Date: 19 Jun 1999 02:37:38 -0000 Subject: FZ Bible 5/7 SOLO COURSE PACK Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology Message-ID: <46a08da11138193d108c6cf23436758c@anonymous.poster> Sender: Secret Squirrel Comments: Please report problems with this automated remailing service to . The message sender's identity is unknown, unlogged, and not replyable. From: Secret Squirrel Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net Lines: 2033 Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!gail.ripco.com!ratbert.tds.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!kiowa!news.alt.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news-x2!mail2news Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:772898 alt.clearing.technology:86757 FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST A 1982 SOLO COURSE PACK - 5 of 7 ************************************************** SOLO AUDITOR'S COURSE PACK CONTENTS [full contents in part 1] Part 5/7 047. HCOB 18 APR 68 NEEDLE REACTIONS ABOVE GRADE IV 048. HCOB 10 DEC 65 E-METER DRILL COACHING 049. HCOB 25 MAY 62 E-METER - INSTANT READS 050. HCOB 8 JUN 61R r. 22 Feb 79 E-METER WATCHING, ... PLAY DIXIE 051. HCOB 5 AUG 78 ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM 052. HCOB 29 APR 69 ASSESSMENT AND INTEREST 053. HCOB 22 JUL 78 ASSESSMENT TRs 054. HCOB 14 JUL 70 SOLO CANS 055. HCOB 28 FEB 71 METERING READING ITEMS 056. HCOB 29 APR 80 PREPARED LISTS, THEIR VALUE AND PURPOSE 057. HCOB 3 JUL 71R r. 22 Feb 79 AUDITING BY LISTS 058. HCOB 20 DEC 71R r. 27 SEP 77 CORRECTION LISTS, USE OF 059. HCOB 21 JUN 72 Word Clearing Series 38 METHOD 5 060. HCOB 19 MAR 71 L1C [Note that some items appear again in a later section of the checksheet and are only included once in this pack] ************************************************** STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet. The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists. It misuses the copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom. They think that all freezoner's are "squirrels" who should be stamped out as heritics. By their standards, all Christians, Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion. The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings of Judiasm form the Old Testament of Christianity. We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against. But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews, the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old testament regardless of any Jewish opinion. We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists. We ask for others to help in our fight. Even if you do not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose to aid us for that reason. Thank You, The FZ Bible Association ************************************************** 047. HCOB 18 APR 68 NEEDLE REACTIONS ABOVE GRADE IV HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 18 APRIL 1968 Remimeo Qual Divs Rev AOs Study Materials NEEDLE REACTIONS ABOVE GRADE IV In doing Green Forms or Analysis Lists on any Clears (but not in nulling) or doing them on most cases above 5 and some cases below it, there are 2 different E-Meter needle phenomena which have to be given attention: l. As a Clear's postulates read as a surge, usually fairly long (over 1"), "No" can read if the pc says it to himself as an answer to a question asked. A read, therefore, does not mean invariably "yes" or that the question is charged. All it means is that the Meter has read. The Auditor must now find out what the read was before determining he should do something about that portion of the Green Form or List. One doesn't just assume the read was "yes". One asks about the read as a general rule, not assuming at once the thing asked was charged. Example - Auditor: "Do you have a missed withhold?" Meter surges. Auditor: "What was that?" Pre: "I thought No I don't." Auditor: "Ok. Do you have a missed withhold?" Pre: "No."-Meter didn't read. Auditor: "Anything suppressed-asserted-protested-invalidated. Ok that's clean. Ticks (1/8 inch) often mean something is there. A Pre OT's postulates have greater length when they surge. It is not important how you handle this phenomena of postulate or to oneself-comment by a high level case. It is important that the Auditor does not hang the case with a wrong adjudication of what's wrong by thinking every surge means "yes" or that the question is charged because it surges. A question is charged only if it won't clean up with buttons until the action itself is taken. A Pre, unlike pcs below Grades I or II, usually recognizes what is wrong as soon as it is mentioned. He or she is more aware. 2. A response like a brief dirty needle on a Pre means "No" always. So there is a certain and trustworthy negative to be had on a Pre. A real dirty needle is constant and continues. The same small jerky needle action on a person Grade 5 or above means "No!" or that the question is negative. On pcs below 5 it means a withhold or an ARC break or almost anything and is of course continuous. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:jc.rd Copyright © 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 048. HCOB 10 DEC 65 E-METER DRILL COACHING HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 10 DECEMBER 1965 Remimeo Academy Tech Division Students E-METER DRILL COACHING The following was submitted by Malcolm Cheminais, Supervisor on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Here are some observations I have made on the coaching of E-Meter drills, which I feel could be of use:-1. The coach's needle is dirty. The student's out comm cycle has cut his comm in some way, but PRIOR to that the coach failed to flunk the part of the comm cycle that went out. Correct flunking by coaches equals students with no dirty needles. 2. If a coach's TA starts climbing on a drill and the needle gets sticky, it means that the student's comm cycle has dispersed him and pushed him out of PT. The coach is either ( I ) not flunking at all (2) flunking the incorrect thing. 3. The correct flunking by the coach of an out comm cycle, which has dispersed him and pushed his TA up, will always result in a TA blow down. If there is no blow down, the coach has flunked the wrong thing. 4. Needle not responding well and sensitively on assessment drills, although the needle clean. Coach has failed to flunk TR 1 (or TR0) for lack of impingement and reach. 5. Coach reaching forward and leaning on the table, means TR I is out with the student. 6. Student asking coach for considerations to get TA down, but TA climbing on the considerations - the coach is cleaning a clean, instead of flunking the out comm cycle, which occurred earlier and pushed his TA up. 7. Student getting coach's considerations off to clean the needle, but needle remaining dirty-student is cutting the coach's comm while getting the considerations off and the coach is not picking this up. 8. Student's shouting or talking very loudly on assessment drills to try and get the Meter to read by overwhelm. The reason for this is invariably-"but I'm assessing the bank!" They haven't realized that banks don't read, only thetans impinged upon by the bank - therefore the TR 1 must be addressed to the thetan. The meter responds proportionately to the amount of ARC in the Session. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:emp.rd Copyright © 1965 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 049. HCOB 25 MAY 62 E-METER - INSTANT READS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 25 MAY 1962 Central Orgs Franchise E-METER INSTANT READS An instant read is defined as that reaction of the needle which occurs at the precise end of any major thought voiced by the auditor. The reaction of the needle may be any reaction except "nul". An instant read may be any change of characteristic providing it occurs instantly. The absence of a read at the end of the major thought shows it to be nul. All prior reads and latent reads are ignored. These are the result of minor thoughts which may or may not be restimulated by the question. Only the instant read is used by the auditor. Only the instant read is cleared on rudiments, what questions, etc. The instant read may consist of any needle reaction, rise, fall, speeded rise, speeded fall, double tick (dirty needle), theta bop or any other action so long as it occurs at the exact end of the major thought being expressed by the auditor. If no reaction occurs at exactly that place (the end of the major thought) the question is nul. By "major thought" is meant the complete thought being expressed in words by the auditor. Reads which occur prior to the completion of the major thought are "prior reads". Reads which occur later than its completion are "latent reads". By minor thought is meant subsidiary thoughts expressed by words within the major thought. They are caused by the reactivity of individual words within the full words. They are ignored. Example: "Have you ever injured dirty pigs?" To the pc the words "you", "injured" and "dirty" are all reactive. Therefore, the minor thoughts expressed by these words also read on the meter. The major thought here is the whole sentence. Within this thought are the minor thoughts "you", "injured" and "dirty". Therefore the E-Meter needle may respond this way: "Have you (fall) ever injured (speeded fall) dirty (fall) pigs? (fall)?" Only the major thought gives the instant read and only the last fall (underscored in the sentence above) indicates anything. If that last reaction was absent, the whole sentence is nul despite the prior falls. You can release the reactions (but ordinarily would not) on each of these minor thoughts. Exploring these prior reads is called "compartmenting the question". Paying attention to minor thought reads gives us laughable situations as in the case, written in 1960, of "getting P.D.H.ed by the cat". By accepting these prior reads one can prove anything. Why? Because Pain and Drug and Hypnosis are minor thoughts within the major thought: "Have you ever been P.D.H.ed by a cat?" The inexpert auditor would believe such a silly thing had happened. But notice that if each minor thought is cleaned out of the major thought it no longer reacts as a whole fact. If the person on the meter had been P.D.H.ed by a cat, then only the discovery of the origin of the whole thought would clean up the whole thought. Pcs also think about other things while being asked questions and these random personal restimulations also read before and after an instant read and are ignored. Very rarely, a pc's thinks react exactly at the end of a major thought and so confuse the issue, but this is rare. We want the read that occurs instantly after the last syllable of the major thought without lag. That is the only read we regard in finding a rudiment in or out, to find if a goal reacts, etc. That is what is called an "instant read". There is a package rudiment question in the half truth, etc. We are doing four rudiments in one and therefore have four major thoughts in one sentence. This packaging is the only apparent exception but is actually no exception. It's just a fast way of doing four rudiments in one sentence. A clumsy question which puts "in this session" at the end of the major thought can serve the auditor badly. Such modifiers should come before the sentence, "In this session have you......?" You are giving the major thought directly to the reactive mind. Therefore any analytical thought will not react instantly. The reactive mind is composed of: 1. Timelessness. 2. Unknownness. 3. Survival. The meter reacts on the reactive mind, never on the analytical mind. The meter reacts instantly on any thought restimulated in the reactive mind. If the meter reacts on anything, that datum is partly or wholly unknown to the preclear. An auditor's questions restimulate the reactive mind. This reacts on the meter. Only reactive thoughts react instantly. You can "groove in" a major thought by saying it twice. On the second time (or third time if it is longer) you will see only the instant read at the exact end. If you do this the prior reads drop out leaving only the whole thought. If you go stumbling around in rudiments or goals trying to clean up the minor thoughts you will get lost. In sec checking you can uncover material by "compartmenting the question" but this is rarely done today. In rudiments, what questions, et al, you want the instant read only. It occurs exactly at the end of the whole thought. This is your whole interest in cleaning a rudiment or a what question. You ignore all prior and latent reactions of the needle. The exceptions to this rule are 1. "Compartmenting the question", in which you use the prior reads occurring at the exact end of the minor thoughts (as above in the pigs sentence) to dig up different data not related to the whole thought. 2. "Steering the pc" is the only use of latent or random reads. You see a read the same as the instant read occurring again when you are not speaking but after you have found a whole thought reacting. You say "there" or "that" and the pc, seeing what he or she is looking at as you say it recovers the knowledge from the reactive bank and gives the data and the whole thought clears or has to be further worked and cleared. You can easily figure-figure yourself half to death trying to grapple with meter reads unless you get a good reality on the instant read which occurs at the end of the whole expressed thought and neglect all prior and latent reads except for steering the pc while he gropes for the answer to the question you asked. That's the whole of reading an E-Meter needle. (Two Saint Hill lectures of 24 May 1962 cover this in full.) L. RON HUBBARD LRH:jw.bp.rd Copyright © 1962 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 050. HCOB 8 JUN 61R r. 22 Feb 79 E-METER WATCHING, ... PLAY DIXIE HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 8 JUNE 1961R REVISED 22 FEBRUARY 1979 (Revisions in this type style) Remimeo Tech Qual E-METER WATCHING ARE YOU WAITING FOR THE METER TO PLAY DIXIE? I have been a bit surprised by the length of time it is taking people to do assessments on the Prehav, on Security Checks and goals. A query into this, which may reveal more, has discovered that students wait patiently for the meter to react, which Mary Sue has noticed. It dawns on me that auditors believe they are doing an analytical assessment on the Prehav, etc. This is wrong. The Prehav Scale is not a picture of analytical thought. It is in the order it is in because it is a picture of reactive thought. It is how the reactive mind is stacked up. (See Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health for the chapter on the reactive mind.) Now an E-Meter reacts only on the reactive mind. A Clear doesn't react because he is able to be conscious. An aberree reacts because he can't think without thought exciting the reactivity of the reactive mind. This, being composed of mass, energy, space, time and thought, responds to tiny electrical impulses. If your auditing was not aimed at reactivity it would not register on a meter. Thus, you run what reacts because it reacts and is therefore part of the reactive mind. The reactive mind responds instantly on data a billion years ago. How is this? Time in the reactive mind is out of order. So is space. So is matter, so is energy. Pin a sign on the reactive mind: "Out of Order." It connects wrong connections. Hence, the E-Meter. What is wrong with the pc is not known to the pc. Therefore if a pc knows all about it, it isn't wrong with him. That's why you never run what the pc says. You run only what the meter says. Example: pc is sure his current general Prehav Level that should be run now is "Order or Command." "Order" rapidly vanishes. "Command" follows suit. CONQUER stays in. This is an actual example. I just assessed it a few minutes ago on a pc who is in pretty good shape. He didn't like CONQUER. He said Order and Command were long track. Somebody running a Q and A on his assessment would have said, perhaps, the pc knows best, so we'll run Order. Even if it doesn't fall. But when I said it was CONQUER that we were going to run as only it now fell, the pc sighed and gave in. Finding the Conquer level questions produced a very responsive meter needle. It was wrong with the pc because he didn't know about it. It was part of his reactive mind. Order and Command were analytical responses prompted by an entirely different thing CONQUER. If Order or Command had been run the pc would have had a lot of auditing time wasted on him. Now, why are assessments wrong sometimes? Because the auditor is persuaded by the pc, not the meter. If the pc and the meter agree, so what. You can still run it. But only if the meter says so. for only then is it reactive. Now, what about slow assessments? Well, the auditor thinks the pc must consider things before he answers, waits for the pc to answer and waits for the question to sink in so the meter will react. This is entirely wrong. Based on a misunderstanding of assessment, the meter and the reactive mind. 1. The pc does not have to be given a chance to think before the needle responds. 2. The pc does not have to answer or say one word to make the needle respond. 3. All needle response is reactive. 4. There is no time in the reactive mind. 5. If the pc knew what was wrong with him it wouldn't be wrong. 6. Only the meter knows. 7. The auditor has more control over the pc's reactive mind than the pc since the pc is influenced by the reactive mind responses and the auditor is not so influenced. The meter responds instantly. The reaction you will get on the needle starts to occur on the needle instantly after you utter it. There is no need to sit there afterwards waiting for the needle to respond again. for it won't until you push that button again. The only wait is caused by letting the needle come back at the end of a fall. This may take one second. Therefore: TO WAIT MORE THAN ONE SECOND BEFORE UTTERING THE NEXT WORD ON THE LIST IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF AUDITING TIME. All the response you want will begin to occur instantly after you utter a goal, terminal, level or security question. Thus the maximum time between questions on the Prehav Level is at most a three-second interval of silence while you digest the data. Further, on an assessment for a Prehav run on the General Scale (as in Routine 2, HCOB 5 June 1961), you do not now say. "Do you . . ." or any other dunnage. You just say the level itself, note response, put a pencil point down on the level if it responds, say the next word, etc., etc. Takes about 5 minutes to run the Primary Scale up and down to find its level. You start at the bottom. You just say the word. If it responds you dot the sheet (using different symbols to tell them apart like dots, X's, lines). Then go back down the scale touching only those you marked going up. Add another dot if they still fall or react. Then play off those left one against the other, saying a level only once each time. The remaining level is now the only one that reacts. So you assemble your 5-way bracket and carry on with auditing. The pc doesn't have to say a word throughout the whole assessment. You can even ask him politely not to, as breath going in and out in speech can vibrate the needle. When you assess over into the Secondary Scale of the level you found. you do exactly the same as above. You read them all off once, then only those that reacted, eliminate them and you've got it. (And, by the way, if you go over the Secondary Scale, you then don't only run levels on that Secondary forever; in each new assessment you use the Primary Scale again to find a new Secondary Level to assess.) This is also true of a Joburg. If you're going to get a reaction on the needle, it will come fast. No waiting. If you get a reaction you clear that reaction, not the pc's whole life. The moment the needle is null, you go on to the next question. Of course, in a Joburg. the pc talks. He better! All auditing actions except the CCHs are now done in Model Session. And all auditing actions and questions are done effectively. neither frantically rushed nor slowly. So it boils down to this. Weeks can be added to Joburgs and assessments if you think you have to wait for a needle response. What are you waiting for? The whole action only requires a second. Don't wait for the E-Meter to play Dixie. It was made in the Nawth. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH: imj. rd.jk Copyright © 1961. 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 051. HCOB 5 AUG 78 ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 5 AUGUST 1978 Remimeo Ref: HCOB 28 Feb 71 C/S Series 24 METERING READING ITEMS HCOB 8 Apr 78 AN F/N IS A READ E-Meter Essentials, page 17 (ROCK SLAM) HCOB 18 Jun 78 New Era Dianetics Series 4 ASSESSMENT AND HOW TO GET THE ITEM INSTANT READS The correct definition of INSTANT READ is THAT REACTION OF THE NEEDLE WHICH OCCURS AT THE PRECISE END OF ANY MAJOR THOUGHT VOICED BY THE AUDITOR. All definitions which state it is fractions of seconds after the question is asked, are canceled. Thus an instant read which occurs when the auditor assesses an item or calls a question is valid and would be taken up and latent reads, which occur fractions of seconds after the major thought, are ignored. Additionally, when looking for reads while clearing commands or when the preclear is originating items, the auditor must note only those reads which occur at the exact moment the pc ends his statement of the item or command. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:dr Copyright © 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 052. HCOB 29 APR 69 ASSESSMENT AND INTEREST HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1969 Remimeo Dn Checksheet ASSESSMENT AND INTEREST An assessment consists simply of calling off the items the pc has given and marking down the reads that occur on the meter. The pc is not required to comment during this action and it is better if he does not. This action is called "Assessment for Longest Read". It is used mainly in Dianetics. There are two Scientology assessments which are differently done. These are "Assessment by Elimination" and "Listing and Nulling". They are not used in Dianetics. One does not mix the three types. In Dianetic Assessment by Longest Read one uses these symbols: X - didn't read Tick - small jerk of needle sF - Small Fall (a quarter to half an inch) F - Fall (about one to 2 inches) LF - Long Fall (2 to 3 inches) LFBD - Long Fall followed by a "blow down" or TA motion downward. All falls are to the right. A "BD" is a Tone Arm motion to the left made to keep the needle on the dial. The favored action for an item is an LFBD and if one item on the list does so, that is it without any further assessment. The reason one assesses is that IF AN ITEM DOES NOT READ ON THE METER WHEN ASSESSED IT IS BEYOND THE PC'S LEVEL OF AWARENESS. It is very unwise and unsafe to try to run a somatic which has not read on the list. It will be beyond the pc's reality and beyond his awareness and will result in overwhelm-ing him. That an item reads guarantees that the pc will be able to confront and erase the chain. So that an item reads well is a guarantee that the pc can handle it and will not get in too deep for him. The exception to this is a PROTEST read. An item possibly already run, is seen to read. The pc frowns. He is protesting and the meter is registering protest, not the item. One never runs a pc against his protest. To do so will overwhelm him and give a bad result. A protest almost never blows down the TA. To be sure that the item is right, one usually asks the pc if he is interested in the item chosen. If the pc says no, he doesn't want to run it, this is a protest read. One then picks the second best reading item on the assessment already done and checks that with the pc for interest. The pc will usually be interested in it. The pc can almost always be counted on to be interested in any item that gives a LFBD. One never simply asks the pc which on the list he is interested in as "an assessment" as it will be found the pc simply chooses at random and may choose a null item. The result may be a very unsuccessful session. An auditor may sometimes be astonished by what reads. The pc, let us say, obviously has a broken leg but what reads is an earache. One runs what reads, not what the auditor knows should be run. A "know best" in an auditor can be a fatal fault. On a second or third assessment items which were at first null or reading poorly will be found to "come alive" and read well. The pc, by being audited has had an increase of ability to confront and, if the auditing is standard, an increase in confidence. The result is that items beyond his reach previously (and did not read well) are now available and can be run easily. The E-Meter measures the awareness depth of the pc. On things which do not read on assessment you would find his reality poor. Things that read well on assessment will be found to be things on which a pc has a high reality and a high interest level. Only if pushed to audit without a meter could an auditor assess by interest only. There is no real excuse for it if one has an E-Meter. Auditing without a meter is a chancy activity. Good assessment by longest read is the best entrance to a successful session. The same list will serve for the next item to be run and should be used rather than just asking the pc. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:cs:ei:rd Copyright © 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 053. HCOB 22 JUL 78 ASSESSMENT TRs HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1978 Remimeo All Auditors ASSESSMENT TRs The right way to do an assessment is to ask the pc the question in a questioning tone of voice. In assessing, some auditors have made assessment questions into statements of fact, which of course is a cousin to evaluation. A downcurve at the end of an assessment question contributes to making it a statement. Questions should go up at the end. A remedy for this is to record ordinary conversation. Ask some normal questions and make some normal statements and you will find that the voice tone rises on a question and goes down on a statement. Assessing with a statement's tone of voice instead of a questioning tone of voice results in evaluation for the pc. The pc feels accused or evaluated for rather than assessed and an auditor can get a lot of false and protest reads. It's all tone of voice. Auditors have to be drilled in asking questions. Assessment questions have an upcurve at the end. Get it? Then drill it. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:lfg Copyright © 1978 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 054. HCOB 14 JUL 70 SOLO CANS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 14 JULY 1970 Remimeo SHs AOs R6EW, CC and Ad Cse Students E-Meter Literature SOLO CANS I have worked out more ideal Solo electrodes for the E-Meter - "cans". The basic trouble with a single-hand electrode is that it gives a falsely higher TA which can be very alarming. The Tone Arm range on the Meter should be between 2.0 and 3.0 for a floating needle to be valid. This is when two regulation electrodes (steel soup cans) are employed. When you use only one electrode, holding it in the left hand if you are right-handed, the TA can read as high as 4.0 when it is actually 3.0. Also a TA at 1.7 can read as 2.5 ! Single-hand electrodes are almost as old as the modern meter. An aluminum tea ball with an insulator between the screw threads served in the earliest models, an electrode leading to each half. Two stainless steel pipe sections about an inch in diameter, separated in the middle by a rubber ring, with an electrode to each end was a single-hand electrode version which came down to modern times. There were no further developments of any lasting value on this problem of single-hand electrodes until a few months ago. The problem in Solo Auditing is of course that if you held electrodes in both hands you couldn't write or work the meter at the same time. BUT a single-hand electrode gives the wrong TA even if it does give the right needle reads (which it does). To get the right TA then one must unplug the single-hand electrode and plug in the two-hand electrode. In this operation the TA can change and the wires get tangled. This commotion is of course distracting. What I worked out was a two-can electrode that became a single-hand electrode at once. You take 2 small juice or vegetable steel cans with their tops neatly removed. They must be the paper label, not the painted kind of course. The size required is 2 1/8 inches diameter at the rim (that is about 54 millimeters). The length is 3 3/4 inches (which is about 95 millimeters). You then take a piece of soft sponge or foam rubber about 3/8 inches thick (about 10 mm). You cut a circular piece of sponge rubber about 2 3/8 inches (about 60 mm). It is just slightly larger than the can diameter. You glue this sponge or foam rubber circle to the closed end of one can but not to the other. Snap the electrode wires into the open ends of the cans. You now have to all requirements a two-can electrode setup, with the difference that one can's base has a rubber pad on it. Holding these one in each hand gives you the 2-can more correct TA read. By putting the closed base of one can against the rubber pad on the other can, taking them in one hand (two fingers on each can as you hold them) you have a single-hand electrode. In an instant you can take them in two hands and get the correct TA (adjusting the Tone Arm with a knuckle or finger tip). Taking them back in one hand and resetting the TA you again have your single-hand read. In using this system you should change your notation to an indication of whether it is a one-hand or two-can read (to save your Case Supervisor from heart failure). The new notation is as follows: 3.75 (1) 2.9 (2). It doesn't mean you always use both reads. You add the brackets and a 2 or 1 to show whether it's a double or single (2) or (1) read. At session start and at end you always give both, i.e. 3.5 (1) 2.5 (2). And at the end you give a trim check like 1.9 = 2.0 (done by unplugging the electrodes from the meter for an instant and putting the needle at set and reading what the TA is). It should be 2.0 but often has drifted to 1.9 or 2.1. That verifies all reads. STANDARD ELECTRODES A standard can is about 23/4 inches (69 mm) diameter by about 41/2 or 5 inches (114 mm or 127 mm) long. Steel soup or vegetable cans, unpainted, tops cleanly removed, label and glue washed off, tin plated or not, have been standard for many years. It is with these that calibration has been done. It is amusing that I had to work hard on electrodes to get the first meters to work at all. Everything got tried. Steel rods, aluminum (aluminum) tea balls, metal pads, metal straps, you name it. The only one that works consistently is the good old common kitchen variety soup can. It's amusing to see efforts to "improve our electrodes". Other versions have all been tried and failed and every few years we have to have a soup can revival campaign to get people back to standard reads. The smaller juice can as described for the single-hand electrode does not give the exact read as the standard cans when used as a two-can electrode. So the smaller can shouldn't be used by Examiners. You can check the difference if you like between these two can sizes. But the standard cans are too big as a one-hand to be held comfortably in most people's left hand. The difference is not great enough to worry anyone in normal auditing. SMALL HANDS People with small hands or children can't cope at all with a standard can. The size given for the single-hand (2 1/8" x 33/4") is more suitable for them. For very little children, two Kodak 35 mm unpainted cassette cans from any photo shop will serve admirably. These two 35 mm cassettes fixed with a rubber pad on the bottom of one as described for the single-hand electrode above will serve a child as a one-hand electrode. SHORTING The whole trick in preparing two separate cans to be held as a single-hand is to make sure that when you put the bottoms together they don't short. They can cause a "rock slam" or a sudden fall if the metal of the cans touch. Thus the glued-on rubber pad must be a bit bigger than the can diameter and thick enough so it doesn't press through. Old setups were bolted together and couldn't be separated easily for two-can reads. These two cans are loose from each other. Important note: The smaller cans can give a falsely low TA read being small. If you get such a read, have two large standard cans handy to snap onto the leads and check. Will save heart failure at seeing 1.7 for two-can read! L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH: sb .rd Copyright © 1970 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 055. HCOB 28 FEB 71 METERING READING ITEMS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 28 FEBRUARY 1971 Remimeo HGC Auditor Checksheet Academy Level 0 Checksheet Dn Cse checksheet C/S Series 24 IMPORTANT METERING READING ITEMS (NOTE: Observation I have recently done while handling a C/S line has resulted in a necessary clarification of the subject of "a reading item or question" which improves older definitions and saves some cases.) It can occasionally happen that an auditor misses a read on an item or question and does not run it as it "has not read". This can hang up a pc badly if the item was in fact a reading item or question. It does not get handled and exists in records as "No read" when in fact it DID read. THEREFORE ALL DlANETlC AUDITORS WHOSE ITEMS OCCASIONALLY "DON'T READ" AND ALL SCIENTOLOGY AUDITORS WHO GET LIST QUESTIONS THAT DON'T READ MUST BE CHECKED OUT ON THIS HCO B IN QUAL OR BY THE C/S OR SUPERVISOR. These errors come under the heading of Gross Auditing Errors as they affect metering. 1. An Item or Question is said to "Read" when the needle falls. Not when it stops or slows on a rise. A tick is always noted and in some cases becomes a wide read. 2. The read is taken when the pc first says it or when the question is cleared. THIS is the valid time of read. It is duly marked (plus any blow down). THIS reading defines what is a reading item or question. CALLING IT BACK TO SEE IF IT READ IS NOT A VALID TEST as the surface charge may be gone but the item or question will still run or list. 3. Regardless of any earlier statements or material on READING ITEMS, an item does not have to read when the auditor calls it to be a valid item for running engrams or listing. The test is did it read when the pc first said it on originating it or in Clearing it? 4. That an item or question is marked as having read is sufficient reason to run it or use it or list it. Pc Interest, in Dianetics, is also necessary to run it, but that it did not read again is no reason to not use it. 5. When listing items the auditor must have an eye on the meter NOT necessarily the pc and must note on the list he is making the extent of read and any BD and how much. THIS is enough to make it a "reading item" or "reading question". 6. In Clearing a listing Question the auditor watches the meter, NOT necessarily the pc and notes any read while clearing the question. 7. An additional calling of the item or question to see if it read is unnecessary and not a valid action if the item or question read on origination or Clearing. 8. That an item is marked as having read on an earlier Dianetic list is enough (also checking interest) to run it with no further read test. 9. To miss seeing a read on an origin or clearing is a Gross Auditing Error. 10. Failing to mark on the list or worksheet the read and any BD seen during pc origination or clearing the question is a Gross Auditing Error. EYESIGHT Auditors who miss reads or have poor eyesight should be tested and should wear the proper glasses while auditing. GLASSES The rims of some glasses could obstruct seeing the meter while the auditor is looking at the worksheet or pc. If this is the case the glasses should be changed to another type with broader vision. WIDE VISION A good auditor is expected to see his meter, pc and worksheet all at one time. No matter what he is doing he should always notice any meter movement if the meter needle moves. If he cannot do this he should use an Azimuth meter and not put paper over its glass but should do his worksheet looking through the glass at his pen and the paper-the original design purpose of the Azimuth Meter. Then even while writing he sees the meter needle move as it is in his line of vision. Any and all as to what is a "reading item" or "reading question" should be fully cleaned up on any auditor as such omissions or can be responsible for case hang ups and needless repairs. NO READ Any comment that an item or question "did not read" should be at once suspected by a C/ S and checked with this HCO B on the auditor. Actually non-Reads, a non-reading item or question means one that did not read when originated or cleared and also did not read when called. One can still call an item or question to get a read. That it now reads is fine. But if it has never read at all, the item will not run and such a list will produce no item on it. It is not forbidden to call an item or question to test it for read. But it is a useless action if the item or question read on origination by the pc or clearing it with him. IMPORTANT The data in this HCO B if not known, can cost case failures. Thus it must be checked out on auditors. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH: nt.rd Copyright © 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 056. HCOB 29 APR 80 PREPARED LISTS, THEIR VALUE AND PURPOSE HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 29 APRIL 1980 Remimeo PREPARED LISTS, THEIR VALUE AND PURPOSE No matter how complicated or confusing the environment is getting, if you have a stable datum of exact action it can see you through. The Prepared List provides the auditor with a stable action when a session or ease is confusing and can bring things under control. The idea of such lists and their development are original to Dianetics and Scientology. They are made possible because these subjects embrace the full extent of thought, the spirit and actual and potential aberration. Thousands of hours of research and development have gone into these lists. Thousands of case histories have been reviewed and condensed to make the lists possible. They are, in themselves, a considerable tour de force. They have often meant the difference between a stalled case and a spectacular result. Just as they are important, a knowledge of them and skill in their use is vital to auditing success. HISTORY Probably the oldest "prepared list" is the White Form, (now called THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT SHEET - HCOB 24 Jun 78R). This provided a series of questions which would give one the background of the preclear. It dates from 1950. By it one can get the probable this life areas of the preclear's heaviest charge. SELF ANALYSIS was written in 1951. It contains processing lists a preclear could run on himself. Group Auditing materials of the middle 50s contained lists of commands which were run on groups. Done on a meter, it provides a case entrance. The "Joburg" of 1961 is probably the next historical point. It was a list of the possible withholds a preclear might have. It was called the "Joburg" because it was developed in Johannesburg, South Africa. The "L1" was probably next. The original gave a list of session rudiments which might have gone out and enabled the auditor to get the session rudiments back in. It is still in use as "L1C" or "List One C". The "Green Form" was developed in the early 60s so that Qual Review at Saint Hill would have a tool to analyze a case. Correction lists for various auditing actions began to appear. These corrected an action in progress that had gone awry. In 1973, the famous "C/S 53" (meaning "Case Supervisor Series 53") was devised and continued to be improved and reissued. Today there are dozens of Prepared Lists. There is even a prepared list to repair repaired lists in general. THEORY OF PREPARED LISTS A Prepared List is an assembly of the majority of things which can be wrong in a case, an auditing action or a session. Such lists are quite remarkable, actually. Only a thorough knowledge of aberration makes such a list possible. when you look over the extent of Prepared Lists, you will see that they contain a grasp of the subject of aberration never before available. USE While an auditor is expected to have studied and mastered all this theory, it is a bit much to expect that in the confusion of & case or session gone wrong he will be able to spot instantly, without help, exactly WHAT has gone wrong. Prepared Lists, where they exist, and his E-Meter will sort this out for him. All the auditor has to have is a general insight that something is going wrong, know in general what is being handled in the case, knows what list to use and then, with good TRs and metering, do an assessment of the Prepared List. Usually the trouble will come right, since the exact point will have been located. It is sometimes enough to merely indicate the point found to discharge it somewhat. One can F/N what is found or one can go into very wide, extensive handling. The point is, the use of the Prepared List has spotted the trouble. What is demanded of the auditor or C/S is WHICH Prepared List to use, but this is determined by what has been going on. TYPES OF PREPARED LISTS There are four general types of Prepared Lists. These are: A. An ANALYSIS list. This is a type of Prepared List which analyzes a case broadly or analyzes a session. The purpose of it is to find out what to address in the case in order to program it. The White Form, the Green Form and the C/S 53 can all be used for this purpose. There are other such lists and there is even a Prepared List to debug production. B. A direct AUDITING list. Prepared Lists exist which deliver direct auditing commands or questions which, run on the pc, produce an auditing result. The lists Or SELF ANALYSIS and the various Confessional Lists form this type of Prepared List. C. A CORRECTION list. This type of list corrects an ongoing action. Examples are the Word Clearing Correction List, the Int Rundown Correction List, the Dianetic Correction List. There is a bit of a gray area in this type of list as one can also use some of them for analysis as in the case of a Course Supervisor Correction List or a Student Correction List. The C/S 53 can also serve as a correction list. The real difference is what the list is being used for - to analyze to find out what to program or start or to correct something already in progress. D. DRILL lists. These are used in training as dummy lists to get an auditor used to handling the meter and Prepared Lists. Such lists are contained in the Book of E-Meter Drills. METHOD OF HANDLING There are three methods of handling Prepared Lists, depending on the type of list. There is simply the method of asking the questions in sequence and getting the answer from the preclear. This would apply to a White Form or to auditing Prepared Lists as in Self Analysis or in Group Auditing. Very few lists are handled in this way. The second way is called "Method 3" wherein the list is assessed on a meter and when a read is noted, the meter-reading question is taken up with the preclear and F/Ned. Method 3 is covered in HCOB 3 Jul 71 AUDITING BY LISTS. The third way is called "Method 5". This type of assessment assesses the whole Prepared List rapidly without getting the preclear to talk and the reads are then noted. The largest read or reads are then taken up and F/Ned. Method 5 is covered in HCOB 3 Jul 71 AUDITING BY LISTS. TRS AND METERING Whether or not a Prepared List reads depends upon the auditor's TRs and metering. At one time or another Case Supervisors have had a great deal of trouble with this. Accuracy as to what really read was greatly in question. This came to view on Flag in the early 70s when Prepared Lists that had been assessed by Class IV trainees were then reassessed, same list, same pc shortly after the first list assessment, by Class XIIs. Totally different results were found - lists on which few or no reads were obtained by the Class IV trainees were found to be very live by the Class XIIs. The difference of quality of' TRs and metering were what made the difference with the prepared list response. HCOB 22 April 1980 contains the drills which remedy this. It is the TRs and metering of' the auditor that makes a prepared list reliable, not the list itself'. The champion list of all time is the C/S 53. On one page, any general thing that can be aberrated in a thetan has been assembled. There are two forms of it - Short Form for preclears who know the terms and Long Form for preclears who are unindoctrinated (they are the same lists but the Short Form is in single word and the Long Form is a full question). A Director of Processing giving a D of' P Interview can use one of these and obtain enough material to enormously help a Case Supervisor. It is not the only D of' P Interview action but it is very helpful when used. An auditor can debug a program or a session with it. It can analyze a case for programming and it can also be used to correct a program or to correct a session. Originally it was developed to handle high and low Tone Arm cases and although it still says this, it also says it can "correct case outnesses". And today, this is its greatest use. PRIORITY of handling outnesses is a vital part of C/S 53. The first three groups of' items - (Interiorization outnesses), B (List errors) and C (rudiments) - give the necessary order of handling. If Int is reading, nothing else can be handled until it is. List errors take the next priority. Then rudiments. If one were to try to repair a case out of' sequence, a mess could occur. So this Prepared List also gives the sequence in which outnesses must be handled. The main fault is using a C/S 53 is overuse - an auditor reaching for it when he gets in trouble instead of improving the auditor's own TRs, metering or knowledge of programming in the first place. But the C/S 53 is one of the most valuable tools an Auditor or a Case Supervisor has. GENERAL CASE HANDLING The Prepared Lists of all types place in the hands of the Case Supervisor and the auditor a procedure by which a case can be analyzed and programmed. Some auditing can be done direct from Prepared Lists. WORD CLEARING PREPARED LISTS It can happen that a Prepared List gets stalled on misunderstood words. For many Prepared Lists there are also full word clearing lists which can be done on the pc. At one time it was thought that before one did a list one should ALWAYS word clear lt. However, this has the liability that a pc who is in one kind of trouble can't sit still until a full word clearing action is done. The amount of trouble which came from Prepared Lists came more from assessing and metering errors than it did from misunderstood words. When one is using a prepared list on a pc who has never had it word cleared, it is usually enough to check that the read isn't coming from a Mis U. Early in a pc's auditing, about the time he gets a CS-l, the more critical prepared lists should be word cleared and the fact noted in his folder. But when one is doing this word clearing, tone arm action or significant reads should also be noted. One is liable to think he is word clearing whereas he is actually assessing. True, there are a lot of tech words on a prepared list that the pc isn't likely to know. Unfortunately, the discoveries of Scientology exceed common language and require terms of their own. But a pc catches on to this quite rapidly. They are new ideas to him (even though he was been living with them all the eons of his existence). When the word is cleared, the idea is also thrown into action. So it is important to note meter reads and tone arm actions when clearing the words of prepared lists. No hard and fast rules can be drawn on this point of word clearing Prepared Lists. If you have already word cleared the key words of a key Prepared List before you need it, thank your stars. Otherwise carry on and hope. SUMMARY A Case Supervisor and an auditor owe it to themselves to have a good command of this subject of Prepared Lists. There are many issues on the subject. There are dozens of Prepared Lists. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:DM:mh Copyright © 1980 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 057. HCOB 3 JUL 71R r. 22 Feb 79 AUDITING BY LISTS HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 3 JULY 1971R REVISED 22 FEBRUARY 1979 (Revisions in this type style) Replaces HCOBs 22 May 65 and 23 April 64, and cancels HCOB 27 July 65 all on the same subject. Remimeo All Auditors Level III Checksheets Tech Qual C/Ses SCIENTOLOGY III AUDITING BY LISTS (Note: We now F/N everything. We do NOT tell the pc what the meter is doing. This changes "Auditing By Lists" in both respects. We do not say to the pc. "That's clean" or "that reads.") (Ref: HCOB 14 Mar 71 F/N EVERYTHING HCOB 4 Dec 77 CHECKLIST FOR SETTING UP SESSIONS AND AN E-METER HCOB 24 Jan 77 TECH CORRECTION ROUND-UP HCOB 7 Feb 79 E-METER DRILL 5RA CAN SQUEEZE HCOB 8 Dec 78 GREEN FORM AND EXPANDED GREEN FORM 40RD, USE OF) Use any authorized, published LIST. (Green Form for general review, L1C for A RC Brks, L4BRA for list errors.) METHOD 3 Set the sensitivity for 1/3 of a dial drop on a correct can squeeze per E-Meter Drill 5RA (Reference: HCOB 7 Feb 79R E-METER DRILL 5RA CAN SQUEEZE). Have your meter in a position (line of sight) so you can see the list and the needle or you can see the needle and the pc. The meter position is important. Hold the mimeoed list close beside the meter. Have your worksheet more to the right. Keep record on your worksheet. Mark the pc's name and date on it. Mark what list it is on the W/S with time. It remains in the folder stapled to the W/S. Read the question on the list, note if it reads. Do NOT read it while looking at the pc, do NOT read it to yourself and then say it while looking at the pc. These are the L10 actions and are called Method 6, not Method 3. It is more important to see the pc's cans than his face as can fiddle can fake or upset reads. TR I must be good so the pc clearly hears it. You are looking for an INSTANT READ that occurs at the end of the exact last syllable of the question. If it does not read, mark the list X. If the list is being done through an F/N and the F/N just continues, mark the question F/N. If the question reads, do not say "That reads." Mark the read at once (tick, SF, F. LF, LFBD, R/S), transfer the number of the Q to the W/S and look expectantly at the pc. You can repeat the Q by just saying it again if pc doesn't begin to talk. He has probably already begun to answer as the Q was live in his bank as noted by the meter. Take down the pc's remarks in shortened form on the W/S. Note any TA changes on the W/S. If the pc's answer results in an F/N (cog VGIs sometimes follow, GIs always accompany a real F/N), mark it rapidly on the W/S and say, "Thank you. I would like to indicate your needle is floating." Do NOT wait endlessly for the pc to say more. If you do he will go into doubt and find more, also do NOT chop what he is saying. Both are TR errors that are very bad. If there is no F/N, at the first pause that looks like the pc thinks he has said it, ask for an earlier similar whatever the question concerned. Do NOT change the Q. Do NOT fail to repeat what the question is. "Was there an earlier similar restimulation of 'rejected affinity'?" This is the "E/S" part of it. You do not leave such a question merely "clean." It does not matter now if you look at the pc when you say it or not. But you can look at the pc when you say it. The pc will answer. If he comes to a "looks like he thinks he said it" and no F/N, you ask the same Q as above. You ask this Q "Was there an earlier similar " until you finally get an F/N and Gls. You indicate the F/N. That is the last of that particular question. You mark "F/N" on the list and call the next question on the list. You call this and other questions without looking at the pc. Those that do not read you X as out. The next question that reads, you mark it on the list, transfer the question number to the W/ S. Take the pc's answer. Follow the above E/S procedure as needed until you get an F/N and Gls for the question. Ack. Indicate and return to the mimeoed list. You keep this up until you have done the whole list in this fashion. If you got no read on the list question but the pc volunteers some answer to an unreading question, do NOT take it up. Just ack and carry on with your mimeoed list. BELIEVE YOUR METER. Do not take up things that don't read. Don't get "hunches." Don't let the pc run his own case by answering nonreading items and then the auditor taking them up. Also don't let a pc "fiddle the cans" to get a false read or to obscure a real one. (Very rare but these two actions have happened.) BIG WIN If halfway down a prepared list (the last part not yet done) the pc on some question gets a wide F/N, big cog, VGIs, the auditor is justified in calling the list complete and going to the next C/S action or ending the session, except in the case where an F/Ning list is C/Sed for, e.g. C/S 53RL. The auditor does not violate C/S Series 20 PERSISTENT F/N. If he is intending to F/N the list, and the pc is on a big win, the auditor would end off, let the pc have his win, and then in another later session, continue with the list. There are two reasons for this - one, the F/N will usually just persist and can't be read through and further action will tend to invalidate the win. The auditor can also carry on to the end of the prepared list if he thinks there may be something else on it, if it does not violate C/S Series 20 PERSISTENT F/N. GF AND METHOD 3 When a GF is taken up Method 3 (item by item, one at a time) one ends it at the first F/N (Reference: HCOB 8 Dec 78 ll GREEN FORM AND EXPANDED GREEN FORM 40RD, USE OF). If the auditor were to continue, it can occur that the TA will go suddenly high. The pc feels he is being repaired, that the clearing up of the first item on the GF handled it and protests. It is the protest that sends the TA up. Thus a GF is best done by Method 5 (once through for reads, then the reads handled). L1C, L3RF, L7 and other such lists are best done Method 3. The above steps and actions are exactly how you do Auditing by List today. Any earlier data contrary to this is canceled. Only 2 points change - we F/N everything that reads by E/S or a process to handle (L3RF requires processes, not E/S to get an F/N) or else check for false read if the pc shows manifestations of this, and we never tell the pc that it read or didn't read, thus putting his attention on the meter. We still indicate F/Ns to the pc as a form of completion. L1C and Method 3 are NOT used on high or very low TAs to get them down or up. The purpose of these lists is to clean up bypassed charge. An auditor also indicates when he has finished with the list. An auditor should dummy drill this action both on a doll and bullbait. The action is very successful when precisely done. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.rd. jk Copyright © 1971. 1979 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 058. HCOB 20 DEC 71R r. 27 SEP 77 CORRECTION LISTS, USE OF HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 20 DECEMBER 1971 R REISSUED 27 SEPTEMBER 1977 Remimeo C/S Series 72 CORRECTION LISTS, USE OF A current survey shows that the weakest point in C/Sing done in orgs is failure to use Prepared Lists for Case Correction. There are some other points. For some reason C/Ses are being inventive instead of following the C/S Series and doing standard repairs and grades. Probably the failure to use Prepared Correction Lists derails the use of standard actions. There are very few actions which do not have their own Correction Lists. THERE IS NOTHING IN DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY AS MIRACULOUSLY WORKABLE AS CORRECTION LISTS. The only things which prevent the list from working are (a) AUDITOR'S METERING (b) AUDITOR'S TRs. METERING When the auditor's meter is habitually placed where he cannot see (l ) The meter needle, (2) The worksheet and (3) The pc WITH ONE DIRECTED LOOK, then he misses reads. All three have to be seen at once. The faults are i) Eyesight poor ii) Glasses rims obscure one while looking at another iii) Position of the meter. It is a Standard Cramming action to look into these points WHENEVER A CORRECTION LIST IS SAID TO BE BLANK. For example a GF is done by Auditor A on Monday. It is done again by Auditor B on Tuesday. Reads are found by B. This means Auditor A is missing reads. THIS IS FAR MORE COMMON THAN BELIEVED. TRs When an auditor can't be heard or is overwhelming the pc the list won't be valid. An auditor's TRs show up more quickly on a Correction List than anything else. A pc ARC Broken by TRs 0 to IV will not read properly on a Correction List. NUMBERS OF LISTS The number of Correction Lists is large. It is unthinkable to do Word Clearing without ever using a WC Corr List. Yet we find folders with bogged Word Clearing sessions where the list was never used. There is the Green Form for general case upset, the Green Green Form for Solo, L1C for ARC Brks over a period, L3B for Dianetic bogs, L4B for listing and nulling goofs, Int RD Corr List for Int-Ext corrections, a Power Corr List for Power, GF 40R for resistive cases, C/S 53 and Hi Low TA for TA misbehavior, L7 for Clearing Course, and others. C/Ses trying to "solve cases" without using Correction Lists is like trying to repair flat tires without puncture patches - it just CAN'T BE DONE. THE PRIMARY TOOL OF A C/S IS PREPARED CORRECTION LISTS. It is not inventive ways of "solving cases". METHOD OF USE Where you have inexpert auditors you always order Method 5, which is just a full rapid assessment. Then the C/S sorts out the reads and C/Ses what to do as very well covered on the lists themselves and the C/S Series. Then the auditor does the C/S. A Green Form is always done this way. It will bog on any other method like 3. There are different methods of handling lists. L1C is always done Method 3, carrying each read as it is found Earlier Similar to F/N. A GF 40R is done Method 3 and then the engrams are run for each read where engrams are indicated. It's up to a C/S to use Correction Lists, to coach his auditors into proper list use and to get corrected any misuse. A C/S who can't or doesn't use Prepared Correction Lists isn't a C/S at all but a "person puzzled about cases". Correction Lists, standard programs and the Grade Chart and Grade Commands and materials. These are the tools of the C/S. There are NO others. A C/S is one who uses these things. He is Supervising that they are used when they are supposed to be. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.pat Copyright © 1971,1977 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 059. HCOB 21 JUN 72 Word Clearing Series 38 METHOD 5 HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JUNE 1972 Issue I Remimeo Word Clearing Series 38 METHOD 5 Method 5 Word Clearing is a System wherein the word clearer feeds words to the person and has him define each. It is called Material Clearing. Those the person cannot define must be looked up. This method may be done without a meter. It can also be done with a meter. The reason the Method is needed is because the person often does not know that he does not know. Therefore Method 4 has its limitations as the meter does not always read. The actions are very precise. The word clearer asks "What is the definition of ?" The person gives it. If there is any doubt whatever of it, or if the person is the least bit hesitant, the word is looked up in a proper dictionary. This method is the method used to clear words or auditing commands or auditing lists. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.rd Copyright © 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ======================== 060. HCOB 19 MAR 71 L1C HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 19 MARCH 1971 Remime LIST - 1 - C L1C (Cancels earlier L 1 Lists such as HCO B 8 Aug 70) Used by Auditors in session when an upset occurs, or as ordered by C/S. Handles ARC Broken, Sad, hopeless or nattery pcs. Questions can be prefaced with "Recently" "In this life" "On the whole Track" or used without. DO NOT USE ON HIGH TA TO BRING IT DOWN. USE HI-LO TA LIST. TAKE ALL READING ITEMS OR VOLUNTEERED ANSWERS Earlier Similar to F/N as they occur. 1. Has there been an error in listing? ________ (If this reads change to L4B at once.) 2. Has a withhold been missed? ________ 3. Has some emotion been rejected? ________ 4. Has some Affinity been rejected? ________ 5. Has a Reality been refused? ________ 6. Has a communication been cut short? ________ 7. Has a communication been ignored? ________ 8. Has an earlier rejection of emotion been restimulated? ________ 9. Has an earlier rejection of Affinity been restimulated? ________ 10. Has an earlier refusal of Reality been restimulated? ________ 11. Has an earlier ignored communication been restimulated? ________ 12. Has something been misunderstood? ________ 13. Has someone been misunderstood? ________ 14. Has an earlier misunderstanding been restimulated? ________ 15. Has some data been confusing? ________ 16. Has there been a command you haven't understood? ________ 17. Has there been some word you haven't known the meaning of? ________ 18. Has there been some situation you haven't grasped? ________ 19. Has there been a problem? ________ 20. Has a wrong reason for an upset been given? ________ 21. Has a similar incident occurred before? ________ 22. Has something been done other than what was said? ________ 23. Has a goal been disappointed? ________ 24. Has some help been rejected? ________ 25. Has a decision been made? ________ 26. Has an engram been restimulated? ________ 27. Has an earlier incident been restimulated? ________ 28. Has there been a sudden shift of attention? ________ 29. Has something startled you? ________ 30. Has a perception been prevented? ________ 31. Has a willingness not been acknowledged? ________ 32. Has there been no auditing? ________ 33. Did you go Exterior? ________ 34. Have actions been interrupted? ________ 35. Have actions continued too long? ________ 36. Has data been invalidated? ________ 37. Has someone evaluated? ________ 38. Has something been O/Run? ________ 39. Has an action been unnecessary? ________ L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:mes.rd Copyright © 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ========================