by Milestone Two crew

“Number of times over equals certainty” so we are going to keep publishing the below LRH article about invalidation of auditors. This will be the 3rd time in 2 years..

It speaks for itself.


“It was discovered in the Sea Organisation that proven high calibre good standard Class VIII auditors suddenly without any apparent reason ceased to be able to audit well, made gross goofs and backed off from auditing completely.

“Its source was traced back to INVALIDATION.

“The cases on whom it occurred were handled very speedily, very simply with ASTOUNDING RESULTS.

“The remedy was simply asking them in 2 way comm who had told them they couldn’t audit. No meter, no complications, just very simple 2 way comm.

“One of the cases was in fact handled in a room full of people. This case was black in the face and most adamantly refused to audit and ARC broken to the extent that she PHYSICALLY WALKED AWAY from the idea.

“The question was simply asked “WHO told you you couldn’t audit?”, or “that your auditing wasn’t any good?” “Nobody did.” “OK. WHO told you your auditing wasn’t any good?” Sudden misemotion “you all did” … “OK WHO?” … BRIGHTENS …says a name. “OK … did somebody at some earlier stage tell you you couldn’t audit?” “No…but sos and so told me that I wasn’t doing any good in such and such…ooooooh..line charge…my mother always told me that I couldn’t do…bla bla bla…” Very bright now, still slightly hesitant..”OK..when is ALWAYS?”…”When I was 6”…BINGO.

“Back to auditing, and … getting “WELL DONES”, and pc’s WINNING, auditor getting STANDARD sessions and STANDARD results.

“And that is ALL there is to it. We are talking here about the Class VIII auditor giving this assist and the Class VIII auditor receiving it. Scientologists of this calibre and standard of training can be expected to have the awareness and ability to bring these results about.

“The length it took for these actions was from about 3 to 5 minutes.

“The Class VIII auditor is an outstanding target for invalidation. BEWARE!!

“The actions described above were done virtually off the cuff by a Class VIII auditor on other Class VIII’s, and were done when the INVALIDATION factor was isolated as the common denominator.” LRH, HCOB 12 December 1968, from the Class VIII course

180 thoughts on “Can’t be said enough

      • That’s good. And, as I’ve often pointed out, I would hope that the Class VIII Course lectures are not BPI but reserved for trained auditors, Class VI minimum, IMO.

  1. This is a fantastic article. Thank you. LRH was way ahead of his times. Perhaps he was the first great coach in the modern age.

    This article, in fact, applies also to any profession and management job.

    Thanks for all you do Lana!

  2. Thanks for posting this. I’ll see if I can find some auditors who are currently not auditing to apply this data to.

    Right now there seems to be so many PCs out there and not enough auditors.

    • RV I am actually researching now how to get training more readily accessible as well.

      We do have courserooms in various locations, but with people in different locations all over the planet, getting people to them on a regular basis is a costly and difficult task.

      With checksheets and materials already existing, and applying A Student’s Guide to Acceptable Behaviour, we are looking at twinning people up remotely, to keep each other on track and moving through theory courses, and overseen by a Supervisor, on a distance. Then we could schedule intensive practical drilling at central locations, with supervisors, word clearers and twins there on site, to get through the practical drills, checkouts and so on, so they complete the checksheets to a real product.

      In Australia they have had distance learning programs for eons, and you can now do virtually any training online, with regulated days on campus for courses that require face to face training. As far as Scientology goes, this pattern was also used by LRH early on, and to my knowledge it worked well. Obviously not with TRs courses, or Metering — but certainly with theory courses.

      We have a number of HPCSC supervisors, and we have central training locations in LA, Georgia, British Columbia in Canada, Israel and Australia. We also have a number of resources in the UK and in France. It has potential…. but needs a small team of people who are passionate about setting up and running training lines.

      Anyone out there interested in a part-time job that can change the world?

      • Lana,

        I believe there are early training policies about doing the Theory by extension and then dropping into a nearby Org and getting checked out on practical for certification then sending them back out in the field to audit for full Classification.

        I’ll see if I can dig ’em up.

        What I’m saying is that the levels could be done as an extension or correspondence course over the Internet and then they could get checked out by a qualified terminal.

        Also back in the day there was the Book Auditor Program and the original Volunteer Ministers Program.

        Also you could get some of these lazy assed Class VIIIs (no names mentioned 😉 ) to get their fat duffs off their Electra Glides and help auditors in their area get their sorry asses back in the chair and auditing 🙂

        Which was one of the reasons why Ron devised the VIII course.

        There’s all kindsa actions that can be done. I mean if you give me a couple of names in my area I’d be happy to do the above handling or a RED 176 or a full ACL or SRL (that’s Student Rehab List *not* I repeat not an SRA) if needed on ’em gratis.

        All they gotta do is show up and take their medicine 😉

        Another thing we can do is coaudits. Ya know read it, drill it and do it. Of course under the watchful eye of a Coaudit Supe and Review Auditor to unwrap anyone who gets wrapped around several telephone poles.

        Things like that.

        Who knows maybe we’ll make and recover a few auditors and as a bonus keep OSA so busy they may fall over from exhaustion 😉

        • We are thinking alike!

          The key is to keep to the LRH references and make sure we are using our tools, such as twinning, co-audits, word clearing, etc.

          As soon as there is training happening, then there is student auditing available — so getting it kick started is a good way to help people get moving.

          Requires a project of its one — and some people who are passionate about it, and willing to take the plunge and be responsible for getting other people standardly through checksheets.

          Maybe there are some veteran D of T’s out there, or Tech Secs…

          • Exactly!

            Maybe there are similar projects that exist in the RED packs that we could use.

            One of them I know for sure is the HCOPL “What No Auditors?”.

            Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
            22 FEBRUARY 1975
            REISSUED 12 APRIL 1980
            Exec Dirs

            WHAT? NO AUDITORS?

            Every time I see an org with its staff unaudited, every time I see delivery statistics down and backlogs piling up, I wonder What the hell is going on?
            If you’re not a tech person or even if you are, it is vital that you know some of the facts about getting auditing done.
            To begin, a large, large proportion of people in and around Scientology would like to be an auditor. There is no slightest scarcity of people who want to audit.
            Of these people a large percentage are „naturals“ who readily grasp auditing with no huge struggle. Amongst those will be found a small but present few who are capable of terrific skill.
            The Complete checksheet and pack for Dianetics is readily available to orgs from Pubs.
            Checksheets and packs for every Academy Level are easily obtained from Pubs Org.
            Meters are nowhere barriered or banned and are easily obtained from a Pubs Org.
            And for that matter a Course Supervisor checksheet and pack are easily obtained if you want to train well.
            In fact there are people in Pubs who would mob down on you to get them into your hands.
            All you really have to do to get at least a minimum job of it is to get the materials and the students and keep them at it.
            It takes a steady three or four weeks of work to make a Dianetic Auditor. At least you’d have that!
            And it takes only a few more months, with the new Academy Checksheets to make Class IVs.
            Tapes now exist that show how good auditing sounds.
            All right, so all it requires is the materials and persistence to make passable auditors.
            Anybody who tells you different is just blocking the road.
            Better auditors are made by good Course Supervisors.
            Auditors become excellent only when Interneship and Cramming and Word Clearing are available.
            But for an org or activity of any size not to have auditors is downright silly.
            The way it’s being lined up and speeded up, even Class VIs and VIIs and IXs aren’t all that hard to make IF YOU SET YOUR MIND TO IT.

            There is, sad to tell, a lethargy about making auditors in orgs. That’s because the need is NOW and it would be three months before one could have 5, 20 or 50 HDC Class IVs.
            If you had a real live trained Course Super and a Course Admin and ran a real „What is a Course?“ PL type course you would have enrolled and graduated paying students enough to supply org after org!
            It is NOT hard to do.
            In fact it is very hard NOT TO DO IT.
            We have run highly prosperous orgs in the ‘50s with which the public was very, very happy, using auditors who were not one-tenth as well trained as those you would make just by getting the materials and a couple of guys down to it.
            Yes, auditing can reach heights today that nobody ever dreamed of in the old days. And your auditors can also reach such heights eventually. But you begin with QUANTITY. And out of that will come quality.
            I’ve seen some execs lately moping around trying to „find’ auditors for the org.
            You don’t „find“ auditors. You make them!
            So, Executive, don’t ever let yourself be fooled about how hard it all is to make Course Supers and Auditors.
            Never sit around wondering why there are backlogs in the HGCs (or low student points in Dept 11). Just force the barriers and make Course Supers and Auditors.
            Have you asked those in the Academy already? Have you asked HCO to recruit one for one Tech and Admin and begin to TRAIN people under contract? Have you thought it was hard to do?
            Last time I looked, every clerk in the org wanted to be an Auditor.
            Well, who’s stopping them?
            Or who’s wasting them when trained?
            Auditors are valuable. Make some fast and get them to work!

            L. RON HUBBARD


            • Fantastic reference RV! Great idea Lana! Daves made it all so hard, but in truth, in my org anyway, cant haves were run on making auditors before dave, when just about everyone who went on staff wanted to be an auditor but very few did.

              Personally Ive tasted what auditing can do as an auditor and am working on organizing my life to do it as full time as I can. For me being an experienced student, I feel confident on doing the theory out of a course room but when it comes to the internship I would want the best I could possibly get, checking my work out.

              • “cant haves were run on making auditors before dave”

                I can attest to that. Back in the mid 70’s I signed on staff with the idea that I was going to be trained to Class IV just like the contract said and ended up being posted in Div VI by the Nazi acting as HCO Sec.

                True story. I got my revenge later when I became SSO and TIPed myself for the TTC and had the Qual Sec transfer me 😉

                True 4a it’s always been difficult to get trained but Dave and the Scientology Wrecking Crew(tm) have made it practically impossible. I mean if you don’t die of old age by the time you do your basics then you’ve bunch of useless senseless Squirrel Tech frills to do to “perfection” before you are allowed to audit a PC like Robbie the Robot in Forbidden Planet.

            • It would be interesting to know how.many people wanted to be an auditor at one point and then changed their mind based on what they saw in Academies or what they ran into or what they have seen other auditors endure or suffer… within the C of S.. Heck, when I first got I to Scn I was just dying to get trained as an auditor and co-audit my Bridge, but within just a few years that goal was dampened and then later lost. When I got a chance to actually train and audit, with a team of Qual specialists, here in the field, I realized it CAN be done. And it is so rewarding!

              • Having spent some time as a Course Supe I can tell you that the goal is thwarted the longer the runway takes.

                Probably why the Ol’man dropped super lit from the prerecs required prior to training.

                Like Ron says it should only take a couple of weeks max to make a Dn Auditor.

                No more than a couple months to make a IV.

                The fact is that you have to make training fast but don’t take my word for it here’s what Ron says:

                To: Class IV Orgs and Saint Hills for ACTION. AOs for Info.
                From: Ron
                [ORDERS TO DIVISION IV-Excerpted]
                Reference: LRH ED 104 INT Auditing Sales and Delivery Pgm No. 1,
                LRH ED 106 INT What Was Wrong

                11. Courses should be fast, auditing drawn out. This is the exact reverse to what has been happening. Slow courses and fast auditing destroy the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology. Fast courses and long long hours of auditing are the route to real gains and solvency.

              • “, I realized it CAN be done”. That is probably the most surprising cognition I have had, since cogniting on daves church.

  3. Well I’m glad to see we all seem to agree on this point. I’ve been concerned that perhaps a majority of us think that we have to go to an “org” to get trained. And while that sounds good, it is supremely impractical in the current context. It might be okay if we had orgs in all the major cities, but we don’t and not even close.

    To Lana’s question, of course I always thought it would be very kewl if I could be an auditor, or even better, a C/S. But like Robin, when I came on staff, I was posted in the last place I should ever have been, Div VI. After numerous struggles with seniors and the GO, I eventually ended up in the TTC, training as a word clearer. I did most of the course, but then got to the e-meter stuff. This was after the Dianetic Clear evolution (so there were a buttload of pre-OTs running around), and before the VI meter was developed. So we were all on Mark Vs. A can squeeze could break your wrist. And we got to the meter reads. All fine until it occurred to me that a needle could read in the middle of an F/N on some random thought, and I wasn’t sure how I’d be able to tell if it was a read or an F/N at that point. The SSO was useless because he couldn’t demonstrate or give me the answer. The Qual Sec was on his way into the GO and couldn’t be bothered, and so decided my problem was some random mis-defined word on my Staff Statuses. So I was forced to do doubt or liability and retrain my Staff Statuses. When I came back from that the original problem was (naturally) still there, so the C/S decided I couldn’t duplicate. So I was C/Sed for 35 hours of Op Pro By Dup, giving and receiving. I did a couple of hours of that and then said, “screw you” to the whole thing. The very idea that I couldn’t duplicate, me, a kid who had been imitating other people all his life (like comedians do) was, in a word, preposterous. And a horrendous invalidation.

    And I never touched a meter again.

    Am I scared sh*tless of auditing someone (including and especially me)? You bet I am. But I’m a good student and my wife is a great student. And I guarantee if we sit down and tackle the theory and drills together, we can have it nailed in no time. But not if we’ve got to move across country for months to train. That will just be a PTP we’ll have to study over. I also agree that interneships and such should take place in a Qual somewhere, or at least under the watchful eye of a well-trained terminal.

    I agree that eventually orgs will some day regain their status as training centers, In fact, Nancy has a dream to create exactly that down here, once we’ve gone a ways into our OT levels. But right now is not that time or that place.

    Thanks for bringing up this subject for discussion.


    • Hi Paul,

      You and your wife should try running some simple processes on each other like a locational or something like that just to get some confidence. Maybe some of the processes in the Intro, Demo and Assist processes handbook.

      There are a lot of actions you can do without a meter that will give you and your wife some case gain as well.

      Like the 6 Steps etc.

      If you have any questions you can contact me at ARCHANGEL88(AT)HUSHMAIL(DOT)COM.


    • Paul, if you and Nancy did a simple checksheet that included meter theory and then drills (and there are several around), and then headed to an Academy for practical checkouts and passes on your drills — or we had someone come to you for that purpose, you would find that the meter is not a terrifying tool, but actually a concise and accurate one. Having your TRs in and your meter drills down cold, gives you the capability to audit.

      There is a brilliant reference (Jim or Robin or Chris can you pull it up and post it?) where LRH details how it is not the meter or the process that gives case gain. It is the two way communication cycle. With good TRs and expert control and use of two-way comm, auditing is a PIECE OF CAKE and a hell of a lot of fun!

      • Hi Lana,

        I’m not sure what ref you’re referring to but you may want to try this one:

        HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
        HCO BULLETIN OF 13 APRIL 1964
        (Summary of previous HCO Bulletins)
        The state of case of the pc has nothing to do with getting Tone Arm Action. An auditor is in absolute control of the bank—it always does what you tell it to do. A case must not be run without TA action or with minimal TA action. If it didn’t occur, Tone Arm Action has to have been prevented! It doesn’t just “not occur”.
        The skill of an auditor is directly measured by the amount of TA he or she can get. Pcs are not more difficult one than another. Any pc can be made to produce TA. But some auditors cut TA more than others.
        The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action. Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW.
        Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.
        1. Get good Tone Arm Action.
        2. Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.
        And Body Motion doesn’t count, as TA.
        Without Tone Arm Motion no charge is being released and no actual case betterment is observed beyond a few somatics removed. The pc’s session goals stay the same. The pc’s life doesn’t change.
        THE MOST CORRECT TRACK SIGNIFICANCES RUN BUT WITHOUT TA ACTION WILL NOT CHANGE BUT CAN DETERIORATE A CASE. It takes the right process correctly run to get TA action. So don’t underrate processes or the action of the auditor.
        Your enemy is Over-Restimulation of the pc. As soon as the pc goes into more charge than he or she can Itsa easily the TA slows down! And as soon as the pc drowns in the over-restimulation the TA stops clank!
        Unless destimulated a case can’t get a rocket read or present the auditor with a valid goal.
        In doing R6 the silent auditor lets the pc Itsa all over the whole track and causes Over-Restimulation which locks up the TA. But in lower levels of auditing, inviting an Itsa with silence is an ordinary action.
        As soon as you get into Level VI auditing however, on the pc’s actual GPMs, the auditor has to be crisp and busy to get TA and a silent, idle auditor can mess up the pc and get very little TA.
        Level VI auditing finds the auditor smoothly letting the pc Itsa RIs and lists but the auditor going at it like a small steam engine finding RIs, RIs, RIs, Goals, RIs, RIs,
        RIs. For the total TA in an R6 session only is proportional to the number of RIs found without goofs, wrong goals or other errors which rob TA action.
        So the higher the level the more control of the pc’s attention.
        Only in R6 where you’re dead on the pc’s GPMs and the pc is allowed to say it is or isn’t can you get TA good action out of listing and nulling. And even then a failure to let the pc say it is it can cut the TA down enormously.
        In confirmation of auditors being too anxious to get in the Itsa line themselves and not let the pc is the fad of using the meter as a Ouija Board. The auditor asks it questions continually and never asks the pc. Up the spout go divisions of TA. “Is this Item a terminal?” the auditor asks the meter. Why not ask the pc? If you ask the pc, you get an Itsa, “No, I think it’s an oppterm because_____” and the TA moves.
        If a pc says something and the auditor fails to understand what the pc said or meant, the correct response is:
        “I did not (hear you) (understand what was said) (get that last).”
        To do anything else is not only bad form, it can amount to a heavy ARC Break.
        To say “You did not speak loud enough_____” or any other use of “you” is an invalidation.
        The pc is also thrown out of session by having responsibility hung on him or her.
        The auditor is responsible for the session. Therefore the auditor has to assume responsibility for all comm breakdowns in it.
        EV ALUA TION
        Far more serious than Invalidation above, is the accidental evaluation which may
        occur when the auditor repeats what the pc said.
        NEVER repeat anything a pc says after him, no matter why.
        Repeating not only does not show the pc you heard but makes him feel you’re a circuit.
        But that isn’t the main reason you do not repeat what the pc said after the pc. If you say it wrong the pc is thrown into heavy protest. The pc must correct the wrongness and hangs up right there. It may take an hour to dig the pc out of it.
        If your pc has a dirty needle, its cause is CUT ITSA or an L1 session ARC Break.
        NO other source such as a wrong Item or goal or earlier engrams or service fac by- passed charge can cause a dirty needle.
        If it’s a dirty needle its cause lies in basic auditing not in technique errors.
        This rule is invariable. The apparent exception is the session ARC Break that keys in by-passed technique charge.
        All dirty needles are caused by the auditor failing to hear all the pc had to say in answering a question or volunteering data.
        Charge is removed from a case only by the Comm Cycle Pc to Auditor. 414
        The auditor’s command restimulates a charge in the pc. The only way this charge can be blown is by the pc telling the auditor.
        The auditor who cleans a clean meter is asking for trouble.
        This is the same as asking a pc for something that isn’t there and develops a “withhold of nothing”.
        The pc says, “You missed a suppress. It’s_____” and the auditor re-consults the meter asking for a suppress. That leaves the pc’s offering an undischarged charge.
        Example: You’ve declared suppress clean, pc gives you another suppress. Take it
        and don’t ask suppress again. That’s Echo Metering.
        If a pc puts his own ruds in, don’t at once jump to the meter to put his ruds in. That
        makes all his offerings missed charge. Echo Metering is miserable auditing.
        DON’T ECHO INVALIDATE Echo Invalidation:
        The pc gives an Item. The auditor calls it back to the pc and says it doesn’t RR. If this is kept up the pc will be put into a state of sen that is appalling. The right way to do this is as follows:
        Pc gives Item.
        Auditor writes it down.
        All Items are written down that the pc gives.
        An auditor never repeats Items to the pc after the pc says them. If the auditor doesn’t understand he asks pc to spell it or if it is singular or plural. Don’t fake an understanding. The list must be accurate.
        Echo Invalidation, in which pc names an Item and auditor says “That isn’t it” is not just bad form but a very vicious practice that leads to a games condition. The Invalidation of each Item makes the pc very dizzy and very desperate. The pc, sick and confused, starts plunging in desperation for the right Item and goes swiftly down tone and out of session.
        High pc morale is vital to blowing charge and finding RIs. Uphold the pc’s morale. Don’t begin Echo Invalidation.
        An auditor who just sits and shakes his head, “Didn’t Rocket Read” can give a pc too many loses and deteriorate the pc’s ability to run GPMs.
        In a conflict between pc and meter, take the pc’s data. Why? Because Protest and Assert and Mistake will also read on a meter. You can get these off, but why create them? Your data comes from the pc and the meter always for anything. And if the pc’s data is invalidated you won’t get a meter’s data. If the pc says he has a PTP and the meter says he doesn’t, you take the pc’s data that he does.
        You take the pc’s data. Never take his orders.
        Also, minimize a pc’s dependency on a meter. Don’t keep confirming a pc’s data by meter read with, “That reads. Yes, that’s there. Yes, there’s a rocket read ….”
        The meter is not there to invalidate the pc.
        The E-Meter registers charge. A very high or low tone arm, a sticky or dirty needle all are registrations of this charge. The “chronic meter of a case” is an index of chronic charge. The fluctuations of a meter during a session are registering relative charge in different portions of the pc’s Time Track.
        More valuably the meter registers released charge. You can see it blowing on the meter. The disintegrating RR, the blowing down of the TA, the heavy falls, the loosening needle all show charge being released.
        The meter registers charge found and then charge released. It registers charge found but not yet released by the needle getting tight, by DN, by a climbing TA or a TA going far below the clear read. Then as this cleans up, the charge is seen to “blow”.
        Charge that is restimulated but not released causes the case to “charge up”, in that charge already on the Time Track is triggered but is not yet viewed by the pc. The whole cycle of restimulated charge that is then blown gives us the action of auditing. When prior charge is restimulated but not located so that it can be blown, we get “ARC Breaks”.
        Auditing selectively restimulates, locates the charge and discharges it (as seen on the action of a moving Tone Arm).
        The meter in actual fact does nothing but locate charged areas below the awareness of the pc and verify that the charge has been removed. The meter cures nothing and does not treat. It only assists the auditor in assisting the preclear to look and verify having looked.
        A pc can be made more dependent upon the meter or can be made more independent of the meter, all in the way a meter is used by the auditor.
        Meter dependence is created by invalidation by or poor acknowledgement of the auditor. If the auditor seems not to accept the pc’s data, then the pc may insist that the auditor “see it read on the meter”. This can grow up into a formidable meter dependence on the part of the pc.
        A pc must be carefully weaned of meter dependence, not abruptly chopped off.
        If a pc’s case is improving the pc becomes more independent of the meter. This is the proper direction.
        Build up the pc’s confidence in his own knowingness and continuously and progressively reduce the pc’s dependence on a meter.
        As the pc gets along in running Time Track and GPMs with their goals and Reliable Items he or she often becomes better than the meter as to what is right or wrong, what is the goal, what RI still reads.
        Charge, the stored quantities of energy in the Time Track, is the sole thing that is being relieved or removed by the auditor from the Time Track.
        When this charge is present in huge amounts the Time Track overwhelms the pc and the pc is thrust below observation of the actual track.
        The mechanism of permanent restimulation consists of opposing forces of comparable magnitude which cause a balance which does not respond to current time and remains “timeless”.
        Such phenomena as the overt act-motivator sequence, the problem (postulate counter-postulate), tend to hold certain portions of the Time Track in “permanent
        creation” and cause them to continue to exist in present time as unresolved masses, energies, spaces, times and significances.
        The intention of the physical universe (and those who have become degraded enough to further only its ends) is to make a thetan solid, immobile and decisionless.
        The fight of the thetan is to remain unsolid, mobile or immobile at will, and capable of decision.
        This in itself is the principal unresolved problem and it itself creates timeless mass which accomplishes the basic purpose of a trap.
        BY-PASSED CHARGE By-passed Charge does not always = ARC Break.
        But ARC Break always = By-passed Charge.
        By-passed Charge always exists in a session—it isn’t until it is keyed in by some communication failure in session that it causes an ARC Break.
        The source of all ARC Breaks is By-passed Charge. There is no other source of ARC Breaks.
        People do not ARC Break on known charge. It is always the hidden or the earlier charge that causes the ARC Break.
        The pc never knows why the ARC Break. He may think he does and disclaim about it. But the moment the actual reason is spotted (the real missed area) the ARC Break ceases.
        All by-passed charge is in some degree a missed withhold, missed by both auditor and pc.
        In a session or handling the living lightning we handle, people can be hit by a forceful charge of which they are only minutely aware but which swamps them. Their affinity, reality and communication (life force) is retarded or cut by this hidden charge and they react with what we call an ARC Break or have an ARC Broken aspect.
        Everything on the whole Know to Mystery Scale that still lies above the pc finds the pc at effect. These are all on Automatic.
        Therefore the pc in an ARC Break is in the grip of the reaction which was in the incident, now fully on automatic.
        The pc’s anger in the incident is not even seen or felt by the pc. But the moment something slips the pc is in the grip of that emotion as an automaticity and becomes furious or apathetic or whatever toward the auditor.
        As soon as the actual by-passed charge is found and recognized as the charge by the person, up goes Affinity and Reality and Communication and life can be lived.
        STAGE ONE:
        The ARC Break starts always in the same way. The pc finds something wrong with the auditor, the subject, or tools of auditing or the auditing room. He does this in varying intensity, ARC Break to ARC Break.
        STAGE TWO:
        This is followed by misemotion, also directed at the auditor, subject, tools or room.
        STAGE THREE:
        If the auditor continues on with auditing the pc will drop into grief, sadness or apathy.
        This is an inevitable cycle and may be followed by the pc with greater or lesser intensity of emotion, or loudness or lack of response.
        Bad sessioning, poor auditing, ordinary life missed withholds are only contributive to R6 ARC Breaks and are incapable of doing more than keying in and intensifying the magnitude of the ARC Break which has already been caused by errors in R6.
        Do not issue more orders, do not run a process, do not offer to run a process, do not sit idly letting the pc ARC Break. Follow this rule:
        If you know you’ve missed a goal or RI, just saying so prevents any ARC Break. DON’T BY-PASS CHARGE UNKNOWN TO THE PC.
        The meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge and curing an ARC Break.
        The trick is TO FIND AND INDICATE the RIGHT By-passed Charge to the pc and to handle it when possible but never fail to indicate it. It is then up to the auditor to locate it more precisely as to character and time and indicate it to the pc. The pc will feel better the moment the right type of by-passed charge is identified by assessment and indicated by the auditor. If the pc does not feel better but further ARC Breaks then the assessment is either incomplete or incorrect.
        If the pc blows up in your face on being given a type of charge, keep going, as you have not yet found the charge.
        You can, however, undo a session ARC Break Assessment by continuing beyond the pc’s cognition of what it is. Continuing an assessment after the pc has cognited, invalidates the pc’s cognition and cuts the Itsa Line and may cause a new ARC Break.
        Several by-passed charges can exist and be found on one list.
        Sometimes in trying to locate the by-passed charge causing an ARC Break, the pc’s needle is so dirty that it almost can’t be read.
        However there is a way to read it. When the correct by-passed charge is located and indicated the needle will go beautifully clean.
        But it can be done without a meter, just by letting the pc think over each line read to him or her from the ARC Break Assessment and say whether it is or isn’t and if it is, spotting the thing by-passed.
        Don’t ever be “reasonable” about an ARC Break and think the pc is perfectly right to be having one “because “. If that ARC Break exists, the pc doesn’t know what’s causing it and neither do you until you and the pc find it! If you and the pc knew what was causing it, there would be no further ARC Break.
        ARC Breaks are inevitable. They will happen.
        Q and A causes ARC Breaks by BY-PASSING CHARGE.
        How? The pc says something. The auditor does not understand or acknowledge. Therefore the pc’s utterance becomes a By-passed Charge generated by whatever he or she is trying to release. As the auditor ignores it and the pc reasserts it, the original utterance’s charge is built up and up.
        Finally the pc will start issuing orders in a frantic effort to get rid of the missed charge. This is the source of pc orders to the auditor.
        Understand and Acknowledge the pc. Take the pc’s data. Don’t pester the pc for more data when the pc is offering data.
        Learn to see if the pc has said everything he or she wants to say before the next auditor action, never do a new auditor action while or if the pc wants to speak and you’ll get superior TA action. Cut the pc off, get in more actions than the pc is allowed to answer and you’ll have a Dirty Needle, then a stuck TA and then an ARC Break.
        Realize that the answering of the process question is senior to the asking of another process question.
        Watch the pc’s eyes. Don’t take auditing actions if the pc is not looking at you. Don’t give acknowledgements that aren’t needed. Over-acknowledgement means
        acknowledging before the pc has said all.
        PC TONE
        The pc rises in tone up to the lower levels of the tone scale. He or she comes up to degradation, up to apathy.
        And it often feels horrible and, unlike an ARC Break and the Sad Effect, is not cured except by more of the same processing.
        Then suddenly they realize that they have come up to being able to feel bad. They even come up to feeling pain. And all that is a gain.
        L. RON HUBBARD
        Copyright © 1964
        by L. Ron Hubbard

        • I’d to add that there are many processes that can be run without a meter.

          You can even do a BPC assessment without one according to the following:

          An Auditor who just sits and shakes his head, “Didn’t Rocket Read” can give a pc too many loses and deteriorate the pc’s ability to run GPMs.
          In a conflict between pc and meter, take the pc’s data. Why? Because Protest and Assert and Mistake will also read on a meter. You can get these off, but why create them?
          The meter is not there to invalidate the pc. Using the meter to invalidate the pc is bad form.
          You’ll have less trouble by taking the pc’s data for the pc will eventually correct it.
          The meter is invaluable in locating by-passed charge and curing an ARC Break. But it can be done without a meter, just by letting the pc think over each line read to him or her from the ARC Break Assessment and say whether it is or isn’t and if it is, spotting the thing by-passed.


          BTW one of my biggest beefs about GAT among others was that it coached the auditor into being meter dependent and using the meter to invalidate the PC.

          Anyway hope the refs help.

          A recommendation would be to include processes that one can audit on oneself. There are many. Which is better than random self auditing.

        • RV:

          Thanks for posting this. It is actually quite an incredible reference, in that it references some seemingly small things an auditor otherwise might be inclined to do, like repeating what the PC said, or accusing the PC of not speaking loudly enough. These, along with never apologizing to a PC for making a mistake and never asking a PC how he “feels” about this or that thing, should be part of all auditor training. I don’t know how I first heard about these little data (maybe I read this bulletin), but I’ve kept these things in mind since I first learned them, even though I wasn’t an auditor.

          (Yes, I realize the bulletin makes some far broader points. But those little provisos snagged my attention.)

          Anyway, again thanks.


      • Lana:

        From my reading of the Solo course checksheet (and its three times through the metering requirement), I’m hoping that running a meter would then be a relatively easy thing overall. I suspect that some minor action done repeatedly for a while (like SA lists) on the meter would also improve confidence. I look at this primarily as an example of “needs a lot of practice” rather than “too retarded to master it”.

        In training, I can be a pain in the neck. I tend to ask questions no one appears to have ever asked before.

        Imagine driving for the first time– I gotta keep track of the brake, the accelerator, what gear I’m in, the mirrors, traffic all around me, my speed, etc. A lot to consider. Running an official session kinda seems like that to me.


        • “too retarded to master it” LOL!

          Nope. It is just a matter of drilling and someone actually answering your questions with the LRH references, rather than sending you out of the courseroom into some Q and A. 🙂

          • LM:

            I would think so, too. But my former supervisors have apparently been less than bright about the whole thing. Amazing what can happen when you’re more interested in getting a stat than an honest product.


        • Paul: From my reading of the Solo course checksheet (and its three times through the metering requirement)

          The last Solo Checksheet approved by LRH was the ’79 Parts A & B issue which called for drilling one time through. It was deemed once you passed the drill, you knew how to do it. The ’84 & ’88 Part I Solo Checksheets called for 5x through. I’ve never seen an LRH reference on this, but “supposedly” LRH instructed someone to amend the checksheet.

          I did the ’79 Solo checksheet, never had any Qs or confusions about metering after that, nor was I unable to operate the meter proficiently. As far as I’m concerned, if you need to do drilling several times through, you never did the drill to the point you could perform the action flawlessly, a shortcoming of course supervision. Once I learn how to do something, I know how to do it.

          • FM:

            The “official” Field checksheet on Solo calls for the repetitions as well. And your comment leads me to question whether all the repetition is actually needed. While I appreciate the work done by the guys who compiled these checksheets, in some cases I have to wonder where their information came from. I have a Solo checksheet from the Church around the same time period which calls for similar repetition. I DON’T have one from 79 which omits the repetition. I’d rather not repeat stuff unless I personally feel the need.

            It all leaves me with the question of, when the time comes, what am I to do?


            • Paul: The “official” Field checksheet on Solo calls for the repetitions as well.

              Hi Paul.

              I believe it was the 1982 Solo I checksheet that first had any requirement for either 3x or 5x through, all previous ones … you only did them once. I saw the bloaty field checksheet version and I was not impressed with it personally.

              (On a side note, the 1988 CO$ checksheet contained phenomenal bloat along with references that no one had ever seen before supposedly dug up from the deep vaults of lost tech which were later chucked when the first GAT came out.)

              Post your e-addy and I’ll send the ’79 off to you containing all references for the course too.



                • One the other side of the coin, no Solo Checksheet contains drills for EM-22 & EM-25 which I had found necessary at times doing OT III. However the APIS/TFCU OT III checksheet does include these drills “In the event that …”. (You can always skip that training portion and pay your Class VIII+ review auditor instead should ________ occur, if you prefer.)

                  Ok, ’79 Solo Auditor’s Course been sent out. Enjoy. 🙂

                  • FM: “no Solo Checksheet contains drills for EM-22 & EM-25”

                    Well, this is inaccurate as when I did my Solo 1 in 1988 (and I can’t recall if it was the ’82 or the ’88 checksheet), EM-22 and EM-25 were both on the checksheet. And they should be, because as you mentioned, they are needed on the OT levels. How could one NOT do them? They are a NECESSITY!

                    You know, it’s like anything – preparation is important. If you don’t prep right for a paint job, you end up with a lousy product; if you don’t prep right for body work on a car, you end up with a bad product; if you don’t prep well for solo, well, you’re going to end up floundering and missing out on the gains you could have. As Ron said in Clear To Eternity, where you end up, in a good state or bad, is up to you.

                    • No OT III checksheet prior to 1984 had EM-22/25, that one revised by LRH himself by pilot-witness account. (SEPTEMBER 1972RA, Issue V, REVISED 13 MARCH 1984)

                      The “only pre-1982 is valid tech” make-believe purity hounds screamed to high-heaven after we added these EMs to the checksheet based on advices of the higher tech hierarchy out here. It doesn’t matter to me what anyone says really, it’s a fact that these dating drills will be required in many instances based on my personal experience. So if a later post-1984 checksheet did call for these EMs, then I know nothing about it, since we don’t have those checksheets out here. Perhaps LRH at some point subsequent to the 1984 issue requested COMPs to add them.

                      The reason they squawk about EM-22/25s on the checksheet? Why cut yourself short selling even more NOTs intensives when you can just wait for the pre-OT to fall flat on his face?

                    • Hi FM,

                      I’m just saying that the Solo 1 Auditor’s Course I did, did have EM Drills 22 and 25 on the checksheet. From what I remember of OT II and III, they didn’t get into that which is why one should be “whizz-bang” from the get-go.

                      Re timelines, I agree; that would also apply to whether later than 1979 Solo 1 checksheets were also valid.


                    • I misduped your post, thought you were talking about the OT III checksheet.

                      The ’79 Solo Auditor checksheet did NOT contain EM-22/25 which I thought should have been on there. Not sure about the ’82 or ’88 checksheets, haven’t re-examined them.

                    • Ok. Already responded, but yeh, it was the Solo 1 course. Glad that they added 22 & 25 after 1979. I was already a Class IV auditor by the time I did my Solo 1 in 1988, so that definitely helped.

                    • Chris: I’m just saying that the Solo 1 Auditor’s Course I did, did have EM Drills 22 and 25 on the checksheet. From what I remember of OT II and III, they didn’t get into that which is why one should be “whizz-bang” from the get-go.

                      Hi Chris … update:

                      The 1982 Solo Auditor’s Course checksheet does not mention EM 22/25, so nothing at all on that. The 1988 checksheet calls for drilling of 22/25, but no “Dating & Locating” HCOB or any drills to actually practice or perfect any such actions as one would find in the Grad V course. (The theory is missing when to use EM 22/25, not anywhere in that checksheet.) However, the Dating & Locating HCOB is part of the OT III checksheet and that’s where we added EM-22/25.

                      At the time LRH approved the revised the OT III checksheet in 1984, no Solo Auditor’s Course existed at that time which trained a pre-OT into perfunctory form on EM 22/25 and how and when to use it. And the Solo Auditor Course prereqs were already in place at that time per HCOPL 2 Oct. 83 Solo Course Part One, Prerequisites.

                      Most certainly there were plenty of holes in various training line-ups. Well, we can fix these things up.

                    • Must have been the ’88 checksheet I did then; Randall ____ was the Solo 1 supe at AOLA at that time (he was from Vancouver originally – can’t remember his last name). I distinctly remember Liane and I drilling 22 and 25. I’ll never forget when I passed 25: it was badda-bing, badda-bing, badda-bing, down the line, LF after LF and bingo, got it, right down to the seconds. Bing-bang-boom! Anyway, we were both already Class IVs so knew the drills (still tough to do 22 and 25, though) and knew Dating and Locating as well, which I believe was refreshed on the first part of the OT course under Harold Simms.

                    • Chris: I’m just saying that the Solo 1 Auditor’s Course I did, did have EM Drills 22 and 25 on the checksheet.

                      …con’t from previous post …

                      And this is where you get the flack from the tech purity hounds (I’m all for tech purity) … they think these omissions and errors ought to be carried forward because it wasn’t “on the original checksheet(s)”. Well OT III does/did call for actions that the Solo Auditor back then never received any proper training for. Do we forward and compound the error(s), or do we fix it up? I’ve already fixed it up years ago, I saw the hole a long time ago.

                    • Glad you fixed it, FM. One litmus test should be, is it required to ensure one is adequately set up to audit the level. Then apply the policies on writing checksheets and it should be simple.

                    • Chris: I’ll never forget when I passed 25: it was badda-bing, badda-bing, badda-bing, down the line, LF after LF and bingo, got it, right down to the seconds. Bing-bang-boom!

                      Same here. Always curious why others had difficulties with it. Maybe some arbitraries were added in when the simulator was released in the mid-90s. In solo I have never failed to get a correct date and location to a blow. It might take a bit of time, but nothing hard about it. And always very clean work.

                      Chris: One litmus test should be, is it required to ensure one is adequately set up to audit the level.

                      Exactly. Something CO$ should not have overlooked for decades in the first place. They might have fixed it after 1988, we just don’t have the latter materials out here to verify. Same with the 1981 OT II course which was a springboard for the CC leaving NED Clear comps scratching their heads. CO$ has fixed that since, but we don’t have those materials either.

                    • FM: “Same here. Always curious why others had difficulties with it. Maybe some arbitraries were added in when the simulator was released in the mid-90s.”

                      Well, I never said it was easy getting to that point…it wasn’t. But when I went for the pass, I had Liane on the cans and she had a very clean and responsive needle, and i had clean intention and positive postulates for doing it, and it just went like sliding down a plastic slide layered with whipped cream in the nude! LOL

                      Anyway, I think things will work out. Forever the optimist. Although pragmatism tells me not all will take advantage it. Cheers

              • Solo check sheets in my opinion should only contain the minimal amount of data required to make a Solo Auditor. This 5Xs through was justified by some bright bulb (probably Dan or someone else in RTRC) to make up for the lack of training. When I did the course at AO I only did ’em once because I was already a trained auditor and was on the BC.

                (Did the Solo Course on the weekend while doing the BC during the week plus working in the ASHO FES unit while working on the WUS Flub catch and was occasionally seconded to NWC for the RP Pilot and worked on LRH CCRD pilot….you could say I was kinda busy back then but managed to do the Solo I and II over several weekends. So it’s not hard to do Paul. Even for someone who’s SOP was in total dispersal 😉 )

                Personally and again in my opinion you should only have to do the meter drills once trained or not. I mean that’s the way we did ’em on the HDC before throwing us in session.

                This is according to the policy Supervisor Stable Data.

                In other words you learn by doing. Not by doing a bunch of drills endlessly.

                • RV: Solo check sheets in my opinion should only contain the minimal amount of data required to make a Solo Auditor.

                  Yeah, rather simple.

                  Same when I passed driving school, I could run over every STOP sign without missing even one … lol. 😀

                    • Yes, full Pass !!!

                      Next, moving up to a more professional ‘Duke ‘a Hazzard’ level, nailing the driver’s door of a parked cruiser in a donut shop parking lot, which is really a test of self-confidence and getaway road skill … lol.

                    • Now yar talking’ real advanced skills FM my man!

                      That’s 20 points if the Holsteins are in Dunkin’ Donuts and 40 if they’re sittin’ in the cruiser 🙂

                • Yeh, RV, but this violates LRH tech on reasons solo auditors don’t make it on the solo Grades. As well as other refs. Don’t forget that at one time prior to the Solo Auditor’s Course, one was required to do the SHSBC and then through R6EW and the CC before going onto OT I.

                  Really, one does have to think with the data, and that means ALL the data, in order to understand what should or shouldn’t be done.

                  • True but then it was HSDC and then Solo then it was HQS etc.

                    I mean if you want a proficient Solo Auditor then the HCOB Training and OT would apply but someone who can passably be made to Solo audit in *my* opinion is overdone.

                    5Xs through the meter drills shouldn’t be a requirement.

                    Also much of the data on the Solo courses these days in many cases is added inapplicable.

                    Then there are the Solo Assists which show the C/S whether the Solo Auditor can audit or not.

                    Honestly I’m glad I did the BC before I tackled the Solo levels but now with Dianetics making clears and therefore leaving many Pre OTs parked in the Non-Interference Zone what is the greater or lesser evil?

                    I’d say as in *my opinion* send him or her onto the next level with the minimal amount of training required and if they fall flat on their face demand they get trained.

                    HCOPL Organization the Flaw.

                    • Hey Robin,

                      I had left this thread alone because it could get into, and was getting into, opinion on the tech and 1) it’s a headache, and 2) people have the right to their own ideas mixed up with what the tech is. But, I stuck my foot in it so will answer this.

                      First, you have an MU on the Non-Interference Zone per what you stated here: “…now with Dianetics making clears and therefore leaving many Pre OTs parked in the Non-Interference Zone….” Please see Jimbo on this. 😉

                      Second, it’s not a matter of “which is the greater or lesser evil”, but whether something stands the test of “whether or not it is standard”.

                      Third, I believe the checksheet I did was three times through and one could credit earlier times the drills were done, but one time minimum on the drills. I think three times through is fine and not a hardship and makes one proficient at metering, something they NEED TO BE on the solo levels. As well, as you probably know, the VIII Course was three times through (every time on the checksheet and everything *-rated, no fast flow). That was no problem.

                      Fourth, “passably made to Solo audit…is overdone” is a degrade of the tech. Per HCOPL 12 Aug 71 IV, OT Courses, one of the requirements for being invited onto the OT levels is the “technical proficiency of the being.” So in this regard, I agree with you that HCOB Training And OT should apply.

                      Lastly, re the “added inapplicable”, there’s a difference here in what one is making; while it is true that the runway for auditor courses (the “Levels”) should be short (training, short, auditing long), with the Solo Auditor’s Course, you’re making a pre-OT, one able to audit their own case. I think that falls more to the “auditing long” side than the “short” side. So more hatting – not less – would be a better bet. Again, the ref. (amongst many) is Training And OT.


                    • Chris,

                      The reference that applies is the following:

                      HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
                      HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1972
                      Registrars IMPORTANT BPI
                      Advance Mag
                      R6EW—OT III NO INTERFERENCE AREA
                      Note: (The following HCO B is broadly released despite the fact that it contains technical terms and upper level tech programs. A person who is taking this route has a right to know where he should go and where he shouldn’t.
                      The amount of improvement a person can receive is so great that it takes a long series of actions to do it. As for “handling bad mental conditions” this is too simple and is not the business we are in. Just by handling the current upsets, problems, overts and withholds of a person in an hour’s session, Scientology can make more case advance than was possible in any past century. So there is a vast difference between handling disturbed people and obtaining all the advance of which a person is capable of obtaining.
                      The data in this HCO B is issued to straighten out a current error being made in routing some cases.)
                      A long series of tests and many case results have for some time demonstrated that there is a NO INTERFERENCE AREA between R6EW and OT III.
                      A study of many cases and their results demonstrated conclusively that one does NOT audit Dianetics or Lower Scientology Grades on a pre-clear or pre-OT (Operating Thetan) AFTER he has begun Solo VI (the 1st Solo step) or BEFORE he has reached OT III (a higher Solo step per grade chart).
                      Upsets of varying degree were found in ALL cases tampered with in the NO INTERFERENCE AREA.
                      Repair actions to repair errors made by the Solo Auditor are all that can be beneficially audited on a person between R6EW and OT III.
                      Even the powerful L10, when done between R6EW and OT III will fail. Above and below the No Interference Area L10 is fantastically successful.
                      Nothing is superior to the Solo Grades.
                      THEREFORE, it is vital that a case be fully set up before beginning actual Solo Auditing.
                      For information, the following list, taken from HCO B 8 Jan 72, Issue II, is what constitutes a “set-up”.
                      1. C/S Series 54 (former injuries, illnesses, etc., run out by Dianetics) completed?
                      2. GF40XRR (Resistive Cases List) assessed? Engrams of it handled?
                      3. Dianetics Full Flow Table run? To Dn Completion?
                      4. Full Drug, Alcohol, medicine handling done?
                      5. Dianetics ran well? To End Phenomena?
                      6. All Grades run, single, triple or Expanded?
                      7. Green Form (case repair) items handled?
                      8. Attained End Phenomena of each grade?
                      9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
                      Interiorization Rundown done? INT is okay?
                      C/S Series 53 (any abnormal Tone Arm positions) handled? Power to End Phenomena. Single? Triple? Power Plus?
                      Tone Arm Range okay?
                      Power, no illness after?
                      Power, no ethics troubles after?
                      Success stories okay?
                      Director of Processing Interview okay? Pc not wanting something handled?
                      Graph of Oxford Capacity Analysis Personality Test (or American Personality Analysis Test) with no point below middle of graph?
                      A. Pc set up and okay to go to R6EW Solo?
                      B. Pc needs further set-up and repair before Solo?
                      The above is a checklist used by Solo Course Case Supervisors. (It is NOT the program sequence by which the case is handled. This is given in the Grade Chart.) These are the points checked.
                      Once onto Solo, whether these points are in or not, that’s it, HANDS OFF.
                      Once on Solo the pc is into the Non Interference Area. He may not have Dianetics or Grades. He may only have the lists and repairs given to Solo Auditors.
                      Of all these actions a full thorough drug-medicine-alcohol rundown is the most important. People who have been on heavy drugs, pot, etc or who have been alcoholics get things turned on in their banks and sometimes become terrified of them and will not Solo. They are unable to confront their pictures.
                      The remedy is to have a thorough drug-alcohol-medicine rundown.
                      The ONLY people who can’t Solo are these poor devils who got onto these psychiatric type drugs.
                      These can be handled by a competent drug rundown.
                      The ideal program appears on the Grade Chart, displayed in most orgs and often
                      sent out.
                      The chart has many symbols on it. A full glossary of these symbols and terms exists in HCO B 20 Aug 71, Issue II, “Classification and Gradation Chart, Abbreviations Explained”, which should be posted alongside the chart.
                      A fast summary of the steps would be
                      C/S 54 (handling illnesses, accidents, injuries) Dianetics
                      ARC Straightwire
                      OBJECTIVE Processes
                      Grades 0-IV
                      POWER PLUS.
                      Into this program can be placed the engram handling GF40RR for resistive cases, past practices, etc.
                      A Drug Rundown would occur in the area of Dianetics.
                      An Interiorization-Exteriorization Rundown would be given after the pc exteriorized. This usually occurs early on in processing and has to be handled.
                      A C/S 53 (for TA misbehavior) could be given anywhere.
                      The actual program run on the pc varies according to what the Case Supervisor requires, but it follows the Grade Chart.
                      The Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA) or the American Personality Analysis (APA) is a graph which shows desirable and undesirable characteristics in a case.
                      The points on the graph are moved up by processing. And Dianetics and Scientology processes below R6EW are very capable of moving these points into desirable range.
                      Above R6EW, the first Solo step, the graph can change but the person is moving out of the normal range of humanity and the Solo grades are not designed to change a human test graph and in fact these tests do not measure the OT band of abilities.
                      The test graph should be in normal range before Solo is begun.
                      Auditing below Solo is quite capable of handling the graph points and bringing them up to desirable range.
                      SOLO PROGRAM The Ideal Solo Program is as follows:
                      1. Set-up done and all items on the checklist okay.
                      2. Good training as a Solo Auditor. Can include the Professional Route of Class VI. Or the Social Counselor Course plus Solo. Or (at this time) the Solo Course only. One Solo Audits as well as he is trained and no better.
                      3. R6EW Solo Auditing to End Phenomena and attest.
                      4. Clearing Course Solo to CLEAR.
                      5. Operating Thetan I to attest.
                      6. Operating Thetan II to attest.
                      7. Operating Thetan III to attest.
                      8. Operating Thetan VII (audited by an auditor level) to attest.
                      9. OT III Expanded to attest.
                      10. OTIV.
                      11. OTV.
                      12. OT VI.
                      13. OT VIII as released.
                      After 7 above (OT III) or after 9 above (OT III Expanded) one can run more Dianetics, Expanded Grades, GF40, the famous L10 or do any other case action. One cannot profitably do these actions between Solo R6 and OT III. That’s just the way the bank is.
                      You will note that “OT VII” is apparently out of sequence. It originally went OT III, OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII. Then it was found that there was a level OT III Expanded. So it can go OT III, OT VII, OT IIIX, OT IV, OT V, OT VI or it can go OT III, OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII, OT IIIX. One gets the most out of it by taking VII after OT III and then OT IV, OT V and OT VI really bite. Many persons were too nervous of OT III to do it well until a drug rundown and OT VII were done. Others thought OT III was endless and OT VII handled that.
                      The actual materials of these levels are held under tight security at Advanced Orgs because when they are shown to persons who haven’t moved up the grades, they usually cave in. Thus the materials are only available in Advanced Orgs.
                      Auditing at levels below Power is available from field auditors, Franchises and Scientology Orgs.
                      Power is available at Saint Hill Orgs in LA, Saint Hill UK, and Denmark.
                      All Solo levels are only available at Advanced Organizations.
                      A person goes from Field Auditor to Franchise to Scientology Org to a Saint Hill Org to an Advanced Org to obtain auditing of the whole Grade Chart.
                      Going from Clear back to lower grades—or from an Advanced Org back to a Franchise within the No Interference band—is liable to upset his case as it is being run out of sequence. He could go to a Franchise or a Scientology Org after OT III for Dianetics, Drug Rundown or other actions but not between R6 and OT III.
                      Processing and the mind is a technical subject. In Dianetics and Scientology, the answers have been found.
                      Like all technical material, you can’t apply it poorly or backwards and expect results.
                      I try-and very successfully in most cases—to hold the lines straight and keep the materials purely and workably applied.
                      In the past year alone, fantastic tech advances have been made and are available in terms of refined application within the existing framework of the Grade Chart.
                      But the fundamentals do not change, the progress of the person up the Grade Chart must be regular and on course. Otherwise he will not receive full benefits.
                      It is my job to do all I can to make sure that full benefit is received. This is not always easy to do on a rather aberrated planet. But if it weren’t so aberrated we wouldn’t be here doing something about it. Right?
                      Copyright © 1972
                      by L. Ron Hubbard
                      ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

                      This one is BPI.

                      Note where Clear is on it.

                      Now shall we draw straws on who sees Jimbo?

                      True there is the Non-Interference Zone as in C/S Series 73 and it’s various revisions. Personally I’m still trying to find the one Ron personally wrote before it was revised beyond recognition by RTRC where he says “it is a trust”.

                      So much for fully applying the Verbal Tech Checklist. So me I’ll stick with the above which as you’ll note is still on the Solo Auditor’s Course.

                      Me if I had my druthers I’d demand that the HCOB Training and OT be fully applied but the *fact* is that we don’t have the resources to make that a reality per the Data Series Pl on Examining Resources.

                      So why make it a stop. I’m sure if Paul and his wife sat down and conscientiously did a solo auditor’s course of some kind and were C/Sed remotely by you they’d do fine.

                      And like I wrote if they turned out to all thumbs. You could demand that they get trained.

                      And the ref “What? No Auditors?” would apply.

                      By the way Class VIII is not part of the Fast Flow Line up but solo is.

                    • Robin, I’m aware of that issue. It was also revised, as you’ve said. Perhaps in the future, unless you want everyone to read it, just give the reference as I can look it up. It makes for hard reading putting the whole issue in the reply just to make that point.

                      Now, if you take a look at the history of things, the DCSI and CCRD didn’t come out until after that original issue. One just went through Power and R6EW and the CC. So you still need to see Jimbo to see how the DCSI/CCRD line-up affected the non-interference zone.

                      Re not having the resources, I disagree. I know of a few field auditors and field practices that are putting their pcs through a NED course so that they become proficient auditors as well as being pcs. It’s not a stop; it’s maintaining a standard. It also aligns with LRH on the subject of being trained as you probably know, knowing the tech and policy as you do. And minimally, one could have the important drills (such as all EM drills and D&L drills) on the Solo Auditor’s Course be done three times through, and if one was an auditor, one could sign off on two times. Easy-peasy, as you say. 😀

                    • Chris,

                      I’ve got a pretty good certainty of what is and what isn’t the non-interference zone since I worked in AO’s 11RF unit for quite a while and high crimed the original issue C/S Series 73R The Non-Interefernce Zone Reissued and Reenforced plus Stalled Dn Clear Solved when it was sent by telex.

                      NED course is a good idea but since the Grade Chart was changed making NED a V it wouldn’t be practical. Probably the Dianetics Course per April 66 would be better or maybe even a Book 1 course.

                      Or as the HCOB I posted says maybe the Hubbard Consultant Course.

                      True there have been changes since that HCOB was issued but it still doesn’t change the position of Clear on the Grade Chart. The important thing is per Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs is to get the person through OT III so they are no longer at risk and not putz around too much while doing it.

                    • Hi Robin,

                      Ok, if you don’t want to see Jimmy, you don’t got to see Jimmy. Sorry, Jimmy, Robin isn’t gonna sees ya! (lol)

                      Anyway, Robin, the way you were using it in your comments showed you didn’t understand it and that’s all I commented on. The position of Clear on the Grade Chart is not in question and so is irrelevant to this discussion. There are technical differences between someone beginning solo auditing at R6EW and on through the CC and OT I, II, and III as per the reference you supplied, and someone going Clear on NED and NOT doing solo until OT I. And this is seen in later issues as Ron revised his outlook. But hey, you worked in AOLA’s 11RF, so what do I know?

                      Re a Book 1 course, you have to be kidding! Now this, I am really flabbergasted you said that. And NED is indeed practical. Tell me, what’s the difference between one doing the NED course (and/or HSDC priorly) before the “Bridge change” and after? Oh, I know, HNEDA was “re-classified” as a V. Whoop-dee-do! :-p

                      Anyway, I totally agree, not to putz around, get up the Bridge and such. Let’s just make sure one can make it up the Bridge.


                    • Hey Chris,

                      You bring up a good point on HNEDA. There are many, many issues including lectures where Ron says that in order to make a good Scn auditor, you have to make an excellent Dn Auditor first.

                      I think this whole GAT effort is an unusual solution to make up for this omitted step.

                      Probably an area that needs further research. Because I noticed that long before the eeeeviiiiil SP Dave came along that auditing quality was beginning to suck due to a lack of reality on the bank in general.

                      Having FESed thousands of folders I’ve seen Scn “Auditors” who had no concept of what they were actually running do the stupidest things.

                      Also solo auditors who didn’t have a clue. I mean to a greater or lesser degree you are still dealing with the R6 Bank until you’re finished II. Yet some of these bozos wouldn’t flatten an item or skip a couple before going on to the next one and wonder why they were sicker than a dog.

                      Well duh!

                      The reason why is not on any confidential level but is in the material covering GPMs going back to ’63 at least.

                      Then there are those who run one or two End Words and scream “I’m done! I’m Done!” and end up on endless L7 repair when they do the CC.

                      But what ya gonna do?

                      Never mind the ones who are quickied on V and VA. That’s a whole other world of hurt.

                      But what ya gonna do?

                      Hey we can recommend like Ron that they really get trained before embarking on those levels. But many people who go on the upper levels these days are convinced thanks to the Golden Age of Tech Solo course that solo will give them the same capability as an Interned Grad V (which is something they were promoting back when I was still in and wrote a truck load of reports on) which we both know is total BS.

                      Yet what ya gonna do?

                      The only thing I see doing with some of these guys is nursing them through the solo levels and doing a thorough OT IV RD on them when they come out the other end of III “folded, spindled and mutilated”.

                      What’s your idea?

                    • Well, one thing is, like you say (“we can recommend like Ron that they really get trained before embarking on those levels.”), to raise current standards to achieve LRH’s expectations, as per HCOPL Tech Downgrades:

                      “When the pc has honestly achieved the auditing skills or pc grades of the Gradation Chart, you are satisfied.

                      If the pc hasn’t, you are not satisfied.”

                      Another (as I am), is to align with those that put that in and not get involved with those that want to quickie the subject or setups. My C/S won’t put anyone onto the OT levels until he puts them through a NED course, including auditing requirements. And he’s got four people on the NED course right now.

                      So I think, if we demand it of the pc or student, then it becomes what is expected. As Ron says (same PL),

                      “You don’t just sit back and say, “We did all we could so we’ll let it go.”

                      You deal in truth. Students or pcs make it or they don’t.

                      Whichever way it is, you say so.

                      You demand they do make it.

                      Never permit a downgrade of a training or processing result.

                      Even if the person buys no more auditing, you still tell him.

                      Get off the dishonest false public relations morals of this planet.”

                      That’s how I see it.

                      Cheers, mate.

                    • Chris,

                      It’s all well and good to be uncompromising and all that. You don’t have to point out Tech Downgrades to me. I was probably one of the first staff members in my Org to do the Full KSW course when it first came out.

                      But still you have those PCs and Pre OTs who insist no demand that we send ’em up the creek without a paddle. The way you handle them is as you know covered in C/S series 7.

                      We used to have copies of the waiver all prepped and ready for those insistent ,persistent and in my opinion masochistic PC’s and Pre OTs.

                      Besides there is the IV RD after III and various RLs.

                      Christ I know some “OTs” who’d be kidding you if they said they solo audited through the Levels since probably 90% of each level was spent in Rev! on L6EW, L7s and Green Green Forms. They still made it in a fashion.

                      The moral is that it is not only actually faster which I guess doesn’t matter if you’re actually *Solo* auditing but also cheaper in regard to not having to spend time in review.

                      But there are still some who want to learn in the School of Hard Knocks. I say let ’em learn.

                    • Well, Robin, I can’t argue with your illustrious history….lol. Kidding aside, C/S Series 7 was specific to pcs demanding next grade. That doesn’t cut across either the Tech Downgrades PL or the Service PL or Quality Counts PL nor does it apply really to what we’re discussing here, which is adequately training solo auditors. So I take it that having them do such a Solo Course as I hypothesized is not to your liking?

                      And the IV rundown (OT IV) should not be done until after NOTs, followed by the rest of the original OT levels. And it wasn’t meant for that. I know you’re trying to help and all, but that’s no reason to go loose with the tech and rationalize its downgrade. There are ways to make sure tech stays in and we don’t violate LRH standards nor end up with pre-OTs in consistent trouble as you have pointed out. Standard tech can work here, too.

                      Lastly, don’t kid yourself – or them. They didn’t “make it”. That’s a false PR idea and it comes from not understanding the true depth of what the tech delivers. These guys/girls don’t get that, and neither do those that allow them the “easy way out”. As Ron said, it takes hard and earnest study. Only that will bring the gains into full bloom.

                    • You assume too much Chris.

                      I never said a Solo Course was not to my liking. One that contained unnecessary added and inapplicable data was though.

                      And you’re being a bit naughty at interpreting what that HCOB says.

                      “NEXT GRADE PLEASE!
                      The third Q and A a C/S can pull is to agree to the pc’s demands for the next grade despite all contrary indicators.
                      “I’m ready for Clear now!” says the pc full of somatics whose R6EW wasn’t really done and who can’t talk.
                      The Registrar, execs and others push on this also.
                      The D of P and C/S have total authority on this. They should be diplomatic. “He can have the grade of course but I will have to prepare him for it,” is the best answer. “Please make arrangements for Clear preparation—25 hours.”
                      If the C/S doesn’t hold the fort on this the pc put into the next grade who isn’t ready will fall on his head.
                      If this pressure from the pc (in any version) continues, have him sign a waiver “I will not hold the org or any principals responsible and waive any refund if I am put on next grade.” That either gets home or he says okay and signs. So put him on the grade and hope he doesn’t fall on his head—and if he does, now demand he get the hours needed to get fixed up so he can really make it.
                      A D of P or C/S often have other pressures exerted on them that are not technical in nature such as economics, ambition, status symbols (of having a high grade regardless of a headache) and have to cope with these diplomatically. But any but tech considerations are dangerous to entertain.”

                      Now go stand in the corner before I whack you with a ruler 😉

                    • There are enough references on solo grades and solo c/sing that I can`t see it being more than the exception if someone wants to be put on the next grade. and again, it doesn’t apply to solo auditor course that I can see. and OT courses PL would also apply. Now put on your dunce hat, Robin. :-p

                    • But Chris I never included Solo in my comment. I was writing about the Grades themselves.

                      Solo should be what I wrote in another post. Not any more and not any less.

                      Now bend over ….while ….I get my ruler …. 😉

                    • Perhaps you were writing about the grades, Robin, but then we originally were talking about the Solo Course and that area of the Bridge and then you went and shifted gears and I didn’t catch it. So if you like, we could do a “round Robin” (punny!) except with only two of us and each bend over….ruler….you get the image. :p

                      Anyway, I’m off to bed. This is now a “dead horse”, having just been beaten to death. ROFL

                    • Robin, a couple postscripts here…

                      1. I just saw your post re my thoughts on a Solo Auditor Course workaround re drills. Ok, we’re fine on that.

                      2. Re workarounds, one can work WITH the pc/pre-OT and/or student and get them through whatever barriers they are encountering, and sometimes that means bending the rules. But that’s keeping in mind what one is doing and why and what can and cannot be bent, and then restoring it afterwards.

                      3. Re those who insist or demand we give them the status or concede to their quickie and out-tech impulses, well, there’s specific tech for them, as Ron said, a “special rundown”. But even more to the point, what the hell are you doing working with them in the first place?


                    • I think you’ve confused me with someone else, Robin, perhaps one of your “personas”? Must be all those drugs in your hippie days. lol

                    • Hey if ‘member rightly it was on Berendo and Fountain not Haight and Ashbury man.

                      And you were there too doing your VIII course.

                      Remember if you remember the ’60’s than you weren’t there 😉

                    • RV: The only thing I see doing with some of these guys is nursing them through the solo levels and doing a thorough OT IV RD on them when they come out the other end of III “folded, spindled and mutilated”.

                      I have no stance on this particular point, but would like to convey my own, in respect to myself only, so not speaking for others, or what they best do.

                      I basically did a Level 0 course and the ’79 Solo Auditor’s Course … and just with the drilling I did in the academy I did the entirety of OT II and OT III, doing Rehabs, L & N, D & L … you name and made it through to the end with out any bogs or reviews. In fact not even one single problem came up, and I went right down to the end, way beyond the point you cart them off to audited NOTs, I went so far where nothing else could be run … I was done, but wanted to keep going, but that wasn’t possible because once the OT III case is gone, there nothing else you can do with that tech along that line. I refused OT IV for NOTs DRD as I was done with OT III tech … and I was.

                      Now someone coming along telling me I should have been some sort of NED or Grad V auditor before doing the levels, personally I’d call horse pucky on that. But that’s only from my point of view, not what should or ought to be … that I’m not commenting on.

                      I learned all the skills necessary to run these levels, and they ran like hot butter, happier than a pig in _____ once done. I believe if one honestly completes a proper Solo Auditor Course with drilling done to the point of flawlessness, most certainly one can get LRH’s intended results with nothing more than that and the basics in that course.

                      But then I also knew of people who were GRAD Vs and got bogged and crammed many times on OT III. To me, the long and short of it … can you do the action called for?, and when you can, you are ready to do these levels.

                      In my area auditor training is not possible at this point. Perhaps I can spend years somehow mocking it up, but won’t happen tomorrow no matter how well I wish or do. Going away to LA for extensive periods of time, sorry, no money for that, and going away for more than a week is not any option. If I were in LA I would most certainly get trained up. I have all the skills necessary to go all the way through to the end of OT VII as is. But then I also of others, rather well-trained who should know better right at this time, who are not using all the tools claiming to be done in 1/6th of the usual required time.

                      Very simple. If you don’t know how to do something cold, then don’t do it. And if you do, no point holding off on anything.

                    • That’s what Lana and I were discussing before we got onto this topic of solo.

                      How one can train on the levels or do any training for that matter remotely.

                      I’ll do some research of my refs on this but I think there are some training policies written in 63 about it.


                    • I would think that and ’63 policies would be superseded by later policies on training and course supervision. After all, there were a lot of changes and discoveries along that line since 1963.

                      One thing I see is that it could be possible for someone to do a course remotely (except drills and some practicals), but unless they were doing it in a course room under the auspices of WIAC, it would be something done only for their own edification. I couldn’t see them auditing pcs, at least not as a professional auditor.

                      So I think any discussion along these lines should recognize there will be at least two streams (possibly three): amateur (i.e., for their own edification in life and solo auditing); professional (i.e., a pro auditor MS2 and others would send pcs to). Each stream will have its own process, procedure and policies, with the professional route obviously being done in a WIAC course room with a standard Qual and HCO, etc., such as MS2 has developed, not to mention other sites around the globe.

                    • Chris,

                      There has always been the level known as book auditor and as you remember the boom that started Dns & Scn was started by book auditing and co-audits.

                      Personally I think that unlike the Org we should encourage auditing in the field. No matter how poorly done. It is better than the *no auditing* situation that the Orgs have created.

                      My take.

                    • And you’re right, Robin. Perhaps “Book Auditor” could be another stream. However, we’re not now “starting” Dns and Scn – that’s already been done. We’re trying to revive and keep alive Dns and Scn. That won’t work if it continues to get watered down and allowed to be just some other therapy because we couldn’t keep a standard. There’s no training (to speak of) in orgs today, so who holds that hat? So amateur and book, no problem; professional, problem.

                      “In order to make Scientology work, it is necessary to hold a standard and this standard must be held very relentlessly. And unless all the actions and all the various techniques applied can be held to a standard of rendition, then Scientology doesn’t work; Scientology doesn’t work if it’s badly done. In other words, the disciplines of Scientology are fully as important as the thoughts or discoveries of Scientology.” LRH

                      (from the tape “An Afternoon at Saint Hill”)

                    • There’s a difference between Book Auditor, Co-Auditor, amateur (not for money, but to help) auditing, and professional (for fee) auditing. Those that decide to follow a professional auditor route and hang out a shingle can and should find a standard course room to train in, much like I did, traveling clear across the continent to do my ACS in a standard course room and taking the time off to do so. For the others, that’s something to discuss as well for sure.

                      As to holding the standard in the field, it’s everyone’s hat and responsibility, Robin, even yours, not just VIIIs. If it had been done more diligently, perhaps we wouldn’t be in this pickle. Perhaps.

                      Cheers, bud.

                    • Well this is true to a degree but it wasn’t a factor of the tech just going out but of the tech intentionally being driven out by the Organization.

                      Most auditors in my opinion and it seems in Ron’s opinion want to do a good job and will work at doing so without anyone riding rough shod over them.

                      At some point we are going to have to establish HGCs and give guidance to the field and hold a Superior Org Image.

                      Yet that time isn’t nigh.

                      Right now in my opinion we have to get *quantity* up first before we work on *quality* or we’ll never get anything going.

                      As far as I’m concerned with that Government Approved *Squirrel Group* over there we are basically back at square one.


                    • Geezuz, your leaps astound me, Robin. Kinda like popping in these “added inapplicables”? Like, who’s running roughshod? I don’t recall that even being part of the conversation. I’m just saying we keep a standard. YOU can go loose with the tech, and you can justify and rationalize it all you like, but if it’s not being kept in in the orgs, and it’s not being kept in in the field, who’s keeping the tech in and standard, then? Just because an auditor makes mistakes and flubs as he’s learning (which is fine and expected) is no reason to lower the standards on the way up – for professional auditors. Wake up and realize that it is up to each one of us to maintain that superior image as otherwise it just won’t work and the level of gains just won’t be had as LRH envisioned.

                      “Where does Standard Tech begin? What is it?

                      It is the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT. The exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route.

                      So the net result of all of this is that when it is not standard he will have had some gain; it’s not all bad, but he’ll also have not achieved his full gain.

                      And the difference between some gain and the difference between that and full gain, is the difference between wobbly-bobbly tech and very standard, precise tech.” LRH

                      Class VIII TAPE 2, 25 September 1968, “WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES”

                    • I’m not making any leap of logic. All I’m saying is that being too militant as in riding roughshod is not constructive.

                      Also I suggest you leave any discussion about my technical standards which by the way are quite high personally.

                      Just ask my PCs.

                      At the door or I’ll point out the relevant point in the Ethics and Justice Codes about besmirching an auditor’s technical reputation.

                      Now I suggest you read and review the following HCOB:

                      Invalidation is a serious button.
                      When a Class VIII goes home, he is, of course, a better auditor.
                      He can and will crash all stats in the area if he charges around invalidating all auditors not so fortunate as to be an VIII.
                      STANDARD TECH Clarifying what Standard Tech is:
                      An Auditor correctly auditing the materials of his class is performing Standard Tech.
                      Standard Tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing.
                      For example, one runs a process to its end phenomena. One lists by L & N laws. One sees that a question reads before auditing it. One audits with TRs in. One follows the Auditor’s Code. One repairs any ARC Break or gets it repaired. One doesn’t kid around and coffee shop with processes. One gets trained for the grade he is auditing. One uses study tech. One checks out HCO Bs correctly. That sort of thing is Standard Tech.
                      Any process ever taught on the SHSBC or ever released in ANY book can be audited and be Standard Tech.
                      Standard Tech cancelled no certs or classes or processes.
                      If you check a process question to see if it reads and run it to its F/N and other end phenomena following the rules of auditing, that’s Standard Tech.
                      Basically, Standard Tech was a way of auditing following the rules of auditing as listed above.
                      There are ways to C/S for maximum case gain but these vary and advance. __________
                      Remember, stats of an area can be crashed if an VIII begins to invalidate every auditor junior to him or the C/Sing.
                      The stats of an area can be made to soar by an VIII who helpfully guides others into respecting the basic rules of auditing.
                      When an VIII returns to an area these things should happen:
                      1. Enthusiasm of auditors for auditing pcs should increase. 

                      2. Volume of auditing hours delivered should soar. 

                      3. New people should be clamoring to become auditors.
                      4. Training speed per student should quicken. 

                      5. Respect for correct auditing as noted above should increase. 

                      6. People not getting results should be guided into correct application for their grade. 

                      7. Auditing results should increase per session. 

                      8. Auditing and training should boom in popularity. 

                      Now review what you know of auditing as an HDG and VIII and you will find you have been taught how to do all the above.
                      In studying VIII keep your eye on how to get the above eight things going in your area with what you now know. You won’t be able to make VIIIs out of HDCs or Class IVs or VIs but you sure can make terrific HDCs, IVs and VIs out of them.
                      That’s why you’re an VIII.
                      LRH :jz.ei.rd
Copyright © 1970
by L. Ron Hubbard
                      L. RON HUBBARD Founder

                    • Robin, this is really going off the rails. I didn’t besmirch your reputation (touchy) nor your tech (jumping the gun again), but I did point out that from the rationalizations in your comments, you don’t seem to want to keep a standard when it comes to professional auditor training, and I’ll show you which level of Ethics Review that is if you like. Now, if you knock of the crap and get your head out from your arse you might be able to see what I’m saying. If not, then there’s no communication occurring. Capice? So prove me wrong and show me how you can keep tech in in the field we have today.

                    • Damn straight I’m touchy on this point. Having seen the damage caused by Auditor Inval first hand.

                      The HCOPL Field Auditing and Field Auditors Rights cover auditing in the field. You expect “Professional” standards from the Field than I’m not the only one who has a their cranium blocking their rectum.

                      My point is to get auditing occurring first as it as per C/S Series 31:

                      C/S Series 31
                      There are three important areas of technical application:
                      1. Auditing Cases.
                      2. Case Supervising Cases.
                      3. Programming Cases.
                      Auditing generally should be gotten into an org on the routine basis of:
                      1. Get
                      2. Get
                      3. Get
                      4. Get
                      5. Get
                      6. Get
                      Auditing V olume UP . Auditing Quality UP . C/Sing V olume UP . C/Sing Quality UP . Programming V olume UP . Programming Quality UP .
                      To do it in any other sequence is to organize before producing or to inhibit production. Auditing quality is raised by getting in Cramming and getting Cramming done.
                      C/S quality is raised by C/S study of cases and the Qual Sec Cramming the C/S.
                      Programming quality is raised by getting FESes done so that the action does not block production and Cramming or Programming and then studying the case to make the Programming more real and effective.

                      You work on quality first and you have the *out point* of out sequence.

                      Yes it would be nice to have fully standard course rooms that apply WIAC but we don’t have them in most areas right now.

                      So what would be a viable solution that conforms to the policies on training auditors which BTW have not been canceled or modified per the HCOPL Policy; Source of.

                      Not that it can’t or shouldn’t be done.

                      That in my opinion is using policy to stop.

                    • Morning, Robin. Coming up for air? LOL

                      “The HCOPL Field Auditing and Field Auditors Rights cover auditing in the field. You expect « Professional » standards from the Field than I’m not the only one who has a their cranium blocking their rectum.”

                      So I guess, being a field auditor, that means you don’t have to keep professional standards then? Well, that explains it! But seriously, the real point is, there is no “org” holding the standard; “we” have become that, or adopted that hat, by bypass or otherwise, whether MS2, APIS, or any functioning group any professional field auditor out here. The rest of the FZ (and the CoS to some degree) are the ones we don’t expect to hold standards. So no, that policy doesn’t fit now, not in this current scene. Besides, KSW and other policies also apply, including the HCOBs you and I have referenced here.

                      (P.S., it’s “then”, not “than”; they get grammatically confused.)

                      Re C/S Series 31, that presupposes there is an HGC and auditors and an org there already. Not wholly applicable in this instance and so taken out of context. Good reference, though. Besides, auditing is already occurring. And in many instances, with quality. It’s the area of training that needs to be beefed up or created, and I see no reason that should not be held to a definite level or degree of quality that is proper and adequate for the purpose of professional auditor training. Amateur auditing, book auditing, co-audits or solo, well, if they only want partial gains, then let them have at it.

                    • Chris,

                      I agree that we as professional auditors, those of us who have audited professionally in have to keep a standard despite the Organization.

                      Like you I refused to audit like it says in the Golden Age of Tech and held my position until at some point it became an exercise in futility and no one was going to read my reports on how out tech and off policy it was.

                      That said we have a bunch of people who want to get trained and we have to accommodate them somehow.

                      This is why I posted “What?No Auditors?”. Here Ron says all you got to do is get two people who want to audit and have each other check each other out on the materials and drill and we’ll be able to make a few good maybe not great auditors.

                      Meanwhile all us pro auditors can bust each others chops about being standard and applying KSW and all that.

                      Also we can hold that Superior Org Image (even though we don’t a real org yet but more of a network) like Ron says to do in the RED of that title.

                      In other words we can lead by example.

                      That’s the way I see it.

                    • Thanks, Robin. I agree that we should lead by example. That’s why it is vitally important to maintain standards and not downgrade any aspect of the tech, including training. It might be more difficult, but it’s not impossible. If we don’t do it, who will? Definitely not the FZ, just by empirical observation!

                      Anyway, to discuss your view on that policy:

                      I don’t see where Ron says “all you got to do is get two people who want to audit and have each other check each other out on the materials and drill”. In fact, he doesn’t say this at all and the closest he comes is:

                      “We have run highly prosperous orgs in the ‘50s with which the public was very, very happy, using auditors who were not one-tenth as well trained as those you would make just by getting the materials and a couple of guys down to it.”

                      But that can’t be taken out of context and without understanding the rest of the policy, in which he continually states training is done in a WIAC course room with a course supervisor. So really, that policy won’t work here, in getting training being done. Maybe LRH ED 306 INT, Making Auditors, could help.

                      Also, I don’t see a whole bunch of people clamoring to become auditors. Where are they? Who are they? Paul mentioned having that as a purpose at one time; Lana is doing it. Where’s this mob who want to get trained? I think the real item here is how to make Solo Auditors. That, and hooking pcs up with auditors.

                      Seems a lot of pcs are in cities with orgs, but aren’t with the church anymore. Some are not near orgs at all. Whichever, if I was a pc keen and intent on making it up the Bridge, I’d find out who was a top-notch auditor and go get audited wherever they are. And for those wanting to get onto solo training, that does need to be worked out (although I send my pcs/pre-OTs to facilities that can deliver a standard Solo Auditor course).

                      I think we need to identify what products we want, and those seem to be: solo auditor training; training for one’s own edification (they could study the BC if they wanted); Book Auditor and Amateur training; professional training in a course room to become a professional auditor. Maybe more, might be condensed. I’m just speaking off the top of my head. The point is, if we identify where we want to go, we can figure out the logistics to get there and how we can keep a standard in.

                    • Chris,

                      I don’t see that there really has any big push for training but every once in a while I get a PC or Pre OT who wishes they could get trained.

                      We got groups around here but they are not that easy to get to so usually the idea fades out etc.

                      Solo I & II. Same thing.

                      My Pre OTs have done solo so there is no problem there and my PCs aren’t near that level yet but are getting there so somehow at some point I’m going to have to work it out like maybe set up a course room myself.

                      Thus it was a point of interest with me when Paul mentioned it.

                    • I hear ya! Definitely different than driving 20 mins or so to get to the local org, be it on Homer and Hastings or the LA Org. Well, the materials are all available; just need the demand. Meanwhile, what about Training Clinics?

                    • We’ve got Helen Chen’s and the one you went to way out in the Antelope Valley.

                      Both pretty far from Glendale. Someone started one in LA but it never went anywhere.

                      Now we got a couple of field auditors who will go to the student.

                      I have a friend who is a Course Supervisor who I send to do basic courses when I need them done. But nothing really stable right now.

                    • I forgot about Helen Chen’s Academy. While she mostly supervises Korean students, they are doing well and are a big group, I hear. The one I went to is gone now. Roy passed away and Scotty moved north. Too bad, it was a good group.

                      There’s a group in the mid-west I’m looking at sending people to, as well as The Courseroom down in Florida. Most of my pcs, outside some NOTs public, are below Clear, and two are approaching the point where they’ll need to look at doing Solo training. It’s probably going to be the only training they’ll have (outside of Pro TRs and basic courses at their local church before they left). That’s why I’m looking at ensuring a standard line-up for them so that they get full gains on the OT levels.

                      What Randy and Tim are doing is an interesting concept, and for upper level training, it’s worth it. I’ve read some good wins and results from Randy’s work. So maybe there are different levels we can look at, much like extension courses, basic course, and the Academy in orgs.

                    • Helen’s group is actually Taiwanese.

                      Ya I know, I know. All them orientals look a like 😉

                      Nice group of people there. Used to go to their graduations and that.

                      Hellen and Helmut are pretty busy with their own public but they do take some LA public.

                      The fact that they’re in a gated community keeps them pretty safe from the depredations of OSA but makes it difficult for the average person to access them.

                      Too bad about Roy. Nice guy. Didn’t know Scotty headed north.

                      Yeah Randy and Tim’s roving academy seems to be working out for them which is good.

                      Extension courses is a good plan. Good for basic books and VM and Demo and Assists as well.

                      I think we’ll get something going once the demand increases then we’ll be forced to do something.

                    • Yeh, Taiwanese. That’s what it was. Used to C/S for her group and helped make a Class IV C/S for them. Gung-ho, for sure. Big reach as well.

                      Extension courses is a great idea. Only thing, is, when both APIS and another group offered them, I think there were only two sold over the course of a few years. Personally, seems that it’s easier for many to be an “armchair Scientologist” and not risk anything in order to train or even sometimes move up the Bridge.

                      However, I’m willing to be wrong as a Class VIII friend of mine just told me they have pcs coming for auditing from Argentina, Guatemala, Germany, Portugal, and of course, the USA. That seems like some pretty good reach there.

                    • I guess that’s our lot in life. We can urge ’em to get trained or they can even cognite that they should.

                      But as they say you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make ’em drink.

                      The difference is that when I got into Scientology training was promoted heavily and auditors were considered the most valuable beings on the planet.

                      Also co-auditing was heavily promoted as well as the most economical means of getting up the Grade Chart.

                      Nowadays at least in the Church they are looked on as merely technicians of some kind.

                      Also somehow they’ve managed to make getting HGC “auditing” by quickieing the grades cheaper than training in the Academy.

                      No real gains faster!

                      They only reserve co-audits for objectives which is the only thing that takes forever now due to all kindsa arbitraries.

                      Then of course there are the endless “eligibility” sec checks to make sure one has paid their taxes and not looked at the internet that can only be delivered by SO.

                      Super Power which according to all directives I read when I was at NWC was supposed be delivered to Staff first and was not necessarily an action that everyone would need can only be delivered by SO.

                      I mean if one was really suspicious they’d think that current management was intentionally trying to destroy the subject while making as money as they can before the whole place collapses.

                    • I think that if the CoS had just continued to push training and co-auditing, as per the references you and I have been bandying about, we wouldn’t be in this fine mess, Ollie. Management began to push auditing for the GI stat, and turned the church into a clinic as opposed to something that could change conditions. It went from Cause to Effect and then sec checked everything at effect, which, as you know, collapses the case in on one.

                      As you say, “if one was really suspicious they’d think that current management was intentionally trying to destroy the subject.”

                    • I agree Chris.

                      If the Church had just continued to push training as Ron says to do in Booming the Org Through Training.

                      You be bitching about your C/S load and I’d nattering about the number of Reviews I had to do which would consist of mainly SRLs, Rems A&B and the occasional GF on some Free Scn Center PC.

                      Jim would be whining about all the cramming cycles he had to do.

                      While Lana would be wondering who she pissed off to end up being the Qual Sec over us 😉

                      Too bad a bunch of snot nosed kids with delusions of grandeur had to crash the party and turn the place into a clinic lead by heir Dockter Dave the mad psyche with his SRA shock machine.

                      You’d think they’d have a cognition that it seems the number of “Sec Checks” they do is proportional to the number of people they piss off but maybe that is exactly the “result” they want.

                      Funny just as something to do I was going over the list of high crimes that management has committed from the beginning since taking over starting with Mutiny, doing something else and calling it Scientology, altering tech etc. etc. and as Shermy the repressed Romance Novelist would say that if any one interested party had done ’em they’d be declared “for real”.

                      As far as I’m concerned the Organization has slipped far below the level of Treason covered in the Promotional Actions of an Org.

                      The only thing that would save ’em now if they were interested is to actually apply the confusion formula for the group and find out what they are.

                      Because they ain’t a Scientology Organization that’s for sure!

                    • ROFL…I have to laugh at that image, Robin. The three of us – you, me, Jim – sitting in Qual detention or the “principal’s office”, Lana tapping her foot, shaking her finger. Hell, reminds me of a time I met Reggie Caldwell, when she was the VIII I/C Int, in one of the stairwells at AOLA. (I heard later she had been looking for me. For me?) When se saw me, she said, “Black, you’re a loose cannon!” I replied, “Reggie, you’re a pit bull. That makes us even!”. Good thing she liked me. lol

                      Anyway, funny image, Robin. A great one. And yeh, I agree, we’d all still be there, shoulders to the wheel, midnight oil burning, happy as pigs in….a pigpen. That hole in my 3D is huge and I really feel it.

                      But I agree with your take on it and how far south it got. I figure next life I’m gonna come back as a ninja or sharpshooter and gonna find me some varmints, if’n they still be around.

                    • Sorta like the one and only and last time ever I ever red tagged a PC after session.

                      The Snr C/S Comm came to the auditor admin and said “Sandy would like to see yooooou.”

                      Like maybe she was gonna congratulate me on getting the red tag off per 86RD but I didn’t think so.

                      Anyway I get to Sandy’s office and the first thing she said to me was in her Aussie:

                      “Adair. You fucked up!”

                      She said ” I’d you were just any other auditor I’d handle you with ethics but what I want you to do is a retread and take the PC back in again and this time do it right!!!!”

                      So I literally “burned the midnight oil” took the PC back in and did Sandy’s brillant C/S and all was well but after that I never red tagged a PC again for fear of the wrath of Sandy 😉

                    • Heh heh heh. Sounds kinda harsh for just a red tag. But….one day I’ll tell you the story of when I double-red-tagged a PC, on my VIII internship and the fallout from that. And in which you played a part, unbeknownst to you! LOL

                      Those were the days.

                    • Not just any ol’ red tag. Ol’ buddy. But an after session Red Tag which directly affects the F/N VGIs percentage which was Sandy’s stat.

                      That and probably the fact that the case cracking unit was supposed to take Red Tags off not put ’em on.

                      She expected a higher level of competence from those of us who audited her reviews than anyone else.

                      Aside from that one incident was the street cred in the HGC of auditing directly for a XII C/S.

                      Now ya got me intrigued…

                      About this lil’ drama I played an unknowing part in 😉

                    • Isn’t that the only kind of red tag there is? That counts? What other kinds of red tag would an auditor worry about?

                    • Roller Coaster Tags usually don’t affect that stat since it only counts on F/Ns or lack there of after session.

                      The only time those affect the Qual/Tech stats is if they are not handled within 24 hours.

                      Ref: C/S Series 86RD the Red Tag Line and the PL Examiner.

                    • I know the refs, there buddy. I was Snr C/S at my org for nearly five years. No, I was just referring to the stress on it being an after-session red tag whereas that’s the one I would have thought was being talked about when someone said they red-tagged a pc. Not a R/C hours later red tag. One usually doesn’t get shanghaied over an R/C red tag. Of course, it may have been looked on differently at AOLA.

                    • Chris;

                      After session red tags at AO at the time were verboten.

                      Worse I had got the red tag off with F/N VGIs.Took the PC back in and yellow tagged her.

                      To say Sandy was not amused wpuld be an understatement.

                    • LOL. Well, when I double red-tagged this pc (I wasn’t the only one – she was a hard pc to handle and once I figured it out, she wouldn’t let anyone else audit her; I was even called down from Vancouver by RTC/CMOI to audit her until I finally got that hat turned over!), I had to re-do every exam from St. Hat up through all the levels and NED and all the SHSBC exams and my VIII exam, all re-dos under Ken (examiner). Took days of writing. My hand was limp! BUT – got 100% on all of them! So then they figured I must be glib and so decided to look in and watch my auditing on the look-in system. And that’s where you come in.

                      Remember when I took you in session for an FPRD C/L? Well, I found out later that Harry Schmiedeke (Div 4 HGC C/S), Barbara Tompkins (from uplines at that time), Roz (Snr C/S AOLA at the time), Vic (4A/NOTs HGC C/S), Ann Woodruff (Snr Solo C/S), Griffie Howsen (Qual Snr Cram Off), Loretta Hill (Qual Sec AOLA)and some flash cookie from Snr C/S Int office and RTC looked in on that session. And they found that…I was a great auditor with great presence and TRs and metering! LOL Ann later told me they couldn’t find a thing wrong with my auditing. So, I never thanked you. So thank you!

                      What a ride that was!

                    • Hey you’re welcome 🙂

                      “I’m ready for my close up now, Mr DeMille!”

                      Was there anyone in the Tech Hierarchy who wasn’t watching?

                      I’m surprised that they didn’t have it on a live feed to Flag.

                      Sheeesh 🙂

                    • LOL. I imagine it was crowded in there, for sure! I miss Harry. He was a good bud from Vancouver. Did you know him up there? Anyway, I heard he was out of the SO now. Like to see what he’s up to these days.

                    • Knew both Harry and Harvey who we used to ride with back in the ’90s.

                      Too bad about Harvey. Heard from Al Keaton that he died of a heart attack while scuba diving off the coast here.

                      Harvey was the one who talked me into auditing and Personell programing his staff in the GO when I was in Qual and he was the AG there.

                      Seems I was one of the few people he trusted in an Office who’s motto was “Trust No One”. 😉

                    • Yup. Heard about Harvey’s death shortly after it happened. Used to live with him and Leah up in Vancouver. I taught Harvey to ride bikes when I was living in LA and he decided he wanted to learn. He began on a Honda Sabre. Harry and I were good friends as well, hanging out at his apartment after post or on his libs day. I heard he was out of the SO, but still hooked up with the CoS. Hope he’s doing well.

                    • Harvey did a gig as a WISE consultant. Actually the one of the few I liked because he wasn’t a “suit” like most of ’em

                      Used to ride to his clients on his Soft Tail wearing a black leather jacket, T-Shirt, jeans and motorcycle boots with an earring 😉

                      Harvey had style 🙂

                      I remember a time when he, Leah, Penny, Al and I were going on a ride and I think Harv over filled the oil tank because when the oil heated up on his ride the oil cap got launched.

                      Anyway we found the cap and continued on our merry way but it was funny 🙂

                    • That was the last one I got an email from you from, back in March 2013. Figured it was still good. Ok, forwarded to your gmx account.

                    • Yeah I had several emails to keep OSA guessing 😉

                      Gave up after anonymous posted one of my choice comments about the current management under my actual name on Marty’s blog and I figured out that the Church probably dead filed me.

                    • P.S. As pointed out, we already have auditing occurring in the field, so, as I asked you, show me how you can keep tech in in the field we have today. What ideas do you have to ensure the tech doesn’t get watered down? It’s possible you’ve already stated it in previous posts, but let’s get back to that line of reasoning then, developing workable training in the field, while not downgrading the tech at the same time. That would be a worthwhile accomplishment! 🙂

                      “You can get an infinity of ways to do something wrong. Well work it out for yourself. Start counting up the number of ways to sink a rowboat. Those are all wrongnesses. Now the ways to row a rowboat, if it is a rowboat, not a sculling boat, you can stand up and row it, you can sit down and row it. You can row it with two men, you can row it with one man. But the right way to row a rowboat is to put the oars into the water and apply some energy to the handles, pick the oars out of the water and replace them into the position where they can be reinserted into the water to apply some energy.

                      Now somebody comes along and he says to you, “Yes, well how do you row a rowboat?” “Well, there’s several ways you can row a rowboat, that’s for sure. You can stand up and face the bow, you can sit down and face the stern, you can stand up and face the stern, you can put a man on the right oar and a man on the left oar, you can have two sets of oars.” Sounds like a lot of variables. But let me point out that the oars on the right side and the oars on the left side of the boat are doing exactly the same thing, no matter what arrangement is made. If you’ve got a trireme, a bireme, it doesn’t matter. If you’ve got a life boat, if you’ve got a little fishing dory, you’re doing the same thing in each particular case.

                      Now if you lose sight of the fact that the oar is supposed to go into the water, and push the water back, if you lose sight of that, you may have a great deal of theory, and a great many questions, but the boat won’t go anywhere.

                      That’s normally what happens to science. Somebody finds out about rowing a boat. And then for years and years and years guys add to it, and eventually the rowing of the boat no longer functions. And the boats don’t row any more, and they have to invent an entirely new technology of getting through water.”

                      LRH, Class VIII Tape, Standard Tech Defined

                    • Chris,

                      I think I already covered that in an earlier post but to add to that I think we should apply the policy Organization; The Flaw to the scene.

                      Also the policy which the Organization totally violated when they took out the Mission Network.

                      Franchise and Ethics and us the tech of PR for now until we have a viable organization with an HCO of some kind.

                      Another thing is that we can set up a cramming section where if any auditor is having difficulty or wants to improve their tech can be crammed on those references.

                      Also maybe a FES network where an auditor can send their PC’s folder in so the bug can be found and their tech can be corrected and they can get back on the rails.

                      Things like that 🙂

                    • Chris,

                      I think I already covered that in an earlier post but to add to that I think we should apply the policy Organization; The Flaw to the scene.

                      Also the policy which the Organization totally violated when they took out the Mission Network.

                      Franchise and Ethics and us the tech of PR for now until we have a viable organization with an HCO of some kind.

                      Another thing is that we can set up a cramming section where if any auditor is having difficulty or wants to improve their tech can be crammed on those references.

                      Also maybe a FES network where an auditor can send their PC’s folder in so the bug can be found and their tech can be corrected and they can get back on the rails.

                      Hey Robin,

                      Good points. Late on the chain, though. APIS already attempted this, setting up those functions on its website, and promoting them. I think there was one request for cramming or FESing. This was even after FM even put together a full FES hat with references I supplied him. It was not a “needed and wanted”.

                      What IS successful in these regards (including a functioning Ethics section) is something like Dror, or ROs in Europe. Brick & mortar establishments. I think Lana and MS2 crew have created one, or are creating one; LA should get one, for sure.

                      Geezuz, we had Class VIIIs and XIIs ready (at that time) to review folders assist on tech matters. FESing would require sending folders and that went over like a lead balloon, probably because of all the omitted admin in the folders, which you know what THAT means! (Out-admin=out-tech=out-ethics).

                      You’re right in that we need an org. And there are some that are there but under the radar; some beginning; and others like I mentioned above. It’s a rough scene. And it’s daunting.

                      But I think something like MS2 is doing, networking standard tech auditors, C/Ses, cram offs, EOs, etc. and hooking them up; providing a safe space to communicate in; pushing purpose and creating a retreat where standard tech can be done; these are all moving in the right direction. FM has created checksheets which can be used to move up the Bridge, not to mention assistance on the OT Levels.

                      I think I just got stuck in the mud! lol

                    • Kinda figured that it had been probably been tried and failed but I thought I’d mention it.

                      One thing that makes it difficult is promotion. Many here are operating under the radar and trying to avoid becoming too visible lest they be reported by some good Scientologist which is much like the good German of Nazi Germany these days.

                      Makes it difficult.

                      Thankfully we have something like MS2.

                    • RV: “One thing that makes it difficult is promotion. Many here are operating under the radar and trying to avoid becoming too visible lest they be reported by some good Scientologist which is much like the good German of Nazi Germany these days.”

                      That’s a valid point and very real these days. I’m sure DM has issued directives about how to be a “good Scientologist”. LMAO

                      Re MS2, totally agreed.

                    • I think it’s mostly by bank agreement or the group think Ron talks about in KSW.

                      Also many Churchies are in total terror of having it come up in one of their many sec checks that they are associated to “squirrels” or some kind of splinter group.

                      Just to see the fear in their eyes when you run into them and they ask you what you are doing these days and you tell ’em that you are off lines is something to behold.

                      They either leave or talk about the weather.

                    • RV: “Just to see the fear in their eyes when you run into them and they ask you what you are doing these days and you tell ‘em that you are off lines is something to behold.

                      They either leave or talk about the weather.”

                      Yeh, never could fathom that. It’s like they never really got the EP of Grade 0 or the Pro TRs. Guess they’re afraid of being sucked into some vortex of oblivion or something.

                    • Yeah my assessment is that there are a lot of By Passed cases in the Church these days. Either O/R or Underrun on lower grades.

                      I remember reading a SS in the Source mag of an “OT VIII” that said she felt more like herself.

                      An EP you’d expect on LXs maybe but OT VIII?


                    • Definitely not the Wins & Successes of the early days. Man, the Advance! mag of the 70s was awesome!

                    • Ah yes the good ol’days when OT Phenomena went beyond finding one’s keys.

                      I remember when the GO used to brief us on what was going on at SRI. Definitely a Psychic Paradigm shift back then compared to now.

                    • Harvey was my part-time Purif babysitter as I was the only one on it back in the early 80s. Harry did my LX, still one of the very best RDs I ever had … awfully powerful stuff.

          • What were the pre-reqs on this checksheet, FM? If I’m not mistaken, one had to be a NED or Class 0 auditor, thus one would (should) already be proficient at metering.

            • PREREQUISITES:

              1. The HUBBARD QUALIFIED SCIENTOLOGIST COURSE (HQS), or certified on a professional auditor training course (i. e., Academy Level Zero or above).

              2. The Student Hat.

              3. A TRs Course.

              4. ARC SW and Grades 0-IV each run to full EP with Ability Gained for each Grade with good Success Stories. (All Expanded Grades processes run, if necessary, to achieve this.) (The exception being if the person went Clear on NED prior to completing Expanded Grades.)

              5. Has gone Clear on NED auditing, with CCRD done and the State of Clear verified—and has completed the SUNSHINE RUNDOWN.


              Has completed Expanded Grades through Exp. Grade IV and has completed NED auditing (but without having gone Clear on NED). (Ref: HCOPL 2 Oct. 83 Solo Course Part One, Prerequisites)

              • Thanks, FM. But this can’t be from the 1979 checksheet as the CCRD didn’t come out until 1985 I believe. This is a revised and updated part of the Solo 1 checksheet, right?

                Whatever, at one time one had to be at least a NED or Class 0 auditor. That later was rescinded and revised, and, IMO, wrongfully so. One should be an accomplished NED auditor minimum before going onto the Solo Grades.

            • Yes, I had done the Level 0 in the org some 20 years ago, drilling also EMs just ONCE through on it, then audited a pc to VWDs … on the whole grade, ARC Straightwire plus Level 0 … approx. 40 hours … all to VWDs. And that was an early 90’s checksheet, don’t recall which one. No EMs 22/25 on it though.

              • I believe you’re right re the Level 0 checksheet not containing EM 22 and EM 25, FM. And as we’ve discussed, those two drills are definitely a necessity for OT III.

            • I did start the Solo Auditor’s course back in early 1995 at the org and was some ways through it (primarily the 7 basic books to be read as prereqs.) when they came out with another new Solo Auditor’s checksheet comprised of some 55+ pages and insisted I do that checksheet from the start. I just quit, unbelievable bloat. Some guys were on it for almost a year and a half, and for others it was the third time (version) through, cancelling the 2 earlier ones. That’s when I cogged on the hamster wheel.

              • GAT I, Solo NOTs Part “A” was a 119-page checksheet rehashing the Solo Auditor’s I course at FLAG, and you’d have to do all the silly offbeat GAT to-the-wall drilling too.

                • Yeah or as they call it “New” OT VI. Honest to god. I couldn’t believe it when I found out that what they were calling “OT VI” was basically a rehash of the Solo Course.

                  Eddie are you kidding!

                  (from Frank Zappa and the Mother’s Just Another Band from LA.)

                  I mean how surreal is that?

                  • Well, in reality, New OT VI always had three parts to it, three checksheets: Part A; Part B; and, Part C. Part A was always a refresher of Solo 1 and personally, I agree with that – if one was proficient at solo auditing, it would not be a long cycle, perhaps a few days. Part B got into more of the NOTs data and specific Solo NOTs drills. Part C was auditing on the level. When one was sent home, one was on New OT VII, Solo NOTs. However, a 119-page checksheet, even with the wide spacing used, sounds overkill, especially when one would also have to do silly GAT drills.

                    • Chris: Part A was always a refresher of Solo 1 and personally, I agree with that – if one was proficient at solo auditing, it would not be a long cycle, perhaps a few days.

                      That’s how the GAT II version of it is now promoted … back to pure LRH of 60’s SHSBC era taking under 1 week to complete.

                    • Chris: Covering his/their tracks?

                      I’m sure they realized at some point after GAT I they had fooked up. Give it nearly 18 years though you might be able to get away with it via attrition, blows, SP declares, etc. and then introducing the next GAT II line-up. They called it “Phase II” and cancelled your “Phase I” training and certs. They knew it had to be a near death blow, esp. with all the negative press going on at the same time too. Explains why many have just coasted off CO$ lines and staying away, also to shake off the obnoxious reging militia. I never imagined it could ever have come to this, nearly unthinkable.

                    • “I never imagined it could ever have come to this, nearly unthinkable.”

                      You and me both, buddy, you and me both. As the saying goes, “We’re not in Kansas any more.” :-/

                    • Personally I think they make too big of a deal renaming it an actual level in itself since basically all it is is prepping someone to audit themselves on NOTs.

                      I don’t remember any point where Ron assigned this preliminary action a level and designating as such has caused a *tech degrade*. Just as calling what was originally called the OT DRD “New” OT IV.

                      Originally it was known as NOTs and Solo NOTs.

                    • Fair enough. Although, they did need some kind of course before sending someone complete on NOTs onto Solo NOTs. But no need to bloat it, I think we’re all in agreement there. 🙂

                    • Yeah well I think it’s the typical “one size fits all” mentality they have these days and not distinguishing between trained auditors and the holi poli 😉

                    • As I said, there’s ways around that. As most people moving onto the OT levels ARE untrained, the checksheet should require enough material to make a competent solo auditor, including 3X through the drills (all drills, including EM drills). Trained auditors could be allowed to sign off up to two times leaving still one time through (I see no issue with that, do you?) and then the theory. When I did my Solo 1 Course, as I mentioned, my wife and I were allowed to sign off two times through on the drills, plus any books we had studied on other courses. But we still had to demonstrate competence, thus the one time through drills and supervisor spot checks. 🙂

                    • I don’t see anything wrong with that. Remember you had to do each meter drill on each level and Dns whether you did them or not. From what I remember Fast Flow doesn’t include skipping the drills.

                      Re putting a lot of extra material on course. I’d be for it if it was actually relevant. From what I’ve seen on what they are calling the “Solo” course these days. Much of it is totally irrelevant to what data a solo auditor needs to audit.

                      I mean why so much attention on the Laws of L&N for example?

                      Knowing how to list is not needed on Solo to III and can get one into trouble on R6EW.

                      Two way comm refs? What for?

                      Things like Auditing by Lists and being able to read a meter so no items are missed.

                      Personally while giving solo auditors more data than they need which is in many cases enough to get ’em into trouble.

                      Then they skimp on the solo drills. I mean if there are drills that should be gone through several times. It is those!

                      Yet I think it’s only five Xs through the basic emeter drills which is silly if you don’t include the Solo drills as well.

                    • Yes. True enough. It should be relevant and all drills should be done to competence. I agree.

                      There is one occurrence on III where listing might need to be done, although it more than likely is rare. Besides, L&N data can provide a deeper understanding of what is going on. IMO.

                      Anyway, bottom line is, a valid and standard Solo Auditor Course is needed that results in totally competent solo auditors. Me, though, I keep referring to LRH where he says one’s case hangs up at one’s training level, as well as 50% of gains come from training and 50% from doing (from LRH ED 258-1 Int, Reasons To Get Trained).

                    • Chris,

                      Personally I think the instructions of Aug 69 are good enough.

                      You make it too complicated and you end up with something like Excalibur.

                      Personally I think if somebody gets into a situation of listing on III then they need the review action named after that town in Italy.

                      Er ….Chris ….let’s get off this subject of advanced grades so we don’t say something that we regret.

                    • Trust me anything involving listing can get overly complicated if it’s screwed up.

                      But yes another time and another place. Like maybe CBTL when you’re back down here.

                    • Flying ruds and calling F/Ns can get overly complicated – see GAT drills. Listing isn’t complicated, but not knowing the Laws of L&N can bring about errors that can seriously upset a case. Luckily, LRH always figured out how to correct tech errors when he was developing the tech. Nice to have that Qual function to hand. 🙂

                    • One is being made complicated the other can become complicated all by itself per C/S Series 78 and Law 20.

                      IMHO much of the upset we are seeing surrounding the subject has to with list errors of one kind or another.

                      Particularly wrong whys “like the blind leading the blind” etc.

                    • “One is being made complicated the other can become complicated all by itself per C/S Series 78 and Law 20.”

                      O, ye of little faith!

                      “IMHO much of the upset we are seeing surrounding the subject has to with list errors of one kind or another.”

                      I don’t agree. At all.

                    • I suggest reviewing the SHs lecture on R210 and 12.

                      True I’ve seen many spectacular results from L&N but I’ve had to correct some spectacular screw ups as well.

                      BTW did you ever see the movie The Case He Couldn’t Crack?

                    • RV: “I suggest reviewing the SHs lecture on R210 and 12.”

                      Those techniques herald from 1962, Robin; same with 3GAXX. The Laws of L&N came out in 1968 along with new understanding and revelations in regards to listing and nulling. I suggest you review r2-12 in relation to later breakthroughs on the tech. But perhaps this is the middle ground we are both talking about, just from different vectors:

                      “Listing and nulling are highly precise auditing actions and if not done exactly by the laws may bring about a down tone and slow case gain, but if done correctly exactly by the laws and with good auditing in general will produce the highest gains attainable.” LRH

                      RV: “BTW did you ever see the movie The Case He Couldn’t Crack?”

                      Long ago, I think it was 1980 or ’81 when I saw it last. Do you have a copy?

                    • True but the phenomena observed in those lectures is still observable today.

                      Remember C/S Series 2.

                      I wish we had a copy. I thought it was a damn good movie.

                    • RV: Personally I think they make too big of a deal renaming it an actual level in itself since basically all it is is prepping someone to audit themselves on NOTs.

                      That’s why they called it Part “A”. We don’t have the original “A” 1981 checksheet, but folks I had spoken to said it was merely a quick refresh of the Solo Auditor’s Course which took just a few days, mostly a checkout type action to make sure the Solo NOTs auditor knows his stuff, since the overwhelming majority of pre-OTs arriving at FLAG did the Solo Auditor’s Course at a lower orgs. When they turned it into a 119-page bloatfest, they missed the whole point of the “A” part. The original was not a retraining action, but a re-familiarize and checker-outer.

                    • FM,

                      This was the only reply button I could find on the thread so gawd knows were it’ll end up but to:

                      RV: Personally I think they make too big of a deal renaming it an actual level in itself since basically all it is is prepping someone to audit themselves on NOTs.
                      That’s why they called it Part “A”. We don’t have the original “A” 1981 checksheet, but folks I had spoken to said it was merely a quick refresh of the Solo Auditor’s Course which took just a few days, mostly a checkout type action to make sure the Solo NOTs auditor knows his stuff, since the overwhelming majority of pre-OTs arriving at FLAG did the Solo Auditor’s Course at a lower orgs. When they turned it into a 119-page bloatfest, they missed the whole point of the “A” part. The original was not a retraining action, but a re-familiarize and checker-outer.

                      Probably around the time they extended the 6 month check to take over 6 months when before it was just a quick D of P and maybe a short Rev or Cram cycle.

                      I’m surprised they didn’t throw in the kitchen sink……wait a minute….ok there it is on page 90.

                      I stand corrected.

                      Personally I think a lot of the problem with these Pre OTs taking forever on NOTs aside from being suppressed and PTS and all that is that they’ve never done 7EP and IIIX.

                      7 would probably help because the ashtray probably has more intention than some of these people on the level.

                      My god we had a couple from the Theetie Wheatie Committee trying to sell me and my wife on the basics. One who was allegedly “OT 8”.

                      Aside from their TRs being totally out especially 4 where they totally ignored any originations was the fact that they weren’t even there.

                      I mean we moved both their bodies outside the door and they didn’t notice it until we slammed it in their face and went back to watching Sons of Anarchy or something 😉

                    • RV: Probably around the time they extended the 6 month check to take over 6 months when before it was just a quick D of P and maybe a short Rev or Cram cycle.

                      Yup hear, fully agree on these points. 🙂

                      And yes, “7EP and IIIX” can make the difference. Intention is a tool.

                    • RV: Personally I think they make too big of a deal renaming it an actual level in itself since basically all it is is prepping someone to audit themselves on NOTs.

                      It’s almost, but not quite there …. pretty similar to the ACS course done solo. Only about a difference of approx. 6 NOTs Series HCOB between the courses. All lists and repair actions are the same. But Solo NOTs also its own HCOBS and corresponding applications not found on the ACS course. I’ve compiled both courses, so I speak from the work I have directly done with them. But then … I don’t consider Solo NOTs rocket science, a little more sophisticated and complicated than OT III, but not by all that much. Just my own take of it.

                    • RV: Probably around the time they extended the 6 month check to take over 6 months when before it was just a quick D of P and maybe a short Rev or Cram cycle.

                      A 1984 Flag Advance Magazine advertised the soon-to-be-released OT IX on the Freewinds. That was 30 years ago, still no word when, only dangling carrots peppered with moving goalposts, nothing definite. Either Rathbun is right and they don’t have higher OT Levels above VIII, or LRH actually had definite requirements the management has not clearly communicated to us. In either case, outpoints. All the sec checking, 6-months checks, GAT & redos, arbitrarily adding “The Basics”, etc. obviously serve financial interests. But they are also losing their advanced public when there is nothing else to go for than merry go-arounds. Although many of those haven’t done any extensive training, that has to some extent been sabotaged by reges lieing in wait keeping the public out of the orgs, undermining that avenue too.

                      Everything tells me their O/Ws and W/Hs are catching up with them, their feet solidly locked to the brake, stopping things, but let’s get all the money while we can. Well, KSW says it all right on the first page.

                    • FM: “KSW says it all right on the first page.”

                      That policy was way ahead of its time in many respects. It definitely nails the current scene.

                      Re the upper OT levels, I believe LRH that there were many (up to 23 unreleased OT levels, in one issue) that were researched and in note form. It’s possible they weren’t completed or that NOTs changed the focus – or not. There’s still Route 1 and 2 and other early OT processes. However, I believe it likely (given that OT VIII itself was re-written three times) that any notes were destroyed, lost, or are buried deep in some archives somewhere. Sadly, they probably won’t see the light of day.

                • Doing that checksheet would have driven me around the bend and probably successfully interiorized me to boot. Glad I did mine when I did, back in 1990. Poor guys nowadays. 😦

                  • One of Dr. Denk’s Partners … forgot her name … was on it full time for over 4 months … lol. (Keeping in mind this is a rehash of the Solo I Auditor’s Course.)

                    • Was it Meagan Shields?

                      Yeh, that would have made me puke, too. Wrong-way to. As that famous song goes (respect to Isaac Hayes, you left too soon, but you were PTS):

                      “He’s a complicated man
                      But no one understands him but his women

                    • Chris: Was it Meagan Shields?

                      Yeah, I think it was her. Someone posted that on the Rinderblog. I was never around how really bad it had gotten to, most of it I heard from out here.

              • I vaguely recall that new Solo Auditor’s Course checksheet, and at 55+ pages, that one was definitely bloated. Beyond that, however, is the violation of policy in removing you from the checksheet you were on and forcing you to do the new one, from the beginning. LRH strictly forbade that. Of course, as we know, orders and issues from DM and cohorts (including RTC, CMOI and RTRC) didn’t mind going off-policy.

        • Paul,

          I haven’t read all the responses to you on this thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but some simple Reach & Withdraw on the meter and meter accessories would do wonders. And it’s a simple process which you can do on each other.


          • CB:

            I must have made the meter a more imposing object in what I said than it actually is to me. It’s just another gizmo. I’ve been taking stuff like that apart most of my life to see how it works.

            Lana asked who wanted to be an auditor, and
            for itsa on the subject. I replied with what I ran into on the WCers course when I asked a question the supes couldn’t answer regarding meter reads and F/Ns. The result was that I never became a WCer or an auditor.

            Yeah, if I felt uncomfortable with a meter, I would certainly R/W with it (after I took it apart to figure out how it works [kidding]).


            • “(after I took it apart to figure out how it works…)” LOL. I totally grok you on that, Paul. I like doing that too. Ask my dad about the toaster I took apart when I was a kid (and “forgot” to put back together – lucky he was an engineer! lol).

              Ok, I got it now. And I re-read your post and yup, those supes just didn’t know what to do or how to answer a simple question. You should have been in my course room when I was a supe…I would have made you into a damn fine auditor! lol

              I hope you achieve your original purpose along this line. My best wishes for it coming true for you. 🙂


              • Taking the meter apart ain’t much of a problem. Putting it back together. Now that requires some skill 🙂

                Same as Chris said. If you were in my course room I’d find you the refs and I wouldn’t let you out of the course room lessen you were VGIs on running a meter and could do it blind folded 🙂

              • CB:

                Thanks. My mom to this day won’t let me forget one of the first things I took apart– a tape recorder which was working before I took it apart. I was probably eight years old or something. But I never stopped doing it, and these days I’m pretty good at diagnosing what’s wrong with gizmos (and sometimes even fixing them) without taken things apart.

                As for supes, oh man we had some terrible ones in Austin, including the SSO. We had the Academy and Basic Courses and staff all under one supe. And the first of them was from Brooklyn. The guy was so antagonistic that I’m surprised we managed to keep any of the Basic Courses students on course.

                Anyway, thanks for the encouragement.


                • Anything I can do to help, Paul. Lana’s got my email or I can send it to you if you ever need anything. I’ve been in Tech and Qual for most of the almost 40 years I’ve been in Scientology, and have a sane, service-oriented perspective, and am a stickler for standard tech. So if you need anything that will help get you up the Bridge, let me know.


  4. Paul,

    Another recommendation regarding the meter is do some Dianetic Auditing per the HCO BULLETIN OF 3 APRIL 1966 DIANETIC AUDITING COURSE.

    Another thing is to apply the Chapter in POW about getting familiar with tools of the trade.

    Then of course there is EM-1 which is basically the same thing.

    Another one is mentioned in the original EM Essentials about doing things like playing catch with the meter. Some of us auditors used to do that sometimes just for the hell of it.

    *Recommend that it be done in a plush carpeted area 😉

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s