was a Confessional andhis TA is high or low, do an LCRE (HCOB 23 July 80R, Rev. 26.7.86,CONFESSIONAL REPAIR LIST-LCRE).

4. Put in any needed R-factor on doing the Confessional. Briefly explain themeter and the procedure to the person if they are not already known tohim or her.

The statement "I am not auditing you" only occurs when a Confessional isdone for justice reasons. Otherwise the procedure is the same. (By 'Justicereasons" is meant when a person is refusing to come clean on a Comm Ev,B of I, etc., or as part of a specific HCO investigation when the person iswithholding data or evidence from such HCO personnel.)

A Confessional done for justice reasons, called an HCO Confessional, isnot auditing and the data uncovered is not withheld from the proper authorities.Any other Confessional is auditing and is kept confidential.

There is no difference in the actual auditing procedure of an HCOConfessional. Ruds are flown, the questions are standardly cleared, eachsession is CISed and so on.

There should not be any observers in the room; just the auditor and pc.The only exception allowed is when one is straightening out a marriageand has both partners present in the session. (Ref: Tape 6001C02,"Marriage")

By FINing each question, and by the use of Examiner and Review, there isa great deal of case gain in a Confessional. It permits the person to againfeel a part of his group.

S. Clear the procedure and the use of the buttons "Suppress" and "False," etc. Ifnecessary as an example, run a nonsignificant question to demonstrate theprocedure (e.g., "Have you ever eaten an apple?").

6. Take up the first question and clear it backwards, by first clearing in tumeach word in the question in backwards sequence. Then clear the fullcommand, noting any instant read that occurs on the command whileclearing it, as this is a valid read. (See HCOB 9 Aug. 78 II, Word ClearingSeries 52, CLEARING COMMANDS; HCOB 28 Feb. 71, CIS Series 24,METERING READING ITEMS; and HCOB 5 Aug. 78, INSTANT READS)

Ensure the pc fully understands the question and what it encompasses.

If you get an instant read on clearing the question, you do not need to dothe following step (No.7). Simply go straight to No.8.

7. With good TR 1 give the person the first question, keeping an eye on the meterand noting any instant read, Le., sF, F, LF, LFBD, or a slowed, checked orinstant FIN. (Ref: HCOB 5 Aug. 78, INSTANT READS; HCOB 4 Dec. 78, HOWTO READ THROUGH AN FIN and HCOB 20 Sept. 78 I, AN INSTANT FIN ISA READ) A tick is always noted and in some cases becomes a wide read. (Ref:HCOB 28 Feb. 71, CIS Series 24, METERING READING ITEMS) But don'tassume you have a read because you get a tick. Put in Suppress (or if needed,other buttons: Invalidate, Careful of, Nearly found out, Failed to reveal, Not-ised,Anxious about and Protest) and it will either read or the tick will vanish.

8. a. Take up each reading question, getting the what, when, where, all ofevery overt. Get specifics, not general or vague answers. Do not leavethe pc to wander all about without answering the question asked.

b. If the question reads and the pc can't find the answer, steer the pc whenyou see the exact same read as the instant read occur again with a"there" or "that" to help him find it.

c. If necessary, vary the original question. You only vary a Sec Checkquestion when by repeating it you would create an impasse. (In such a

situation you vary the Sec Check question, find the overt or withholdand FIN the question that found it. Once this has been done, recheckthe original question and handle as per No. 20 below.)

9. After getting all the specifics of the overt from the pc, ask:

"Is that all of that?" or

"Is that all of that answer?" or

"Is that all there is to that answer?"

This is not a metered question-one does not check this question on themeter, it is simply asked. (Ref: Tape 6202C13, "Prep Clearing")

10. Get the justifications off by asking:

"Have you justified that overt?" or

"Why wasn't that an overt?"

These questions aren't metered. Get the question answered and ask for anymore justifications until all are gotten. Quite often they will come off in atorrent, to the great relief of the pc.

11. Get each person that missed it and what each of them did that made the pcwonder whether he or she knew (not metered). Ask:

a. "Who missed it?" or "Who nearly found out?" then

b. "What did (he/she) do to make you wonder whether or not (he/she)knew?" then

c. "Who else missed it?" and repeat (b) above.

d. Get another and another person who missed it, each time repeating (b)above.

This step is done even if the withhold FINs before the step is reached. If itdoes, indicate the FIN and go ahead with the "missed" step.

If no FIN, take the overt E/S to FIN. And ensure that the original questionthat read is taken to FIN before you leave it.

12. For security investigation purposes, get all the exact names, dates, addresses,phone numbers and any other information that might be helpful in investi­gating the case further, should this be needed.

13. If the pc gives you three or four averts at once in reply to a readingquestion, you note them and ensure you take each separate reading overtor withhold to an FIN, or E/S to FIN.

14. Some people you have to ask the exact question. If your question is evenfaintly off, they FIN. Low responsibility of the pc does this.

15. If the person gives off another's overt, ask if he ever did something likethat. You want what the person himself has done.

16. DO NOT TAKE UP UNREADING QUESTIONS.

a. If a question does not read and does not FIN, you can put in thebuttons Suppress and Invalidate, asking:

"On the question has anything been suppressed?"

"On the question has anything been invalidated?"

Other buttons can be checked as well (Careful of, Nearly foundout, Failed to reveal, Not-ised, Anxious about and Protest) to get aConfessional question reading.

But don't require it to be answered and don't look up at the pc expectantlyeither. If it's not reading, handle as per No. 20.

b. If Suppress or Invalidate or one of the other buttons reads, it meansthe read has transferred exactly from the Confessional question to thebutton. (Ref: HCOB 1 Aug. 68, THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING)Put in the button (simply get what the pc has to say and acknowledge),then take up the question. Fully clean the question, as in numbers8-11 above.

c. Or, if the question reads and the pc is trying to answer it and isgroping, puzzling, baffled and doesn't have any answer, then checkFalse. Ask: "Has anyone said you had a when you didn't?"in which case it will read and on indication that it was a false read willnow FIN. If no FIN, EIS to FIN.

Also check Protest, Invalidate and Suppress to clean up a false read.

17. FOLLOW UP FULLY ON ANY DIRTY NEEDLE. A dirty needle will eitherclean or turn into an RIS. It is your hottest string to pull in finding andturning on an RIS. Thus it is not to be overlooked. The area that is producinga dirty needle when questioned for full data will either clean or go into anRIS. The area that gave the dirty needle is considered clean when you cango over it and it no longer produces a dirty needle. If a dirty needle stillpersists, then there is more to the withhold itself or something the pc isn'tvoicing about the withhold or how he feels about the withhold. But, pushed,with auditor's TRs in, this dirty needle will tum into an RIS or it will fullyclean. (Ref: HCOB 6 Sept. 78 I, FOLLOWING UP ON DIRTY NEEDLES,and HCOB 17 May 69, TRs AND DIRTY NEEDLES)

The auditor MUST know COLD the difference between an RIS and a dirtyneedle. The difference is in the character of the read, NOT the size. (Ref:HCOB 3 Sept. 78, DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM)

18. A Confessional is not a rote procedure. Your job is to get the data and helpthe pc. Sometimes you will be thrown curves or may encounter attempts tobe led off in the wrong direction. This is simply a sure indicator the subject

is withholding and that the withhold is in restimulation. One has to ignorethe volunteer misdirections of the pc, as the pc is of course misdirecting,and simply get the read EISed or the W/H FINed. You must use your toolsas given in HCOBs, Sec Checking tapes and tape demonstrations since1961.

19. TAKE THE ORIGINAL READING QUESTION TO FIN. Not some otherquestion. This all comes under the heading of completing cycles of actionand getting one auditing question answered before you ask a second question.

In going earlier-similar to take the question to FIN, always repeat theConfessional question as part of the earlier-similar command to keep theperson on that question.

Example: "Is there an earlier-similar time you ate an apple?"

20. a. On each question be sure you get all the overts. When you have takena specific chain of overts earlier-similar to FIN, then recheck the originalquestion for any read. If it FINs, fine. It's clean.

If it reads, you have another overt or overt chain to clear to FIN onthat question. Use F~lse and Protest buttons as needed.

Example:

Question A: "Have you committed an)' "verts against apples?" Meterreads. Auditor gets an overt, takes it E/~ "r) FIN. Auditor thenrechecks Question A. Meter reads. Pc finds another 0\1",;.. ~gainst apples.Auditor takes it EIS to FIN.

You clean it, getting all, until the original question FINs. (Refs: HCOB14 Mar. 71R, Rev. 25.7.73, FIN EVERYfHING; HCOB 19 Oct 61, SECURITYQUESTIONS MUST BE NULLED; HCOB 10 May 62, PREPCHECKINGAND SEC CHECKING)

DO NOT recheck the question on a persistent FIN. End off and rechecklater.

b. If you had to vary a question to uncover an overt, recheck your originalquestion and handle it to FIN.

c. If you can't FIN a Confessional question, there is something on it. AConfessional list should FIN all the way down. If it doesn't, it is notclean. On a question that is not reading but not FINing, you must findout why and get it handled and thereby get it FINed on recheck.

You can put in the rods, Suppress, Invalidate, Evaluate, Protest, Unnecessary,Assert, Careful of, Failed to reveal, Not-ised and the False button ("Has anyonesaid you had a when you didn't?"); any of these could be preventingan FIN.

But if after putting in these buttons you do not get an FIN on the question,there's a withhold on it. All the tools of Confessional tech are at yourdisposal to find the withhold.

. ,.

You can repeat the question in various ways and you may get a read that way.

If you have encountered a still needle that does not react, apply HCOB 11Apr. 82, SEC CHECKING IMPLANTS, and HCOB 13 Apr. 82, STILL NEEDLEAND CONFESSIONALS.

21. If the person gets critical, realize you have missed a withhold and pull it.It is no light thing to miss withholds and mess up a pc when doing aConfessional. So be alert for any of the 15 manifestations of a missedwithhold and handle fully should any of these crop up. (Refs: HCOB 8 Feb.62, MISSED WITHHOLDS; HCOB 12 Feb. 62, HOW TO CLEAR WITHHOLDSAND MISSED WITHHOLDS; HCOB 3 May 62R, Rev. 5.9.78, ARC BREAKS,MISSED WITHHOLDS; HCOB 11 Aug. 78 I, RUDIMENTS, DEFINITIONSAND PATTER)

It is wise, particularly when doing a Confessional of any length, to periodicallycheck the question, "In this session has a withhold been missed?" or"Have I missed a withhold on you?"

22. At the first sign of any trouble in doing a Confessional check for missedwithholds, false reads and ARC breaks, in that order, and fully handle whatyou get. In the majority of cases the above questions should resolve thedifficulty.

If not, handle with an LCRE. Use of the above three questions first, however,before resorting to the LCRE, avoids the possibility of getting into an"overrepair" situation.

23. If the pc consistently immediately dives whole track on Confessional questions,use the preface "In this lifetime ..." with good R-factor. This should not beused to prevent him going whole track on the earlier-similar command toFIN the question.

24. ONE MUST ALWAYS REPORT A ROCK SLAM IN THE AUDITING REPORT,NOTE IT WITH SESSION DATE AND PAGE IN THE FOLDER SUMMARYAND ON THE TOPMOST PROGRAM SHEET IN THE PC'S FOLDER, ANDREPORT IT TO ETHICS INCLUDING THE QUESTION OR SUBJECT WHICHROCK SLAMMED, PHRASED EXACTLY. (HCOB 10 Aug. 76R, Rev. 5.9.78,RISes, WHAT THEY MEAN)

As the RIS is probably the single most important and dangerous read onthe meter, it is important that they are carefully noted when doing a Confes­sional.

For a pc to be branded as an RISer is a very serious thing. Also for a realRISer to be overlooked by an auditor is a catastrophe both to the pc and tothose around that particular person. (Ref: HCOB 24 Jan. 77, TECHCORRECTION ROUNDUP)

Valid RISes are not always instant reads. An R/S can read prior or latently.CHCOB 3 Sept. 78, DEFINITION OF A ROCK SLAM)

25. If you want a pc to stop fiddling with the cans, you make them put theirhands on the table and keep them there.

26. HCO or executives may request a Confessional be done but neither Technor Qual are bound by such requests, as an FES could reveal that thetrouble stems from "out-lists" or other matters needing correction. Theyshould, however, take cognizance of such requests and do all possible toget the person handled.

27. If a reading question does not go to FIN and bogs or the TA goes high, takeup an LCRE, assess and handle per instructions.

28. End off any Confessional session and the entire Confessional itself, whencomplete, with the rudiments which would pick up anything which mighthave been missed: Half-Truth, Untruth, Missed Withhold, Told All, etc. Usethe prefix "In this session ..." or "In this Confessional ..." Take any readingrudiment EIS as needed to FIN.

29. When the Confessional is fully completed, the auditor who has administeredthe Confessional infonns the person he is forgiven for the overts and withholdshe has just confessed, using the following statement:

"By the power invested in me, any overts and withholds you have fully andtruthfully told me are forgiven by Scientologists."

The usual response of the pc is instant relief and VGls. On any adversereaction to the Proclamation of Forgiveness, get the rest of the Withhold orrepair the Confessional session at once. (Ref: HCOB 10 Nov. 78RA I, Rev.26.7.86, PROCLAMATION, POWER TO FORGIVE)

This proclamation is not done on an HCO Confessional.

30. All Confessional and HCO Confessional worksheets must be included inthe person's pc folder, regardless of who or what is doing the Confessional.(Ref: HCOB 28 Oct. 76, CIS Series 98, Auditor Admin Series 26, AUDITINGFOLDERS, OMISSIONS IN COMPLETENESS)

31. EXAMINER. All Confessionals must be followed immediately by a stand­ard pc examination. The folder is then routed to the CIS.

The CIS looks for any non sequitur FIN on some other subject. It's theprimary thing he inspects.

If a person falls on his head after a Confessional session, an LCRE isgiven. However, an FES must be done which should include finding anyConfessional questions that FINed on something other than what was asked.Standard CIS rules apply to Confessionals. (Ref: HCOB 20 Nov. 73 II, CISSeries 89, FIN WHAT YOU ASK OR PROGRAM)

32. On any bad Exam Report (non-FIN, BIs or nonoptimum statement) after aConfessional, or on any person who gets sick or upset or does not do wellor has a high or low TA, give an LCRE as the very next action.

The 24-hour red tag rule must be strictly enforced.

RESTIMULATING THE WITHHOLD

Withholds restimulate. They are actually not in view and have to be keyed in.

The art of Sec Checking is restimulating the material to be picked up and thenpicking it up. It is auditing done hammer and tongs, steering the pc's attention,restimulating the subject to find out if there is anything that can be picked up andthen going ahead and picking it up.

In a Confessional you are pressing home the question to the pc. You are makingsure that the pc understands the question and knows that the question applies tohis life.

A good auditor gets something done and audits the pc in front of him. As theauditor you are not there to "get through the Confessional." You are there to getthrough to the pc and restimulate whatever withholds exist on that subject.

DIRECT THE PC'S ATTENTION

The pc's attention must be very strictly controlled.

You have to direct the pc's attention to get him to look at what you want him tolook at.

He must not be allowed to wander off the question or to "itsa" on and on aboutsomething not pertinent to the question asked.

If the pc is unable to find the answer to a question, then help him by guidinghis attention against the needle.

This is quite simple. As the pc is thinking, you will see the same reaction on theneedle that the meter gave when you first asked the question. Softly say "That" or"There" or "What's that you're looking at?" The pc can then say what he or she islooking at at that moment.

If the pc can't get the rest of an overt, you should get him to look and yourcommunication to the pc would be along the line of directing the pc's attention sothat he can find out more.

In both of these cases you are DIRECTING the pc's attention to find out.

Example:

Auditor asks Confessional question. Pc answers "I just don't know."

A wrong response by the auditor would be "Tell me about it."

A correct response would be "Well, let's look at it. Come on, let's dig it up alittle bit more. There must be some pieces showing someplace."

You must keep in mind that a pc who is in-session is always willing to reveal.He just doesn't know what to reveal. A pc will be driven out of session when told toreveal something, when he doesn't yet know what to reveal.

If the pc is not in-session, you won't get the withholds. TRs playa large part inthe pc being willing to talk to the auditor. A wrong or challenging auditor attitudecan throw the scene off as there is a destroyed comm cycle. If TRs are rough orchoppy, the pc feels he's being accused.

A poor or comm lag TR 2, hidden from the view of the CIS, can also mess up aperson in a Confessional. It invalidates his answers and makes him feel he hasn'tgotten it off. If suspected, this could be checked by D of P interview or person to theExaminer for: "What did the auditor do?" (Also see HCOB 16 Aug. 71R II, Rev.5.7.78, TRAINING DRILLS REMODERNIZED.)

So TRs must be polished and the auditor, while maintaining good ethics presence,takes the role of confessor when handling the pc's answers and makes it safe for thepc to get off his overts and withholds. Similarly, an auditor who is certain of his techand does not miss withholds will build the pc's confidence in him.

Anyone doing a Confessional should be fully trained and interned by doing acourse and internship in the handling of Confessionals. .

You had better determine to become an expert in it, since an auditor's inabilityto handle this is a fast route to "how to win enemies and wrongly influence people."(HCOB 24 Jan. 77, TECH CORRECTION ROUNDUP)

But even more important is the fact that, in knowing and applying Confessionaltech correctly, you are helping the individual to face up to his responsibilities in hisgroup and the society and putting him back into communication with his fellowman, his family and the world at large.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Revision assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JANUARY 1984RAISSUE I

REVISED 20 SEPTEMBER 1999

REMIMEO

HRD CHECKSHEETS

HRD AUDITORS

HRD CIS

QUAL DIV PERSONNEL

HAPPINESS RUNDOWN SERIES 5RA

HAPPINESS RUNDOWN REPAIR LIST (HRL)

This correction list is used to repair auditing errors on the Happiness Rundown.

The list is used in the event of a bog during a Happiness Rundown session.Additionally, if after a Happiness Rundown session the person red tags at the Examineror gets upset or falls on his head, this list is assessed and handled to straighten thematter out. The repair action would be a 24-hour repair priority.

This list is ordinarily assessed Method 3 with each reading line taken to FINper the instructions. If the pc is very upset and misemotional, the list may beassessed Method 5. (Refs: HCOB 28 May 70, CORRECTION LISTS, USE OF; HCOB20 Dec. 71, CIS Series 72, USE OF CORRECTION LISTS; HCOB 10 June 71 I, CISSeries 44R, CIS RULES, PROGRAMING FROM PREPARED LISTS)

Note: Some items on this list require use of False Purpose Rundown procedure.Any trouble or bog encountered is handled with the False Purpose Rundown CorrectionList.

I. DID YOU GO EXTERIOR?(Indicate it. If the pc has never had an Int RD, give him astandard Int RD per Int RD Series 2R. If the pc is Clear, DianeticClear or OT and has not had an Int RD, do the End of Endless IntRepair RD per Int RD Series 4RB. If you are not qualified to auditInt, end off and send the folder to the CIS.)

2. HAS YOUR INT RD BEEN MESSED UP?(Assess and handle an Int RD Correction List. If Int correctionhas already been done, get an FES of the Int RD and itscorrections. When all errors are corrected, the CIS may order theEnd of Endless Int Repair RD per Int RD Series 4RB. If you arenot qualified to audit Int, end off and send the folder to the CIS.)

3. LIST ERROR?(Find out what list, and repair it with an L4BRB.)

© 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library.Unpublished revisions: © created 1999 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

HCOB 21.l.B4RA IRev. 20.9.99

-2-

4. IS THERE AN ARC BREAK?

(Get what it is and handle with ARCU CDEINR, E/S to FIN.)

S. DID YOU GET UPSET DURING A SESSION?

(Get what it is and handle with ARCU CDEINR, E/S to FIN.)

6. WAS THERE AN UPSET IN LIFE BETWEEN SESSIONS?

(Get what it is and handle with ARCU CDEINR, E/S to FIN.)

7. IS THERE A PROBLEM?

(Get what it is and handle with E/S to FIN.)

8. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT?

(Get what it is and handle with E/S to FIN.)

9. WAS A WITHHOLD MISSED?

(Pull it with standard M/WIH handling procedure, E/S to FIN.)

10. IS THERE SOMETHING YOU HAVEN'T TOLD ME?

(Pull it with standard M/W/H handling procedure, E/S to FIN.)

11. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU DIDN'T TELL YOURAUDITOR?

(Pull it with standard M/W/H handling procedure, E/S to FIN.)

12. HAS THERE BEEN SOME WORD OR COMMAND YOUHAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD?

(Find and clear the misunderstood words to FIN.)

13. WERE YOU PROTESTING?

(2WC E/S to FIN.)

14. HAS THERE BEEN ANY EVALUATION?

(2WC E/S to FIN.)

15. HAS THERE BEEN ANY INVALIDATION OF YOUR GAINS?

(2WC E/S to FIN.)

16. HAS THERE BEEN ANY INVALIDATION OF THE HAPPINESSRUNDOWN?

(2WC E/S to FIN.)

17. WASANF/NOVERRUN?

(Find out which question or action was overrun past FIN andindicate. If no FIN, rehab to FIN.)

18. WAS AN FIN MISSED?(Find out which question or action was overrun past FIN andindicate. If no FIN, rehab to FIN.)

19. WERE YOU RUN PAST A 'COGNITION ON A PRECEPT?

(Indicate, and rehab to FIN.)

HCOB 21.1.84RA IRev. 20.9.99

-3-

20. WERE YOU RUN ON AN UNCHARGED QUESTION?

(Find out which question and indicate that the auditor missedthat it didn't read. If no FIN, take it E/S to FIN.)

21. WAS A FALSE READ TAKEN UP?

(Find out which question this occurred on and indicate. If noFIN, take the false read E/S to FIN.)

22. WAS A QUESTION LEFT UNFlAT?

(Find out which question and flatten it.)

23. WAS A PERSON LEFT UNFLAT?

(Find which person and which precept and handle using steps8b-8f of the HRD procedure.)

24. WAS A PRECEPT LEFT UNFLAT?

(Find out which precept and handle using HRD steps 1-10. If pcdoes not know which precept it is, HRD assessment method maybe used.)

25. WAS SOMETHING LEFT UNFLAT?

(Find out which question or action was left unflat and flatten it.HRD assessment method procedure may be used if meter isreading on "a precept was left unflat" but pc does not knowwhich precept it is.)

26. WAS A READ MISSED?

(Find out which question or action the read was missed on andrun and flatten it.)

27. WAS A CHARGED QUESTION NOT RUN?

(Find which question and run it.)

28. WERE THERE ERRORS IN THE FALSE DATA STRIPPING?

(Assess and handle a False Data Stripping Repair list.)

29. DO YOU HAVE ATTENTION ON A PRECEPT THAT HASN'TBEEN TAKEN UP YET?

(Get which precept or precepts and handle with HRDprocedure.)

30. WAS THERE A COGNITION YOU DIDN'T MENTION?

(Get the pc to tell you, and acknowledge it. If no FIN, rehab it. Itmay have occurred in or out of session.)

31. WAS A COGNITION NOT ACCEPTED?

(Find what cognition, and acknowledge it. If no FIN, rehab it.)

32. DID THE AUDITOR REFUSE TO ACCEPT WHAT YOU WERESAYING?

(Indicate, and handle E/S to FIN.)

HCOB 21.1.84RA IRev. 20.9.99

-4-

33. WAS AN EARLIER AUDITING ERROR RESTIMULATED?

(Get what it was and handle with the appropriate correction list,or an LlC "In session . . .")

34. HAS ANYONE ELSE BEEN AUDITING YOU DURING THEHAPPINESS RUNDOWN?

(2WC to find out who was auditing the pc, and on what. If no FIN,handle with the appropriate correction list. Note data for the CIS.)

35. HAS ANYONE DONE SOME OTHER FORM Of CASE ACTIONON YOU DURING THE HAPPINESS RUNDOWN?

(2WC to find out what case action has been done. If no FIN,handle with the appropriate correction list. Note data for CIS.)

36. WAS THE HAPPINESS RUNDOWN INTERRUPTED?

(Indicate. If no FIN, take it E/S to FIN.)

37. HAVE YOU BEEN DOING ANY OTHER PRACTICE BETWEENSESSIONS?

(2WC E/S to FIN. Note for CIS.)

38. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY DRUGS, MEDICINE OR ALCOHOLDURIlNG THE HAPPINESS RUNDOWN?

(2WC E/S to FIN. Note what the pc took and any reads forfuture drug handlings.)

39. DURING THE HAPPINESS RUNDOWN IS THERE ANYTHINGYOU HAVE DECIDED?

(2WC E/S to FIN.)

40. CONCERNING THE HAPPINESS RUNDOWN, DO YOU HAVEANY CONSIDERATIONS?

(2WC E/S to FIN.)

41. HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF A TRANSGRESSION YOU DON'TDARE MENTION?

(Pull it with standard M/W/H handling procedure, E/S to FIN.)

42. ARE YOU AFRAID YOU'LL GET IN TROUBLE IF SOMETHINGIS FOUND OUT?

(Pull it with standard M/W/H handling procedure, E/S to FIN.)

43. HAS AN OVERT BEEN RESTIMULATED?

(Pull it, E/S to FIN.)

44. ON THE HAPPINESS RUNDOWN, WAS AN EVIL PURPOSEOR DESTRUCTIVE INTENTION RESTIMULATED?

(Get what the evil purpose is and pull the overts of dramatizingthat evil purpose, then continue with False Purpose Rundownprocedure. If you are not an FPRD Auditor, run the overt chainE/S to FIN, then end the session and tum the pc over to anFPRD Auditor to handle with FPRD procedure.)

HCOB 21.1.84RA IRev. 20.9.99

-5-

45. DID YOU BOG DOWN ON HANDLING A PRECEPT DUE TOAN EVIL PURPOSE?(Get what the evil purpose is and pull the overts of dramatizingthat evil purpose, then continue with False Purpose Rundownprocedure. If you are not an FPRD Auditor, run the overt chainE/S to FIN, then end the session and tum the pc over to anFPRD Auditor to handle with FPRD procedure.)

46. IS THERE AN EVIL PURPOSE PREVENTING YOU FROMUNSTICKING ON A PRECEPT?(Get what the evil purpose is and pull the overts of dramatizingthat evil purpose, then continue with False Purpose Rundownprocedure. If you are not an FPRD Auditor, run the overt chainE/S to FIN, then end the session and tum the pc over to anFPRD Auditor to handle with FPRD procedure.)

47. IS THERE AN EVIL PURPOSE OR DESTRUCTNE INTENTIONHOLDING SOME DIFFICULTY WITH A PRECEPT IN PLACE?(Get what the evil purpose is and pull the overts of dramatizingthat evil purpose, then continue with False Purpose Rundownprocedure. If you are not an FPRD Auditor, run the overt chainE/S to FIN, then end the session and tum the pc over to anFPRD Auditor to handle with FPRD procedure.)

48. WAS THERE NOTHING WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE?(Indicate, and handle E/S to FIN.)

49. IS SOMETHING ELSE WRONG?(Get what and handle, or get the data to the CIS.)

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Revision assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAsT GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 4 MAY 1994

REMIMEO

TECH/QUAL

REGISTRARS

MISSIONS

CLEAR CERTAINlY RUNDOWN SERIES SR

CLEAR AND RELEASE

(Taken from an LRH despatch of 11 Dec. 81.)

Years ago there was a state called "Keyed-Out Clear." But earlier than that, therewas the state of "Release."

A person feels so much better with auditing that he is certain he must have goneClear, whereas he has actually attained "Release." Clear is a specific, definite manifes­tation and there is no arguing with it: one is or one isn't. When a person really goesCLEAR, he knows it.

Any confusion on this subject stems around the question, "How much better canone feel?" The Purification Rundown, TRs and Objectives, the Scientology Drug Rundown,Expanded ARC Straightwire and Expanded Grades make one feel much, muchbetter, ordinarily, and each one of these steps (if the auditing is done right and thepc cooperates) can produce a Release.

None of the actions from the Purification Rundown up through ExpandedGrade IV have ever produced Clears. What they can do is straighten out a vastnumber of worries, concepts and concerns. They result in, when audited well on apc who cooperates, release after release. Then, when the pc goes onto the NED DrugRundown or into NED, experience and lots of cases tend to indicate that, sooner orlater, he can go Clear. And even if he doesn't make it then, he can still go on to theClearing Course at an AO.

The point is that most pcs are so tangled up in life that their chances of goingClear on NED are enormously reduced if they don't follow the Grade Chart. Aperson whose concepts are snarled and who hasn't viewed his life as he has beenliving it through the benefits of Grades can be too much at cross purposes withhimself to easily attain real clearing.

What is the EP of clearing anyway? It is Simple: the definition of Clear is: theperson no longer has his own reactive mind. So the state of Clear is not cloudy evenone little bit!

If a person follows the new Grade Chart, he is pretty well sailing before he hitsNED. He will or won't go Clear on NED. If he doesn't, there's still the ClearingCourse in the AOs.

<t> 1994 L. Ron Hubbard Ubrary.All Righ IS Reserved.

So Clear is Clear and it is not a release. And when a person is Clear there is still,above that, the state of OT, and that's what the Advanced Courses and NOTs are allabout.

After Clear, one is in a different operating climate in life. But if a person whohas not had Grades goes Clear, he is a Clear with his life and concepts all tangledup: Grades can handle this but it is a sort of step backwards to the person. He has afeeling he should go on to OT and here he is, still involved in confusing life relationships.

And so it is not that the state of Clear is in question, it is that a person, followingthe new Grade Chart, has been set up to have it and appreciate it and won't mistakea point of Release for it. There aren't different states of Clear. But there are differentstates of living environment and relationships of a person. And this seems to give adifference to his life quality. The new Grade Chart, followed, will give a lot ofsubjective reality on this.

Don't get into quibbling about what Clear is as there is no quibble. But peoplecan mistake Release for it just because they'd had a floating TA or their wife said,"How changed you are!" after ARC Straightwire.

A trained CIS whose own case is in good shape is likely to forget two things:how awful a bank in full roar (like the guy in the street) can be, and how manytremendous wins there can be on the way up.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Compilation assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

Heo BULLETIN OF 7 MARCH 1996

REMIMEO

C/SES

AUDITORS

HANDLING A READ

E-Meter Drill 21E-Meter Essentials

HCOB 23 Aug. 68 IE-Meter Drill 17

Refs:HCOB 18 Apr. 68 NEEDLE REACTIONS ABOVE

GRADE IVARB1TRARIES"What Makes the E-Meter Read andCleaning a Read""E-Meter Steering"Chapter H, "Confessionals"

(Excerpted from an LRH lecture of 12 Nov. 75, New Vitality RundownLecture 14. The lectures are restricted to Flag auditors only, but thefollowing data is applicable to all metered auditing and is thereforeissued broadly as an HCOB. In part of the lecture, LRH was talkingabout handling reading items on an L4B. During a question andanswer period, a student brought up that topic again which indicateda general misunderstanding amongst those in attendance about howto clean up a read on the meter.)

Student: "You asked him, 'Did you check the question?' and he said, 'No,' andyou said, 'Flunk.' This after it read one time. Did you mean did he check thequestion again?"

LRH: "The question's in dispute."

Student: "So should he have checked it again to see if he made a misassessment?"

LRH: "You always check questions. It would be one of the most ordinary andusual things that you did in any kind of question, even an auditing question, if youweren't getting anyplace with it."

Student: "If the pc sat there and tried to figure it out for a few minutes, wouldyou then tell the pc the question had no charge on it?"

LRH: "Don't you guys know how to handle a read?

"Okay, when you get up in the morning you usually put your shoes on, youknow, and-the laces and you cross them over like that and you pull them up.(audience laughter)

© 1996 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

"If I have any question about a read, I go through quite a song and dance until I gotit clean as a wolfs tooth. I don't go by on the thing on a mechanical robot scene.

"You're asking for some sort of a scene like the thing read and the pc said,'I don't have any answers' and you're trying to apply just straight VIII tech and say,'Well, was it a false read?' you see, or something like that. No. Very mysterious-thething read, didn't read, well, maybe the pc dropped her shoe, who knows? Maybeshe wiggled her finger at the right moment. Maybe she protested the question.Maybe she had a thought simultaneously with the end of the instant read point.How many things can cause something to read?"

Student: "A lot."

LRH: "When there doesn't seem to be any sense to this scene-you're goingdown a list and you got a great big juicy read and then the pc says, 'No, I don't haveany answers.' Well, you could badger the pc or you could mess up the pc, butnormally speaking, if the pc were running well, you'd say, 'Okay,' and you'd getyour FIN back.

"Now supposing you didn't, then the TA went up. Well, you'd better find outwhat's the score here. It might not be with the question. It might be with the session.There's something gone wrong. You're trying to run a machine now which is goingkcch, kcckch, grrrr, it's not going purrm-rn IT. And you do something. You don't justgo by and let it drown.

"We've had a question read, it didn't FIN, the pc is in mystery about it, we'regoing to walk off and leave the pc in this condition? No.

"Now what things can you do? Well, it depends on what happened. We mightbe doing something over a whole packet of out-ruds.

"But just as a general auditing practice, why, I don't go by something like thatwithout finding out what happened. Now that comes under the heading of theduplicate read.

"This just goes back to elementary metering. Do you know that when you hitthe item which made the thing read or the thing which made it read, you will getthe same read? A good auditor always knows what the read looked like when he firstsaw it, and he remembers what the read looked like. It isn't a generality. It went whsssshor it went zzzzz or it dipped an inch, or it dipped an inch and a half or something.He knows what that read is.

"Now, when he hits what the read was again, he sees it. It's the technique of aduplicate read, and so the pc says, 'No, I can't find any answer to that,' you say,'Well, what was it, protest? or false read? or did you suppress the item? or invalidatewhat you thought of? or . . .'

"On one of those you'll get the same read, or the question will give you thesame read. All right, that's the thing you clean up. You can find out what made itread if you know your basic theory and so forth. And I don't nag a pc, but I workthese reads over. I don't leave a mystery on the track.

"But the thing reads the way it read. That's uniform. It's also a transference ofread. So let us say the pc read half-a-dial drop at a certain speed, half-a-dial drop,

and then says, 'No, I can't think of an answer.' If you say, 'Well, did you invalidateit?' and you get the same read back, the read is transferred over to Invalidate. 'Well,what did you invalidate?' 'Well, er, rah, rah, bluh, bluh, blah, blah ...' FIN.

"This is just skilled meter handling.

"And it isn't that only I can do it.

"I expect it of you."

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Compilation assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

Heo BULLETIN OF 21 APRIL 1996

REMIMEO

C/SES

PRO TR COURSE

SUPERVISORS

CRAMMING OFFICERS

INTERN SUPERVISORS

CLASS V GRAD CIS

COURSE

CLASS VI CIS COURSE

CLASS VIII CIS COURSE

HPCSC

CRITIQUING TRs

(The data in this HCOB was compiled from LRHcritiques of auditor TRs between 1971 and 1979.)

Refs:Technical Training The Professional TR Course

Film Number TR-4Technical Training The Different TR Courses and Their Criticism

Film Number TR-lSAny LRH model auditing demonstration

Over the years, a number of auditors and TR course students had their TRs andauditing critiqued by LRH. So that Course Supervisors and C/Ses may have thesecritiques available for use to train students or improve auditor skills, they are beingissued here.

The critiques are divided into two categories. The first category consists ofcritiques to students on TR courses. In the second category are critiques to auditorswho submitted tapes of their auditing sessions.

CORRECTION OF FLUNKED TRs

There is a general rule for the handling of students or auditors who flub ontheir TRs in the course room or who tum in TR tapes or auditing sessions containingTR errors: WHEN THEY HAVE TROUBLE, JUST GET THEM TO CLEAR THEWORDS IN THE DRILL, RESTUDY IT AND DO IT AND REPEAT THIS OVER ANDOVER.

TR COURSE CRITIQUES

The following critiques are arranged student by student. Since LRH was critiquingthe TRs of people who were, for the most part, experienced auditors, he occasionallycommented on the auditor's beingness. A student on the Hubbard Professional TR

Unpublished work: © created L996 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

Course is not ready to study auditor beingness data, and TR critiques of studentsor inexperienced auditors must not get into the subject of auditor beingness. (Ref:HCOB 10 Apr. 80, AUDITOR BEINGNESS)

Explanatory notes are sometimes included in brackets to furnish additional datanecessary to understanding a point being made in the critique.

Student A

LRH critique #1-TR 0-4: Flunk TR 4. He's monotonous and mechanical.

LRH critique #2-1 can't guarantee what would happen if he ran into a flap insession and he is still a hair on the stiff-as-a-board side but otherwise is fair. Hecould do with more TR 0 as he is still a hair too braced and stiff.

LRH critique #3-Vastly improved, however this wouldn't hold a pc in-sessionbecause his attitude is colored by a remaining trace of robotism. Comm cycle in clayand up the line again through the TRs.

LRH critique #4-Get him through the comm formula in clay and OT TR 0 tillactually flat and TR 0 till flat and TR 0 Bullbait and then maybe he won't be robotic.He's stiff and looks like he is drilling. Have him work out how come he has tocontrol the comm cycle after he has done the comm cycle in clay.

Student B

[The videos submitted by this student were in Spanish.]

LRH critique #1-He's got Tone 40 mixed up with TRs.

LRH critique #2-They're doing the same thing. He isn't there, he's being arobot and he's not auditing to get the pc in-session. Perfunctory. That ain't auditing.He's rushing the hell out of the pc and sounds impatient. Auditing wouldn't takeplace.

LRH critique #3-He was too aware of the fact he was being coached. Notnatural. His body posture indicates it. He's stiff. He isn't comfortable in session theway it looks on the videotape. OT TR 0 and TR 0 need to be done to a pass. Also heis fixedly confronting the coach. He hasn't really got it yet.

LRH critique #4-Pretty good. His TR 2 could stand a little polish. Very slightthough. He is better than anything they've got in Mexico at this time.

LRH critique #5-lt's a pass.

Student C

LRH critique #1-Her TR 2 on her TR 4 would ARC break a pc. Occasionallyneeds polish but it's promising.

LRH critique #2-She gave a half-ack to an origination twice so continued theitsa, then omitted "I'll repeat the auditing command" after the pc origination. Her TR 1is much better and possibly TR 1 would be a pass. But TR 2, TR 21/2, TR 3 and TR 4 area flunk.

LRH critique #3-Pass.

StudentD

LRH critique #I-Flunk. Interrupted the pc while pc was trying to originate.Acked pc's win, reiterated command and overrode the pc's win. She doesn't knowthe mechanics of TRs or what they are for or she wouldn't have done that. A barepass on TR 1.

LRH critique #2-It could be a pass but actually she has not achieved the easeand naturalness required of an accomplished auditor.

LRH critique #3-Q&:A on TR 4. Flunk. She's not passed on aT TR 0 or TR O.She's too stiff.

LRH critique #4-This is really too bad. Her TRs up to 3 are just fine and thenthe coach threw her a curve by giving her an origin which was not an answer butalmost was and she blew it. The coach said "This is not an unpleasant sensation" andshe took it as an answer and didn't ack and repeat the auditing command. So she is aflunk on TR 4. So she is deficient in the theory of TRs and should do the communicationformula in clay and also get word cleared on what is an answer.

LRH critique #5-Her TR 2 is out, she chopped his origination. She doesn'tknow the comm cycle or that the process says to keep the pc in-session. She got ananswer to the question and chopped it with her TR 2 and would therefore be adangerous auditor who would shut off cognitions, so get her through from thebottom up particularly an understanding of her product as an auditor. It would haveARC broken the pc.

LRH critique #6-Pass.

Student E

LRH critique #I-His TR 1 isn't too bad but a bit bored. His acks are prettygood most of the time, but he could chop a pc.

LRH critique #2-Flunk. He's out ofbeingness as an auditor. TR 2 varies-differingattitudes and moods come in and out. Do whole chapter on communication fromDianetics 55! in clay. Flatten aT TR 0, TR 0, Mood Drills and get him through rest ofTRs (1-4). [Clay demos of the chapter on communication from Dianetics 55! were laterincorporated into TRs Clay Table Processing on the Hubbard Professional TR Course.TRs Clay Table Processing includes auditing on ARC Straightwire and other principleswhich assist the student to fully master the comm formula.]

LRH critique #3-Pass.

Student F

[The videos submitted by this student were in French.]

LRH critique #l-TR 1 is a bit stiff. They're not really passing their aT TR 0 andnot really passing their TR O. That is true of all those robot types.

LRH critique #2-Mishandled origin. She would have ARC broken the pc. Notreaching the pc. Premature acknowledgment. Too stiff. Too militant.

LRH critique #3-This would be a pass possibly but we can't be absolutely suredue to your tape quality and our French quality that the auditor is actually ackingthe pc origination and then actually acking the pc and repeating the command. Ifyou clear this up, this is a pass. [Review of the student's video disclosed that shehad not acked the pc's origination and then acked the pc and repeated the command,so the video was not a pass. She received correction and submitted another video.]

LRH critique #4-She's a little bit tense. Assess a checklist on a meter and findout what she is uneasy about as she can improve the ease with which she is auditing.She's still auditing a little bit tense. Handle what you find but get her through commfonnula and on it again. [The checklist being referred to was a pilot version of theTR Debug Assessment, now issued as HCOB 3 Apr. 78R, TR DEBUG ASSESSMENT.]

LRH critique #5-This is a pass.

Student G

[The videos submitted by this student were in Spanish.]

LRH critique #I-His TR 2 needs some polish. He's not doing too badly. Everytime he gives his TR 2, he is not acking the pc, he's thinking "I'm just waiting togive my next command."

LRH critique #2-His attitude is quite good. He's one of the best in attitude.However, he flunked (a) TR 4 and (b) did not know you at once end session whenpc goes exterior. Too bad as his presence is great. He needs to study comm cycleand TR 4 madly and also should have some grasp of basics. The latter is not a mustfor TR pass but here it shows up grossly. Is the Why here that no one understandshis Spanish there? The (a) Flunk: Auditor: "Do birds fly?" Pc: "1 feel freely out ofmy body." Auditor: "That's very good. Do birds fly?" means he didn't get his questionanswered, didn't say, "I'll repeat the auditing command." So let's get the basics in onthese Spanish-speaking students.

LRH critique #3-This is a pass.

Student H

LRH critique #I-TR 4: She would have ARC broken the pc. Her TR 2 is not inkeeping with the pc's remark so that's a flunk on TR 2. She's not in comm with thepc so she's not handling what the pc says. Doesn't really know the use of TR 2.

LRH critique #2-She actually was self-conscious and her TR 2 was all agreementand she has half-acks thrown in with full acks and although she probably nowthinks she should just "act natural," the truth of the matter is that this would notcontrol the session. Her TRs are too introverted. Now we've swung to the other endof the pendulum. The trick is to sound perfectly natural while controlling thesession utterly. What's spectacularly missing here is her beingness as an auditor.She's converted over into another girl being a friend. Nothing essentially wrong withit but it wouldn't control the session. It's a relief to see somebody not in a robotvalence so this is a halfway breakthrough. Now let's just push that up into real TRs

while retaining its naturalness, control the h--l out of the session and knock offthe half-acks and so forth and understand what TRs are exactly used for. Theprescription is: (1) check her beingness as an auditor; (2) redo the comm formulaas itself; (3) product clear her as to what product she is after; (4) redo OT TR 0 andup and get TR 2 really in.

LRH critique #3-She chopped the pc's answer. Get her through the commcycle and get her to understand the auditing cycle. She is also stiff, tense and a littlebit scared.

Student I

[The videos submitted by this student were in Italian.]

LRH critique #I-He gave a nod of the head as a half-ack and kept the pctalking. And he is a little bit stiff and probably needs his TR 0 Bullbait because hecomm lagged in getting the pc back in-session. He's still a tiny bit stiff. So it's commfonnula in clay with clearing up all the words on it in Italiano. He may have amistranslation as he is comm lagging which means he's uncertain. Then get him upthrough the TRs again so that we get a fluid easy auditor who doesn't comm lag anddoesn't sit so stiffly and tensely because he'd wear himself out in actual auditing.He's not too bad but he needs polish. Corom lagging, but he's got to understandhalf-acks and that you can do a half-ack by nodding your head, that will continuethe pc talking as long as you sit there bobbing your head. I'm not being unreasonable.All I require from you is total perfection in the true tradition of the fluidity of Italiancommunication.

LRH critique #2-He still thinks he's doing a drill. Doesn't know why he'sdoing TRs yet. He is stiff and robotic. You've not solved roboticness. Needs commcycle in clay. Make him find out what he is supposed to be doing. Don't use anyunusual solution. Just make them get in there and understand it. Some of thesestudents are so wound up in what they're doing they can't project. Get them over it.

LRH critique #3-[In this demonstration, the coach was itsaing about somethingthat was not an answer to the question and the student was half-acking him whichencouraged the coach to continue to itsa off the subject of "Do birds fly?"] Presenceis much better, but he is still giving TR 21/2 and would continue the pc endlesslyinto an itsa and he's got to get a grasp on session control, so once more, do Dianetics55! chapter on communication in clay, also purpose of a session and what an auditoris supposed to get done in a session and that it's not a social conference. It's somethingan auditor does, something an auditor gets done, it's up to the auditor to get the pcthrough the process he's running and get him through it successfully. You won't dothat by continuing the pc's itsa on offbeat things and that's what he's doing andthat's what he doesn't grasp.

LRH critique #4-I1's a pass.

Student]

LRH critique #l-[ln this demonstration, the student told the coach that theywould carry on with the process which would get the coach through whatever he

was experiencing.] After pc origination said, "All right, let's carry on and get youthrough that." It's evaluation and additive chatter. Also he's got no right to promisea pc that. Flunk.

LRH critique #2-lt could be a pass but actually he has not achieved the easeand naturalness required of an accomplished auditor.

LRH critique #3-He's got excessive and repetitive body motions, swinging hishead, etc. His OT TR 0 is not flat, TR 0 not flat and TR 0 Bullbait is not flat and hemissed the fact that the pc had not answered the auditing question and didn't repeatthe auditing command, but acknowledged it, so to the beginning of that line, runclay table of the comm formula as he must have an MU on it. That is the totalregimen he must be given. He should pass it rather easily because he has improvedbut he hasn't got it yet.

LRH critique #S-He cut off the pc after origination. He's chopping off the pc'scomm. He's rushing the pc. He hasn't got the purpose of TRs. This student has gotto have a handling. Somebody better get down to the false data on communicationand so forth and do a debug on him because there's something wrong-there'soverts, there's attitude, there's false data, there's something. His beingness as anauditor is out. Let's get at it and let's get somebody interested in getting down to thebasics and getting this student through and I want to see another tape up veryshortly and I want to see an auditor.

LRH critique #6-Flunk. Put him through the works and let him find out whatcommunication is and what A and R have to do with it. The guy is a robot-he isstill being a robot, he isn't auditing.

Student K

LRH critique #l-Flunk on TR 2. Neither acks to the pc origination weresuitable. He's got a pattern. He isn't in comm with the pc or he wouldn't giveunsuitable acks. This is true of most of these to some degree.

LRH critique #2-0n the coach origination, "Are the astronauts reallyScientologists?" the auditor flunked TR 4 in not handling it in such a way to get thepc back into session which is the guiding principle of TR 4 and that the student'sanswer did not guide in the direction of getting him back into session. I would haveasked the pc, "Does this apply to the session?" and I would not have said "How doesthis apply to that process?" and the pc would have said "No," and I would have said,"Good, I'll repeat the auditing command." So in essence this student doesn't understandTR 4, and therefore must be under some kind of Mis-U word scene on TR 4 as heisn't applying the exact HCOB on TR 4 about returning a pc to session. He needsWord Clearing and then to be run through the lot of them.

LRH critique #3-Pass.

Student L

LRH critique #l-Flunk. Half-acks. Hasn't mastered TR 2. His TR 2 is veryspotty and he is trying to use half-acks to keep the pc going.

LRH critique #2-Check his beingness. He's got a TR 2 brushoff. His presenceis fair but he would give a sort of a brushoff attitude to a pc. Do a checklist to findout where he is weak, but for sure get him through the comm cycle and the purposeof the comm cycle and auditing.

LRH critique #3-Needs a bit more. Not okay. He's actually cold and low onaffinity and he's still doing a bit of doing a drill. He isn't actually communicating.He's trying to keep things calm by seeming calm himself. That merely is the apparencyof it-it doesn't have to be the fact.

Student M

LRH critique-TR 2 is out. She didn't acknowledge him. She's failing to ack onTR 4. She's being trained wrong. The guy has a hell of a cog and she doesn't end theprocess. She's being trained wrong. Her TR 0 Bullbait is out; when he interrupted tosay she was now going to start, it went out. Her TRs went out. Weak TR 2, and TR 0Bullbait is not flat, as her first two TRs, before he announced that they were on theair, were almost flawless. And then he gave an interruption and she went totally,she went immediately robotic. So her TR 0 Bullbait and her TR 2 are both defectiveand the TR 2 would ARC break the pc because he "has a tight band around hishead" and she says, "Okay." To hell with that. She's not bad. It's not bad, it's just notpolished. It would not really control a pc or keep him in-session. It would blow the pcout of session, that TR 2. And that the auditor could be blown out of session certainlyshows that TR 0 Bullbait isn't flat. So I'd say her TR 0 wasn't flat, then I'd say that herOT TR 0 wasn't flat. She shows progress.

Student N

LRH critique-He is not with the pc. Also, "wise-guy attitude" is indicative ofoverts. Get his ruds in and O/Ws off on pcs, tech, communication, etc.

Student 0

LRH critique #I-He's not too bad. His TR 2 is a bit weak. The pc is not beingput into session by the auditor's TRs. They're too stiff. They're not really giving thecommand to the pc. They're not really auditing the pc. That probably comes fromnever having done the comm fonnula in clay.

LRH critique #2-0ut TR 3 and TR 4.

LRH critique #3-Did okay but coach didn't give enough to handle so can'treally give a pass as don't know how he would do under other circumstances.

Student P

[The videos submitted by this student were in Spanish.]

LRH critique # I-All these Spanish students have got some kind of a monotonous,perfunctory use of TRs. It's all sort of breathless and so forth. They aren't in realcommunication with their pc.

LRH critique #2-Not too bad, just a trifle tense. Seems a trifle robotic. Commcycle in clay with any Spanish word connected with it word cleared with a competentlarge Spanish dictionary so that we get the translation exactly. Any crashing MU inSpanish found and up through the TRs again.

LRH critique #3-Pass.

Student Q

LRH critique-That student hasn't passed OT TR 0 and TR o. What is remarkableabout the session is that his coach had fairly good relaxed TRs but the student didn't,so he has not done his comm formula in clay and understood it totally.

Student R

LRH critique #l-He's all fine except TR 0 Bullbait. He flinched on TR 0Bullbait. Otherwise he is fine.

LRH critique #2-He's tense. He's just not quite easy with it. He's just not quitein ARC with the pc, therefore would be found to be unflat on TR 0 Bullbait. He'd beabout half-flat on TR 0 Bullbait.

LRH critique #3-Pass.

Student S

LRH critique-It's a near pass but she isn't really trying to control the pc-she'sjust trying to get through the session, I feel. Why not have her do the full commchapter in clay?

Student T

LRH critique-[In this demonstration, the coach originated that he was upsetand didn't want to continue with the session. The student told him that the processwas unflat and they needed to flatten it so the coach would feel better.] That'sevaluation. Flunk. He handled it well as far as that. But he gave an evaluation. Youdon't give the pc any reasons. He's a bit patronizing. Comes under the heading ofpure and simple evaluation so he ought to be word cleared on it. Evaluation of thepc's case: how does he know the blowup is coming from a failure to flatten theprocess? He doesn't.

Student U

LRH critique-TR 0-4: Flunk. "I'll continue on with the process" is not "I'llrepeat the auditing command." She doesn't understand that the pc hasn't answeredan auditing question and not having answered the auditing question she now has toanswer it. "I will now continue on with the process" is technically totally inaccurateso she should do the clay table of Dianetics 55! on communication so she learns that anauditing command has to be answered and so forth. She has out-basics.

Now her tonality on TRs are improved but she herself lacks basics. She doesn'tknow the communication formula, she doesn't know why you would really do TR4, she doesn't know that an auditing question has to be answered-that you can'tjust throw them up in the air and leave them unanswered because it would be anincomplete cycle and would hang up the pc. Just as Simple as that.

So that error shows that she does not know the basic theory of TRs or thecommunication formula and probably doesn't know the communication formula is

a discovery of Scientology and that people have to be drilled on communication and itdoes apply to life and it has something to do with a session. That's what she'smissing and that's what has got to be remedied.

All of this could be said to be evaluation but I'm only saying this because it'strue, otherwise she would never make such a mistake. It would never occur to herto make such a mistake.

She isn't doing a cycle of communication.

Student V

LRH critique-Have him do mood TRs. Then have him go on back through allhis TRs from the bottom to the top and polish it up.

Hereafter, on a pass, apply the question, "Would you like to be audited by thisauditor this way?" and if the answer is "No," it's not a pass.

Student W

LRH critique-She hasn't even got an in TR 1. Pc didn't answer the question. She'sgot a breathless TR 1 and she doesn't understand what the pc is saying, so the commformula is out because the pc doesn't answer the question and the auditor doesn'tnotice it. So they do not understand the purpose of auditing-having a comm cycle inauditing-they don't have that as a purpose. It's interesting that both the coach and thestudent made the same error in their relative positions-so there's a mutual out-techgoing on there. She's got too faint a TR 1 and actually not really seeing the pc's indicators.These students would have to do Dianetics 55! the chapter on communication, in clayuntil they've really got a grasp on this scene. And then the purpose of auditing and whatthe comm cycle has to do with it in clay. If they've been at it this long and haven't madeany more progress than that, they ought to get a correction assessment. They areundoubtedly riding on false data, but what's out is their basics.

Student X

LRH critique-There's no impingement. She's giving it a brushoff. Her TR 2 is abrushoff. No impingement and she's also nervous. She needs to do the whole chapterof communication in Dianetics 55! in clay, then flatten OT TR 0, TR 0 on up. Shemayor may not have the product of what she's trying to get, of what she's trying todo with TRs.

Student Y

LRH critique #l-She's a bit subdued. The impingement is not likely to bethere. Tell her she's too subdued, too detached from the pc. It's awfully hard to passa TR when the video demo is being made easy by the coach for the student. Youcan't really tell on a TR unless the coach has really given the student a sit to handle.

LRH critique #2-Unfortunately she would ARC break a pc with her attitude andTR 2. It doesn't give the pc an understanding of her understanding of him. Onewonders if she is just doing a drill and not understanding what the pc says. She hasmade good progress but needs to get "A" and "U" under control so maybe mood TRswould do her a world of good.

Student Z

LRH critique-[This is a transcription of LRH comments while viewing a videoof the student and her coach drilling TRs.]

Coach: "I have an awful feeling of fear."

Auditor: 'When did that start?"

LRH: Q&A. And the coach didn't hand her an anti-Q&A bulletin.

Coach: "I've had a headache for years."

Auditor: "Really? ..."

LRH: Out TR 4 and her TR 2 is out. Q&A and he didn't hand her a Q&Abulletin.

Auditor: "What brought that on?"

LRH: Q&A.

Auditor: "Something 1 say make that happen?"

LRH: Q&A.

Auditor: "I'm going to give you the command again."

LRH: Wrong phrasing-"I'm going to give you the command again"-no. "I'nrepeat the auditing command." Sessions must be predictable. He's not coaching-notgiving her the Q&A bulletin. She doesn't know the HCOB on TR 4. This is the stinkingestTR 4 I've ever been the witness of. It would wrap a case up in knots.

Student AA

LRH critique-That was a flubbed TR 2. It would come across as sarcasm tothe pc. He would've ARC broken a pc with that. He's got a weak TR 2 that wouldn'tput a pc in-session or keep him in-session. His TR 4 in this instance was not verygood. TR 2 flunk. He gave her a half-ack to keep her going when she wasn'tanswering the question. He doesn't know the use of TR 2, half-acks and TR 4. Heshould be drilling these. The coach's TRs are very good-probably because shedidn't think she was doing a drill.

Student BB

LRH critique-Very accusative. She'd probably be all right sec checking maybeif she had orders to find the person guilty, but that mood has something else thanget the pc interested in his own case and willing to talk to the auditor. And thatwould be the end of the session. She should do Mood Drills. What the hell are thesehalf-acks? Somebody's miscoaching them. They're being miscoached-here's twotapes with the same error. Somebody is an opinion leader, probably out of the viewof the Supervisor, that's telling you always half-ack somebody to keep him goingwhen he hasn't answered the auditing question. That's a flunk, flunk, flunk, flunk.She didn't even faintly get the auditing question answered and the coach didn't catch

it. So the coach's TRs are out. He's doing a bad job of coaching because his studentkeeps flunking and he hasn't called a halt to it. She has to do Mood Drills, TR 2,3and 4-get down to the basics of the subject. The fad they're running is if the pcdoesn't answer the auditing question you always give him a half-ack and if the pc isa coach, why, the coach is the pc and therefore he doesn't correct the student. Thatwas stinking coaching. He didn't catch obvious, screaming flubs.

General LRH critiques concerning the entire class:

LRH general critique #l-Basically what's really out is OT TR 0 and TR O. Aslong as an auditor is introverted Clooking inside into himself) he will have no realwarmth or interest in the pc.

LRH general critique #2-0T TR 0 was out. TR 0 was out. TR 1 was out. TR 2was out. It was really corny. Over-ack, robot acks and so forth. TR 4 was definitelyout. It would wind up ARC breaking a pc. I think somebody has evaluated for themat OT TR O. You notice they're stiff. Totally stiff, totally stiff demeanor, totally stiffhead and so forth. They "know" what TR 0 is: you put yourself in concrete and yousit there. They're not flat on OT TR 0 and I don't know if they're cycling through atall. They probably don't see what's wrong. A couple of friendly guys out talking toeach other is what they should go out and observe. Maybe they've got the idea thatit's just stiff communication. Maybe they've never communicated with anybodybefore. OT TR 0 is unflat and they'll probably find out that that's deficient. Theyprobably think you go through the TRs twice. I'm not sure what that phenomenonis, of considering it something else than what it is. It's actually disassociation. Theyconsider it something else than what it is. You run a student through enough TRsenough times and he doesn't need any instruction-that's what they haven't got.They're looking for some magical answer that short-circuits their practice. They'relooking for somebody to come along and tell them all about it.

LRH general critique #3-General summary: So that's why. They don't knowTRs are to control a pc's comm-it's just a dull, uninteresting exercise. They don'tknow the use of a half-ack. They use TR 4 to ARC break people.

LRH general critique #4-A basic comment on all this is that these studentshave never done real TRs, they don't know what real communication is, they justkeep plowing back into total robotism. They think it's some kind of a drill and hasnothing to do with communication and they're trying to pattern themselves in somefashion of just doing TRs, and if they had ever done it, they would know what it is!And what it takes is just doing it-that is the cure for the whole thing because it isan objective process. The student has got to find out that he does TRs, it isn'tsomebody else that tells him and if he never does, he'll never find it out. It's assimple as that. These students haven't got the reason they are doing TRs and have neverdone them and so don't know what it feels like to have a pc under communicationcontrol, and they are trying to follow some screwball set of rules or ideas or something,but they've just never done it so they know what it seems like, and all of these tapesthat I've received are all of them carbon copy. They're following some model nobodyever heard of. So the false data is probably what TRs are for, what they're supposedto be able to do. They think TRs are something different than drilling them untilthey can be in decent communication with the pc. That's all we can conclude sothere must be some false data sitting there that's been fed to them. Very basic, verystupid. In another area, we found that they were saying to each other that theywould never use TRs in an auditing session.

LRH general critique #5-The robotism has gone down a hair but they are stillratded. With an adroit coach these students could be wrapped around a telegraphpole. Any pc could ratde them and cause them to do something unusual or strange.They don't know their basics sound enough. They probably think that you woulduse something outside of TRs to handle a pc and do something unusual or strange.They could be easily rattled because they do not know their basics well enough. Itwould do them a world of good to do the whole communication cycle in clay andshow how each TR relates to each portion of the comm cycle.

LRH general critique #6-Re: TR quality: The course students are betteringaccording to videos I looked at tonight and just telexed about. They are still a waysfrom being comfortable auditors. The false datum that one wouldn't use TRs inauditing is more widespread than you think, as was just found here at a high level.It means simply that anyone spreading or accepting that false datum never heard ofthe formula of communication. That seems to be the hole because none of thesestudents doing TRs look like they're communicating and I really don't think any ofthem really grasp that the results of auditing depend upon guiding and faultlesslyhandling the pc's comm. I don't think these students even ever heard of the ARCtriangle or any other basic of Scientology. Certainly none of them have been forcedto stop faking a drill and actually do it or they would discover it for themselves ifthey went through the actual TRs, one by one.

LRH general critique #7-TR 4: General Summary: This class is very, very stiffand shows the signs that TRs are peculiar and have nothing to do with life. Theydon't show evidence of having done the comm formula in clay and having done OTTR 0 and TR 0 and there isn't anything that will get them through except gettingthose things done on them. The possibility exists that as a group they are so habituatedinto robotic TRs, that's how they think TRs really are. There is a shadow ofimprovementfrom earlier TR tapes but one still asks himself, "Would I care to be audited by thisauditor?" and the answer is "Absolutely not." There is evidence that they still thinkthat TRs are some kind of a special thing that doesn't have anything to do with thepc or with communication and it is vivid in that the coaches have their TRs in fairlywell while coaching, so they think TRs have nothing to do with the pc or the session.The weakest TR in this review was TR 2 which shows they don't think the pc issupposed to communicate to them.

LRH general critique #8-Re: TR standardization: TR 0 blinkless must not beconfused with TR 0 Bullbait. It is TR 0 Bullbait that teaches the student to confronta pc. It is not TR o. TR 0 just gets the student to sit there and confront. It is TR 0Bullbait that gets him to confront a pc. The purpose of these two drills must beemphasized. TRs work just getting them through one TR at a time. As to coaching,coaching has never been recommended to be dropped by me on OT TR 0 or TR o.They in fact require coaching. However, OT TR 0 is mostly coached by the Supervisor.It is an actual waste of time to have two students coaching each other on it as thereis very Htde to do. A Supervisor can note somebody twitching. Even if the Supervisorignores it and just insists that the class go on doing it, the student will come onthrough. TR 0 on the other hand is its own cup of tea and it does require somecoaching. So it is a turnabout sort of thing. At once get all these students to do thewhole comm formula in clay as this is the first step. Doing TRs in relationship tothe corom formula will cost you loses as they don't know what a comm formula is.Doing TRs as they relate to a comm formula is the second step and out-gradient.The above means comm formula and then clay table demo TRs. What I'm looking

for is a product at the other end of the line. But that product must be achieved withsimplicity as getting technical nuances across on a broad basis is very difficultindeed.

LRH general critique #9-These people probably think the EP is "I can do TRs."It is really "I can handle a pc in session and get gain for the pc on comm alone." Bigdifference.

LRH general critique #10-1 normally criticize TRs on whether or not thecomm of the auditor is actually reaching the pc, whether the auditor can ack so asto make the pc continue or to stop the pc, and whether the auditor smoothly handlesan origin without ARC breaking, or setting up a potential ARC break with the pc,and whether the auditor can duplicate.

I will give you a little clue as to when I think my TRs are good. If, in a drill, Iactually put the coach in-session, I consider I have given an adequate demonstration.I don't use anything except "Do birds fly?" and "Do fish swim?" and send the coachinto session. When I do that, I consider my TRs as spot on and when I don't do that,I work at it a little harder. Yes, I said COACH in-session.

CRITIQUES OF AUDITING SESSIONS

This second category of critiques is likewise arranged student by student. Theseare sessions submitted to LRH by HGC auditors and internes which were reviewedand critiqued by him.

Auditor 1

LRH critique #1-Not okay. He is very busy in a session with note pad, etc.Must be distracting to a pc. His TR 2 is too offhand. He sort of sounds like it isn'timportant, pretty mechanical, not too interested in pc.

LRH critique #2-Not bad but just a trace of impatience yet. Not smoothsmooth yet. Results in session control too poor. Doesn't get the questionanswered. Pc a trifle conscious of the impatience. Not really in-session. The Singsongof the question tone doesn't comm to the pc. TR 2 infrequent. Bit of out-tech here:Instead of "interest?" question is asked, "Would you like to run ?"

LRH critique #3-Pass. That's excellent, good, personalized intention. Youwon't have any trouble with session control now.

Auditor 2

LRH critique # I-This is a stenographic auditor whose TR 2 doesn't exist.Drags the pc out. TR 1 almost nonexistent. This is the least crisp Dianetic auditingI have ever heard. Impatient with pc. Changed items from whatever it was to "an icylandscape." In justice, I can't tell who's the auditor and who's the pc. But also this isvery uncrisp off-command, no TR 2 Dianetics. It just doesn't run off 1-9, A-D. Andis very stenographic. [This critique was given when R3R was the procedure forrunning Dianetics.]

LRH critique #2-This is pretty mechanical. Voice goes over the same tonepatterns with the same drop at end. It is the end which must impinge. There's a

trifle of chop. These TRs would be overwhelming on a rocky pc. Slowness andfastness have nothing to do with it. It's tone and lilt.

Auditor 3

LRH critique #1-There is a dullness in these TRs that shows out OT TR 0 andTR O. The pc is not in-session. Bored, not interested in own case and willing to talkto auditor. May even be in an ARC break or grief or sad effect. But is responding tothe dullness of the TRs. The Assessment TR 1 is good. Needs a lot of work.

LRH critique #2-Your tone is okay. Your DICTION needs some work. Youtend to mumble at times and words are not clear. Work on DICTION.

Auditor 4

LRH critique-You ARC broke the pc by interjecting a "your needle is floating,"while she was still laughing and cogniting. She then ARC broke and began toprotest. This is bad TR 4 and poor obnosis. She did not run well thereafter. Yourtone is okay. You need TR 0 (and OT TR 0) and TR 4.

Auditor 5

LRH critique #1-At the risk of breaking somebody's heart by correcting, thispc is not in-session and the TR 1 is now rushed. The auditor is tense. Pc keepstalking after ack. This "afraid he'd ARC break the pc" is actually TR O. Have thisauditor listen to some of my demo tapes. TR 3 is supposed to be a newly originatedTR 1, not a mechanical action. He is not doing badly but there is no reason why areally good job of training can't be done. If he's this tense or anxious, or his 0 is notnatural and easy and if TR 1,3 are out then it falls back to an uneasy 2 and pc notunder control. Clear also definition of "in-session." He is still trying too hard. Perfectauditing sounds as natural as rain while being as disciplined as a Prussian drillmaster.

LRH critique #2-There's a momentary comm lag on his TR 2. I suppose it's a"wanting to be sure." There may be some additive here he is putting in. It is noteasy. Running O/Ws he would drag the pc into itsa and O/R. It is slight, the rest isgood. Improve TR 2.

Auditor 6

LRH critique #1-Rushed. Chops with TR 2. Too robot. Cough-habit. He sortof keeps climbing up on top of the pc. Pc would get to feeling pushed. Throatclearing as a mannerism not acceptable.

LRH critique #2-These TRs sound lax and disinterested. There is an attitudeof some sort. Sort of like a brushoff or unimportant. Or like the pc isn't important.Get product cleared long form, then listen to some LRH sessions. Try again.

LRH critique #3-Word Clearing tapes aren't really acceptable. However thisauditing has the following needing correction: (1) Comm lag TR 2. Pc isn't reallyacked. Also begins talking again after TR 2. (2) Auditor using up session time byack, then admin, wait, new command. (3) This session is not really in control of the

auditor. I wish you'd just do some auditing on a tape that is good TR auditing andsend it up. You never heard me do these things on a tape in your life. An auditorruns the session. The pc is in-session. This is done by flawless TRs IN USE IN THESESSION.

LRH critique #4-Pass. That's excellent. Good and businesslike and interestedand relaxed.

Auditor 7

LRH critique-Not passed. Tense, rushed (rushes the pc), overwhelming. TR 2 isa chop. Machine auditing-it would run Dianetics fairly well but not Scientology.Academy 1958 Washington, DC is the style being used. Robot. No pc there. It doesget auditing done. It needs a LOT of work. Have him listen to LRH TRs.

Auditor 8

LRH critique #1-This is too robot, not enough interest in the pc. I notice youget pulled into admin and even delay a command to catch it up after asking a pc.Just a bit mechanical. In auditing you are trying to finish a pc, not a session or testor the admin. It's the pc that counts. You are sufficiently good, it would be a shamenot to get you really smooth. Note that the pc is much more under control now.Case gain but also because of your improved TRs.

LRH critique #2-TR 2: Administrative comm lag. Working with paper toolong, leaving pc hanging. TR 1: On calling listing items, no full stop after eachphrase. Would tend to merge the commands.

LRH critique #3-TR 2-TR 1 collision sometimes, you have made your TR 1follow almost overlapping your TR 2. Work on this. TR 1 pretty much okay. Sometimesa Htde too consoling. But most of the time fine.

LRH critique #4-TRs far, far too consoling. Practice speaking in various moodsout of session so you control your voice moods. Consoling makes your TR 1 soundsoft. Too agreeable so it loses session control by losing session authority. Makes pcdrift, feeling not handled. Handle this.

LRH critique #5-TR 1 on assessment: No pause. You have to have a spacebetween Qs read or it won't read. Too much push so it jams the words. Big change!But now get it under control. TR 2: Tends to collide with next command or Q on2WC. Sometimes the TR 2 is very good on half-acks.

LRH critique #6-TR 1: Assessment, no impact, lines all run together. Nointerest. You couldn't get a read with that. You were just reading the prepared list.Get in the drill of assessing.

LRH critique #7-Fairly natural but a bit soothing as to a child. TR 1: Practicemore moods. Use the whole Tone Scale this time. Don't "ah" in pauses. It's ahesitation. TR 2 mood is all that needs correction.

Auditor 9

LRH critique #l-Sorry. Your TR 2 is bad. It doesn't get to the pc. For Dianetlcsespecially, comm lag on next command in favor of admin. Attention really not onpc so he runs on and on. This is the most offhand TR 2 I've heard for some time. It'san upswing with a sort of question in it.

LRH critique #2-Enormously improved. Just a trifle wound-up doll. Makes anauditor seem indifferent to singsong. Also the tone rise at the end of a commandmakes it sound like a question. Cuts the impingement.

LRH critique #3-Too mechanical-TR 2 poorly timed. Once late, once early.Too admin interested. Not quite with the pc. TR °may be a bit out. Work on itsome more. Not the worst I've heard.

LRH critique #4-It's better. Why be in a flap about it. It's easy. You make ittoo hard. Your TR 4 was flubbed. Pc origin picture was erasing. You asked if pictureerasing. Drill DICTION and TR 4.

LRH critique #5-Too mechanical. Good TRs require real interest in the pcand what is going on. Listen to some of my auditing sessions. Don't listen to words.Listen to tone and interest. The pc responds poorly to mechanical monotone TRs as hefeels brushed off. If you do TRs make it OT TR °and TR 0, not the rest.

LRH critique #6-Gready improved. Work now a bit on your TR 2 so you don'tchop. It's just a hair too quick. Also TR 1 is not quite to the pc. You almost have it.

LRH critique #7-The idea is not to get a pass. It's to have good consistent TRs.This needs OT TR 0, TR °and obnosis and TR 2 as it (TR 2) cuts in and half-ackstoo often.

LRH critique #8-0kay. You're coming along fine. Your TRs are a trifle tenseat times and at times a bit mechanical (just quoting a line, not saying it to the pc).Come off of quote on same tone (all commands sound the same tone). Listen to itand you'll hear it.

Auditor 10

LRH critique-Get your TR 0 in so pcs don't cave in your chest. And drill TRsso they don't lilt: / and get less toss-off and less offhand. Auditing is amore important business. Work on it.

Auditor 11

LRH critique #l-Assessment and indications of FIN are not top grade. Onassessment the questions get run together. Impingement is poor. On indication it'san "unimportant" inflection. Needs some work. Otherwise qUite good.

LRH critique #2-You almost got it. TR 2 has a lilt: '-..il that gives aquestion to the ack. Rest is absolutely great.

LRH critique #3-Pass.

Auditor 12

LRH critique #l-Not bad TRs. A bit monotone and sweet. You'll have troubleimpinging on assessment. Just a bare trifle mechanical. Each new command is notentirely a new command. A bit pushy. Not really bad TRs. Need polish.

LRH critique #2-Not too bad. A bit soft. TR 2 is too slow and doesn't get pcreally acked so you get a sleepy draggy session.

Auditor 13

LRH critique #l-Pretty good. A bit "patient," a bit consoling. Something ismaking the pc think he hasn't been heard. Best TRs so far today but needs work.

LRH critique #2-TR 2: A half-ack keeps a pc going and also keeps a pc fromover-itsaing. This pc was over-itsaing, not sure auditor had heard her. The actualTR 2 here is a bit brushoff, a trifle disinterested sort of "let's get on with it." Alsoleading to over-itsa. TR 1: you are merging your next TR 1 with your last TR 2,makes a sort of no-cycle scene. Work on it.

LRH critique #3-TR 2: Triple and double acks. Cut them to single. TR 1: Inassessing, put a bit more punch. Pc "attention on something else" was a lack of readdue to low punch of TR 1.

LRH critique #4-TR I: Assessment better. Some lines a trifle mechanical. TR21/2: acks good. TR 0: Do a bit of it. Should be easier to get to the pc. Pc was not tooaware of you, just talking.

LRH critique #5-Emphasis is okay. You would get any available reads on this.A little more consistent and you have it.

LRH critique #6-Great. Pass.

Auditor 14

LRH critique #1-TR 1: Very soft and innocent sounding. TR 2: Cure youruplift on your ack on assists. Apparent stops occur on calling a list which wouldmake the pc think the Q is finished when it isn't yet =messed up reads. Qs are toorun together.

LRH critique #2-A comm lag auditor TR 2. A choppy-sounding TR 2 when itcomes. Over-ack. Monotone "okay," over and over. Cure that "okay." Makes pcover-itsa. Listen to my auditing tape TR 2. Also too much stenographic auditing leavingthe pc adrift with resultant loss of session control.

LRH critique #3-TR 2: Practice half-acks, full acks that stop. You are makingpc over-itsa. He's not sure he's being heard. Cease to use "Okay." Use "Very good,""All right," etc. TR I: You now have an uplift (up lilt) on TR 1 that won't impingewell. You don't do it all the time, just now and then. TR 0: You sound a triflewithholdy instead of reaching so do some TR 0 blinkless. Mainly, don't mix half-acksand full acks. Get them apart.

LRH critique #4-Better in general. TR 1: Just a little wanner now and you'llhave it. TR 2: Get the ack to the pc.

LRH critique #5-TR 2: This TR can be Tone 40, nonnal (full) ack, half-ack.Practice. TR 1: Seems okay.

LRH critique #6-Thank you. TR 1 too soft as you could lose the pc. SeeOriginal Thesis first axioms. TR 2: Your half-acks are better. Polish up a bit more.

LRH critique #7-TR 2: You're using it to fill gaps. TR 1: Breathless. Practicebeing breathless to get rid of the automaticity.

LRH critique #8-Very good. Pass.

Auditor 15

LRH critique #I-TR 2 repeated makes an over-ack almost a brushoff. TR 1 prettygood. Not bad TRs. All TRs can be improved but these are pretty good. Correct TR 2.Listen to LRH tapes again.

LRH critique #2-I've made you a bit anxious and less "natural." Your TR 1 wasalready pretty good. Don't change things that are okay. Practice acks now. Your TR 2tends to chop or go soft. It's too variable. Try Tone 40 on down to a mumble in agradient scale and get control of it.

LRH critique #3-Talking too much. Too many inteIjections. These can overwhelm.TR 1: Not sharp enough to cause a read. Drops at end. The TR must "punch," notdrop. Can be one thing to assess, another to question. There are two or three TR l's.Master them all. TR 2 is better. TR 2: Can encourage to go on or to shut off. Practicethe latter. You have the former down well.

LRH critique #4-TR 1: You will get list reads. But this is still a bit mechanical.Sounds like you're reading. The way you do that is see the sentence you are asking,think it and say it, then it gets natural. Your TR 4 was good. Justify to pc is verboten.Never justify an error. These are perfunctory TRs. You found several items andindicated "several items." Too broad. "We'll go right back in again" at end of firstpart of session is also a bad show. Restims Int. Get your patter more exact, less adlib. Back to the old salt mines.

LRH critique #5-TR 2: I see you are mastering half-acks. Good. But don'tdouble ack. TR 1: Very good. Assessment. Don't drop your voice at end of anassessment Q because that's where you get your read. Itsa and O/R. It is slight, therest is good. Improve TR 2.

LRH critique #6-TR 1: Don't assess with a down drop:~ ~ ~.These are questions. TR 2: Double acking yet. Cure it.

Auditor 16

LRH critique #1-Too mechanical. Not natural. A bit forced emotional tone.Work on it. Listen to some of my tapes.

LRH critique #2-Better. TR I: Learn to punch the last word on an assessment.Make it consistent. Some are very good. TR 2 quite good. Sometimes you collidewith the pc. Develop perception of when he is finished.

LRH critique #3-Technical error here in flying ARC break. Pc answered witha worry-problem. The ARC break originally either was not understood Q-meanspc was out of session-or a false read. Pc disagreed twice with assessments. Eitheran ARC break is still on case or it was a false read. Then she did come up with anARC break under overts so it was not a false read. Means pc really not in-session =TRs must get more interested, less mechanical. (Also if your voice upsets you,try-out of session-speaking melodiously, boringly, enthusiastically until youchange your mood about at will.)

LRH critique #4-TR 1 is better. TR 2: Your ack goes Tone 40 at times. There'sa Tone 40 ack, a full ack, a half-ack.

LRH critique #S-These TRs are technically okay but your mood is a bit harsh.Practice moods. Also TR O.

LRH critique #6-The point you picked out is a classic incident. Good. Theessence of TR 2 is session control. The TRs mood is good. TRs good.

LRH critique #7-Thank you. The assessment might just possibly not get aread on some pes. Not strong enough at end of a line.

LRH critique #8-TR 2: How come Tone 40 before "Your needle is floating?"That a needle is floating is more congratulatory. The assessment is fine. Now matchthe ack to the tone.

LRH critique #9-TR I: Emphasis in assessment on this tape is on first part ofline: ~~ ~. You won't get some pcs to read if you do that. Bark thelast word better. Don't suppress it. TR 21/2 acks a bit missing. Pc slightly over-itsaing.

LRH critique #lO-TR 2: You didn't really accept some of her answers, youtook it from the FIN. It IS time you passed your TRs. So practice moods to warm upa session a bit.

LRH critique #1 I-Thank you. Moods pretty good. Work on them some more.TR 1 to 4 at each mood, bottom to top. Repeat any too easy or too hard. Session:Fair. A trifle consoling.

LRH critique #12-You are much better. Take the accented (volume) out ofthe earlier part of a sentence and put it on the end routinely.

LRH critique #13-Not okay. Too superficial and disinterested and monotonous.She's sunk into a fixed tone and voice notes are a sort of tune. Pc would feel like achild.

LRH critique #14-It's going:~ ~ or /'. No bark. TR 0 orhopelessness about ever passing have entered here. Cheer up, all you have to do is do it.

LRH critique #lS-Pass on assessment.

Auditor 17

LRH critique #1-TR 1: Get it more natural. TR 2 overrides the end of pc's Q.

LRH critique #2-TR 1 sounds a bit weary and indifferent. But greatly improvedin volume and crispness. Be more positive at end of a sentence. It tends to droop off.TR 2 tends to fall off like the TR 1. There are two or more tones you can use in TR2-one means to keep going, another means that's it. You lean too far over to "keepgoing." These aren't the worst TRs there are. They could be gready polished.

LRH critique #3-TR 1: Better. Now get it more natural. TR 2: Overrides attimes end of pc's answer. Will take him into W/Hing.

LRH critique #4-TR 1: Better. But variable. Could be a trifle faster. TR 2:Practice half-acks and full acks so as not to fall between. R3R is mainly half-acks tokeep pc going and a full ack at real end of it. [This critique was given before R3RAwas developed.]

LRH critique #5-TR 1: A tiny bit mechanical on these process commands.Not bad but you can do it better. TR 2: Half-ack is good. Ack is good.

LRH critique #6-TR 1: Practice moods against Tone Scale. (This assessmentwould impinge okay but might rough up a pc due to tone.) TR 21/2 acks, full acksneed review as this pc is over-itsaing. TR 0 until you can be more relaxed in session.

LRH critique #7-TR 1: Don't hesitate or halt in a command. TR 2: R3R ackseems good. Too frequent half-acks.

LRH critique #8-TR 2: "All rightee" must go! TR 1: This is a sort of near Tone40 R3R. Practice moods.

Auditor 18

LRH critique #I-A bit bored. Mechanical. Not natural. A habitual droppingtone .. must be cured. Out TRs promote a comm-Iaggy pc.

LRH critique #2-Doing better. A monotonous tone drop on TR 1, not enoughpunch to make a list read. TR 2 pretty good.

LRH critique #3-TR 1 on 104 is too mechanical. Make it more live, eachcommand new and intended. TR 2: This is a drill TR, not to the pc. Practice halfand full acks TO THE PC.

LRH critique #4-Much improved. TR 2: R3R full acks should come at end ofa full chain erasure.

LRH critique #5-TR 1: You backslid on mood. Sounds weary when givingcommand. Won't make a pc move fast. In contrast the query of the pc is alive.Practice moods of voice. The mechanical character of the commands themselves iswhat makes it sound weary. Needs work for consistency. TR 2 seems okay.

LRH critique #6-TR 2: No half-acks. Makes pc over-itsa. No auditor apparentto pc. TR 1: Great Solo session by pc. I couldn't find TR 1 spot-checking the tape.Do TR O. Do a comm cycle in clay.

LRH critique #7-TR 1: Assessment. There's just a slight sag on the end of eachword in most cases. Last syllable is the point to hit.

LRH critique #8-TR 1: Hey, don't drop the end. That's where the read is.Practice. More bark also. Your general TRs have been passed.

LRH critique #9-Thank you. Coach calls the mood. You do TR 1 to 4 frombottom to top of major scale. Repeat any too easy or too hard to kill the roughspots. Your TR 4 was out on this tape. What would be the 4 of each mood? Good.

LRH critique #lO-Pass.

Auditor 19

LRH critique-Your TRs were okay, but your metering is highly questionableunless you can demonstrate you can read through an FIN. The outpoint is he wasjust continuing to FIN and you were busy assessing and the question is why wereyou assessing unless of course you have mastered the art of reading through an FIN.

Auditing is effective in ratio to the number of commands per minute of auditingtime. It would have taken me about one-fourth of the time to handle the samequestions.

Assessing and two-way comm are two different operations so what were youdoing, assessing or auditing? They are quite different TRs.

The reactive bank doesn't happen to care how fast questions are put to it solong as your diction is excellent.

To improve your TRs would require some work on TR 1 in the department ofdiction-crispness of pronunciation. Practice assessing TRs and then practice two-waycomm (general auditing) TRs and get each one distinct.

Practice diction ("How now brown cow") (Crisp clarity equals comprehension).

You understand of course that your TRs are really very good. Your interest inthe pc is good, your TR 2 keeps him talking, your presence is good. You just needineffably professional polish, the true mark of the elite professional which impingeson pcs with its flawless erudition. Acquiring such will give you about lOX auditinggains in your pes compared to your probably already excellent results.

Auditor 20

LRH critique #l-It was a bad TR 1 as the pc didn't answer. If the pc can't findit any quicker than that, it ain't hot. I don't think I'm passing a TR tape, I'm lookingat a false read and out TR 1. TR 2 is also noplace to be found as pc is rattlingon-you neither acked him nor encouraged him. There is no auditor on the tape-butwhere there is one I can assume the above. The above don't have to be true, but theymight be. I think somebody owes me a TR tape fast.

LRH critique #2-Much improved.

LRH critique #3-Your beingness is better. Learn to make auditing statements intheir own unit of time and each one complete and finished. Don't slide from one tothe next as if they're just one statement.

Example: "This is the session your needle is floating." These are two differentstatements in two different units of time. "This is the session" is said Tone 40 andthat is one statement. You've finished with that. Now, not Tone 40, and in a newunit of time you say, "Your needle is floating."

But what I'm really interested in is this oddball nonstandard starting of a session.The following statements are not part of the patter which begins a session.

Are you sessionable?

Are you comfortable?

Is there any reason why we shouldn't start this session?

All right.

This is the session.

Your needle is floating.

Furthermore, you're out of sequence on your can squeeze and breath test.Unless the can squeeze is set, the breath test is meaningless, as your sensitivity maybe set too high or too low.

You can say, "Is it all right with you if we start the session now?"

You would then say, "Squeeze the cans" and you adjust your sensitivity-it maytake a couple of can squeezes or even three.

You then say, "Take a deep breath and let it out" and note the fall of the needle.This tells you whether the pc is sessionable or if he's eaten. You don't have to askadditional questions to establish these facts.

You can only ask for one breath test as the second one is always null.

Get your session form in order.

Auditor 21

LRH critique-You're coming along better; however, I picked something upwhile listening to your tape on flows. You are comm lagging expectantly on a flowcommand; when a flow doesn't read don't wait expectantly for the pc to say something.In spotting this, 1 have been able to catch this all over the field on running oncharged items. You just tell him it didn't read and then go to the next one, don't sitthere expectantly going on till you get an uncharged answer.

Untangle your TR 2 and TR 2V2 as you have some tendency to change them;you wouldn't use a "Very good" on a TR 21/2, it's more likely "Uh-huh" or "Yes?"

Go around and listen to yourself asking questions again, as you're still in a bitof monotony. I can ask questions that don't go up at the end.

Practice this, you're still under tension.

You're a good auditor, all I'm trying to do is make you a perfect auditor, so thatshouldn't be too hard.

Auditor 22

LRH critique # I-She's not dividing her thought. She's running her thoughttogether which makes it a bit meaningless.

LRH critique #2-You have fallen into the common trap of a monotone musicalswing on your questions. Walk around and ask people in life some questions andhear how you sound, I think you will find that you vary your note tones whilstasking people questions.

Auditor 23

LRH critique #I-What's this repeating multiple ack? That went out in 1956,and is used as a joke in Scientology. This guy is trying to fill his own gropingnesswith TR talk; his own unpositiveness with TR talk. These really aren't TRs. He hasgaps in his speech so he would get reads in the middle of his sentences. Now he'sburying his TR 2. He's gone from chop to bury. Some of his TRs are okay, some areabsolutely awful. So he roller-coasters along through the session. So it's inconsistent.If he would get his bad TRs up to the level of his good TRs he would be all right.

LRH critique #2-A little bit bored or even a little worried. Looking this over Iwould say something was bothering the auditor-like meter was not charged or hedidn't bring any paper.

Auditor 24

LRH critique # I-He's got some kind of a scene where he's asking the pcwithout recourse to the meter. He's asking the pc but not signifying what wasreading on the meter. In this way he'll get the pc answering every question whetherit read or not. As to TRs-very perfunctory, robotic TRs: long way to go.

LRH critique #2-Cure whatever it is in your expression or TRs that makes thepc feel you want him to keep on talking. You apparently look expectant and quiet insome way and the pc thinks he is incomplete or not heard in some way. Spot whatit is you're doing. You will get overruns every time and shoot TAs out the roof. TR 2 issupposed to stop a pc.

LRH critique #3-Your TRs sound pretty cold and perfunctory and too rushedand give a definite impression of trying to get over with it and would make the pcfeel that somebody was auditing them under slight protest.

LRH critique #4-A stenographic auditor. TR 2 is not very positive and isblurred into his TR 1. But his nonauditing presence is pretty good (based on the factthat this is a Sec Check). Weak TR 2 mainly and slight tendency to cause pc to

over-itsa perhaps by expression or otherwise which isn't visible on the tape. But thepc wasn't in-session and if these are your nonauditing TRs let's see some real classyTRs.

LRH critique #S-Improved. Shows more interest. The assessment is good.Tape is approved.

Auditor 25

LRH critique #l-Study half-acks. Learn to give your commands more rapidlyas you are burning session time with slow commands. Review your beingness asthis sounds just a bit coy.

LRH critique #2-TRs: She's not controlling her meter. You would automaticallycontrol even if you're not using it-habit, built-in habit. TRs not reaching thepc-too dependent on mic or picture. Impatient TR 2. Mucked up TR 2. TR 1 nottoo bad. It's actually a Sec Checking TR. The beingness is not an auditing beingness.Not even a real good Sec Checking beingness but that's what it borders on. Apparentlydoing TR 3 when doing TR 1. Might or might not reach the pc.

Auditor 26

LRH critique #l-Sounds a little bit pushy and cross. Choppy. It wouldn'treassure a pc; it would make the pc feel like he was being leaned on. It's a good SecChecking voice, providing he has more intention and less rush. But not a goodauditing voice.

LRH critique #2-1. The first thing I pick up off this is that you are puttingpauses inside your own commands, which is a no-no.

2. You must be asking an unreading question for a pc to comm lag that long.

3. There is an illegal phrase in this-"We'll take a look at it."

That the pc was comm lagging made you a little bit anxious apparently andyour TRs went a little bit cushy.

Your TRs have gone a little bit perfunctory. What you should do in my opinionis check your meter, your metering or metering on assessments, as pcs sing likecanary birds when something reads-they don't comm lag.

Pick up your confront of nothing.

Learn to spit out these commands without putting a comm lag into them, asyou are breaking them down into phrases with pauses in between them.

Just a little bit rusty. Come again.

Auditor 27

LRH critique #l-You almost got it, except you aren't holding it a question andit falls off into a statement once in a while. Also these TRs are just a little bit coy, alittle bit too sweet. They would reassure an old lady or a little kid, but nobody wouldever give you a withhold. You understand your presence in TRs aren't awful, they'reeven better than most, but they could stand some improvement.

LRH critique #2-Your question tone of voice is monotonous. You must goaround and ask some people some questions and listen to yourself and you will findout you don't ask those in monotony. You will find your voice sounds differentwhen you ask a question and really want to know.

So, walk around and listen to yourself while you ask some people some questionslike, "What time is it?" and "Are you going into town today?"-that sort of thing.

I'm going to have to send you to Cramming on metering as you have beenwaiting too long to see if something read and also seem uncertain as to whethersomething read. Also, you expect the meter to read very slow with a comm lag andit doesn't. The read comes exactly at the end of the auditor's statement and you cansee the needle start to move in a split second and if it starts to move, you of courselet it move, and if it doesn't start to move, you come right in with the next question;you don't wait to see if the needle will now do something.

Get your beingness straight and in that beingness, walk around and ask peoplesome questions. Then go to Cramming and get your metering sorted out.

Auditor 28

LRH critique-On assessment, the TRs are quite good actually, as you seem tohave possibly handled some beingness. Your metering is something else. Why theseinterminable pauses between questions? You must be waiting for your meter tolatent read, and you wouldn't take a latent read anyway. I believe there is an SHSBCtape on how fast a meter responds and on instant reads. It also covers how fast thereactive mind responds. [SHSBC lecture 162, "E-Meter Data: Instant Reads, Part I"and SHSBC lecture 163, "E-Meter Data: Instant Reads, Part II"] If I let this go, Iwould be condemning you to wasting hours of additional time on assessment.Resubmit when you have gotten this handled.

Auditor 29

LRH critique #1-TR 1: A bit rushed, monotone, disinterested. These aren'tbad TRs. They show earlier work. They need brushing up.

LRH critique #2-TR 1: Too soft. Not likely to impinge well or make a preparedlist read. Ending goes soft. TR 2: A bit brushoff still.

LRH critique #3-TR 2: Practice half-ack and full ack. Pc tends to over-itsa, abit anxious as not sure auditor is there. Needs an occasional half-ack. Then the ackcomes too explosively. Too irregular. Cease to double ack. TR 1: Drop out the acksand uncertainty in the TR 1. The TR 1 on assessment will make a list read.

LRH critique #4-TR 1 and TR 2 are in a somewhat strange emotional tone, a bitconsoling or something. The TRs are technically okay. The tone would produce someunwanted pc actions. Practice tones, meaning moods. You are trying also to talklouder to be heard on the tape. Wrong answer. Reposition your mic.

LRH critique #5-TR 1: Assessing. Don't make mistakes in reading the lines.The down curve in voice tone:~~~ will cost you some reads. You

are emphasizing the first syllable or first part of the line. An additive auditor lineafter "alcohol," a needless explanation. Delete such. It also chopped pc. Cure haltsin the middle of a question.

LRH critique #6-0n Q a full ack is really a stop ack. If you break it down,there's a degree of ack going from "go on, I'm listening" order mutter to an "okay,that's enough of this phase of this" to "well we got through with that and that's it."One doesn't use such words. It is done by tone and intention. It's called sessioncontrol. The pc's comm is begun with TR 1 and controlled in flow by TR 2. There'salso a Tone 40 ack which ends off the whole scene and that's that. You probably usea "go on, I'm listening" so he goes on after 9. TR 1: Drill 104. Practice moods. TR 2:Practice acks that control comm from making it continue to making it stop utterly.

Auditor 30

LRH critique #1-Where is this "This is the process?" Where is that from? She'sbeen in a verbal tech ~rea. It's never been part of Model Session.

Some improvement but very artificial.

LRH critique #2-She's improved considerably. She's got a way to go but she'simproved considerably. Her attitude to the pc sounds much better. She's got toregain her impingement while regaining her ARC.

Auditor 31

LRH critique #1-These are pretty sour TRs. What have you been doing? For amonth? Mood Drills and general TRs.

LRH critique #2-Some small improvement. But what's the chop and rush?Have you ever heard this on an LRH tape? Let's sweat it out.

LRH critique #3-Far too long a pause between Qs. Would drive a pc nuts.You are using a lilt:~~

To get a meter to react, it should go: ---/ ---/ ---/

You also sound nervous or tired. The TRs of assessment are entirely different thanTR 104. You are trying to get a list to READ. This wouldn't read on a pc. Hisattention would wander way off. Let's get it and complete.

LRH critique #4-Dull. You are swallowing the first part of the command. Alsomonotonous. Would put a pc to sleep. Get it TO the pc clearly with a bark. Pcswouldn't read on lists. Get to work.

LRH critique #5-All right. But it's under strain. The TR 0 was/is out. Also thebark is inconsistent, not always there. Better, but you're not there yet.

LRH critique #6-Before listening to it: "He better have made it." After listening,I had to send messengers out of room as it blew their heads off. Look, seriously, onedoesn't have to shout to get an assessment across. Now if you bring this intoreasonable levels you'll have it.

LRH critique #7-This is a pass! Your trouble was you were taking VERBALOPINION from fellow students so NEVER, NEVER, NEVER permit verbal opinionor verbal tech.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Compilation assisted byLRH Technical Research andCompilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 23 JULY 1978RREVISED 18 MARCH 1998

REMIMEO

ALL DIANETIC

AUDITORS

C/SES

SUPERVISORS

CIS SERIES IOIR

LIST OF PERCEPTICS

This was researched and dates of 1951.

It's the 57 human perceptions.

1. Time

2. Sight

3. Taste

4. Color

5. Depth

6. Solidity (barriers)

7. Relative Sizes (external)

8. Sound

9. Pitch

10. Tone

11. Volume

12. Rhythm

13. Smell (The sense of smell has four subdivisions which are categoriesof the type of odor.)

14. Touch

a. Pressure

b. Friction

@ 1979 L. Ron Hubbard Library.Unpublished revisions: @ created 1998 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

c. Heat or Cold

d. Oiliness

15. Personal Emotion

16. Endocrine States

17. Awareness of Awareness

18. Personal Size

19. Organic Sensation (including hunger)

20. Heartbeat

21. Blood Circulation

22. Cellular and Bacterial Position

23. Gravitic (self and other weights)

24. Motion of Self

25. Motion (exterior)

26. Body Position

27. Joint Position

28. Internal Temperature

29. External Temperature

30. Balance

31. Muscular Tension

32. Saline Content of Cells

33. Fields/Magnetic

34. Time Track Motion

35. Physical Energy (personal weariness, etc.)

36. Self-determinism (relative on each dynamic)

37. Moisture (self)

38. Sound Direction

39. Emotional State of Other Organisms

40. Personal Position on the Tone Scale

41. Affinity (self and others)

42. Communication (self and others)

43. Reality (self and others)

44. Emotional State of Groups

45. Compass Direction

46. Level of Consciousness

47. Pain

48. Perception of Conclusions (past and present)

49. Perception of Computing (past and present)

50. Perception of Imagination (past, present, future)

51. Perception of Having Perceived (past and present)

52. Awareness of Not Knowing

53. Awareness of Importance, Unimportance

54. Awareness of Others

55. Awareness of Location and Placement

a. Masses

b. Spaces

c. Location Itself

56. Perception of Appetite

57. Kinesthesia

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Revision assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAsT GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO BULLETIN OF 5 JUNE 1979ISSUED 13 AUGUST 1996

(Also issued as an Heo PL,of the same date and title.)

REMIMEO

Au STAFF

HCOETHICS OFFICERS/MAAs

LEVEL II AUDITORS

AND ABOVE

CONDITION FORMULAS-HANDLING A WITHHOLD

Refs:HCOPl

HeOPlHCOPl

II Apr. 72

2 Nov.823 Aug. 85

FURTHER DATA ON CORRECTDANGER CONDITION HANDLINGCONDITIONS HANDLINGSCOMPLETING CONDITIONSFORMULAS

(Excerpted from an lRH talk to Commodore'sMessengers on 5 June 79.)

Formulas are based on natural laws.

We know the correct application of formulas can get some crashing wins.

But it will happen every once in a while that a guy has a withhold. Now that isno O/W write-up, it's just one thing. The proper operation of a formula mightcontain the necessity for the person to get off a withhold or to get off the withhold thathe really had deserved the formula because he had done such and so.

This would call for a meter check such as "Do you have any overts and withholdsthat would prevent you from applying this formula?" Bang! That would be that.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

Compilation assisted byLRH Technical Researchand Compilations

Unpublished work: © created 1979, revised 1996 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

Heo BULLETIN OF 23 AUGUST 1979ISSUED 9 MAy 1996

REMIMEO

PRO TR COURSE

CHECKSHEET

(This HCOB was written by LRH on23 August 1979, but erroneously never issued.)

DEFINITION OF TRs

TRs are redefined as:

Methods of drilling the comm formula and becoming expert in its handlingand use.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

@ 1979, 1996 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights ReselVed

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT Hill MANOR, EAsr GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1982

REMIMEO

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING SERIES 30

MISREPRESENTATION OFDIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY

There is a vital legal and PR point which should be broadly known.

"Standard Tech" is contained in the official volumes of the technical services and inHCO Bulletins and charts within them and in textbooks on the subject. .

These are, none of them, vague. They are very explicit.

The data is thus not only available but taught in courses.

Now and then we hear of "somebody's case messed up." Or that someone wascomplaining or dissatisfied with results. Research into such cases uniformly showsthat STANDARD TECH was not applied.

Thus one arrives at an interesting point: Standard tech has never harmed anybody.

Recently there was a spate of "out-tech" on some executives that "messed uptheir cases." (This of course impaired their effectiveness and made them feel "Dianeticsand Scientology did not work and so was not worth defending.")

A careful review of .these cases showed that the "Case Supervisor" and a smallclique of "auditors" (all of whom knew better but who were serving their own ends)were NOT applying Dianetics and Scientology but were only pretending to. (Theclique has been detected and thoroughly handled and so are the "messed-up cases"-bystandard tech of course and so successfully.)

But this brings up an interesting and useful legal and public relations point:

When people complain and are "dissatisfied with results," it will be found thatDianetics and Scientology were NOT being used on them.

Someone was doing something else and calling it Dianetics and Scientology.

This is, of course, misrepresentation and a violation of trademark and copyrightlaw.

A similar circumstance would occur if someone put transmission oil in a packagemarked "Green Meadow Butter" and sold it and advised its use as "Green MeadowButter" when it isn't.

@ 1991 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

Legal and PR situations from people who have complaints stem from two reasons:

A. They are themselves engaged for whatever reason in some self-serving endby complaining or

B. They did not receive Dianetics and Scientology.

A review of any such cases will bear this out. It is not a matter of making minorerrors with the tech. It is not a matter of poor CIS judgment in applying it. Thesituation will be found to be flagrant.

Someone was only pretending it was Dianetics and Scientology and doing somethingelse and for some other reason.

Here we have a problem in labels. The labels "Dianetics" and "Scientology" couldillegally be placed on anything and that anything might be quite bad.

Thus it is the person misrepresenting who is actionable, not the originator orthe properly licensed and supervised entities.

The operating question is "What did he or they do that they were callingDianetics and Scientology standard tech1" And "Let me have their names so themisrepresentation can be stopped."

Don't let yourself be conned by an old legal or PR trick of switching labels!

Dianetics and Scientology are a precise system that works.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 FEBRUARY 1965REMIMEO

STHIL S11JDENTS

AsSOC/ORG SEC HAT

HCO SEC HAT

CASE SUP HAT

Ds OF P HAT

Ds OFT HATSTAFF MEMBER HAT

MISSIONS

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING SERIES 1

Note: Neglect of this PL has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countlessmillions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out international effort torestore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, withme off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. "Quickie grades" entered in anddenied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglector violate this policy letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs onADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not "entirely a tech matter" as its neglectdestroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFFMEMBER to enforce it.

SPECIAL MESSAGE

THE FOLLOWING POLICY LETTER MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

IT WAS TRUE IN 1965 WHEN I WROTE IT. IT WAS TRUE IN 1970 WHENI HAD IT REISSUED. I AM REISSUING IT NO~ IN 1980, TO AVOID AGAINSLIPPING BACK INTO A PERIOD OF OMITTED AND QUICKIEDFUNDAMENTAL GRADE CHART ACTIONS ON CASES, THEREBY DENYINGGAINS AND THREATENING THE VIABILITY OF SCIENTOLOGY AND OFORGS. SCIENTOLOGY WILL KEEP WORKING ONLY AS LONG AS YOU DO YOURPART TO KEEP IT WORKING BY APPLYING THIS POLICY LETTER.

WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUETODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUETO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT.

NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THISPOLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU.

ALL LEVELS

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKINGHCO Sec or Communicator hat check

on all personnel and all new personnel as taken on.

We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workabletechnology.

© 1969, 1974, 1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

Heo PL 7.2.65 2

The only thing now is getting the technology applied.

If you can't get the technology applied then you can't deliver what's promised. It'sas simple as that. If you can get the technology applied you can deliver what'spromised.

The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is "no results." Troublespots occur only where there are "no results." Attacks from governments ormonopolies occur only where there are "no results" or "bad results."

Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured ifthe technology is applied.

So it is the task of the Assoc or Org Sec, the HCO Sec, the Case Supervisor, theD of ~ the D of T and all staff members to get the correct technology applied.

Getting the correct technology applied consists of:

One: Having the correct technology.

Two: Knowing the technology.

Three: Knowing it is correct.

Four: Teaching correctly the correct technology.

Five: Applying the technology.

Six: Seeing that the technology is correctly applied.

Seven: Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.

Eight: Knocking out incorrect applications.

Nine: Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.

Ten: Closing the door on incorrect application.

One above has been done.

Two has been achieved by many.

Three is achieved by the individual applying the correct technology in a propermanner and observing that it works that wa~

Four is being done daily successfully in most parts of the world.

Five is consistently accomplished dail~

Six is achieved by Instructors and Supervisors consistently.

Seven is done by a few but is a weak point.

Eight is not worked on hard enough.

Nine is impeded by the "reasonable" attitude of the not-quite-bright.

Ten is seldom done with enough ferocity.

Heo PL 7.2.65 3

Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are the only places Scientology can bog down in any area.

The reasons for this are not hard to find. (a) A weak certainty that it works in Threeabove can lead to weakness in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. (b) Further, the not-too­bright have a bad point on the button Self-Importance. (c) The lower the IQ, the morethe individual is shut off from the fruits of observation. Cd) The service facs of peoplemake them defend themselves against anything they confront, good or bad, and seekto make it wrong. (e) The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad.

Thus, we as Scientologists and as an organization must be very alert to Seven,Eight, Nine and Ten.

In all the years I have been engaged in research I have kept my comm lines wideopen for research data. I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third ofa century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to acceptsuggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-runvalue and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestionsand used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to "eat crow."

On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions andwritings which if accepted and acted upon would have resulted in the completedestruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group ofpeople will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable "technolo~"Byactual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of humanbeings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technolog)T. As we could havegotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continueto do so now that we have made it. This point will of course be attacked as"unpopular," "egotistical" and "undemocratic." It very well may be. But it is also asurvival point. And I don't see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracyhave done anything for man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularityendorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the Southeast Asian jungles withstone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.

Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had notsupported me in many ways I could not have discovered it either. But it remains thatif in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one cansafely assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say thisnow that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination ofwhat has been done, which will be valuable-only so long as it does not seek to alterbasic principles and successful applications.

The contributions that were worthwhile in this period of forming the technologywere help in the form of friendship, of defense, of organization, of dissemination, ofapplication, of advices on results and of finance. These were great contributions andwere and are appreciated. Many thousands contributed in this way and made us whatwe are. Discovery contribution was not however part of the broad picture.

We will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above thebank. We are dealing only in facts and the above is a fact - the group left to its owndevices would not have evolved Scientology but with wild dramatizations of the bankcalled "new ideas" would have wiped it out. Supporting this is the fact that man hasnever before evolved workable mental technology and emphasizing it is the vicious

Heo PL 7.2.65 4

technology he did evolve-psychiatry, psychology, surgery, shock treatment, whips,duress, punishment, etc., ad infinitum.

So realize that we have climbed out of the mud by whatever good luck and goodsense, and refuse to sink back into it again. See that Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten aboveare ruthlessly followed and we will never be stopped. Relax them, get reasonable aboutit and we will perish.

So far, while keeping myself in complete communication with all suggestions,I have not failed on Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten in areas I could supervise closely. Butit's not good enough for just myself and a few others to work at this.

Whenever this control as per Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten has been relaxed, thewhole organizational area has failed. Witness Elizabeth, N]; Wichita; the earlyorganizations and groups. They crashed only because I no longer did Seven, Eight,Nine and Ten. Then, when they were all messed up, you saw the obvious "reasons" forfailure. But ahead of that they ceased to deliver and that involved them in otherreasons.

The common denominator of a group is the reactive bank. Thetans without bankshave different responses. They only have their banks in common. They agree thenonly on bank principles. Person to person the bank is identical. So constructive ideasare individual and seldom get broad agreement in a human group. An individual mustrise above an avid craving for agreement from a humanoid group to get anythingdecent done. The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a hell- and if youwere looking for hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agonyand disease has been the lot of man. Right now the great governments of Earth havedeveloped the means of frying every man, woman and child on the planet. That isbank. That is the result of Collective-Thought Agreement. The decent, pleasant thingson this planet come from individual actions and ideas that have somehow gotten bythe Group Idea. For that matter look how we ourselves are attacked by "publicopinion" media. Yet there is no more ethical group on this planet than ourselves.

Thus each one of us can rise above the domination of the bank and then, as a groupof freed beings, achieve freedom and reason. It is only the aberrated group, the mob,that is destructive.

When you don't do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten actively, you are working for thebank-dominated mob. For it will surely, surely (a) introduce incorrect technology andswear by it, (b) apply technology as incorrectly as possible, (c) open the door to anydestructive idea and Cd) encourage incorrect application.

It's the bank that says the group is all and the individual nothing. It's the bank thatsays we must fail.

So just don't play that game. Do Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten and you will knockout of your road all the future thorns.

Here's an actual example in which a senior executive had to interfere because of apc spin: A Case Supervisor told Instructor A to have Auditor B run Process X onPreclear C. Auditor B afterwards told Instructor A that "It didn't work." Instructor Awas weak on Three above and didn't really believe in Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. SoInstructor A told the Case Supervisor, "Process X didn't work on Preclear C." Now this

Heo PL 7.2.65 5

strikes directly at each of One to Six above in Preclear C, Auditor B, Instructor A andthe Case Supervisor. It opens the door to the introduction of "new technology" and tofailure.

What happened here? Instructor A didn't jump down Auditor B's throat, that's allthat happened. This is what he should have done: Grabbed the auditor's report andlooked it over. When a higher executive on this case did so, she found what the CaseSupervisor and the rest missed: that Process X increased Preclear C's TA to 25 TAdivisions for the session but that near session end, Auditor B Qed-and-Aed with acognition and abandoned Process X while it still gave high TA and went off runningone of Auditor B's own manufacture which nearly spun Preclear C. Auditor B's IQ onexamination turned out to be about 75. Instructor A was found to have huge ideas ofhow you must never invalidate anyone, even a lunatic. The Case Supervisor was foundto be "too busy with admin to have any time for actual cases."

All right, there's an all-too-typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven,Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this wa~ Auditor B: "That Process Xdidn't work." Instructor A: "What exactly did you do wrong?" Instant attack. "Where'syour auditor's report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TAwhen you stopped Process X. What did you do?" Then the pc wouldn't have comeclose to a spin and all four of these would have retained their certaint~

In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct processrecommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each onehad (a) increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned and (c) had been falsely reported asunworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended,correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked!

Similar examples exist in instruction and these are all the more deadly as every timeinstruction in correct technology is flubbed, then the resulting error, uncorrected in theauditor, is perpetuated on every pc that auditor audits thereafter. So Seven, Eight, Nineand Ten are even more important in a course than in supervision of cases.

Here's an example: A rave recommendation is given a graduating student "becausehe gets more TA on pes than any other student on the course!" Figures of 435 TAdivisions a session are reported. "Of course his Model Session is poor but it's just aknack he has" is also included in the recommendation. A careful review is undertakenbecause nobody at Levels 0 to IV is going to get that much TA on pes. It is found thatthis student was never taught to read an E-Meter TA dial! And no Instructor observedhis handling of a meter and it was not discovered that he "overcompensated"nervously, swinging the TA 2 or 3 divisions beyond where it needed to go to place theneedle at "set." So everyone was about to throwaway standard processes and ModelSession because this one student "got such remarkable TA." They only read the reportsand listened to the brags and never looked at this student. The pes in actual fact weremaking slightly less than average gain, impeded by a rough Model Session andmisworded processes. Thus, what was making the pcs win (actual Scientology) washidden under a lot of departures and errors.

I recall one student who was squirreling on an Academy course and running a lotof offbeat whole track on other students after course hours. The Academy studentswere in a state of electrification on all these new experiences and weren't quicklybrought under control, and the student himself never was given the works on Seven,

HCO PL 7.2.65 6

Eight, Nine and Ten so they stuck. Subsequently; this student prevented anothersquirrel from being straightened out and his wife died of cancer resulting fromphysical abuse. A hard, tough Instructor at that moment could have salvaged twosquirrels and saved the life of a girl. But no, students had a right to do whatever theypleased.

Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comesabout from noncomprehension. Usually the noncomprehension is not of Scientologybut some earlier contact with an offbeat humanoid practice which in its tum was notunderstood.

When people can't get results from what they think is standard practice, they canbe counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The most trouble in the past two yearscame from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate straight Scientology.Under instruction in Scientology they were unable to define terms or demonstrateexamples of principles. And the orgs where they were got into plenty of trouble.And worse, it could not be straightened out easily because neither one of these peoplecould or would duplicate instructions. Hence, a debacle resulted in two places,directly traced to failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of Tand his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in getting Four,Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one student, dumb andimpossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may yet someday be the causeof untold upset because nobody was interested enough to make sure Scientology gothome to him.

With what we know now, there is no student we enroll who cannot be properlytrained. As an Instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and should tumthe sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only you or me with oursleeves rolled up can crkck the back of bad studenting and we can only do it on anindividual student, never on a whole class only. He's slow =something is awful wrong.Take fast action to correct it. Don't wait until next week. By then he's got other messesstuck to him. If you can't graduate them with their good sense appealed to andwisdom shining, graduate them in such a state of shock they'll have nightmares if theycontemplate squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in themand they'll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing.

When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of theuniverse-never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let themquit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're hereon the same terms as the rest of us - win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half­minded about being Scientologists. The finest organizations in history have beentough, dedicated organizations. Not one namby-pamby bunch of pantywaistdilettantes have ever made anything. It's a tough universe. The social veneer makes itseem mild. But only the tigers survive-and even they have a hard time. We'll survivebecause we are tough and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly, hebecomes more and more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid tooffend, scared to enforce, we don't make students into good Scientologists and that letseverybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, tum that wanderingdoubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. Humorher and we all die a little. The proper instruction attitude is, "You're here so you're aScientologist. Now we're going to make you into an expert auditor no matter whathappens. We'd rather have you dead than incapable."

HCO PL 7.2.65 7

Fit that into the economics of the situation and lack of adequate time and you seethe cross we have to bear.

But we won't have to bear it forever. The bigger we get the more economics andtime we will have to do our job. And the only things which can prevent us fromgetting that big fast are areas in from One to Ten. Keep those in mind and we'll be ableto grow. Fast. And as we grow, our shackles will be less and less. Failing to keep Oneto Ten will make us grow less.

So the ogre which might eat us up is not the government or the High Priests. It'sour possible failure to retain and practice our technology.

An Instructor or Supervisor or Executive must challenge with ferocity instances of((unworkabilit~"They must uncover what did happen, what was run and what wasdone or not done.

If you have One and Two, you can only acquire Three for all by making sure of allthe rest.

We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to dofor lack of something better.

The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, andyour own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do hereand now with and in Scientolog~

This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we maynever again have another chance.

Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years ofthe past. Don't muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight,Nine and Ten.

Do them and we'll win.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICESAINT HILL MANOR, EAST GRINSTEAD, SUSSEX

HCO POLICY LETTER OF 17 JUNE 1970RBISSUE I

REVISED 25 OCTOBER 1983

REMIMEO

APPLIES TO ALL SHsAND ACADEMIES

HGCsMISSIONS

URGENT AND IMPORTANT

KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING SERIES SR

TECHNICAL DEGRADES

(This PL and HCO PL 7 Feb. 65 must be made part of everystudy pack as the first items and must be listed on checksheets.)

Any checksheet in use or in stock which carries on it any degrading statementmust be destroyed and issued without qualifying statements.

Example: Level 0 to IV checksheets SH carry "A. Background Material- Thissection is included as an historical background but has much interest and value to thestudent. Most of the processes are no longer used, having been replaced by moremodern technology. The student is only required to read this material and ensure heleaves no misunderstood." This heading covers such vital things as TRs, Op Pro byDup! The statement is a falsehood.

These checksheets were not approved by myself; all the material of the Academyand SH courses IS in use.

Such actions as this gave us "quickie grades," ARC broke the field and downgradedthe Academy and SH courses.

A condition of TREASON or cancellation of certificates or dismissal and a fullinvestigation of the background of any person found guilty will be activated in thecase of anyone committing the follo\ving HIGH CRIMES:

1. Abbreviating an official course in Dianetics and Scientology so as to lose thefull theory, processes and effectiveness of the subjects.

2. Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any materialUbackground" or "not used now" or uold" or any similar action which willresult in the student not knowing, using and applying the data in which he isbeing trained.

© 1974,1986 L. Ron Hubbard Library.All Rights Reserved.

HCO PL 17.6.70RB I

Rev. 25.10.832

3. Employing after 1 Sept. 1970 any checksheet for any course not authorized bymyself or the Authority; Verification and Correction Unit International (AVeInt).

(Hat checksheets may be authorized locally per HCO PL 30 Sept. 70 I,CHECKSHEET FORMAT.)

4. Failing to strike from any checksheet remaining in use meanwhile any suchcomments as "historical," "background," "not used," "old," etc., or VERBALLYSTATING IT TO STUDENTS.

5. Permitting a pc to attest to more than one grade at a time on the pc's owndeterminism without hint or evaluation.

6. Running only one process for a lower grade between 0 to IV: where the gradeEP has not been attained.

7. Failing to use all processes for a level where the EP has not been attained.

8. Boasting as to speed of delivery in a session, such as "1 put in Grade Zero in 3minutes.)) Etc.

9. Shortening time of application of auditing for financial or labor-savingconsiderations.

10. Acting in any way calculated to lose the technology of Dianetics andScientology to use or impede its use or shorten its materials or its application.

REASON: The effort to get students through courses and get pcs processed in orgswas considered best handled by reducing materials or deleting processes from grades. Thepressure exerted to speed up student completions and auditing completions wasmistakenly answered by just not delivering.

The correct way to speed up a student's progress is by using two-way comm andapplying the study materials to students.

The best way to really handle pes is to ensure they make each level fully beforegoing on to the next and repairing them when they do not.

The puzzle of the decline of the entire Scientology network in the late 60s isentirely answered by the actions taken to shorten time in study and in processing bydeleting materials and actions.

Reinstituting full use and delivery of Dianetics and Scientology is the answer toany recovery

The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. Whenthe product vanishes, so does the org. The orgs must survive for the sake of thisplanet.

L. RON HUBBARDFOUNDER