Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 18 - Late Dec 1997 PILOT POSTS Date: 30 Dec 1997 14:00:27 POST18.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 18 - Late Dec 1997 PILOT POSTS ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - THE OSA SPAM subj : Super Scio - WELCOME NEWBIES - FREE TECH ON THE WEB subj : Super Scio - DAVID MISCAVIAGE'S ULCERS subj : SUPER SCIO TECH - OT Abilities subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Bob About Life Static subj : Super Scio Tech - RON'S RESEARCH LINE subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing the Discussion with CBW subj : Super Scio - THE KING IN YELLOW subj : Super Scio - To Klaus About Testing subj : Super Scio - TO JR30A ABOUT FOOTBULLETS subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Lakis About Ls subj : SUPER SCIO TECH - ANSWERS ABOUT THE BOOK subj : Super Scio - More on The End subj : Super Scio Humor - THE SEA ORGERS TALE subj : Super Scio - TO VINCE ABOUT LOST TECH subj : Super Scio - NEW SELF CLEARING WEBPAGE ========================================== subj : Super Scio - THE OSA SPAM THE OSA SPAM Even before 60 minutes hit, I heard rumors of people taking off on secret projects which seemed internet related. Note that many of the OSA shills are not true employees of OSA but are big league OT FSMs who get hatted up and work as volenteers for OSA, possibly with some kind of exchange. In other words, they are not necessarily Sea Org or privy to insider information, but they are controlled and hatted up. On 26 Dec 97 The.Galactic.Federation@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) posted on subject "Some Stats on Justin the spam clam" > Stats from my news server about Justin the spam clam. > Received articles from justin@directnet.com (justin): 121 > Received followups to these articles: 472 > Received articles related to the Spamclam: 124 > > Total articles that has anything at all to do with this spamclam since > Dec 22: 717 and rising... On 24 Dec tilman@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) posted on subject "justin = Justin Williams" > telnet to port 25 of mail.directnet.com and enter "expn justin", and it > will tell you that justin = Justin Williams. On 23 Dec perry@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) posted on subject "Justin, There's More!" > I realize that Justin's purpose was to distract readers that > may have wandered into a.r.s. The NYTimes article (picked up by > other papers nationwide) specifically mentioned > "alt.religion.scientology" BY NAME. So, ready or not, here they come. On 24 Dec Steve Jebson posted "Re Super Scio <0 of 11> SELF CLEARING BOOK - to jcr" > Pilot's book is absolutely free, available to anyone in the world > who has a WWW connection and wants to try it, and can be done with > no assistance at all, if necessary. If I was in the RTC, this would > scare the s**t out of me. They know that most of their customers are > sick of them and want out. Their only power is their imaginary monopoly > over tech. > > Notice that it was shortly after the book was posted that a new spam > attack, the first in a year or more, was launched. Perhaps their real > fear is the MacPherson case and this is just a coincidence, but I think > not. OSA stooges never respond to, or even mention, Pilot. This is > partly a result of their tactics - they sure aren't going to answer his > content and they can't put out DA packs because they don't know who he > is. > (Warrior is largely ignored for about the same reason.) But it is also > because, for the reasons I'ved described, the thought of their clientele > even knowing about the Pilot manual is their worst nightmare. > > And now it is on the Web, available free world-wide, and will be perma- > nently. Nothing in the world they can do about it except pray nobody > finds out. Merry Christmas, DM. Note that the book was put into the news system on Dec 18 and was up at various websites by Dec 19. My follow up series of posts were made on Dec 22. I don't know if free self clearing is what made OSA launch Justin or whether it was the mention of ARS and Lisa in the NY Times or if it was a combination of both. I don't think it was 60 minutes because I think that it caught them totally by surprise by mentioning Xenu/Xemu. I expect that they had a lot more worry about Lisa than about a CAN expose. Now I think that they are going wild because it is the first TV mention of Xenu and many of the members may have seen it. A lot of the loyalists were jumping out of their skin when the LA times ran the Xenu story, but it was burried deep in the paper and not so visible. Even so, there were teams of OTs going around to every LA Times vending machine, dropping in a quarter, and pulling all the copies out. Many of them may still think that the only reason that the city of LA didn't self destruct is because they successfully pulled enough copies out of circulation and it was burried inside. So they think that only a few people actually read it. Now there are millions of people nationwide who have seen it. Some loyalists will seriously expect to see the pneumonia stats climb. This one is going to change everything. I noticed that even doe15, who I suspect of working for OSA, has subtily launched a vertical spam on homosexuality and the practice of shoving chipmonks up one's ass or something like that. I also believe that my self clearing book is a tremendous danger to them. You might not agree, but it is sensible to cover all bases. I really shouldn't post too freequently (its not healthy for folks like me who sneak into the newsfeed). I've made an exception this month to get the book out and promote it, but I should slow down a bit now that its done. But some of you might consider posting welcome messages for newcomers every few days for the next month or so. I would suggest that you mention - a) Free Tech b) Lisa MacPherson Info c) Nifty Xenu Jokes and where to find them. Happy New Year, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - WELCOME NEWBIES - FREE TECH ON THE WEB WELCOME NEWBIES - FREE TECH ON THE WEB Yes there is free (truely free, not a promotional gimmick) tech available on the net. A lot of it consists of Scientology's advanced materials which are posted by critics as an act of protest against the Church of Scientology's (CofS) bad behavior. But this is of little help to a fringe Scientologist or interested beginner who does not already know a great deal about Scientology processing. So I have written a Self Clearing book which is also free that can be studied as a do-it-yourself activity. I do this because I believe in the Scientology tech and I feel that the organization is on a course of self destruction which will cause the tech to be lost along with the organization unless people do as I am doing and give it to the world freely. The URL's given below will lead you to the book and my various other writings. For a detailed explanation of why I am doing this and what is wrong with the organization, see "The Scientology Reformer's Home Page". I welcome you to the alt.religion.scientology (ARS) newsgroup. This is mostly a hangout for critics and disaffected members because the CofS forbids its loyal members to talk unless they are under the control of the Office of Special Affairs (OSA) and those OSA people just post PR. There are also Freezoners who believe in the tech but practice it outside of the official organization. The CofS considers them to be heritics and attacks them at every opportunity. They mostly hang out on the alt.clearing.technology (ACT) newsgroup but they talk on ARS occasionally too. I am a secret reformer within the CofS who objects strenuously to its bad behaviour. I remain connected because I have many friends there and I believe in the tech (but not in organizational policy or the sanctity of L. Ron Hubbard's every statement - I believe that one should think about the tech instead of worshipping it). I remain secret at this time because the organization excommunicates and attacks any member who tries to reform it (which is one of the reasons it has gone so bad). Best Wishes for the Comming New Year, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - DAVID MISCAVIAGE'S ULCERS DAVID MISCAVIAGE'S ULCERS This is second hand but I trust the source. The Scientology doctor, Megan Shields (I'm not certain of the spelling) has success stories posted on her wall. Among these is a note from David Miscaviage thanking her for helping him with his ulcers. I would not be one to make fun of a man's pain or disability. But ulcers are popularly thought of as resulting from stress. On that basis, the ARS critics have been successful in putting on the pressure. So I felt that they deserved to know. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : SUPER SCIO TECH - OT Abilities OT ABILITIES The Self Clearing book is, amoung other things, an experiment in the development of OT abilities. First let me assign some definitions. These are my own rather than things carried forward from Hubbard. 1. SUBTILE OT ABILITIES = Things that can be done without directly observed violation of physical universe laws. This would include things such as telepathy, exterior perception, and affecting random chance. The key point here is that these may be things which take place outside of physical universe laws but they only require bypassing them instead of breaking them. 2. MAJOR OT ABILITIES = Direct violation of physical universe laws, such as lifting an ashtray or walking through walls. 3. GODLIKE OT ABILITIES = True creation of realities, universes, or objects within this or other universes that can be percieved and experienced by others. Of these three, I wish to concentrate on the Major OT Abilities in this discussion. I believe that the Subtile ones are real and valuable and we often achieve them, but they are difficult to prove and they often occur to normal people in everyday life. And the Godlike ones are too far above our heads at the current moment. It is the Major OT Abilities that would give us a real basis for scientific experiment. We have never had that basis, and it is sorely needed. Next I want to introduce the concept of SPORATIC versus REPEATABLE. I have never seen or heard of REPEATABLE MAJOR OT abilities actually occuring. This is a goal that we are aiming at in the long run, and it should be possible, but we have never hit this one, it is just theoretical. With this you would have an OT who could lift an ashtry repetatively under laboratory conditions at will. He might not be willing to do that and he might hide the ability, but he could do it if he wanted to put up with all the flack that it would generate in the society. I have, however, heard of SPORATIC MAJOR OT abilities and have even been in the state where I could do them briefly. I believe that this is an attainable target. Now let me make another differentiation here, which is that SPORATIC is not the same as UNSTABLE. The mistake has been to think that when somebody lifted an ashtray once and could not repeat the action that they had rollercoastered out of the OT state. This is not what is happening. He is still in the sporatic OT state. One postulate in a thousand makes it out through the cracks and affects the physical universe and the others don't. His ability level didn't change, he just wasn't lucky on the repeat. I held the sporatic state stabily for about 3 months. During that time, about once a week one of my intentions would happen before I could get the body into motion to do what I was intending to do. On that basis, a sporatic OT could sit and do the ashtray drill and maybe lift the ashtray by postulate about once every ten hours. Except that the invalidation of the thousand times that it didn't go up would probably cause him to cave in before he managed to do it. But even if he could keep his TRs in and not invalidate himself, he'd never manage it twice in a row because the odds would be too great. These things did happen in the 1950s and 60s (almost non-existant in the 70s and none in the CofS since then). They did sometimes happen with witnesses (about a third of the dozen times I did something like this were with witnesses). I have followed up on some of the stories, I have talked to old timers who have done these things once or twice. In every case, it was the Sporatic OT phenomena rather than the repeatable one. Sometimes the sporatic OT invalidated himself or thought he was PTS because he couldn't do it again and immediately collapsed the state. Even the one and only story of somebody walking through a wall (I haven't confired this one) was of somebody who just once forgot to open the door and walked through it in front of witnesses and was supposedly as much surpirsed as anybody else and certainly could not do it again. It is not that he was in an OT state for one moment and then fell out of it. It is just that one particular postulate happened to slip through the cracks. There must have been at least a hundred people who were in this sporatic state at least for a short time in the old days. I am far from unique in this regards. Filbert also has a one shot (my only confirmation is from his sister Leslie but I'm inclined to believe it) and some of the Otto Roos stories had witnesses, for example. But this sporatic OT state was always unstable. I held it for only 3 months, and many of the famous ones were for a month or less. I have speculated that Ron might have been in the state from 1952 to 53, but he certainly wasn't in it later. But the grades of release used to be fantastically unstable too. Generally a grade would only last for a few months in the old days. The grade 0 release I had in 67 was real and it still rehabs as the point when I really went release on communications, and yet it was completely unstable until I was run on expanded grade 0 many years later. So let us assign the unstability to running too few processes and also to bypassing the grades material. In theory one should be able to get into the sporatic OT state on a stable basis. That would be our first target. Not repeatable OT but the sporatic state because it has been done before and we only have to find our way back. In other words, we know that we have the processes necessary to reach the sporatic level. The repeatable level, on the other hand, might take additional processes that we haven't figured out yet. The book has every process that I know of which ever produced the keyed out OT state in Scientology. There is no point at which all of them were in use at the same time. There is no point at which the org delivered grades and an expanded rundown of OT drills simultaneously. It was always a small piece of what could have been done. And there has never been a time when a large number of people were able to go through a large number of processes without any stops in the way. Even in the freezone there have been stops on time and money and limited collections of material in use. I don't mean to criticize here, it was simply the practicalities of the situation. And it still will be the situation for many people who do not have the determination or willpower to push through on their own. But there will be many people who do, and those are our pioneers. For the first time we will see what happens when an army of people are let loose on a truckload of processes with nothing needed but the time to sit down and do them. I am not even a good example of where this book might lead. I fooled around in the most sloppy manner possible. I overran processes while trying out better wordings. I left things unflat or only took the techniques a short way when much more was available. I ended up with tons of half run or overrun processes and at least half a dozen major areas where I ran off one or two things and can see that there would be lots more that I could use the techniques on. I discovered that I have finally stripped off so much that all the old grades that I released can be run again at a much deeper level, perhaps even in the early track area that I consider to be basic. And with all this mucking around as I put the book together, I ended up persistant FN and feeling in better case shape than I ever have before. This is one of the reasons that I feel that the book is really safe and it will not be a big deal if somebody slops around with it instead of doing a good job. I think that it is because it covers enough different areas from enough different angles. In retrospect, in all my prior auditing there was always bypassed charge. There were always dark areas I avoided looking at. It was always done on the basis of handling some things and getting such a good feeling that one could put aside the other unhandled areas for a time. And so you always had to be careful of what you restimulated. But I can't even tell you where you'd end up if you ran all these things well and in sequence. I'm in the position of somebody who has done the sloppiest possible first pass and is ready for the second time through. Which I do plan to do over the next few months. I'm not in the sporatic OT state now but I feel very close to getting it back. I fully expect it to happen as I work through the book in a proper fashion running or rehabing everything to completion. There is no telling what somebody will do on their own, but I fully expect that at least some will do it well enough to reach this sporatic OT state and be able to remain in it stabily. Then we shall see what if anything is still in the way of reaching the repeatable OT state. Maybe it will come if you run the stuff deep enough. Or maybe there are another dozen areas that will show up. We will learn a lot both from the successes and from finding out what else is stopping those who don't make this state initially. I think that this is the first true test of the subject's ability to make a real OT. Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Bob About Life Static ANSWERING BOB ABOUT LIFE STATIC On 27 Dec 97, "Bob" posted on subject Pilot's Super Scio Book, question about" > Can anyone explain this one to me?? I was following it up to here. But > this total baffles me! > --------- Note that the following is from Chapter 2 of the Super Scio book. >> "IN THE BEGINNING, THE ZERO-INFINITE LIFE STATIC >> >> CONCEIVED OF SPACE. AND IN THE CONCEPT OF SPACE, IS >> >> THE CONCEPT OF SEPARATION. AND THE ONLY THING >> >> THERE WAS WHICH COULD BE SEPARATED WAS THE LIFE >> >> STATIC ITSELF. If you go back before anything exists, then there is no matter, energy, space, or time, obviously. Matter assumes that there is a place to locate it in. Energy assumes that there is something which can move. Time assumes that there is already something there which can change. Space requires that something be separate. Usually we simply have it be a separation of matter. A chair over here and a table over there and therefore you have space in between them. In other words, we usually define space in terms of matter and energy. But that gives us a circular definition. So our initial occurance of space has to be done without any matter or energy to separate. In fact we are saying that this is before anything exists, therefore there is nothing which can be separated. Except of course for that which I'm refering to as the life static in the above. I like to call this thing a nothingness with potential. Hubbard like to refer to it as the static or a life static. Homer likes to call it the unmanifest. Enid likes "no thing" (rather than nothing). These all seem to be correct to me. We don't really have a good word for it. You could also say God unmanifest, but you would have to drop tons of baggage that is attached to the word God, remember that we are talking here about a point prior to everything, so there is not yet even a thought process possible. You could also say that this is an attempt to spot the first thought, to deduce what it had to be. With nothing yet there to think about, I am suggesting that the initial thought, the first thing concieved of, is the idea of separation. So one thinks of separation first, and in doing that, one separates. Then one thinks of mocking up things to separate, but that is already two thoughts. >> But the basic life static which is the unchanging nothingness is senior to >> space time and therefore cannot be affected by this separation. It is not >> made less by it, and therefore it may again separate. And from the view of >> the basic nothingness, the separations cannot be before or after each other >> because it is indeed timeless, but from the lesser view of that which is >> separated, the separated almost statics can conceive that one separated >> before another and therefore we have time. The basic idea here is that the top level nothingness with potential is senior to space and time and therefore is not within a time stream or in any location and therefore does not have a consecutive sequence of events. That would be the only true static. Obviously, we are not completely static, we experience events and there is a sequence, one thing happening after another. So this true static would not be changed by the separation having occured, only the part that separated changed. So the true static would tend to have more separations because the initial conditions for separation still exist (the true static was not changed, so it is still set up with the potential for separation). So there are lots of separations. Each partial static that separated is separate and therefore individual to some slight degree, although the only individuality initially would be the time of separation (one separated before or after another). If the true static is outside any time or space, then it would simply encompass these things as a timeless concept of separation, but from our view, we would see a sequence of individual separations. >> And the lesser near-statics are also nothingness with the potential for >> infinite creation, but they have the experience of time and therefore the >> experience of what they have created. >> >> Once those who can conceive are separated from the basic nothingness, they >> then proceed to apply further separations to bring about the creation of >> existence. A positive and a negative can be pulled out of nothing and the >> net equation remains the same. 1 - 1 = 0 = 2 - 2 = 0 = 256 - 256 etc. The >> only difference between these is consideration and consideration is the >> product of thought. Infinite matter and energy may therefore be generated by >> thought alone." >> --------- One positive charge plus one negative charge equals zero. In the sum total, there is nothing there. Unless you separate them. Then you have a positive here and a negative there. Two positive charges plus two negative charges equals zero. Again there is nothing there in the sum total. They equal zero and they also equal (1 minus 1) or (200 - 200) or whatever. In total there is nothing there and there never has been except that we choose to separate the two halves of nothing, and these half nothings are something. > Ok, I understand that there was some kind of static being or nothingness. > Whether this was a being or a thing, I know not. But then there was a > separation of some sort? Then Pilot talk about "separations" (plual). This > is where I really get lost. I thought he was talking about a separation not > separations. And if, in fact he is talking about other separations, where > did they come from. Did this "nothingness" separate itself again or > something? Maybe some more explanation or clarifying would help me out. > Seems really complicated for me. Never did understand Hubbard's "factors". > > Ok, so there are two sub-nothingnesses. And they have the experience of > time. Ok. I think I can see that. But what "creations" have these two > experienced, as Pilot states?? Maybe the three are actually one and they > have experienced the creation of themselves?? I don't know. It's as if > there should be a paragraph after each sentence to expand on each statement, > at least for smart poeple like me. :-) Unfortunately true. These were my research notes on going beyond Hubbard, so there is too much assumed. It would help to have read Phoenix Lectures or heard one of the tapes on the factors. I tried to clarify this a bit (above), so maybe it will get across this time. It is a difficult area to talk about because it is outside of our normal frame of reference. > Ok, maybe I should word clear these two, but what is the difference between > consideration and thought? Maybe I need to do a demo. Ha-ha. Never did > have much success with those demos or clay creations. Always got the clay > underneath my fingernails. In this case I was using "consideration" in the sense of holding onto a consideration as in "Jill had a consideration that she must wear an ankle length dress to be respectible". In other words, retaining an idea as opposed to actively thinking about it. It is common to use it this way in Scientology. Of course both of these are "thought" in the broader sense. Depending on which definitions of the words "thought" and "consideration" are being used, there are cases where they would mean the same thing and there are cases where they have slightly different connotations. In the phrase "consideration is the product of thought", it should be obvious that "consideration" is being used in a retentive sense and "thought" here is being used in an active sense. Word clearing alone is generally inadequate in cases like this. If one didn't know what the word meant, it would help to look it up. But here it is the context that tells you which definition is being used in a situation where the subtile shades of meaning are the distinguishing factor. Old time Scientologists were expected to think about and figure out things. Modern ones, taught on a diet of too much word clearing and too little contemplation rarely understand things like the factors even after looking up every damn word in the document. As to clay demos, you could try doing them with jello instead. Then you can lick the residue off of your fingers (just joking). > I can understand how matter and energy can be generated from thought, but > how does addition and subtraction equations come out of all this > nothingness? Something must do the thinking. Namely us. > All this is quite interesting, but my eyebrows are scrunching too > much about this. That is why I wrote the self clearing book. You could just work through that. And the tiny amount of "spiritual orientation" given in the introduction of that book is not essential to working through the chapters, so leave it for later if it is in your way. > Anybody have a word? Does Pilot actually respond to these kinds of things? Sure. But sometimes you have to wait awhile and sometimes I miss a message and sometimes I might have answered it before and it is already in the posting archives. And other people are often helpful and give good answers immediately. > By the way, what does goals problems mass mean?? Read the background section of Super Scio Chapter 3. > -- > __________________________________________ > This is my cool signature (not to be misaken with spam) : > Free $10 phone card at www.netel.net!! > You'll need my ID#: DN800723 > YOU can also make money be telling others > about this site!! Check it out. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - RON'S RESEARCH LINE RON'S RESEARCH LINE Ron's research line went as follows: 1. Early mucking around He sees a fakir lying on a bed of nails while visiting the orient, it makes a deep and lasting impression (mentioned on a tape). Then he is playing with affirmations, hypnotism, magic, psychoanalysis, etc. Perhaps he is seeking power, perhaps seeking truth, or perhaps a little bit of both. He finds odd and interesting tricks and unusual phenomena but can't sort it out (per Evolution of a Science). 2. Dianetics He hits on an improved way to run incidents, documents some wild phenomena, assembles some halfway incorrect theories and lauches the Dianetic boom which collapses because prenatals are not basic and will not make a clear. But some PCs were finding past lives. 3. The basic OT research Suddenly it all starts falling together. With a whole track incident running technique and all of metaphysics and science fiction to draw on and a crowd of willing followers, he gets on a roll and the stuff just starts pouring out. It begins with the HCL lectures of March 52 and then Tech 80 and Tech 88 and then the SOP and LPC and PDC courses and each one is cumulative and moving forward. And it carries further, continuing to build through 1953, with the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd American ACCs (advanced clinical course), each as long as the PDC. And its all moving forward. He doesn't cover the old ground again. Its cognition after cognition and what's the next barrier in sight. Maybe his, maybe his students, maybe the latest metaphysical book from the library, it doesn't matter, its all just going forward in a broader and broader outline and gain of ability. And the processing is totally unconstrained. Make up the commands as you go along. No rules but a loose version of the auditors code (check the PC's pupils to see if he is too drunk to audit right now). Run the wildest stuff even in group processing. Run the processes on yourself solo if you are a trained auditor. Try everything. Play with everything. He even talks about having done group processing on a boy scout troup, giving them mockups and OT drills to do. But something goes bad at the end of the 3rd ACC. Just the tiniest slip up. Its a successful ACC. The highest point ever reached in the subject. The top of the bridge, about twice as high as the PDC although it was probably only about halfway to real OT. The bug was "courage processing". It restimulates and causes you to mock up your own opposition (more on this later). And he misses it. 4. The Lower Gradient OT Research (1954) So now he feels that something is wrong. He never quite gets his hands on it because things would have been different if he had, but something is not quite right. And of course he never admits to mistakes, so we don't really hear about this. And that first pass through OT was sloppy as all hell and he knows the stuff was only half right (clams and so forth) although it was good enough to keep letting them all jump up to each next step anyway. So he backs up and slows down. He is going to go over it again and try to straighten it out and find what was missed. And the processing is a bit more cautious and everything is more restrained, but it is still on the OT line and it is pretty wild and unrestrained by our standards although not in comparison to the earlier stuff. The difference here is between Creation of Human Ability (1954) and 8-8008 (1952) and the really advanced stuff of 1953 never got into book form. This is the time of the 4th to 10th ACCs and a lot of new things are discovered, but they are refinements and filling in the gaps of the earlier work rather than going any further. And Ron does seem to pull in a bit of opposition and keys in on this mocking up of opposition. And the real OT research comes to a grinding hault. 5. The Late Fifties So it is time to back up again, and get more cautious, and worry about handling case charge. The auditing gets a lot more formal (although still sloppy by later standards). Its lots of objectives (16th to 18th ACCs) and then lets get back to engram running and see if we were deluded about the whole track (1958). And its clear procedure (19th ACC) and Rock hunting (20th ACC) and eventually back to some mockup processing (1st Melborne ACC). But the Rock research goes solid. It seems to be connected to compulsive mockups and opposition and the students come out of the ACC "looking like rocks" (according to one old timer). And the mockup processing gets into trouble on the button of Create/Distroy. 6. The GPM era So now its sitting on his plate. One is creating one's own opposition, and its coming from GPMs. And they have one hell of a time with this because its late track. And the grades are developed as a spin off of the difficulty of keeping the rudiments in while doing this research. And the auditing gets very very formal and cautious because the PCs are over-restimulated and ARC break at the drop of a pin. And finally the problem is solved with the clearing course. The create/distroy button is errased. And the person supposedly stops creating his own opposition, at least for a few days. But all the GPMs, not just the implants but even the actual ones are only dramatizations of a more basic postulate to create one's own opposition. They are not the source but just the manifestation, as I will discuss later. But Ron misses this and thinks that he has errased the reason that the PC mocks up his own opposition. And then he looks around and there is opposition on every side. 7. The Insane Period If the opposition is being mocked up but it isn't the PC doing it, then it must be those entities. They were handled casually in 1952 and did not seem to be a major case factor, but they must be to blame so lets go after this with a vengance. But even with the entities out of the way, there is still endless opposition, so it must be the evil SPs who are all around us. Therefore let us declare everybody. Oh no, it is getting worse. There must be a true world conspiracy after our ass. Let us take to the sea in ships and run and hide from them before they get us. Except that it is still the PC who creates his own opposition. Ron just never got the basic on it. And of course the auditing gets even more constrained. Here is the introduction of Standard Tech. And everyone is afraid of their own shadow and how dangerous all this data is. And so we have confidentiality. 8. The Aftermath But the imagined dangers never quite materials. And the real ones are sidestepped, at least partially. And the expanded grades are introduced. And some of the worst of the insanity cools down. But now its all gone solid, and the subject limps along thereafter. =================== So how did I come to this wild view of the research line? I didn't even think of this in these terms until a few weeks ago. It was while writing chapter 43 "advanced concepts" of the self clearing book. I felt that this was the right place to put courage processing. I knew about it from the 3rd ACC. Ron considered it very important. There is more than one tape on it. Ron said that when you mocked up courage, everything you had backed down from which had accumulated in the bank would start showing up. So it would be a tough run, but you would get through all this remaining force. And because it was so tough, his gradient on it was to mockup clouds of courage over distant cities before trying to do it closer to the body. I had done a bit of it to a win (it is mentioned in Super Scio chapter 7), but not a lot and it didn't quite feel right. So I put together a brief little rundown on courage processing (it is now section 43.2) and gave it a try. But I don't have any flinch anymore at the force or pain in pictures and yet I was getting this feeling of opposition whenever I mocked up courage. And it certainly wasn't entities. And it couldn't even be GPMs either because I've handled enough of that to recognize how it would feel. I think that I've even touched enough of the game sphere stuff to catch on if that is where it was coming from. So I thought of very early and basic things, and there was all that reality wars stuff that I've only managed to scrape a bit of charge off of because the incidents involve large numbers of dimensions and super selves that have many simultaneous viewpoints. And the keynote there was entrappment by asthetics and courage was the kind of thing that would be used. So I thought of combining courage and opposition with asthetics. I'll reprint the process here that I finally came up with and put in the book. ====== 43.1 Courage and Beauty Courage was messed up very early in our history by convincing people how beautiful and glorious it was to be courageous and fight against overwhelming odds and loose. So one tends to postulate one's opponents as stronger when one is being courageous. The following process should clean this up. a) get the beauty of being courageous and losing b) get the beauty of another being courageous and losing c) get the beauty of being courageous and winning d) get the beauty of another being courageous and winning Run this at least to the point where you have no need to make an opponent stronger to show off how courageous you are. At basic, this underlies the tendency to mockup one's own opposition. ======== I was trying the above out as I put it together. First it seemed like losing was much more asthetic than winning and the greater the opponent, the better. I had added the flow 2 commands ("another") on the basis of theory rather than because I had really looked at what they would do. And then I was spotting the beauty of another being corageous and losing and how hard they must have worked to do that and it seemed like an impossibly insane idea and I started laughing and exteriorized from the whole mess. I tried the courage process again and there was no tendency to mockup any opposition. I thought of GPMs and I could see them as locks on this early asthetic desire to have stronger enemies because it made the courage more glorious. For me it was a major undercut. I tried it on a friend. It might have been a little bit out gradient (he hasn't done the book yet), but it flattened in about 45 minutes and went to the same major EP with big cogs and getting over this tendency to mockup one's own opposition. The ordinary courage process went into the next section of the book (43.2) with warnings to go back and do more of 43.1 if there was any tendency to mockup opposition while mocking up courage. Then I thought back on the 3rd ACC. The basic error was thinking that the opposition that showed up when you mocked up courage was the old force coming off of the bank. And so one should do lots of it to drain the force out of the bank. And it was a mistake. The opposition that shows up is new, because this is why one mocks up opposition. And I thought of those old ACC students grinding away at that courage process. And I thought of Ron grinding away at it, and mocking up more and more stimulous response opposition. And then all the later stuff I described above just seemed obvious. He was barrelling ahead and there really were no reasons for having a lot of stops and restictions. And then the train jumped the rails due to an error in theory. It was not that the processing was too loose and unrestrained. It didn't solve it to get more and more pedantic and carefull. That is like telling the guy to keep taking it easy until he ends up in a rest home. It was not a mistake in application. It was a mistake in basic understanding. He simply missed the boat on a critical process. If he'd trained up other researchers and listened more to other people's ideas, somebody else might have caught it and saved the bacon. Maybe he even tried briefly and there were just too few people with him then. And when nobody else could pin down what was wrong, he gave up on everybody and shut the door on getting any help. This is hubris in action. The malady of the gods where their arrogance brings about their own downfall. Isn't it funny how that old Greek word seems to derrive from the name Hubbard. ======== I have been trying to spot similar buttons which might run like this. The ones I've found so far are - a) Spot the glory of self sacrifice b) Spot the glory of not sacrificing yourself c) Spot another's feeling of glory at sacrificing themselves d) Spot another's feeling of glory at not sacrificing themselves And a) Spot the wonderful facination of waiting for something to happen b) Spot the wonderful facination of having something happen immediately c) Spot another's wonderful facination at waiting for something to happen d) Spot another's wonderful facination at having something happen immediately These should probably be added to chapter 43. Note that the wording on these is a bit better than the one on courage, so maybe courage should be revised as follows - a) spot the beauty of being courageous and losing b) spot the beauty of being courageous and winning c) spot another's feeling of beauty at being courageous and losing c) spot another's feeling of beauty at being courageous and winning But note that the version given in 43.1 did run properly. This is just so advanced and new to me that I keep seeing a bit more in the general area and thinking of improvements. ======== For me this seemed like a correct indication of what really went wrong with the research line. There were endless advances in the later days but it seemed like they were always on things that were in other peoples way (like the grades being in the way of people running GPM listing) rather than what Ron's attention was really fixed on. Even now the orgs are frozen in this pattern of bringing more and more opponents into existance. The military bearing and the uniforms and the toughness just demmands that there be a strong opponent. And notice how asthetic all those things are. Looking forward to the New Year, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Continuing the Discussion with CBW CONTINUING THE DISCUSSION WITH CBW On 23 Dec 97, C. B. Willis responded to my earlier post on "Super Scio Tech - Answering CBW about the new book" as follows - > Pilot writes: > : Yes. Perhaps unmanifest is better. Or we could get Hubbardian and > : say "The Life Static". > > : We could get complex and say "there is this factor X and its > : characteristics include nothingness, unmanifest, static, senior > : to time and space and so on". > > : I used a simple word and of course it is inadequate. > > Of course? Simple is not necessarily inadequate, especially in the > domains of cosmology and theology. > > > : There is a longer discussion at the begining of chapter 2 of > : the Super Scio book. > > : This section of the introduction was not meant to be a major > : theological thesis but simply a statement of the spiritual > : orientation that I was using and where I thought we were going. > > Major or abbreviated, it pays to say what we mean in a way that's > likely to be understood. Not to do so suggests we either don't know > what we're talking about, or are out of touch with other's realities. We are outside of the human frame of reference here. Because of this, the simple statement will always be out of touch with many people's realities. The simple statement I used was, I believe, in touch with some peoples realities but not with others. It would have communicated to me if I had read the book when I was young and did not know what I do now. It was not the right word for Homer, but he readily volenteered the correct word within his reality and I could immediately see the sense of it. The correct word for LRH would have been static, and he used it and it took me a long time to finally grook what he meant by it. > : I do believe that we all end up as creators exchanging our > : creations in infinite variety. > > : My policy of "no bait and switch" requires that I mention these > : things up front. But I should have emphasized that you don't > : have to believe or agree to work through the book. > > I heartily applaud the "no bait and switch"! :)) > > > : > > : Therefore, > : > > : God must be a nothingness with the power to conceive and create. > : > > > : > > This is one of the strangest statements I've ever heard! > : > > > : > > Why is not God and eternal spirit seen as positive consciousness, > : > > in the affirmative, primary, with all else defined in terms of them? > : > > : > All consciousness is a pock mark on the face of God. > : > > : > You conceive God to be a conscious unit. A Big Daddy. > : > > : > Someone you can relate to as in another being. > : > > : > God is the GROUND of consciousness, God is not conscious. > : > > : > There may be a being who is the author of this universe, but > : > at best you hired him to 'cast you into existence'. > : > > : > > This makes no sense to me at all. Ex nihilo is a myth and an appearance, > : > > as God created from His own consciousness and substance, and so do we. > : > > : > Garbage. You are lost Carol. Totally lost. > : > > : > That which creates consciousness can not itself be conscious. > : > > : > Consciousness can not come from consciousness. > : > > : > Homer > > : Homer has the right idea (although I would not have put it as bluntly). > > All this tells me is we have a misalignment. This is why the theological discussions tend to get very long. > : A positive concious God implies a negative concious devil and > : a good/evil dichotomy and all sorts of mess that would require > : looking earlier for prior cause. > > An positive/affirmative conscious God does not imply a negative conscious > devil, or any kind of devil. Nor does such a God imply a good/evil > dichotomy in any ontological or logical sense. Prior cause of devil and > evil now becomes a moot point. Positive does imply the existance of negative. But affirmative could be used in a way that doesn't. In other words, supportive or acknowledging rather than affirmative/negative. Conscious implies something to be conscious of, and therefore is not basic enough unless you are proposing steady state rather than something which has a begining. But perhaps "potential for affirmation" would be the right word to describe what I am trying to say in terms that might communicate adequately to you. In that context, I would say that there is a potential for affirmation which engenders a conciousness that brings forth the affirmations. But there is always more potential than fufillment, and so we are forever catching up with this. > : When I am talking about somethingness striving to balance the > : nothingness I am not talking about a dichotomy. > > : Perhaps it would be better to say the manifest which is always > : striving to catch up with the unmanifest but never actually > : does catch up because the unmanifest is a higher order of > : infinity (there is always more unmanifest implied by each > : manifestation that comes into existance and so it never catches > : up). > > OK, unmanifest is infinite, possibly even a higher order of infinity > than a hypothetical infinity of manifestation. Any actual manifestation > will be finite, so any [order of] infinity will do for the unmanifest. > > > : It is like the carrot hanging in front of the donkey. No matter > : how far he goes, the carrot is always ahead. > > : Not balance but a self perpetuating progression. And a desirable > : one except for the fact that we have lost awareness. Like > : surfing an infinite wave, but if you fall and get dragged > : under you have to struggle to get back up on top of it. > > : Or we could talk about a not-static which is striving to catch > : up with or balance a static that is always greater by definition. > > : But the real point is simply that I think we work towards > : more creation rather than less and that we accept an underlying > : commonality of spirit rather than finding the bad guys and > : getting rid of them. > > This is fine if we can accept an underlying commonality of spirit. I'm not sure if you're questioning it or simply emphasizing the importance of accepting it. To me it seems to be one of the most important points although it is difficult to prove. > Sometimes less is more, though, as in elegance, and quality over quantity > - all of which could be a "bigger game" and one way to interpret "more > creation rather than less." Fine. > : Its better to work through the book rather than getting lost > : in theological debates. > > In a religion or religious practice, theology is fundamental and not to be > brushed aside, even if many have been conditioned to not be interested in > theology and would be only too happy to brush it aside. There is no need > to get lost in theological debates even when elucidating theology. > > In pastoral counseling, theology, "therapy," and spiritual healing are > intimately related. Actualy I tend to agree, but it is not appropriate for the self clearing book which is meant to be a toolkit. When I first joined Scientology, I did not truely consider it to be a religion. I probably would not have joined it if I had thought of it in that way for I had a bad opinion of the organized religions at that time. It did seem to me to be nothing more that a leagle device. Little was done to change that opinion except for the running of processes. As I came to recall past lives and see myself as a spiritual being and see others as spiritual beings as well, I came more and more to religious and spiritual thought. I think that it took about a year or so, but by the end of that time I was certain that it was a religion even if some of the membership (and perhaps even Hubbard himself) had not "cognited" yet. In separating from the body and realizing that one is not of the material world, it is only natural to begin contemplating higher things. > : I depend on spell checkers > : to fix my sloppy spelling and they are useless for names. > > Spelling is an exercise in duplication. If you duplicate well > in one area, carry that over to spelling. Sloppy spelling from one > who otherwise duplicates well seems very strange to me, and I wonder > why duplication is not occuring. Pardon me while I obnose that. > Spelling may seem like a small thing, but it could be the tip of a > larger iceberg. It probably is the tip of an iceberg. But so are many other things. I prefer not to pretend to be in a state of perfection. As to duplication, I am far from duplicating all of this universe and so I follow up on what interests me most. I could play a Beethoven sonata long before I could spell his name properly, and I still might spell the name of the sonata itself incorrectly. > : Thank you, this has been helpful. > > : The most important practical point is that I should have said > : more in the appendix for professionals. > > It's never too late. I hope you consider the posted version a beta copy > and incorporate finishing ideas based on feedback, further reflection, > etc. A book is a major undertaking, but for all that, most authors who > self-publish go to press too quickly, with too little feedback. Certainly. I even said that it was a Beta release in one of the early sections. I am accumulating these things. And the posts get into the Pilot archives where others can find them. And I think that we will learn much as the first group of pioneers push through the book. > : The early part of the book does have kid gloves on. The new > : people do need a gradient and a chance to work up to things > : and I had to assume that they would be alone without a helping > : hand even though this might not always be the case. > > : Advanced students and professionals should feel free to beef > : things up (like Carol's wanting to add a flow zero to the > : above process) when it seems appropriate to them. > > : I am nowhere near as pedantic as Hubbard as far as not wanting > : anybody to even breath in the presence of the sacred process > : commands. > > : And he wasn't that pedantic in the 1950s either. Listen to > : any of the 1950s auditing demos. In the later days he was > : simply allowing for auditing done by idiots. > > Can we ever afford to have auditing done by idiots? > All I can say is, I wouldn't want to be audited by an idiot. Me neither. But that did seem to be the tone of the later training. Don't think, just do by rote because you are too stupid to do the right thing. I had some good auditors who were far from idiots. But they were treated as idiots anyway, not allowed to use their judgement. And the occasional time I was audited by an idiot, the rote procedure didn't really help much. But this was perhaps an aid for people who were learning to audit. Not stupid but simply inexperienced. > - CBW > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | cbwillis@netcom.com | "Values are the infrastructure | > | | upon which civilization | > | | will be reinvented." - CBW | > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Best Wishes for the New Year, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - THE KING IN YELLOW THE KING IN YELLOW "The King in Yellow" is a facinating old horror novel from, I believe, around the turn of the century or a bit thereafter. It has been many years since I ready it and the author and publishing date escape me, but it was apparantly so well known in the thirites and forties that there are other horror stories which are takeoffs on it or about people who found the true underlying source behind the story. The novel is about a book called The King in Yellow which drives people insane when they read it. It supposedly drives them insane because it describes the true underlying reality which we have repressed within our subconcious or something like that. The novel only gives vague hints about the true contents of the insanity making book of the same title. I believe that this novel was highly popular and well known to L. Ron Hubbard when he wrote Excalibur. I believe that in writing Excalibur he was trying to write the true King in Yellow. Hence the stories of people going insane by reading Excalibur. But it must have failed to created the desired effect (people jumping out of windows and so forth as described in the King in Yellow novel) or else he would never have put the section on "The Mind's Protection" in DMSMH. Despite the later legends about Excalibur, I'm sure that he learned that you couldn't knock people off their rockers no matter what you wrote in a book. But I think it explains how quick he was to jump to conclusions and decide that the upper levels had to be kept confidential. He still had that idea of The King in Yellow deep down. There never was any testing of whether this was really the case or not. At least not until the internet. We now have empirical validation that open discussion of Xenu, body thetans, or implant platens does not make people sick or drive them insane. It does, however, encourage the creation of extremely funny jokes. I do not believe that it is possible to write the true King in Yellow. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Klaus About Testing TO KLAUS ABOUT TESTING On 21 Dec 97, Klaus Bloemker continued the discussion on subject "Super Scio - mediaevel reasoning" > NoGoot wrote: > > > Klaus Bloemker, self proclaimed bigot writes: > > >> Thanks for your SELF CLEARING BOOK - it's a nice honest failure. > > > Klaus Bloemker: Bigot who "knows" something is a failure without > trying it. > > That sounds like a valid empirical argument - 'knowing' without trying > is no good. > But maybe I should teach you a lesson on what empirical knowledge is: > You have to do a comparative double-blind test on self-clearing tech to > know whether it works. (Both the auditor and the subject must not know > whether the tech that is applied comes from astrology, psychoanalysis, > Hubbard or whatever, plus a random tech.) This is of course hard to do. > You can do a more simple survey test. From a random sample of > Scientologists: is there an overall positive or negative correlation > between the number of years in Scientology/the amount of auditing > received and success in life (measured by income or other indicators)? > My point is: The very idea of empirical testing is lacking. Actually I would like to see empirical testing. The idea has not been totally lacking but it has been approach in a manner that was amaturish, sloppy, and often too highly prejudiced. There has often been before and after IQ testing. This was honestly done in 1966 to 1968 at the organization where I was working. We used the California Capacity Questionier, NOT a Scientology test for this. It was properly administered and the testing officer administered the tests without concern for whether they were before or after. At one point I was Director of Examinations and the testing officer reported to me, so I am familiar with the procedures used at that time. With the usual foolishness, nothing was done with these records and no correlations were performed. The tests were simply used as a before and after evaluation of the individual and they were allowed to see the scores. Since they occasionally went up and otherwise remained the same, they sometimes helped with selling the person their next service and were otherwise harmless. The resulting tests remained in the PC folders so that the auditors could evaluate how the person was doing. I was very interested and when I had the opportunity, I did try to monitor the results and come to some conclusions. My personal observation was that there often was no significant change but there were occasional cases of a marked jump of 20 or more points and I saw one which jumped from around 125 to 175 after 25 hours of auditing. It seemed like there was no steady gain (points per hour like Hubbard proposed in the early 1950s) but some cases (perhaps twenty percent?) had a dramatic one shot jump. My supposition was that auditing occasionally released some very deep seated blockage or trauma resulting in a marked IQ increase and otherwise did not affect IQ. This is, of course, undocumented and based on my personal observation. And the organization was totaly unwilling to do any kind of correlation or examination of these scores beyond putting them in the PC folders as ordered by Hubbard. Then came the introduction of "standard tech" in late 1968. This innocuous testing procedure turned into a nightmare for the organization because the IQ scores began going down by what seemed like about 10 to 15 points in many cases. This was on an honestly done CCQ. And of course they stopped telling the people their before and after scores because some people got very upset. The California Capacity Questionier and "wog" IQ tests in general were declared to be suppressive products of the evil psychs. And Hubbard himself developed a new IQ test which did not show such a marked decrease occuring in auditing. But even that one showed occasional decreases. The Hubbard IQ test only goes to a maximum of 152 (male) rather than 200. I suspect that it honestly tests certain IQ factors while omitting others. Possibly emphasising verbal rather than math orientation. After I had done the Hubbard test a few times, I again did a CCQ to get my Mensa membership and this was distinctly the feeling I had. I actually suspect that the test was developed by taking an ordinary IQ test and omitting those sections which seemed to drop after running quickie grades on a PC. I believe that the IQ drop mostly disappeared when the quickie standard tech was replaced by expanded grades in 1970. But there is no way to tell because they never went back to using standard IQ tests. ----- Then of course there are the APA/OCA tests. You will probably argue that they are not accepted by the psychologists and that the factors tested have not been established as to their significance. The Scientologists do have a prejudice in wanting an individual to be dynamic and able rather than well adjusted. I would say that these tests are a bit amaturish and that one could argue about the premises and the baseline but that the psychologists have nothing better. I actually consider it to have been a good start, but then with the usual blindness, the Scientologists cast it in concrete instead of continuing to refine and verify and improve the test. And yet again, there is no attempt to correlate results from these. They are only used for before and after evaluations of individuals. Scientology has probably performed more personality testing than any other organization in the world and the results are simply filed away with no further thought about the matter. It is like ritual testing as part of the religion rather than any kind of scientific study. A foolish waste, used for nothing more than to get buttons that can be pushed on somebody to sell him something. Note that Scientology also had a lot of trouble with crashed APA scores in 1969 (both IQ and APA scores dropped after applying quickie standard tech) but they couldn't touch those tests because they were Hubbard's and inviolate. This to some degree validates the test at least a little bit. It did record the bad effect during the year of the worst tech ever delivered. But of course they don't cross correlate these tests and they don't even know which of the current processing rundowns actually raise these scores and which might actually be dropping them. Some case supervisors might know based on their own individual observations, but there is no central examination of these results. ----- Double blind experiments are very difficult in this area because the participant must be mentally involved with the activitiy. I would see it best done with individual processes, to better isolate which factors are important and can produce results. In other words, one could issue two processes, one innocuous and one expected to be effective and present them with the same hype to classes of volenteers. But the sampling must be of a large number of people because there is so much individual variation. In auditing one often goes along for awhile getting minor results and then one hits some key item which produces a sudden spectacular gain. One is using an artillery barrage to hit a target rather than being able to aim successfully. I think that there has been a bit of this in the form of trying different services and processing lineups. But the evaluating criteria was what percentage of the graduates signed up for the next service rather than any true evaluation of before and after testing. Since everything is promoted with maximum vigor and sales hype, this is to some degree a valid test. But it is a test of what people will pay for instead of what they will really make gains from. This is why the organization has been so effective at making money from its members. There is true empirical testing and evaluation of what will make money. I would love to see true double blind testing of various processes co-audited by classes of volenteers with adequate before and after testing and proper correlation of the resulting scores. I doubt that such a thing will be done within the current money grubbing fanatical organization. ------ I would love to see a true test of the self clearing book. It could be set up as follows: Let us have 3 classrooms full of sociology students volenteer for this, all in the same year of study at the same university. Create 3 groups, drawn equally from each of the 3 classes (so that the particular class or instructor introduces no bias). All students commit to investing one hour per day to the experiment, with one day (of their choice) off per week to allow for unavoidable distractions and they agree to participate for 3 months. Group A is to spend the time working with the self clearing book. Group B is to read Shakespear (which I will expect to produce some degree of self improvement). Group C is to watch television. The instructors themselves are not to know what is being tested (so that they will not be inspired to lecture on the evils of self clearing) and are not to know who is in which group, they simply make their students available and aid in the before and after testing. The materials (self clearing book or a volume of Shakesphere or back issues of TV guide) are packaged in boxes and adjusted to equal weight. They are numbered and unlabled and the students are advised to keep secret which line of study they are engaged upon. Let there be extensive before and after testing. This should include at least two highly respected IQ tests. It should also include (as a favor to me even if you don't like the test) the APA/OCA. It should also include whatever psychological tests that you deem appropriate. A further test is to be an evaluation of the change in grade averages of the students between the year (or semester) following the test as compared with the one prior to the test. Perhaps the study of Shakesphere yields an average increase of 3 points whereas the watching of TV lowers it. And as to the self clearing book, who knows? But I would hope for a significant improvement. The orthodox Scientologists are certainly too fanatical and prejudiced to do such a test. Is this also true of the sociologists, or have I been listening to too many anti-establishement rantings from Hubbard? I hope that the latter is the case because I would really like to see such a test done. ------ As to mediaevel thinking, I think that you are just using a loaded word. I personally dislike the blindness of the dark ages. I would prefer to be compared to the classical Greeks. Both have much philosophy and ideas about the spirit. And both are weak on the subject of practical and empirical testing. But the one laid fertile ground for the advancement of knowledge and the other burned heritics at the stake. I am allied with the philosophers rather than the book burners. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - TO JR30A ABOUT FOOTBULLETS TO JR30A ABOUT FOOTBULLETS On Dec 26, jr30A@webtv.net (via iap.bryant.webtv.net> issued a series of posts aimed at his foot and likely to get him in trouble with OSA. Either OSA was in such a hurry to get people online that they neglected to hat him fully, or he had an MU, or he is so innocent that he doesn't know about Issue Authority and hasn't yet realized that OSA will be calling on him if he keeps opening his mouth like this. If it is innocence, the first word he will hear is a polite suggestion that he "get fully hatted before he posts to the internet". They wouldn't be obvious about how tightly they try to control the comm line unless he proves difficult. With that out of the way, I'm going to answer a few of these posts. They are all of the same date. He posted them to ACT but I'll crosspost to ARS as well since this may be of general interest. ------------ On subject "Re Super Scio - Discussing the End of Scientology" > Hello! I mistakenly clicked on your posing here and read some of it. I > don't really know who you people are but I think you should know the > following: Delightful! Do you realize that you get a special footbullet award for talking to me or calling attention to my posts? Are you aware that I have been posting volumes of material to the internet and even occasionally addressing messages to the various OSA shills and they studiously ignore them and never ever hint that they even know that I exist? You are the first loyalist who has EVER responded to a post that I made or even continued a discussion with someone else after I posted something about it. You'll see why they avoid talking to me in just a momement. > 1) I have been in Scientology for 4 1/2 years and I havn't seen > anything like what you are describing in your posting.. I have been in for 32 years. I am still, actually, a member in good standing because I still do believe in the goals of the subject and I have many friends who are involved. Of course I wouldn't remain in good standing if they find out who I am. If you think that means I am 1.1, I suggest that you listen to the tape "Welcome to the Sea Org" and find out what fabian means. Or read my "Scientology Reformer's Homepage" (URL below) and find out what it really means to be true to the subject and watch it going to hell all around you. > 2) Scientology personally help me overcome my personal barriers and > problems that were stopping me in life-the only reason I and my > friends are interested in Scientology is because it works! Me too. I agree fully about the tech working. I even get some flak occasionally from the critics on ARS because I do say things like that. I suspect however that you have either not yet gotten very much tech or have paid fantastic sums of money, unless of course you are like me and got most of it in the old days when auditing was only 20 dollars an hour instead of about 500 (funny, that is a 25 to 1 increase and the inflation has only been about 5 to 1). And I mostly co-audited or got professional rates (10 per hour) so it wasn't too bad for me. > 3) If you know anything remotely about Scientology, you may be familiar > with the term "Squirrel"; a squirel is someone who can't get results > from what THEY THINK is Scientoloy but is actually not Scientology. A > squirrel is someone who doesn't understand the technology so they alter > it to fit themselves; when applied correctly, however, the technology > works 100% of the time. I agree, it can be tough sometimes, but it does > work. Of course it works. I have had tremendous gains. But I also get gains from things that you might think are squirrel. They are not. Its only "squirrel" if it has been altered into unworkability. That is the old definition from the days before the Sea Org became suppressive to the tech. I am one of the greatest proponents and supporters of Ron's early work who is still active and talking out in the open. Unfortunately, the Ron of the 1950s would be declared a squirrel if he walked into an org today and started saying what he used to in the old days. I put pleanty of LRH quotes on the homepage. You can verify every one. Most of those statements would get any modern Scientologist in hot water really quickly. > 4) Another term you may be familiar with is "Nattering"; it means > random critisism without any real basis and it always seems to stem from > the persons own crimes. People tend to wantonly criticize others in an > attempt to justify their own hidden crimes against them. From what I > read in your posting, I suspect your crimes are the only thing that's > making you unhappy with the subject and I have a feeling they are > NUMEROUS and SERIOUS MY FRIEND-THINGS YOU PROBABLY COULD BE SENT TO JAIL > FOR! Have a nice day. You said it yourself. It is only Natter if there is no real basis for the criticism. Therefore I am not nattering by definition. Check it out. Ask Artie Maren, for example, if he was thrown overboard while he was doing the Class 8 course on the ship in the old days. I know he was because he told me so. He is still in good standing so you don't have to dub-in any stupid ideas about some critic makeing up lies. ------------------ On subject Re: Super Scio - Signs of Implosion (Attn Bernie)" > hey guys-happened uopn your posting here. > First of all, what he hell are you talking about? > You seem to have some knowledge of Scientology but I guess you have't > read KSW 1. Ha Ha. I even did it in clay once, demonstrating each point and had it checked out by a Class 8 CS. I sure do know what that policy says and I certainly don't have any MUs on it. But understanding what it says does not mean that I am in compulsive agreement with it. I really apply the tech. Per the PDC (Philadelphia Doctorate Course), compulsive agreement is a trap and you should work at disagreeing. And I have good reason for disagreeing with KSW. It was in force during the quickie era and its actual effect was to Keep Scientology From Working. > LRH moved on in '86 after completing his research. I recall him sayng > that there is no need to add to it or change it-it works as it is. You are either thinking of the silly shore story made up by Pat Broker (who has since been tossed out) or the final RJ which doesn't sound like Ron speaking. We are still on a research line. Wake up and smell the coffee. As far as Ron's passing, I honestly believe that he did want to die in the manner of Tibetan Gurus so that he would have a shot at trying to figure out the between lives area. According to the Tibetan material, and according to various near death researchers, and according to my own experience (I have had a near death experience), if the body is dying slowly in an alert and undrugged state, you have a brief period as the body dies where the body's sensory system shuts down and stops overwhelming you and you are exterior with full perceptions and fully concious because you are still getting energy and havingness from the body (I had this as I almost died, my story is in the Super Scio book). Shortly after that, your energy level drops and the thetan gets overwhelmed by the loss and tends to go unconcious. So you have that one chance to do OT drills and build up enough havingness and energy to stay concious and avoid the between lives implants. If you die while drugged, you are still getting the residual drug effects from the body during this critical period. So a master will get off all drugs shortly before he thinks that he is going to die (perhaps a week to let the body really dry out if possible) no matter how painful it is so that he will have a shot at excaping from the trap as the body dies. Read the critics accounts of Ron's death. There is one wild point which nobody, critic or Scientologist, seems to understand. And that is that Ron made them take him off drugs for that last week. The above is the reason why. No critic would have made that up because it doesn't make sense to them. The above is the only reason that makes any sense at all. He was preparing to die in the guru's manner. And that would have let him try to carry the research forward even though I doubt that he was dropping the body on purpose. But the bastards did him in. They shot needles into him on the last day. There are pictures of the needle marks on his ass. It was a drug that could have been administered orally, so it was forced against his will. They destroyed his chance to come through the between lives area with his memory intact. If anybody could have done it, it would have been him, but they needed him to sign some papers and he must have been truculent, so they fixed him but good. > If you have a problem with some aspect of it, then i suspect you have a > misunderstanding you should look to clear up or perhaps there are some > personal reasons you can follow the technology as stated. > Its all fine for you to have your own opinions on Scientology, but all I > see you doing here is NATTERING! If its not right for you-fine! I know > it worked for me and all my friends. Perhaps you should take some > personal inventory of your past and see if there is some reason you > can't follow standard tech=remember its a persons own crimes that stop > them or cause them to rage against a betterment group. Have I mentioned that I am a fully hatted Ethics Officer? I actually star rate checked out the entire pack. I know this stuff better than you do. In actual practice, I am acting as a betterment group. Actually giving more tech to people than the org is right now (pick up the self clearing book which is freely available on the net). I do it for free as a bit of an amends for the evil money making behavior of the CofS so that the tech wouldn't be totally lost by their overts. On that basis, you might consider whether you have crimes that are causing you to rage against me. Or you might re-evaluate the policy in the light of more data. Remember that policy is a guiding thing (see "Theory of Orgs, What is Policy) and wasn't even meant to be taken literally like standard tech. ------------ On subject "Re: Super Scio - DEAR OT 8" > Pilot, Does the word "Squirrel" mean anything to you? If I were you, I > would get in for some sec checking, PRONTO my friend. I was also HCO sec checker once (the good old musical chairs days, I've been on almost every post). Yet again you have very little idea what you are actually talking about. The real crime is that the org started using the withholds against the PCs. Violating the sanctity of the confessional. I discussed this a bit in the Super Scio book, but you would have to look at the critics web sites for most of the details. I assure you that this crime committed by the orgs is indeed true. ----------- On subject "Re Sex with PreClears" > Folks, you have an uncanny ability to fabricate stories on the web. My > congratulations. having sex with people one is trying to help is > strictly grounds for wanting to be involved in Pyschiatry===NOT > Scientology. If yours was an authentic complaint or report there, it > would not appear here on the web in such colorful and crafty retoric but > on Church lines and would be handled immediately and would involve the > proper authorities. I dont have any stats for this but I would say a > Dianetics auditor havng sex with a preclear is about as common as a duck > wearing sneakers. If you want the stats for psyciatrists going to JAIL > for sexually abusing their patients, the numbers of cases appear almost > daily in any newspaper in the world. How do you like them apples?? Now my friend, you have truely put your foot in it. OSA is going to have your ass for this one. Of course I agree with you. So will all the freezoners. What you are objecting to is a post by an OSA shill who is attempting to dead agent Ralph by false accusations of sex with PCs. You have sided with the freezoners against the church. Congradulations. ----------- On subject "re To Clearing Practitioners" > On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 05:34:20 -0500, in alt.clearing.technology > jr30A@webtv.net wrote: > > >Ralph: Hey man Merry Christmas! > >Wow! What kind of advice did you give Rob-The drills will adapt to > >solo? Ahhhh, man thats pretty squirrely. Do them standardly so they > >will work! Thats what you want isn't it? > > No. It is not squirrelly. Squirrelling is rendering the tech > unworkable. The "standard" drills for solo on the solo course as > taught in the CofS are the e-meter drills adapted for solo. I used to > supervise the solo course and advanced courses at Flag. > > I do not see why someone should pay fortunes to a money leeching > out-tech institution like the CofS. I prefer workable tech. > > Ralph > > "You won't always be here. But before you go, whisper this to your sons and their sons - > The work was free - keep it so" LRH 1957 > > Freezone: www.fza.org www.clearing.org www.freezone.org Let me just back Ralph up here. I have done the solo course (and full OT 7 at flag) and this is exactly correct. There is no separte set of solo emeter drills, just a line on the checksheet that says to take the emeter drill book and do it solo. ----------- I think that that is enough for now. I think that I'll ignore any other foolish posts like this. Read the Scientology Reformer's Homepage. Think about it. Examine the evidence carefully. When you are ready to discuss things in an intelligent and sensible manner, I'll be happy to reply (although there is often some delay because I only bulk post occasionally to make it harder to find me). I don't even insist on being right, I just insist on honest thought instead of blind parroting. ARC (I do not mean this in jest), The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Lakis About Ls ANSWERING LAKIS ABOUT THE LS On 27 Dec 97, lakis agrogiannis asked on subject "To The Pilot" > Hello mr Pilot, > > I read with great interest your postings in general, I even read > Super Scio and Self Clearing (actually started to read them, and > I will do so, in due time), but I would like a comment. > extensive if you can, on the so called "Ls". I didn?t see anywhere any > mention of them. How important do you consider them to be. Isn?t the EP > of L11(new life) something highly desirable? And are the Ls exact > materials available anywhere outside the Cof Scn? I would appreciate > your thoughts on the matter. > > happy new year > lakis The major target of the entire L series (L12, L11, and then L10 which are generally run in that order) was the state of Clear OT. The Clear OT state is best described as ceasing to compulsively create a time track. This is not the official definition, which is simply "no track" but it is a better working definition because one can still mockup a track or find incidents and one does not loose one's time sequence. But a certain compulsion to hold onto one's history and mock it up compulsively seems to disappear when this state is achieved. L10 worked towards this state by addressing early track overts, looking for the critical one which apparantly caused the individual to keep this track mocked up. Note that an individual will try to reverse the time sequence of events so as to move an unjustified overt which was followed by a motivator to a later time so that the motivator will be first so as to justify the overt. For example, he burns down the school. Then he has trouble with schools. Then he misremembers and says that the trouble happened first and then he burnt the school down to get even. If the overt is serious enough, he doesn't just pretend to do this but may actually misremember. This alteration causes his time track to become very solid and he holds it there compulsively so as to assure himself that his big overt came later rather than before the motivator. When this is relieved, he no longer has to hold this time track in place compulsively because he no longer needs to force the events to remain out of sequence. But L10 was too difficult, so they introduced L11 and then L12 as a gradient up to this. There are freezone reconstructions of these available on the net. I do not like the Ls style approach. The entire rundown seems to be too forcing and evaluative and there have been rumors of unstability. I achieved the Clear OT state with good awareness, certainty, stability, and, I feel, much more understanding of how it happened, by getting run on expanded grade 2 after clear. It occured on running a very far backtrack unjustified overt of great magnitude which had been forced out of sequence as I described above. When the overt went, it seemed like the entire timetrack went with it. I believe that this is the best way to approach this area. Namely, by making deeper and deeper reruns of grade 2, working to earlier and heavier overts. One would have to run other things in between so as not to invalidate the first release point and so as to have more ability to go earlier. Grade 2 was the best thing that we ever had on the subject of overts. All the other handlings (HRD, Ls, and Sec Checks) are evaluative and tend to force the PC. Grade 2 (and similar processes on grade 4) raise the PCs responsibility on a gradient without evaluation and therefore result in the maximum ability to think clearly and operate in an ethical manner. Grade 2 is easy to run and can be done solo (not according to the CofS of course). The Ls on the other hand require the maximum skill level (Class 12) that the CofS has and might well just make a mess if done solo. I would tend to expect that many people would get the Clear OT state on a through second pass through the self clearing book (doing the sections that deal with overts). But I probably should have included a bit more of the above theory concerning the effect of overts on the time track. Happy New Year, The Pilot ========================================== subj : SUPER SCIO TECH - ANSWERS ABOUT THE BOOK ANSWERS ABOUT THE BOOK Some questions have come up that I thought I should answer. On 22 Dec 97, "Rob" asked on subject " THE PILOT " > First of all, I'd like to thank you for all your work (both technical and > towards reform) that has had a great impact on myself and many others. I've > been a Scientologist for several years, but found the tech out of reach due > to prices. I'm very excited about your new book, but not being trained, I > had a few questions for you. So here it goes: > > 1). Is it possible to over run objective processes (like the wall drill) by > doing it too many times (seperate sessions)? It is possible to overrun an objective by running it too long in one sitting. One might then feel overrun when one tries it again. If you do feel overrun when you start an objective drill, the best bet is to rehab the win either by simply spotting that you are overrunning or by counting how many times you have gone release on it and then leaving that one alone for the time being. But it probably will run again with further benifit at a later date. If you work any one technique too much to the exclusion of all others, you will eventually have trouble because of things that the technique is not addressing. But it is hard to overrun objectives. > 2). Is there any "non interference zone" in your new clearing book > that one could run into problems by doing a process at a bad time? I believe that the CofS non-interference zone was an artifact of grinding away too long at implant platens. The original clearing course was to be done ten time through the materials. Early CC students often spent a year at it. Often they had only had a few dozen hours of other auditing and very little case handling before they did this. By this point they might well have been running items out of entities because their own had errased long since and therefore they needed to get onto some kind of entity handling level such as OT 3 without any further distractions. The self clearing book takes a light approach rather than a grinding one and expects that you will push through to much deeper levels on a second pass rather than trying to grind away at any one area early on. After a first pass, you should have a large array of techniques including a light Nots handling available for use as rudiments if pushing one level too hard starts stirring up something else. Also, the CofS has a tendency to insist on running particular processes and often creates trouble by doing unnecessary actions. Pushing this into the middle of a series of OT levels would give trouble. But with the light self clearing approach, one would not try to force a process that wasn't running. > 3). When performing a solo process, would you say the command out loud, > silently to yourself, or is that irrelevent as long as you understand and > follow the command? Also, is the "ack" that follows a command dropped in > solo? In professional processing, the processor must be careful to deliver the command, get a response, and acknowlege it and this communication cycle is very critical to getting good results. It is hard to mess this up in solo auditing because you do not have to solve the problem of relaying things between two different people. The general rule of thumb is that one does what feels comfortable while being sure to get the command done and continue moving forward. When checking questions on an e-meter, one needs to think them precisely to get a proper reaction and some people like to say them out loud for this reason although it is really unnecessary. There is no other reason for saying the commands out loud. I expect that most people will be doing the book without using a meter. Professionals who are running it on themselves will know when to do things in a formal manner. With objective drills, it is generally best simply to do the drill without continually stating the command to yourself. In other words, you might simply spot precise points in the room rather than saying to yourself "spot a point", then spotting it, then saying "thank you", then saying "spot a point" and so forth. On subjective processes, you can often just take each command from the page and do it, but sometimes it helps to think the command to yourself. Here you do what feels necessary to get your attention on the command and do it and you do what feels comfortable to you. Note that Ron's Self Analysis book just has the reader do the commands without any formal procedure. For acknowlegements, there is a bit of recognizing that you have done something which helps to validate you and keep you moving. Again you do as much of this as feels necessary to keep yourself moving along comfortably. People who are trained professionally often like to precisely shift back and forth between their auditor and PC hats because they have drilled the auditor hat so intensively and may run deeper as a result. This could include formal statment of commands and acknowledgements. Trained people should do this if it seems more comfortable. Eventually the formalities become nothing more than a distraction and one simply does the commands. To some degree formal procedure will help with the more difficult processes initially but I did not want to distract beginners with learning formalities that they would discard eventually anyway. As a result, beginners might skip some processes as too difficult that they might have been able to run with a lot of formal training, but they will pick those up on a second pass. > 4). While on a subjective process, if an answer to one of the commands just > doesn't come to me, how long should I spend searching for it. Should I skip > it and come back to it if nothing comes to mind or stick with it until > something does? It depends whether the process has started running or not. If you had some answers, it shows that you can answer the question. As the process begins to work, you might then bump into some charge or difficulty and it is a mistake to drop it at that point. What sometimes happens is that you find some easy surface answers and now you are on the edge of finding a deep answer, so it might take some time and you shouldn't give up on it. If it is taking absurdly long, you might take a break, but you shouldn't push another subjective process in on top of it. I would even sleep on it and check again in the morning before abandoning something as unrunable if it had shown signs of starting to run. The potential gains from confronting something that had been out of reach is worth the trouble. But all this only applies if it has started running and is not overrunning. Overrun is discussed in chapter 2 so that one can learn about it before doing any subjective processes. That can also make it very hard to answer a question, but it will have run well with real answers and real benifit first. How hard to push at a process that hasn't started running yet is a matter of judgement. If it is part of a set of related processes and one of them has already run well, you might keep on a bit longer. If it is an area of high interest, you might keep on a bit longer. If you were not feeling your best before starting, you might try again when you are feeling a bit better. Also, sometimes if you have just had a really big win, the next process might briefly not be of interest because you are still feeling especially good from the earlier one. But aside from these factors, making a good try for a few minutes should be long enough on a process that isn't running yet. You can go back and run something that you skipped if your attention keeps going back to it. Eventually you will get a feel for when you are shying away from something that could be run with tremendous benifit versus trying a command that simply doesn't have anything accessible at the moment. > My apologies if these questions seem very basic...but I didn't have a half > million laying around to find anything out in the CofS. These were excellent questions which I am sure will be of help to others. This was the exact kind of thing I was worried about having missed because I would take certain things for granted. > If you ever have a moment of doubt > about the impact you're having, I just want you to know that > what you are doing is giving a chance to many (the majority) to go free. > You have my vote for president :-) This is encouraging. And yes, I do have moments of doubt. I believe that the book will give you everything the modern CofS could and more besides, but the actual testing is just as shallow as Hubbard's work was. For me, the true research run is now, with honest feedback from people as they work through the book. Since the money motivation and self righteousness are not a part of it, and since there is no arm twisting or forcing square pegs into round holes, I think that we will really find out for the first time how far one can go with these processes. > Please keep up the good work... > > MUCH LOVE (and I don't mean that half heartedly), Rob Yes I plan to. There is much more to be learned. ---------- On 19 Dec 97, Jim Fuller posted on subject "pilot self clearing" > minor typo on part one from FZA page > "... > 7. Rightness......The road our" (should read out I believe > please don't send back for more word clearing Correct. This is in the introduction. > later on, the word "hubris" couldn't find it in my basic dictionary. > can someone define for me. See below. > "If you yourself are already a profession" should read "professional"? Correct. This is in "Advice and Warnings". > I hope thes points aren't annoying. I am just so excited about pilot > project and would like to contribute where I can. > > bye for now > > doctor java This is helpful. A professionally published book would have been further proofed by an editor to catch things like this. ---------- On 20 Dec 97, cbwillis@netcom.com (C. B. Willis) answered the above request for a definition. > Hubris is an old Greek term meaning arrogance or acting like one is a law > unto oneself. Hubris was considered a fatal character flaw by the ancient > Greeks. > > - CBW > http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/1802 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | cbwillis@netcom.com | "Values are the infrastructure | | | upon which civilization | | | will be reinvented." - CBW | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Exactly. It especially has the implication of ignoring important things, almost like a godlike apathy. And the usual fatality is due to ignoring a correct warning because it comes from a lesser being. It was thought to be the malady of the Gods and the reason for their downfall. I am tempted to define Hubris as having the quality or characteristics of a Hubbard, especially as to arrogance and distaining the advice and warnings of "lesser beings" even when they were correct (joke). ---------- E-METERS There have been a number of requests for information about the E-meter. There is a short discussion of it at the begining of Chapter 22, "More on Upsets". I put it that late in the book because it is only at this point that it would help to be able to do an assessment if one has a meter. Perhaps I should add a more extensive appendix on the subject. But what you really need is a number of the clearing series booklets, namely "The book introducing the E-Meter" (or the "Understanding the E-Meter" book), "The book of E-Meter Drills", and the one on "E-Meter Data" which should include the "Instant Read" HCOB which was included in the later editions. But using an E-meter would be a major distraction for a beginner unless he was already trained as an auditor. The tendency would probably be to sit and stare at the E-meter (and get the needle stuck as a result) instead of looking at one's case. If, by some chance, you are not really flying already (meaning that it is easy to get a floating needle at session start), or the tone arm is out of range (reading high or low), or you are having trouble, the E-meter will tend to be a distraction and an invalidation unless you are highly enough trained to do a major case repair such as a CS 53 on yourself. This advice applies to partially trained professionals too. The processes in the early chapters will run on a case that isn't set up and should gradually get the case flying anyway as long as the person isn't staring at a meter and invalidating each of the wins because the meter is not yet floating. Even the basic grade zero process was originally a repair action (see the book of case remedies) and will work on a case that is not yet flying. And in the early days of "life repair" (before the CS 53 came out), we would sometimes run lots of processes without a real floating needle until the tone arm gradually came into range and the case started flying. It will happen by the accumulation of mild wins as long as you don't have some electrical device evaluating for you. And it is easy to freeze the needle just by staring at it and the action of worrying what is wrong is almost guaranteed to make the needle "dirty" even if it had been floating. That is really why the auditor keeps the meter hidden early on in processing. The PC's attention goes on it and the needle stiffens up and the PC says "What's going wrong" and the session goes to hell. Doing some professional courses and working with the meter and seeing yourself on it during weeks of practical drilling, you get over this. Or once you are really flying (especially after getting a few grades of release), it doesn't matter any more, so the upper level students don't have a lot of trouble with this. But an untrained beginner is just going to snarl himself up when he should be doing some processing. A meter is really helpful when you are doing assesments or repair actions. It also makes it a bit easier to flatten an implant platen or dig for things that are slightly out of reach. And it is essential in researching a new implant. But it is a total distraction in doing objective processes or real OT drills and it is only marginally helpful in running repetative processes. In those cases it is only of use to the auditor in determining how you are feeling and you already know how you are feeling in solo so why add more complexity. By chapter 27, "Keeping Yourself Moving", you should know enough to keep yourself flying with or without a meter. From there on a meter would be an asset rather than a potential liability because it does help you run deeper and lets you spot mistakes more easily. A meter is not required even for the later parts of the book. But it can be of great help to an advanced student. In the old days, a class 0 or 1 auditor was not even trained to read a meter or recognize the meter reads. It was not actually useful in running the processes. They just had the meter sitting in front of them so that they could get used to it as part of the auditing session environment. They learned a bit about it on class 2, but they didn't do all the meter drills or really learn to handle a meter well until class 3 (which is chapter 22 in the self clearing book). If you are already trained as a solo auditor or a professional to the point where you can fly the rudiments and keep yourself flying, then you can use the meter while you run through the first chapters of the book. Note that in objectives and true objective OT drills you only use the meter to check for an FN (floating needle) after completing the drill. But even a trained solo auditor does not know enough to run setup actions on himself if he can't get the ruds to fly, in which case the right action is to run the book off of the meter until he has such a big blowout that he is flying anyway. This is even necessary for extremely advanced people if they start researching. In research, you run into things which you don't have a clue about how to handle and sometimes you go in backwards by mistake and make a mess. Then you have no repair and just need to cool things down and get yourself flying again without knowing how to fix what was wrong. The processes in chapter one even work under those circumstances and it is best to do that off of the meter, accumulating mild wins until you have a major gain that gets you flying again. Then you get back on the meter and take another shot at what you ran into. Once you know the anatomy of what you are handling, you can devise a repair, but you have to get through it once before you can figure that out. Note that Ron's "Creation of Human Ability" doesn't even mention the E-meter. It was not used at all at the time it was written. The meter was developed in 1952, abandoned by 1954, and not used again until 1958. The runway up to doing case repair is just too long. So you might as well run the processes while you study it. Case repair is chapter 27 and it assumes that you have already read the earlier chapters. It's just too much theory unless you do some processing too. So I would recommend leaving the E-meter for later unless you are already trained in using one. ------------ Hilderun has suggested that I add a glossery and I agree that this is a good idea. Eventually I'll get it done and posted but don't wait for it. Right now the book is like a prototype version of a high performance car but it is missing some of the niceties like doors and windows. Those will gradually get filled in over the next few months and eventually we will have an improved second edition. But this first crude version should take you further and faster than anything we've had before. Best Wishes for the Coming New Year, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - More on The End MORE ON THE END On 23 Dec 97, Xenu Mania posted on subject "Re Super Scio - Discussing the End of Scientology" > On 22 Dec 1997, The Pilot wrote: > > > But this is NOT THE END OF SCIENTOLOGY. > > > > IT IS THE BEGINING. > > This is why I feel that the Pilot and Roland are NOT mutually exclusive. Yes. I find Roland to be one of the more intelligent and enjoyable of the critics posting on ARS. Applying Scientology's emotional tone scale to him, he is obviously what the Scientologists would call "high toned". That they have made an enemy of such a person reflects badly on the organization. > When I first looked at this news group and saw names like Gerry Armstrong, > and Arnie Lerma, my first impression was, "That's funny. Scientology is > posting under the names of Gerry and Arnie", until I started reading some > of their posts. In other words, I trusted Co$ to be neither honest nor > helpful. I might add that they have exceeded my expectations. Therefore > I sympathize with Roland. Early on, the new Scientologist is enthusiastic and helpful. He wants to improve himself and he wants to help his friends and he often wants to do something for mankind as well. He is inclined to discuss the tech and chat about past lives and try processes on his friends in the coffee shop. Then Ethics or whomever gives him a talking to. He is made to see that these are BAD impulses. It might be "too restimulative" for people. He is "altering the tech" by trying to use it. And so these good impulses are twisted. He begins to make little white lies. He pushes the past lives under the carpet and sidesteps questions. He stops revealing the super secret processing commands or giving the tech away for free because he has be tricked into thinking that that might be dangerous to his friends. And then perhaps one is on staff and conditions are very bad. But one believes very much in the tech and knows that the bad situation is just some temporary stupidity. So one begins to withhold these things, not out of malice but from misguided good impulses. I had enjoyed being on staff from 1966 to 1968 and made gains from the tech, and as things gradually went bad, I didn't want to admit to the wrongness to outsiders because it would invalidate the good parts. And things kept getting worse until, by 1969, it had taken on the characteristics of a true horror story. By that year I was withholding and repressing things in great quantities and fighting with my doubts and bouncing on and off staff like a ping pong ball. I'm not talking here about withholding my own overts, I was withholding from public what was going on in the orgs out of a misguided desire to protect the subject from harm. And 1970 was a better year. The expanded grades came out and the tech improved. The penalties for lower Ethics conditions were canceled. Things were still bad but the signs were positive. And Ron was going to solve the problems of the orgs with a new wonderful course, called the Flag Executive Briefing Course, on how to manage an org properly. So I hung on and hoped for the best. But the FEBC graduates came back just as crazy as the first crop of Class 8s. They had been trained with force under severe pressure and the result was more blind fanaticism. And the penalties for lower conditions were reinstated in 1971. Eventually I couldn't take it anymore and my contract was up so I was gone from staff. But now I had this horrible mixture of fantastically positive and fantastically negative things all jumbled together. It left me totally deadlocked. And so I still couldn't talk openly. And so I kept my mouth shut, not wanting to lie, not wanting to promote the subject, not wanting to criticise the subject, not wanting to sucker people in, not wanting to drive people away and deny tech and freedom to them. I spent a few years in shell shock, but gradually I came back to battery and actually became very successful in the computer industry. And I found that many of the gains were still with me. I really could talk to anybody about anything, except about Scientology of course. I really didn't have any personal withholds or a need to withhold anything on my own behalf. But of course I was still sitting on a ton of withholds on the organization's behalf. And these kind of things would never run out in session. There was no auditor who was willing to hear how Ron had fucked up in teaching the Class 8s or FEBC students or about the mistakes in policy. And nobody wanted to think about the tech or discuss it intelligently or find out what was wrong with it. And there was as much wrong with it as there was right about it. With modern tech we had truely lost the sporatic keyed out OT phenomena which had been our real clue that we were breaking through into something beyond the human condition. From there I followed the path which I have talked about before, studying the early tech, living life and usually doing well at it, and fighting my way through lines at AO and Flag to do every OT level they could deliver, making gains but finding that the OT levels continually came up short, and eventually launching off into my own research effort. But through that whole period I kept my mouth shut. It is only in the last year with this wonderfully unrestrained communication on the internet that I have really opened up, and for me that has been a tremendous relief and purgative. I'm sorry for such a long digression, but there is an important point here. I kept my mouth shut for decades. I wouldn't lie, but I wouldn't talk either. That is the state of most Scientology staff, and it leaves the way open for any of the registrars or big league FSMs to put out whatever bullshit they feel like. The point is that the organization really cannot be trusted. It has the usual mixture of honest and dishonest people, but the honest ones are effectively checkmated by their desire to protect the tech and the only ones who say what they like are the dishonest ones. > On the other hand, here comes Pilot saying that we can trust him; he's not > the bad guy, Ron Hubbard was. My first tendency was to be skeptical, but > after reading some of his posts, Pilot makes some good points. Plus > people already have had enough of the fascist regime of the Co$ and are > not likely to make the same mistake all over again. I really hope so. The internet is a great help in this. The stuff is out there and it is beyond my power to control. Even if I should someday go bad and turn against my own creation or mess up so badly in further research that I turn paranoid or psychotic there would be little that I could do to put the lid back on. I'm not saying that this is what happened with Hubbard, but it is one of the possibilities and it is good to have a protection against it. > I'm not trying to support a belief system, I just don't think that people > should have to hide behind pseudonyms because of imminent persecution. > The Church of Scientology is a very real threat to members who dare say or > think anything different from their Big Brother Church. Yes, exactly. > If Co$ (which is how I designate the corporation of Scientology as > different from the beliefs of scientology) were half as good as they claim > they are, they would have been up on the net long before anybody else. > They would have led the pack in using the internet as a dissemination > tool. Look what happened. Instead, they characterize the internet as > something that criminals hide behind. Too bad about their luck. We both know that it wasn't luck but stupidity. They have worked very hard to dig their own grave on this one. > Joe Cisar > > reply to: iy085@cleveland.freenet.edu > http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/index.htm > I'm not against Scientology. I'm for freedom. > Support your local FreeZoner! I very much appreciate that you are hosting the new book and helping to make it available to people. The more web sites, the safer it is from attack and suppression and the easier it will be for people to find. I have great hopes about what people might gain from doing the book, but even if I am totally deluded about the power of the tech, it will have broken the CofS stranglehold and made it free and easy for people to try for themselves. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Humor - THE SEA ORGERS TALE THE SEA ORGERS TALE ---- Editorial preface - CHAUCER AND THE SEA ORG There is no known connection between Geoffrey Chaucer and the Sea Org. Furthermore, this section does not appear in the earliest editions of The Canterbury Tales. It is believed to be spurious, having been added to the work by a 15th century monk who had escaped from the RPF. ---- In those editions where it appears, this segment is placed following the Nun's Priet's Tale begining immediately after the following pair of lines - "Sir Chaplin", said our good Host, "by Saint Paul's" A blessing upon your britches and your balls! But in the crowd there did arise The sound of rendering and pitiful cries "My balls are gone" a pilgrim said "a man called Hubbard stomped them dead" Our host with shock viewed the man askew "Then tell us your tale without further adoo" Twas in my youth with a dream so grand I did join the Sea Org, signing with my own hand A contract that gave, to a group with poor reasons the use of my soul for a billion seasons But all would be well, for we had the tech My mind would be clear, my soul be perfect And long did I dream of that wonderous state My soul purged of overts, my mind a clean slate But the tech was elusive, none came my way all that I got was to work day to day I ate rice and beans, I slept very little I never left post except only to piddle I wrote endless letters, for that was my job to come get the tech, that I longed for so hard "Arise" yelled my senior, you are sleeping too long The stats must be doubled, your sloth is so wrong And there were the orders, their meaning was clear the letters must double or I'd be out on my ear I stayed up all night, I worked in a tizzy I had eaten no food, I even got dizzy But when came the count, at thursday at two My stat was one short, I almost then blew. But then did I think upon saving the planet If I abandoned the tech, the psychs they might ban it So I went to the muster, my face was cast down My senior looked over and gave me a frown "It's to the RPF, that now you must go, henceforth we will treat you like a low dirty Ho" A worse piece of shit was what I would be A low RPFer, upon whom all would pee But then there was light in the darkness ahead I would get to co-audit, I would go clear instead So I cheerfully lived with the smells and abuse Finally the tech would to me be of use But the word went to Hubbard, that deep in the hold Was a glad RPFer who was cheerful and bold So he came stomping down and gave forth a roar "Where is this cretin, that the RPF doth adore?" "Did you not know, that you're supposed to feel sad, You should be wretched, you're to learn that your bad" "The stats they were sacred, and you fucked them up You failed to double, it was not up to luck" "But if a Flag RPF is a tea party for you, I have a new place in which you might stew" "I create new reality, my postulates will tell The RPFer's RPF shall be your new hell" And when I heard this, I wanted to scream I wanted to rage for the loss of my dream But facing this man with the rage on his face, MAAs at his back and me in my place, I could not say a whisper or protest any more And that's when I felt my balls fall to the floor They fell out of my pants and rolled down the deck, and Hubbard did see them and say "Look at that drek" And then did he raise his boot up so high and stomped down on them as I stiffled a cry It was then that I knew that my soul was enslaved, this man would own it till he went to his grave That's the end of the tale of where my balls went of the rest of my life, t'was in slavery spent It is only now that I have freedom at last for the Hubbard eventually from the mortal world passed And so now you see me, as ball-less I wander and fare now to Canturbury, for my sad life to ponder ----- Thus ends The Sea Orger's Tale, a probably spurious but interesting reflection upon mideavel thought. ----- Here is to joking and degrading in the New Year Have a Happy One, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - TO VINCE ABOUT LOST TECH TO VINCE ABOUT LOST TECH On Sat, 27 Dec 1997, Vince Johnson wrote on subject "Re Super Scio - Discussing the End of Scientology" > What are we to do about the certain result that if the technology and > the rundowns are freely distributed they will be altered, then altered > again, then interpreted and re-interpreted by various experts, until the > tech is unrecognizable and unworkable? > Already, all over the planet, little gurus have sprung up, each saying, > "Come to me. I am the only one who knows how to free you." And if you > were to go to these gurus you would be processed with their own brand of > Scio, and presented only with what they thought important. Ultimately, > if this trashing of the tech continues we will have nothing. > > Remember, all Ron said was that he had produced a "workable" way out. We did not lose the Catholic Vulgate bible just because the King James was produced. And the King James did not disappear just because a profusion of later ones came out. We did lose much of the early material because a "standard" organization (the Catholic church) was trying to control the only authorized version of the materials. Endless effort has gone into researching and producing Bibles based on earlier source materials. My revised standard version has quite a discussion of sources in the preface and it is based on things that are later than the originals (they did the best that they could). Hubbard is hardly gone by a decade and already there is editing and alteration in the materials being released. The good job was the first set of tech volumes which traced the history and included alternate versions and footnotes about changes. The second set does not do this and you can no longer see the older context into which the original bulletins were released. So a tech expert needs both sets. But the original tech volumes omitted the confidential materials. So those are already subject to alteration and variation and confusion. If the originals are cheeply or freely distributed in quantity, they will never be lost. A single CDROM could hold everything (in text format) including transcripts of all 2900 tapes. I'm sure that it would sell well enough to cut production costs to the level of mass production. If the org produced and sold this at a reasonable price like fifty bucks, they would sell at least a million copies and the original tech would be around and available forever no matter what the freezone or the org or anybody else did. Of course I would like to get on my own hobby horse here and point out that standard tech is itself a standard of not using most of the tech developed in the 1950s. If the org had not savagely attacked freezone practicioners, you would have many more standard Class 8s and above delivering independent standard tech. Instead these are the most subject to attack because of copyrights and so the org encourages the development of alternative gurus who find ways of restating things to avoid attack. And the way the org is operating right now, it is sinking and the only standard tech that will be left in a decade might well be those few standard freezone practicioners who were not completely destroyed by the CofS. It should be encouraging those guys instead of leaving all our eggs in one basket. Resolving to have more tech and not less in the New Year, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - NEW SELF CLEARING WEBPAGE NEW SELF CLEARING WEBPAGE This is a webpage to promote the self clearing book, explaining what it is about and providing useful links. The idea is to make it a bit easier for Scientologists to stumble upon self clearing while browsing the net. It is done in text format with embeded HTML so that it is easy to post to the news system. Note that web browsers ignore the true carriage returns which make it easier to read with a newsreader. As always, I used archaic HTML conventions so that this will work with old as well as new web browsers. Many Scientologists have archaic computers and software. You need only save this as a .htm file and snip off the begining up through and including the start of webpage line below. Then you should be able to look at it as a local file from your browser. I am hoping that some helpful people will volenteer to host this page on the web. Thank You, The Pilot --- START OF WEBPAGE ----- The Self Clearing Home Page

THE SELF CLEARING

HOME PAGE

BY "THE PILOT"

1. WHAT IS SELF CLEARING

Self Clearing is the practice of using mental exercises and processes to clear oneself of barriers and abberations (distortions) which prevent one from operating in an optimum manner.

Processing consists of asking oneself questions and answering them not just once but many times so as to push through surface reactions and find deeper truths.

Mental exercises consists of doing actions repetatively to raise one's awareness and control.

You might, for example, simply look around the room and notice things that you like. If you do this a number of times in a row, you will focus your attention and the room will seem a bit brighter.

Or you might recall a time when you had fun and then recall a time when somebody else had fun, and alternate these two processing commands, recalling time after time until your recall penetrates to something that has been deeply burried and long forgotten.

These are just begining steps. There are thousands of these processes.

It is expected that by using these processes, you will raise your ability and awareness to undreamed of hights.

2. WHERE DOES THIS LEAD

The goal is to remove all mental blockage and regain full ability.

What that really means depends on what we really are.

The practice of self clearing does not presume to dictate what you will find or what abilities you will achive.

Belief in the theology of self clearing is not a requirement for practicing it.

With that in mind, we will say that the practicioners often discover a number of very incredible sounding things.

Extensive use of the recall techniques might lead to the rememberance of past lives.

Extensive use of the perception techniques might give one flashes of non-physical perception.

Working with things such as problems, one might discover that one creates one's own problems and brings one's own opposition into existance.

And at basic, one might well discover that we are godlike immortal beings who have become trapped within universes of our own creation.

But this is all nothing more than a speculation as to what you might find. In practice, you find whatever you find.

You certainly don't have to believe in past lives to practice the techniques. If you want you can chalk that one up to simply exercising one's powers of imagination. The techniques will still build up your abilities to focus and concentrate and handle situations in life.

3. WHERE DID THIS COME FROM

This practice has evolved from Scientology which was founded in 1952 by L. Ron Hubbard.

Scientology in turn was an outgrowth of Dianetics. It came about when the original Dianetic theories of all abberations originating in the prenatal area failed in practice and the engrams (painful incidents) were found to lead back to past lives instead.

Self Clearing is not sanctioned by the modern Church of Scientology. By their standards (as of 1997), it might even be considered to be sacrilidge.

Since Scientology places heavy restrictions upon its members and upon the uses of the techniques, the non-orthodox Scientologists are known as The Freezone and the two factions are currently (1997) heavily at odds with each other.

The Church of Scientology's own websight is at www.scientology.org

Freezone sites can be found by following these links among others -

  • Homer's Clearing Tech Archive at http://www.lightlink.com/clearing
  • FreeZone America Home Page at http://fza.org/index.htm
  • http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech
  • International Viewpoints http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
    •

    My own arguments for reforming Scientology can be found on The Scientology Reformer's Home Page which is available on these links among others -

  • http://fza.org/pilot/reformer.htm
  • http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/fza1000.htm
  • http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html
  • http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/scnreform.htm
    •

    And also on the "Reform Now, The Org's Grades Are Out" webpage which can be found at http://fza.org/pilot/reformer.htm

    Various criticisms of current Scientology practices can be found at these sites amoung others

  • Cornelius Krasel http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/
  • Tilman Hausherr's home page at http://berlin.snafu.de/~tilman
  • Andrea's OPERATION CLAMBAKE at http://home.sol.no/heldal/CoS/
  • David Gerard http://suburbia.net/~fun
  • Michael Voytinsky http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/
    •

    Unfortunately, modern orthodox Scientology only concentrated on a tiny percentage of the advanced areas that were explored during the inital research in the 1950s, and they incorrectly evaluated the importance of these things and began to specialize in them, resulting in an ineffectual and unbalanced approach which is subject to much ridicule.

    Therefore they made these things confidential and have been working tirelessly to launch lawsuits against critics who make these materials available.

    The self clearing materials (see below) will put these things in their proper perspective.

    It is hoped that orthodox Scientology will eventually reform, recognize their common cause with the Freezone, and support the Self Clearing movement.

    4. WHERE TO GET SELF CLEARING MATERIALS

    The Self Clearing Book has been made freely available on the internet. It can be picked up from the following sites among others:

  • http://fza.org/pilot/self/index.phtml
  • or pkzip downloaded from http://fza.org/files.phtml
  • http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/fza1000.htm
    •

    The techniques can be used by anybody who is willing to put in the time and effort required to work through the book.

    The initial version of the book consists of 48 chapters, each of which might be considered to be a stage or level or area that is to be addressed in self clearing. There will probably be more chapters in the future as the research is carried forward.

    The book is to be worked through twice, once in a light manner to orient oneself, develop understanding, and handle things which are currently in one's way. And a second time to carry the processes to deeper levels and expand each section to full mastery.

    On the second pass, one will be expected to expand the chapters with other materials. Many of these are in the Super Scio book which I previously released onto the internet.

    The Super Scio book represents my own research notes on working beyond the levels that were available in orthodox Scientology. It expects that you are already familiar with Scientology or have worked through the Self Clearing book.

    It is available on these links among others

  • http://fza.org/pilot/sscio/index.phtml
  • ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html
  • within Homer's Archive at http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/pilot
    •

    5. WHO IS THE PILOT

    I am a secret reformer within the Church of Scientology.

    I wish to make the technology freely available to everyone and I wish to see the research continue.

    I remain anonymous at this time because the CofS has a reputation for visciously attacking any of their members or ex-members who attempt to do either of these actions.

    They currently believe that the technology is inviolate, cannot be revised or extended, and must remain frozen in the form left by Hubbard upon his death.

    In the early days, a begining was made towards researching unsupervised self processing at home, as is evidenced by Hubbard's "Self Analysis" book which is still available.

    But this was not carried forward, and any attempts at carrying this beyond what is in this beginner's book by Hubbard (which, being by Hubbard is considered inviolate) is sternly attacked.

    And yet, a careful examination of the early research and the later discoveries shows that these could be combined with benifit to make the entirety of the technology easily available to everyone on a do-it-yourself basis.

    This is abhorent to the current management of the CofS which charges absurdly high prices for a very limited subset of the technology.

    That subset represents approximately a third of the areas covered by self clearing.

    And many other areas were investigated by Hubbard in the 1950s but were not carried forward to the point where they could be applied in the rote and pedantic manner currently used within the CofS.

    This represents another third of the areas covered by self clearing, and the actions necessary to upgrade these to the point where they could be used for this purpose are again in violation of CofS practices because the sacred works must never be altered or extended.

    And then there is the remaining self clearing material which is based upon by own research beyond the works of Hubbard, and this is the most abbhorent to the current management because the technology is considered to be complete and nobody besides Hubbard (who is no longer around) may further research or experiment with it.

    For this reason I remain hidden. You can visit the critic's sites for stories of what happened to various people who did not remain so well hidden.

    6. KEEPING UP WITH THE NEWS

    There is much ongoing critical discussion going on in the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup.

    There is much ongoing freezone discussion in the alt.clearing.technology newsgroup.

    If you cannot get these on your news server or do not have access to a news server, Homer at lightlink.com provides these newsgroups on an open news server as a public service. The link is newsact.lightlink.com

    I often post to these groups. Technical questions can be posted to ACT.

    An archive of my past postings is kept at http://fza.org/pilot/posts/index.phtml

    You can also search for these postings on dejanews at http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml either by searching for "SUPER SCIO" (which is in the message headers) or by searching for all pilot postings in the ARS or ACT newsgroups

    FZA also provides The Pilot's Homepage which brings together the various materials that I have made available. I also occasionally check the guestbook which they provide. The link is The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm

    The road to truth is finally open. The toll bridge that block its use has finally been bypassed. The speed limit signs have finally been taken down.

    You need only roll up your sleaves and get to work.

    Sincerely,

    The Pilot

    MY PGP KEY

    This is intended for use in verifying my signature if there is ever any doubt as to whether or not anybody is forging my anonymous posts. I recommend that you pull one or two of my old posts from dejanews (I began using this key in June 1997) or from the end of the Scientology Reformer's Home Page (links above) and compare the public key with this one to ensure that it hasn't been tampered with before adding the key to your PGP key ring for doing signature verifications on my posts.

    This was generated with a DOS version of PGP 2.62ui which maintains 2.3 compatibility. This is sharewhare that can easily be downloaded for free. 

    
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAjOdP4IAAAEEAMm+dCcv5Tx0KMfaqvvQrhqAlXAuUaMRyLp5VS1CHAE0C0Aq
LR9N884PAfTJ//aDBZKYMAXMxp/pp+Ei/Yq9n5Rh8GAkoFhVt1TjeyKuthTMduOD
cbkAmFGLQiKkvnx/pYtlyUIjqt2cFjh/qBWH2tEbPXW+uZV1xssIt3ZgVQbNAAUR
tCFUaGUgUGlsb3QgPHBpbG90QGhpZGRlbnBsYWNlLmNvbT4=
=q/DH
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

    Copyright 1997 by the individual who is currently writing anonymously as "The Pilot". This web page may be freely made available on any internet web server or copied for personal use as long as the text is not modified. However, tasteful reformatting, maintenance of web links in keeping with the original intentions, addition of counters and appropriate logos (such as the free speech campaign), and information about the host or host site may be added.

    Sorry, you cannot E-Mail me at this time because I am remaining anonymous. However, I do watch both alt.religion.scientology and alt.clearing.technology for posts which mention The Pilot in their message headers.

    END OF WEBPAGE ----------- ========================================== The above files were all posted with the following trailer ------------------ See the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" by the Pilot at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/pilot.html or http://www.igs.net/~michaelv/scnreform.htm or via http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/good.htm or The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Get the original Pilot materials (the 32 part SUPER SCIO book) at: ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html or from the Pilots Home Page or pick up the ss## files from Homer's archive at lightlink.com. Get the new Self Clearing Book from the Pilots Home Page (above) or in gzip format from ftp://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/selfclear.gz or pkzip from http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/fza1000.htm All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archive #18 and posted to ACT. The posting archives are also available on The Pilots Home Page. Note that some of my posts only go to ACT ------------------