FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST PTS AND SP DETECTION, ROUTING AND HANDLING COURSE PART 6/7 CONTENTS ************************************************** This is the PTS and SP Detection, Routing and Handling Course Pack as issued and delivered in the 1977 - 1978 time frame. The contents will be posted separately as part 0 and repeated in part 1 but will not be included in the remaining parts to keep the size down. NOTE: With the following exceptions, all documents are reproduced exactly as issued. All italicized or bold characters and underlines have been omitted from this reproduction. Only minor spelling errors have been corrected. If you have questions about the content of an individual issue please refer to the Tech or OEC Volumes (which were posted previously) for clarification. ************************************************** 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 heretics. 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 Judaism 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 - Unit 8 ************************************************** ===================== 048 HCOPL 18 Jun 1968 Ethics HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead. Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 18 JUNE 1968 Remimeo Flag Order ETHICS The Purpose of Ethics is TO REMOVE COUNTER INTENTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT. And having accomplished that the purpose becomes TO REMOVE OTHER INTENTIONEDNESS FROM THE ENVIRONMENT. Thus progress can be made by all. Many mechanisms can exist to mask a counter intention. One has an intention to expand the org. An "expert" says it is difficult as "The building society ". The impulse is to then handle the problem presented by the "expert", whereas the correct ETHICS action is to remove his Counter Intentionedness or Other Intentionedness. If he were an EXPERT he would simply say "OK. I'll handle my end of the expansion." There are many ways to handle counter and other intentionedness. There is a fine line between Ethics and Tech. The point where a thetan goes mad is very exact. It is the point where he begins to obsessively stop something. From this the effort becomes generalized and he begins to stop lots of other things. When this includes anyone who or anything that would help him as well as those people and things that help, the being is suppressive. His intentions counter any other intention, particularly good intentions. Other intentionedness comes from unawareness or dispersal. By removing things which disperse others. Offering bottled medicine to cure "the blues" is a direct distraction. It is the purveyor of the distraction who is the target. The person who enters on Scn groups to then sell other-answer is of course an enemy. However we go about accomplishing the above is the action of ethics. The above s the purpose. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:js.rd Copyright ($) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 049 HCOPL 29 Jun 1968 Enrollment in Suppressive Groups HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 29 JUNE 1968 Remimeo Ethics Officer Div I - Dept 3 - Ethics Section Hat Registrar Hat ENROLLMENT IN SUPPRESSIVE GROUPS Address Hat Franchise (Amends HCO PL 28 Dec 1965 City Offices of Same Title) Any person found to be connected to a Suppressive Group may not thereafter he enrolled in the Saint Hill Solo Audit Course or the Clearing Course. Suppressive Groups are defined as those which seek to destroy Scientology or which specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of Mankind. It does not matter whether the person so connected disconnects or handles, or whether the connection has been previously severed. The reason for this policy letter is to make it extremely difficult for suppressive groups to acquire data they could then pervert and use to harm others. If a person was a member and left, it still remains such a person must have had some basic agreement with the motives of the suppressive group. If we do not hold this rule we may find our task made harder by the abuse of data. We do not want, ever again, the epidemics of implantation to recur and will do all in our power to deny data to any who might pervert it to such use. A person so denied access to upper level data may not receive it ever unless the group of which he is or has been a member is completely abolished and dispersed. Ethics files in all orgs must contain the names of such persons. Neither may such a person ever become a staff member of a Scientology organization without special clearance from LRH Ethics Authority Section, Dept 27, WW. Anyone on staff found to have been a member of a suppressive group must he sent to this section for clearance. NAMES PERSONS ENROLLED IN SP GROUPS OR DECLARED SP MUST BE CIRCULATED TO ALL FRANCHISE HOLDERS, SCN OFFICES AND ORGS AS AND WHEN DISCOVERED. THEY ARE NOT COVERED BY ANY AMNESTY AND MAY NOT HAVE ADVANCED COURSES UNTIL GROUP DISBANDED. SUCH PERSONS MAY NOT BE EMPLOYED BY ORGS OR OFFICES AND IF FOUND EMPLOYED IN ANY CENTRE THAT FRANCHISE WILL BE CANCELLED, PERSONS OF SP GROUP MEMBERSHIP OR DECLARED SP MAY NOT BE FSMS. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:js.cden Founder Copyright ($) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by The Publications Organization, U. S. [Note: The 29 June 1968 amendment was the addition, sent by telex, of the paragraph in full caps.] ===================== 050 HCOPL 21 Oct 1968 Cancellation of Fair Game HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 21 OCTOBER 1968 Remimeo CANCELLATION OF FAIR GAME The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP. L RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:ei.cden Copyright ($) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by The Publications Organization, U. S. ===================== 051 HCOPL Nov 1968 Cancellation of Disconnection HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 15 NOVEMBER 1968 Remimeo CANCELLATION OF DISCONNECTION Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:rw.cden Copyright ($) 1968 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by The Publications Organization. U. S. ===================== 052 HCOPL 7 May 1969 Policies on Sources of Trouble HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 7 MAY 1969 Remimeo (Revises HCO Policy Letter of 27 Oct. 1964) Franchise Sthil Students Sthil Staff Dianetic Course POLICIES ON "SOURCES OF TROUBLE" SEE ALSO HCO PL 6 APRIL 69 ISSUE II "DIANETIC REGISTRATION" Policies similar to those regarding physical illness and insanity exist for types of persons who have caused us considerable trouble. These persons can be grouped under "sources of trouble". They include: (a) Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial-ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology. In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong. They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by any organization or auditor. (b) Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so many undetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors. (c) Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure. (d) Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes for their condition too often to be acceptable. By Responsible-for- condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is "wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in". Such cases demand unusual favours, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly. (e) Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit. (f) Persons who "want to be processed to see if Scientology works" as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited. (g) Persons who claim that "if you help such and such a case" (at great and your expense) because somebody is rich and influential or the neighbours would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not HCO PL 7 May 69 - 2 - progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance. Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment. (h) Persons who "have an open mind" but no personal hopes or desires for auditing of knowingness should be ignored, as they really don't have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone's efforts "to convince them". (i) Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor's and so in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained they use their training to degrade others. Thus they should not be accepted for training or auditing. (j) Persons attempting to sit in judgement on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial as their first idea is a firm "I don't know" and this usually ends with an equally firm "I don't know". If a person can't see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps-carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worth while to give them any time contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much. Policy is very definite. Ignore. To summarize troublesome persons, the policy in general is to cut communication as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction. I know of many cases where they were handled by firm legal stands, by ignoring them until they change their minds, or just turning one's back. In applying a policy of cut-communication one must also use judgement as there are exceptions in all things and to fail to handle a person's momentary upset in life or with us can be quite fatal. So these policies refer to non- Scientology persons in the main or persons who appear on the outer fringes and push toward us. When such a person bears any of the above designations we and the many are better off to ignore them. Scientology works. You don't have to prove it to everyone. People don't deserve to have Scientology as a divine right, you know. They have to earn it. This has been true in every philosophy that sought to better man. All the above "Sources of Trouble" are also forbidden training and when a person being trained or audited is detected to belong under the above headings (a) to (j) he or she should be advised to terminate and accept refund which must be paid at once and the full explanation should be given them at that time. Thus the few may not, in their own turmoil, impede service to and the advance of the many. And the less enturbulence you put on your lines, the better, and the more people you will eventually help, L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:cs.ei.rd Copyright ($) 1969 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 053 HCOPL 9 Feb 1971 Executive Misbehaviour HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 9 FEBRUARY 1971 Remimeo EXECUTIVE MISBEHAVIOUR In the past executives in three instances have seen fit to associate themselves with persons of the opposite sex who were antipathetic to Scientology and have continued with them a 2D relationship. The idiocy of such conduct becomes obvious when it is realized that organizations antipathetic to Scientology spend money by the millions and hire people to infiltrate or disrupt organizations. "Incautious" would be the light word for such behaviour. In each case the org and staff have suffered. In each case the actual condition of the executive could not have been higher than doubt. Therefore the following policy is laid down: Executive Misbehaviour Policy No. 1: No Executive who begins or persists in a sexual relationship with a person hostile to or "open minded about" Dianetics and Scientology may be retained on post or in the organization. Executive Misbehaviour Policy No. 2: Any Executive who engages in activities for which he could be blackmailed may not hold any Executive post. Executive Misbehaviour Policy No. 3: Any person who places personal interests and situations above the interests of the group may not hold an Executive post. L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER LRH:rnes:ub Copyright ($) 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by the Publications Organization, U. S. ===================== 054 HCOPL 3 May 72R Executive Series 12 - Ethics and Executives HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 3 MAY 1972R Remimeo REVISED 18 DECEMBER 1977 Executive (Revision in script) Hats IMPORTANT Executive Series 12 ETHICS AND EXECUTIVES Any person holding an Executive Post (head of Department or above) is deemed an EXECUTIVE. Evaluation has revealed that the breakdown in many orgs is a failure on the part of Executives to wear their Ethics and Justice hats. It has been found that below Administrative Whys there is usually an Ethics situation as well which unhandled, causes the Administrative Why not to function or raise stats. In an area which is downstat, it is the duty of an Executive to investigate and find any out-Ethics situation and get it corrected. Ethics is a personal thing in relation to a group. Unethical people are those who do not have Ethics in on themselves personally. It is the responsibility of the Executive to see to it that persons under his control and in his area get their personal ethics in and keep them in. Dishonesty, false reports, an out-ethics personal life, should be looked for and by persuasion, should be corrected. When an Executive sees such things he or she must do all he can to get the person to get his own Ethics in. When an area is downstat the Executive must at once suspect an out-ethics scene with one or more of the personnel and must investigate and persuade the person to be more honest and ethical and correct the out-ethics condition found. If this does not correct and if the person or area remains downstat, the Executive must declare the person or area in Danger and apply HCO FL 9 Apr 72 "CORRECT DANGER CONDITION HANDLING". The situation, if it does not correct, thereafter becomes a matter of full group justice with Courts and Comm Evs. Persons whose Ethics have remained out must be replaced. The seniors of an Executive are bound to enforce this policy and to use it on any Executives whose personal ethics are out and who fail to apply it. It will be found that those who do not apply this policy letter have themselves certain dishonesties or out-ethics situations. HCO PL 3.5.72R - 2 - Rev 18.12.77 IT IS VITAL TO ANY ORGANIZATION, TO BE STRONG AND EFFECTIVE, TO BE ETHICAL. THE MOST IMPORTANT ZONE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT IN AN ORGANIZATION IS AT OR NEAR THE TOP. Ethical failure at the top or just below it can destroy an organization and make it downstat. Historical examples are many. THEREFORE IT IS POLICY THAT AN EXECUTIVE MUST KEEP ETHICS IN ON HIMSELF AND THOSE BELOW HIM OR BE DISCIPLINED OR COMM EVED AND REMOVED FROM ANY POST OF AUTHORITY AND SOME ONE FOUND WHO IS HIMSELF ETHICAL AND CAN KEEP ETHICS IN ON THOSE UNDER HIS AUTHORITY. The Charge in any such case for a staff member or Executive is FAILURE TO UPHOLD OR SET AN EXAMPLE OF HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS. Such offenses are composed of 1. DISHONESTY. 2. Use of false statements to cover up a situation. 3. Representing a scene to be different than it actually is to cover up crimes and escape discipline. 4. Irregular 2D connections and practices. 5. Drug or alcoholic addiction. 6. Encouraging out ethics. 7. Condoning or failing to effectively handle an out ethics situation in self or others as an In Charge, Officer or Executive. TECHNICAL People with out-ethics withholds cannot see. This is proven by the brilliant return of perception of the environment in people audited effectively and at length on such processes. Such people also seek to place a false environment there and actually see a false environment. People whose ethics are low will enturbulate and upset a group as they are seeking to justify their harmful acts against the group. And this leads to more harmful acts. Out-Ethics people go rapidly into Treason against the group. A person whose Ethics have been out over a long period go "out of valence". They are "not themselves". HCO PL 3.5.72R - 3 - Rev 18.12.77 Happiness is only attained by those who are HONEST with themselves and others. A group prospers only when each member in it has his own personal ethics in. Even in a PTS (Potential Trouble Source) person there must have been out- ethics conduct toward the suppressive personality he or she is connected with for the person to have become PTS in the first place. People who are physically ill are PTS and are out-ethics toward the person or thing they are PTS to! ---------- Thus a group to be happy and well, and for the group to prosper and endure, its individual members must have their own Ethics in. It is up to the Executive or Officer to see that this is the case and to DO the actions necessary to make ~ come about and the group an Ethical group. ---------- EXEC OR OFFICERS STEPS FOR GETTING IN ETHICS ON A STAFF MEMBER STEP ONE Inform the person personally he is in Danger Condition by reason of acts or omissions, downstats, false reports or absence or 2D or whatever the circumstances are. He is in fact IN danger because somebody is going to act sooner or later to hit him. He may be involved already in some other assignment of Condition. But this is between you and him. HE IS IN DANGER BECAUSE YOU ARE HAVING TO BY-PASS HIM TO GET HIS ETHICS IN, A THING HE SHOULD DO HIMSELF. If he cooperates and completes this rundown and it comes out all right you will help him. If he doesn't cooperate you will have to us'- group justice procedures. This is his chance to get Ethics in on himself with your help before he really crashes. When he accepts this fact, Step 1 is done. Go to Step 2. HCO PL 3.5.72R - 4 - Rev IP. 12.77 STEP 2 Ethics is gotten in by definition on the person. GET IN THE DEFINITIONS FULLY UNDERSTOOD. The following words must be Method 4 Word Cleared on all the words and the words in their definitions on the person being handled. "ETHICS: The study of the general nature of morals (morals (plural) (noun): The principles of right and wrong conduct) and the specific moral choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others. "The rules or standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession." "JUSTICE: 1. Moral rightness; equity. 2. Honor, Fairness. 3. Good reason. 4. Fair handling: due reward or treatment. 5. The administration and procedure of the law." "FALSE: Contrary to fact or truth; without grounds: incorrect. Without meaning or sincerity; deceiving. Not keeping faith. Treacherous. Resembling and being identified as a similar or related entity." "DISHONEST: Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud or deceive." "PRETENSE: A false reason or excuse. A mere show without reality." "BETRAY: To be disloyal or faithless to." "OUT-ETHICS: An action or situation in which an individual is involved contrary to the ideals and best interests of his group. An act or situation or relationship contrary to the ethics standards, codes or ideals of the group or other members of the group. An act of omission or commission by an individual that could or has reduced the general effectiveness of a group or its other members. An individual act of omission or commission which impedes the general well-being of a group or impedes it in achieving its goals." Do not go to Step 3 of this until all the above words are cleared by Method 4 word clearing. STEP 3 Ask the person what out-ethics situation he or she is involved in. It may take the person some time to think of it or he may suppress it and be afraid to say it for fear of consequences. Reassure him that you are only trying to help him. He may have brought it up in a session but did not apply it as out-ethics. Coax him through this. HCO PL 3.5.72R - 5 - Rev 18.12.77 If his conduct and actions are poor or downstat, he for sure will be able to come up with an out-ethics personal scene. Sometimes the person is secretly PTS and is connected to a suppressive or antagonistic person or group or thing. In such an instance he will rollercoaster as a case or on post or have accidents or be ill frequently. (See PTS tech for material on this and for future handling. Checksheet BPL 31 May 1971RG issue IV PTS AND SP DETECTION, ROUTING AND HANDLING CHECKSHEET, but go on handling with these steps.) Sometimes the person just uses PR (brags it up and won't come clean). In this case, an auditing session is required. If the person gets involved in self listing get him audited on HCO B 20 Apr 72, C/S Series 78, which gives the auditing session procedure. A person can become very upset over a wrong item. It is easily repaired but it MUST be repaired if this happens. By your own 2wc or whatever means or repair get this Step 3 to a clearcut out-ethics situation, clearly stated. Do not forget to go on with this eventually if there is .~ delay in completing it. GIs will be in if correct. STEP 4 Have the person work out how the out-ethics situation in which he or she is involved would be a betrayal of the group or make them false to the group or its ideals. Do not make the person guilty. Just get them to see it themselves. When they have seen this clearly and have cognited on it completely go to next step. STEP 5 The person is now ready to apply the FIRST DYNAMIC DANGER FORMULA to himself. Give him this formula and explain it to him. FIRST DYNAMIC FORMULA The formula is converted for the 1st dynamic to 1st 1. By-pass habits or normal routines. 1st 2. Handle the situation and any danger in it. 1st 3. Assign self a danger condition. 1st 4. Get in your own personal ethics by finding what you are doing that is out-ethics and use self-discipline to correct it and get honest and straight. 1st 5. Reorganize your life so that the dangerous situation is not continually happening to you. HCO FL 3.5.72R - 6 - Rev 18.12.77 1st 6. Formulate and adopt firm policy that will hereafter detect and prevent the same situation from continuing to occur. Now usually the person is already involved in another group situation of downstats or overt products or bad appearance or low conditions, courts, Comm Evs for something. It does not matter what other condition he was in. From you he is in Danger. So 1st 1. and 1st 2. above apply to the group situation he finds himself in. He has to assign himself a Danger Condition as he recognizes now he has been in danger from himself. 1st 4. has been begun by this rundown. It is up to him or her to finish off 1st 4. by applying the material in steps 2 and 3. He or she has to use self-discipline to correct his own out-ethics scene and get it honest and straight, with himself and the group. 1st 5. is obvious. If he doesn't, he will just crash again. 1st 6. In formulating and adopting firm policy he must be sure it aligns with the group endeavor. When he has worked all this out AND DEMONSTRATED IT IN LIFE, he has completed the personal danger rundown. He can then assign himself Emergency and follow the Emergency Formula (HCO FL 23 Sep 67, Pg 189-190 Vol 0 OEC "Emergency"). STEP 6 Review the person and his stats and appearance and personal life. Satisfy yourself that the steps above and the out-ethics found were all of it. That no wrong item has been found. That the person is not PTS. Handle what you find. But if you find that the person did not improve and gave it all a brush off, you must now take the group's point of view and administer group justice. Your protection of the person is at end because he had his chance and is apparently one of those people who depend on others to keep his ethics in for him and can't keep them in himself. So use group justice procedures thereafter. If the person made it and didn't fall on his head and is moving on up now AS SHOWN BY HONEST STATS AND CONDITION OF HIS POST, you have had a nice win and things will go much much better. And that's a win for everybody. L. RON HUBBARD LRH:PB:dr FOUNDER Copyright ($) 1972, 1977 by L. Ron Hubbard Revision assisted by ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Pat Brice LRH Comps Unit I/C ===================== 055 HCOPL 12 May 1972 Executive Series 13 - Ethics HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO POLICY LETTER OF 12 MAY 1972 Remimeo GO for Enforcement ETHICS Executive Series 13 Finance Series 12 Personnel Series 25 PTS PERSONNEL AND FINANCE PTS means Potential Trouble Source. This is a person who is connected to a suppressive person, group or thing. (For full information on PTS see HCO P/L 31 May 1971, Issue IV, Revised 572, a checksheet.) N.C.G. means No Case Gain despite good and sufficient auditing. A chronically ill person, whether the person is known to be connected to a Suppressive or not, is always found to have been so connected and PTS. IT IS UNSHAKABLE POLICY HEREAFTER THAT NO PERSON WHO IS PTS OR CHRONICALLY ILL OR WHO GETS NO CASE GAIN MAY BE ON FINANCE OR REGISTRAR LINES OR IN TOP COMMAND POSTS OR AS HAS OR ETHICS OFFICER OR MAA. TECHNICAL FACT A person who is connected to a suppressive person, group or thing will dramatize a "can't have" or an "enforced overt have" on an org or staff members. A "can't have" means just that-a depriving of substance or action or things. An "enforced overt have" means forcing upon another a substance, action or thing not wanted or refused by the other. The technical fact is that a PTS person got that way because the suppressive was suppressive by depriving the other or enforcing unwanted things upon the person. flue PTS person will dramatize this characteristic in reaction to the suppression. Therefore a PTS person as an ED, C/O, Product Officer, Org Officer, Treasury Sec, Cashier or Body Reg will run a can't have on the org and its staff by (a) Refusing income (b) Wasting income made (c) Accepting wrong customers (like psychos) and forcing them on the org (d) Fail to provide staff or service (e) Advocate overt products. HISTORICAL When staffs went on proportionate pay in the late 1950s, so long as I ran the orgs directly the staffs made more money than before. When I moved off these lines directly the staffs began to receive less money At that time it seemed to me that proportionate pay served as an excuse to some in an org to run a can't have on the staff. HCO PL 12 May 72 - 2 - We knew that some registrars could take money in easily and others never seemed to be able to. technical reason for this has just emerged in another line of research entirely. In completing materials and search on Expanded Dianetics I was working on the mechanism of how a PTS person remained ill. I found suppressives became so to the person by running a "can't have" and "enforced overt have" This pinned the PTS person to the suppressive. Working further I found that a PTS person was a robot to the suppressive. (See HCO B 10 May 1972, "Robotism".) This research was in the direction of making people well. Suddenly it was apparent that a PTS person, as a robot to SPs, will run "can't haves' and "enforced overt haves" on others. Checking rapidly it was found that where finance lines were very sour a PT5 person was on those lines. RECOVERY PTS tech, objective processes, PTS rundowns, money processes and Expanded Dianetics will handle the condition. However one cannot be sure that it has been handled expertly in orgs where a money "can't have" has been run as its tech quality will be low due to an already existing lack of finance. Only stats would tell if the situation has been handled fully. Thus the policy stands. Handled or not handled, no person who is PTS or who has no ease gain will be permitted in top command or any lines that influence finance. Any org which has consistently low income should be at once suspect of having PTS or N.C.G. persons on the key finance posts and an immediate action should be taken to discover the PTS or N.C.G. condition and replace such persons with those who are not connected to suppressives or who do get case gain. Nothing in this policy letter permits any PTS person to be in an org or cancels any policy with regard to PTS. This policy letter requires direct check, close investigation and handling of PTS or SP situations on these posts that may go undetected otherwise. NOTHING IN THIS POLICY LETTER PERMITS ANY KEY ORG POST TO REMAIN EMPTY. NATIONAL As a comment on something that may impinge on orgs and might affect them, the FOREMOST reason for a failing national prosperity and inflation is a personal Income Tax agency. This runs a vicious can't have on every citizen and makes them PTS to the government. Individuals even begin to run a can't have on themselves and do not produce. This IS the cause of a failing national economy. It can be a factor in an org and must be handled on the individuals so affected. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.sb.rd.ts Copyright ($) 1972 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ===================== 056 LRHED 241R Int 22 Jul 1974 Potential Trouble Sources L. Ron Hubbard EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE LRH ED 241R INT 22 July 1974 Revised & Reissued 26 Sept 1977 220703R To: ALL STAFFS, GO, A/Gs, HAS, EOs, Ds OF P From: RON Subject: POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES Ref: HCOB 10 AUG 73 BPL 5 APR 72RA Issue I PTS Cassette CAN WE EVER BE FRIENDS AS THE ACTUAL TECH OF PTS IS NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD OR USED: 1. NO STAFF MEMBER MAY BE DISMISSED FOR BEING PTS. ANY STAFF MEMBER PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED AS PTS MUST BE RESTORED TO STAFF. 2. A COMM EV OR CONDITION MAY BE ORDERED ON ANY STAFF MEMBER REFUSING OR FAILING TO HANDLE PER ABOVE REFERENCES. 3. NO HGC PC MAY BE ROUTED OFF LINES AS PTS BUT MUST BE HANDLED BY THE AUDITOR USING ABOVE REFS. 4. ONLY WHEN THE ORG HAS A FLAG OR POLO TRAINED GRADUATE OF THE PTS AND SP DETECTION ROUTING AND HANDLING COURSE OR HAS BEEN TRAINED BY A FLAG OR FOLO GRADUATE OF THE PTS AND SP DETECTION ROUTING AND HANDLING COURSE, MAY 3 ABOVE BE RELAXED AND ONLY THEN WHEN PTSes ARE ACTUALLY BEING HANDLED BY HIM. PTSNESS IS ACTUALLY A PT? AND CAUSES ROLLER COASTER AS IT IS DIFFICULT TO AUDIT OVER A PT? OR WORK EITHER. BUT IT ISN'T ALL THAT HORRIBLE. AND IT CAN BE HANDLED, USUALLY EASILY. LOVE = RON SEAL L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER Revision assisted by A/CS-4 LRH:JG:nt:pat ===================== 057 HCOB 16 Aug 1971 Training Drills Modernized HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 16 AUGUST 1971 Issue II Remimeo Courses checksheets TRAINING DRILLS MODERNIZED (Revises 17 APRIL 1961. This HCO B cancels the following: Original HCO B 17 April 1961 Training Drills Modernized Revised HCO B 5 Jan 71 Training Drills Modernized Revised HCO B 21 June 71 Training Drills Modernized Issue III HCO B 25 May 71 The TR Course This HCO B is to replace all other issues of TRs 0-4 in all packs and checksheets.) Due to the following factors, I have modernized TRs 0 to 4. 1. The auditing skill of any student remains only as good as he can do his TRs. 2. Flubs in TRs are the basis of all confusion in subsequent efforts to audit. 3. If the TRs are not well learned early in Scientology training courses, THE BALANCE OF THE COURSE WILL FAIL AND SUPERVISORS AT UPPER LEVELS WILL BE TEACHING NOT THEIR SUBJECTS BUT TRS. 4. Almost all confusions on Meter, Model Sessions and Scientology or Dianetic processes stem directly from inability to do the TRs. 5. A student who has not mastered his TRs will not master anything further. 6. Scientology or Dianetic processes will not function in the presence of bad TRs. The preclear is already being overwhelmed by process velocity and cannot bear up to TR flubs without ARC breaks. Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften. Comm Courses are not a tea party. These TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed. Public courses on TRs are NOT "softened" because they are for the Public. Absolutely no standards are lowered. THE PUBLIC ARE GIVEN REAL TRS-ROUGH TOUGH AND HARD. To do otherwise is to lose 90% of the results. There is nothing pale and patty-cake about TRs. THIS HCO B MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. IT DOES NOT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE. IT DOES NOT IMPLY ANOTHER MEANING. IT IS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION FROM ANOTHER SOURCE. THESE TRS ARE DONE EXACTLY PER THIS HCO B WITHOUT ADDED ACTIONS OR CHANGE. NUMBER: OT TR 0 1971 NAME: Operating Thetan Confronting. COMMANDS: None. POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other with eyes closed, a comfortable distance apart-about three feet. PURPOSE: To train student to be there comfortably and confront another person. The idea is to get the student able to BE there comfortably in a position three feet in front of another person, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there. TRAINING STRESS: Student and coach sit facing each other with eyes closed. There is no conversation. This is a silent drill. There is NO twitching, moving, confronting with a body part, "system" or vias used to confront or anything else added to BE there. One will usually see blackness or an area of the room when one's eyes are closed. BE THERE, COMFORTABLY AND CONFRONT. When a student can BE there comfortably and confront and has reached a major stable win, the drill is passed. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in June 71 to give an additional gradient to confronting and eliminate students confronting with their eyes, blinking, etc. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs. NUMBER: TR 0 CONFRONTING REVISED 1961 NAME: Confronting Preclear. COMMANDS: None. POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart-about three feet. PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing only or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to be there comfortably in a position three feet in front of a preclear, to BE there and not do anything else but BE there. TRAINING STRESS: Have student and coach sit facing each other, neither making any conversation or effort to be interesting. Have them sit and look at each other and say and do nothing for some hours. Student must not speak, blink, fidget, giggle or be embarrassed or anaten. It will be found the student tends to confront WITH a body part, rather than just confront, or to use a system of confronting rather than just BE there. The drill is mis-named if Confronting means to DO something to the pc. The whole action is to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologising or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self. Confronting with a body part can cause somatics in that body part being used to confront. The solution is just to confront and BE there. Student passes when he can just BE there and confront and he has reached a ma/or stable win. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be "interesting". Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that SOP Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs. NUMBER: TR 0 BULLBAIT REVISED 1961 NAME. Confronting Bullbaited. COMMANDS: Coach: "Start" "That's it" "Flunk". POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other a comfortable distance apart-about three feet. PURPOSE: To train student to confront a preclear with auditing or with nothing. The whole idea is to get the student able to BE there comfortably in a position three feet in front of the preclear without being thrown off, distracted or reacting in any way to what the preclear says or does. TRAINING STRESS: After the student has passed TR 0 and he can just BE there comfortably, "bull baiting" can begin. Anything added to BEING THERE is sharply flunked by the coach. Twitches, blinks, sighs, fidgets, anything except just being there is promptly flunked, with the reason why. PATTER: Student coughs. Coach. "Flunk! you coughed. Start." This is the whole of the coach's patter as a coach. PATTER AS A CONFRONTED SUBJECT: The coach may say anything or do anything except leave the chair. The student's "buttons" can be found and tromped on hard. Any words not coaching words may receive no response from the student. If the student responds, the coach is instantly a coach (see patter above). Student passes HCO B 16 August 1971 II - Page 2 when he can BE there comfortably without being thrown off or distracted or react in any way to anything the coach says or does and has reached a major stable win. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington in March 1957 to train students to confront preclears in the absence of social tricks or conversation and to overcome obsessive compulsions to be "interesting". Revised by L. Ron Hubbard April 1961 on finding that SOP Goals required for its success a much higher level of technical skill than earlier processes. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in August 1971 after research discoveries on TRs. NUMBER: TR 1 REVISED 1961 NAME: Dear Alice. PURPOSE: To train the student to deliver a command newly and in a new unit of time to a preclear without flinching or trying to overwhelm or using a via. COMMANDS: A phrase (with the "he saids" omitted) is picked out of the book "Alice in Wonderland" and read to the coach. It is repeated until the coach is satisfied it arrived where he s. POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other a comfortable distance apart. TRAINING STRESS: The command goes from the book to the student and, as his own, to the coach. It must not go from book to coach. It must sound natural not artificial. Diction and elocution have no part in it. Loudness may have. The coach must have received the command (or question) clearly and have understood it before he says "Good". PATTER: The coach says "Start", says "Good" without a new start if the command is received or says "Flunk" if the command is not received. "Start" is not used again. "That's it" is used to terminate for a discussion or to end the activity. If session is terminated for a discussion, coach must say "Start" again before it resumes. This drill is passed only when the student can put across a command naturally, without strain or artificiality or elocutionary bobs and gestures, and when the student can do it easily and relaxedly. HISTORY: Developed by L Ron Hubbard in London, April 1956, to teach the communication formula to new students. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard 1961 to increase auditing ability. NUMBER: TR 2 REVISED 1961 NAME: Acknowledgements. PURPOSE: To teach student that an acknowledgement is a method of controlling preclear communication and that an acknowledgement is a full stop. COMMANDS: The coach reads lines from "Alice in Wonderland" omitting "He saids" and the student thoroughly acknowledges them. The coach repeats any line he feels was not truly acknowledged. POSITION: Student and coach are seated facing each other at a comfortable distance apart. TRAINING STRESS: Teach student to acknowledge exactly what was said so pre- clear knows it was heard. Ask student from time to time what was said. Curb over and under acknowledgement. Let student do anything at first to get acknowledgement across, then even him out. leach him that an acknowledgement is a stop, not beginning of a new cycle of communication or an encouragement to the preclear to go on. To teach further that one can fail to get an acknowledgement across or can fail to stop a pc with an acknowledgement or can take a pc's head off with an acknowledgement. PATTER: The coach says "Start", reads a line and says "Flunk" every time the coach feels there has been an improper acknowledgement. The coach repeats the same line each tune the coach says "Flunk". "That's it" may be used to terminate for discussion or terminate the session. "Start" must be used to begin a new coaching after a "That's it". HCOB l6 August 1971 II - Page 3 HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956 to teach new students that an acknowledgement ends a communication cycle and a period of time, that a new command begins a new period of time. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. NUMBER: TR 3 REVISED 1961 NAME: Duplicative Question. PURPOSE: To teach a student to duplicate without variation an auditing question, each time newly, in its own unit of time, not as a blur with other questions, and to acknowledge it. To teach that one never asks a second question until he has received an answer to the one asked. COMMANDS: "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" POSITION: Student and coach seated a comfortable distance apart. TRAINING STRESS: One question and student acknowledgement of its answer in one unit of time which is then finished. To keep student from straying into variations of command. Even though the same question is asked, it is asked as though it had never occurred to anyone before. The student must learn to give a command and receive an answer and to acknowledge it in one unit of time. The student is flunked if he or she fails to get an answer to the question asked, if he or she fails to repeat the exact questions, if he or she Q and As with excursions taken by the coach. PATTER: The coach uses "Start" and "That's it", as in earlier TRs. The coach is not bound after starting to answer the student's question but may comm lag or give a commenting type answer to throw the student off. Often the coach should answer. Somewhat less often the coach attempts to pull the student in to a Q and A or upset the student. Example: Student: "Do fish swim?" Coach: "Yes" Student: "Good" Student: "Do fish swim?" Coach: "Aren't you hungry?" Student: "Yes" Coach: "Flunk" When the question is not answered, the student must say, gently, "I'll repeat the auditing question," and do so until he gets an answer. Anything except commands, acknowledgement and ~s needed, the repeat statement is flunked. Unnecessary use of the repeat statement is flunked. A poor command is flunked. A poor acknowledgement is flunked. A Q and A is flunked (as in example). Student misemotion or confusion is flunked. Student failure to utter the next command without a long comm lag is flunked. A choppy or premature acknowledgement is flunked. Lack of an acknowledgement (or with a distinct comm lag) is flunked. Any words from the coach except an answer to the question, "Start" "Flunk" "Good" or "That's it" should have no influence on the student except to get him to give a repeat statement and the command again. By repeat statement is meant, "I'll repeat the auditing command." "Start", "Flunk", "Good" and "That's it" may not be used to fluster or trap the student. Any other statement under the sun may be. The coach may try to leave his chair in this TR. If he succeeds it is a flunk. The coach should not use introverted statements such as "I just had a cognition." 'Coach divertive' statements should all concern the student, and should be designed to throw the student off and cause the student to lose session control or track of what the student is doing. The student's job Is to keep a session going in spite of anything, using only command, the repeat statement or the acknowledgement. The student may use his or her hands to prevent a 'Blow' (leaving) of the coach. If the student does anything else than the above, it is a flunk and the coach must say so. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to overcome variations and sudden changes in sessions. Revised 1961 by L. Ron Hubbard. The old TR has a comm bridge as part of its training but this is now part of and is taught in Model Session and is no longer needed at this level. Auditors have been frail in getting HCOB 16 August 1971 II - Page 4 their questions answered. This TR was redesigned to improve that frailty. NUMBER: TR 4 REVISED 1961 NAME: Preclear Originations. PURPOSE: To teach the student not to be tongue-tied or startled or thrown off session by originations of preclear and to maintain ARC with preclear throughout an origination. COMMANDS: The student runs "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" on coach. Coach answers but now and then makes startling comments from a prepared list given by Supervisor. Student must handle originations to satisfaction of coach. POSITION: Student and coach sit facing each other at a comfortable distance apart. TRAINING STRESS: The student is taught to hear origination and do three things. 1. Understand it; 2. Acknowledge it; and 3. Return preclear to session. If the coach feels abruptness or too much time consumed or lack of comprehension, he corrects the student into better handling. PATTER: All originations concern the coach, his ideas, reactions or difficulties, none concern the auditor. Otherwise the patter is the same as in earlier TRs. The student's patter is governed by: 1. Clarifying and understanding the origin. 2. Acknowledging the origin. 3. Giving the repeat statement "I'll repeat the auditing command," and then giving it. Anything else is a flunk. The auditor must be taught to prevent ARC breaks and differentiate between a vital problem that concerns the pc and a mere effort to blow session. (TR 3 Revised.) Flunks are given if the student does more than 1. Understand; 2. Acknowledge; 3. Return pc to session. Coach may throw in remarks personal to student as on TR 3. Student's failure to differentiate between these (by trying to handle them) and coach's remarks about self as "pc" is a flunk. Student's failure to persist is always a flunk in any TR but here more so. Coach should not always read from list to originate, and not always look at student when about to comment. By Originate is meant a statement or remark referring to the state of the coach or fancied case. By Comment is meant a statement or remark aimed only at student or room. Originations are handled, Comments are disregarded by the student. HISTORY: Developed by L. Ron Hubbard in London in April 1956, to teach auditors to stay in session when preclear dives out. Revised by L. Ron Hubbard in 1961 to teach an auditor more about handling origins and preventing ARC breaks. As TR 5 is also part of the CCHs it can be disregarded in the comm course TRs despite its appearance on earlier lists for students and staff auditors. TRAINING NOTE It is better to go through these TRs several times getting tougher each time than to hang on one TR forever or to be so tough at start student goes onto a decline. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:jw:JR:JS:nt.pe.rd Copyright ($) 1961, 1971 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED HCOB 16 August 1971 11 - Page 5 ===================== 058 HCOB 30 Mar 1972 Step Four - Handling Originations HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex HCO BULLETIN OF 30 MARCH 1973 Remimeo Issue I REISSUED 21 SEPTEMBER 1974 (Only change is signature) STEP FOUR - HANDLING ORIGINATIONS Edited and taken from PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR'S BULLETIN NO. 151 1 January 1959 What do we mean by an origin of the preclear? He volunteers something all on his own; and do you know that is a very good index of case-whether the person volunteers anything on his own? An old-time auditor used this as a case index. He said, "This fellow isn't getting any better. He hasn't offered up anything yet." You see, he didn't originate-he didn't originate a communication. So remember that the preclear is as well as he can originate a communication. That means he can stand at Cause on the communication formula. And that is a desirable point for him to reach. But how about in the walk-away world-the world that is ambulant and moving around and spinning quietly, or noisily, as the case may be? Do you ever have to handle an origin in it? Well, I dare say that every argument you have ever got into was because you did not handle an origin. Every time you have ever got into trouble with anybody, you can trace it back along the line you didn't handle. If a person walks and says, "Whee! I've just passed with the highest mark in the whole school," and you say, "I'm awfully hungry, shouldn't we go out and eat?"- you'll find yourself in a fight. He feels ignored. He originated a communication to have you prove to him that he was there and he was solid. Most little kiddies get frantic about their parents when their parents don't handle their originations properly. Handling an origination merely tells the person, "All right, I heard it, you're there." You might say it is a form of acknowledgment, but it's not; it is the communication formula in reverse. But the auditor is still in control if he handles the origin-otherwise, the communication formula goes out of his control and he is at effect point, no longer at cause point. An auditor continues at cause point. So let's look this over. The handling of an origin has a great deal of use and, until recently, it was the least pat step in Scientology. How did you handle an origin? And we finally found out. I finally had a cognition myself. I tried for a long time to communicate this to people and they still blundered on it occasionally. And I finally found out something that did seem to communicate. There are three steps in handling an origin. Here is the setup: The preclear is sitting in the chair and the auditor is sitting across from the preclear, and the auditor is saying, "Do fish swim?" or "Do birds fly?" and the preclear says, "Yes." Here is the factor, now, entering: "Do fish swim?" The preclear doesn't answer Do fish swim, the preclear says, "You know-your dress is on fire," or "I'm eight feet back of my head," or "Is it true that all cats weigh 1.8 kilograms?" You see, wog-wog-where did this come from? Well, although it is usually circuitry or something like that at work when it's that far off beam, it is, nevertheless, an origin. How do you handle it? Well, you don't want the preclear to go out of session, and he would if you handled it wrongly, so (1) you answer it; (2) you maintain ARC (you don't spend any time at it, but you just maintain ARC); and (3) you get the preclear back on the process. One, two, three. And if you spend too much time in (2), you'll be doing wrong. HCOB 30 Mar 73 I - 2 - What is an origin? All right, he says, "I'm eight feet back of my head." It's an origin; what are you supposed to do with it? Well, you're supposed to answer it. In this particular case, you would say to him something in the order of, "You are?" (You mean something like, "I've heard the communication-it's made an effect on me.") Now in maintaining ARC you can skimp that second one if you handle the third one expertly enough. The least important one is the second one, but the most deadly thing you can do is utterly to neglect the second one of maintaining ARC. That's deadly. But you can skip it if you really punch it into the third one, which is to say, get him back into session. So he says, "I'm eight feet back of my head," and you say, "YOU ARE???" (What he said really hit, you know.) He's kind of wog-wog about this-he's not sure what this is all about. You say, "You are?" and the fellow says, "Yes." "Well!" you say. "What did I say that made that happen?" "Oh, you said 'Do birds fly?' and I thought of myself as a bird and I guess that's the way it is, but I am eight feet back of my head." "Well, that's pretty routine," you say-reassure him, maintain the ARC. "Now, what was that auditing question?" "Oh, you asked me 'Do birds fly?'" And you say, "That's right. Do birds fly?" Back in session, you see. You can't do this: You can't put it into a can and put a label on it and say "This is how you do it always," because it's always something peculiar; but you can say these three steps are followed. I will give you another example. You say, "Do birds fly?" and he says, "I have a blinding headache." "You do?" you say. "Is it bothering you (that's the ARC) too much to carry on with the session (and you've reached number three at once)?" "Oh no-it's pretty bad though." "Well, let's go on with this, shall we?" you say. "Maybe it'll do something with it (maintaining ARC)." He says, "Well, all right," and you're right back onto it again: "Do birds fly?" One of the trickiest of these is "What in my question reminded you of that?" The fellow says, "Well, so and so," and he explains it to you and you say, "Well, good. Do birds fly?" and you're right back in session again. Three parts, and-that is the important thing-you have to learn how to handle these things. L. RON HUBBARD Founder LRH:nt.rd Copyright ($) 1959, 1973, 1974 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This is Reproduced and issued to you by The Publications Organization, U. S. ===================== 059 BTB 13 Mar 1975R TRs Training Breakthrough BOARD TECHNICAL BULLETIN 13 MARCH 1975R Remimeo REVISED 30 APRIL 1975 Intern Sup Cranuning Cancels BTB 29 June 1962 How to Officer Acknowledge and Revises BTB 29 C/Ses Oct 72 Ex Dn Series 17 Ex Dn TRs Super's Case K and BTB 20 Sept 72 TR KOT Training Under LRH. TRs TRAINING BREAKTHROUGH LRH has been recently coaching, on tape, the TRs of Flag Auditors and Internes for many weeks. Each night Messengers have been lugging in a great batch of tape recorders, each containing one or more auditing tapes. Some real breakthroughs were made on TR training that have never been seen or released. The Tech of making an assessment really impinge and read was completely wrapped up. Pcs, very early in this, began to comment that their Auditor was "much better". The Auditors had a great many wins. They are released here for your use in upgrading the quality of your org's auditing. TYPES OF TRs There are two different kinds of TRs. These are General TRs and Assessment TRs. General TRs are for use in regular auditing. They are natural, relaxed, while fully controlling the session and the pc. Assessment TRs are used to get a list to read. Assessment questions are delivered with impingement, the Auditor accenting or "barking" the last word and syllable. An assessment is done crisply and businesslike with real punch (not shouting) so each line is TO the pc. This is not to say that an assessment is done Tone 40 or with antagonism. It's friendly but businesslike and impinges. TRAINING TIPS In training Auditors and Internes, the person supervising the TR Training and tapes trains them first on General TRs to a pass, then on Assessment TRs to a pass. A full TRs pass requires both. All previous tape cover notes to the Supervisor and his comments should be attached together in sequence so he can see that progress has been made and which points are being worked on. Care must be given to ensure that the Auditors learn how to set up a tape recorder, position the mike so the Auditor and pc can be heard easily and keep the heads clean so that recordings are not faint but easily audible. The BTB 13.3.75 - 2 - Revised 30 Apr 75 proper position of the mike is either hung from the ceiling a bit to the side of the Auditor and pc with the mike at the same height as the Auditor's face, or sticking out from under the meter behind the meter shield. A poor recording is as worthless as an illegible auditing report. The person supervising the TRs tapes (usually the Interne Super with a final pass by the Senior C/S or KOT) must not invalidate or evaluate for the Auditors but must use lots of encouragement and ARC. When an Auditor backslides the Supervisor' must tell him not to backslide and see that the Auditor is sorted out and improving again. This TR training is not a pattycake affair, but must be demanding and tough enough to get the Auditors through it. Pc results are at stake. LRH has when warranted, ordered an Auditor to 12 hours a day TR Training and increased it to 114 hours a day to bring up the Auditor's necessity level and get him through it when he had been lagging and was overdue to fire to his org. GENERAL TRs TRAINING Tools used in General TR Training were LRH model auditing tapes. lots of Word Clearing, use of the TR Booklets, study of Original Thesis Primary Axioms (Chapter 2) and the rules that permit engram running (Chapter "The Laws of Returning"), use of Mood Drills (later described), drilling out attitudes about pcs that interfere with the session, knocking out automaticities by having the Auditor drill doing them causatively and the TRs themselves. In knocking out faulty or inconsistent TRs, the tech used is to drill the entire scale from one extreme to another up and down. For example: Auditor has a problem with loudness and tends to mumble - have him drill the faulty TR 1 or 2 on a gradient from the barest mumble to Tone 140 and back again until it's cured. The idea is to get General TRs up to a level of real polish and consistency (not just barely passing one tape) so they are live, natural, interested in the pc, delivered TO the pc, relaxed and smooth. USE OF TR O TR 0 is ordered when it is obviously out, or when other TRs drills don't seem to be resolving. TR 0 is used so that the Auditor can be with the pc easily, is comfortable in session and not anxious or impatient. TR 0 is ordered done where there is not much Auditor there in session. TR 0 was ordered in recent TR training when the following showed up in the Auditors' tapes: when an Auditor was clearing his throat, when an Auditor was fumbling assessment lines, when TR 1 and 2 were way out BTB 13.3.75 - 3 - Revised 30 Apr 75 and not improving, when an Auditor went mechanical in session, to handle a timid Auditor, when an Auditor's mood wasn't resolving with Mood Drills, when the pc was unaware of the Auditor and wasn't working well in session = not much Auditor there. TR 0 can also be used with Mood Drills and when knocking out an Auditor attitude that is interfering. What is usually ordered is to have the Auditor look over his attitude to pcs and drill that attitude to free it up, then practice other attitudes. And also do TR 0. TR1 TR 1 in General TRs must be friendly and real, natural, positive with each command given in its own unit of time. Poor diction can get in the road and have to be drilled out. TR 1 must also be live and interested with adequate volume and crispness to arrive at the pc. Commands must be given without hesitation or being slowly dragged out because that gives a slow session pace and violates the rule on number of commands given and answered per unit of time determines gain. A lilt on TR 1 loses any impingement the question could have. It can be cured by drilling lilting and then the opposite, monotone, until the automaticity is broken. The opposite of this is where the Auditor' drops the end of the line or swallows it. This also loses impingement and must be drilled out. An Auditor whose TR 1 is too soft and low volume can be ordered to do 50 foot TRs. A breathless TR 1 can be cured by having the Auditor practice being breathless to get rid of the automaticity. A timid Auditor can practice being a mean tiger to get the softness out of his TR 1. He should also review the Primary Axioms of Original Thesis. Timing is an important part of TR 1. Session pace depends on it. Where commands or questions are too far apart auditing time is extended. Flubbed commands are out. Having to re-read a command is a flub and shouldn't be necessary if the Auditor drills the procedure so it's smooth. When taking questions or commands from an HCOB the Auditor can sound like he's reading the question and must learn to sound like he's saying when he's in fact reading. These were some of the points picked out on TR 1. TR 2 "The essence of TR 2 is session control." "The pc's comm is begun with TR 1 and controlled in flow with TR 2." (LRH) There are really different types of TR 2, a whole BTB 13.3.75 - 4 - Revised 30 Apr 75 range that go from a 1/2 ack to a full ack up to a Tone 40 ack. "A full ack Is really a stop ack. If you break it down, there's a degree of acks going from 'go on, I'm listening' order mutter to an 'okay, that's enough of this phase of this' to 'well we got through with that and that's it'. One doesn't use such words. It is done by tone and intention. It's called session control. There's also a Tone 40 ack which ends off the whole scene and that's that." (LRH). "A half ack keeps the PC going and also keeps a pc from over-itsaing." "Half ack when it is going to go on, like Earl Sim," (LRH) You use half acks to show the pc you are still there and to let him know you're interested. On R3R you use 1/2 acks on 1 to 8, full ack on 9, 1/2 acks on A to C and a full ack on D. Where a PC over-itsas it is caused by a slow TR 2, a lack of TR 2 especially 1/2 acks, too strong a 1/2 ack and overacking. A lack of 1/2 acks shows up with a pc who is unaware of the Auditor and so is out of control or doesn't work well in session. Practice on 1/2 acks and full acks so as not to fall between and drilling acks that control comm from making it continue to making' it stop utterly, the full range of 1/2 acks to full acks to Tone 140 acks, cures an Auditor who flubs on the above. Where TR 2 is interruptive and overrides the end of the pc's answer, it will put the PC on a W/H. Practice on timing of TR 2 and perception of when the pc has said all corrects that. Double acks, multiple acks such as: "OK Good." and "All right Thank you OK." are not OK and must be knocked out by drilling the Auditor so he learns to ack with one ack. TR 2 repeated makes an overack. Too cold a TR 2 can be corrected by Mood Drills,(see below). TR 2 expresses mood and interest in the PC'S incidents and itsa. TR 2 must be TO the PC SO he gets it. Sometimes an Auditor has TR 2 and the next TR 1 colliding, running together so that they nearly overlap. This is corrected by drilling timing of TR 1 and TR 2 and the next TR 1 so that each TR 1 is in its own unit of time and each TR 2 ends that comm cycle. Use of LRH model auditing tapes is necessary in training Auditors on TR 2. MOOD DRILLS Mood Drills were developed by LRH to handle stuck or fixated Auditor moods or where some Auditor's mood entered into the session would rough up or upset a pc or slow his' progress. BTB 13.3.75 - 5 - Revised Apr 7 75 Mood Drills consist of TRs 1 to 14 done out of session on each tone level of the full tone scale, hitting each mood up and down the scale. The coach calls the mood, the Auditor does TRs 1 to 14 in that mood. It doesn't really require much coaching. "You just start low on the scale and TR that mood then the next, then the next. Like all TRs done 'hopeless', etc. Lots of laughs doing it really. Doing TRs as a dead Auditor is pretty tricky." (LRH) An Auditor drilling these must beware of mis-Us and make sure that he understands each mood (tone). Any moods that are too easy to do or too hard should be spotted by coach and Auditor and repeated until the automaticity is broken. Once begun mood drills should be continued until the whole scale is flat so the Auditor doesn't get stuck on the Tone Scale but can do any mood easily and without Strain. "TRs are a matter of sound not how an Auditor feels" (LRH) Where art Auditor is upset about his voice you can have him try - out of session - speaking melodiously, boringly, enthusiastically, until he can change his mood about at will. Mood drills can be done on TR 1014 when R3R is mechanical, brush off, not interested or done with a set emotion. You have the Auditor drill TR 104 by mood, up and down the tone scale, and TO the pc. The coach calls the mood as with TRs 1 to 4. 50 foot Mood Drills can be used to cure a fixed mood that doesn't seem to budge with regular Mood Drills. A timid Dn Auditor is cured with 1014 at each mood level including doing it as a panther, a lion, aggressive. As a bird, scared stiff. This breaks the automaticity. Mood Drills can be done on Assessments where the Auditor's mood would rough up the pc, where the assessment has art up lilt, or when it's dull or monotonous or when it's an out mood of any sort that's fouling up the Auditor's assessment. The Auditor can be drilled on assessments in the E-Meter Drill book at different moods or he can use a prepared list in a dummy session at different moods. Mood Drills can also be used to fix up a TR 1 that's too variable or rushed, on a set emotion, choppy, pushy, monotonous, sad, dreary and even on TR 2 when it's an out mood. Mood Drills are not only fun to do but also enable an Auditor to pass off a session without strain and without his own feelings interfering with it. The session will sound live, the Auditor will be interested in the pc and with good TRs get maximum pc gain. BTB 13.3.75 - 6 - Revised 30 Apr 75 ASSESSMENTS Assessments are done to impinge and get a meter to read. The Auditor. barks the last work and the last syllable so it does impinge. You don't go ------\, ------\, Go ______/, ______/. You don't drop your voice or downcurve your voice tone at the end of the line as that will cost you reads. You punch the last syllable to make it read, and TO the PC. This is different from a lilt which is _____/. The accent is at the end of the sentence routinely, not on the earlier part. This must be drilled, drilled, drilled until the Auditor can do it easily and consistently with good bark. A lot of automaticities will come off with the drilling and it may sound "strange" at first but you'll be surprised at the reads you otherwise wouldn't get. An example is the line "Were you ashamed to cause an upset" (usual emphasis underlined) which when assessed goes "Were you ashamed to cause an upset" (bark on last syllable). Don't get the idea that assessments are harsh or forceful. You don't have to shout. They must be natural without strain, consistent, friendly but businesslike, with good impingement and bark. Done as above your assessments will read when they should and not when they shouldn't. VERBAL TECH Beware of verbal tech on TR training. You can detect verbal tech when several Auditors are making the same TR errors. Locate the source of the verbal tech, the "expert" giving advice and knock it out. It can cost you your results. SUMMARY Do you want maximum gains for your pcs and maximum results for your Auditors? Interne Supers, Senior C/Ses, Cramming Officers, KOTs, TRs Supers. Put these drills into effect now. Use 'them on Auditor and Interne TR training as part of BPL 8 Nov 71RB Electronic Attestation Form and when correcting TR flubs. They do not replace the TRs themselves, the TR Booklets or LRH tapes but are used with them. As a result of Ron's coaching drills above, Auditor began to get rave notices from pcs as to how good the Auditor was suddenly. Any Auditor can win on these. Here's to a Golden Era of Tech with real TRs. BTB 13.3.75 - 7 - Revised 30 Apr 75 Taken from recent LRH TR developments by W/O Ron Shafran CS - 4 Approved by L. RON HUBBARD FOUNDER for the BOARDS OF DIRECTORS of the CHURCHES OF SCIENTOLOGY BDCS:LRH:RS:nt Copyright ($) 1975 by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED this is Reproduced and issued to you by the Publications Organization, U S =====================