by Pazooter

Recently, and far from the first time, I wanted to share the writings of my favourite piece  of LRH tech – the Data Series. And once again I was hit with the hard reality that Ron wrote the series in such a context that it would be hard to comprehend by anyone who wasn’t already well versed in Scientology.

The positive uses of the Data Series are infinite. Its application is fitting to life situations, to any culture, to any period of time, any strata of society, to any individual, business, or system of government, any religion or study, without bias or fixed ideas. Knowing and using the Data Series can make any situation better.

But, the HCO-PL’s are written so as to be read by Scientologists as they are written within the context for application by Scientology orgs.

And the same is true of much, if not most, of the tech he delivered to us.

LRH gave his technology to the entire world, but he delivered it to, wrote it to be understood by, Scientologists.

He expected us to know what to do with it.

He expected us to BE Scientologists, not just know about it.

He expected us to use the technology.

He trusted us.

Ron could have written his tech in such a way that it was addressed to and understandable by the uninitiated, as he was a talented writer after all, and knew how to communicate to a broad public. But it was to us, the Scientologists that he gifted his technology.

And this, I feel, is significant, and something to be remembered by all of us.

Ron’s tech belongs to the whole world — every being who would benefit — but the technology itself is ours, the Scientologists. And it is vital for us to make sure that it is known, understood, applied and disseminated.

That is my view.

102 thoughts on “A gift

  1. Hi,

    What are the data series exactly? Is there a list of particular HCO-PLs?

    I am trying to learn about Scientology from websites out of curiosity. I have a lot of HCO-PLs, which I downloaded from some indie website, but I cannot figure out what are the Data Series exactly. I keep hearing the title “Data Series” a lot, however, so it would be useful for me to know what is it exactly.

    Thank you!

  2. Nice Paul. Yes, it was written for us to use. More people should study it and use it. The entire Data Series is based on the maxim; “Sanity is the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities”. Once you get this concept down, being able to assimilate the rest of the Data Series is a snap.

    ML Tom

  3. Bruce, this is an excellent piece, a beautiful article. I think you have stated it as it is. Not much more I could add, except to say, I totally agree with you on this:

    “Ron’s tech belongs to the whole world — every being who would benefit — but the technology itself is ours, the Scientologists.”

    Well put!

      • LOL. Slaves to our namesakes, hey? I was going to comment on Tom’s post, but he might no have liked my humour. 😉

        P.S. I’m sure Qual at CCI these days is not your “happy-go-lucky” feeling anymore!

    • Very true.

      Ron also says this about the Advanced Course as well and it makes since in order to grasp their power. You need an understanding of Scientology.

      I’d say that the Data Series comes under the heading of OT Data even though it is not confidential like the Target Series which includes OT Orgs about rekindling someone’s purpose.

      Very powerful tech.

      Also while am at it. An action I’ve a lot of success with is what is called the Hubbard Consultant List which has all outpoints and plus points listed which can pretty much deaberate any area of someone’s life.

      I feel that we are very lucky to have the as Ron says “The Legacy of the Tech”.

      There is actually so much that can handle so much that the only difficulty is deciding what to use.

      That said I find the Data Series very useful when applied to the World around us. Just knowing about the different types of outpoints means not being fooled about certain agendas that are somewhat less than pro survival but are presented as such.

      As Tom and I were discussing. There seems to be an effort to create a racial rift of some kind in this country. For instance on one hand the President himself has said race relations have improved which by my own observation I agree with yet the media tries to contradict what he says by pointing to Ferguson which is not really a race issue but an issue of turning the police force into some kind of Para-Military force of some kind.

      That is just an example.

      But having this tech gives one a whole new view of the world and a better understanding of things.

      • It’s been interesting to me how natural and basic the DS tech is. Even most young children will go through a, “Why? Why? Why?” stage until they’ve eventually been fed so much BS, ignored or otherwise put off that they eventually give up even asking.

        Also, when you have a non-Scientologist is naturally high-toned it is observable that they DO use outpoints and pluspoints in life. Best example for me is my wife who has an AMAZING natural ability to spot outpoints, without even knowing what they are or the DS tech. In the past when I’ve had computer code to debug she’s been able to scan the code without understanding the code, and correctly spot an inconsistency.

        • My opinion is I think it has a lot to do with having an exterior viewpoint which tends to be less biased.

          Reminds me of the movie Being There with Peter Sellers or Heinlein’s Vincent Michael Smith in Stranger or Strange Land or Ron’s protagonist in the Mission Earth series Jettero Heller.

          I think from that POV outpoints tend to leap out where they wouldn’t from someone viewing things from the inside.

          One fascinating drill that isn’t part of the Data Series but is part of the Marketing Series is viewing a piece of promo from the view point of the person receiving it.

          I try to do this when I’m writing an article or a novel or screen play. Don’t always succeed but I try.

          I mean I do all this research on an area and try to be erudite at times but all I do is end up boring the reader with unnecessary details.

          Biggest outpoint there is added and inapplicable data and any good reader or editor instinctively knows this outpoint.

          That’s why I think no matter how highly trained one is that it’s good to have a C/S working with you instead of going it alone.

          My view.

          So you bring up an interesting point about how people who don’t know anything or no technical knowledge about what you seem like frickin’ geniuses or at least idiot savants at times.

          I say at times because just as often they come up with some of the most off the wall craziest solutions based on their lack of understanding.

          Anyone who is untrained instinctively knows bad auditing from good (no names mentioned here ;)) but their “solution” to “fix” it is actually worse then the malady they were trying to correct.

          Also another problem is that out points tend to be more evident than plus points just like SP characteristics are. So many beings tend to fixate on these and tend to ignore the plus points thus you get into and over repair situation where someone tries to fix things that like this C/S that we are both mutually familiar with 😉

          • I believe it’s somewhere in one of the CSW issues where Ron mentions a general human inability to recognize the causes of things. And…, dang! As a trained Cram Off I need to cite source. Okay, later.

            • Exactly Pazooter,

              I think this is one of the reasons Ron had to develop the Data Series.

              The way I see it and I could be wrong. If you find the actual why, that is the actual why not an incomplete “why” as in ” come?” or a preconceived why but the real McCoy you then have the actual cause of the situation.

              And finding that is totally magical in my humble opinion 😉

              • RV:

                Not sure I’d use the word “cause” here. Ron didn’t call it the “Cause”. It’s the “Why”. What makes the why a Why is that it “opens the door to handling”.

                I’m not an expert at this, but it might go thus: House burns down. Proximate cause: Bill knocked over the charcoal burner on the porch. But that doesn’t really open the door to handling. Depending on other data, the Why might be “no fire extinguisher near an open flame”. Again, I’m not an expert at coming up with this stuff out of whole cloth. But I can see events where the “cause” might not be the actual “Why”.

                Others more expert than I are welcome to comment.


                • Here’s what Ron says.

                  From the Admin Dictionary:

                  6. we find what caused the situation which we call a why. (FEBC2,7101C18SOI)

                  You could call in an expert like the Orkin man or something or study the references 😉

                  For instance in the example you gave. One could ask how come a charcoal burner was on the porch?

                  Another one would be how come it was in a position where it could be knocked over by someone.

                  Along with the one you mentioned. How come there wasn’t a fire extinguisher near by?

                  Also you have to look at the possibility that the situation existed before the house burning down and that the grossest departure from the ideal scene may existed prior to that and that it may have been that someone had the not so bright idea of putting a charcoal burner in a highly flammable area with no fire prevention equipment nearby.

                  But then you’d only have a who-there not a why but this may lead you to the why that this person has no idea of fire safety or gross mis-us on the subject which could lead to the future handling of having anyone responsible for grilling being checked out on fire safety first so the house doesn’t burn down.

                  • RV:

                    All of which is why I confessed to not being an expert when it comes to dreaming this stuff up out of whole cloth. As you illustrated, the possibilities are nearly endless, depending on the starting parameters.

                    But even with most of the questions you asked (e.g. why no fire extinguisher nearby?), none of them would have caused the house to burn down. Bill knocking over the charcoal burner caused it. He could have prevented the fire by using a fire extinguisher. And depending on the other factors, that might be very close to the “Why”. But the cause was Bill knocking the dang thing over (that dude always was clumsy, and not the brightest bulb in the pack).


                    • True Bill may have been clumsy but not having a fire extinguisher nearby with people like Bill around in my opinion is very foolish indeed.

                      Also if I was going to have a barb-e-cue on the porch I’d make sure there was nothing flammable nearby so guys like Bill wouldn’t be an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.

                      Also he’d be cut off from anything stronger than fruit juice as far as I was concerned because I wouldn’t want to add to his lack of coordination in any way 😉

                      Especially if he had the rep of being the party jinx.

                      Also on that I wouldn’t let him anywhere near the barb-e-cue.

                      I mean why temp fate?

                    • Exactly Pazooter.

                      Also the ethics why may not be the overall why for the situation.

                      I mean when you get a “why” like Bill’s PTS or an SP or whatever. To me one is looking at a who-there and the eval is incomplete.

                      I’d ask myself how anyone like this got anywhere near a barb-e-cue. It’s on the same level of putting a pyromaniac in charge of grilling.

                      Especially as Scat says this guy’s always doing clumsy shit like this.

                    • RV:

                      Oh, absolutely. I mean, the guy’s a total retard. Remember that time he locked himself in his own garage and had to eat garden clippings for three days? Sad thing is, his wife didn’t miss him all that time. Something about the guy down the street who worked for Frito Lay? And have you seen his kids? Wow, what losers! Talk about having to take the short bus!

                      😉 😉 😉


                    • If you want a better challenge than making it up as you go along try agreeing on a single news article and start counting the outpoints. I believe that is similar to one of the actual drills on the DSEC course.

                    • It is, Bruce. And a good drill it was. My wife had as a drill on the FEBC (as part of the DS) to follow the pipes under the complex to trace each colour back to source. She said that drill changed her monumentally.

                    • PZ:

                      Probably true. There’s a quote much like that in one of the DS PLs.

                      Unlike a lot of people, I take a daily newspaper, and I can barely stand to read the thing. Mostly I skim articles, because I already know from the headlines what they’re going to say, and actually *reading* the articles is painful, from the standpoint of the Data Series. You always end up having vastly more questions than answers when you’re done.


                    • Indeed. This is a major reason we do not have a TV in our home (other than for watching movies) and only subscribe to the local (covers maybe as many as 800 homes) newspaper. The news media was never that good at the best of times, but it’s gone WAY south in the last couple decades, mainly with the help of the Murdoch evil empire. “News” has been redefined and is now only entertainment, and a way to keep us hoi polloi ignorant, afraid and distracted.

                    • PZ:

                      You just stepped waaaay over into politics, so I won’t debate you in this forum. But Murdoch’s “empire” is no more or less responsible than any other news organ for the state of news coverage today. “News” organizations have never fulfilled whatever seeming purpose we might assign to them. And there are no signs they ever will.


                    • To me that’s more of an individual why and aside from that wouldn’t align with the 3 May PL.

                      Sure you could say. Yeah so he’s PTS but how come?

                      Also what is he doing anywhere near a barb-e-cue?

                      Then again as Scapper says he’s always the guy knocking over the grill. So maybe it’s not that he is PTS per se but is uncoordinated because he’s never had his objectives flattened or never had ’em in the first place.

                    • Nope, you’re wrong, Robin. Bruce even saw it and came to the same conclusion. But, as you guys keep adding to the story, it’s possible it could change. Ha!

                    • Well actually you’re wrong if you read the above PL I referenced where Ron says:

                      Even in a PTS (potential trouble source) person there must have been out- ethics conduct toward the suppressive personality he or she is connected with for the person to have become PTS in the first place.
                      People who are physically ill are PTS and are out-ethics toward the person or thing they are PTS to!

                      So the “guy’s PTS” is only a partial answer. Besides an “ethics” why is not the why.

                      Also an “ethics why” is not a why by definition. A why should be a why without any qualifiers.

                      Also the why must encompass all out points like the missing or omitted fire extinguisher

                      Sure handling Bill’s PTS condition but what about some other Bozo like Bill who comes along and torches the joint then has that dumb distant stare on his face when he can’t find a fire extinguisher.

                      No you’re *wrong*.

                      Sorry gong time.

                    • Nope, you’re wrong, if you read your tech on OW theory and you traced it back further and why was Bill committing overts on some SP (and who brought that into the mix?) and closed terminals with the BBQ he knocked over. And being PTS he didn’t buy the fire extinguisher or forgot, being PTS. You know how that is. GONG.

                    • No your wrong.

                      Because nowhere in there did Scat say anything about him being responsible for making sure there was a fire extinguisher to hand.

                      So someone else omitted it.

                      Double gong on you.

                    • No, per your logic, he was responsible for the fire extinguisher, not to mention knocking over the bbq and starting the fire, not to mention Ferguson, and not to mention putting DM in power. So there.

                      P.S. I don’t mind being wrong – it’s kinda nice for a change! 😀

                    • I didn’t say PTSness wasn’t a factor. I’m disputing it as the “why”.

                      Note Ron says “greater or lesser degree”.

                      To me this is like the auditor who tries to pull MHWs over a raging ARCx because as we all know per 3 May 62 ARCxs MWHs “All ARCxs stem from Missed Withholds.”

                    • Quit “Key Qing” me Chris. You know what Ron says in the HCOB Mistakes the Anatomy of.

                      Besides you are setting up a straw man here. I’m *not* disputing that he is *PTS*. I’m disputing that it is the *why* for the situation.

                    • I’m not “Key Qing” you, you oaf. Sheesh, get yer head out of yer arse again. How is that a key Q? You made mention of:

                      RV: “Note Ron says « greater or lesser degree ».”

                      And then went on to compare it to an auditor pullling MWHs over an horrendous ARCX.

                      So I’m asking you to clarify it. ‘Causen youse don make no sense!

                    • You seem to be.

                      So say you find that Bill is PTS and you do three S&Ds and find his SP items. Does this handle the situation?

                      Or is it going to happen again with the next Bill?

                    • I can’t even remember the original story! Was it Bill’s house? If so, yes, it would handle. If it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t as Paul (who owned the house) invited Bill there in the first place. But of course, we could keep on going back to the Cause before the Cause, or Prime Cause. Right? lol

                      Anyway, if’n this was to really be done as a drill or practical, as Bruce said, we’d need a newspaper article and we could do it on that.

                      But, I have a closet to paint, so I’m out. 😉

                    • BTW this is what pisses me off when someone says that the reason why a scene is so f-ked up is because there’s an SP and everybody’s PTS to him or her.

                      To me that is not the complete answer. It may well be a factor but not the total answer. Especially in a Scientology Org where we have ways and means of detecting and handling these things.

                      OCAs, A-Js, Sec Checks, RB, folder inspection and ethics investigation. For an SP to be on post and actually suppressing staff. It means that Qual or HCO was screwing the pooch or some auditor missed that dial wide R/S on an L1 item.

                      That said. If an Org was operating optimally then even if the occasional SP or PTS got through they would eventually be handled by the tech.

                    • Well, following your view of the tech, it could trace back to Axiom 1 and the Factors, then. Maybe even to the entrance point to this universe. Etiological causation.

                      As to being pissed off with other viewpoints, a good ruds session works wonders with that.


                    • You missed the Logics Chris which is what the Data Series is based on.

                      BTW another thing that chaps my hide is people who use service facs in “debating” like “you’re wrong”.

                      Now I’ll go for that ruds session if you flatten your R3SC 😉

                    • Ok both of youse —- that is ENOUGH!!!!! Clan it with the bickering and slagging on each other or I will give you both 48 hours off, with no comments put through till the New Years.

                      TRS please. BOTH of you.

                    • “Clan it?” “Youse”? Must be Down Under talk. I remember the first time I heard “going on a walkabout” from our PES who was from Australia. Loved it!

                      Anyway, I’m fine with that, Lana. Need the break anyway. Most of this was in jest, although I will admit (more than Robin can/will do) to bait and badgering him to see what outpoints would pop up. One of the few ways to get information over the net when one is not face-to-face and able to read other signs.

                      Happy New Year to both you and Jim and the whole crew over there (and anywhere else they may be).

                    • “Anyway, I’m fine with that, Lana. Need the break anyway. Most of this was in jest, although I will admit (more than Robin can/will do) to bait and badgering him to see what outpoints would pop up. One of the few ways to get information over the net when one is not face-to-face and able to read other signs.”

                      And I thought I held the prize for justifications!


                      Personally I thought it was more like this.

                      Er…..anyway Chris.

                      Have a Happy New Year.

                  • I’m not syaing he’s not PTS, but obviously operating at risk if anyone can burn down his house down by dropping over some coals.

                    • Good point Formost.

                      Reminds me of the FO Operating at Risk.

                      Anyway I agree with Chris that we should find a newspaper article like it says to do in the drill.

                      Safer that way 😉

                      Also it’s not there’s a shortage of outpoints in today’s press. 🙂

                    • You really had to torture that poor innocent minding-his-own-business piece of coal burning him with lighter fluid and matches? Shame on you, just because you are not man enough to eat your chicken raw like your ancestors did. Become a real pussy, eh? And what was the chicken doing to you? Just free-ranging himself, enjoying the sun, wasn’t pecking anyone harmfully, ate his feed sharing with others, but no … you had come along grab him by the throat, snap his neck, debowel and pull off his feathers to accommodate your overly desensitized taste-buds? More O/Ws obviously need to be written up to dePTS yourself.

                      LOL … just having a gas amusing myself. 😀

                • pazooter says:
                  December 30, 2014 at 10:09 am
                  Indeed. This is a major reason we do not have a TV in our home (other than for watching movies) and only subscribe to the local (covers maybe as many as 800 homes) newspaper. The news media was never that good at the best of times, but it’s gone WAY south in the last couple decades, mainly with the help of the Murdoch evil empire. “News” has been redefined and is now only entertainment, and a way to keep us hoi polloi ignorant, afraid and distracted.


                  Haven’t watched any TV news. Ever since going on the ‘net in the ’90’s except when visiting relatives.

                  Rupert Murdoch ranks right up there with W R Hearst and Sir William Carr as Chaos Merchants. In my opinion it’s propaganda disguised as “news”. Though occasionally some real news leaks through like the WP’s article on the National Security State and Gary Webb’s Dark Alliance, Bamford’s articles on the NSA but its more famine than feast.

                  Also a lot of the so called “news” is based on the false perception in many cases that one is actually being “informed” when dis or misinformed is more accurate.

                  scatjappers says:
                  December 30, 2014 at 1:03 pm
                  You just stepped waaaay over into politics, so I won’t debate you in this forum. But Murdoch’s “empire” is no more or less responsible than any other news organ for the state of news coverage today. “News” organizations have never fulfilled whatever seeming purpose we might assign to them. And there are no signs they ever will.

                  Scat I don’t see where PZ was stepping into “politics” here. I know many on the right who hate Murdoch as much as many on the left.

                  Besides if one were being *objective* as many news services claim to be. There would be no political slant in either direction. It would be nothing but well researched and presented *facts*. Not who’s ox is being gored.

                  Instead in many cases you have opinion stated as fact. I mean there is nothing wrong with someone giving an opinion as long as it is stated as such which is what I’m doing now.

          • RV: “Biggest outpoint there is added and inapplicable data and any good reader or editor instinctively knows this outpoint.”


  4. Agreed, Bruce. The Data Series is an awesome piece of tech. The green-on-white side of things is filled with these gems. Just as both training and auditing are helpful as you go up the Bridge, red-on-white tech bulletins and green-on-white admin policies should be studied to fully appreciate and get the most from Scientology.

  5. To really understand, apply, and appreciate the Data Series, one needs to be a Scientologist as it references or builds upon other tech and admin PLs and concepts.

    But beginners can start with a basic version (as often in Scientology, you start with a minimal subset and work your way up through application and more study). See the Scientology Handbook’s chapter “Investigations” or the booklet with the same title.

  6. Great article Pazooter.

    The Data Series is definitely for use.

    Mary Sue put together an Elementary Data Series Evaluator’s Course that is at a lower gradient for those who don’t have such a thorough understanding of Scientology.

    Also there are some Data Series PLs in the Volunteer Minister’s Handbook under the section on Investigations I believe.

    (Not what is called the “Scientologists Handbook” where many of the issues have been altered under the rubric “Based on the Works of”)

    Anyway there are many articles written by Ron for new public like Herman who I’d personally like to welcome here such is those he specifically wrote for Freedom Magazine.

    Those written for what was originally called the Translation Series which became Fundamentals of Thought. Various Ability articles (originally the Magazine of the HASI in Phoenix Az) which were included in New Slant on Life.

    In other words much tech that was considered BPI or for Broad Public Issue for people like Herman and others new to the subject, even highly trained auditors which is not only easy to understand but is basic and fundamental.

      • There probably is one floating around somewhere in cyber space but the EEC is a nice gradient to it.

        I recommend studying that one first.

        Also it depends what you intent is. The full HDSEC course was assigned to those in Information Branch of the GO and Flag Org Managers in the FCB.

        Those responsible for finding a situation and then doing a full Data Series evaluation of it based on intelligence gathering or reports filed via stat reports and other reports sent to Flag Data Files per the multiple viewpoint system.

        More fundamental than that especially for Flag Evaluators was having a thorough understanding of OEC/FEBC so that they knew what was an ideal scene and what wasn’t.

        That said the EEC, the investigations section of the VMH and just studying the Data Series is IMHO good enough for giving one an understanding of applying the Data Series to life.

        • I believe all FEBC trainees also had to do the DSEC as part of the FEBC, or it was contained within the FEBC. Jim could ascertain this, but my wife did it as part of the OEC/FEBC evolution she was on.

          • Chris, I did the FEBC in the mid 80s. We didn’t do the DSEC, but of course, the FEBC covered the entire Management Series volumes, so we did the entire Data Series. As a practical, we also had to do an eval.

          • Chris,
            I did the ED Full Hat which was the OEC. FEBC, a version of the DSEC, and the entire Management Series, at Flag in 76. I did it again a year later, since that first big gulp was a bit much for me at the time. I’m still digesting it 🙂

            • “I did it again a year later, since that first big gulp was a bit much for me at the time. I’m still digesting it :-)”

              That’s funny Jimbo 🙂

              Did you get the Ls along with them?

                • Lucky you Jimbo 🙂

                  Yeah I’ve done a few SBRDs. Wouldn’t mind getting one myself 😉

                  Used to be the Student CL until was changed to the Study GF. Either one to F/Ning. Fun stuff either way.

                  When I was auditing in the Case Cracking unit at AO. Did many 40s that plus the 53 to F/Ning was how we “miraculously” handled “dog cases” over there.

                  Anyway I could be wrong but I thought omitting the Ls from the FEBC line up was what doomed it to failure later on at ITO.

                  Worse some of those poor souls on the FEBC there got no case handling at all.

                  To me. It’s like doing Class VIII without doing III.

                  Anyway good on ya for getting those actions by a XII no less 🙂

                  BTW did he do the 40 M6 like they do it on Ls set ups?

                  Always amazed me how Class XIIs were able to do that. That’s like Em 27 on steroids 😉

                  • When I did the FEBC at ITO in 1987, we got some FPRD (staff list), no Ls. We were majorly bummed about that. Don’t get me wrong, FPRD is awesome auditing. Many a time we had persistent FNs keeping us out of session. But it’s not what LRH intended. Plus our auditing was done by students at New World Corps, not Class XIIs.

                    The FEBC line back then had other issues, too. For instance, one of the key FEBC laws is “it only works with a team”. You were supposed to have at least a Product Officer and an Org Officer, but better to also have a third — the Establishment Officer. Too many of us, myself included, fired back to our orgs solo. In my case, I also had to answer to a CLO Programs Chief that didn’t have near the training. She thought it would have been better to leave the T/ED in place (the former BSO heavy-drug-case who couldn’t even complete Student Hat), and I act as his D/ED. The only thing in her way was my ED Acting Status posting from RTC.

                    The FEBC Firing Lines were a joke as well. I did all my training — Exec Status I, OEC, Exec Status II, FEBC, FEBC Internship, and Exec Status III all in checksheet time, but then spent forever stuck on the Firing Lines. What should have been six months away from home ended up being a year and a half!

                    The OEC and FEBC are amazing courses and I highly recommend them.

                    • Ashes Born. Worked for a short time on what they called the Exec Series 40 project or something like that when I was seconded to NWC for a short time.

                      I had the same objection you had. That though FPRD was an incredible rundown it in no way replaced the Ls but it seems that RTRC had different ideas.

                      Supposedly one year or more posthumously Ron allegedly ordered these changes.

                      Yeah sure. Whatever.

                      Anyway there I was there FESing and Programming outer org staff (the ones that weren’t being snagged by Int) for FPRD.

                      What you’ve writing pretty much confirms what other FEBC grads have told me. I suspect sabotage. But I’m probably just being paranoid.

                      I’m sure if they wanted it done right they could have pulled a couple of XIIs from Flag and had ’em supervised by Sandy who was garrisoned over at AO.

                      Also a lot of the trainees had no prior Org experience which I’m sure didn’t help either.

                      From my point of view it was a brilliant plan that was just poorly executed or maybe as I say sabotaged.

                      For instance like the VIIIs who were training at AO they were supposed to wear smocks to distinguish them as trainees but the person running the project didn’t want to do that because she thought it was silly.

                      But from what I understood this was covered in an FO.

                      A small thing like that sorta indicated to me that they weren’t quite with the Ol’man on it and that they knew best or whatever.

                      That said. I’m glad you got the training you got.

                      I had this cognition when I walked away from the Org. One day when I’d had enough of all the out-tech and off-policy that no matter what they do to me they can’t take the training I’ve had away from me.

                      With all the trials and tribulation we probably all had at one time. No matter what happens. Those of us who took advantage of the training available still came out ahead.

                      Anyway Happy New Year! Ashes Born and to everyone else.


                    • Yep, they called the FPRD we got part of our Exec Series 40 quals. And you’re right, RV, they can’t take that training away. The Programs Chief who didn’t want me there UD’d (Urgent Directive) me off post. Never did get my Comm Ev, but they yanked my cert (long story for another day).

                      And you’re also right about a lot of the FEBC students being too green. They tried to get me out there earlier, when I was still very green on staff. I’d read on my hatting materials that you had to be on staff one year before you were eligible for full time training, so I threw that back at the reg and he left me alone. That is until I saw my first anniversary on staff… then out of the blue and for no good reason, I was called to CLO. Next thing I know that reg was across the table from me regging me to go to ITO for training. Once I was in LA, I found lots of fellow students weren’t really qual’d for training for a variety of reasons — too new, heavy drug cases (and poor students thanks to that), and other issues. I don’t think it’s conspiracy to suspect sabotage.

                      Thanks for your good wishes for the new year. Ditto to you and all the awesome folks who make up MS2 and follow this theta blog.

                    • ” — too new, heavy drug cases (and poor students thanks to that), and other issues.”

                      I know we FESed and Programmed to handle those factors but once the folders were sent to ITO. The “C/S” just reprogrammed for less than the irreducible minimum and ran the minimal or actually less than minimal requirements for FPRD. That is if they even got in session since a lot of them got no auditing at all.

                      Like the whole Mission Fiasco. It was one of those things that when you find out about it. It is really too late to anything to handle it.

                      Just another “useless” report probably still sitting in the backlog to the Flag Data Files that no body will ever read.

                  • It was a she. On the Method 6 assessing, without getting into a verbal interpretation kind of deal, I can tell you that she had me “in session” completely, and hit the case so cleanly and precisely, that it had no chance of slipping out of getting got.

                    I ran an engram chain that she had complete control of the File Clerk and Somatic Strip on, that was so smooth, so penetrating of the case, and that turned on and blew so much in this bing, bang, poof gone – well, it was spectacular auditing.

                    So, yes, she had that XII tech and ran the sessions with such confidence and a sort of impact and precision that my case just sort of didn’t have a chance 🙂

                    • Wow that’s very cool Jim 🙂

                      One of those wins that makes walking through fire at times worthwhile.

                      The biggest win I had was when the Ol’man himself audited me.

                      When we rehabbed that point by D/L in my Dianetic Clear interview (this was before the DCSI) I was blown out for weeks.

                      I thought I’d not only gone Clear but OT as well which turned out to be the case since after that I’d run some of the earlier OT processes back then too.

                      My all time fav was R1-9 the “Grand Tour” which we used to run on each other when we were bored 😉

                      But being audited by a Class XII and being addressed with real XII procedure. Wow Jim ya got me envious there 🙂

                      One of those things I’ve read about and heard about but never personally experienced.

                      Good on ya.

                      Hey and Happy New Year over there. I know you guys are celebrating early over there down under.

  7. Thanks Pazooter, I recently read the Data Series and as Ron said in them that you see the use of outpoints mainly in humor I have been dissecting humor to get practice on spotting outpoints and what type of outpoint is being used. Yes Im a nerd!! 🙂

    The other thing is,I always had trouble with the PL, The Why is God, I could duplicate it, but could think of examples that seemed to contradict it. While reading the Data Series I came across this little beauty HCOPL 25 May 73 Data Series 27 SUPPLEMENTARY EVALUATIONS and all was good with the world again and I could see why Ron said in HCOPL Data Series 47 “All Data Series PLs must be studied in sequence and are not to be placed on checksheets randomly.”

    Man, the amount of times I had an exec tell me the why is god, and I just felt like breaking his nose, when all either of us had to do was to read the above PL a little bit further on to get sanity back in the scene.

  8. Of all the admin tech, I consider the Data Series the most fundamental. It is the key tech of logical THINKING. One of the reasons it is not first in any line up of admin study, I believe, is that one of the things which is key to studying the Data Series is the ability to grasp the Ideal Scene for an Org. But you can’t fully grasp an Ideal Scene for an Org until you’ve studied the OEC volumes. In this sense, it was written with Org personnel in mind. But the tech itself is applicable in every single aspect of life. You simply change the Ideal Scene you’re looking for to one which suits the activity.

    Incidentally, while the admin tech is written to give you the framework for how an Org should run, it, too is applicable in any Third Dynamic activity. In fact, some of it is applicable in ANY activity on any dynamic. One must simply grasp the basics of it and apply them as needed. The Management Series are helpful in this respect.

    Once studied, the Data Series will become not just a series of references for performing a certain operation, but a way of thinking.

    And 4a is right about humor and the outpoints. Ron defines laughter as rejection. Thetans natively reject outpoints (insofar as they recognize them). A thorough study of the outpoints and pluspoints could vastly improve your sense of humor.


  9. A couple months back I was confronted with a situation that I decided to do something about. It influenced about 5,000 people and had a rather complex organization surrounding it making it a bit confusing to most. And the situation had been going on for a long long time.

    I applied my Data Series. Using only public records I went through them counting outpoints (you know, just like we used to do with the Data Files) and lo and behold the actual situation fell into my lap! Along with a tentative Why.

    I sent a few telexes to pull the strings (sorry, letters) and wham!
    the Why was confirmed. And the response to the letters by the way was within HOURS with a return phone call. The amount of time this took was almost nothing compared to the wasted motion surrounding this situation. It blew my own mind as I never expected it to fall apart so quickly.

    In any case there’s a bit of work to do to handle the Why but it is moving in the right direction and I can ignore the rest of the noise knowing that it will in fact handle. (Some around me have looked at me in awe!)

    I challenge anyone within earshot to pull out DS 11 and do it to find the situation connected to some turmoil in your environment – I guarantee you will be surprised!

    • For somebody new to the Data Series, I recommend you study up to DS 4, getting some familiarity with the definitions of basic terms, what the basic Outpoints are (do some drilling to find some in a newspaper for example, or in some area that you are familiar with) and then do the exercise in DS 4. Get a few of these under your belt then study up through DS 11 and do more “hands on” type analysis.

      These basic issues learned well are incredibly freeing when it comes to isolating Situations (the major departure from the Ideal Scene).

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s