Start your own community in Theology.  

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST
 
CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS 8/19
 
**************************************************
 
CLASS VIII TAPE TRANSCRIPTS - CONTENTS
 
01  SEP 24, 1969 WELCOME TO THE CLASS VIII COURSE
02  SEP 25, 1969 WHAT STANDARD TECH DOES
03  SEP 26, 1969 THE LAWS OF CASE SUPERVISION
04  SEP 27, 1969 STANDARD TECH DEFINED
05  SEP 28, 1969 THE STANDARD GREEN FORM AND RUDIMENTS
06  SEP 29, 1969 MECHANICS OF TECHNIQUES AND SUBJECT MATTER
07  SEP 30, 1969 CASE SUPERVISOR DO'S AND DONT'S:
08  OCT  1, 1969 CERTAINTY OF STANDARD TECH
09  OCT  2, 1969 THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING
10  OCT  3, 1969 ASSISTS
11  OCT  7, 1969 ASSESSMENT AND LISTING BASICS
12  OCT  8, 1969 MORE ON BASICS
13  OCT  9, 1969 ETHICS AND CASE SUPERVISION
14  OCT 10, 1969 AUDITOR ATTITUDE AND THE BANK
15  OCT 11, 1969 AUDITORS ADDITIVES, LISTS AND CASE SUPERVISION
16  OCT 12, 1969 STANDARD TECH
17  OCT 13, 1969 THE BASICS AND SIMPLICITY OF STANDARD TECH
18  OCT 14, 1969 THE NEW AUDITOR'S CODE
19  OCT 15, 1969 AN EVALUATION OF EXAMINATION ANSWERS
 
 
**************************************************
 
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
 
Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.
 
The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.
 
They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.
 
The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity.
 
We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.
 
But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. 
 
We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.
 
We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.
 
Thank You,
 
The FZ Bible Association
 
**************************************************
 
6810C01 Class VIII TAPE 8
 
CERTAINTY OF STANDARD TECH
 
And what number lecture is this? (Eight) Now we know
somebody missed one. Eighth lecture, one October 1968, AD18.
 
The substance of these lectures should not, of course, be
delivered with total ferocity, because up the line
someplace the Saint Hill course will teach its' teachings,
and academies will teach theirs, and somebody will pay
attention to the information which is contained on that.
And someday in the future the Class VIII course will
contain auditors who can audit. And that would be very nice.
 
I now find out that most of the data concerning listing is
actually still extant on the Saint Sill tapes. This was a
great mystery. It's merely that people hadn't studied them.
 
Now, in view of the fact that clay table demonstration has
gone out very thoroughly over the past year or two, we can
expect, well people did a demonstration. A corny
demonstration I heard about today. The little blob's the
auditor, and a little blob was the PC, and the ARC break
was a busted line between the auditor and the PC. My
contempt. You're dealing with a bank, and the bank is in
the PC. What is the mechanism? What is the mechanism in
that bank that occurs?
 
The most deadly sins of auditing are, of course, auditing
without any comprehension of the laws of listing. These
are, that is a deadly sin. It can wrap a PC around a
telegraph pole. And I mean those laws of listing which were
put out in a bulletin in 1968. And any one of those not
followed can wrap a PC around a telegraph pole. It is very
serious.
 
It is sufficiently serious that five PCs audited in a row
on an auditor who did not know the laws of listing, and so
on, and who didn't know these facts, had trouble, each one
of them, with ethics. Almost immediately, within some forty
eight hours. And it goes something like this.
 
Out tech results in out ethics, then out ethics has to be
put in heavily in order to hold the line to get tech back
in. If tech were perfect ethics would be unnecessary.
 
So you see that an auditor who doesn't know his business
opens the door to ethics. And the degree that tech has gone
out is a direct measure of the amount of ethics which has
to be put in.
 
Direct. This has been the subject of actual test.
 
Now it may not occur to somebody that I am telling you
facts. I am not telling you my ideas.
 
Because I say it is true is no reason it's true. Because
I'm telling you what it is, is because it is true. And
anybody who has an opinion that differs with Ron's, anybody
in the world can have an opinion that differs with mine.
But you see, I'm not telling you opinions.
 
Now when I give you the data of Scientology and the
unraveling of the problems of the mind, I am not giving you
my opinions. I am giving you facts! And they don't compare
with your opinions. Your opinions haven't got anything to
do with it, and my opinions don't have anything to do with
it. You understand me?
 
Out tech normally stems from some kook who gets an opinion.
And he thinks freedom of think has something to do with
truth. He can think all he pleases, he can have all the
opinions in the world, but when he goes into an org and
indulges in one of these god damned opinions that throws
tech out, shooting is too good for him.
 
An opinion of this character, "Well, if you get a floating
needle on engrams then you can never run any more engrams." That opinion was bought once into Saint Hill. Big
discussions on the subject. Would you please tell me how
you could ever run 3 if it was true?
 
So all you have to do is think it through. Know your
business and think it through. And you will be able to
differentiate the opinion from the fact. Now if clay table
demonstration can go out in the year 1968, it can go out in
the year 1975.
 
Other things can go out. But it is not possible to predict
what will go out. Because there can be an infinity of
wrongnesses around any rightness. There is actually no
predicting under the sun, moon or stars what any academy or
Saint Hill student will suddenly assume. Because aberration
is a bunch of stuck lies. So some teaching comes through,
the truth comes through, it misses this guy to the degree
that it restimulates some fixed idea.
 
Now I'll tell you how fixed an idea can go bad. Somebody
has been taught for two or three thousand years that man is
basically evil. You tell him man is basically good. He
considers that a belief, or a religious teaching and wa ha
he seze...  your idea. To put it lightly, because he's
crazy. Now you can prove that man is basically good for
this reason: overts read as overts. Not because he's been
taught that it was bad to do it. He doesn't get well unless
he gets his overts off. When we process a person he becomes
better, more ethical. His ability rises. Now look, if he
was basically evil he would get worse, more stupid. Do you
follow? So all you have to do is think the think through.
On the face of it it proves itself. There would be no
reason under the gods' green earth to process him at all if
he were evil. Because all you would do would be to run out
all the things that taught him to be good. And you would
wind up with somebody who was stupid, vicious, couldn't do
anything, did nothing but loaf. Yes, but processing
demonstrates the complete reverse.
 
Somebody's around feeling tired, feeling tired. And he
can't work and all that. Well that can't be a native state,
because when you process it he gets ambitious and works.
But you haven't educated him, or taught him to get
ambitious at work, you simply ran out his blunted purposes,
his betrayed intentions. He had some good intention, he was
trying to do something and he got kicked in the teeth too
often. And then he gets tired. So that auditing, is in
actual fact, a subtracting process. And the final product
of auditing demonstrates that man's basically good.
 
Now in Christian countries men are taught that man is
basically evil. So, you say this to this character you're
trying to teach. "Man is basically good, auditing is a
subtractive process and takes away the evil deeds and out
of valences and into evil valences." And so forth. "And the fellow gets better and he gets more moral, and he gets more
perceptive, and he gets more able, and he has more energy,
and so forth." He knows you're...  it's impossible if it's a subtractive process.
 
Now let's watch this guy in an auditing session. He
punishes the PC. He knows the only way you could make
anybody better is to punish them. And his PC becomes worse,
more tired, less able, the IQ goes down. Now this is a
direct example of a fixed idea getting in the road of truth
and auditing. So that's why I say an auditor has no case. A
student has no case. We are now above the level.
 
We can talk about, "It isn't true if it isn't true for you" to an academy student, because that's true. That's the
closest touch he's got to this reality. But I'm not
teaching an academy student right now. And you have no
business receiving it at that level. These are the facts.
This is the hot dope. They're not based on my opinions. I
might have entirely different opinions, and often have had,
but I have enough self discipline not to pass them on to you.
 
There's a lot of things I could believe in. Lots. For
instance there are things that I would like to be doing
that are, oh my god. When I look at some of these
politicos...  The worst valences I've ever been in contact
with rise to the fore. But I don't allow that to color the
job. I have a job to do. You have a job to do.
 
I'm going to let you in on something. I didn't even get
R6ed. I'm not from this planet. Now. If I can take it on
that it'd be a very good thing to clean up this planet, you
who were here can damn well share the responsibility and
not say it's all up to Ron. That's an interesting thought,
isn't it?
 
Right away somebody comes along and tries to hang me as
responsible for all the aberrations of the human race
because I'm trying to do something for it. Well you can
expect such a thing to be passed on to you. But you find
out in the long run, if you do your job, do it cleanly,
stick to the truth, stick to facts, do those things which
exactly work and go on forward, you come out right in the
end. It's the only way you ever come out right.
 
When you compromise with your own reality, when you deny
your own basic goodness, when you indulge in your own stuck
ideas, you don't come out right.
 
So somewhere up the track somebody listening to this tape,
he was trained by a cracker jack academy supervisor, his
Saint Hill course was right on the groove, they didn't flub
clay table.
 
They did a great job of it all the way across the lines.
This guy really knows his business. He knows his business
backwards and forwards. He's moved through 7, he really
knows how to do Power, and he comes to 8. And he hears this
tape. Well the only thing I wish to advise him, that if he
doesn't keep doing his job and keep the data straight, it
can get as bad as it has gotten.
 
You see, the road out is the only road there is. The road
in and down is a total stop and stays stuck forever. It
isn't a road, it's a hole. Therefore, I enjoin upon you the
job of listening to the straight data, teaching the
straight data, using the straight data, and keeping the
road out open.
 
And when these wild opinions come in sideways, to knock
them out and kick them aside, with the contempt they deserve.
 
Holding the line, holding the road open is not an easy job.
Every suppressive that comes along the line has to
invalidate it. He has to discredit it. He goes into a
dramatization of discrediting, because he himself is
terrified. What if some other being got stronger? It's all
he can think of.
 
What is some other being got stronger? He in his egocentric
nonsense thinks that the other being would become more
evil, and therefore destroy him with more enthusiasm. But
why does he think that? 'Cause he knows damn well he
deserves it. And once more on this subject, how does he
know so well he deserves it?
 
So, when I give you this data I am not giving you a very
broad area of opinion. I'm giving you exactly what works, I
am giving it to you exactly as it works. And these are the
data which you have to know how to do. It's the data which
are stressed on the Class VIII course. You will not find
any data outside that perimeter. Not even worth paying any
attention to.
 
Now somewhere up the line, probably somebody will invent
something else besides LSD that is now exported with such
enthusiasm by psychiatrists, to make them drum up business.
More than one way to drum up business. The psychiatrist you
know, is just a dramatizing mad man.
 
By definition. There are psychiatrists in R6, and certain
people go into valences and become this thing and do it.
And they attain their public presence by the fact that
people know the symbol in R6 and so accept them without too
much objection. They're out of valence in R6.
 
Now when you get pushed sideways, this and that, it's
because you think some new data has come out. Now I tell
you exactly how, exactly how a case becomes unsolvable, and
exactly why an auditor squirrels. And I've told you
something about this before, but this is exactly why and
how. Standard tech is missed by about four or five miles.
Missed. And then because the case has been missed the
auditor sits there looking, or the case supervisor sits
there looking for an unusual solution, because the case now
seems unusual.
 
All unusual cases are cases that have been mishandled
under the heading of standard tech. They have already
been mishandled by departure from standard tech, and
then appear to be unsolvable, and then appear to need
some new solution. And the auditor, or the case supervisor,
seeing this odd phenomenon sitting there of apparently an
unresolving case, then dream up something new, or think
they have to go into some other area, and practice yogi
exercises or drill holes in his head, or something of this
sort. Do you see how that happens? But I assure you of
this, and this is the stable data, this datum right here.
Standard tech has already been missed! There's a miss in
standard tech. All unusual cases come about through a miss
in standard tech. The resolution of all such cases is to
find out where standard tech became unstandard. Do you see?
 
So here's this case, he's a wide-open invitation to the
auditor and the case supervisor to squirrel, because he
appears to be so unstandard. "Bu-yu-yu-yu-, he's not
solving. We did everything we're supposed to do and nothing
hasn't happened. So we have to do something else. Now let's
dream up some new... " Now the danger of this is these new
ideas usually come from stuck and fixed ideas. And they
don't apply to the case, they only apply to the guy who
thought them up. So much so that the late Volney Matheson
developed a drill. And he found out the cases that were
being audited unsuccessfully, way back when, when he was
fooling around with this, with meters and so on, he found
out what had been audited on the preclear, and then put the
auditor on the cans and found out that was what was wrong
with the auditor. You see, these failed cases, the auditor
was trying to audit his case out of the PC. Hell, that's
the introduction of fixed ideas.
 
You go back over a case like this. A standard flub. And
honest to Pete it is sitting there, so big and so wide,
that you wonder how in the name of god anybody could miss
it. They could just about as well miss a ten thousand watt
search light in the middle of a dark night. It is right there!
 
I'll give you an example. Give you an example. Unsolvable
case came up. Absolutely unsolvable. My god, you couldn't
do anything with this case. Well the reason you couldn't do
anything with him, he had been two days overrun on ARC
Straightwire past an F/N. And then this couldn't be
rehabbed because he was in the middle of a secondary. But
every effort to rehab the ARC Straightwire F/N collided
with the secondary which he had already skidded in to,
because it's the next, next step up. And the PC, through
overrun and so forth, he just slid into the next step up.
And all the time the auditor was trying to rehab the ARC
Straightwire the guy was trying to run the secondary. Which
made an interesting looking session. Auditor trying to do
one thing, the PC doing something else, you know?
 
Well you would have said, "By golly, that's enough, that's
enough, enough certainly, to have thrown any case out the
window right there." Yeah, yeah, yeah. The case became
unsolvable.
 
But going back through earlier green forms on the case an
R/S was found on missed withholds, an R/S was found on
connected to a suppressive group. And neither one had been
handled or touched by the auditor. Now how the hell could
an auditor go right past the green form, see a great, big
R/S turn on on a missed withhold, and never inquire what it
was? Not only that, but another auditor had come along
later doing a green form, and had gotten a blow down on
missed withholds, and had gotten a blow down on connected
to a suppressive group.
 
And had never inquired what they were. In addition to that,
in the sea check the guy had walked into the organization
so damn high on LSD that his eyeballs were Archimedes
spirals going 'round and 'round. And that was in the sec
check.
 
So what happened? He sat the case down, pulled the missed
withhold. It was an over your dead body sort of a, of an
action. Got what suppressive group it was. The fellow knew.
And then rehabbed a fantastic amount of overrun and weird
release on drugs. I don't know the length of the session, I
think the total session maybe took forty five minutes.
 
So here where standard tech had already been passed by we
had an unsolvable case that was just sitting there. Anybody
who really didn't know his business would have immediately
accepted this invitation to do something wild, weird and
wonderful. Here was this fellow with his tone arm stuck way
up in the roof, unresolvable, couldn't be audited,
nattering, wouldn't go near Qual, hardly could be forced
into an auditing chair, reporting to the M.O., spent thirty
six hours or so in a hospital where the doctors could find
nothing wrong with him. These are all unusual solutions.
His unusual solution to his case was to stay away from
Qual. Quals' unusual solution was to send him to the
hospital. People were asking for some brand new technique
to come up and hit it. And what was it? It was a case
overrun on drugs with a missed withhold, and connected to a
suppressive group. Also, which didn't have to be resolved
to solve the case, he was also wanted by his draft board.
And was running out on it as a known present time problem,
which didn't come up in auditing.
 
So you see standard tech only had to be about three
quarters in to resolve the case. Case resolved beautifully.
 
Now when I see a folder which is about a foot thick with
mislisted lists I know there is enough there to wrap it
around a telegraph pole. When I see a tremendous number of
sessions which didn't F/N, and when I also haven't got the
case folder for the entirety of the auditing, and the case
has been overrun on a lot of early processes, I could feel
very, very sad about the whole thing. Because it's almost
an Herculean job to untangle it. The goofs have added on
top of goofs have added on top of goofs.
 
Now you're going to see this in case supervision. In Class
VIII you not only have to be a whiz bang auditor, you also
have to be a case supervisor. And there are two distinct
skills: To audit, you only know how to audit, but to case
supervise, you have to know exactly what is wrong with the
case in order to order what auditor. Another trick.
Entirely separate tricks. And if you think you have to know
it to audit, brother, what you have to know to case
supervise. You have to know your data. You have to know
standard tech data main line. Because in one of these
things you hand it over to only a slightly experienced
auditor who starts goofing it.
 
Instead of repairing the list, he's never heard of the laws
of listing. He attests that he has, he can parrot
something, but he doesn't know why you do a list, and he
doesn't know this, and he doesn't know that. And you ask
him to repair a list. Oh my god. Aaah! He doesn't know
enough about listing himself to repair a mislisted list. So
you get back a case folder where the case is more messed
up. You said the right thing. You said "Straighten out this list." And you gave it back, you gave it to this auditor,
and this auditor, he never heard of listing. You thought he
did, but he somehow or another managed to sleep through it
all. And you get the folder back worse off. He, he didn't
even repair the existing list, he added a nine page list to
an already complete list. And the case is worse off than
before.
 
So, you say, "Well we will be hopeful about this", and we direct what it is, and we get the guy grooved in on exactly
what he's supposed to do. And we give it back to him, or to
another auditor, and when we get the folder back he's
decided that it was really not lists that was worrying this
fellow, but the fact that the man hates auditors. So he has
run, "From where could you hate an auditor?" Do you see? Ant the case is now worse off, and you as case supervisor
get the thing back. You will actually have to decide now,
that you are in a fire fight of some kind or another, and
it's over auditors' dead body. And so you have to have a
method of cutting their throats. Well the proper order is,
"Do an L1 with the prefix on lists. And just clean up each
read as it goes through." In other words, you're not going
to let anybody look at a list again. You're going to pick
up the ARC breaks which are in restimulation on the subject
of lists and let it go at that, because that's all you can do.
 
So your case supervision is limited by the skill of the
auditor who's doing the auditing for you.
 
You sometimes have to pull your shots. You know, for
instance, that this case needs to be, to get the full four
rundown, or something like that, there's something out with
the full rundown, and you've got an auditor there that you
know damn well he can't do it. Well, so therefore you have
to figure out something he can do that will still
straighten out the case. And that's the only variability
you get in case supervision. Your case supervisor orders
may be beyond the ability of the auditor to execute. That
is usually demonstrated, you never really pull your shots
on case supervision. You say exactly what he's supposed to
be doing, exactly. It's when you get into these wild fire
fights, or correcting a correction. So you give case
supervision and then they goof it. So you have to now
correct the correction. Well, you can only do that a couple
of times without all of a sudden having such a glorious
mess on your hands that you had better take some more
direct route. Obviously beyond the skill of the auditor to
do, even though it's a very standard action.
 
You say the case, because he feels very sad, is in an ARC
break of long duration. That's a standard statement. Sad
case, ARC break long duration. Boom, boom. Little data add
up at once. And you give it back to the auditor. And the
auditor gets in some kind of a fire fight with the PC. See?
And he puts in an R-factor. Well I had a folder today. The
auditor managed to get into a fire fight with the PC over an
R-factor. God, I don't know how he did that. That must have
been a masterpiece. How could you get into a fire fight? The
auditor must have said something very weird. Instead of
saying, "We're going to do an assessment on the case, this
isn't what it was, but instead of saying, "I'm going to
assess a list on your case," and so forth, "We're going to find out what type of resistive case you are." Must have,
because he had protest on resistive case. So he must have
mentioned it. 'Course he was a good auditor, he wouldn't
evaluate! Ha.
 
Now, some auditor you give an, you give a case supervision,
you say, "This girl is leading a highly illegal sort of a
second dynamic existence. So therefore we're going to pull
missed withholds." You have gotten it on your intelligence
lines that this is the case with this case, don't you see?
Or you've gotten it from something or other, or the case
natters in session. All these various indicators. Or the
case is just chewing up more husbands than she can get
married to, it's a sort of assembly line, you know? So you
figure there must be some kind of an irregularity on the
second dynamic, so obviously because the case is mad at
men, or something like this...  You've got indicators,
indicators, indicators, see? And you say, "Case is living a rather irregular second dynamic existence. Pull the missed
withholds."
 
Then this auditor, he shows the case the...  We don't
have any, we don't have any control over this, you
see, as case supervisor, but we sure can find out what
happened, 'cause the session won't come off unless it's
totally false reported. And the PC, when they go to the
examiner, isn't going to do anything, if the session didn't
come off, why it's going to show up on the examiner line.
And if it doesn't show up on the examiner line I guarantee
it'll show up on the ethics line later. You got two spots
of control here. Shows up at the examiners or it shows up
at the ethics. It'll also show in no further sign ups. See?
So these spots, if you were really doing a case supervisor
job, your admin would be to find out who is in ethics.
Who's in ethics trouble? What PCs have just gone through
here that ethics orders have been issued on? And another
one would be, from the registrar, of who hasn't signed up
for the next grade. So you'd want a leaving interview.
 
Now I can tell you the tech is out if over fifty percent of
the PCs going through an HGC do not show up for a leaving
interview. Now you can jump on routing, and you can jump on
this and you can say, "How the hell did that get out?" The truth of the matter is, PCs must be avoiding it. So tech
must be out.
 
Now it would be very interesting then, to take such people
that didn't show up at the registrars' office when they
left the organization, and to check them back against your
folders. And then you will find out that Aloicious Q.
Zilch, HGC auditor, lies, lies, lies. If the TA is at
seven, he writes two, F/N. The lies are never slight. And
so you hang him and get on about your business.
 
A case supervisors' neck is always out. The false auditing
reports. So therefore there are various checkpoints by
which the false report shows up. But the basis of this is,
and must be, that the case supervisor has a certainty on
standard tech. See, he must know that standard tech,
applied standardly, works. If he's wondering, "Does this
work", or "Something that doesn't work", or "Should I go back to yogi? I used to have such fun sitting in an ibis
position." He can't police it down like that.
 
Now we had one today, case supervision. I gave a little
list to be audited. A little list. One, two, three, four
items. And this was what, by understanding, with the PC
having trouble with any one of these items, or with any one
of these items charged. And one of them blew down and
F/Ned. It was just the list. Blew down and F/Ned. Well I
could tell this because the folder was, I don't know, eight
or nine feet thick. That's an exaggeration. It was only
about six inches thick. But, wow!
 
Now we say, "Well golly, if the guy, if the guy blew down
and F/Ned, he's got something wild. Absolutely wild! What
terrible auditing he had all the way along the line. Well
it's obviously what was wrong with the case, well it's
passed an F/N and there isn't any thing you can do about
it." Oh yeah? Oh no, as case supervisor that told me that
the person had withholds from that item, so in the next
session we're going to pull the missed withholds. Because
it was a list of people who were trying to help him. So I set
up a list of people who were trying to help this person, and
one of them blew down, and he said, "Oh they were absolutely terrible," so I know then, at once, that's a critical
opinion. So we pull the missed withhold. Elementary.
 
It's not even very clever. It's very standard. I want to
find out where, where is this character sitting? This guy
been audited over PTPs, missed withhold, ARC breaks, what?
See? Well by ordering a prep check on a certain number of
items after assessment, I could tell from the answers where
he's been sitting. I was denied the information because on
one of the items he blew down. And went F/N. And that was
the end of that, of course. You didn't prep check beyond
that. There's still missed withholds sitting there.
 
So now we're going to get in suppress on missed withholds,
and pull the missed withholds, and the case'll sail. Missed
withholds don't read in a session. But they must be there.
They must be there 'cause the folder's too thick. See what
I mean? Case has critical opinions, folder too thick, blows
down on people trying to help him. Must have missed
withhold. Person isn't sad, so it isn't an ARC break. His
case rolly-coasters, so it isn't a PTP. Change, oh there's
change there. The only one's left is missed withholds. Now
that would be combined with overts, so when it comes back
and "No the person doesn't have any missed withholds", that's great. I'm going to have overts. And we will get
around to this, sooner or later. And the case will no
longer go to review.
 
The case supervisor is in the business of ending off review
cycles. He is never in the business of starting them.
 
A case supervisor who has too many people going to review,
after he has had them supervised in the HGC must be working
with the damndest crew of bums as auditors anybody ever
heard of, or himself must be driven up the wall by
inventiveness. Something must be very out. But what you
keep your paws on is standard tech. Don't let that slip,
see? That's the thing which mustn't slip. Pcs slip,
auditors slip, reporting of cases slips, see? Various
things slip, but not standard tech. That doesn't slip.
 
Now unless you know that well subjectively, and so on, it
will slip. Because you just have it on my say so. So
therefore the progress is, that the auditor should be able
to get horrendous wins with standard tech. And boy, when
he's really got it in the groove. Sits down across from
that ole' PC, and he says, "Rattata-tat", and the meter says rattly-bang, F/N. Ratta-ta-tat, booms He just sits
there.
 
An auditor who can audit this by the way gets so cocky
and insufferable he can't be lived with. He does. And
that is a frailty, because when you get hotter than a
pistol as an auditor you then automatically assume you can
case supervise. And that's another skill. That's really
calling your shots. And when case supervision, you're
saying the number three ball in the right corner pocket.
And the auditor, he doesn't even pick up a cue. He thinks
it's hit with a base ball bat. So you've entered this piece
of randomity on your auditing lines, and it tends to sort
of begin to shake you a little bit. But if you know what
can be done, then you know what he ought to be doing. And I
assure you that standard tech, correctly applied,
applied standardly, gets one zero, zero par cientum.
 
Variations, goof balled, mucked up application, and so
forth, are all that reduce it. So it's your business to get
it applied. Your foe is the introduction of somebody who
knows best. The bird is sitting there auditing the PC, and
the PC comes up with a wide open invitation to squirrel.
 
And the auditor, the knuckle head, departs from the C/S and
squirrels. Now you've got a patch up of the session.
(Sighs) Because if this auditor squirreled once, he's
liable to squirrel twice.
 
So you have to start nailing it in with ethics presence.
 
And then, the next thing you know, you get the session
folder back and he's not squirrel this time, boy he's blown
his cool from here to the north pole. Gone. He's just in a
lot of pieces.
 
If you were to research into this you would find out that
inadvertently you've put him to auditing his ex-girlfriend.
Or that she looks just like his mother. Something is goofed
up here of some kind or another. Something has entered into it
which has no business in the line of any kind whatsoever.
 
When you get into one of these fire fights whereby you're
trying to get a case supervisor instructions actually done,
and the auditor is doing other things. But every now and
then you get an auditor who will be obliging and write down
that he did what he didn't do. And he's the only guy who
can hang you. You can't straighten that out. As a case
supervisor you've got to go in through the lines, you've
got to go in to order restraining, you've got to go into
all kinds of side lines that you really have no business
in. Case supervisors' neck is out a mile on a false
auditing report. So therefore he must be absolutely
merciless when he receives one. It's the only thing that
can wreck him. If he can get the facts, and if he can
read the auditing report...
 
That's another thing. It's an actual fact, if I'm auditing
for blood, as Qual here can tell you.
 
When I can't read the auditing report it goes back with
some asperity and velocity. I won't have anything to do...
By the way this is a very good rule. Don't have anything to
do with an auditing report you can't read. Don't have
anything to do with it. If you get into it, you will be
over mastered, sometimes by your curiosity to know what
happened to Zilch. Sort of like One Man Stanley continued
story, you know? You want to know what happens to Zilch. So
you try to make out this. And he had a new auditor today,
and this auditor writes a script which is just a continuous
series of ee's.
 
And this auditor writes a script which is just a continuous
series of ee's. And you can't read it.
 
And the second you discover that to be the fact you take,
if you are really on the groove, and you're really clever,
you really know your business, you turn it around, without
trying to make it out, and send it back for printing in a
different colored pen over every indecipherable word.
 
Make him rewrite the whole thing. And then, you assign him
projects in penmanship until he can write so that he can be
read. You never go it by halves, because I'll tell you why.
You're gonna eventually start winding up with headaches as
a case supervisor. You got misunderstoods all over the
place. You're trying to find out what the hell did the PC
say, what, what is that? Looks like ee's. Is it leave,
have, boo boo, catterwamp? And you sometimes read these out
as they would actually look. And you get "butter wump mum
hip". And you keep doing this, you're gonna wind up with an antipathy toward an auditing report. An auditor, actually
part of his training, should be to write rapidly, legibly.
Anybody can learn how to do it. Doesn't even take much
practice.
 
Few days ago I ordered an auditor to learn how to write.
And I'll be a son of a gun. Session came up, next session
that person did a few days later, came up, the auditor was
writing. I'm sure the session wasn't slowed up. Only took
him a few days to learn how to write.
 
But a case supervisor should never accept an indecipherable
folder, because he starts laying mysteries into his line.
He'll start making mistakes. And this is, what's more I
tell you. He doesn't do his job fast. See? He does his job
right now, and so forth. But that is to say he doesn't do
his job on the basis that the PC has got to be audited
'cause he's leaving for Spokane. Just out of pure
cussedness don't do the folder. "What about that pc that's
got to leave for Spokane? He's got to catch a four o'clock
plane. We've got to give him a session.
 
He's got his reservations, and so forth. As case
supervisor you should say, "Bubber out, bub." Let him catch the plane next Saturday. Because I want him to go back to
Spokane right, not rushed.
 
What frame of mind must this guy be in during the auditing
session? Sitting on the edge of the chair, watching his
clock, "Let's see. It's a review. Awawaww." In the first place, standard sessions are very rapid. And very, very,
very rapid. And there's no percentage in pointing the guy
wrong, as I've told you before. No percentage in it
whatsoever. Just make sure you're pointing it right. Don't
think twice about, you look at this and you wonder, "What
the hell? What, what's this? What's this? I don't know.
This case isn't acting right." And send it back to the
auditor to get an assessment done. Send it back to the
examiner to get the case looked at.
 
Folder looks a little bit funny to you. Looks a little bit
weird. Something a little bit weird about it. Send it back
to the examiner for another examination. Don't take chances
with it, because that's not where you save your time. Time
is saved in the case supervision being correct. And
in the auditing being expert. Do you see? And you'll learn
eventually, so that your lines smooth out, you do them very
rapidly. But when in doubt, the only time you miss, is when
you get in a rush. Or you talk, you get in such a rush you
send for the auditor. Cuts your throat, boy.
 
Want to sell stock? He thinks he's standing there looking a
condition of doubt in the teeth, maybe. He'll tell you
anything. It's a facts. And then, of course you're just
seeing the PC from his viewpoint. And he, perhaps is
offended. He has tried to help the PC, and the PC wasn't
helped in some fashion or another. So he's offended. So he
blames you. The fact that he forgot to start the session
and plug in his meter, he ignores.
 
So in the final analysis your grip on standard tech must be
so standard that you expect standard results and settle for
nothing less. And you solve the problems that you run into
in auditing on that basis.
 
Now you could get into some situation where a guy is in an
upper OT...  This would be the toughest situation I would
know of. The guy is in an upper OT Section classification
as you walk on the scene as case supervisor. And his TA is
at 5, and he has apparently had all known remedies. He's
been run on "What has been overrun". He has been rehabbed on anything and everything you could think of. And he, his
TA is up there. And that, something like that will be your
first invitation to squirrel. Because, here's, here's the
facts. Somewhere in that line of all this has been done is
a false report. It hasn't...
 
I found one the other day. Case was way high, "What has
been overrun" has been run on the case. Ba-ba-ba, ba-ba. I
went back. I found the session of "What has been overrun". Do you know what the auditor did? The auditor listed a list
of what has been overrun, indicated no reading items on it,
although many of them read, and then didn't rehab any of
the things that were overrun. The right way to do this
list, is, it's, it is not a list. It is simply an auditing
question for which you are writing down the answers in
order to do something with them. So he write down the first
thing and it had a fall. Alright. Now at that moment you
take that item, which he has just put down, and you run it
back to the time it was released, and before it was
overrun. And you may not get an F/N on that one. You now
give the next item. The PC gives you the next item, and
there's no read on that, so you neglect it. The PC gives
you the next item, you get a long fall. Good. You take that
subject, you run it back, you rehab it. Good.
 
Now, you got the next subject. He's talking about all kinds
of things, you know? Bookkeeping's been overrun. Well you
run it back to when it was released. You'll get some charge
off of each one of these things as you try to rehab it. And
you get him down the line here, another item, another item,
six, eight items later that have read, each one of them
rehabbed to a time when they went release. The tone arm has
gradually come down, and in most of cases where this is
happening and there isn't also something else wildly wrong,
it then F/Ns. And the tone arm has been cured. Don't be
surprised if it tends to go up, because probably a lot of
his grades are overrun, because they sat on ruds, or, a lot
of his grades never went release, because he was so overrun
when he got into Scientology, and so forth, that auditors
just sort of despaired of actually getting an F/N, and
they'd give him F/Ns of 3.9, or something.
 
And the truth of the matter is, the guy's grades are out
and they never did go release. But you've cured the earlier
overruns. You can bring him up to a point now where he can
do something about it. Now you'd have to decide whether or
not it was audited over out Ruds or if it was because of
basic track overrun, that he never went release on his
grades. Which, which was the reason? Which was the reason?
 
Well, funny phenomena will occur. You can put in the Ruds.
An upper OT guy or something like this, you can put in the
Ruds before the point. Put in the Ruds before auditing. Put
in his ARC breaks, PTPs, on the whole track, and get him up
to a point. Now check, again, the release points. They
don't occur. Good. He's not flat on ARC Straightwire,
engrams, secondaries, the lot. All the way up the line he
isn't flat on a single, god damn thing. Every one of them
has to be run. You say, "Magnificent. How the hell did he
get this far?" Well, I don't know. How far could a bunch of auditors that didn't know what they were doing push a guy?
How many false attests can you get? An infinity, of course.
 
But you'll see this case, and they will say, "Everything
has been done." Particularly if you're new on post.
Somebody wants to shake you down, put you in place, see?
"Well, here's this case, here's this case. Zilch. Ha-hool
Everything's been done! Ha hat Everything's been done.
 
The lot. The whole, yeah everything. What has been overrun,
valence shifters, confront, we've rehabbed all grades,
rehabbed drugs, rehabbed ha ha ha ha ha, education. He's
had forty five remedy Bs, one hundred and seventy two S and
Ds, we've done everything we can do. He's, we've rehabbed
all the F/Ns that ever occurred on green forms and sec
checks. We've done all of this, and there he is! Ha ha!"
And you say, "Oh my gods" You start looking through the auditing reports on the case which you have to study very
carefully. Case supervisor always does. He looks through
these things, and he looks through these things, and they
all seem to be OK. It all seems to be done alright. Wow.
There's your whole tool bag. Heen emptied out on the
ground. Every one of them's been used. Hm! I would do
something like this. On resistive case has anything been
suppressed? Prep check the following. You don't care. You
can always prep check things. Prep check assessment lists.
Prep check S and Ds. You don't care what you're gonna
suppress. You know, prep check some things. You can't even
assess this list anymore. There's eighteen assessments of
resistive cases in it, see?
 
And all of a sudden something blows down. Now you can
follow what blew down back as the false report chain. Got
it? You can take and prep check everything on the resistive
cases list, including resistive cases lists. Something is
gonna BD. Something's suppressed. There's something still
out. Handle it.
 
Now, something else comes into view, and you find out that
you've been handed a bundle of lies. Everything hasn't been
done. I'd just compare it. The same thing. The guy, the
unresolvable case, the completely and utterly unresolvable
case, who yet R/Sed and then blew down on missed withholds,
and connected to suppressive groups. I mean, what more do
you want? I mean, how the hell, you say, can an auditor sit
there, and actually look at a meter do this? And notice it,
because he wrote it in his auditing report, and never asked
the guy a single question, What was the missed withhold?"
 
Well, it compares to a Power which I inspected in one of
your folders. Oh my god. Aaah. 5A.
 
And it says, almost direct quote, "Places. No place. PC
says no place is not the answer. PC sitting quietly
thinking. Blow down. F/N." And then he took him to 1D.
(Drums fingers on table) Blew down on what? The PC was
listing without talking! In other words, the auditing was
so god damn bad, that the PC has ceased to talk to the
auditor. He was listing to himself! Well, that's because
the item just above it hadn't been given to the PC. They
were just listed to F/N. Dadadadamm. You get it? Never
found the item, never gave it to the PC. Or it's a wrong
item. The list needs to be checked. But there's evidence,
the PC listing to himself. He wasn't giving any items, but
he had a blow down. And smiled quietly. I don't think he
smiled quietly, I think he smiled god damned sarcastically.
 
What was the item the PC thought of that caused the blow
down? Obviously the auditor should give it to him. Left the
PC with a withhold of one item. Not only did he not give
the PC his items on this, but he left the PC with a
withhold of one of the items, which is on 1C. This is clown
stuff. But you look back over a lineup like this, you can
find errors. Unfortunately, this person's already been
through the CC, so that is not a corrective list. Power's
not corrective.
 
You can get into trouble, because you, you...  You can
correct it if the person never went clear, but you can get
into trouble. How do you get into trouble? Well, when you
try to straighten it out you inadvertently start running
it. You find out the list, the Power list or commands or
something weren't complete, and you find that as the
wrongness. Now you're gonna have to run Power. And you run
Power after clear you wrap the PC around a telegraph pole.
 
One auditor in one thousand PCs would be able to do it and
get away with it, and thinking he'd gotten away with
something he'd find out the PC never went clear in the
first place. But then your side data comes in. "Oh well, I, I ran a PC on Power one time after he was clear, and
nothing happened. I don't see why there's any proviso on
that." We're only dealing with all data, see? Of course you could probably rehabilitate, rehab Power on this PC or that
PC, maybe even, when they were clear without any great
consequence, or even with a bit of a win, see? But it's
not one of these data you could do it with every PC,
so every time you did it you'd take one hell of a chance.
And then the PC that it couldn't be done on, boys
Now you gonna untangle that, see? Because you can only
untangle it by rehabbing it, which...  And Power is an area
where you can get into a fire fight on your correction on a
person after he's been cleared, because you of course are
never dealing with his Power. You'll find some body thetan
on whom of course you could run Power. So you're busy
involved in running body thetan Power, Power on a body
thetan, and then the individual himself of course mis-owns
this and thinks Power isn't flat. It gets into a mess with
great rapidity.
 
So we're talking in standard tech on the data you can do on
every PC every time. But again, it follows the laws of
processes. On case supervision there are only so many
things that you can do. But you can only do them once. Now
when they've all been done, you have to ask the question of
"Were they done?" So this gets to be very fascinating, because of course they haven't all been done.
 
Now you're, only thing you have to solve is which one is a
false resort. Not to overweigh the, or overrun the, the
object of the lesson. But this is what it takes.
 
Now you're probably struggling along with an infinity of
data. And you think that there is an infinity of data. And
it'd only be an infinity of data if you had an infinity of
fixed ideas. The data are very few, the overall technical
data are probably under, I don't know what they are, just
at a guess two, three four, five hundred. At the absolute
outside, I'm talking about data, in the body of data.
There's things like the axioms, and things like this, you
include these things in. As far as processes are concerned,
why there probably aren't fifty. And in the numbers of ways
to do them there's only one. So what are you talking about,
infinity of data? See? There's no infinity of data. There's
an infinity of goofiness in life. That can go to infinity
with the greatest of ease.
 
So whenever you see, whenever you see somebody squirrelling
you know he's already goofed. And that is the law
concerning it. A squirrel has already goofed. Now he can't
goof so seriously that he can't ungoof his goof. That's not
possible. Unless he takes a brick and hits the PC over the
head, and exteriorizes him forcibly, and buries the body
someplace and then can't find the PC. But if you can't get,
your goof would mostly consist of being unable to get the
PC to come back into session. Sometimes he has to be sort
of dragged back. But a goof always precedes the
squirrelling. And that goes clear back to 1950. If somebody
in 1950 had taken Book One, and they'd run engrams the way
Book One said, just that, and they'd done that, why they
would have found a high percentage of resolution of cases.
Just like that. And they got a high percentage of
resolution of cases. But engram running started to go out
sideways, and it went out sideways over a great many years,
until a short time ago it was reported that engram auditing
by chains was very old hat and even looked on like
squirrelling.
 
Brother, I sure don't know how you'd ever resolve a hung up
3 if you couldn't run engrams by chains. Couldn't. It's the
only road left open. See what I mean?
 
Somebody can come along and take one of the basic central
data, he can take a basic central datum, and he can say,
"Ha ha, oh it's gone now. I know we really don't do that
anymore. I just came from the Flag Ship, and so forth, and
they, they don't do that anymore." Move it off the line.
Now standard tech doesn't work anymore. And that is
normally what happens. They either take a datum or a body
of data off the line by invalidation, or they put some new
data on the line by evaluation. And, that way, the subject
goes crooked. And it's no longer a straight subject so it
doesn't work, so people have to invent all kinds of damn
things to make it work.
 
So you see then why I work hard to hold the line. It's very
easily made unworkable. All you have to do is throw away
the text book.
 
Now there are certain beliefs that certain subjects of one
kind or another have certain degrees of workability. That's
perfectly true. Natureopathy, chiropractic, to name a few
antique things, phrenology, where they told fortunes by the
bumps on the skull, which I think is, they changed its'
name after a while to psychology. They tell fortunes by the
bumps on the brain. There isn't actually any difference in
these data. Even psychology preempted the word of soul,
study of.
 
That's what the word means. When they start teaching
psychology, they started teaching it by saying they didn't
know what it meant. That's a great place to start a
student, isn't it? "Psychology. Well we do not know what
the word means, because a psyche means soul and we don't
have anything to do with a soul." You think I'm kidding.
But that is how the last psychology text book read that
came off the press just ahead of volume one, 1950. I was
down at the American Book Company and I saw this blue
covered books were coming off the endless belt of the
binder. And they were coming off, pocketa, pocketa. And we
were waiting because there was a big ceremony involved in
it, for Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health to
come up the first copy through the binder. And it was
following this blue book. So I turned around to a, to the
head of American Book, and I said, "What book is that?" And he picked up a copy of it out of the bin. It was the
University of Illinois, I think it was, psychology text
book. It was their basic college textbook. And I said, "I
must have this one." And took it off the lines right ahead
of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health. And I
said, 'We will preserve this one in concrete so that the
psychologist cannot in the future lie about how much he
knew about Dianetics."
 
And that is the way the book starts. We don't know what
psychology means. It says, along about line four or five or
ten or something, somewhere in the volume, "Intelligence
cannot change. It is that way when the person is born. It
is the same when he dies." You look at this damn thing you
never saw such a parade of lies in your life. So I said,
"We'll keep this one." I've still got it in my library. It shows the state of the mind just before AD 0. State of
the mind. What did they know about it? Pffft!
 
"Now the great discoveries that are made in universities!
Professor Humphgaw! The great professor Humphgaw has just
understood that life has something to do with affinity.
Give a Nobel Prize." The lion, see? See? They read our
textbook you see, and they...  Sometimes you can get a
textbook on philosophy or religion, or something, in the
library. And you can look through it page after page, and
you'll find somebody has marked lines. And they have looked
through this book only to find things which agreed with
their own fixed ideas. And this book, you go through a lot
of library shelves on these subjects, and you'll for sure
find one. And it's marked, you know, some obvious thing,
you know? "Men are males", you know? And you'll see over here in the margin, "So true." (Laughter) So you could expect for a number of years yet to come, I suppose, the
great discoveries are brought about through, somebody reads
"Handbook for Preclears" or something of this sort, and he reads some line in there. All of a sudden he realizes that
that is the subject for a complete research foundation, and
goes ahead and investigates us. It's pretty weird.
 
But, they'd be much better off if they found out the line
following it, too. That also was important. So that you
actually can get subtractions from a subject. You can get
little isolated bits brought out of the subject. You can
take bits out of context. And then build these things up,
so that somebody's rather pauperized understanding can
reach into some situation and get "Men are males," and then build the whole thing up around "Men are males," and
there's a whole bunch of technology like this. But it
doesn't work. There's no workability. Because a very few
people have that fixed idea. Most people know it already.
 
So the whole subject is any subject which you're trying to
hold the lines of, is then wide open to variation if the
person, one, doesn't have a variability, a factor being
entered in by some stable, fixed idea that somebody has.
And the net result of it is workability. Now people who
have had the subject work well on their cases, and they've
seen pocketa ding thud crash, and it worked just like that.
They don't have any question about this as the right way to
do it, because it has worked. But then people who have been
audited without those data, and without those laws or rules
being applied, list over listed, under listed, items not
given to 'em, Power run upside down, forgot to run grades 2
and grades 3, and before they ran grade 4, this sort of
thing, they get into a feeling of wobble, wobble. They
haven't experienced standard tech, so they consider that it
is non-standard. And it's always more difficult to teach
somebody who has been subjected to non-standard tech than
somebody who has received good, straight forward standard
tech up the lines.
 
But if you really want to teach somebody the subject, and
make him a missionary on the whole idea, is after he has
been mucked up from A to lizzard, put him back
together again with standard tech. Zoom, thud. He's been
worrying about his case for the last three years. You put
him back together again with just straight standard tech.
And you put him back together again so fast he hardly knew
what happened. It went, pffft, pffft, pffft! Never knew.
Wow! He isn't necessarily overwhelmed. But he now has the
idea that is can be done wrong too. And I think in any
group taking a Class VIII course there will be a certain
number who have some idea and subjective reality that it
can be done wrong, there will also be some, some small
number of characters who have done it wrong and have
received it wrong, and don't quite know what they're
studying. And so don't quite know what to hold on to,
because it, haven't seen the workability, subjectively,
objectively. See? They've gotten into some back eddy of
sauirrel-ishness on the thing somehow or another, and just
left their case parked in right field and their
understanding parked some place back of home base, and
they're not quite sure what they're looking at. And they
get confused.
 
Now in this state, groping for some orientation, a groping
for something, why they'll hold onto some data like fury,
which may be a very minor datum. You know, like ARC contains R.
 
They really know it contains R. They got a subjective
reality on that. You have to spread them out from that.
They're fixed on that, because a lot of confusion is
oriented by that. And when you say there's more to it,
there's also A, and there's also C, why you're spreading
'em out to a point where the confusion starts to hit them a
little bit. And so they go back to the thing, "Well I
really am certain that R is R." You see how it happens?
 
So anyway, holding the line, holding the line. Trying to
get it to go straight down, right down the groove, and so
on, is subjectable to many cross currents, so that the
subject, with certain things subtracted from it ceases to
work on certain people, who then start looking for some
other way to do it, who then come in with some god damn
fool opinion, who didn't know in the first place, and blow.
And the whole subject goes up in smoke. Deteriorates. Which
is unfortunate. Men who know the laws of listing don't
follow them. Then they get some loses on cases. Now the
cases they've audited don't think, they think the laws of
listing have been applied, so they think the laws of
listing are wrong. So they invent some new idea of listing,
which is that all over listed lists must be over listed.
And that is what an auditor is up against.
 
Now the auditor himself is subjected to a certain amount of
invalidation, because he does what he thinks is necessary,
and what he is sure is the right thing to do. And he finds
out it doesn't straighten out the PC. This particular
instant didn't straighten out the PC. So, this makes him
feel like he's had a little bit of a lose. He sees the
examiner reports. The guy left the session apparently OK,
appeared at the examiner and there was something out. Well
how did that happen? So he feels a bit invalidated. He
feels he should do something else beyond the C/S.
 
Beyond the case supervision he should do something else.
 
So, the case supervisor sees this, and then he is subjected
to a certain amount of invalidation from the auditor. The
auditor, you know, didn't do so well that time. When he
appeared at the examiner he wasn't alright. Something's
wrong. Well, the one thing you can find to agree on in all
this, and this is the stable datum, the one thing you can
find to agree on all this, is that something is a departure
from standard tech. That gives you an orientation zone from
which to orient your disagreements. The auditor probably
busy blaming the case supervisor, the case supervisor busy
blaming the auditor, and the PC sitting back there with a
completely suppressed read on PTP. It's completely
suppressed because a present time problem doesn't
communicate to him. Every time you ask for a present time
problem, why he knows what problems are. They're solution
to things. And he hasn't got any solutions. All he's got is
worry. The communication to the PC is out. And it hasn't
emerged. Or he's got an ARC break of long duration. He's
there not on his own determinism, forced to be there. And
he suffers through it all. The idea of ARC break is
completely foreign to him, because the word doesn't
communicate. Or, because he's been asked for ARC breaks and
then had them invalidated.
 
You can get an infinity of wrongnesses that happened with
the guy, but the resolution of the case will be ARC breaks
are out, PTP is out, or, missed withholds are out, or he's
committing continuous present time overts, some grade is
out that was supposed to have been run but wasn't, the list
that was supposed to have been done was to wrong item, it's
falsely listed, or the general approach on TRs completely
out of the case supervisors sight, and completely out of
the auditors sight. Early on, why it was just constant
invalidation. The auditing sessions. He had several auditing
sessions in which each one of them was just a constant
invalidation. "Well, that's not right, actually what you
mean is so and so." See? Something weird has gone on.
 
Nevertheless you can untangle it all.
 
It's where you've had departures from these exact actions.
And some of those departures are important and some of them
are unimportant. Now I'll give you an example of what is
unimportant. I see in case summaries, which auditors do,
they're prone to list the administrative errors of the
auditor. They go through the folder and they list the
administrative errors. They raise hell. The auditor didn't
totally date the session, he didn't give the year, he just
gave the month and day, and he writes the TA down in the
wrong column, and you can't tell the difference in that,
and he doesn't give all of what the PC said, and he gave no
reason why he ended off the session, or something. These
are administrative, administrative, administrative. And an
auditor doing case summary, a case, a summary, a case
supervisors error summary of course is a thing. It is going
through every session you can get your hands on and finding
every auditing blunder in that session, and making a list
of these. Well, making this list, well, you'll find out an
auditor who's green at this, or a case supervisor who's
very green at this, he will go into this on the basis of
the administrative flubs. Do you see? You know, he didn't
date it, and he didn't write down...  There is no summary
report. Absolutely reprehensible. There is no summary
report for this session, and so forth. And he just goes on
and on and on, page after page after page. It's the wildest
listing you ever saw. Because not one of them would affect
a PC at alit The viewpoint from which case error summary
lists are done is the viewpoint of what has an auditor done
that would have messed up a PC.
 
Now, it could also be done from, what would mess up a case
supervisor. So you're interested basically in what would
have messed up the PC, secondarily in what would mess up
the case supervisor in trying to case supervise it. That's
why admin is tough and straight. Just so the people can
tell what's happening. That is basically what you want out
of an error summary report. What you want is what has been
done that would have affected the PC adversely? What
departures from standard tech do you find? We find PTP has
always been handled by "Invent another problem". Aaaahhh. Therefore we know there's going to be charge on the subject
of PTPs. So we're going to have to get PTP corrected. We
can prep check it. You always got prep checks, they're, you
can prep check anything. Overrun. Check for overrun on PTP.
 
Check for this, check for that. See? Overrun, prep check,
do something about it. But you've got it there. Look at
this, god damn it. For one and one half years this case,
they attempted to solve this case in a review, somewhere,
and they consistently ran "Invent another problem, invent
another problem, invent another problem", and the case has
just been getting worse and worse.
 
What really hasn't changed... his main basic
characteristics. See, you've got your error summary. That
would have affected the case. That was important. And the
session which goes wiggle biggie zibble, zig zig, wwwww
voom. You can't understand it, so the case supervisor's
been done in. So you say, "Out admin, shoot the auditor." That's what your folder error summary should consist of.
What affects the case? And what would affect it's case
supervision? That's all that's important. There isn't
anything else that's important. So it says "PTP, F/N". Doesn't say the PC said anything, it just blew this and
that. It happened two years ago - The auditor's already
been hanged. It isn't gonna affect the case one way or the
other, see, so why remark it? Say the hell with it. That
way you get the important things, the very, very important
things. Mis-listed list. Lists. Fifty S and Ds done in the
same week. See? That's the stuff. That's the stuff. Now you
know, you know what to order. "Too many S and Ds. Fly the
needle on S and Ds, overrun of. Find you can't do that, do
an L-1." That'll be your case supervision. "On S and Ds do an L-1. Fly the needle on S and D rehab. If this is
impossible, L-1, with the opening line is, 'On S and
Ds... '" Do something in this character, which is very
standard, standard list, you do it to this subject. But on
folder summary, in looking back over it, you'll find these
damned S and Ds. S and Ds, S and Ds, S and Ds. Christ, how
many suppressives are there on the planet? See? They're
over listed, under listed, wrongly executed, you know? Wow,
that must be an awful zone.
 
Now, but if we find out we can't do anything about it we
better stop restimulating it. And you get the other part of
the coin. You couldn't get anything done about it, so don't
do anything about it. Don't get into one of these
perpetuals, gonna take a year and a half to rehab this case.
 
See? Because the case is gonna get worse and worse and
worse and worse and worse. Over repair.
 
Do you have a better grip on this ? (Yes) If you think
there's an infinity of data then you must have confronted
an infinity of wrongnesses. And having confronted it, let
it blow. And hold on to the main line. Thank you very much.
 
**************************************************