By Lana M.
Some years back, when I was on the RPF, I had an interesting debate on the RPF. New to the RPF I was taken to the Mill, where the RPF were building furniture for the LA Org. I was handed a chair and some sand paper and asked how long it would take me to sand it.
I did not know, as I had never done woodwork before. So I asked how long should it take me?
You are the person that needs to set the “TM”, I was told. You tell me how long it will take you.
I was puzzled by this use of the term “TM” (a Time Machine is a 7 basket system that LRH devised for Dept 3 to track orders within the org and find out why things are bugging or slowing. An order is placed in the first basket, and then progressed to the next one each day, till at the end of the week it falls out of the basket system and is then looked into by Dept 3 to find out why it never got done).
I gave a “TM” of 10 minutes.
Well I was wrong. It took me longer to sand that chair – and 10 minutes later there was someone standing next to me asking if I was done. “No – not yet”, I replied. “Take a lap!” (a lap is punishment for noncompliance and in the PAC RPF this meant running down to the basement and then running around the tunnels and then back up the stairs again – taking about 5 minutes).
Confused, I took the lap. There was no effort to find out if I was hatted, having trouble with sanding, or even knew what the hell I was doing on that chair – just assigned to “take a lap”. As soon as I returned I was asked “What is your new “TM”?” Now a little more educated on what was going on, I replied “20 minutes”. “No – that is too long. You have 10 minutes. Get it done!” So again, 10 minutes later, I took another lap.
I am still not a great person at sanding woodwork. I wish someone had given me a little more education on the subject.
But what followed this was even more interesting.
I did a query on the use of the term “TM” – asking for an LRH reference or a policy or anything, that would explain why it was being used as a synonym for the word “target”. I wrote up a report and a query to the RPF I/C, and also to RTC – but no one could give me a reference. Instead I was targeted as being a trouble maker and trying to disrupt the system.
I applied the Verbal Tech Checklist to resolve the situation, and after doing that, I concluded that the use of the term “TM” on the RPF is verbal tech, and I refused to use it or follow it. My efforts to get its used cancelled were checked, and the term is still used to this day – even though it is not in alignment with the LRH policy on the RPF.
“VERBAL TECH CHECKLIST
1. If it isn’t written it isn’t true.
2. If it’s written, read it.
3. Did the Person who wrote it have the authority or know-how to order it?
4. If you can’t understand it, clarify it.
5. If you can’t clarify it, clear the Mis-Us.
6. If the Mis-Us won’t clear, query it.
7. Has it been altered from the original?
8. Get it validated as a correct, on-channel, on-policy, in-tech order.
9. IF IT CAN’T BE RUN THROUGH ASABOVE IT’S FALSE! CANCEL IT!
And use HCOB 7 Aug. 79, FALSE DATA STRIPPING, as needed.
10. Only if it holds up this far, force others to read it and follow it.” LRH
Since leaving the Sea Org, I have started to see and spot a lot more verbal tech which is thrown around by management, and just accepted by the general public. But like my experience on the RPF, if you question or challenge the terms or use or policy being followed, you are then targeted as an ethics particle, or as disaffected.
When management says “LRH said …”, then why don’t people ask to see it in writing?
When staff are told “This is Command Intention” , why don’t they ask to see the LRH on it?
The creation of “ideal orgs”, the “Golden Age of Tech”, and even terms such as “COB” must be challenged with the verbal tech checklist, as outpoints abound.
Recently I was talking to some friends who are under the radar, and still in the Church. They were explaining to me how anyone who is practicing Scientology outside of the church walls is a “squirrel”. I pointed out that squirrel is not the right term. The correct LRH term for people using Scientology outside of the church is a splinter group.
“SQUIRREL: 1. A squirrel is doing something entirely different. He doesn’t understand any of the principles so he makes up a bunch of them to fulfil his ignorance and voices them off on a pc and gets no place. 2. Those who engage in actions altering Scn, and offbeat practices. – v. change and invent processes.” LRH Tech Dictionary
“SPLINTER GROUP: Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a number of members of an organization, political party, etc., who split from the main body and form an independent association, usually as the result of dissension Collins English dictionary
Even the definition of “entheta” has come to mean any criticism (constructive or otherwise) of Scientology or management. A report on an off-policy situation has been redefined as “entheta”, and is therefore deemed bad. The term is thrown around to mean anyone who is looking, reading or communicating anything that is not a church issued publication. But this use of the term is also wrong.
I am coming to see that in each instance where there is conflict, confusion or outpoints, the Verbal Tech Checklist is a great tool to sort out what is actually happening – and where things have gone off the rails.
The best example of this is the use of the term “The Dark Side” – which is the management term to describe anyone who is no longer within the control of the Church.
You won’t find this term in any LRH policy, bulletin, dictionary or lecture. It is a term used to spread fear to parishioners – using the Star Wars term to create the air of a dangerous environment for those that dare leave the safe perimeter (and control of management).
Again – use of the verbal tech checklist on just this term, and you will find it is BS.
In fact, there is so much sunshine out here in the “Dark Side” that I have to wear shades!