6810C11 Class VIII TAPE 15





AUDITORS ADDITIVES, LISTS AND CASE SUPERVISION



Well I forgot my notes. Which lecture number is this?

(Fifteen.) Lecture number fifteen, and what is the date?

Eleventh of October. That brought you up to present time.

Eleven October AD 18.



The subject of my lecture this evening is auditors talk too

much. It's impolite, but it's the first discovery I made

about auditors when I was first training auditors back in

the late '40s. I did train a few, experimentally, and along

the line, and I found out they all had one frailty. They

said too much.



Now, when a C/S gets a session that looks nearly perfect,

and he gets it, and he says, "Great", and then a couple of

days later the PC falls on his head, something has

obviously happened in the session which wasn't recorded.

The most frequent thing that hastened in the session is an

auditor additive of comment, or attitude, which is additive

to the business of auditing.



Now it isn't necessarily slight. The additive can be

fantastic. I'll give you an exact, direct example that is

exact and direct. The auditor asking for ARC breaks, not

noted in the report form, but the auditor asking for ARC

breaks says, "Now, if you knew anything was wrong you

wouldn't hold it from me, would you? You wouldn't refuse to

tell me, would you? Now you've, you're giving me the

straight dope?" That F/N's an ARC break needle. What you

see on the auditing report is ARCU, CDEI, something like

this. He was gentling an ARC break and apparently indicated

the thing. And then that craziness ensued. That isn't in

the report.



A C/S is actually at the mercy of the auditor attitude and

additive, because the attitude itself is also an additive.

When you look at an auditing session, and since my lecture

yesterday actually you're to be congratulated on the org 8,

you floated nineteen out of twenty one to the examiner,

which is fantastic. So, thank you. (Applause.) Thanks very

well done.



Now. The business of the smooth TR is simply to put across

to the PC, and keep the PC interested in his own bank and

his own case. So therefore, the auditor who would say, see

the PCs looking for an ARC break. All of a sudden he

shatters with this, oh well now, you wouldn't hold anything

from me would you? Yeah, you're really telling me the...  He

hasn't got the foggiest notion, don't you see? The auditor

as a personality isn't there. Bang! All of a sudden the

personality intrudes. What does the PC try to do? He tries

to hold it off. Stow it.



And he parks himself to that degree in the session. Do you

see that?



Alright. Now. Let's take another one. Let's take another

one. PC says, this is also an actual.



On the auditors report it reads, "What do you do to make

others wrong" PC says he doesn't do anything. F/N. But the

PC, an hour or two later, and the following day, was found

to be fantastically upset. Really fabulously upset. After

an auditing session the PC is upset. What the devil is

this? He's supposed to run his service facsimile, supposed

to have gotten a bunch of F/Ns. What's he doing all upset?

Well somebody could say, "well the technology doesn't

work." You know? Hmm. Look, the technology works, but

somebody just worked too damn well. What actually

transpired in that brief period between writing down a

question about making others wrong and what is noted as "PC

says he doesn't have any was something on this order." You

say you don't have any? Ah, come Ant. Come off of it! Come

off of it! Come off of it! People have hundred of these

things! What do you do?" An ARC broke needle.



How would you like to have that blow up in your face in a

session? Totally unexpected. Totally unreasonable. Now when

it goes so far as just this. The PC has a cognition. He

says, "You know, I don't think I have that problem

anymore." You know? He's looking at this. He thinks that's

great, you know? It just F/Ned, and so forth, and the

auditor says, "Oh that's great, boy, that's great! Glad to

hear it. Boy, that's really with it!" Whew. It said F/N

there, the cognition is written here, but what happened

right afterwards? See?



What it is, is a distraction. A sudden distraction. And a

session is supposed to smooth out the PC. What happens to

the PC if enturbulance is run into it? So what an auditor

says just before the session, during the session, and right

after the session, in those three immediate periods, which

are additive to the actual business of the session, are all

additives of a highly useless, derogatory, backwards

nature. They're all for the birds.



An auditor who has to be interesting, who has to think he

has to persuade the PC, who does this, who does that,

actually is building up on top of the top of standard tech

a bunch of additives which prevent it from working. That

line of action has the C/S at its' mercy, because it isn't

recorded in the report. You can get a report, which

apparently looks OK, and from that standpoint, and if

you've not sending people to the examiner you've just about

had it. Then what you get, you hear from the doctor, or you

hear from somebodv else, or you hear from the family, or

hear from the registrar, "Jukes was here last week. And

when he came in he said he was signing up for fa fa fa fow,

and you know, he hasn't been back." "What's the matter?"

You look at the session. There's nothing in the session

that indicates anything. Why? See, he came to get smoothed

out and got roughed up. Well what roughed him up? He put

his attention inside. You know? He looked inward, and

somebody forced his attention forcefully outward. And just

about the time he started to look inside, somebody flipped

his attention outward. So, he "goes out of session". That

is the commonest source of out-of-sessionedness.



Now a rough TR is one thing that tends to. But it is not

actually as near a session destroyer as the additives, the

comments. Why comment? See, why comment?



Now some auditors think to be agreeable they have to laugh

with the PC. I never do. PC is not aware of me anyhow. He

wouldn't know whether I was laughing with him or not

laughing with him. Besides, I haven't got anything to laugh

about. It's his joke. (Laughter.) I've had PCs chortle and

burble, and giggle and cognite from one end of the session

to the other while I was sitting there not with any

expression on my face. Now it's rather difficult to assume

a no-expression.



You do have a face.



The next point of evaluation, you have somebody who is

ill-intentioned in some fashion or another on the examiner

line. PC goes to the examiner, and the examiner looks him

over and says, "Oh my god. What happened to you?" Pcs

feeling great. Actually maybe the examiner has a very bad

case of myopia, and he's trying to see what PC it is.

Something like this. And the examiner squints and looks at

the PC...  And the PC thinks there's something wrong with

him. And it kills the float.



So there is a subject called no-expression. There is a

subject. But this is normally what you will find back of

the false auditing report. It is the auditor additive.



Now there's another thing an auditor can do, god help us.

There is another thing he can do. Is to fail to give the

next command. In other words, he's not there at all. Now

this can also be deadly. When you have somebody who's very

green auditing he is liable to chicken. Get scared. And he

sees he's put the PC down the track in some fashion or

another, doesn't quite know what he's doing. All of a

sudden the pcs face turns red, or something like this, and

he goes...  He freezes. Now when he does that the PC then

has to extrovert, take control of the situation, and

somehow or another come out of it. But he's been put into

it by another being, and he has to come out of it by

himself. So he actually doesn't make it. To that degree he

doesn't make it. So it hangs him up on the track.



Now all of these actions act to hang the PC up on the

track. The additives, the comments, and on the other hand,

the failure to state. The PC comes into session, the

auditor all of a sudden forgets what he's supposed to ask

for, and sits there and looks at the PC, and tries to look

in his papers. He doesn't put in any R-factor. He doesn't

say, "I've got to see here what I'm supposed to do",

because it'd be too derogatory of his attitude, or

something, and he might sit there for a minute or two

without saying anything, racking his wits out. The PC goes

half way around the bend because he's expecting something

to happen that doesn't happen. Or, right in the middle 

of a crucial situation the auditor fails to follow the 

same patter that he has just followed. Engram one, 

pattern correct, engram two, he blows it. He tells him

to go earlier and then in locating the incident, his patter

blows up. He forgets to ask for, well he forgets to ask for

the date. Forgets to ask what it is. What does he see?

Forgets to ask for the duration. And then just says, "Go

through it." Now that would be a maddening situation. Do

you see? There's an infinite number of varieties by which

an omission could also rough up a PC. So auditing, along

with standard tech, is that thin, narrow path through being

there enough to get the session done, and not being there

enough to put on a vaudeville show. Do you see? This is the

one thing that is usually hardest to teach.



If I were running an activity where I was very suspicious,

and I could be more suspicious of sessions than I am

sometimes. My level of trust is too good. But I would

actually put it on a slow play tape recorder, which is a

voice actuated tape recorder. So that the entirety of the

session would run off on tape. Something of this nature,

then it could be checked back. Now I wouldn't necessarily

put this on as a constant action, but if I had one PC, if I

just had one PC fall on his head after he was audited, and

I got a report in which seemed to be a well done resort,

and the PC promptly fell on his head and so forth, I would

be thinking in terms of listening to that session. I would

then want a spy system, you know, where a microphone can be

taped, or I would want that...  Now these, these spy systems

can be escaped. It's a simple matter. Just never use the

auditing room that's bugged. Yes, it's happened. Three

auditing rooms had microphones in them so that sessions and

auditors could be checked, and then they were never used.

Nobody ever seemed to give a session in those rooms.



Well at once one should have become very wary, because it

so happened at that particular moment the session were

very, very, very additive. The reports looked great and the

sessions looked like a clown show at the circus. A lot of

yik yak going on. Several cases messed up, and so on. It

was by auditor additive. So it isn't slight.



Now, one of the ways an auditor additive can occur is with

C/S. An auditor who is auditing his own PC, he doesn't have

a C/S around, and you will occasionally be in that

position, is already breaking down on C/S. In the first

place, he has talked to the PC. In the second place he

knows the auditor. So his C/S is busted on two counts. But

there is a thin way to get away with it.



And that is merely to make a rigid rule never to C/S during

a session. Never, never C/S during a session. Write up your

C/S before the session, follow your C/S rigorously and

religiously.



When you get to the end of the C/S end the session. Your

next C/S, write it up dispassionately as though you had

nothing whatsoever to do with it. Even cuss yourself out.

But if you hold that, you hold that as a very, a very

sound, rigid principle, you won't get auditor additives

into your session, which is to C/S at the same time

auditing is occurring, because nothing can be more

confusing, and it can lead you into an immediate and direct

Q and A. You excuse the Q and A on the basis that you've

changed the C/S. Do you follow? And gradually these two

things merge, until you become almost educated in Q and A.

"We'll just audit the PC on what he needs right now. Let's

see.' And you sit down.



Now the PC himself is distracting. He's somebody to hold on

a line. And if you want to deliver all your sessions into

the hands of the PC, why then just never C/S them. So

before the session, if you were doing this sort of thing,

before the session you would look over the folder, and you

would write up your C/S as a good C/S. That's what we're

gonna do. When you go into the session that's the C/S you

execute. And when you're all done with the session, with

that C/S done, and you write up another C/S before the next

session. And you just win.



You just win, win, win. You'd just be absolutely fascinated.



It gets this kind of an oddity. Somebody comes in and says,

"Would you audit me?" And you say, "Yes. Just a minute.

Where's your folder? I'll get your folder. Yes, come back

in fifteen or twenty minutes, and I'll rive you a session."

Get the guys' folder from wherever it is, go through the

thing, figure it out, write down your C/S from the folder.

Deliver your session.



Now the one, the one type of session that isn't true in, is

when it isn't a session, it's an assist.



Somebody comes bunging up to you, and they just got the

railroad rail run through their brisket or something of 

this sort. You had better know the C/S for assists so 

well that you simply go into that and don't do anything 

else. If it's very handy, the spot where he was hurt, 

you're going to do a contact. If it's not very handy,

you're goina to do a touch assist. If he is at all

auditable you are going to run him through the engram of

the incident. If it gets heavy and sticks you're going to

go to the earlier incident. Earlier, similar incident.

That's all the C/Sing there is.



As far as Ruds are concerned you could make some little

gesture at trying to put in the Ruds, but you don't have to

fly anything. You understand? Because he's got the PTP.

You're looking at it. He's actually in the rudiments. Now

you ordinarily wouldn't run a rudiment with an engram. But

ordinarily a guy like that isn't in a position to run the

engram on. You can do the contact assist, you can do the

touch assist, there's very often on a severe one there's

got to be some medical patch up of some kind or another.

Now when he comes back, remember this is not an assist,

this is a session, now you're going to fly the Ruds, and

you're going to run the engram of injury, or earlier, similar.



Now somebody's just lost their brother, or something of

this sort, and they come in to you crying, and they've got

to rush off to the funeral or the hospital or something

like that. I assure you there is so little you can do about

it that the more you try to do about it the worse off

you're-a-gonna be. Let them handle what they've got to

handle, when they come back, formal session, secondary.

Earlier similar, secondary. Those are the actions which you

take. If you don't take the two actions which I've just

given you, a lot of guys are going to hang up. You'll see

people going around in grief. Very upset. You ask them, and

somebody, somebody ran recall it or something. Keyed it

out. They didn't erase it. And it keeps keying back in again.



You see this guy all bunged up, and you say, "What's the

matter? What's the matter?" "Well" he says, "about two or

three months ago I broke my leg." And you say, "Anybody

ever run the engram?" "Yes. I had a touch assist." It's

actually the formal...  Entirely different thing.



So that there is a formal auditing side of this, and the

C/S for that is very exact. You go in, you do just that.

You do what you're supposed to do at the moment of

emergency. You don't have to fly the Ruds. Contact assist,

or it's a touch assist if the objects and so forth aren't

available.



You bring 'em around any way you can. You have them tended

to by the plumbers. Give him a shot of morphine, anything

like that if they're in agony. And then when they have

progressed and they are not in a state of physical shock,

why they can stand up to run an engram. But by that time

they can also stand up to flying their Ruds. Do you follow?



So later on, when you run the engram or the secondary,

you're not doing an assist. That's just a session. Do you

get the difference between these two things? So an assist,

you can handle the apparent PTP that is in front of you

without a C/S, if you always know what the C/S for it is.



And I've just given it.



Now. If you want to commit professional suicide it's to

badger, badger around with somebody without a set up C/S or

a case study in front of you, because you're liable to run

into some very tiger-ish situations. I'll give you an idea.

You say, "Well he just mentioned this, he just mentioned

his brothers' death.' Something like this. "He just

mentioned his brothers' death."



But this secondary's never been run. I'll run it." Ahhh.

How, how, what were you doing? Well, you say it's OK

because it F/Ned, and I'll just add in, and I'll run this

secondary here, and...  You don't know if that case is going

to fly or not on this subject. You don't know anything

about it. Let's take a look at this.



Now I'll give you a few little tips of one kind or another.

In doing C/Ses, in doing a C/S you should be far more

careful to set up the case to be audited than an auditor

ordinarily would be.



You look for places to take charge off of this case. Let's

shave this case down. You look for symptoms and signs of a

very overcharged, or special-type case. Somebody carts you

in a six inch thick review folder. Ahh! Resistive case. You

don't immediately say he's been badly audited for the last

two years. Because the law of averages are that some time

during the last two years he has run into an auditor who

could audit, and if he'd run into an auditor that could

audit he wouldn't have it six inches thick, it'd only be

three inches thick. Do you get the idea?



So obviously, if all this period of time nobody's been able

really to pack up this case and figure out what it is all

about, why in that length of time if nobody has, there's

something very, very, very peculiar. And the thing that is

peculiar, this you have to keep in mind. The thing that is

peculiar is standard tech is out on it.



There's a dear old lady. I think she even wore, you've

heard me speak of this old lady before. She even wore the 

little bonnet with the flower off the top of a long stem. 

And when she walked, the bonnet flower bobbed. She was the 

most precise, prim, proper little old lady you ever saw in 

your life, and nobody could get to first base on her case. 

I think her tone arm was a dirty tone arm. And nobody'd ever 

been able to pick any withholds or overts off of her. What 

we used was the exaggerated overt. Which is perfectly valid. 

It works. It's perfectly valid.



Somebody won't give you up his overts, and so forth, you... 

It's a rather harsh, but perfectly valid, way of pulling an

overt. You multiply the overt. What you are trying to get

them to confess to is so much more horrible than what they

are, than what they are guilty of, do you see? But you can

actually make up a list for the auditor. "Have the PC

questioned on the following points. Murder, bank robbery,

desertion, child slaughter, bigamy." See? You can put down

a list like that. Horrible. The little old lady said, no,

she wasn't guilty of any of those crimes. All she'd ever

done was commit adultery on her husband for the last forty

years. With all of his friends. And it blew the case sky

wide and handsome, and it rolled beautifully. What was

wrong with the case? The Ruds were out. That was all. But

this was one of the most resistive cases in a whole area.

It was a famous case. Ruds out. And so they go. So they are.



And in your C/Sing, in your C/Sing you want to get some

kind of an estimate of how, how tough is this cookie? You

can write up, you can write up and broaden, enormously, the

seven types of cases. They ougnt to be called, by the way,

special cases to your PCs. People like to be special cases,

not resistive cases. But you can write a very, very large

assessment sheet out of those seven resistive cases.

Furthermore, you can assess it sectionally. You notice the

first time it was ever assessed the former therapy read

once and then went out. And out of valence was the item.

Well now you could have another assessment done, or you

could just grab the brass ring as you went by and assume

also that there's former therapy, and your next action is

former therapy. Run the engrams of former therapy, you

already got the assessment out of it, see? It fell on the

first one.



Now, if you wanted to be more positive about it, you could

take a whole assessment sheet of just former therapy. You

see that it read once. Now you can broaden this. It slashed

once and then went out, so there's something there. Now we

can broaden, and we can list any kind of a former therapy

that we can think of. And we could shake out of the hamper

the exact type of former therapy it was. Now that would be

important, because you see some former therapies are

engrams, and some former therapies can be rehabbed.



Now in hypnotism and yoga, and several other analogous

practices and so forth, there is a rehab available.

Furthermore, drug therapy, under sedation for a long period

of time and so forth, is very often rehabbable. So, that's

already on the list, drugs. But it might not come up under

the heading of former therapy. People, this personal say,

"Well I never took drugs. I was just under morphine for

seven years in the general hospital. We see this all the

time. So you can do an expansion. You can do an expansion.

And what I told you earlier, in session you have got, in a

session, only to touch the corner of something and you can

slide in on it. It's as though the bank flew little, tiny

flags out to the side. And you can see these little flags.

And your job is to try to find one of these little flags

and slide in on it.



Now, you saw, for instance, the guy, the guy has sciatica,

or something of this sort. And this, you're not trying to

cure his sciatica, it's just an index of case. What the

hell's he doing with sciatica, or whatever it is? What's he

doing with this? He's a grade three release. He shouldn't

have a psychosomatic illness. You get the idea? I mean,

that's your think. "Hey, this guy's been audited. He

shouldn't be doing that." There's something goofy out,

here, some place.



Alright, let's see if we can pinpoint this. Now all you're

really doing is looking for an area of charge. You're not

trying to process against a sianificance. You just want to

discharge this case. When this case is sufficiently

discharged you couldn't care less about the flat feet of

humanoids. That's why I'm very insulted when the medicos,

and so forth, say, "You're busy healing." Nobody's

interested in healing bodies. But you take a fellow who is,

who is ill in some quarter or another, I can assure you

that there's a sweat deal of charge available in that area.

Do you see? The case is heavily charged. It's aberrated in

some fashion. So your job is, how do you discharge this

case as a case supervisor?



Now your first and foremost way to charge the case is send

him up through the grades. That's your first and foremost

way to charge a case. Next grade. He's made the grade,

good, send him onto the next grade. Great. Now let's say he

has had these grades, according to his record, and he's

still got lumbosis. Now you should get curious at this

point as to what this is all about. Because what it is,

actually, is that a grade is out some place, or a rud is

out some place.



Now, theoretically you could put in the Ruds ahead of the

sessions. You could also put them ahead of a major action

or an engram in life, you could also put them in at the

beginning of track. You could do all sorts of weird things

with rudiments. But it is a very, very touchy situation, I

assure you, to start running back Ruds which are not

limited in the command. Now you could put the Ruds in for

the last session, if you said the last session. You could

even put the Ruds in, in the last few sessions, by saying

"Lately". See? "Lately have you been audited over an ARC

break?" Lately. Otherwise, you're liable to dive clear back

to the beginning of track or...  You can actually earlier

similar, when you start putting in Ruds earlier, you can

actually do an earlier similar, clear on back to god help

us. Now you could say the date of the engram is 1862, and

you could say, "Just prior to that incident what rudiment

was out?" Now you're stuck with it, because you're gonna

have to say earlier similar. Earlier similar, earlier

similar, earlier similar, and oh my god, you're going to

have to start running this case on nothing but a rudiment,

clear back to the beginning of track. The case you're

running it on is in no shape to pick up an ARC break ahead

of Incident 1. He's never even heard of a body thetan.



You see why it's one of these things like R2-12. You hardly

dare trust it to anybodies' hands because it works so fast.

But it isn't, this isn't a matter of trust. It's simply a

matter of the second you start putting in Ruds on earlier

similar, you're liable to get a rud hung.



Now the only thing you can do with it is earlier similar,

you start putting Ruds that far back and you're getting the

whole track PTP, the whole track ARC break, and this is

going to be run on a case which isn't prepared to run

anything like that. And the case'll fall on its' head just

sure as hell. A case runs just below the level of its'

available reality. The current reality of the case

demonstrates how much charge you can set off the case. What

is the current reality of the case? Now a person who is at

low, down in the lower graces, and so on, he maybe has

many, many things wrong with him. But he has no reality

of any kind whatsoever. It wouldn't even read on the meter.

Do you follow? So your safest C/S is on something that will

read. And therefore you take the assessment.



You can actually have some fellow who is going around on

crutches and you say, "What is wrong with you?" And he

could tell you, "I've got an ear ache." And you could say,

"Weil then, something wrong with your legs or something

like that?" "Oh well, that. Yeah that's, that's just

nothing. It just, it bothers me." Well if he never got well

physiologically, and after something or other, there's

obviously some terrific charge on the case or body that is

holding it that far out of line, and your task as case

supervisor is, is it available? Well it's only available if

he has some awareness of it. And the way you measure his

awareness is with a meter. Now you can look all the way

through a folder, find an awful lot of blunders, and have

somebody try to put these blunders to rights. Particularly

on somebody who wasn't trained. You try to put these

blunders to rights. You know them, you've seen them in the

folder. You order foolishly as a C/S to go through all of

the persons' earlier grades, and do all of the auditing,

and point out all of the overruns and BPC in all of the

earlier grades, and you're liable to find the auditor

you're C/Sing for in a sudden fire fight with the PC, under

the heading of invalidation. The guy thought his lower

grades were great. So that is why you take these little

assessments. Just let me teach you that.



You can see what's wrong. Is it real to the PC? The way you

measure whether or not it is real to the PC, is not what is

the most wrong, but what is the most real to the PC. And so

you write up an assessment. Now you know very, very, very

well that this guy goes out and wrecks cars. This seems to

be the thing he does. This is a life manifestation. Now

you, from your viewpoint, are very foolish if you're trying

to, going to get him over wrecking cars. If that's the goal

you set as a C/S, why to hell with it. But the symptom of

wrecking cars shows you there's something very obsessed

about this fellow someplace. And it's no magical one button.



It's just some kind of charge, and it'll eventually come

off in one way or the other. But it shows the case is very,

very heavily charged, because he seems to talk a lot in his

sessions about cars, and wrecks, and you know, it just

seems to be coming up. Well, let's do an assessment. Let's

write up. So you'd write up an assessment like, "Cars,

drivers, policemen, highways." Just get a whole bunch of... 

"Motors, speed" you know? "Rest." Anything you care to put

together, and then have your auditor assess this and then

he assesses it very nicely, and he comes out with one that

is reading.



Now that is not what is the most wrong with him. It is what

he has got the best reality on. Now you could do an L-1 on

it, you could prep check it, you probable could even find

an engram chain on it. More rarely, if it indicated as

such, you might be able to find a secondary chain on the

subject. There's a lot of things that you can do with this.



Now you've got his item. Now you've got this item. And this

item doesn't mean...  It's just an assessed item, it's from

your list, it isn't the make or break of the case, but it

does show you a zone or area of available charge, which

when bled off the case will leave the case less charged up,

and with a higher level of reality. And the reality and

awareness of the case increases in direct proportion to the

amount of charge off.



Now the case supervisor's trving to solve things like this

when the case doesn't seem to be able to do what is asked

of him. He doesn't seem to be able to do these things.

He's...  Well it's represented by a high TA. Somebody has

been audited up through the grades.



Here's a typical case supervisor problem. And you'll go ahh

when you see this one. See? Something like this. A guy is

a, if he's a grade three, lower grade three, his TA is at

5, and he doesn't much like auditors. And he's come in for

a session. Now what's this? What's this? What the hell is

his TA doing up there? Well, your first action, of course,

is to take his folder if you can get your hands on it, and

you take his folder and you go back to a point where the

case was running well and the TA was not extreme. Now you

can come forward from that point and you can find some clue

as to what went on. It isn't necessarily, however, an

auditing overrun.



It isn't always auditing to blame. The guy got married

twice without getting divorced.



So that you in actual fact now, in coming forward from that

point, it could be as corny as this.



You found out that he didn't have any trouble getting F/Ns

last January. But so help me Pete right now, wow. This is

stuck McGluck, man. He's parked at high 6. And no parachute.



What're you going to do with him? Well you know, you can

run one of these lists which isn't a listing question, but

which will give you an item. Now when you use a question

like this it's a border line thing. It might list to one

item. But it also might not, because it isn't a proper

listing question. But you can still do it, and it won't

damage the PC any, providing somebody doesn't try to horse

around with it. So the auditor that does it has to

understand that it's not a one item list, and he's not

supposed to do anything with this thing. He's just trying

to find out what reads. What happened since January the

twenty eighth, which is the date of the session in which it

read. What's happened since January the twenty eighth date?

And he tells you this and he tells you that, and he tells

you something else, and tells you something else, and all

of a sudden something reads.



Without even discussing the matter of overrun, a prep check

on the thing might very well knock the TA down. But you

certainly have got to set this case up. This case has done

something since then. Something has happened, and if you

don't set the case up you'd better damn well not run four.

And this is where your expertise comes in. This is where

your expertise...  Now expertise is very standard. There's

nothing much to it. The only thing you're really trying to 

do is find an area where charge can be removed from the case 

and remove it.



Now you obviously have to remove it with a process the PC can do.



Now, all of a sudden, we find this guy, and we do an

assessment of seven cases, or we do this or that, or...  On

lower grade PCs like that the common action is a green form

with itsa, similar itsa, lists forbidden. And it rubs down,

and it finds zones and areas, and before it F/Ns, however,

you're liable to find another zone or area which wouldn't

F/N, because the process is not, not beefy enough. And you

find some interesting things have gone on.



Now it gives you another zone. Because anything down toward

that F/N, before that F/N, if it's on another subject on

the green form, which leads to it, is of course C/S bait.

Do you see? Now you could do an itsa, you could do an itsa,

early similar itsa on a Green form, carry it on down the

form. The thing doesn't go F/N all the way through the

form. You say, "Oh my god! Now what do we do? Because we

have just run out of ammunition. Well your first thought is

the form was badly done, very badly done. And your second

thought that it was badly done on the first page. So

therefore you look over all this carefully, and you could

now establish a little assessment that can be done, which

reestablishes your suspicion. And it's little items that

come off the green form. You can have these assessed. Which

one of these was out? Which one didn't the auditor set? Ha

ha. You can cross play this. Do you see what I mean? And

one of the most fantastic things is somebody with some,

some withhold like drugs. Drugs can shoot the TA up; The

guy got up to grade three, and then all of a sudden, for

some reason or another, he met some of his old pals that he

used to have trips with and he's busy...  He used to smoke

with them a lot, and so on. And just talking to these

birds. He doesn't take it up again. He'll tell you quite

truthfully, "No, I didn't do any." But just talking to

these characters keyed in. He keyed himself in. Of course,

obviously it's a rehab action.



So, I'm just telling you the various categories of

entrance. And it isn't very tricky. It isn't very tricky,

because the law which governs it is, is you find an area of

charge on which the PC has reality, and audit it with a

simple action.



Now, you can find an area of charge on which the PC has

reality, and get it audited with a simple action. And now

you can find, and there is another area of charge where the

PC has reality, and audit it with a simple action. All of a

sudden the case is sitting there with an F/N.



That was all you were looking for in the first place. You

say, "Run grade four." And we were not interested in all

the tortures of the damned he was going through as to

whether or not he was going to tell the auditor, we aren't

interested in the depth of the ARC break he had with his

cat. These things are not of interest. The actual interest

in the matter, first and foremost and right straight across

the line, is simply and only that you mustn't start a major

action without flying the needle. And this is gonna be one

of our big problems. You don't think so. But this is gonna

be your major case supervisor problem, because it'll be to

you, with great urgency and emergency, that all cases are

brought. You immediately get nothing but the tough cases.

The easy cases are wrecked independent of your

interference. (Laughter.) Right away you've got rough

cases. "Yes, what about this folder, what about this

folders" A foot and a half thick. And grade zero.



And you follow the same formula, go back to find a time

that the case was running well. Try to find out what

happened to the case from that time forward. Do some simple

action that will establish it further and get charge off.

And your whole action is find a simple action on which the

person has reality. Have something on which the person has

reality, perform a simple auditing action on it and get

charge off. If that didn't work, then you try to do it

forward, if that didn't work, you wanna find some action,

some sphere where the PC has reality, perform some simple

action which gets charge off the case, and then see if you

can push it. Do you understand? It's just a case of bmp,

pow. It's a case of hunt and punch actually.



Now it's not very hunt and punch, because you're using

standard actions to do all this, and you must keep firmly

in mind this one thing. Is it's the case that's variable,

not the technology you're applying. And man, these cases

have got an infinity of complexities. Infinite

complexities. What people can do, and how they can get

messed up, and what thinks can get cross wise in them,

probably couldn't be computed on an IBM computer:



Now it looks so big and so complex that you could confuse

the postulates and stuck ideas and incidents and

experiences of the individual, with the very simple actions

you have to work with. You see? They look so simple.

They're so easy. And your most progress you're going to get

on the case is the next grade. If the case is to be put on

the next grade, you've got to be able to fly the needle,

with GIs. If the PC is in such a state that the needle

won't fly, there is something wrong. There is something out

along the line of standard tech. He really didn't get as

far as he got. Or something weird has happened in his life

to key him in upside down and backwards. And it is your job

as a C/S simply to see that no new next grade or section is

started on him unless the needle flies easily.



Now I will go further than that in the OT sections. I will

monkey around with a case until it blows out of its' head.

This hunt and punch around with the case, until he finally

exteriorizes.



Now what am I doing? I'm just hunting and punching around.

He's gone, that...  Now actually I could get him up to 7 and

make him do 7 and 8, and all of that is great and so on,

but he actually should have blown out of his head at about

5. See? He should've blown out of his head at 5 or 6, and

if he hasn't blown out of his head at 5 or 6 then there's

an earlier section out.



Now there's probably an...  We can't go back and put the

case ready to fly and then do the earlier section, 'cause

it's done. Now what are we going to do? See? Well it did

get him a little bit further, and so on. But I would be, I

would hunt and punch around until I took enough charge off

the case. Start taking it off directly. An assessment of

exteriorization, death, release, beating it, doing a bunk,

leaving, responsibility, possessions, bodies. Do an

assessment. All of a sudden, pang! Death. This individual's

got being out of his head associated with death.



Now look at the number of things you could do with this.

Obviously can't get out of his head for some reason best

known to somebody. He's still got something, or somebody or

himself, has got some kind of a stuck death. So you could

actually run a chain of engrams of death. I mean,

elementary. Now you can vary that. It's how can you bypass

the F/N? You could key it out by recall, you could run the

overt, you could run the motivator. Usually run by key out

the recall, run the overt series to F/N. See? Recall to

F/N, overt series would then be the last action. See?

Recall to F/N, motivator to F/N, overt to F/N. There's

three F/Ns available on the same material. Then see how

he's doing.



Well, let's see we get a report something like this. "We

assessed out death, and when I tried to run a death the PC

said he, actually he went back down the track, TA 1.2, and

wasn't able to find anything. And however he felt good

about it. But actually there weren't very many good

indicators in at the end of the session."



Now what's that told you? What you know now, huh? What you

know? You know that the knuckle-headed auditor didn't make

a correct assessment. That's what you know. You had your

nice little list, and all of a sudden he gave you an item

that was in some fashion forced to read. The one that would

have read is the one on which the PC has the greatest

reality, and he obviously didn't have very much reality on

this because he couldn't get back and run anything.



Do you follow? That's your think. So you know you've got a

mis-assessment.



We had one the other day. Damndest fire fight you ever

cared to see. Ran something like this.



"I gave the PC the first command and told her what we were

going to run, and she said, 'You know, I didn't understand

that at the time it was assessed'. And so, I told her what it

meant, and then I said I didn't think we should run it. But

she said that it was alright to run it, and so we did." And

it's one of those "Do not send to find for whom the bell

tolls." An assessment because of non-comprehension. Which

gives you a clue that your assessment should be checked.

Now if you give, now let me teach you a little bit of piece

about assessment. If you assess something, and then send it

to the C/S, and then the C/S says to run something on it,

when you start to clear the command, if you find out that

he didn't know the item is your face red. Because you assessed 

against a misunderstood. The PC couldn't have even dimly been 

in session or interested in what was going on, because all he 

hung up on and read was the fact that he didn't understand you. 

So it must have been a very corny assessment indeed.



The thing to do in such a instance would be to quick, like

a bunny, get the misunderstood off, reassess it. Almost

cruelly on the basis. "Now are there any other... " When

you've finished the assessment, "Are there any other words

on this assessment you didn't understand?" You know? Stick

it back in the folder and send it back to the C/S. You

know, it's an "Is my face red" type of submission.



But that is the correct action, not to run it. Because look

at the mechanics I'm trying to teach you here. The reality

of the PC is totally violated. A PC that doesn't understand

what some very simple word means. Well actually, you're

actually auditing then in a zone or sphere of "What was

that?" Is that in the direction of reality? It's in the

direction of total unreality. So you wouldn't dare audit

such a thing. It would be horror beyond horror. You

wouldn't dare audit such a thing.



Now you say therefore there ought to be some sort of a

drill on which we go over the whole list, and take us each

one of the words on the list before we assess it, in order

to clear if on the list there are any misunderstoods. No.

Instead of that we don't inspect before the fact any where

along the line. We ask the person, we can ask the person

before we run it. Now the reason why you don't hang up PCs

and give them the assessment is, they walk off and self

audit it. You've given him the item, you've given him the

item "dog chains". You didn't do anything about it, and

then you finally say, "That's your item. Your item is dog

chains." So you get it mixed up with listing and nulling.

Then the PC goes out of session saying, "Dog chains, dog

chains, dog chains. Yes." They come back the next session,

it's overrun already, and then you overrun it. See? You set

yourself up to fall on your head.



If you trust the auditor completely, and if you're not

having any assessment trouble, and auditors can do the

assessment, the actual act of C/S is, "Assessed list fow

fow, or assess the following items, take what reads

and... ", prep check it, list one it, do what you will do

with it.



Find an engram about it, you know, whatever you're going to

say about it. See? Now the proper auditing action is after

the assessment is done you do the action at once. And then

the person says they don't understand that. 'Cause you try

to clear it with them at that time, which is proper

auditing procedure. You've got to clear the auditing

command. And they say, "Yeah, well I meant to tell you I

didn't know what that means." You say, "Thank you very

much. Thank you. We'll clarify what that means. Yes, that

means boaga boo , so fwa fwa fwa , that's something you

lead a dog around on. That's it. Yes. Now we're going to do

an assessment." (Click, click, click, click.) Assess it out

again, and you find it now comes out entirely different.

Not the other one that read, because what you were getting

were latent reads on top of the misunderstood. Now you'll

get the one on which he's getting a reality. So your

assessment is always assessed against the pcs' reality. And

the only reason you do an assessment at all is to get close

to where the pcs' reality on the situation is.



You can look in a six inch thick folder, and you can find

it in this six inch thick folder there are eight thousand

nine hundred and sixty two auditing errors. Now, question

is, I've already given you an example of this. You start

patching up the list but he didn't have any reality on the

list being wrong. It's also something a trained auditor has

to do to patch up a list. He's got to be very skilled on

the laws of listing and nulling to patch up a list,

otherwise he'll dog breakfast the list, again.



So your safest action, I then showed you, is assess a list.

Auditors, auditing, sessions, reviews, you know, any word

that you could think of in regard to this. Then you assess it.



Now you've got the pcs' greatest reality. Now you run that

on, and you'll find that the PC gets some charge off and it

starts straightening out.



Now how manv times could you do this? Well I don't know.

It's almost an infinity of times.



It's not a limited action. Now the funny part of it is,

that limited actions only occur in the presence of out TRs.

Almost any action becomes a limited action in the presence

of bad TRs.



Bad TRs, auditor additives, auditor omissions, and so on,

add up as nice as you please. You limit the processes. And

you can audit a guy so badly, believe it or not, that the

simplest process in the book, right here, this... 



Now I've suddenly given you a no-comm bridge and changed to

an entirely different subject.



But it is relates to this. Because I've been telling you

how to C/S and so forth. Now I'm going to tell you

something else about it.



I started in to tell you that the C/S is a bit at the mercy

of the additives or omissions or the rotten TRs, and so

forth, of the auditor who is auditing for him. And that

might have left you in a slight puzzlement exactly what is

the extent? No, you're not puzzled about it because you

have a reality on it. You think you understand it. I got

news for you, you don't. This one you have to learn.



This is very upper level material. This is level 7 and 3

section material. So therefore, you go trying to teach

somebody this and you're gonna wrap him around a telegraph

pole if he isn't already up the sections. So I give you

warning. What you want to do is put it into peoples' heads

that they mustn't add, they mustn't do omissions, and

they've got to have good TRs.



Now I want to give you the reasons back of this. The

reasons back of this. It is under the heading of the

anatomy of an overrun. The anatomy of overrun is a very

interesting anatomy.



You would say, "Well, it's been run too long, so it goes

up. That's great. That's very simple.



But that is the overall mechanic of the thing and the

overall appearance, and the overall datum.



What is actual fact happens? Why is an overrun an overrun?



Well I can give it to you just one, two. At some time or

another the PC decided to stop it, and from that point on

it is getting overrun. And that is all an overrun is.



Let's take a series of engrams. The individual you're

running engrams on the track. It goes more solid, you have

to get earlier similar. Why do you have to get earlier

similar? Because you're running down a chain of incidents

where he has already got the consideration that it's

already gone on too damn long. You've got to go back and

get the incident where he first decided it had better stop.

You don't in actual fact get the first incident on the

chain. It isn't there.



The first experience he had in this particular line of

country he didn't stop. It was alright for lions to jump on

him. He didn't mind it. Thought, "What the hell?" So the

lion jumped on him and chomped up a body, well he just

mocked up another body. To hell with it. A body, easy come,

easy go. So what. After a while he start deciding bodies

are very important and lions shouldn't do that, and so on,

so he decides to stop lions from jumping on him. And now we

have a chain of animals leaping upon bodies which goes on

for years and years and eons and eons, and you start

tracing this thing back. And it goes into the millions and

tens of millions, and hundreds of millions of years ago.

How the hell did you ever get a chain like that? Well it's

running back to somewhere in the vicinity of the original stop.



It's "This type of action must cease". That's what he has

determined. This type of action must cease. And that is the

point which you have to get out of it. And that is why in

the materials of 3, you get my instruction to get the stop

out. And in ninety percent of the time if you don't take

the stop out of 3, it is already a bit late on the chain,

and it won't blow. Other incidents and actions have

happened before that.



So wherever we look on the track we find this is true. And

that is the datum which compares to all the other datum,

and is the datum which makes engrams stick, makes them go

more solid, which makes things overrun.



Alright. Now let's take the rudiments. Now this is very

interesting. In actual fact it is impossible to put in the

rudiments too often. That's theoretically. It's

theoretically impossible to put the Ruds in too often.

There is no limit on the number of times you can put in

somebodies' rudiments. Yet, you will look in a folder and

you will sometimes see this. ARC break, up TA.



Overrun, down TA. Well how the hell could that happen?



Now let me give you an exact way it could happen. At

fifteen minutes before lunch the auditor starts a two hour

session. He just has time to get in the Ruds. He gets these

Ruds in laboriously, they go to lunch. And he comes back

from lunch, he sits down, and puts in the Ruds. Ah, but the

PC expected a major action. So he stops the auditor putting

in the Ruds. And up goes the TA.



There's a folder kicking around which runs like this. It's

actually criminal. It's fly each rud to F/N, and then; and

it gives about six more instructions; so some time just

before supper the fellows flew each rud to F/N on a PC who

does an awful lot of itsa-ing. Alright. Just before supper,

flew each rud to F/N. Took a long time. You might have

known the PC. It always takes a long time to fly a rud on

this PC. The PCs gabby. Took a break, went to supped came

back, and once more flew each separate rudiment. Didn't

even just check 'em. Flew each separate rudiment. Even then

it took quite a while to push the TA up, but eventually the

TA went up to 4.25. On putting in rudiments. What two

things happened?



Now the PC could have had all the work she'd done to get

rudiments in invalidated while waiting for something major

to happen in the session, or the PC simply was trying to

stop him from putting in the Ruds. So the pass invalidated

or the PCs trying to stop. The PC invalidated, TA goes

down, trying to stos, TA goes up. So a C/S knows at once

whether or not the PC was overwhelmed by invalidation in

some fashion, or knows whether he was so rough and crude

and dull in his action or was doing something so stupid the

PC was trying to stop him. PC trying to stop him, TA goes

up, TA down, invalidation and overwhelm. You got that? Now

in the first place, what the hell makes one of these

chains? You're already aware that you're mocking everything

up. How come this damn chain can stay there? That's

curious, isn't it? Well, it's out of 8. Actually it's the

exercise of permeation for control. Control by permeation.

And if you want chairs to tip over, and that sort of thing,

without having a hand laid on 'em, of course you'll

permeate them and tip them over.



So let us take now this guy who had the lion jump on him.

And he's got a long chain of being destroyed by lions,

fighting lions, shooting lions, and he's clear, for god's

sakes. And you start dredging around and all of a sudden

you find this wild chain. Having to do with lions.



Well let me tell you the exact circumstances of how that

chain came into being. It used to matter, it used to didn't

matter a damn. And then one fine day he decided he was

tired of getting bodies mucked up, or lions mucked up, or

something. And so, as the lion leaped through the air he

permeated the lion, he permeated his environment to control

it in order to stop the lion.



This is very successful. You can stop things this way like

a bomb. There's no trick in this. It's done by permeation.

And, you're just every where at once. You know? Well it

freezes, or it does something else. Or it goes off in the

other direction, don't you see? You can make it do what you

please.



Alright, that was great. That was great. And then one day a

lion jumped on him. The frequency, the length of the track,

permits the most unlikely incidents to repeat. There's

sufficient variation that you finally you'll get on one of

these points again, somewhere up the track. So anyhow, the

lion jumps on him, he permeated the lion stopping him from

jumping, and at that moment a lion jumped on his back that

he hadn't noticed. This caused a dispersal.



He thought he had the environment under control, and there

was a piece of the environment he didn't have under

control. Which causes him to shift his attention from this

lion to that lion. So this lion hits him. And he loses his

body anyway.



Now on that failure chain he will have already got the

basic of stomping lions from jumping on him, and now you

get a can't stop lions chain. Now the damn fool will keen

on going through this permeation act long after it doesn't 

work. And it gives him a chain of pictures. Quote, unquote, 

"pictures". They're very funny looking pictures, they're very 

thin pictures. They're mostly energy, frozen. Do you see - the

mechanics? Well it takes a distraction to put him into a

chain of loses. And after a while he doesn't permeate

things, but he still does permeate things, and he can't

understand why, after he walks out of the room he has a

picture of a phonograph.



Do you see? Well, that failed, so he doesn't take

responsibility for the action any more, but a thetan can

permeate anything anyhow. And it's often a surprise to me

that things in my vicinity don't move. But my body will

move, my hands will move, but that doesn't move. That's

'cause I'm holding it still why my hand moves. A thetan is

very clever. See? And you have to he careful what you permeate. 

There are many things you shouldn't permeate, obviously. You 

had better stop permeating. I suppose somebody who has done 

that, and so forth, has a whole chain of invisible pictures. 

Refraining from permeating.



But regardless of all of that, I'm telling you this

mechanic, which is simply a mechanic, the mechanics of

handling things, because it was a distraction which gave

him his first lose on stopping. Up to that time he didn't

care whether he stopped things or not. Now he becomes

frantic about stopping. And it took a distraction like, he

stopped, he permeated the lion in front, and turned him

around in the airs and sent him somewhere else. Right at

the same time the lion; he was going to do this, you see?

Right at the same time the lion hit him from the rear. So,

he starts for this lion, stops this lion, and he gets this

lion, but he hasn't got this lion under control, and he

gets so confused he didn't know what the hell lion he's

trying to control, and it's by distraction. And you'll find

then that distraction is an interesting point to handle in

the PC. It's handled just by discharging the case. But an

engram which has got distraction in it, if you were really

gonna run this thing out come hell or high water,

regardless of how late is was on the chain, will really

hang you up. Boy, you really can sweat as an auditor trying

to run out this engram which has distraction on it. Do you see?



He almost, he was running the car into a tree when another

car hit him in the side. Brother, you try to unwind that

engram and you're generally going to have a ball. It's

going to take earlier similar, earlier similar, earlier

similar, earlier similar, earlier similar, earlier similar,

earlier similar, do you see? Why? Because it's got the

failure point has been dramatized in it, which is the

distraction in it. Do you see? It's a whole chain of

distractions. And to get down to the earliest distraction

is some times a bit of a trick. There's too many

conflicting forces to rationalize. Do you see this?



Now we come right back to what I was talking to you about

in the first place. What do you think about a distractive

auditor in a session? That's interesting, isn't it? If that

was his first point of failure to permeate and if it's

dramatized on him at the same time he's trying to

introspect and handle his bank, and he's been distracted in

some peculiar fashion by some idiocy. Actually his

tolerance of distraction is fairly high. He isn't scared to

death. But interjected comments, evaluations,

invalidations, the auditor not taking care of the

environment, a gale of wind starts coming in through the

window and the auditor doesn't go over and close it, you

know? Any one of these things which causes a distraction in

the session, doesn't necessarily ruin the PC, because there

isn't anything really violent happening with the PC. But is

sure sort of hangs him with a session. And he can't get on

with it. The reason he can't get on with it is because it's

got the element of distraction. The unpredictability. And

there is where the importance of TRs begins.



Now have you got the whole mechanism? I suppose the auditor

not saying anything is, he was counting by that time on a

lion tamer to reach out with a noose and grab the lion, and

the lion tamer one time didn't grab out with the noose and

grab the lion, and it was an omission, so omission becomes

distractive too. He expects something to happen and it

doesn't happen. It's plus or minus side of the ledger.



Do you see then the essence of smoothness, of

predictability of doing what the auditor is supposed to do

in the session? Not adding to it, not subtracting from it,

and carrying on with the actions necessary to resolve the

case? Now part of the actions necessary to resolve a case

are the auditor auditing him.



Now I'll give you another little piece of this. It's the

auditor plus the PC, versus the pcs' bank makes it possible

then to audit pieces of the pcs' bank. So therefore, for

you to do an assessment of what the PC should go off and

audit, is bonkers.



Let's look at this again. You do an assessment on a list

which you now give to the PC, and you tell him to go off to

his solo session, or something, and do this L-1 on wuf wuf.

You assessed it. Now his reality then is always increased

in the presence of an auditor. His reality on his bank is

increased in the presence of the auditor, because he's got

that much more attention he can put on his bank, right? So

therefore the assessment will go deeper than he himself,

all by himself, has reality on.



This gives you three or four phenomena which sometimes make

you very curious as to what happened. A PC walks out of

session and says something entirely different happened. If

you look on an examiners' report sometime, this PC maybe

has been audited for half an hour, and the PC comes out and

tells the examiner, "All we did was assess a list."

Trimity - god, the persons' list...  "Yeah, we assessed a

list, but there were about fifteen other actions present

before the list was assessed."



Well, what was being done before that, is this is a

negative gain. What was done before is no longer important

to the PC. It's erased, they're gone. Not important. PC

doesn't comment on it. But the list hasn't been run yet.

Furthermore, it's been assessed by the auditor, so the

second the PC walked out of session, if the PC was given

the item, the PCs liable to walk out of that session

overwhelmed. 'Cause he got the item and it was actually not

the reality level of the PC. It was the reality level of

the auditor plus PC. The PC safeguarded was able to

confront the bank enouan to inspect what was going on. But

the PC all by himself couldn't. You got that?



So it enters into this equation. So there are many rules

the auditor plays in auditing which he really doesn't

really suspect. He actually increases the reality of the PC

during the session. The PC can become much more aware of

his own bank. The pcs' pictures in running engrams are

liable to be far brighter, go brighter, when the auditor is

auditing him. Then some auditor or other, I do a C/S for

him. The C/S is to run some engrams. I intend it to be

audited on him, and so on. And he goes off and audits

himself like, wow. You see I already have given him a C/Sed

action so it isn't likely that he'll run into this on his

own volition. I'm already undercutting his reality to some

slight degree by making sure that it's correct, but

nevertheless that it's pushing the case a bit. And that's

supposed to handle the situation. Well, it's audited.



He goes and audits it on himself, he wraps himself around a

telegraph pole. Do you see why? So, the auditor can be a

definite liability to the session by additives, or

subtractives from the session. He can actually provide

sufficient distraction to key in or hang up the PC in the

session. He can make an unlimited process actually appear

limited, because the PC is busy trying to stop his doing

it, which then gives you the whole phenomena of overrun,

because the PC has already decided it's overrun. I think

Ruds are overrun, TA up. See? Now a PC isn't aware he's

doing this. He's operating, however, to do this. Or, on the

other hand, the auditor in there pitching, sitting there

just doing his job routinely, nothing very magical about

it. He says what he has to say, he's got his TRs are in, he

gives the auditing command, he gets them executed, he

follows through and does his job right straight on through,

actually has enormously increased the reality of the PC as

he moves on up the line, and so has permitted him to

confront parts of the bank and handle it that he never

under gods' green earth all by himself would be permitted

to do. So there's a very plus and there's a very minus to

the situation. And there's a lot to be gained and a lot to

be lost all on the same subject.



Have you got a better idea of what sessioning is about?



(Yes sir.) 



Alright. Very good. 



Thank you very much.



**************************************************