By Dave Soroka

In HCOB 16 August 1971 issue II, TRAINING DRILLS MODERNISED, Ron says, “The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do his TRs.” He says further, “Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften. Comm Courses are not a tea party.”

This is not to say they aren’t fun. I did the Comm Course in 1972, and it was seriously fun, and gave me wins that have stayed with me to this day.

Now, in 2015, we at Observation Mountain Academy are about to deliver our first Comm Course. I intend for this course to be fun and I intend for my students to have wins that will stay with them all their lives.

The course will start on Monday May 4th and run for two weeks, covering TRs 0 through 9. It is everything Ron put on the HAS Course, nothing more and nothing less. It’s not much reading and a whole lotta drilling.

If you know anyone who needs or wants to do a Comm Course, or if you want to do it or redo it yourself, contact us and book a seat in our courseroom: inquiries@observationmountainacademy.com

Here’s what a couple of our students have to say:

“I felt that I was being supervised how it would have been if LRH were still around and in his course room.  Truly studying to learn something.  For the first time ever in a course room I felt that it was OK to be there and to be me and just study without having to be fearful of a supervisor swooping in for the kill.

Thanks Dave, that was the best supervision I have ever had.”   -LC

“We just had an evening in the academy and it was so cool.  My twin and I worked on a Solo drill and it was great.  Really worked out some bumps and know that this is going to make the Solo auditing much smoother. 
Great supervision from Dave!”   -NC

75 thoughts on “Get your TRs in

  1. Dave, if you are the Dave Soroka from Detroit, then yes, you are an excellent sup and your TRs are in!

    ML Tom.

  2. This is very good Dave! The Comm Course is one of those absolutely priceless gems of Scientology. This course alone – and nothing else, would completely change the world.

    • That’s very real to me, Focus. I saw what a standardly run Comm Course could accomplish for people back in the early 70s. The case gain and rehabilitation of latent theta abilities was astonishing, and it produced real Scientologists. As many have said before, the wins from that course are life changing, and can stick with a person for life.

  3. Good on ya, Dave. Stick to LRH and you can’t go wrong! Wishing you much success on this training course.

  4. Dropping the original H.A.S. course was one of the biggest, most tragic errors in the history of the church. That course delivered more major stable wins, and made more real Scientologists per square foot, than any other service I know of.

    As Focus said above, the church could have quite literally changed the world by aggressively delivering this one course in volume across the planet. They wouldn’t have “cleared the planet”, but they sure as hell would have keyed it out and moved the population up several notches on the Tone Scale.

    • Roger that Ronnie,

      I remember some HAS comps saying that they wouldn’t trade the wins they had on that course for a million dollars.

      Got nothing against the STCC it was a nice undercut but then the person should have been put on a real rough tough TRs course after that.

      Also it depends what your purpose is. I mean if it is to give the person a few wins applying the comm formula. Well OK the STCC.

      But if the guy comes in after reading Dianetics and says he wants to be an auditor then you put ’em on the HAS course.

      • The STCC was such a huge watered down bastardization of TRs, I hope it rots in a garbage dump somewhere never to see the light of day again. Very little value. Definitely not LRH.

        • I don’t know where you get the idea Ron didn’t develop the course. Actually it is mentioned in the following RJ:

          RON’S JOURNAL 33 Holidays A.D. 31/32


          RON’S JOURNAL 33


          Well, we seem to have lived through it.

          And now we can look forward to a bright new future.

          Scientology will be around for a long, long time.

          Expansion has been occurring. And not just inside what is
          called the Western World. I have looked at Russia, India,
          China, Japan and Pakistan as well as some other lands and
          Scientology is reaching there.

          Throughout the world, two developments I completed and
          released are proving, in the last year, very popular.

          One is the non-religious moral code I talked to you about
          in the last Ron’s Journal, “The Way To Happiness.” It is
          going like wildfire. It is being translated into many,
          many other languages. The Spanish, German, Italian, French
          and U.S. editions are already in their second printings.
          The little booklet is soaring up toward three million
          copies distributed. The success stories are rolling in,
          rave notices, almost one for one.

          What we have here is a grass-roots revolution spreading far
          beyond the perimeters of organizations. The potential, all
          by itself, is an uplift in the decency and integrity of Man.

          The editions are published in packs by Regent House, Ltd.
          1770 North Vermont Avenue, Suite 118, Los Angeles,
          California, 90027, or P.O. Box 29903, Los Angeles, CA 90029.

          Amazingly, all sorts of government officials have endorsed
          it and ordered more copies. It’s a winner even with

          There was another development that is now going like a
          tidal wave. It is the new “Success Through Communication

          For many, many years orgs taught a Comm Course for the
          public. Unfortunately that course, the old HAS hard TRs
          course was designed for professional auditors. It is a
          very good and vitally necessary course but, for the public,
          is pretty rugged. So actually the orgs lacked a Comm Course
          at public level. Accordingly I worked on this and developed
          new communication drills that were aimed at general public
          communication needs. This became the “Success Through
          Communication Course.”

          In the pilots, 99% of the raw public who took this course
          went right on in to Scientology, an incredible statistic.
          Their success stories were raves.

          So you–yes, you, my friend–have a gift that YOU can give
          to the world.

          Across the planet, old social values have been broken. New
          moral values have not replaced them. The world of cultural
          dignity today is in a state of disintegration. The ties
          that held men together as Mankind and made them honorable have been sundered by an onslaught of false materialism.

          The worship of the atom has replaced the prayers to God.

          What will men do when they believe that they are only mud?
          Taught to believe he is but a beast, he is now becoming
          convinced that he is the helpless victim of his own passions.

          Almost lost is one of Man’s finest intellectual abilities:
          to live with dignity and honor.

          The priests of the holy test tube and computer thunder out
          even at the little children in schools that they are by
          nature as depraved as rats. The psychologists explain to
          governments that it is only natural that there is crime.

          So the gift that you can give now is needed as the desert
          needs water.

          With “The Way To Happiness” you can, factually, change all
          this. All you have to do is keep that booklet flowing in
          the society. Like gentle oil spread upon the raging sea,
          the calm will flow outward and outward.

          And right along with that, you have the “Success Through
          Communication Course” that teaches men to talk to one
          another. It puts the world of men into communication with men.

          And on that communication channel can also flow “The Way To Happiness.”

          So the gift that you personally can give has the potential
          of changing this whole civilization in every land.

          Men can talk to one another and give each other a way to

          It is not just a dream. Not just the pilots, but the
          delivery shows that these tools work and that they can
          produce profound, far-reaching effects

          You have it in your hands right now the gift you can give
          to others.

          And, by giving it, you can change the entire society.

          If people were put in communication with one another and
          could give each other a way to happiness, yes, the world
          would change. Think what would occur if people became
          decent to one another again!

          Are you willing that men should be able to talk to one
          another and lead decent and happy lives?

          All right. You, you personally, can DO something about the
          way things are!

          Just agree it is your gift to give. And give it. In
          addition to pushing it to your friends and those you meet,
          you can even get police departments and banks to hand and
          mail out “The Way To Happiness.” You can even get whole
          company staffs on the “Success Through Communication Course.”

          And in doing so you are giving to the world a bright
          future, not just for us but for everyone.

          So happy New Year, my friend, and many, many happy new
          years that will come.

          Love; RON

                • Chris,

                  It is not my “view” of things. It is what the above LRHED says.

                  What you’ve stated regarding STCC is actually your *opinion* Chris.

                  If you look at the actual *purpose* of Div VI and Div VI course you will find that STCC fits in their with other *Introductory* Services like for example the “Ups and Downs in Life Course” which is based on Ruth Mischull’s book How to Choose Your People which isn’t even an LRH approved course.

                  • Robin, I never said it wasn’t my opinion nor did I imply it was LRH. In fact, it even reads like my opinion.

                    Now, if you recall, I had a handwritten PL you said was forged, even after I posted a page from the issue; you have an LRH ED that not only doesn’t sound like Ron, it’s not handwritten; yet you give it more creedence than the handwritten issue. It seems there is selective cherry picking here. That comes from opinions. LRH never watered down the TRs course and in fact advised against it. Here’s what he had to say in LRH ED 143 Int (21 May 1971), The World Begins With TR 0:

                    “In a recent review of Tech, I traced the cause of course failures case failures directly to out-comm.

                    Further search revealed HCDB 17 April 1961, Training Drills Modernized was not in! Nowhere in the world!

                    This means HAS Comm Course failures, HDC auditing failures, Supervisor failures – you name it, any failure in an org is traceable to SOFT TRS.

                    This can get so bad that London once had “Permissive Public TRs” going! They wanted a rewri te so the TRs would be pale and patty cake enough for the pUblic! Dh wow, oh wow. There went London!

                    An FEBC has just told me that she and her twin in an Academy were once ordered to cramming “because they had been six hours on TR Zero without completing it.” Dh wow, oh wow. There’s where that org went.”

                    Re the Ups & Downs Course currently offered (and offerred since the 1990s), it’s a “Based On The Works Of L. Ron Hubbard” course, not Ruth Minshull – DM pulled all that stuff in the 80s. Maybe you’re using an RTRC or DM Bridge as a reference, I don’t know. But LRH had the entrance route(s) onto the Bridge fully figured out and had them on the Bridge prior to RTC’s muck-up of them. And they didn’t include these watered down courses nor the STCC.

                    • Not true Chris,

                      STCC was released around the same time that the WTH was issued as you can see by that RJ.

                      Also there is a big difference between an issue that is BPI and one that wasn’t issued at all and is of questionable provenance per the HCOPL on Hidden Data Lines and the PL on Tech and Policy Distribution.

                      Also as I wrote before there is a difference between Div VI and Div IV courses.

                      The Academy is in Div IV. Not Div VI.

                      You start mixing these things up and you end up with justifications of why it is okay to violate the Div IV Policy Drills Allowed by introducing non-standard drills like the Golden Age of Tech.

                      Also if you operate on Policies or Directives that are not broadly *known* like the one you mention you will get a definite lack of agreement.

                    • Yup. Lots of agreement for the STCC I see. The rest of your “argument” is like something out of left field.

                      And if you READ LRH ED 143 INT Ron explains how to run the HAS course in Div VI. Now go to Qual.

                    • At least it’s not in some other Galaxy by comparing a policy that was never published to a broadly issued LRHED.

                      If there is anyone who needs the tender mercies of Qual it’s you.

        • The STCC was such a huge watered down bastardization of TRs, I hope it rots in a garbage dump somewhere never to see the light of day again.

          You read my mind, Chris. That is exactly what I’ve always thought of the STCC.

        • I completely agree.
          LRH TRO: “BE there comfortably and confront.”
          STCC: “Sit there.”
          One instruction is addressed to a being and the other is addressed to a meat body. Knowing where the STCC originated, this does not surprise me.

          The only drill I liked on the course was the one which drills a person to change the subject. I don’t think that it is found on any other course. My kids used this drill with great expertise to handle SO recruiters! It worked every time and the recruiters never figured out what was happening. Hows that for a karma? 🙂

          • ESP,

            My fave too.

            Worked well on seniors and other execs who wanted you to comply with some bat shit crazy off the f_king wall, illegal and destructive order.

            Also I that after I left staff. It worked great on those money suckin’ IAS regs.

            Great drill 😉

    • Full quote:

      “{I have been at work for seven years to produce a series of techniques which any well-trained auditor can use to clear people. We now have them.

      I am truly sorry that this took seven years. Actually, it took more than

      Under other “systems of research” it could not have been done. It was financed at first by my writings and expeditions. Some 15,000,000 words of fact and fiction articles ranging from political articles to westerns were consumed in a large part by this research-but it was free to act if not free from sweat.

      No bullying dictator wanted it for his mass slaveries as happened to poor misguided Pavlov. No big corporation wanted it for a better Madison Avenue approach to advertising-another kind of slavery. No big RESEARCH FOUNDATION like Ford was there to interject their “America First” philosophy. These had not paid for it; therefore they didn’t own it. The work stayed free. Thus it prospered. It did not wither in support of some aberrated “cause.” It bloomed.

      But the violence of protecting this work while continuing it took a toll
      nevertheless. Special interests believed it must be evil if they did not own it. Between 1950 and 1956, 2,000,000 traceable dollars were spent to halt this work. Newspaper articles, radio ads (as in Seattle from the University of Washington), bribed “patrons,” financed “patients” all cost money. You hear the repercussions of this campaign even today.

      Money could not stop this work by then. It was too late. If anything had been wrong with our organizations, my character, our intentions or abilities the whole advance would have crumbled. But we had no Achilles’ heels. We carried on. All that has survived of this attack by the two APAs, the AMA and several universities is a clutter of rumors concerning your sanity and mine-and rumors no longer financed will some day die.

      And so the work has emerged free of taint and misguided slants. It is itself. It does what it says it does. It contains no adroit curves to make one open to better believing some “ism.” That makes it singular today in a world gone mad with nationalism. Buddhism, when it came to the millions, was no longer free of slant and prejudice. Taoism itself became a national jingoism far from any work
      of Lao-tse. Even Christianity had its “pitch.” And if these great works became curved, with all the personal force of their creators, how is it that our little triumph here can still be found in a clear state?

      Well, no diamonds and palaces have been accepted from rajahs, no gratuitous printing of results has been the gift of warlords, no testament had to be written 300 years after the fact.

      For this we can thank Johann Gutenberg, and the invention of magnetic tape. Therefore, although we have no such stature as the Great Philosophies, I charge you with this-look to source writings, not to interpretations. Look to the original work, not offshoots.

      If I have fought for a quarter of a century, most of it alone, to keep this work from serving to uphold the enslavers of man, to keep it free from some destructive “pitch” or slant, then you certainly can carry that motif a little further.

      I’ll not always be here on guard. The stars twinkle in the Milky Way and the wind sighs for songs across the empty fields of a planet a Galaxy away.

      You won’t always be here.

      But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons – “The work was free. Keep it so.”” LRH

      Scientology: Clear Procedure, Issue One (December 1957)

  5. Well done, Dave!

    I echo the comments above: my Comm Course of 1971 has stood me in good stead all down these years, it was a life-saver and a life-changer. It was the first true simplicity I’d ever experienced. I had cogs on that course, and the HQS after, which when I related to the examiner got me into trouble – I wasn’t supposed to know those things.

    But that was the CoS: the organization from hell.

    It is an absolute miracle that LRH survived the swamps and brought home the treasure: thetan sans body is true!

    And anyone can learn that on LRH’s Comm Course.

    From the bottom of my heart, thank you Dave and your team for helping to make this happen.

    PS: It’s interesting, now that I think of it, but all the people in the CoS who gave me a hard time – I didn’t actually see or know of them ever doing a Comm Course.

  6. Chris and Robin,
    The STCC was LRH according to the record. Now, the rationale behind it included the some 25% that were making it from the HAS/Comm Course in Div Vi to the next gradient of the HQS and then the Academy.

    As you both know, over the years curricula changed, entrance to the case was undercut, gradients of gain for a cross-section of the society were worked, re-worked and so on.

    The Eval that brought about the STCC, like any Eval could use a good Review these days. I wonder if the HAS/Comm Course wouldn’t be put back by that Eval. Don’t know as I haven’t the stats and data to hand.

    I suspect it would be a Multiple Sit Eval too, considering the interweaving of the scene, what with DM on the line, the assault on results that has entailed including this years-long “Pro TRs” debacle, all the nonsense about training up to and including GAT et al.

    Those who did the HAS/Comm Course when it was the Div VI intro course, and got through that with the incredible wins and gains it affords, are without question a different breed of cat. There is nothing like really doing TRs O-IV the “hard way”.

    • I disagree, Jim. I saw the outfall of the STCC with my own eyes as Tech Sec and D/ED of my org. LOW re-signs, high blows. I also distrust some of these “LRH EDs” that come out after 1980/81. Don’t sound like the old man. Too much infiltration and alterations as well by that time. And as you saw here, many felt the STCC was crap. LRH didn’t put out crap.

      • Ron also explains how to conduct a Div VI HAS Course in LRH ED 143 Int, The World Begins With TR 0, and I think he nails it pretty damn well:

        “So right in your hands you have a magic tool IF YOU APPLY IT.

        This means it will take some enrollees on an HAS Course weeks just to get through plain Zero. But when they do, wow, have you made a Scientologist! You have to level with them “Now look,” you have to tell the newcomer, “this isn’t an easy course. In fact, it’s hell. But when you’ve managed it, you wouldn’t sell the result for a million.”

        On brand new people (HAS) you get TRs in on a gradient. TR 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 round and round, each time a little more exacting. First time he reads the HCOB and does Zero. You ignore the blinks etc., give him a win of being able to sit in a chair! Then 1, 2, 3, 4. If he fails 3, back to Zero. Keep him winning. Keep it getting more exacting. Finally, no blink, no swallow, no red eyes, no twitch 2 hour zero.
        And the hard way with the rest of the TRs. You keeping him winning but you don’t let him off the HAS until he’s made it up to TRs total bull bait.

        Your first org step to big production is TRs THE HARD WAY.

        There is no more important org step that you can take to get your products soaring!”

        • I wasnt around when the STCC was implemented, so I cant comment on it, but I do remember the excitement my friends and I had at doing the comm course the hard way! We knew it was going to be tough and hard and we really looked forward to it.
          It made 3 Scientologists, one went exterior. Personally I dont think there is anything wrong in making it hard, and advertising that fact. In fact I think it would be a factor for making it favorable to new public wanting to do it, something of a challenge.

          Great work Dave!

        • Nothing in RJ 33 invalidates the above. Also as you should know despite the wins from doing TR 0 the hard way. Some couldn’t do so Ron had to undercut it with OT TR 0 which came out about a year after that was written.

          I’m not saying that HAS isn’t a great course but that doesn’t mean that STCC is a bad course either. Each serves its purpose.

          One is designed to give the student practice with Communication while the other is designed to make auditors.

      • No comparison between the products of the 2 courses. One made Scientologists and the other devalued and degraded what the tech could do. I still can’t believe it was thought ok to be implemented.

        • Focus,

          I don’t see how the STCC “devalued and degraded what the tech could do”.

          In what way?

          Personally I see a lot of make wrong on the subject of TRs which would indicate service facs in the area of some kind.

          Also as far as I’m concerned it is a *Tech Degrade*.

          I suggest reading the above LRHED which *is* signed by Ron.

            • I never indicated any item. I just pointed out that the above LRHED is valid.

              Also I never said that I had a hand written copy I said it was signed by Ron which you can see in the copy I have posted.

              I mean if we had the Standard that in order for an HCOB, PL, or other directive had to have an actual hand written specimen before it was considered valid then there would be very little tech or policy that could be applied.

              As Ron says in the HCOB Tech Correction Round Up as far as the tech is concerned:

              What makes tech correct? When it doesn’t get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.
              My own writings and researches are based wholly upon things that got and get results.

              When another, through misunderstood words or other reasons, “interprets” or changes the original tech, it has been the general experience that results are not obtained.

              So until we are able to wrest the actual hand written copies or the actual direct orders that led to the compilation of the HCOBs and PLs in the Tech Vols and OEC or LRHEDs in the Master LRHED packs from CST we won’t be 100% positive will we?

            • All I need to do is throw in that Ron’s Org delivers a very ‘on-source’ HAS Course and the fisty-cuffs will break out! LOL.

              “I don’t see how the STCC “devalued and degraded what the tech could do”.” Simply by observing the products each course produced. Nothing less nor nothing more.

              • Focus,

                I wouldn’t doubt that RO puts out a damn good HAS course. I mean Bill Robertson was a big fan of the old HAS Course.

                Obviously your experience is different then mine. I actually saw some good products come off the STCC and I also enjoyed doing the course myself even though I had done the HQS and a Hard TRs Course before that.

                Sure it’s like falling off a log for anyone who has done any real TRs but I found it a lot of fun 🙂

                • BTW on that note I think the concept of fun left the building after the CMO Junta took over.

                  Someone told me that Mary Sue once said that “if it wasn’t fun it wasn’t Scientology”.

                  As far as I was concerned the concept of Spirit of Play was totally sucked out of Scientology when the Sea Org took over.

                  Sure Ron says that this is a deadly serious activity but that doesn’t mean that one has to be deadly serious about it.


                  • Nuh. Don’t agree. I was in the Sea Org for 17 years and whilst there were some hard times and injustices there were also plenty on unserious times and plenty of fun in earlier times.

                    Don’t think we can paint all with a single brush and colour.

      • Chris,

        That was what RED 345 was supposed to handle.

        Again RJ 33 says:

        “For many, many years orgs taught a Comm Course for the
        public. Unfortunately that course, the old HAS hard TRs
        course was designed for professional auditors. It is a
        very good and vitally necessary course but, for the public,
        is pretty rugged. So actually the orgs lacked a Comm Course
        at public level. Accordingly I worked on this and developed
        new communication drills that were aimed at general public
        communication needs. This became the “Success Through
        Communication Course.”
        In the pilots, 99% of the raw public who took this course
        went right on in to Scientology, an incredible statistic.
        Their success stories were raves.”

        All can say that if you were getting “LOW re-signs, high blows” then there was something out in Basic Courses.

        As far as I could see almost all the public I knew at the time who did the course under Standard Supervision had wins while doing the course and resigned.

        So I don’t see where you are getting this stat from.

      • You disagree with what? That LRH initiated STCC? Well, OK, sure you can disagree. He did. He writes about it in an LRH ED, which he DID write.

        I agree with you, and my opinion is LRH would too were he to review this, that the HAS/Comm Course TRs 0-IV done as it was from the late 50s up through the late 70s, was an incredibly successful intro course in terms of gains and the certainty that Scn had done something effective for a person in their own estimation.

        Neither the ED nor the PL you mention were/are “forgeries”. LRH wrote these both. He also came up with the STCC. I’m afraid you’ll have to reevaluate some data.

        • JL: “You disagree with what? That LRH initiated STCC? Well, OK, sure you can disagree. He did. He writes about it in an LRH ED, which he DID write.”

          Hi Jim, yeh, I disagree with it. It didn’t produce the stats it said it would (a DM trademark); it was an unusual solution to a perceived problem (another DM/RM trademark); it was yanked from use within a few years (again, DM and RM’s trademark with “solutions” that didn’t work out, just like GAT and OT VIII); and it didn’t follow LRH’s advise of just doing the usual.

          And I disagree that LRH actually wrote that LRH ED. OR, it got altered after he wrote it. By this time in Scientology history there were already alterations and such going on that were not by his order or done without his knowledge, including full HCOBs and HCOPLs issued under his name, but not with his approval. And many more were to come.

          You’ve already seen the sentiments here towards that course: many didn’t like it and thought it was garbage. In passing this by some Class VIIIs and highly trained tech terminals, they were of the same opinion. Not that that should be the authority, but using and working and thinking with LRH basics should be and this doesn’t fit that paradigm. It’s an unusual solution, and violates LRH references.

          The HAS Course was long taught in Div VI, Basic Courses, to new public. Somehow (and not by LRH, IMO), it was deemed “too steep a gradient” and not the type of course (someone must have told DM TRs were weird, or something) for a church that was trying to go mainstream, again a DM construct and program. And the “BOTWO” courses don’t really make people into Scientologists like the HAS Course did and like LRH intended. All of this alteration of tech and basics is a calculated plan to destroy Scientology. That it’s done slowly and somewhat innocuously makes it no less insidious.

          That’s all I’m going to say on this. Most of it can be relegated to just my view on things, so it can be disregarded or tossed – I’ve no big plans for world domination…currently. 😀

          Re Robin, got it; but…forest for the trees.

          • Chris,

            I don’t know which DM you’re referring to. If you mean Miscavige. He wasn’t even near Tech or Div VI lines at the time. In other words his Blofeldian plans for Org domination hadn’t even materialized at that point.

            Funny forest for the trees was always Marty’s favorite phrase when participants of his blog didn’t subscribe to Emmanuel Goldstein like hate fest regarding Miscavige and others like myself suggested other possible reasons for the corruption of the Church like some kind of covert COINTELPRO op of some kind.

            But I digress.

            Anyway I agree. If your intention is to make Scientologists who really know how to apply the Comm cycle in life and in auditing then the HAS is the best course for accomplishing this.

            Just like the old HQS course.

            However if you want to perk the persons interest and introduce them to the Comm Cycle then the Success through Comm Course isn’t such a bad course.

            BTW it isn’t a BOTWO course. As far as I understand Ron wrote the booklet and developed the drills for the course himself.

            My 2 bits.

            Take it of leave it.

      • Okay, I gotta step in here. I was Flag Bureau staff when this all went down and I remember the staff meetings where this was discussed.
        I had posted before that LRH was lied to by some newbie Div 6 cats at Flag Bureaus who told him that the comm course in Div 6 had a small graduation rate and a high blow rate. They advised that it was a marketing problem calling the course “Training Routines” was an MU for raw public and there were words on the course only auditors would understand. Ron told them to come out with a “Raw Meat Version” of the Comm Course.
        They called it “Success Through Communication Course” and watered down the delivery of it. Now, Ron most likely never saw the RESULTS of the final product and most likely it was not piloted anywhere and if it was piloted the results were never correctly reported on to LRH. The final product was a bust and LRH was not made aware of the ineffectiveness of it. And that’s the way it went down.

        ML Tom

        • Tom, this is how I suspected it might be, that it may have been that he was fed false information and stats, etc., and therefore any evaluaiton on his part – as well as any product – would fail due to incorrect info. Thanks for the clarification.

        • TM:

          This brings up a question I’ve struggled with mightily over the years. I believe LRH should have had a separate research and issuance organization (aside from and beyond AVC/AVU and RTRC). I believe it should have handled all research and pilots. Anything which looked dicey on the SO#1 line should have been turned over to them (by LRH) for investigation. Any arguments about provenance would be handled by this crew. The personnel would have been like the people of CST were supposed to be: Class XII OT 8s, personally checked out by LRH. Its charter would have been such that, at LRH’s death, it would handle only what was in the pipeline and then wind down its activities, only to provide a provenance function. It just seems that otherwise it became, over time, too easy to pollute Ron’s lines with lies and such. Does anyone else think this might have been a good idea?

          Also, going forward, if we ever manage to recapture the Church, I believe we’re going to have to have a similar organization whose charter is to track down the provenance of questionable LRH issues, etc., and report on its findings, as well as providing corrections as needed. This will only be possible given access to the original materials handled directly by LRH.


          • “This will only be possible given access to the original materials handled directly by LRH.”

            Aye, and there’s the rub!

          • “It just seems that otherwise it became, over time, too easy to pollute Ron’s lines with lies and such. Does anyone else think this might have been a good idea?”

            Excuse me Scatjappers that is nothing but enemy line promoted by former “execs” who should know better.

            • RV:

              “I had posted before that LRH was lied to by some newbie Div 6 cats at Flag Bureaus who told him that the comm course in Div 6 had a small graduation rate and a high blow rate….”

              Soooo… Tom Martiniano is a former “exec” who should know better. I always thought there was something shifty about that Tom guy, and now I know. Thanks for setting me straight, Robin. (J/K, Tom).

              Tell you what, Robin. When you can prove to me that Tom (whose integrity I consider high) is lying and that he didn’t witness such behavior and the subsequent results, then I’ll be happy to take my statement back.


        • Tom,

          Having worked on an LRH Pilot myself I find it hard to believe that Ron didn’t view the results.

          I mean if he says there were “rave success stories” as he does in RJ 33. I’m pretty sure he would have inspected them himself to see if they were indeed *rave*.

          Also if he says there was a 99% resign rate then those would have been the stats at the time.

          What you’re suggesting here is that Ron listened instead of looked which I frankly find hard to believe.

    • Jim,

      “The STCC was LRH according to the record.”

      This is what I was trying to point out to Chris. Yet he continues to assert that the RED introducing this course was somehow “forged” without any other proof than his opinion.

      I mean the original was signed by Ron and was approved by the Board of Directors of the Church of Scientology of California and also survived any cancelation by RED 345 Int.

      So I don’t see what his problem is. Unless it is just personal prejudice of some kind.

      In fact it conforms to the Verbal Tech Checklist.

      • “This is what I was trying to point out to Chris. Yet he continues to assert that the RED introducing this course was somehow « forged » without any other proof than his opinion.”

        Robin, while this isn’t any basis for the comments I have posted, what you say above is the same thing in regards the policy I showed you, with LRH’s signature on it. In essence, it’s hypocritical.

        Further, these little innuendos of yours – “as you should know” and “I don’t see what his problem is” (hey, you can talk to me direct, can’t you?) and “it’s personal prejudice” are ad hominem and uncalled for. So knock it off.

        As I said earlier, you’re entitled to your viewpoint on it as am I. But, perhaps you can put this to rest as you seem to have a copy of the original RED you’re quoting with LRH’s signature on it (“I mean the original was signed by Ron”) so if you could just post that….

        As to where I got that stat, same place as you:

        RV: “As far as I could see almost all the public I knew at the time who did the course under Standard Supervision had wins while doing the course and resigned.”

        Now I need to finish writing up my sessions and completing a Danger condition on a bunch of fluff.

        • Chris,

          Never said I had a hand written copy of the RED. I said it was signed by Ron and has the stamp for CSC as any LRHED does. Not only that is the fact that it was never canceled by RED 345.

          Now if that is not good enough for you then I don’t know what to say.

          Another thing. You accuse me of making innuendo yet seems you play the same game when I say that the Church was infiltrated by confidential informants and agent provocateurs you dismiss it as “Conspiracy Theory” and that I am being a “Conspiracy Theorist” which is basically ad hominem.

          So in this case this is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

          • OK, the two of you, if you can’t rein in this petty bickering on nearly every single article, then I’m going to take you both and knock your heads together really, really hard. I’m also going to recommend you both go to a filter, until you can self-determinadedly and perhaps pan-determinadedly keep this stuff off the lines.

            You feel me?

            • I hope so cause I used a lot of “d” in “…dadely” and as any person knows, “d” is the letter used most often to dong somebody on the headddddddd, to get their attention.

            • Hey you’re right Jim. We’ve been getting into a lot of petty bickering lately.

              I mean I mentioned the STCC and was somewhat surprised at some of the responses.

              Personally I thought it was a good course for new public and I saw nothing wrong with it.

              Sure it doesn’t compare to rough tough TRs done the hard way but it’s a great course if you want to give new public some wins and familiarity with the comm cycle.

              It doesn’t make a real Scientologist but it does make someone more receptive to the subject.

              As far as I’m concerned its a great Intro Course for a Public Course Room like the PE or AHMC or others designed for raw public.

              It doesn’t make auditors but the fact is that it is not designed to make auditors but it does introduce the student to Communication and how to apply it and gives them some *wins* in the process.

              And although I don’t claim to be one of those guys channelling Ron and claiming to know what Ron intended.

              I personally think that in my opinion is what Ron intended.

            • Hey Jim,

              Instead of donging people on the ‘ead. May I suggest we get back to basics of communication appertaining to the subject under discussion here and Chapter 7 of Dianetics 55.

              Just a suggestion.

  7. Thought experiment here, regarding things like (and specifically) the STCC:

    Someone(s) says, “But Ron, the HAS Course just isn’t doing it. Too low a grad rate, etc.” Ron’s first inclination: “This is Standard Tech. It has worked and we’ve seen it work. So what are they doing wrong, then?” His next thought (after or around the time of the WOOC eval): “Society has gotten a lot more degraded, harder to handle case-wise, than it was when I first developed the TRs. And when done correctly, the HAS is a tough course, no question. I wonder if an undercut may be needed here as well? How about this– I’ll dash off some comm drills of lower gradient and we can pilot them. See where they go and what the results are. If it works out, then we’ve got an undercut comm course. Meantime, we reinforce the HAS and get it being done 100% standard and hard, the way it was meant to be done. (And of course, find out what they’re doing wrong on it.)”

    Actual events: The STCC pilot gets done with glowing reviews (whether the results are false or not is another matter). The HAS Course failures never actually get evaluated and the course gets dropped from the Div 6 line-up. Only the STCC remains. Unfortunately (or fortunately for those less than ethical who may have started all this), for whatever else it does, it does not make Scientologists the way the HAS did.

    Just a thought.


    • Actually the problem with the HAS course is covered in the Change the Civilization Eval that Ron did in 79.

      Many not all supervisors were not allowing the student to go through the each TR to a win as it says to do in TR Training Drills Remodernized.

      In other words they were confusing the HAS course with a Pro TRs course and trying the get the student to be”perfect” on each TR before going to the next (which by the way is the same “system” they use on the Golden Age of Tech Drills) and had basically defenestrated the Coaching HCOB.

      Also there were out basics and a lot of false data related to TRs making them even more difficult to do for some which is covered in the HCOB TRs Basics Resurrected and mentioned in the HCOB on False Data Stripping.

      Many students had them confused with a case action of some kind and were trying to obtain some “EP” beyond what was giving in the HCOB.

      Things like the above forced Ron to do a pilot on TRs aside from the fact that many trainees arrived to do the Super Power Training and didn’t have a clue about TRs.

  8. What is my view? Here it is:
    Coach them on a gradient and TRs Remodernized works great. Miraculously. Don’t coach on a gradient and nothing works very well.
    In addition to laying the groundwork for making a good auditor, doing TRs also produce case gain and are a major action.

    • ESP,

      “TRs also produce case gain”

      That is pretty much true of any training action if done correctly since competence and case gain are closely related.

      Probably why Ron says training is more than 50% of case gains produced on the Bridge.

      Gradients in TRs is very applicable and probably one of the key reasons why TRs dropped out in the late ’70’s.

      That and a lot of weird ideas on why one did TRs. Back then I remember some students doing the drills especially OT and TR 0 to handle some errant case phenomena instead of just doing the drill.

      Then again I remember doing my first 2 hour confront while on the HQS and going totally exterior 🙂

      A “major stable win” for sure.

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