Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: Super Scio Archive - <2/9> posts of Apr 97 Date: 25 Aug 1997 14:00:13 POST2.TXT SUPER SCIO PILOT POSTS OF APRIL 1997 ======================== Contents (Headers): Subj : SUPER SCIO Asking Ars For Help Subj : Re: ARS Survey (Super Scio reply) Subj : Super Scio - XEMU's Last Name Subj : repost of Dear Scientologist Subj : SUPER SCIO Response to Norman Culver on Gravity Subj : SUPER SCIO Yet Another Implant Platen Subj : Super Scio - Is There Anything Posative About Scientology Subj : SUPER SCIO - Whats Wrong With Confidentiality Subj : Re: Question for former scientologists (Super Scio) Subj : Super Scio - Answering Kirillm Subj : Super Scio - Question for Miscavige Subj : Re: Scientology = Amway? (Super Scio reply) Subj : Super Scio - Concerning Reiss Subj : SUPER SCIO - Response To Bob Ross ======================== Subj : SUPER SCIO Asking Ars For Help ASKING ARS FOR HELP Many newbies only surf the web pages without reading ARS. Some don't even have decent access to a news server and don't know enough to find the open ones. It would help a lot if some web pages included a little section about a reform movement within Scientology. At a minimum this will scare the hell out of int management because these things do happen periodically and often cost them a large number of key staff members. I even remember one where the Ethics officers were part of the mutiny and so they covered up any hints that were coming up in people's sec checks etc. But the more important point is to promote the reform effort. It is dangerous to push for reform within the church and so these movements only grow very slowly and fearfully. And most people who would support it are never even contacted. What with the e-meters and sec checks, the usual result is that somebody gets scared and blabs the whole thing in an auditing session. Then they track down the contacts from person to person and blow the whole thing apart. But this can't happen if the reformer cells start up independently of each other. A reform section should include the 14 points for reform that I put at the end of "How I Would Fix The Orgs" (Super Scio <32 of 32>). I'll repete it at the end of this post. It should also include a link to http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html so that they can find the rest of the Super Scio materials (assuming that you don't want to put up 1.9MB of stuff yourself). Feel free to include other bits of my stuff as long as you give readers some way of reaching the full set. The "Open Letter To ARS" that I posted is a good candidate. Another good candidate for a reform section is that smart post by Roland called "Dear Scientologist". I'll repost it. I added an extra sentance to #7 below concerning the abusive neglect of Sea Org children. The Scientology children who are raised by non Sea Org members are usually very well cared for and turn out quite well, but the SO kids are handled in an attrocious manner and many could easily be mistaken for gang members once they reach their teens. ----------------------------------------- SCIENTOLOGY POINTS FOR REFORM The general target is a restoration of truth, open communication, and care for one's fellow man. 1. Recognition that the subject is still on a research line. Redefinition of the State of Clear as being "no longer affected by the force in mental pictures and free from stimulous response reactive thought". Acknowlegement that this does not errase the grades of release or handle the basic problems, overts, and upsets which originally caused the being to decay. The OT levels are a gradient to allow the being to reach these on the early track. 2. Cancellation of confidentially. Re-emphasis of Scientology as a religion and abandoment of the viewpoint that it is a business with trade secrets. Termination of all leagal suits except those necessary to defend the church from direct attack. As a matter of relegious freedom, all materials should be easily available to anyone regardless of their status within orthodox Scientology. 3. Promotion of free and open communication. Cancellation of "Issue Authority" "Jokers and Degraders". Use of "mixing practices" only to forbid actual practice while trying to do a Scientology level at the same time. An end to the persecution of squirrels and psychs except for situations of actual physical abuse. A recognition that we have shared goals with many other groups. 4. Cancellation of eligability checks for students and PCs. Restoration of the sancitity of the confessional, even for those who subsequently are labled as enemies. Use of the FPRD only as a major case action for the purpose of case gain and not to gather data. 5. Cancellation of all policies on suppressive persons and an end to declaring people SPs. Use of "non-enturbulation orders" for the duration of training or processing as a last resort when a PTS condition cannot otherwise be handled. An absolute and total amnesty for all past actions (because we'll never sort out what was or wasn't justified). Subsequently, people are only to be declared as enemies if they engage in flagrant and unreasonable attacks against the church. People who disagree or blow are not to be labled as enemies. Elimination of the use of "lower conditions" except in circumstances of outright damage and danger. 6. Establishment of an International Chaplin, a chaplin's division within OSA, and an expanded office of the chaplin within the organizations, all with the power to right wrongs, override policy as needed, and keep the orgs operating in an ethical manner towards their staff and public. 7. An end to all physical abuse, including cancellation of the RPF and an end to all penalties for lower conditions. Also and end to the abusive neglect of sea org children. 8. Intensive tech training, co-auditing, and solo auditing delivered locally to all staff as an exchange for the low pay and long working hours. 9. A steady release of new OT levels and a steady downward export of levels to the next lower level of organization as the new levels become the premier service for the top level orgs. 10. A cleanup and simplification of pricing. Ethical behaviour on the subject of money. Restoration of the policy "Only Accounts Talks Money". 11, Full reinstatement of the 1967 policy "New 2D Rules". Drop all rules against homosexuals etc. The Sea Org does have an image to maintain, so their staff shouldn't be wildly promiscious or throwing orgies, but they don't have to be more puritanical than what is currently accepted by the society at large. 12. Change from management by stats to management by good indicators with stats being a highly important management indicator. 13. Re-emphasize that policy is a guiding thing rather than an absolute (see "Theory of Organization: What is Policy"). 14. More truth, more communication, more ARC. Less concern with PR. More compassion and less harrassment. ----------------------------------------- The following section from "An Open Letter To ARS" was especially good at provoking reactions and should probably also be included. The average auditor is heartbroken. He doesn't mind making starvation wages because he believes in the tech and is really helping people, but he doesn't understand why the public is paying a fortune for his services when he gets nothing. He doesn't want to disconnect from his old friends when they are declared, but he can't bear to abandon the org. He doesn't believe you when you say its all a scam. His own real experience as an auditor shows him that it is not. Because he is not conducting a scam and he really is helping people. He knows that at some level there is something very very wrong, but he can't let himself think about that. He clings hopelessly to the party line that Ron was perfect and is the only source for tech. He thinks that policy and the sea org are as good as the auditing tech which he knows works, and they are not. ----------------------------------------- Thank You For Your Help The Pilot ======================== Subj : Re: ARS Survey (Super Scio reply) On 9 Apr 1997 06:48:57 GMT, Sassie10 (sassie10@aol.com) wrote: > ARS Survey > > 1.) Do ARS critics and Scientologists agree on anything? Definitely. Both are dedicated to raising awareness and improving communications. In the early days, Ron said "When in doubt, communicate". All auditors and most Scientology public know that this is correct. Anyone who studies and believes in the axioms and the other basics knows that truth and open communication are key ingredients in the bridge to total freedom. Most critics also believe in free and open communication and they are known for supporting the blue ribbon campaign for free speach. Many of the Scientologists are actually communications releases. This is not bogus. When you achive the state, you really are willing to talk to anyone about anything. That includes chatting with critics about Xenu or whatever. I'm a communications release and I have no problem with this at all, its fun. But by some strange sorcery, the Scientologists seem to loose this gain (one roller coasters due to a suppressive influence). Perhaps someone had an MU (misunderstood word) and thought that Ron was talking about a condition of doubt (or enemy or treason). So they issued some policies to put people in lower conditions if they communicated freely. It must've been some SP that did that because it made people rollercoaster out of their gains and turned the Scientologists into the scourge of the internet. Its hard to imagine that the same guy who wrote the axioms would put out so many stops to communications. Its not just the confidentiality. Its "Issue Authority" and "Jokers and Degraders" and "Its A PR World" and "don't talk about whole track" and "the instuctor must not tell the student anything" and "students shouldn't discuss the materials with each other" and "you musn't talk about you case" and "disconnection" and ... (I have to stop here or I might stir up so much that I'll roller coaster out of my own gains in free communication). At times like this I like to contemplate the "evil twin" theory. Or killer clones from outer space replacing people as in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". But that does seem a bit silly, now doesn't it. Maybe we're just talking about a man. A man who had his brilliant and inspired moments but who also had his bad days (or bad years). -------- > 2.) What do you do in your spare time? Be a good little troll and put this question back in the cave where it belongs. -------- To Sassie10 (hoping that they even let you read this reply): It would be nice if you could wake up without doing the usual posative negative flip flop. If you bottle up the doubts and reservations too deeply, they eventually explode and blast you to the other side of the fence. I could often tell how soon somebody was going to blow by how adamantly they pushed the party line. People sitting up on the fence can usually see further than the ones on the ground to either side. Maybe its time for you to take a real hard look and find out how much of Scientology really was true for you. Hopefully it was true by actual observation and experience, but I'll even accept those things that you took on faith because they lifted your sights to higher goals. Then spot how much of it wasn't true for you but was jammed down your throat by crush sell or crush ethics or by the occasional auditor or CS who would not accept your reality because it didn't fit into standard tech. Per Ron's last tape (hopefully he at least wrote the text), its "Knowing the Tech". It is not being in good standing or knowing policy or even whether or not you like Ron. And it is "knowing", not memorizing or worshipping the tech or even being in compulsive agreement with everything that has been put out as tech. But knowing the tech does imply understanding it. And if you think that everything Ron said has equal value (or is equally correct), then your IQ is equal to zero according to the axioms. The axioms say that "Intelligence is the ability to evaluate relative importance". You actually have to try this stuff and observe what happens and work to make sense of it. Ron said that you become more individual as you go up scale. The only common underlying agreement is bank. Now what does that tell you about the Sea Org? Sorry to be so hard nosed about this, but it really is your next trillion years that is at stake. Hopeing for a better future, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio - XEMU's Last Name XEMU'S LAST NAME I skimmed the screenplay and could not find a last name. It might be like the British Kings where the last name is never used. Also, the name given is Xenu rather than Xemu (or Xenn). There is the slightest chance that this is a bogus copy or that it was subsequently revised (there has been more than one attempt to film it). It is labled "Revolt in the Stars", a An Original Screenplay by L. Ron Hubbard, 1977. It is 178 pages long. In "History of Man" Ron says to run mockups using approximations of things in whole track incidents but to avoid using the actual stuff in the incidents. For example, he suggests mocking up a tripod mounted camera rather than an actual "coffee grinder" style implant device. On this basis, he may have intentionally toned down things in the incident and substituted Xenu for Xemu to avoid restimulating people too much. Here is some more information. It mentions 21 Stars and 76 planets. "The star names are Sirius, Canopus, Alpha Centauri, Vega, Capella, Arcturus, Rigel, Procyon, Arachernar, Beta Centauri, Altair, Betelgeuse, Acrux, Aldebaran, Pollux, Spica, Antates, Fomalhaute, Deneb, Regulus, and Sol". (page 91). In this list, Betelgeuse sticks out like a sore thumb. Unlike the others, it is very far away. Heros: The loyal officers Mish and Rawl. Heroine: The Lady Min ("the greatest actress in the galaxy"). "Civilian costumes are clothes not unlike about 1920" (page 13). "It is RAWL, a Loyal Officer, dressed in khaki, accompanied by several Planetary officers in white and blue". (page 14). "It is draped in somber green with a black edged symbol of the Galatic Confederation. This is a wreath open at the top with 21 stars on it." (page 15). "In this and all subsequent shots of him, Xenu is lame in the right leg. The knee is stiff. He carries a heavy cane, more of a club than a cane, and supports himself with it as he walks." (page 15). The loyal officers apparantly hold a congress every 10 years and the 2054th congress takes place early in the movie. This puts the age of the government at around 20 thousand years. "Spaceships can be seen on the field. The type of ship is not the stylized cigar. Interceptors and this yacht are swept-wing with the wings reaching back longer than the tail and separated at the rear." (page 47). "Some ships, transports, are not unlike DC 10s but with thrust motors closer to fuselage and smaller and wings more stubbed". (page 47). The scipt is full of melodrama like the following: "EXT. Mt Shasta - Day". "Close Shot - The little girl on the slope of the volcano". "She is bruised and dirty, she still has her doll clutched to her breast. She is looking upward at the sky, seeing nothing there. She does not understand what is happening. She begins to cry silently". (page 122). "... are hereby sentenced to be exhibited on every planet and then imprisoned in a mountain sustained for eons by life supports" (page 167). One time in the late 1980s some sea org OTs were promoting Ron's sci fi. I asked them when they were going to film this movie. They shuddered and just about turned green. One of them said "Its never going to be filmed". At the end there are doctors strapping Xenu and his henchmen to tables in a giant vault and hooking up life support. Xenu's last words are "How long is forever?". I don't know how much of this screenplay was pure melodrama (Xenu walking with a limp?) and how much was intended to be accurate. The idea behind the limp might have been that Xenu had such a horrible overt in his past that he might have kept redevloping the limp no matter how much super science was used to heal it. ------------- As to the endless mixups about the evil ruler's name, which I discussed in "Super Scio: Responses to Questions": Emerald has correctly pointed out that she posted this idea before I did. Sorry that I missed it. > I remember puzzling over whether it was supposed to > be Xenn, Xemu, Xemi, or even Zenn when I did OT 3. And dustbin had the same problem. > I thought of him as Xenn for 20 years. I was quite surprised > when I came onto a.r.s to hear him called Xenu. I was actually > embarrassed, thinking I'd been quoting a typographical error > for 20 years. And he reminded me that Bob Kaufman called him Xenn as well. I had read Bob's book but I had forgotten. Xenn might have been the common rumor line interpretation among OT 3 public back in the early days. Since the instructors were generally not Class 8s and because of the dumb idea that a course supervisor doesn't have to be trained on the materials that his students are studying, they might not even have known themselves what to call the guy. ------------- I wrote up my own description of Incident 2 in Super Scio #6A <14 of 32>. See the Pilot materials at: http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html Or search Dejanews for "Super Scio", or pick up the ss## files from Homer's archive at lightlink.com. ------------- Best, The Pilot ======================== Subj : repost of Dear Scientologist (the following reflects Roland's opinion rather than mine, I'm just glad to have any other voice preaching reform) Unedited Repost of ># From: Roland ># Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 09:08:55 +0000 ># Message-ID: <3334F327.1F@netcomuk.co.uk> Dear Scientologist, Do you remember when you were an independent thinker, and you came across this alternative religion called Scientology? Do you remember how it all seemed very reasonable. A religion for mankind not based on any religious dogma but doing things that worked and that helped people and doing only those things that worked. Making people able and more responsible so that they could help themselves and others in effective ways is of course a very good idea. It does a lot more good than praying ever did. Scentology was a refreshing change from the fossilised religions of the past. Something bright and new that offered hope for a better future. You happened upon it and you were then determined to better the world using this new method and to wake people out of their slumber and introduce them to their new potential. Those happy feelings are sadly gone now. The bright new religion you discovered has turned out to be worse than a drag. The dogma you rejected from other religions you find in this one. You are ill, therefore you are PTS and are connected to a Suppresssive person - even though you may work in an open plan office and everyone else has caught the cold you have. Is that not dogma of the worse kind? Is it not also complete nonsense that you go along with so that you don't create problems for yourself? Is this the religion you thought you were joining? I think not! I am sure you have heard about the Sea Org. Those dedicated young people who work upwards of 100 hours per week to introduce Scientology into society and "save the planet". Do you consider sometimes that they are treated rather harshly? Sent to the RPF when they make a mistake or their stats are down. Forced to do hard labor. Having to eat scraps of plates. Considering these people have devoted their lives to their cause then does this seem fair to you? I think not! Think also of the hard-pressure selling done in your church. Does it seem right to pressure people into buying courses, helping to arrange for them to take out loans that they will have great difficulty paying back? Some of these people are not stron willed at all and the registrars know this. They are pressured into taking out loans and this can ruin their lives. Some even commit suicide because of the registrars actions as I am sure you have heard. Does this seem right? Is this the religion you thought you had joined? Of course you put up with these things you don't like becuase you hope that oneday you will be OT. You will have OT powers as Ron described when you are OT VIII -- or will you. Have you read the success stories from this months Source magazine? The L11 + L10 + L12 = Full Stable Exteriorisation? Really? Have you read those success stories? Does it sound like they have exteriorised from their bodies and can see from outside of their bodies as a free thetan? Or is the success story something like "I feel more exterior to myself, I am now earning lots more money, I am stably just being me!" Does this not just sound like the "born-again" talk you hear on the streets? Could it be that these OT powers are just not there at these higher levels of Scientology? And these L's are done at the "Mecca of Technical Perfection", Flag! This is the best you get! Do you feel there might be something wrong here? So what happens when you are disturbed by these things? Is there someone in your church you can go and discuss these matters with, to voice your concerns over these issues? Someoe whom you, as a responsible member of society and scientology, can discuss this with and put in your tuppence worth of ideas? Is there not? You mean you would get into "ethics" trouble if you did? That's strange isn't it? Was that the religion you thought you were joining? Do you have an uncomfortable feeling if you think about expressing your own opinion within the Church of Scientology? I think perhaps you do! I think you would like your religion to be the one you thought it was when you first joined. It could be you know! If enough people such as yourself wrote in to the President of the Church of Scientology and asked for reform then it could happen. In the meantime, as a protest, you could stay off-lines until things had improved. To not give them any donations until they had reformed themselves and playing a truly useful role in society. What I am suggesting is you take action to recreate the spirit of the religion you thought you were joining. Write in and complain. If they assign you an ethics condition then refuse it. It is THEY who have to sort out their own ethics - not you! Just say NO to them when they try to push you around. If you do this and enough other people like you do this then you will end up with a far better religion than you have now. A religion all the world will recognise as being there for the good of mankind. A religion you can proudly claim membership to. The future of scientology is very much in your hands now. Roland ======================== Subj : SUPER SCIO Response to Norman Culver on Gravity RESPONSE TO NORMAN CULVER RE GRAVITY On Mar 24, Norman Culver wrote: > 1. To the best of my knowledge, gravity was invented toward the end of > the home-univerise period and was a major factor in the collapse. > Gravity is a very multi-dimensional construct with most of the dimension > hidden and only one dimension showing. I had thought that it was 72 dims > but a meter check shows 60 hidden and 1 showing. There are also a lot > of pseudo-gravities and anti-gravities on the track but they do not > come close to the complexity of the original one. Hilbert spaces > are a definite big time thing that you should investigate personally. I think that you're right about gravity being involved in the fall of home universe. But I would say "gravity as we know it" because we would have used something to keep mockups aligned together prior to that time. I'm still not happy with my understanding of what happened in the collapse. Maybe I was far from the action and didn't even know at the time? How much could a Zulu have known about the causes of World War 2? The number of dimensions seems excessive. I had thought that you would only need a couple of extra ones (beyond the objective mockup) to introduce enough space curvature to yield the general relativity concepts of tensors producing the gravity effect. I'm just guessing here but wouldn't 3 "structural" dimensions give enough directions to curve a 3 dimentional space to produce the apparancy of a force of gravity? Maybe its really 5 dimensional with 12 basic forces (some not yet discovered) and each force needs its own set of 5 structural dimensions? But that would give 60 structural (hidden) dimensions with 5 spacial ones. The dimensions used in math are often just aids to analysis. If you have 3 variables representing, lets say, the intensities of red, green, and blue in a color, you might graph them as 3 dimensions but when you get practical, you only need one extra dimension to stack up 3 negatives (one for each color plane) when you make color film. But I don't really know and I don't want to derail you because maybe you've got it right. As to real math and physics, I'm sorely deficient. I've had a mathematician friend of mind sit down with me three times so far on the subject of tensor calculus and I keep loosing it. And I can't seem to get past page 25 of Dirac's thesis on quantum mechanics. I haven't really gotten around to Hilbert space. All I have is the vague idea of a superset of vector mechanics that embraces an infinite number of dimensions. This kind of stuff puts the misunderstood word technology in its place as a beginner's baby step rather than being the ultimate in study technology. It takes real work to learn something, and yes, I'll keep studying quantum and general relativity and push all the way through eventually, it just takes persistance. It took me about a half dozen books and a notebook of scribblings to get a good feel for special relativity and that is orders of magnitudes easier than what we are talking about here. You raised a lot of other interesting points and I'll be looking over them again. You also reminded me of Jeffrey's list of upper dynamics, and I'll have to take another look at that too. Thanks for the help, this provided much food for thought The Pilot ======================== Subj : SUPER SCIO Yet Another Implant Platen YET ANOTHER IMPLANT PLATEN Mostly I'm just keeping a research journal which I'll issue eventually rather than putting out little bits and pieces of what I'm digging into. But this one seemed too good to sit on and I felt a need to put out a posative contribution to balance some of the pot shots I've been taking at the org in this last set of posts. So here it is. THE SUICIDE IMPLANT: One of the first things I realized when I was getting trained and begining to hear about implants on the tapes was that these things would obviously include implanted commands to kill yourself etc. if you found out about them. My reaction was to laugh at whoever designed those things and decide that I wasn't stupid enough to obey any orders like that. So these things should be easy to shrug off (its been a long time and the implanters are no longer standing over your shoulder to keep rerunning the implant until you finally give in and let it stick). And I wouldn't worry too much about billion year old death threats. But the implants do sometimes include this kind of thing to keep you from remembering the implant. I don't think that they actually had much success getting people to kill themselves. But they did get people to keep themselves from remembering by telling them that if they did remember, they would kill themselves. Telling somebody to forget is nowhere near as effective as telling them that they will die if they remember. I have found what I think is the most common pattern for laying in suicide items. I think that this one is often tacked on to other implants as a sort of trailer to block recall of the implant. Sometimes they even used it at the begining and again at the end. It doesn't follow the same pattern as the implants it was attached to, so its easy to miss. I think that this one was used well prior to incident 2 and has continued to be used recently and that it was also used at many individual points througout incident 2 and other similar mass implants. Remember that you handle implant items by spotting each one a few times until you can laugh it off. The idea is not to auto-hypnotize yourself and lay the item in but rather to knock out any residual hypnotic effect so that these trigger thoughts have no further effect on you. The pattern consists of a root phrase and an end phrase. The root phrases are: a) "To know about this is to ..." b) "To talk about this is to ..." c) "To find out about this is to ..." d) "To remember this is to ..." e) "to think about this is to ...". There may be more roots. Each root cycles through the following endings: 1) disbelieve it 2) forget it 3) be insane 4) be unconcious 5) be unaware 6) be sick 7) die 8) kill myself In other words, the first item is "to know about this is to disbelive it". The final item is "to think about this is to kill myself". There are 40 items in all. Implant items were never very powerful. Its the postulates that you made while being implanted or implanting somebody else. Items like this were designed to get you to postulate that you should forget the implant to protect yourself. ---------- ARC, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio - Is There Anything Posative About Scientology In article <333ef08f.6278806@207.126.101.80>, Grady Ward wrote: >Can anyone list things that are positive about Scientology? In article <19970402141901.JAA07695@ladder01.news.aol.com> Steve J (stvej@aol.com) replied # Studying LRH's writings have # 1) given me enough hope for the world that I would # believe that Grady would actually want a serious # answer to this question, # 2) given me the ability to discern that he probably # doesn't. # Those are mere entremets to the main body of good that # I have received from Scientology. # I have gained from the results of all the people that I have # helped using Scientology Technology--the ethics that # helped kids get out of gangs, the counseling that has kept # marriages progressing, and the recovery of abilities lost. # I have gained by application of the Management Tech. # I have had terrific gains in auditing received. # Thank you for this opportunity. Sometimes I forget the # good stuff while wading through the disquite, inaccuracies # and paranoia of this newsgroup. # Steve Let me appologize for the PR nature of the above response. It has 3 flaws which show that it is not an honest attempt to answer the question. These are: a) it begins with a covert attack on Grady b) it gives no actual data or examples c) it is so absolutely 100 percent posative that it must be advertising rather than truth. Let me try to answer this in an honest fashion. Rather than getting all carried away about OT abilities or other exotic things, let me describe a very mundane and yet extrememly important gain I made early on in the subject. Before getting into Scientology, I was a shy, nervous, and introverted little genius who couldn't talk to anybody about anything. Almost a stereotype. It was terrible. I did a TRs course (the HAS course) and started level 0 (Communications) training (there was no prerequisite then except for doing the HAS course). Even before I was actually audited on the processes, the TRs and training on communications had totally turned everything around for me. The nervous shyness was gone and has never returned. I could even talk infront of groups and be totally relaxed. Living life became fun instead of misery. This, of course, was a gain from training. As to auditing, the biggest of the early gains for me was finding out that I was using "They're stupid" as a computation to make myself right and others wrong. It was obvious and yet I had not know it and it was all on automatic so to speak. I wouldn't say that I never think this anymore, but its concious and an honest evaluation rather than being a blind assumption that I apply to everything without looking. I used to simply jump to the conclusion that they're stupid rather than finding out what was really going on. So I could be easily fooled because I would assume stupidity when the actual case was that somebody was being corrupt for example. As to marriage counseling, our track record in Scientology has been very bad. We break up as many as we keep together. We don't actually have much tech in this area. Just the general stuff on handling problems, overts, and upsets plus the idea of looking for a hidden third party who is setting the marriage partners against each other. Unfortunately, the org itself was often the "third party" telling people that their partners were suppressive and encouraging them to disconnect. As to the management tech, there is such a mixture of brilliance and stupidity that its hard to sort out. Lets take the old accounting policy for example. Ron has bright ideas about working off of original documents (multiple copy invoices etc.) which correct many of the problems with the old manual ledger systems. But he didn't understand double entry bookkeeping (the invoices could have been used in a double entry method which would have given a flawless super system). The end result was that Scientology had one of the worst and most inaccurate accounting systems in the land while continually insisting that org accounting was flawless. Hopefully this has been fixed by using computers, but the original system was a real mess. But here we have, for instance, David Gale studying real accounting and applying Ron's bright ideas to it and then learning computers as well. And so he launched MCBA and made a mint on computer accounting software. Yes I did disconnect from my family for about 3 months when I first got involved with the subject. But I got some more auditor training, decided it was a mistake, and straightened things out. In the long run, our communication was better, but I can also see how easily it might have gotten messed up. So this is another area that can go either way. There is much that is posative, especially if you can drop the fanaticism. ------------------ Affinity, The Pilot ======================== Subj : SUPER SCIO - Whats Wrong With Confidentiality WHATS WRONG WITH CONFIDENTIALITY I think that the confidentiality is a mistake. I think its killing us (by which I mean the Scientologists). I think that its the strongest of the factors which are twisting the subject away from its original goals and making it into a fanatical sham. But it is this specific point of reform which is going to be the hardest for the average Scientologist to swallow. Many of them can see the other outnesses and will agree with me on those points. But they have been so intensively hit with false information about the dangers of the upper level materials that they are terrified of them. So let me get up here on the podium and try to wake some people up. You don't teach people how to swim by making them terrified of the water. Imagine that they are not even allowed to see the water. Its hidden in swimming pools that are kept in locked rooms and all you have are dire rumors about how people can drown and die if they even see a pool nothing to say of getting in one. Now, after paying a fortune, an instructor unlocks the door and tosses them in the water. And they are not even allowed to see anybody else swimming (they can't hear stories of other students doing the level and their difficulties and successes). Have you ever seen somebody trying to teach a terrified child how to swim? Of course there are going to be bad reactions if you make things so secret and convince everybody that this stuff is dangerous. We have always had lots of advanced data from the 1950s which was available and was not marked confidential. Lots of stuff on past lives, implants, entities, GPMs, and what have you. The clear cog used to be common knowlege. Even one of the power processes ("What Is, What Isn't") is on a lower level tape (either "Suppessors" or "the Bad Auditor", I forget which one - they both cover not-isness and they used to be back to back on the old level 2 checksheets). A tape with lots of R6 data called "Study and End Words" was sometimes part of the old student hat. People didn't get sick or upset from studying this stuff. Once in a rare while somebody did get sick if someone else was insisting on jamming some piece of tech down their throats, but that also happens with grade 2 (overts/withholds) and grade 4 (service facimilies - making yourself right) type technology. At one time there was even a bulletin (or policy?) stating that it was gross out tech to tell a person that they had withholds outside of an auditing session. So there are student and PC rules and stern lectures from the ethics officer to keep people from jaming bits of out-gradient tech down each others throats. That is needed. But it is all that is needed. You don't have to bury everything under a cloud of secrecy. The mind's protection is at maximum when people are quietly reading things. I don't really think that people should make fun of each others religious beliefs. If things were reasonable, I would say that its no fair poking fun at incident 2 or at the book of Genesis or at any of the beliefs of other religions. But in this case, the OT 3 tee shirts and Xenu jokes and things are serving a very important purpose in demonstrating that knowlege of OT 3 is not dangerous nor does it make people sick. Its almost inconcievable that hearing truth could ever make anybody sick. If it did, it would be the exact opposite of whats in the axioms of Scientology. Of course somebody might be emotionally upset from learning a sad or disturbing truth, but that's a totally different matter. And we know how to raise somebody's emotional tone in such cases, so we don't need to be afraid of it. As to the liabilities of keeping things confidential, just look at what's happening on the internet. Scientology's comm lines on the net are almost distroyed. Tremendous ill will has been generated. The Scientologists can't even argue or defend themselves because they can't talk about anything in the confidential materials and the critics keep singing Xenu songs and scaring the Scientologists away. Attempting to maintain confidentiality has put the Scientologists into a totaly untenable position, having to fight without ever mentioning the thing that they are fighting about. Scientologists, who are trained with TRs to confront just about anything, can't confront or handle a handful of jokers singing Xenu songs. Scientologists, who win through opening up communication lines, find themselves to be the greatest suppessors of free communication that the internet has ever seen. In the old days, before the clearing course and the introduction of confidentiality, the Briefing Course students used to chant implanted GPM end words at each other as part of their bull baiting while doing TRs. They had to do this because they were running implant platens on each other instead of doing them solo and they couldn't flinch at what the PC was running. They did just fine. I knew a few who had done this (it was only a little before my time) and they were in exceptionally good shape and had really fantastic TRs. The whole business of confidentiality might have originally come about because any of the old time BC graduates could have just taken the clearing course platens and run them on themselves at home without paying for any other courses. And the average franchise, usually run by an exceptionally skilled oldtime auditor, would have found it easy to teach their PCs to run these platens after they finished getting audited on their grades. Let me urge any Scientology loyalist who reads this to please sit down and reread the introduction to Dianetics 55 where Ron explains about the use of secrecy in cults. The confidentiality has not served any useful purpose except to stick people with a mystery, and that is an overt. ---------- Here is a helpfull quote from Ron: Research and Discovery Series - New Volume 10 Page 731, in the lecture titled "Overt Acts, Motivators, and Deds" from the tech 88 lecture series: "Religion is always different than truth. It has to be. Because the only way you can control a person is to lie to them." ... "When you find an individual is lying to you, you know that the individual is trying to control you". .. "Conversly, if you see an impulse on the part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human being is lying to you. Not is just going to -- IS lying to you". This volume is well worth having. Even though they covertly omitted a few of the hottest lectures (see Super Scio <31 of 32> for a complete list), the ones that are in the volume are the wildest things that the org has ever released, going far beyond "History of Man" and including lots of whole track and early research into entities (Nots). ---------- A full discussion of reforming Scientology can be found in "Super Scio - Supplement: How To Fix The Orgs" <32 of 32>. ---------- ARC, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Re: Question for former scientologists (Super Scio) Tashback (tashback@primenet.com) wrote: : I've been going over some of the Clearwater reports, and one question : keeps nagging at me, especially in light of the current discussion among : former Scientologists and never-been Scientologists about the nature of : cults. I'm wondering about the Scientologists' behavior at the Clearwater : picket and the candlelight vigil, and my question is "What were they : thinking?" It might seem a silly question, but I can't come up with the : answer, and I thought some formers might be able to shed some light on it. On Apr 4, Perry Scott (perry@fc.hp.com) replied: # The logic goes like this: # 1) Scientology is the salvation of the world. # 2) Anyone who disgrees is either ignorant, PTS, or suppressive. # 3) Once the word "suppressive" is used, it triggers the coursework on # the subject (everyone takes the PTS/SP course at some point - the # first failure you have is blamed on SPs and you get body-routed onto # the course). By invoking the meme, a standard set of responses # follows. He carries on from here with a very accurate analysis of how the members are rabble roused into rushing out and shattering the candlelight vigil. Let me back this up 100 percent. I wasn't there, but its typical. There is tons of data in the tech about 3rd partying, riot assists, false data, button pushing, etc. This can all be used in a reverse manner to incite a crowd. This is a sort of "Black Scientology". They know how to do it. I remember one time when I wouldn't go along with some piece of crazyness like this and it ended up with a GO member screaming over and over at me "BUT THEY'RE ATTACKING CHURCHES". This was in the middle of the reception area no less. It was apparantly a key button that he'd been drilled to use to handle any objections. I just kept my TRs in and kept saying "Thank You". He almost went psychotic. Since I was acting calm and he was dramatizing, I didn't get into any trouble. And the crowd he'd been gathering up evaporated as fast as they could sneak away without catching his attention. Of course this was back in the old GO days. I attended a lot of confidential briefings at the Ft. Harrison at various times in the 1980s. These would usually be either to get recruits or to get money. Sometimes they'd just make things up to scare you into opening your wallet or whatever. There was one where the SO recruiter told us that Ron had not researched the OT platens but instead had stolen them from the Vatican which was using them to implant people. The untrained public ate it up, but the trained auditors in the room looked at each other and made looney toons like gestures. We'd heard the endless Briefing Course tapes where they were struggling to research this stuff. I think that a lot of knowlege reports got written and the recruiter probably ended up in the RPF. But if the story hadn't been obviously wrong to so many people, he would have gotten commended for getting the stats up. At times there would be people doing "surveys" in reception with various questions like "What Object Would Represent ...." to get things to use in advertisements or anti-psych rat posters. I hate to end on such a depressing note. So let me tell you that trained auditors occasionally get fed up with this and tear into such people. I'm far from the only one who did this. And the auditors generally got away with it too. Often much to their surprise. They don't realize how scared the OSA and admin people are of anybody who actually knows the tech. Hopeing for a better future, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio - Answering Kirillm ANSWERING KIRILLM On Apr 6, kirillm@ea.com wrote > Your docs are excellent :) > I have ten thousand questions though... and i dont like public > discussions. Can you contact me please? Glad you liked the docs. I'm staying undercover for now (fabian as they say in the Sea Org). So I'm avoiding direct contact (maybe next year). I really don't think that you're an OSA plant, but better safe than sorry. Also, others may have the same questions and its easier to answer everything once in a place where everybody knows to look. This might be especially helpful to lurkers who don't dare ask their own questions. Also, an open discussion helps to promote reformist ideas among the loyalist lurkers. If you need to ask something that might expose you to attack, then look into using an anonymous remailer to post the question. ---------------- ARC, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio - Question for Miscavige QUESTION FOR MISCAVIGE I haven't read the entire thread re deposing DM, and I hope this doesn't come too late, but I would suggest the following: HOW MANY SCIENTOLOGISTS WERE TRAINED TO FORGE L. RON HUBBARD'S SIGNATURE? We know that many were trained to do this because of the SO 1 line. I'm sure you can figure out how to carry on from here. -------- I find it unbelivable that Scientology is on the wrong side in the free speach battles. The fantastic increases in communications, data access, and computational power will revolutionize society just as did the steam engine and electricity. There is a terrible battle here as to whether this power will fall into the hands of the individuals or the state. In the old days, Ron would paint a picture of a thought police style world government. Sometimes he called them "Push Button Societies" since the state would push a button and all the people would obey like robots. One of the key turning points between a suppressed and a free society is whether the communications are free or controlled by the state. The mamouth increases in communication brought about by the internet are bringing this matter to a head. And this will grow by leaps and bounds because of the continual doubling of computer power. What we do now will set the stage for the next century. And the key question will be whether the communications are free or controlled by the government. This may well be the choice between an eventual "one world police state" or a free and enlightened society of loosely organized individuals. I know which side Ron would take in this battle. He could evaluate the relative importance of things and he would sacrafice confidentiality to keep the governments from owning the comm lines. It was something that he had a truely great horror of. I hate to side with the anti's in these cases, but the orgs are setting up the mechanics for their own distruction when they hand control of the comm lines over to the government in a misguided attempt to protect their materials. ---------------- Hoping for a better world, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Re: Scientology = Amway? (Super Scio reply) References: <5hjnph$npa@news.megalink.net> <333e1641.16067107@news.beaches.net> On Sat, 29 Mar 97 17:53:46 GMT, spider@maineline.com (The Castle) wrote: >Is there any real diference between Scientology and Amway? I cant see any >except the Amway folks dont make a living sueing everyone. >Sue.. spider@maineline.com At one time there was a whole nest of Amway folks in Scientology (or a whole nest of Scientology FSMs who were also in Amway). There apparently was some cross fertilization between the big league sales techniques of the two groups. The Scientology public's mindset easily encourages pyramid schemes. They apparently think that they can come out ahead by using FSM tech and making strong postulates. In the early day's of the Sea Org, a chain letter came straight from some Flag execs and OT public and penetrated nearly every org on the planet before Ethics crushed it. "Paradise Marketing" (yet another pyramid sales organization) was very hot among OTs in the late 1970s. When the "bring shopping bags of money" style pyramid meetings were running wild out on the west coast, lots of Scientologists got on the bandwagon. The usual course of these things is that some big execs and advanced public get in early. The scheme is allowed to florish long enough to let these guys make their bundle and get some public onto their advanced levels. Then it is crushed severly with heavy threats of Ethics before it gets too deeply into the field and screws up to much of the public. Low level staff and gulible public are left holding the bag and usually end up in cramming doing definitions of "Exchange" in clay. Those who got out early rush to Flag for their Ls or whatever and are congradulated for being up-stat and having good postulates. Best, The Pilot ======================== Subj : Super Scio - Concerning Reiss On 7 Apr 97, phariz@aol.com (Phariz) wrote > Recently I was critized by Frank Copeland for making the FSO-staff > Richard Reiss and Alain Kartuzinsky co-responsible for Lisa's death > by not giving any argument for that allegation. (he continues on with a good analysis of Lisa's history, Flag C/Sing lines, etc. and propogates the responsibility upwards to Reiss.) ====== CONCERNING REISS (Senior CS at Flag) and Lisa's Death. It would be best if you didn't accuse him of anything that you don't have hard evidence on. I have not seen him in a long time and I do not have any current data, but there is the chance that he may be a potential reformer. He may be doing a lot of very hard soul searching right now (of course he will keep this hidden or he will be out of a job). As senior CS, the responsibility does lie on his plate, but that doesn't mean that he was involved in any practical sense. If anyone does get a chance to confront him, the right questions would be "How could you let something like this happen?" and "are you taking steps to ensure that this will never happen again?". Thank You, The Pilot ======================== Subj : SUPER SCIO - Response To Bob Ross References: <19970408040700.AAA14193@ladder01.news.aol.com> This was posted by rowil@aol.com on 8 Apr 97 and reformatted by both Joe Harrington and Keith Henson. Thank you to all three. I'm hoping that Ross Wilson will get my reply back to Bob. (and no thanks to Martin Hunt who used the opportunity to take some pot shots at Bob Ross - it wouldn't be so bad except that Bob isn't here on the newsgroup to defend himself. Martin quotes some of Croydon's quotes of Bob. But Croydon was inciting people into makeing the most damning remarks possible because he was trying to overbalance the heavy waves of PR coming from the org. So he got extremist remarks rather than the person's usual outlook). (since this was posted 3 times already, I did a lot of snipping) > Pilot > > A Friend of mine, Bob Ross, asked me to post this for him. From me I > hope you are doing well and keeping up with your excellent work. > - Ross Wilson > > Message from Bob Ross follows: > B. Robert Ross > P.O.B. 91849 > Pasadena, CA 91109 > March 30, 1997 > To "Pilot" on the internet via a friend > > Dear Sir, > > I would like to express my agreement with most of what you have said and > to offer some of my own discoveries in support of your findings, that I > arrived at over the past thirty or forty years. > > Each of the following I wrote up at considerable length since I left the > Church in 1982-3. Good to hear that you are still alive and (I hope) well. Homer has been making your writings available on the internet (I don't know if its only some or all). > What I wanted to get changed were typos in the TR's Modernized. > bulletin. Unfortunately this was just the tip of the iceburg. Its sad when you can't even get a typo corrected. Sometimes you could find another copy of the bulletin which had a different typo. Or find a friendly mimeo operator who would retype the stencil (there was much retyping because stencils would get torn or ruined by people who didn't know how to use the equippment or clean a stencil). But for some strange reason these could never get fixed on official channels. But we needed to fix a lot more than simple typos. > Somewhat later, I also wanted the arbitrary practice of > IGNORING COMMENTS deleted from TR-3 and TR-4 as that practice, promoted > out-of-sessionness. PC comments directed at the room or the auditor are > signs of ARC breaks to be handled by spotting the By-passed charge. > This has been the source of much bad auditing. You have a point. But if you simply substituted handling bypassed charge for ignoring comments, you would just be trading one arbitrary for another. What's really needed is judgement as to whether the PC is simply trying to wiggle out from the processing command or whether there is something to handle. Eventually the "Auditor's Rights" bulletin took care of some of this and the improved TR4 cleaned up some more, but its still a weak point at the orgs. And there is still the problem of insisting on running the wrong process. I remember one PC who always needed to crack a joke and get a smile out of the auditor before he felt safe and in communication. Then he'd buckel down and do the process command. Another PC (not one of mine) often felt she was being mis-CSed. So she would simply ignore the auditor's command and run something else. Talk about being out of session. She actually did an L&N process based on overhearing the listing question being given in another session (what thin partitions). > The first one of these arbitrary rules which I remember discovering, and > ignoring when I was no longer worried about being sent to cramming by > the C/S for violating that rule, was the rule that one should not > indicate BPC unless it read on a meter. Now we come to one of the many things which was not actually covered in the tech. This one could successfully be argued both ways. So it depended who was CSing. And if it was queried, it depended who was answering the queries, and whoever answered it would have signed it as "LRH". And if you tried to ask a supervisor or CS in advance to find out what they wanted, you would only get "What does your material state" or "There is an infinity of wrongness and only one rightness". Generally all that you could do was try it one way or the other and see which one got you thrown in the showers. And sometimes you'd do it one way and get flunked and then when you did it the other way it would turn out that somebody else was covering the CSing post and would flunk you again. One time I was in cramming and I had two Class VIIIs screaming at each other "What does your materials state" because I had failed a written test twice and each one had marked opposite answers to the same yes/no question as being wrong and I called it to their attention. Of course by the time this kind of stuff is going on, any concern for the PC has gone out the window. Before standard tech, you would have been in good communication with the PC and your instincts would generally guided you correctly in doing what was needed for him. And if you did call it wrong, you felt it right away and fixed it up and knew better (at least for that PC) the next time. > I started a project, which I've never completed when I noticed that Ron > had a mannerism of CLEARING HIS THROAT BEFORE making some prediction > about what a new process he was describing would accomplish. My project > consisted of listening carefully to lectures to spot moments when he > cleared his throat and then to listen carefully to what he said > immediately afterward. I then made a record of where that had occurred > so that others could find it and judge for themselves, that each throat > clearing was followed by a prediction of wonderful results that would be > achieved by following the instructions in that lecture. Clearing your throat or any kind of a pregnant pause is a public speaking trick to add impact to what you are about to say. He uses these pauses artfully, with or without throat clearing, to beef up jokes and successes and anectdotes as well as adding punch to his predictions of results. I'm just guessing now, but I think that he copied these tricks from Elbert Hubbard. He talks about Elbert in at least one or two early lectures, even reads the entire "Message to Garcia" in one of them if I remember correctly. He might have thought that Elbert was some sort of relative although I doubt that there was any actual connection. Elbert used to tour the midwest on public speaking tours and I would expect that Ron would have made a point of attending. I once read an article by a railroad vice president who described attending one of Elbert's lectures. He said that it so inspired him that he quickly rose from being a lowly track worker to becoming vice president of the railroad. Ron's entire lecture style (and some of the contents as well) might be patterned on Elberts. > I discovered that Ron cleared his throat, prior saying things he wanted > people to believe had been tested, but that had not actually been > tested, or had been observed, on perhaps one person. I think that it was often once. And the one shot "test" was an inspired shooting from the hip while doing something else. Eventually, as you keep listening to the early tapes, you begin to see the correspondence between later commentary and conclusions and the early demo sessions that were recorded. If you listen to a few early ACCs in sequence, you see that there are a few demo sessions and some group processing and some feedback from the handful of students and perhaps even a few things that were unrecorded. And these are all carried forward into the next ACC as broad and sweeping conclusions. But he also beefs it up by combining it with suff from even earlier ACCs, and this gives the impression that he had done a lot more unrecorded research but actually he was just re-evaluating an earlier demo session that was recorded, lets say, as part of the HCL lectures in 1952. > "Pilot" continues, "I now firmly believe ...that we don't have all the > answers." What "Pilot" does not realize is that Ron never thought he > had all the answers, that he often pretended to have complete answers > to encourage others to discover how to achieve his postulated goals. > More than once, I've heard Ron say, in person or on tape, that the Tech > was workable, not complete. Well yes, he's certainly like that in the 1960s. But then comes the Class 8 course. Suddenly he's pounding it into the students heads that we do have all the answers and its simple and standard, "like making pie". Of course this blows up in his face (quickie tech etc.) and there are major revisions ("discoveries") in 1970. But it continues on in this pedantic and absolute fashion. > By making tech into scripture, the church > has frozen the tech and prevented advances. On the other hand, I suspect > that church tech management, is trying to discover what has been > developed in the field in the hope that they can use it in the church. On this basis they should be encouraging the freezone instead of trying to stomp it out. But the organization is designed to blow their asses off if they try to introduce anything that they learn from the freezone. Mayo was tossed out quite easily considering how much power and status he had. Mithoff or Reiss would face the same fate. Only a co-ordinated effort amoung many top technical people would have a chance of success. I suspect that this is one of the real reasons for having the ship, it divides the top of the hierarchy into three locations instead of two (Clearwater and Gilman) and thereby makes it harder for a word of mouth revolt to develope. > I think now that Help and Step Six, which > produced undoubted clears rather routinely was dropped from the same > reason. No, he had at least one bad case failure with Step Six style mockup processes. There is a later comment about how it would usually work but sometimes the TA soared up to 6 and wouldn't come back down. So he takes yet another shot at mockups / creative processing with the create series in the first Melborne ACC and that also produces mostly great but occasionally bad results. So he tosses it all out as a bad job. In retrospect, creative processing (mockup processing) is one of the fastest and most powerful techniques that we've got but it occasionally stirs up the create/distroy buttons commonly used in implants. Unfortunately, by the time we finally got a handle on the implants, this earlier tech was already old and forgotten. > ALL STYLES has been neglected and never taught as a skill. Only a few > people, such as Alan Walter's and myself, graduated as Class Six, All > Styles auditors. Possibly as few as ten or twenty altogether, in late > late 1964. When it was discovered that the R6 bank could be run solo > further training of ALL STYLES auditors capable of running others on > the R6 bank was dropped as part of training. It was never actually cancelled. Its not really an either/or choice between Solo and "All Styles" auditing. Its definitely needed as a review auditor and case cracker skill. And a solo version of "All Styles" (as opposed to simple solo) is needed to do solo research auditing. Its all still there on the BC in theory. The real trouble is the missing practical and the general deterioration of training skills. Many of the auditors can't do any better than beginners level "Muzzeled Style", and standard tech tends to encourage this. > The story of the discovery of solo is fascinating and worth preserving. > Student Helen Whitney from New Jersey, had been giving her auditor > considerable trouble by having frequenty upsets and ARC breaks in > session. So Ron announced in a lecture that Helen was being put on a > solo project so that she could learn how difficult she was to audit as a > preclear. Instead, She did well, so that Ron soon after put every red > unit student on solo GPM running. I'm sure that you have lots of stories from those days that are worth preserving and I hope that you're writting them up. In the official tech we only have one man's record of what was really going on. Even if he was perfect it would still only be one viewpoint. And we know for sure that at a minimum he preferred to emphasize wins and down play failures and loved to exaggerate and electrify the students. > ... Similarly if one could spot the > original picture of a body, all the impacts to that body might then > vanish and broken bones, missing limbs, etc might then blow off. Now you've raised a good line for further investigation. This is the kind of thought that is needed if we are to find our way to real OT. What we really lost when Ron squashed it all down to a single source (himself) was that ideas like this could no longer stir the pot. This ones good because it suggests all sorts of things to try. That body builder stuff in History of Man was a shallow toss off and can't be basic. Early track stuff has to be simply postulated body mockups used like icons on a computer desktop. Maybe the current body has an idealized picture or template behind it. Maybe we could consider the DNA to be an encoded series of bit switches against some sort of "generic" body mockup. But if so, what is that generic mockup and where does it originate. I'm not saying that any of these things are true. This is just guesswork. But these are things to explore. Next one dreams up processes and tries things. And then maybe you find a demonstrable phenomena, and that lets you re-evaluate things. And you're still probably only half right, but now your moving forwards. > Here is one more example, most kids I work with giggle when I ask them > about the letter "P." Do you know why? Yes of course. The letter P is used freequently in the NOTS material. Deep down the child knows about these things but hides them from himself. When you mention the letter, it restimulates NOTS and the child becomes fidgity and giggles. (just kidding) Sorry, occassionally I have a Jokers and Degraders fit. It helps blow the charge stirred up by fooling around with all this powerful stuff. It also forces literal minded people who might be reading this to wake up and think about what they're reading. Ron loved to joke and tease his students too. Its hard to imagine him writting the Jokers and Degraders policy. He would have been the first victim if the policies were ever applied to him personally. In all seriousness, you make a good point about little kids confusing the letters and the words. And of course any talk about pee will clip some charge on a small child (and on many adults too). Even if the communication wasn't inhibited (and the society is getting better in that regard), the physical act was inhibited because we can't tolerate the kids doing it anywhere at random whenever the mood strikes them. ========== I am hoping that you keep pushing forward in your own research. And I hope that you have the full set of 32 Super Scio documents that I put out and that they give you a bit of a hand in this area. ARC, The Pilot ======================== The trailer included on most of these messages was: See the Pilot materials at: http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/pub/ss/index.html Or search Dejanews for "Super Scio", or pick up the ss## files from Homer's archive at lightlink.com.