6206C12 SHSpec-161 Middle Rudiments When you ask a second question or double question a PC, you are omitting TR-2 and Q and A'ing gorgeously. TR-2 is an auditor weak point. An adequate acknowledgement is worth a great deal. "Do you have a PTP?" "I had a fight with my wife?" "What about?" -- this is Q and A. In trying not to Q and A, one can err by not getting the auditing question answered. It is not Q and A. is a comm lag that exists until the PC answers the auditing question. This requires that the auditor hear what the PC said, so TR-2 should include understanding and acknowledging. Auditors create more ARC breaks by failing to understand but pretending to. The auditor now has a missed withhold. Just put the onus on the auditor for failing to understand and get the PC to repeat it. On TR-10: "Point out something," the auditor should know what the PC is pointing at and may need to ask. It is fins for him to do so. All rudiments must contain an answer to the question asked. If they do, the auditor must just understand and acknowledge. That is all that happens. Only when it is manifestly impossible to clean it up with repetitive single questions does the auditor resort to a ruds process. The rudiments are now good enough so that if the PC gets the auditor's question and answers it, and the meter is cleaned on that exact question, and the auditor's TR's are any good, then you don't need any rudiments process. In using a repetitive rudiment, you ask the question, acknowledge the PC's answer, and check the meter. If not clean, repeat the question until, after a cycle of PC answer, acknowledgement, and meter check, the meter is clean. This actually acts as a process in itself. Don't wait around for the PC to find, e.g., a PTP if the meter is clean when you ask for it. If it is null, just acknowledge and go on. You are actually thereby giving the PC his answer, or you are giving him the answer the meter gave. The last question is thus answered by the auditor for the PC. This completes the communication cycle. Just repeating a phrase to the PC will de-intensify it in the bank. If it is equivocal because of a dirty needle or poor metering, check it again. Let the PC know what you are doing and why. Do this enough so that the PC isn't left wondering in the dark. Always keen the PC's R in. Tell him what is going on. A PC who is screaming is less ARC broken than one who won't talk to you. You should put in middle ruds when the PC is having trouble listing more goals. Give the package question slowly enough so that you can stop and clean whatever reads. Then go back to listing goals. You should attack mid ruds so as to spend minimal time on them, so every time listing slows down, zip through them. Every fifth session or so, they have enough out-of-session nonsense going to benefit from some prepchecking. Suppose the PC gets resistive in a session, where you did get beginning ruds in. Go ahead on middle ruds and prepcheck, using middle ruds for zero questions. This will pick up things like inval of goals as a subject, or listing as a subject. That is the commonest thing that causes the PC to stop listing. On a PC who is on the verge of telling you what to do all the time, a critical PC who is continually suppressing suggestions about your auditing, you can use She buttons, "suggest" and "fail to suggest". These fit in well with a prepcheck. In middle ruds, you are only interested in the immediate session, to keep the needle clean and readable and to keep the PC in session. When doing your four-line list on the goal, do mid-ruds between lines. In prepchecking, you put in middle ruds after each "what" question is null, then recheck the "what" question. This is a fancier way to ask for missed withholds, so don't also ask for them. If She PC is down on havingness consistently, you could do middle ruds, then havingness, then recheck the "what" question. Use mid-ruds when the PC has slowed down, shut up, run into problems, etc. Middle rudiments make an excellent communication bridge. You can put anything in with the middle ruds following it. If you are prepchecking against a prepared sec check list and you get five or six questions cleaning up with only the zero question, do the middle ruds in case he is suppressing something. If the middle ruds were found to be out, you go back and do what you were doing over again, except in listing. The use of middle rudiments can be extended to a specific subject, object, or activity. If you are checking out a goal, for instance, you can put in mid-ruds on that goal. Keep it fairly specific or you will be getting into a prepcheck. You could probably put in every other rudiment with the mid-ruds. For instance, say the PC gives the same PTP twice and it still reads, on beginning ruds. You could put in mid-ruds on that problem, naming it in the commands. LRH doesn't advise this, but it could be done. Sometimes you add "half-truths", etc., from end ruds, but if you really have to do this, it is smarter to end off and restart the session. If the PC needs this, short sessioning is better anyway. You can also do end ruds on prepchecks, where they are useful to pick up overts and withholds. If you can't get mid-ruds in, you can try prepchecking them. A PC who has a somewhat dirty needle and has to have mid-ruds done often will benefit from a mid-ruds prepcheck. If that doesn't do the job, the PC should probably have more CCH's and general prepchecks. LRH has become expert in fish and fumble. Ig the PC's needle was dirtying up and not getting cleaner after ruds, he would start the session with fish and fumble to clean up the needle. Before doing anything else, he would say, after beginning ruds, "I want you to carefully consider your auditing." Nothing happens. "Now carefully consider your wife." Lots of reads. Now clean it up, tracing down only one pattern at a time. The double tick should be handled first, because it is a missed withhold. It takes a bright auditor to clean it well. It is necessary to ask something that will keep the read, or just to pursue the read one started with, or to formulate a what question. You can really clean it up so the needle doesn't get dirty again. The way bad auditing could dirty it up again is for the auditor's TR-2 to be so bad that everything the PC says is automatically an inadvertent missed withhold. [Fish and fumble procedure is also given as a TR in HCOB 14Jun62 "Class IIc TR's".] One of the virtues of fish and fumble is that it is a fast way of cleaning up the needle, though it could be overused. It is usually necessary only two or three times, The vital read to clean up first is the double tick, the missed withhold. It is pretty easy, using fish and fumble, just to clean it up. Fish and fumble make it possible to do a goals assessment, which otherwise would be virtually impossible, It does require the auditor to be inventive in figuring nut what overt might be connected to the read that the PC is telling you about. You need to get the pattern of the mind, which is that if there is something the PC is reading on, he has either done something to or with it. If you are doing prepchecking, fish and fumble gives you a wide-open chance to clean up the needle. Fish and fumble cleans up the needle so that you can prepcheck, and is a barbaric cousin to the prepcheck.