6809C26 Class VIII TAPE 3



THE LAWS OF CASE SUPERVISION



And this is the third lecture of the series of the Class

VIII Course. Now I give it an English accent because they

will be played in England and they don't understand very

much in England except English. The rest of the lecture

will be in American.



It is the twenty six of September AD 18, and the Class VIII

Course marches on.



I am very, very happy tonight, very cheerful, very cheerful

indeed. Two of the other Class VIII Course suddenly became

auditors. Suddenly. And that is very, very good news. So

apparently one becomes a Class VIII auditor suddenly. After

a great deal of hard struggle, after reading very

carefully, star rating on the basic bulletins and the basic

materials, after going over this line, after getting a

total, total grip on tech, so if somebody says, "The third

law of listing," you say, "Brrrrp!", "The fifth line of the

Auditors' Code, "Brrrrzmp!" You don't even think. You know?

It's right there. Bong! It's not, "Let me see, according to

the laws of listing, I...  I wonder if I put down this... 

See I had a blowdown. What is a blowdown? I better look up

in this bulletin over here.' And apparently after about

three times through the lines, and got the material cold,

and after a terrific amount of study on properly done

sessions, now that is the thing which made the difference.

And just for the benefit of future students of the Class

VIII Course in England, and in America, the two points

which make a Class VIII auditor is a total, total grip on

basic tech, and a good hard study of well done sessions and

proper C/S which led to the well done session, ant a proper

grasp of how sessions aren't well done, and the study of

the C/S folders on that. And the C/S folders to which I

refer are the C/S folders which I did on Flag, on a very

long sprint of something on five weeks, over 500 C/S's.



Now. Therefore, a Class VIII auditor has a total grip on

tech so that he does not fumble, he does not have to think,

he doesn't have any unfamiliarity. And none of the

questions which I occasionally get, you don't have any

questions on the line. They've just got the tech, pongo!

They apply the tech, bango! And they become a Class VIII

suddenly, after they've done all this. It's almost lousy

sessions on Tuesday, fantastic on Wednesday.



And then, having become an expert Class VIII auditor one

has the difficulty then of becoming an expert Class VIII

case supervisor. The marvelous invitations which the

non-standardly run PC offers to the case supervisor to

squirrel are unlimited. There is an infinity of ways to run

a case wrong. There are less than four score ways to run it

right.



And any time some auditor misses the missed withhold; we

just had one. Guy ran, guy had, "You got an ARC break?",

you know, asked "You got an ARC break?" It didn't read. But

the fellow says, "Well yes. I have about three or four ARC

breaks. And these... well I'm having an awful time of them."

Natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter, natter,

natter, natter, paragraph, paragraph, paragraph, natter,

natter, natter. "Well do you have another ARC break?" No

read on the meter. "Oh yes, I've got a lot of other ARC

breaks," and so forth, "They're really doing me in," and so

forth. "Aw for the awful way things are running, they're

just terrible. And the way you're auditing is awful." And

so on. "Yes, I got a bunch of ARC breaks." And the TA goes

up and up and up and up. And the TA going up doesn't even

alert this auditor.



One of the difficulties I had at Saint Hill was making a

bunch of auditors learn that a missed withhold is a missed

withhold, and an ARC break is an ARC break. And never the

twain shall meet. But the guy can pretend to have an ARC

break when he has a missed withhold. And if you try to pull

an ARC break that doesn't exist and fail to pull the missed

withhold you're in trouble.



So there's a reverse slip to meter reading. Not only does

the meter falsely read, but you don't take up things that

the meter doesn't read on unless, when you get in suppress

it then reads.



You can always put suppress on a rudiment, but of course

now this is a wide open invitation to pianola. Put a nickel

in the slop of the juke box type auditing. "Do you have an

ARC break? That doesn't read. Alright. Has anything been suppressed?

Good. Do you have an ARC break? Oh, uh, it doesn't read. Do

you have a present time problem? Doesn't read. Has anything

been suppressed? Dajata degetee to do gee gee gee, boom"

Bull. My disgust.



Somebody who asked me, "How do you ask for an ARC break?" I

say, "Well now, listen. The answer to that question is a

star rate of every bulletin on the Class VIII Course. The

zeros included." Why?



The guy's asking questions like that because he hasn't got

a grasp on the tech. Do you follow? Now very often you get

asked weird questions that have to do with the persons'

case. He's asking you, "Do mice jump through hoops?" Well

he hasn't differentiated between the basics of life and the

peculiarities which have derived therefrom. Do you

understand? So you have to differentiate between what are

the basics with which you're dealing, and all of the god

awful complex screaming infinity of balderdash and nonsense

that can arise from a mis-combination of these. Alright? So

we get an unsolvable preclear. You go, "Oh, obviously

completely unsolvable. We asked for an ARC break and the TA

went up, so obviously he's an unsolvable preclear."



If you get pianola auditing, you drop a nickel in the

electric piano. The guy can't think basics! So what he

wants you to do is to put a tape recorder in his head. Now

if I gave you the proper answer to everything a PC ever

said it would take you from now 'till the end of the

universe to memorize it all, and I wouldn't be bothered

writing it. But anything a PC said is indicative of one of

another basics, of which there may only be two or three

hundred. Anything. Good, bad or indifferent. Do you get the

difference? If you've got your basics, when you've got your

basics, and you've got a grip on these basics, so that,

and, "I wonder if it's true about the second law of

listing." Psst! What are you going to get out of that?

You've going to get an infinity of doubt, and questions,

and all kinds of complications, and PCs are going to become

very complicated and they're going to become very unsolvable.



You get the mystery of, "We asked for the ARC break. And we

cleaned up the ARC breaks but he didn't F/N, so there must

be something wrong with standard tech, because he didn't

clean up."



Actually the situation's completely bonkers. What is the

symptom of a missed withhold? A missed withhold is the PC

nattering. Bong, bang! Don't think. See? You don't have to

say, "Well, let's see. I wonder what bulletin covers that,

and blablabla...  You know? And this...  He did...  I remember

that in a lecture, and blaaa... did did da."



"Do you have a missed withhold?" "Yes. People have been

very mean to me." "Good. What's the missed withhold?"

"Well, people have been awfully mean to me." "What's the

missed withhold?" "Well, I really don't have any missed

withhold." Read, read, read. How do you pull such a missed

withhold? Well you gotta know, you gotta know that you've

got to pull a missed withhold. Don't go any place else and

do anything else, for god's sakes, pull the missed withhold.



Well, how do you pull a missed withhold? Well there's ways

of exaggerating missed withholds. There's - I can tell you

half a dozen ways of pulling the missed withholds. What

you've gotta know is that you must pull a missed withhold.



Now it is either a missed withhold, or it's a false read.

If it's a false read you clean it up with false reads. You

follow? I mean, you have to know how to play this piano.



Now what would you think of a piano player who say down to

the piano and had to have somebody put his finger on each

key? And then say, "Press." You've got just about as much

change of getting Rachmaninoff's Prelude. He'll never play

it, boys He'll...  His musical sound, pinks, Pink, Pink,

Pink! "That was Yankee Doodle. Pretty good, huh?"



An auditing session is a piano. You play it, boy, and you

play it now. And you don't have any time to say, "I wonder

where C is." You hear "Plink" in the PC, and you go

"Plunk." Just like that. Bang, bang. "Do you have an ARC

break?" No read on the meter. "Yeah, I have lots of ARC

breaks. They're awfully mean to me in the engine room.

They've been shooting me down lately. And isn't it terrible

the way they write up... " "Good. What's the missed

withhold?" "Oh! Hm. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha. Well, if you

come down to that I, the other day poured eight tons of

diesel oil into the bunker fuel tank, and haven't told

anybody." "Good. Who nearly found out?" "Well, actually the

whole ship. The people have been sort of looking at me

since." "Good. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Do

you have a missed withhold? That's clean. Good. Do you have

an ARC break? No, that's good. That's fine. Now. Present

time problem? No. Alright, any overts? Well, it reads." "Oh

I don't know, I... " "Alright, has anybody ever told you,

while they were auditing you, that you had committed overts

you hadn't committed?" "Oh yes, as a matter of fact I was

doing this sec check and somebody said he turned on a rock

slam, and then he found out the meter was disconnected, and

so forth, and it was very upsetting. But I'd keep getting

this read on overts, and so on." "Good. Alright.

That was a false read at that particular time. Good. Do you

have an overt? Well that's clean. Your needle is floating. 

Thank you. We'll now proceed to rehab... " And you think I've 

been short handing it, but that's about how long it takes with 

these difficult cases.



There are no difficult cases with standard tech. There

aren't any. Well, this PC was given reviews for two and a

half years in Spokane, and the TA three years ago went up

to six and a half, and it's been there ever since, and at

various places they mislisted the list, and the number of

errors found in the auditing summary are 119 auditing

flubs. Well is the case hopeless? Case supervision. Do L4A

to F/N. Brrrrmp, bong, thump, bang, TA down, bzzt, bong.

That's it. And the reason why they don't resolve is because

the auditor's sitting there, "Gee, I wonder what chart,

what HCOB that was in. Let's see, it was on a tape, I think

it was on a tape, and something or other that the high TA

shows an incidence of, I think it was, I think it shows a

medical background. Let me see, what does a high TA show?

Umm... " Has no place at Class VIII. If you have to think in

order to know a basic fundamental data you're not VIII, and

you're not going to get sessions. They won't fly for you

boy. They won't fly! The way you fly a PC, and the way you

fly needles, is you know it. NOW! NOW! Somebody'll write me

a bunch of balderdash today. I never insult a students'

questions. That's perfectly alright. Ask all the questions

you please. But I don't guarantee not to bring them up.



All the questions I get are simply divergences from

standard tech. The guy hasn't read the bulletins. You know.

He hasn't read it. He doesn't understand it. If he did he

wouldn't be asking me questions like this. It's all there.

There aren't any questions left to ask. He asked me whether

or not you list a service facsimile to the first blowdown

or the second blowdown, or to what you do? Oh brothers

please! Any listing is covered by the laws of listings. The

laws of listing have no variables. There are no variables

in the laws of listing. You always list that way.



There isn't any other way to list than the laws of listing.

There are no other ways to list.



Period! Full stop!



It just happens accidentally that in 5A you were hitting on

the three primary points of a thetans' case, and it just so

happens that the first blowdown is invariably the item. It

happens on those three questions, because they are

questions which are dead on. It so happens that those three

questions are dead on. They will inevitably be. What you

can't trust when you're case supervising is that the

auditor caught the item that it did blow down on, and when

Power goes wrong, when 5A goes wrong, it blew down on item

one and he marked it as blowing down on item two. So when

Power apparently goes wrong, and the guy comes back and so

on, you get the list checked. And now it follows the full

laws of listing. You may have to add to the list, you may

have to suppress it, you may have to look for this and that

and the other thing. It just so happens that an expert who

doesn't get blowing downs on the wrong item inevitably and

invariably finds that the item's the first item that blew

down on the list. Because of the three key things about the

list, and that is why it's called Power Plus. Those three

listing questions, 1B, 1C and ID are just dead center on a 

case and he doesn't get several blowdowns. He'll only get 

that one.



I saw a Power 5A list on a student the other day that about

fried my hair. He got a blowdown and then went for a whole

column. What was he doing? Why? Why? Why did he have to

list? He had a blowdown. He wrote it down himself with his

own little pencil. So would somebody please tell me, please

tell my why anybody under the sun, moon and stars would

continue a list beyond the first blowdown when it says in

Power Plus in so many words that you... it is the first

blowdown. Period! Well who the hell thought there was a

whole bunch, a whole bunch of nonsense variables on this

particular line?



The number of variables are zero in standard tech. So the

invariability of standard tech is an invariable variable.

And whenever you think you have a variable on your hands

you have done something, or something has been done, which

departed from standard tech, which now makes a variable

possible.



Now let me show you now, the great invitation. The great

invitation. A PC who is different is a complete invitation

to the auditor and the case supervisor to do something

screwy. And the only mistakes, the only, only, only

mistakes you are going to make is accepting the invitation

offered by the different case. And then you're going to

make mistakes There aren't any different cases!



You go back down the line, and you look there over former

reviews. This very resistant PC.



Oh, very difficult. And there you see the blowdown on

missed withhold. Only it was never pulled. And there you

see it in another session. Missed withhold. R/S. But nobody

ever pulled it. And eventually this keeps up just that

long, and you suddenly get a different PC. Doesn't matter

much what you run on him, it's always something he doesn't

respond. He isn't, he isn't responding to standard tech. Oh

oh. And a clever case supervisor goes back and finds out

where standard tech was violated and picks the case up at

that point.



The formula of case supervision is to go back to find where

the case was running well, and come forward of that,

looking for violation of standard tech. And if they are too

many, to refuse to get in a fire fight correcting the

corrections, repairing the repairs; you can do this so - 

you can actually make up a list of, I've seen a list of two

solid type written pages, single spaced, of items wrong

from the last time the case was running well. And the case

supervisor on this particular instance was advocating

correcting every single one of those errors. It would have

been a job that would have taken from now 'till Halifax.



I've forgotten exactly what the instructions were. I think

it was something like, "Do L4A to F/N, and do the next

grade." And they did L4A to an F/N and the person made the

next grade and is flying.



Now it doesn't mean then that because a case has been

goofed up - it's quite a tribute to Scientology that it has

gone forward to the degree of goof that it has been goofed.

The violations of standard tech; it's quite marvelous. It's

just that you get about 200 times the result with standard

tech. Yes, go back over it. So you've only got... you got

three sessions. You got three review sessions, something

like that, and each one has got a mislisted list in it.

We'll correct it. Very easy to do. Three mis-listed lists,

go back and find the right item on each list.



Only takes about five minutes. Took something,...  I mean

per list. Took somebody else two or three hours, or a

couple of intensives to make the list wrongly in the first

place. But go back.



Correct them. Give him his right items. Give him his right

items, come up the line. He's probably only stuck in one of

these lists. But you'll catch that one, but, just a little

handful of lists, we'll go ahead and correct them.



5A, if somebody falls on his head after 5A it's usually,

it's usually that something was very out. And you had a

false auditors' report in that he didn't give the PC the

items that really blew down. Another item blew down, or

something of this sort. Or the PCs comm was violently cut.

You know, something on the order of this trick, somebody is so 

screamingly anxious about the F/N that he doesn't let the PC 

finish his cognition. Like say, Oh. Seattle. Yeah." He was 

going to say, "Seattle, yeah Yeah. Yeah. That's the place. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Christ, what a dumpy you know?" or, "What 

a wonderful town." something, you know? And the auditor saw

that needle fly, and he didn't realize there was a comm lag

between the needle, which is just below the level of the

PCs reality, and the PCs cognition. So, the needle flew and

he says, "That's it! Put down the cans. Good. Thank you.

Thank... that's... woah." You know? "Wooh, wooh, we're

supposed to do all this very fast."



Now then, you don't see this as the case supervisor very

often. You can detect it to some degree, but you don't see

it really. It's not there in your view, so the PC falls on

his head after the session. Well something happened to his

comm. So you just correct that session. Very simple.



Now you can correct the session by asking for this or

asking for that, but there's only one thing that can be

wrong - two things I mean that can be wrong. It is either

cut comm or wrong item. So, your standard case supervisor

on something action like this it comes to you as somebody

who has just been run on 5A now has a headache. And he's

going around the review as for a headache. Or he gets

himself an ethics record, or something of that character.



And so he goes around. Case supervisor, he's just had 5A.

Now along with your accuracy, along with your accuracy in

the field of basics must go a confidence in the gains of

tech! And you can't go around saying, "Well it's not

working out and it didn't work anyway." And "Yeah, yeb yee,

doo. " Explain, explain, reasonable, reasonable,

reasonable, "And probably 5A didn't work on this PC,

and... " No! 5A would've worked on the PC unless something

happened. So the PC, by auditors' report, apparently ran

OK, but the PC a few days, couple of weeks later, gets

himself a condition of liability from Oprey and Doprey, or

some other charge.



It's the business of the case supervisor at that moment to

pick up this PC. Something is wrong with Power. Well the

proper action is Ruds or green form to F/N. If it didn't

F/N on the Ruds you go ahead and run the green form to an

F/N. And, rehab Power. So the guy will check it.



Check it. And then when you get to the check of 5A you null

the list. You don't just say, "Was that your item?" That's

corny. You null a list this time. Because the probability

is that the thing that blew down was not the thing he said.

So you null a list meticulously.



And if the list now seems to be too short, or something of

that sort, well you add to it, and you repair it just the

way you would repair an ordinary normal list. Because there

is something wrong with the auditing report. So the guy

goes down and he repairs the list and so forth. And it's

very unwise to get the auditor who ran the Power to correct

the Power. Because you will get some kind of an action like

this, you know. "Well I gave him the right item in the

first place. Is Mary Jane your item? Yeah, it was, wasn't

it? Yeah, oh good. Thank you. I thought it was."



There was just that little bit of criticism, do you see?

That's why people, when they fall on their heads, go to

Qual, not back to the HGC. So, the list is nulled. And you

normally will find out that it was his item but comm was

cut, or it's marked as a BD on the wrong item, or for some

peculiar reason it didn't BD at all. And the PC was thinking

about the listing question or something and got a latent BD

and didn't get the thing, even thought he said "Mama, papa,

uncle George." He wasn't thinking about that, he was

thinking about people I've known.



"God, you know, wow, you know, wow, you know, people I've

known." And we had somebody the other day, bless her, who

didn't like to put bad people on a list. And the list in

actual fact apparently blew down on somebody she thought

of, but not the person she put down on the list. She was

editing the list as she listed. Tricky, huh? Tricky in that

case.



"On this list, has anything... ", you know, you're not get

the question reading, items don't read on the list. "On

this list, question, bud-up-up-up-ow, has anything been

suppressed?" Pow.



What does that pwoon?" And then you get something like,

"Well, I don't like to put bad names on a list." You see

your variability's of what the PCs response is. You get

this real straight.



The variability of what the PCs response is hasn't anything

to do with the standardness of the tech. My god they will

give you eighteen billion variations for every single,

solid piece of standard tech! No, never Q and A with this 

amount of variation. Do you follow? They act to standard tech

directly, but they give you such variable answers.



I'll give you an idea. "Do you have a present time problem?

That read." "Yeah, well I, hm, a present time problem?"

"Alright, is that a false read? You know, no read there.

Anybody insist you had a problem you never had, you know?

Hm. Alright. Good. Have you had a problem auditors didn't

find?" "Well yes." Reads. "Good." "I was just thinking

here, I've never been audited without a problems I've never

been audited without a problem. I'll always have a problem.

The business I'm in, jiminy-god!" F/N. "Thank you very much."



You don't ask the next rud question of course, because it

F/Ned on Ruds. Now you get down to doing what you're

supposed to be doing.



Well that's a variable answer. You're going to get...  Look.

There can be an infinity of wrongnesses. Absolute infinity.

There can be an infinity of sillinesses. There can be an

infinity of mistakes. Getting somebody to study mistakes

only; he's always gonna run into a new mistake. Just think

of the Hottentot repairing the radio. Or the Egyptian

repairing the radio.



Now how many mistakes could he make? It's an infinity.



Now let's take, let's take a bunch of green, red and blue

chips of various sizes and shapes, and let's throw them

down, and just scramble them up and throw them down on a

black table. And every time you do this you're going to get

a brand new pattern. And some of them are going to be good,

and some are going to be bad. And so you say, "Look at the

variation in which life is steeped." The hell it is,

there's no variation here, you're taking a bunch of chips

and throwing them on a black table. And that a bunch of

random items thrown down randomly will give you a random

answer. That's the law back of that. What's the

variability? Crunch. There is no variability. Do you follow?



So there sits the auditor. And he's got to have his tech

solid. Proper. No question at all.



Because he's sitting there talking to a PC who's got

18,765,000 variables per square minute.



But they're all varying on his exact basic principles. What

you've got to understand is you're sitting there with a

stable datum which he's running the locks of. See? You're

just watching these locks. Now, if you don't know your tech

you think these locks are the stable data.



There's nothing more horrible to happen to an auditor than

to run a squirrel process and get a win. It's fatal Because

he'll now go down the street and get the next PC, only the

next PC didn't resolve on it. And I have actually seen some

guy try for years to get another win on the same process.



Now the horrible part of it is, is the guy, in actual fact,

probably didn't get a win on the process he continues to

try. He got a win on something else. PC all of a sudden

cognited, he's saying, he's saying, "How many

mother-in-laws are there on the head of a pin?" Or

something, some wise process, see? And he says this, how

many mother-in-laws are there on a head of a pin?" See? And

the PC says, "Oh, gee, that's a good question. It's

truly...  I feel wonderful. Thank you!" F/N. Now the

auditor, not knowing his basics, he thinks, "Christy That's

quite a process." Well, that wasn't the process the PC went

F/N on. It was somebody who was willing to talk to as

degraded a bum as that. Somebody was actually willing to

sit down and ask him a question as though he amounted to

something. And he cognited on this, and went F/N.



You get the idea? The auditor goes around with this

squirrel process, thinking and so on.



There are five or six brands of processes immediately

jumped up and leaped into view around Elizabeth, New

Jersey. One or two of them became very, very famous, and so

on. They were in actual fact questions which I had asked a

particular PC to pursue his particular problem, and were

based on the standard datum that a PC makes a mental image

picture which then pushes him, pushes his anchor points in.

And all I was doing was asking questions what would get the

guy to look. And these questions seemed terribly variable.

And they seemed so wise, that they became processes. One of

them became a whole line of therapy. Well, you think this over.



Well, the guy who was watching me ask the questions of the

PC certainly didn't understand what the hell I was doing.

If he'd understood what I was doing, why he was; I was

trying to get the guy to look at the picture he was stuck

in. Any question I asked was simply to get the guy to do

that. Do you follow? So the standard action there was

simply, well, let's get the guy to look at his pictures,

and, and blow a few locks. That was all. That was all.



But they appeared to be very wise, and so forth, you see.

They had variables, Guys could actually go out and say,

"Golly. You ask the person this marvelous question. This

marvelous question," and so forth. Like, "What time was

it?" That would add to something. But whoever applied the

process thought that I was asking about a clock or

something. You know, what time of the day was it at the

time that this thing happened, and so forth, and you know,

get a big variable on the line, and then that could get all

variabled up in some other way.



In other words, these things squirrel up, because the

individual does not understand the basic from which the

question stems. Do you understand that? He hasn't got the

principle from which the whole thing is advancing. He's not

running from basic data. So, not running from basic data of

course he makes a fantastic number of mistakes. And then,

sooner of later, if he squirrels and doesn't do standard

tech, he will sooner or later start getting loses on PCs,

and then he sort of considers it an overt, and then he is

apt to borrow some of their ideas of super-variability, and

if he didn't know standard tech in the first place he will

for sure depart from what little standard tech he had.



So an auditor auditing standard tech owes himself a hundred

percent wins. And he'll get them..



He'll get them. There's no monkey business about it.



Now the state of the PC is not what the auditor says, it's

what the PCs state is. What is wrong with the PC is what is

wrong with the PC, not what the auditor evaluates is wrong

with the PC. These are all little basic laws. It isn't the

auditor's opinion that makes the PC sick. So you read a lot

of amateur C/Ses. They really are a howl. You, you; at this

stage of the game you've got this ahead of you. But you'll

start laughing at yourself after a while at the tremendous

opinion that you start forming of this, that and the other

thing. And how complex these opinions are. And how much

figure you invest into the whole thing. And you read my

C/Ses along this line, and they seem to dispose of the most

complex things with the simplest actions you ever heard of.

So that therefore, because the PC is so complex, and the

solution so simple, therefore there must be something you

missed. You get the idea? So there must be something more

in this folder... .



But what you're looking at is the fact that we have the

basic data of life. These are the rules and laws that life

lives. And that's all. You apply 'em, and of course any

life responds to it. If you could talk to a spider, he'd go OT.



So this, this is what, this is what's required of a Class

VIII auditor. He has a grip on tech, the like of which

nobody ever heard of. You ought to be able to rattle off

the Auditors' Code, bbbrrrrrrr. Boom. But not just rattle

it off. PC comes in to session, feels a little dopey, you

don't think twice. You say, "Have you had enough sleep?"

See? You don't have to think about this, you know that. PC

comes in, feels for the chair, and sits down, yawn. And you

think immediately of the Auditors' Code, "You had enough

sleep? Well good. Go get yourself some sleep and we'll

audit you when you're good and rested. Thank you." Not,

"Let me see, let me see, this is the... " This is three

quarters of the way through the session. "Let me see. I

wonder what could be wrong with this PC? He doesn't seem to

be able to stay awake in the session. Is this dope-off?

Boil off?" Figure, figure, figure, figure, figure, figure,

figure.



Now the alertness to these things is terrific. I noticed,

used to notice, that I would catch, when we were doing long

intensives and that sort of thing, I could catch an ARC

break by the actual clock an hour and forty five minutes

before the HGC auditor. That was the lag. Hour and forty

five minutes before the auditor noticed the PC was ARC

broken. Because the PC would get more and more and more and

more ARC broke throughout that hour. But I could pick up

the original ARC break. See? And I'd say, "Alright, there's

one." And actually have clocked it.



And at that time I had squawk-box systems where I could

listen to every session, don't you see? So I had a lot of

opportunity to do this. The auditor would miss on his comm

cycle, and the PC would say or do something at that moment.

That was the beginning of an ARC break that somewhere up

the line, in the next hour or two was going to explode in

the auditors' face.



And what always amazed me was, is the auditor would sit

there and wait for it to explode in his face. Certainly the

PC must have looked strained, certainly the PCs voice must

have gotten tighter, certainly the needle must have been

not responding properly, the TA vanished out of the

session, the skin tone of the PC went bad, the auditor

wasn't getting anyplace with the process. Do you get it? It

took him a long time to add up all these figures, see?

Well, if you're red-hot, you recognize them in the first

split half second. See?



Now the way you do it, it isn't that you have to be quick,

it's that you have to know what you're doing. Violation of

a comm cycle is liable to end up in an ARC break.



Now, rather than go to all the labor of having to recognize

it, just don't violate the comm cycle.



That's the best answer to that. Just deliver a flawless

session. And a flawless session on communication is

communication with the PC. Not a communication with your

instructor in TRs. "Do birds fly? Thank you." The TRs are

just there to let you get up to a point of where your grip

on the TRs are such that you simply apply the TRs,

brrrrooooom, boom, boom, boom, boom. You can talk that way,

you don't have to think about it, it isn't wooden, it's

very natural. And when you've got the TRs down pat, why at

that particular time, bang, bang, bang, they just run off

pat, that's all.



You can always tell a brand new student. He's trying to do

his TR0 and his TR1 at the same time and it all shows up in

his tone of voice. And he hasn't got any more auditor

presence than a rabbit. You just drill it up to a point of

where this comes natural. That's all. Poomp. PC originates,

handle the origination. Bong: Nothing to it.



So, when it comes to adding and summating and looking up,

what's the difference between a Class VIII auditor and a

lower class auditor? Class VIII auditor knows his basics so

well that he is never led into a trap by a PC. He never

comm lags as to what is going wrong, he knows.



He doesn't have to correct his comm cycle errors, they

don't occur. He doesn't have to patch up cases, 'cause they

weren't misrun in the first place. He doesn't have to

repair the case supervision which he did on Tuesday because

it was correct. And he has enough ethics presence when he

is case supervising that an auditor who would do something

else comes in with a rather pale complexion, if not bright

green.



The auditor would be the first one to tell you he had

goofed. Ethics presence is sufficient, so he wouldn't try

to hide a goof, boy.



So, a Class VIII does it right in the first place, and can

repair what other people have done wrong. He himself, in

his auditing, invariably does it right in the first place.

In his case supervisoring, he does it right in the first

place. The cases he has to repair are the cases that have

been done wrong by somebody else. Get the difference?



Now I don't want to intimidate you or give you a bad idea

of what you've got to do. But the only thing we're

demanding is 100% perfection. 100% grip on the data. 100%

drill so that it just, bong, lead pipe cinch. 100% result.

And that depends on a 100% grasp of the data. And a 100%

application of it. And you get 100% results. Just like

that. Bong. You can't have a 50% grasp on the data and get

100% results. The percentages would be quite incorrect.

Right? Now Class VIII is very fast. It is fast, fast, fast,

fast. I received a note here from Joe, a ship captain, and

it said, "During last nights' lecture I got the first

inclination of what standard tech is. It's the difference

between a cold war and a blitzkrieg. It's not just a better

way of winning the cold war, it's a calculated assault with

calculated victory." You don't go around, when you're first

studying and when you're first doing Class VIII type of

auditing, you may have some question about what the outcome

of the session will be. You might have some question.



But after you've been at it a very short time there's no 

question.



It'd be a matter of the wildest surprise if something weird

happened in the session that made it go adrift, or it

didn't come out right at the end. Maybe one session in 75,

or something like this might go adrift. Something outside

your zone of control suddenly moves in on it in some fashion.



You might find yourself auditing some PC who has a rather

miserable auditing career, and it may take you a couple of

sessions before you bring it up the line. But your

confidence is such that you know it's going to come up the

line. Through hell or high water it's going to come right

somehow.



To give you an idea, my case supervision was running at

about, I suppose about 90 at first, 90%. Little flubs of

application and that sort of thing were pushing it astray.

And I, myself, in handling it was handling cases that had

really been goofed, boy. They'd really been goofed.



And it moved up to about 95, and it moved up to about 99.

It's riding along quite handsomely now at 100%, pocketa,

pocketa, pocketa, pocketa. Now the only place that it is

coming adrift is that there are some student auditors on my

lines. And, that doesn't make me not handle the case. What

it makes is, I have to case supervise it again, not to

change it, but to tell them what to do to correct it so

they can finish my C/S. See? That's the reason. They goof,

and then I make them correct it so they can finish my

original C/S. And that may happen a time on the case, once

or twice or something, and then the C/S is done, it all

comes out alright, and bongo.



Your neck is always out when you have an inexperienced

auditor auditing for you. In the first place he gives you

false reports, and he gives you false reports unknowingly

and unwittingly.



He doesn't have a clue what's going on, so he doesn't tell

you what's going on.



The case supervisor who believes an auditors' summary is a

fool. He's just a fool. That's all.



They have some use. You continue to ask for them. Because

it picks up the auditor observation and it can give you the

auditors' attitude toward the PC and what the auditor

thought happened.



So they have value. But you don't take it up as a case

supervisor. There's no action on your part for a case

supervisor. Got nothing to do with your case supervision,

beyond giving you the auditors attitude toward the PC, and

what the auditor thought happened in the session.



You find out what happened in the session by reading the

auditors' report. And if there's any variation in that

auditors' report from what should have happened, you know

very well that the PC didn't come out alright in the end,

whether the summary report said that he did or didn't. It

had nothing to do with it. And if there's a goof on that

line that you as case supervisor can catch as you go

through the session, as you read through, the auditors'

report saying the PC came out alright has nothing to do

with it. The truth of the matter is, you'll find the PC is

back in review. Goof in the session, PC winds up in review

or in ethics. Case supervisor, you watch your ethics and

review file, compared to your cases. Which makes it very

rat a tat tat indeed. There's nothing much to it, in other

words.



The auditor who ran standard tech produced the standard

result, or, the case winds up in review, or winds up in

ethics. That's the case supervisors' point of view.

Reversely, the case that winds up in review again, and the

case that winds up in ethics was not standardly audited.



No matter what the auditors' report said, something is

wrong in that auditors' report. The auditor did not report

something. Now you've got to do something to find out the

data, whether or not it's to send it to the examiner, or so

on. You, you, you're gonna find out more data.



Case supervision consists of the complete folder turned in

to you with the examiners' note in it.



You don't EVER talk to the auditor, you don't EVER talk to

the PC. You never talk to the auditor, you never talk to

the PC, you never case supervise without the whole folder

in front of you. Laws, boy, those are laws! They're in

concrete. Never talk to the auditor. Never talk to the PC.

Never case supervise without the whole folder in front of

you. Those are the basic laws of case supervision. And the

only mistakes I've ever made on it. But boy, I'm talking

from history. I've case supervised more damn cases than you

can shake a stick at. And the only mistakes I have ever

made is when I talked to the auditor, or talked to the PC,

or case supervised without the folder in front of me. And 

those are the only times I've ever made a mistake. Quite 

marvelous. And so, if you don't disobey those rules you 

will be a bear cat as a case supervisor. Providing you are 

a Class VIII and know your data.



So the guy ran in to a hell of a mess in the session. He

was trying to do the case supervision and he ran in to a

hell of a mess in the session. His proper action is to

close the session, how ever gracefully he can. Not have the

PC sitting there waiting. Close the session. That's it, and

so on, with no continuation of the session mentioned. He

just gradually says, "Is there anything you would care to

say before we're closing down this session?" And he ends

the session. He makes out his report. He takes his folder

in, hands it on normal lines. It winds up in the hands of

the case supervisor, who in a moment of dispassion reads

the auditors' report.



Now the auditor was also expected, when he handed in his

folder, to have included a summary report. And then it is

administered. And the whole folder is inspected to see what

is going on here. And then the action is taken that needs

to be taken, written down, that needs to be taken with the

case. It is put in writing in a separate sheet. Not

scribbled across the corner of some green form. It's on a

separate sheet of paper, of which the case supervisor keeps

a carbon copy. And, he writes down what's supposed to

happen now.



If he doesn't know and he can't figure it out, he sends the

folder back with a request that the PC appear before the

examiner. And when he gets the folder back then he has at

least the comments and condition of the PC, that the PC

says. Not just the auditors' side of it. Now he can do

something about this. And then what he does about this is

so standard that it couldn't be knocked over with an

A-bomb. He accepts no invitations to squirrel. The

auditor's going to give him some, because you will be

supervising auditors who are Level 0 or something. He'll

have vast ideas of what he ought to do about this, boy.



Now you write something down, and he doesn't think he can

do this, or something like that.



He doesn't change this as he goes in to session, oh no! He

just says that is it, he doesn't go near the PC. He has the

PC informed that the session is suspended for the moment.

And he sends the folder back, and says, "My reputation is

at stake. I either can't do, or I don't understand, or I

don't agree with this C/S. 'Cause after all, I'm the guy

that's going to be hanged. If the PC comes out wrong I'm

going to be hanged. Maybe you're going to be hanged, but

I'm for sure going to be hanged. So therefore, I can't do

it. Doesn't compare to the case."



Now that would be a big invitation for the auditor to have

a talk with the case supervisor to... 



Violates one of the first principles. 'Cause the auditor's

now gotta say, "Why?" If he can't do these processes then

he had no business auditing the case, so you simply get

another auditor. If he says this isn't the right C/S then

he's gotta have some reason why it isn't the right C/S, and

maybe he will disclose some new data that he before has not

bothered to put down. Such as, the reason he can't run the

CCHs is because the person is a complete paralytic, and is

there lying on a stretcher. And that is case supervision

how she is done. And the end product of all of this is

standard tech, standard results, and pocketa, pocketa, pocketa.



Now the way to waste time is to try to save time by

speeding up the admin lines. Any time you super-speed the

case supervision, auditor, HGC, admin lines, any time you

put a crush on these lines it will add to the time spent.

Let's get it all done and crush through in the next hour

because the PC has to catch a place for Hoboken, and let's

get it in, and a big invitation to go in and see the case

supervisor to find out exactly what he's supposed to do

about the whole thing.



I can assure you, boy, you are now going to waste about

session time, money, misery, failures, pfft! No. You save

the time in an auditing session. In an auditing session you

save your time. It is so damned fast, it happens so quick,

the auditing is so swift when it is done right, that you

could poke around for weeks with admin time.



Now the only time you would run in on fast administration

would be an assist at an injury.



Somebody just got through dropping the body and you're

going to tell him to get back in his head and take over

control of the body. That's a responsibility of any

auditor. Rendering a proper assist, putting a tourniquet 

on the guy, something like that. See? An assist level action, 

well, that's not in the realm and remedy of, of auditing, 

unless it itself is done wrong. Because an assist can fail. 

I'll have to tell you about assists, because I find out 

there's very little information on them.



But, your admin time. You don't save time by saving the

admin time. You waste time by saving the admin time. One

rapidly done session which is expert and right on the

button is worth a hundred hours of old time auditing, any

day of the week. Furthermore, the case that is set up, that

it's all correct, and you fire him right now, boy he is in

session about twenty minutes, zoooooml And if you didn't

set him up properly he will be in session and then be in

review and be back on your lines and then he'll be back

over there, and then he'll go to the examiner and then he

goes to ethics, and then they've got the hearing, and then

there's auditors, and so on, and some condition has to be

assigned to him, and then he goes back and then he has to

correct the correction now, so therefore the correction has

to be, and that is a long, arduous proceeding, and they

have to do various things, and, you get it? 



So the essence of this is, it's the responsibility of the case 

supervisor to set the case up, and to set the auditor up, so 

it goes brroooooom! Now, if it's only going to take a half an 

hour, an hour and a half, or something like that to handle this

case, what the hell are you trying to do to save twenty

minutes on the administrative lines? Matter of fact, if

there's any crush on these administrative lines the PCs in

an awful rush in order to get fixed up, in order to get

swafff, aff, aff, aff, I myself would say, "Well, you tell

the PC I've sent a note to the examiner", who is also the

case supervisors' relay to the PC is always the examiner,

not the auditor. You don't say to the auditor, "Tell the

PC... " Auditor's not a relay terminal for the case

supervisor in that way. You write a note to the examiner,

and you say, "Dear Examiner. We know the PC has to make his

plane at 4:00. Tell him to postpone his flight until next

week. Signed, Case Supervisor." Got it?



And if anybody is in such a hell of a rush that he's, he

has more importance in living than in being correctly

audited, I can tell you he ain't going to live long. He who

spendeth his time convincing people how important it is

will spend a lot of his time in review. Just by the nature

of things. "Yes, this fellow really has to be handled

because he's entering college in fall, and fall happens to

be yesterday and he was due at the college, and so forth,

and he's got to get it handled so that he can do his

entrance examinations, and so forth... " Anybody saw

anything like this on an examiner line. The examiner should

write all that down, you understand.



Anytime I saw an examiners' report like that, and "He's got

to be audited yesterday... " Who dee dee dee do do do do.

Eh, well... let's see. "What organization was this man last

audited in?" Let's see, let's get that answered. What

organization, there isn't very much folder here.



Alright, good. The answer comes back, "Hudson Bay post 62.

Had his Power and 5A." So you say, "Good. Well you tell

him, you tell him to make a deposit with the registrar and

make an appointment because we've got to get his folder

here, and that comes in by dog team." And the other day,

just to give you an example, somebody got in a hell of a

hurry. While I was gone on a trip here, these little things

happen. Somebody got in an awful hurry. Somebody got in a

great hurry and they had to repair this guys' Power. Had to

repair his 5A. And the folders were at Saint Hill. And

Saint Hill is a considerable distance away. And so, they

relisted 5A.



They didn't have the original list. so it was relisted. Not

on my say so, god forbid. And I picked this up in this

short term when I was absent, and I said, "Well", and I

think you may run across the case supervision of it, "Well,

we don't know." It says, "This is pretty adventurous to

relist 5A or try to correct it in the absence of the folder

and the list. Pretty adventurous." Some such thing. And I

didn't bother to file it because my certainty on standard

tech knew the guy was going to fall on his head within the

next week.



Sure enough, here comes in one from the examiner. "PC says

he has a bad headache." Naturally. Somebody double-listed

5A. Christ, how dumb can you get? But you see they did this

because it would take, maybe, a couple of weeks to get his

folder down here. You see? Effort to save time on the admin

line then winds up in an adventurous emergency action. Well

auditing doesn't run like ambulance chasing.



True enough you can let a case go and go and go, and it'll

eventually fall apart. Now I'm at the same time not

advocating that you just don't audit anybody for a couple

of weeks while you go fishing. But any time you find

yourself speeding it all up and having to do it in two

seconds, and therefore having to do it not thoroughly, or

having to actually call for the auditor to ask him the

thing because you've really got to get this thing case

supervised because the fellow is Big Joe from someplace,

and he's got the be audited tomorrow, and you don't have

the data. Bah! You're setting it up to fall on it's head.

The essence is, you point him in the right direction, and

you fire him and he goes so fast when he is correctly aimed

and fired, and he goes so slow, and it is so horrible when

he isn't, that any time you save by extraordinary actions

on the administrative line is going to be lost by having

the folder back, and having it back, and doing it some

more, and having it back again, and doing it some more. So

the essence of, the essence of standard tech is you know

your data cold. You know exactly what you're doing. You

make sure that the D of T has got that; D of T trains those

auditors so they just go boom, boom, boom. You see? You're

going to have to do pianola training. "At this moment you

say thin thun." You know?



And you've got that D of P so arranged that that D of P, he

is just going to go over that case supervision with the

auditor. "Now it's this, an it's this, and it's this. Now

you go in, and you get in the rudiments, and mmmwma, and

that's what is says. And then you... " So on and so on. "And

this is a very rough PC, and he very often gives auditors a

bad time. So you want to go in, friendly, everything, get

him set down. Tell him what you want to do, and then give

him this and tell him that, and so forth." Now we got it

all set. And it's something like setting up a rocket. Don't

you see?



And then the auditor goes in, he's got it all set up, he

strikes the match on the seat of the pants and lights the

fuse. Got it? And the guy goes whhhhooooommmn! See? PC

exits laughing.



Now I'll give you the other approach. Case supervisor, he

doesn't know, "Uh, this PC has a long history of having

been on the police force. Therefore he had a great many

overts. Uh, let's see. I think what we had better do is run

a Joberg in order to handle this situation. And uh, then,

if we get a Joberg done, um, so on. Well, just to make real

sure we will run Grade II before we run ARC Straightwire.

And that'll, that'll fix it up, because then we'll also

catch his overts. Yeah, that's the way we'll do this case.

Yes, yes, that's good. Alright." And he sends it in, PC

comes into session. The auditor, he's got the case

supervision, but the D of P hasn't gone over it with him or

anything like that. And the auditor goes into session and

goes, "What the hell is this? A Joberg. A Joberg. Let's

see. OK, OK, Joberg. I haven't got a form here. Where the

hell's the forms here? Joberg. I think I don't know where

the...  Where's the, where's the...  Joberg. What the hell is

a Joberg? Oh, I remember what it was. I remember what it

was. Uh, yeah. Well I can, I can do that, I can do that

right off the cuff, see?" So he gets the PC in session, he

says, "Alright. Tell me about your sex life." And PC comes

into session already with his tone arm at 4.5, see? "Tell

me about your sex life. Alright. Very good. Yeah, you've

had a lot of sexual overts, have you? Alright. Now let's

check these things out, and so forth. You every stole

anything, robbed anybody, and so on? Of course you've

robbed somebody. We know that. Now let's see. Alright."



Session comes back, TA 5. "Oh well, I must have goofed that

one. This PC must have some; I'm pretty sure this PC must

have robbed a bank. Yeah, that's what we'll do. We'll put

it down here, "See if the PC has robbed a bank, and then

run the CCHs, except specialize in CCHs because he says

somebody was a glad hander in the last session." And he

sends it back. And the auditor says, "Well, I un, un, un,

I...  CCH1? To hell. I don't remember what that thing is.



Oh, alright. Um. "TA at 5." And he says, "Well. How does

auditing seem to you now? Good. How does it seem to you now? 

Good. Thank you. How does it seem to you now? Good. How does 

it seem to you now? Alright. Good. How does it seem to you? 

Now? Oh let's see, what question was I on. Yes." Pc's TA 

at 6.5, ran CCH1 without any results.



No kidding, I've actually case supervised almost under

those conditions. Where, it didn't matter much what the D

of P said the auditor did something else anyhow, but to be

agreeable, why, he put it on the report form that he did

it, or he'd tell the D of P and then usually the case

supervision was tearing into the office and making a couple

of sharp comments, and then going off and not doing what

the guy said anyhow. Now you wonder what the hell goes on.

Well in that much confusion Scientology still increased

its' stats, still went up the line, people still did

recover from things and miraculous things occurred.

Marvelous. Absolutely marvelous attestation.



But those sessions could go on for week after week, year

after year, and grind out one way or the other, and get

someplace and somehow. Which is alright. Even without bad

supervision.



Even with the auditor actually knowing what the processes

were. Running the processes too long. Doing this and that

and the other thing. Running PCs not set up, session

without Ruds and that sort of thing. People still got a

hell of a lot of result.



Now, when we find out exactly what are the additives off

the line, and you pull those off the line, and you get this

new line of think. Case supervisor says, "Brrrmmmnp!" and

"ZZZZPDPP and "Zippp". D of T takes it up with the auditor,

makes sure that he knows how to do it. PC comes in to

session, the PC has had rest, the PC has been fed, the PC

is OK, all is alrightf and we got it. And the auditor

strikes a match on the seat of his pants and lights the

fuse and booms. There was two years of old auditing just

went by in those twelve minutes. Got it? And man, a pc'll

hold onto those gains just as hard as they are accurately

delivered. So you got your hands full of a handful of

miracle. It happens so fast people will very often say it

looks too simple. Yawn. Say, "That's what Lindberg said,"

or something like that you know? It's too simple.



Yes, it is terribly simple. And when you have done your

Dianetics course, your Academy course, a Class VI and

become a Class VII, and then had your Class VIII course a

couple of years from now, and so forth, you will be able to

do it that simply too.



Funny part of it is you can take an academy auditor and you

can teach him to say, "I see a cat." "Sit down at the meter

and say "I see a cat" and don't say anything else to the

PC. And then when you've said "I see a cat", then when the

PC answers that question, you watch this and you're

watching for that needle to go woof. If the needle didn't

do that, you close the session, you make your auditors'

report, and you send it back to me. And if you say another

god damn word, boy, hm hm hm ha. Right now I want to stay

in ARC with you. Let's have this all on a beautiful, even

plane of ARC so I don't have to bust your teeth in to shut

you up in a session... Now I trust you completely, that's 

why we have this squawk box. Your auditing room is bugged. 

Your sessions are patrolled. We have utter trust. Complete 

trust. Say anything you please in a session as long as you 

say exactly what I tell you to say and not another damn thing."



And you will be able to do it actually, with Level 0's.

What you would do actually is clear one rudiment at a time.

One rudiment per session. It isn't worth while to do

anything else. Now a Class VIII, you turn him loose with a

whole session, see? We'll put the rudiments in this

morning, and then, if the needle is still flying this

afternoon you can go to the body of the session, but you'll

have to send me the case supervisor folder first.



This PC could very often be in the org for two weeks,

having received three sessions. Or having received five

sessions, each one of which was only five minutes long. And

the funny part of it is he would fly like a bird. Do you see?



Now the length of the case supervision then, is

proportional to the class of the auditor who is doing the

auditing. So I can say to a Sea Org Class VIII now, "Do the

usual rundown for OT Section 4. LRH." And he goes and does

it. A hell of a complex damn thing. It's, "Fly the needle

on Ruds or go to a green form and fly the needle on it.

When you got that done get earlier, rehabs, practices,

whatever you got to do. Get that cleaned up, make sure that

rehabs.



Rehab ARC Straightwire, secondaries, engrams, Now, zero,

one, two, three, four. Rehab or run. If they don't rehab

you do something with them to set them up. Skip Power. You

never rehab Power in a clear. Rehab R6EW, rehab OT1, rehab

Clearing Course and OT1, OT2. Prepsheck 3. Do a valence shifter 

and run confront." And that is Section 4 OT. Complete.



Done by a Class VIII. And the total lapsed time that it

takes to do that is variable. I haven't been reading the

Section times. I don't know. Hour or two at the absolute

outside.



But if all of a sudden he can't do one of these items, or

one of these actions doesn't work, or so forth, even so he

would be expected to pack the session up at that moment.

Pack it up.



Close it off and send it back for additional C/S. He has 

hit a bug.



He doesn't try to sit there and solve this bug. He's

running standard tech and there's something in the road of

it. Now, the guy tried to rehab ARC straightwire and it

wasn't about to rehab.



And he checked over to see if it had been run and it

apparently has been run. If it's been run it won't rehab

and the TA rose on it. He could assume maybe it was too

many times rehabbed, or something, or something. But he for

sure had better send it back to the case supervisor.



Something went adrift. And the case supervisor'll look it

over, look over his session, and find probably the bug that

he didn't see.



Or we may be dealing with a spook. And before this time we

have had somebody who was an OT2 who hadn't ever been

audited on ARC Straightwire. That hadn't ever been audited

on engrams. Secondaries, engrams. OT1, 2, 3, 4, never had

his service fac run. He'd been run on some version or

another of Power. And somehow or another had fumble bumbled

and false attested his way at R6EW, and fumble bumbled and

attested his way falsely at this, and had told people that

he was in actual fact a Class VI auditor when he'd never

seen the inside of an Academy. How would you like that

sitting in front of you as a hell of a withhold? It isn't

likely anything would either run or rehab. But it'd

certainly measure as a withhold. But something like that,

so we could do an assessment on the thing, and we'd see all

of a sudden the PC has never been clean on withholds. There

was a read there of some kind or another, but it wasn't

picked up. Something must be suppressed. So the case

supervisor would recheck. And it'd all fall out in the wash.



Where the case doesn't run standard, where the case doesn't

run standard, there's a lie.



Because the totality of OT is the totality of truth. And

the number of lies which a person has on the line is a

direct index of his case state. So you'll get the lower

level cases, they lie like hell all the time anyhow. So

something has got out of line and we have to find what it is.



Anyway, regardless of that, I'm just giving you some of the

limitations, some of the actions, and the exact precision

with which you do case supervision. And you're going to

think that you figure, figure, figure a lot on case

supervision. You don't figure, figure, figure a lot on case

supervision. You just know your standard tech better than

any auditor you have auditing for you, even though they're

Class VIIIs. And you always know your tech perfectly. And

you never get invited into the cul-de-sac of running some

unusual squirrel action, because the auditors' report seems

to indicate that the case is different than all other

cases. There are no different cases.



Now, when you can do it as a case supervisor you're not

even looking at the PC. You're that remote. And the

invitations are terrific, because the auditing is being

done and recorded and reported to you out of your sight.



So there, in all other places you've got to hold the grip

on standard tech. But to do it at all you've got to know

your tech cold! Cold as ice. This is standard tech. This is

VIII. VIII in its' auditing is one thing, in its case

supervision is another. When you're a good auditor, you can

case supervise. When you can't audit you can't case

supervise. That's for sure.



OK? I trust a few of these succinct remarks will be of some

value to you in future days. Thank you very much.



**************************************************