By Lana M

Have you had an unhappy experience with Scientology?

Beefed with past services, training, registrars, events, injustices, or something else?

Unhandled bypassed charge?  Or just not winning with Scientology?

Getting some distance from restimulating factors within the C of S provides relief (it certainly did for me), but that does not actual sort out the situation for you, personally.

A simple review, correction list, or even just a Chaplain’s interview can deal with unhappy experiences so you can move on and are no longer dragging around mental baggage.

It took me 3 years to destimulate and pull out of a hole that I had crawled into after years at the Scn Int base.  And it was unfortunately another 3 years before I figured out how to get myself into the hands of a competent auditor, with a program to clean up the bypassed charge.

I was angry about my past experiences in the C of S but had not spoken of them honestly, with anyone.  I was frustrated that the only calls I got from the Church were asking for money or asking probing questions to find out what I was up to, and there seemed to be zero interest in me personally, or in my future (despite the years I had dedicated to the organization).  I had resentment that I was still being (unjustly) treated as a suppressive or even just an “out-ethics” person, when I was not. And I was ill  (PTS).

My life, outside the C of S, was going really well and I was enjoying being able to create, build and expand across all my dynamics, with no arbitraries. But I had a gnawing knowingness, deep down, that I needed to pull finger and get to the bottom of my bottled-up emotions and feelings.

In 2011 I finally took myself by the scruff of my neck and got myself into session with a Classed auditor. A C/S 53, FPRD correction list and PTS Rundown Correction list later, and my world turned around.  I was surprised at how much upset I had on past events, and for the first time in a very long time I was free to say everything in session. (I must note, I was surprised at how many considerations I had priorly had about what I could and could not say in an auditing session — due to past suppression in the C of S.  So many things I had not been able to voice in the past,  which had effectively prevented me from truly being “in session” for my auditing in previous years.)

My auditing sessions in the field, were outside the control of the C of S and were 100% standard, using LRH correction lists and well-working E-meter. The end result was more case gain (and relief) than I had experienced in more than 17 years of auditing in the Sea Org. At one point I just cried and cried and cried, and at another point, we had to end off because of a floating Tone Arm.

Not only did I find the real “me” again, and help me get back on top of a chronic physical condition, but I also stopped motivating on the C of Snand realised that I had no desire to be in a games condition with an organization that is so off-the-rails. I can just get on with my life and applying with Scientology, and I don’t need anyone’s permission to apply LRH technology, axioms and religious philosophy.

The review auditing also revitalised my purpose to get moving up The Bridge. Since that time I have moved from being a stalled Clear to, several years later, now actively auditing on SOLO NOTs (all done in the field with well trained and experienced tech terminals).

But whether or not you move up The Bridge is not actually the point of this article.

My point is that if you have had unhappy experiences with Scientology — get them sorted out. Don’t shuffle past upsets, confusions, mysteries or out-tech over into the “too hard basket” and hope they will go away some time.

They won’t.

Instead, they fester, or at least sit unresolved and unconfronted.

And as Scientologists, whether new or old, you will be familiar with Axiom 19:


Even if you are contemplating “taking a break” from Scientology, or possibly leaving it entirely, I would encourage that you find yourself an  auditor and get some relief to deal with unhandled mental baggage, so that you can move on, in any direction you are wanting, without unhappy experiences left to haunt you.

There are hundreds of you who read this blog (and other blogs of varying opinions and stances on Scientology) looking for relief and answers.  On a daily or weekly basis, we get so many visitors who come and read, watch the commentary, and go through past archives. On any given day there is an average of over 100 different articles on the MS2 blog that are read, in addition to the current new and recent articles – and we hope that our articles are answering some of your many questions, or at least giving you some hope that LRH’s Scientology is alive and well in the field. Even though commentary may be with an average of 10 – 20 people, the actual unique visitors to this blog numbers in the hundreds.

And that is who this article is talking to.

So, to repeat, you may be in good standing, you may have been kicked on your ear. You may have quietly drifted away, hoping no one in the C of S has noticed.  You may have been out for decades or may be very much still in, (and reading online on the sly). No matter if you are looking for answers to Scientology related questions, contemplating “taking a break” from Scientology, or possibly leaving it entirely, I would encourage that you find yourself an  auditor and get some relief to deal with unhandled mental baggage so that you can move on, in any direction you are wanting, without unhappy experiences left to haunt you.

Unfortunately, hose who do not take responsibilty to get their own scene sorted out, often end up with assumed prejudices, which don’t help them, or those they influence.

“HCOB 17 Feb 1982, PREJUDICE

“A fixed, unqualified opinion, usually based on unhappy experience, substituting itself for reason.” 

We can help you find an auditor (there are actually many out here, across many continents). Just drop us a line at admin@milestonetwo.org, and we will refer you to a person in your region/area to contact.

Life is way easier for travel and fun when you are not carrying heavy baggage.

60 thoughts on “Dealing with BPC

  1. Well done, Lana. You are one of the lucky ones who have actually cogged on Scientology; there are many who drifted in and out who didn’t. With the failed cases, I would imagine their BPC is more on the lines of Failed Help, both flows.

    Many of us Scientologists or otherwise, have a decent sense of responsibility, and it’s crushing to be trodden all over by hob-nailed boots and cast out of one’s natural group. I experienced this almost straight away on joining staff, where I ended up feeling like a mere tool of others. It was especially frustrating when seniors, including Mission Ops, were clearly out-tech and off-policy and behaving like SP’s – and man, did they know how to press the Ethics button.

    That is not a fault of Scientology but more a reflection of the way things are in this world, and well detailed in Book One; the exact, same set of aberrations have always dogged us.

    So I sincerely ask those still struggling with their Scientology past to not blame the messenger, but to remember you were instinctively right, all along.

    • You are right Richard. LRH states that what you fight you become, and I have had a theory that the C of S group has been fighting the reactive mind without getting fully versed in how to deal with it (ie. full training side of The Bridge) and has thus become the reactive mind itself. There is certainly little understandable in the way the group treats a person they have deemed out-ethics or unqualified in some way.

      Mission Tech is not just a bunch of guys in uniforms who march in, tromp all over the place and then leave with dead bodies on the floor — however that is an experience that many, such as yourself have experienced. LRH made clear stipulations that missions are to be based on evaluations (which requires a trained Data Series Evaluations Unit, and which only existed for a short while and was gotten rid of by Miscavige in the mid 90’s). Based on REAL whys that open the door, a Sea Org mission should bring relief to an org. A “phew” and “that makes sense!” from the staff, as the handling (mission) is resolving what has been stopping the org from expanding, or is reimplementing past successful actions. They are supposed to be running OUT engrams, not running them IN.

      As auditors of the 3rd dynamic, the idea that the way you handle orgs and people is to crush them, is as illogical as it is to say that an auditor in session is OK to be joined by 2 or 3 others, and intimidate, invalidate and force a preclear to “confess’ to dreamed up crimes (oh oops….. they do that too!).

      You are right about blaming the messenger — as many of the messengers have been completely 100% off the rails, without the slightly clue in compassion, ARC, love or understanding.

      • Unhatted und untrained staff members don’t know their rights and duties, can’t identify and handle outpoints, can’t confront situations and abusive seniors, can’t protect their juniors and PCs.
        It’s all mentioned (and predicted) in the PLs.

  2. Wow Lana ! ; that’s one hell of an article. Right to the point, and with lots of granting of beingness. That’s how it is done. I am glad that you have succeeded in life, and are encouraging others to do so.

    Take care and my blessings to you all.


  3. Excellent article Lana, and so true!

    I had some outside, in tech help myself. Interestingly, it uncovered the wins I had had with the tech, but which had been overshadowed by the out tech the church is now practicing.

    Scientology is more real to me now than it ever was, and I am retreading the Levels. I would say that if someones dynamics are not doing well, then Scientology is not being applied in that area, or they are connected to an ias/ideal org reg and their ability to survive is severely depressed!

    • Thanks 4a. So happy to hear of your wins. Scientology is more real for me now too! It all changed when I could actually BE in session and talk without restrictions (god forbid!) and when I could start to audit and train others without a bunch of arbitraries (or meters that get turned off when they don’t like me).

      Training is a blast isnt it? I am enjoying my Briefing Course checksheet at the moment. Walking the path of Ron’s research and learning more about the reactive mind and how to prevent it from walking all over you and others. 🙂

  4. Excellent article Lana,

    Can I have permission to reprint this in the Newsletter? With Links of course.


    Mike APIS

  5. LM:

    Compassion is one thing the Church lacked, all the way beck to at least 1976 when I got in. It was run like a business and a more or less ruthless one at that. While I understand the need to have an Org run like a business (I was well trained in how to do so), this is Scientology, not IBM. You don’t leave an obviously ARCXen particle out there, money or not, when it can be repaired, particularly so simply. Besides, if that particle is ARCXen with you, there’s a good chance it’s partly or totally your fault as an Org. You need to clean up your bad acts, just like you’d expect any PC to.

    This same idea goes for staff. There should never be a staff walking around with a desperate or downtrodden look on his face. All should be happy and interested in being here and doing this job. If not, a trip to their senior’s office, the Staff Chaplain, or the Ethics Officer is called for. And those terminals should treat these high contributors with respect and empathy. We’re a team, and we’re doing what should be the most rewarding job on the planet.

    In any case, glad you got fixed and got going again. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.


    • The lack of compassion that you have observed Paul is odd. It is contrary to the basic LRH references on ARC. It is contrary to the so many different LRH texts.

      Do you think it is an inability to handle the subject of ethics without turning it into punishment?

      You need to have channels within an organisation to keep things moving. You need basic policy on conduct to provide service. But it seems that so many organisations have struggled and operated in a down scale manner of stomping on staff, forcing in heavy penalties and using ethics as punishment.

      So many companies and businesses around the world run complex organisations that have high work ethic, conducive workplace relations and treat people with dignity and respect, while at the same time getting production. Scientology organisations have seemed to not get the mix right, for years and years.

      What are your views?

      • If I may jump in on this one Lana, as Paul and I seem to have belonged to similar orgs. My time on staff was between 77 to 84.

        “Do you think it is an inability to handle the subject of ethics without turning it into punishment?”

        Yes without a doubt, and if the leaders of the org or mission are 2.0 or below chronically, everyone suffers. And the LRH issues thought of as important by those people, are policies seen as ones that punish and condemn without a thought to the context of the policy.

        ” Scientology organisations have seemed to not get the mix right, for years and years.”

        In my experience, I agree, maybe it was the need for speed, maybe the Personell back door policy was not applied well enough because of laziness or stats, we need a good evaluator onto this one to actually get to the reason and not just opinion.

        Whats interesting though is that the LRH admin model has worked before, per the many reports on this and other blogs of its success. In fact it has worked very well, and maybe that is why it has been so successfully sabotaged.

        I am tending to think that only proven high toned people should be allowed on an exec post, no matter the scarcity of “good people” because to allow a lower toned person to lead ends up with the very situation we now have.

        The only place I know of that can guarantee a high percentage of higher toned beings is the pool of auditors with good stats in getting people up the Bridge.

        Personally I would go with people who could observably help, as the best indicator of the people to put in charge.

        • I am sure you are right about Tone 4a. There is a basic policy on executive Qualifications which gets a person through training and also a full FRPD program. I was lucky to have done the full program and it is brilliant. Unfortunately, only a handful of people have done the actual qualifications program.

          I also agree that there has been no real back door policy. They bring people in, but then hang onto them, even if they are wholly unqualified. And routinely they take people who are green, unaudited, untrained, and throw them on an executive post. Ugh. The result is never pretty.

        • 4a:

          Absolutely agreed on executive qualifications. At one time we had an ex-druggie, theety weety, ultra-significance failed student as our Qual Sec, left there in a Quicksilver (illegal “quicky” posting of someone to replace someone else ripped off by another network or management body). I word cleared her extensively before she became Qual Sec, and sweet though she was, she did not belong on any executive post, much less as a staff member.

          You’re also correct that people joining staff had no business experience whatsoever. They were completely green people who had experience in fast food, maybe retail.

          I’m not sure how you can expect five former fast food workers, who just came off of a HAS course and have had no auditing or other training, to manage an Org properly. After extensive training (including auditor training, please) and auditing, maybe. But not before. This is why I say a lot of Orgs should have been City Offices or Missions rather than Orgs. Perhaps even Field Groups.

          Also agreed about what policies were “hobby horsed” by execs in order to get things done. “No case on post”. “Purpose is senior to policy”. Those were two of my favorites, used specifically to stop me complaining and justify executive-made Hill 10s and emergencies.


          • Paul, Ron talks about how St. Hill was formed in the Birthday Game LRH EDs, and they were just put on post, instant-hatted, and on to the next one. And he got a big, bustling org out of it. Afterwards, further EstO and HCO/HAS functions were required, but not initially. Otherwise, it’s a little of “having to have before you can do (or be)” IMO. It really sounds like you really had a rough time on staff that’s left you with a certain perspective towards all orgs and staff. They weren’t all like that, although I’m sure it’s possible that each org or mission had it’s own issue(s).

          • From LRH ED 339R-1, The Make-Break Point of an Org:

            “There are many examples of this in orgs. One time Boston Org
            was below the make-break point. It only had a few staff. It could not do much by way of dissemination. Everyone was working hard but the org was getting nowhere. Then a Sea Org command team went in as its execs. They hired more staff, promoted, actually regged properly, booted interference off the lines, began to deliver like a whirlwind and voila! — the org soared up above the make-break point! The staff, despite increased numbers was far better paid than they ever had been before. Booksales soared. The org grew so prosperous it had money to burn and was still sending more to Flag than many SO orgs!

            They shot, in just a few weeks, from well below the make-break point to well above it!

            And how did they do this? It’s all in the OEC volumes PLUS the Product-Org Officer tapes. They simply hired more staff, got them on post, put the full form of the org there in an instant hatting blitz, demanded and got real production from every post. They didn’t even use gimmicks! They drove the public in with the usual. They delivered good tech like mad.”

      • I’ve an assumptions: many (or most?) staff members enter with a lack of professional workplace experience. Many PLs start so basic to make the barrier low for new people. That’s good on the one hand (Scientology [the org] is open for everyone, like Scientology [the tech] should be accessible for everyone), but has clearly issues: people who don’t see the dangers and lack the knowledge to do something about them.

        The PLs clearly show awareness of this challenge. Ron often enough states that when staff and executives don’t know or stick to policy, orgs fail. In the end it boils down to people not doing the right things and others not knowing and enforcing policy and not acting upon their gut feeling that something is going wrong. Such orgs allow the toxic office dynamics where the ruthless do the clueless and weak in and kick those out who’re on-policy.

        OEC 0 is such a good introduction for new staff members, but my appreciation of it perhaps comes from years of studying and applying admin tech. Seeing it with the eyes of a new one is difficult.

        Currently I think I’d begin much more basic: give them an intro to ARC, KRC, “An Essay on Management”, the older (thinner) “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”, Obnosis, the “Investigations” booklet from the Scn Handbook, and make sure that when they feel something’s not right, then there IS something NOT RIGHT! At least for them. And we shouldn’t assume that it’s just their reactive mind doing the protesting. Personally I feel we owe that extra carefulness to years of abuse and destroyed hopes so many well-intended Scientologists went through. Orgs are a delicate system. And we need to empower the best corrective force right from their beginning: staff.

        “If it’s not fun, it’s not Scientology.” If you’re not getting better, it’s not Scientology. If you can’t help other people, it’s not Scientology. If you can’t improve situations, it’s not Scientology. If there’s a huge mismatch between your purposes and what you actually do, it’s not what you signed up for. Then speak up. If they can’t sort things out with you but yell and give you extra hours, just leave. This really should be the first lesson.

        (I’m a bit too passionate about that topic.)

        • Hi Sherry — these are good points. The Staff Status courses are supposed to be the gradient before OEC Vol 0. I wonder if those have been dumbed down to a point of absurdity — or maybe just not done at all…

          • LM:

            I had quite beefy Staff Statuses in the 70s. And you come away with a good understanding of the way things are supposed to work. And then you look at the Org you’re operating in and see the numerous outnesses. And if you complain (as I did) you get your buttocks handed to you on a platter. Catch 22.


              • CB:

                Well, at first I sort of casually mentioned them to the people involved, and to some others, just to check that I was actually seeing what I thought I was seeing.

                Eventually I wrote them up, not only in the org, but on weekly reports and the SO#1 line. But of course, because the EO was also the Cope Off, and read everything coming in or going out of the org, I became known as a troublemaker. This delayed my being awarded Staff Status II for months, as the GO investigated me. Eventually, I was Comm Eved for every crime possible, just about. IJC sent the whole thing back as staledated and lacking in actual evidence. But not before various Non-Enturb orders and such were issued.

                As you may have noticed from this blog, I’m not easily muzzled. I wasn’t as a kid or a young adult either. My parents always harped on me that my mouth got me in more trouble than anything else. True enough.

                I have a bad habit: Being there and communicating.


                • I wasn’t aware anyone was trying to muzzle you, Paul. And I think pretty well everyone here has “been there and communicated”. LOL

                  Did you ever write up a cram on those you felt were violating or ignoring policy? Not always a workable response, but at least it brings to their attention the LRH references.

                  • CB:

                    I never said anyone here was trying to muzzle me. Lana has been quite accommodating toward me and my tangential comments. The primary context in which that statement was meant was my org at the time (though my parents, teachers and some others have tried to muzzle me at times).

                    Now let me see if I have this straight. I’ve just written reports all over creation about the Bad Stuff my org is doing. Knowing policy on chits, the only people I can actively chit are those at my level or below. So any other ethics reports I can write are “Things That Shouldn’t Be” reports.

                    So one day I get this Bright Idea. I know! I’ll write crams on my seniors and anyone else involved in all the Bad Stuff. Sure! I’ll do that.

                    Kinda like standing six inches from a hornet’s nest and poking at it.

                    In case it’s not obvious, the adverse reaction to my reports in the first place was because of missed withholds and such. So I strongly suspect that if I’d now resorted to cram orders, the response would have nuclear, rather than just explosive.

                    Also worth noting, cramming ORDERS could only be issued to those over whom I have the power to issue orders. Which was, for much of my time on staff, exactly no one.

                    Form of the org. Good thing to know (and not violate). Violating it results in Dev-T chits (and cram orders on ME). This is from experience.


                    • Paul: “I never said anyone here was trying to muzzle me.”

                      Alright. It appeared you felt that way from this comment: “As you may have noticed from this blog, I’m not easily muzzled.” Perhaps you meant you just speak your piece. Cool.

                      Re cramming (including instructs), yeh, I’d think that anything which affected my post and hat, which was off-policy (or out-tech), I’d be inclined to chit it AND issue an instruct or cram. Ron says it’s our duty as a staff member in HCOPL Duties of a Staff Member. I did it from whatever post to whatever terminal, always sending a copy to Qual Cramming, of course, so it could be followed up on. IMO, it was vital to the functioning of the org, and to my post and products of my post. As Ron said somewhere, why is your neck so precious?

                      Anyway, not going to beat a dead horse. Too bad you had such a bad experience. I had many, too. Just decided that the game was more fun if I didn’t go effect of them.

                      “POLICY embraces the basic duties of a staff member, the precision technology of management in all its aspects and at every echelon, and standard ethics and justice procedures. Policy is found in HCO PLs, Flag Orders, Central Bureaux Orders, LRH EDs, taped lectures and other duly authorized and on-source administrative issues.

                      Just as with our technology of handling the individual, our policies for the establishment and expansion of effective organizations are based on fundamental laws of life derived through exhaustive research and experience. Every policy we have has been put to the acid test- “Does it work?” -and passed. Neither tech nor policy admit interpretation, alteration or “new ideas” generated by the bank. Bright, constructive application of exact principles, yes. Embellishment and know-best, never.

                      To you, the individual executive or staff member, “Keeping Admin Working” means making sure that you have all the policy relating to your post and to your hat as a staff member. It means insisting that your org’s Qual Division maintains a complete library of policy for use by staff and that it is not unmocked or hidden away or rendered unusable. It means knowing the policies of one’s job, through standard hatting and training. It means insisting that standard staff courses exist complete with WHAT IS A COURSE? policy in down to the last comma, whose graduates go livid at the idea of anyone alter-ising standard policy. It means demanding that Qual provides a tough, standard Cramming Section that detects deviation from policy at the first pause of a stat and handles the hell out of it right now- including finding out how the scene was allowed to go awry in the first place and correcting THAT, too. It means total dedication on the part of every last Scientologist to putting in standard admin, straight by the book. It means holding an utterly unreasonable line on KEEPING standard admin IN.”

                      (HCOPL 10 July 86, Keeping Admin Working)

      • LM:

        First, envision a staff almost completely untrained for their jobs, with a few tech terminals you rarely saw, because they were always in session or somesuch. The C/S is a ghost because he’s either in his ivory tower or operating the CS Ser 25 line late at night. This staff is heavily pushed for stats and getting regular calls from upline for this or that program targets. This staff is short on sleep and get something like $20 a week in pay on a good week. There’s an Academy with somewhere between 3 and 15 people in it, depending on the time of day and week. The supe’s trained, but he’s still not sure how to handle a lot of situations. It’s easy to stump him. He doesn’t practice his craft with confidence.

        Now mind you, I’m not saying my staff was rude to public. This was, after all, Texas, known for its good manners and southern (U.S.) hospitality. But the fixation was on stats, not even products, and not on sub-products, really. Each person was evaluated in terms of what dollars they could pay. The regges were absolutely fixated on dollars and income, not service. I got in deep trouble for saying so, because there’s a crime somewhere on the books about that. But it was true. I was Treas Sec, and I saw it happen time and again. Thursday at 2pm… how much money can the guy get his hands on right now? We’ll figure out what he’s paying for later.

        So imagine what kind of products this Org turns out. They’re okay, but not shining, not what I hear about in our Field here.

        The cases and training of staff and their individual circumstances were all but ignored. Because guess what? There’s no case on post. (A real and necessary policy taken to its extreme here.) We don’t get a lot of stats from handling staff, so we don’t do it. They’re dogged about getting in their staff study, but most have wog jobs, (and often families) so slotting in time to study was near impossible.

        The ethics officer was, likewise untrained. He didn’t completely lack in compassion, but he was also the Cope Off. So his time for dealing with ethics particles was limited. So the handling was often short-circuited, and probably caused as many ARCXs as it was supposed to cure.

        And we have a rule– we don’t do anything on credit. It’s cash on the barrelhead. You got an ARCX? You pay for the handling. Otherwise, we get no stats and we’re not interested.

        So imagine that there were “problem” particles coming off these lines with some regularity. And they weren’t thoroughly investigated or handled. A lot of them simply fell off the lines, quietly ignored. And this had been happening for years before I got there. We had a whole field of people who just sat out there, doing nothing. And they certainly weren’t enthusiastic disseminators.

        So it’s pretty much what I’ve cited numerous times: staffs under-trained and under-audited and under-hatted, being overmanaged by huge management orgs on a bypass of the ED. Add all that up, and there’s simply no time or room to handle the “problem” particles that inevitably come off the lines. It’s like saying, “Here’s this wonderful stuff that handles your problems. But you can’t have it.”

        You mention companies that pay a lot of attention to staff welfare. Note that these companies all have the resources to do this. Companies like Google, Apple, IBM and the like who have a lot of internal resources devoted to staff welfare are RICH companies who can afford it. Your local gas station (petrol shop?) can’t.

        All the Tech, Admin and Ethics in the world won’t help if the people who are supposed to be trained and processed in it, and applying it, aren’t and don’t.


        • Thanks Paul and I hear ya. My local org in Australia had between 2 and 5 staff and was in a constant state of being evicted for bring unable to pay rent. At one point it was operating out of a local persons garage. Not good. Not good at all. And shows some very very basic outnesses.

          • LM:

            See? You understand.

            If you consider something like ethics conditions, any org like that (or mine) would have to be considered in non-existence or lower. Therefore, not really an Org at all, despite the moniker “Org” after its name. Particularly if they remain that way for years on end.


    • Again, Paul, we really must have grown up in different orgs as I didn’t experience that until the late 80s and early 90s. I saw lots of compassion I the orgs I was in in Canada and even in ASHO and AOLA in same time periods. Definitely nothing like that in the 70s. Just my perspective.

      • CB:

        I think there were bright spots in a sea of otherwise crappy execution. My era was the 70s as well. And I’ve heard stories like yours from that era. I’m glad there were places like yours, but I think they were the exception rather than the rule. I wish I could have seen something like what you describe. But the only place I ever did was the Albuquerque Mission. (Of course, I wasn’t touring around to every org or anything.)


        • Yeh, I’m thankful that for the most part, most staff were “human” in that they had compassion and understanding when dealing with the public. As 4a mentioned, some of it has to do with who’s/what’s at the top; but it also has to do with each individual staff member, too.

          Hey, since the only place you were on staff was the Albuquerque Mission, perhaps it was yours that was the exception to the rule?

          • CB:

            Correction: I was on staff at Austin Fdn, not Albuquerque mission. I observed Albuquerque because I drove there with our Dissem Sec one time to collect an income cycle. The other orgs I observed which were like mine were Pasadena (went there on WISE LA obs mission) and Tampa (my wife was PES and later, after FEBC,, the ED there). Trust me. Mine was not the exception. Moreover, when I was on the OEC at ITO, we got a chance to “question” other outer org staff about their orgs. The story of my org was oft-repeated by them about their orgs.


            • Ok. Perhaps it’s because the orgs I was at were Canadian…. LOL Anyway, I’m sure there was a variety of ways orgs were then.

              When were you on your OEC at ITO? Was it in Cedars?

              • CB:

                Call it 1987., And yeah, we were somewhere on a non-ground floor of the building ASHO, INCOMM, LA Org, Pubs, and Cont Mimeo were in. There was also staff berthing there.


                • My then wife was there in 1987 and did her OEC/FEBC under Al Baker. She was/is a crackerjack with LRH tech and admin. I went there in 1988 to do my OEC/FEBC. Luckily my replacement didn’t work out and I got recalled to my org. The next year I headed south again but this time for my VIII training. Better runway for me.

                  But while at ITO I did do the St. Hat again (second time, three times total), OEC Vol 0 (did that one twice), and the Minister’s course, so not a bad run. Also debugged the FEBC line-up for the CO – Donatella was her name I believe – and helped on a number of recruit and other cycles. It was good, the month or two I was there. I always liked helping out at the orgs I was at, like FESing in the Solo NOTs Unit at Flag, helping in Treasury at Flag, debugging staff case cycles at ASHO and AOLA and moving them up the Bridge; always a good flow on the 3rd Dynamic I’ve found.

    • Paul: Compassion is one thing the Church lacked, all the way beck to at least 1976 when I got in. It was run like a business and a more or less ruthless one at that.

      I was just a public at a medium-sized Class V org. Was a pretty EZ going environment for the most part right up to the early 90s. Now and then some Gestapo mission showed up and reigned hell on everyone, but that was about it. What I found most offensive was all the IAS & other regerama and redos/recertaintize of courses, but the staff was usually quite OK. My best time in SCN was between 1988 through 1992.

      • FM,
        Started out in a small Forming Org which was more like a family. Pot Luck Dinners, Parties etc. Same with the Class IV Org I went to later then ASHO and AOLA.

        Back then they were more like a group who cared about their members and what they had to say.

        In other words more of a 3rd Dynamic back then then they were later to become which was less like a group and more like some corporate entity or Government bureaucracy of some kind that catered to their patrons or the monied elitists in the IAS.

        • I started in a DCG, then on to the org. Used to play baseball on Sundays with the mission in the summer until Emile came through around 1980 or ’81 and put the kibosh on that idea. However, we then went out after graduation on Friday nights and took over the local Greek restaurant until about 2 or 3 in the morning. Same in Vancouver, but it was Frescos on Davie. Good groups and group dynamics (including public as well) until Uncle Davey’s methodology seeped in. (Disclaimer: by Uncle Davey is met the whole cohort whomever and whatever that may be, singular or plural, who forced the Game out of Scientology.)

          • I was there once at Fresco’s I think with the Vancouver staff too. Talk type IV exchange on the food. 🙂

            • Yeh, the exchange was really good there on food. Couldn’t believe that it had closed down, but that was after a change in ownership and a change in food policy. Used to be lineups down the walk and then down the street. Great place, great memories. 🙂

              • Food!

                Now that was tech that ASHO, AO and CCI well in hand especially during the stretch between Thanksgiving and Xmas.

                So much food that you’d walk out from any of those orgs 10 pounds heavier.

                Much of the faire was supplied by a 5 star Chef who took over the Galley.

                Not to mention Ron’s Birthday, May 9th and Auditors Day that had real food that couldn’t be beat which was before the time they replaced it all with trail mix.

                Back then I’d cut down on my rations just before any event so I could pork out at the event 🙂

              • Yup, the new owners violated successful actions. I recall going back sometime after they took over and I found the food mediocre and overpriced.

  6. Lana, I forgot to acknowledge, it’s wonderful seeing people like you take responsibility for your Dynamics and your case and Life. It IS the only thing that will guarantee one can walk out of this mess. So, very, very well done. I admire your courage, fortitude and tenacity. Very much. 😀

    “Anything for which the individual feels any misemotion – antagonism, anger, fear, grief, apathy – is something for which he has not accepted responsibility; and there is misemotion only when an individual refuses to accept responsibility in that sphere of action. He can control anything for which he has accepted the full responsibility. He is unable to control that for which he has not accepted responsibility.” LRH (Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin, Cause and Effect, Feb. 1952)”

    • Thanks Chris. The same goes for you. Your persistence in issuing awesome and pertinent LRH excerpts while at the same time operating as a fulltime field auditor and servicing people on.all aspects of the Bridge is awesome.

  7. Hi Lana. Long time no comm. It shouldn’t be that way. It needn’t. Good comm cycles, especially acks, keep ARC in.

    It’s good to see a healthy field, with that key ‘nutrient’ (ARC) running through the veins (comm lines)

    The coldness of the broken comm cycle, imho, comes down to the subject of your OP (Dealing with BPC).

    Great, high ARC comm, as evident by many of your contributors, such as Chris and Richard and many others who use their TR’s as intended, along with a healthy sense of humor, can prevent the festering of bpc altogether.

    ‘Help’ is also a matter of personal attitude, the way I see it.

    Cheers, Calvin. 🙂

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