6810C01 Class VIII TAPE 8



CERTAINTY OF STANDARD TECH



And what number lecture is this? (Eight) Now we know

somebody missed one. Eighth lecture, one October 1968, AD18.



The substance of these lectures should not, of course, be

delivered with total ferocity, because up the line

someplace the Saint Hill course will teach its' teachings,

and academies will teach theirs, and somebody will pay

attention to the information which is contained on that.

And someday in the future the Class VIII course will

contain auditors who can audit. And that would be very nice.



I now find out that most of the data concerning listing is

actually still extant on the Saint Sill tapes. This was a

great mystery. It's merely that people hadn't studied them.



Now, in view of the fact that clay table demonstration has

gone out very thoroughly over the past year or two, we can

expect, well people did a demonstration. A corny

demonstration I heard about today. The little blob's the

auditor, and a little blob was the PC, and the ARC break

was a busted line between the auditor and the PC. My

contempt. You're dealing with a bank, and the bank is in

the PC. What is the mechanism? What is the mechanism in

that bank that occurs?



The most deadly sins of auditing are, of course, auditing

without any comprehension of the laws of listing. These

are, that is a deadly sin. It can wrap a PC around a

telegraph pole. And I mean those laws of listing which were

put out in a bulletin in 1968. And any one of those not

followed can wrap a PC around a telegraph pole. It is very

serious.



It is sufficiently serious that five PCs audited in a row

on an auditor who did not know the laws of listing, and so

on, and who didn't know these facts, had trouble, each one

of them, with ethics. Almost immediately, within some forty

eight hours. And it goes something like this.



Out tech results in out ethics, then out ethics has to be

put in heavily in order to hold the line to get tech back

in. If tech were perfect ethics would be unnecessary.



So you see that an auditor who doesn't know his business

opens the door to ethics. And the degree that tech has gone

out is a direct measure of the amount of ethics which has

to be put in.



Direct. This has been the subject of actual test.



Now it may not occur to somebody that I am telling you

facts. I am not telling you my ideas.



Because I say it is true is no reason it's true. Because

I'm telling you what it is, is because it is true. And

anybody who has an opinion that differs with Ron's, anybody

in the world can have an opinion that differs with mine.

But you see, I'm not telling you opinions.



Now when I give you the data of Scientology and the

unraveling of the problems of the mind, I am not giving you

my opinions. I am giving you facts! And they don't compare

with your opinions. Your opinions haven't got anything to

do with it, and my opinions don't have anything to do with

it. You understand me?



Out tech normally stems from some kook who gets an opinion.

And he thinks freedom of think has something to do with

truth. He can think all he pleases, he can have all the

opinions in the world, but when he goes into an org and

indulges in one of these god damned opinions that throws

tech out, shooting is too good for him.



An opinion of this character, "Well, if you get a floating

needle on engrams then you can never run any more engrams."

That opinion was bought once into Saint Hill. Big

discussions on the subject. Would you please tell me how

you could ever run 3 if it was true?



So all you have to do is think it through. Know your

business and think it through. And you will be able to

differentiate the opinion from the fact. Now if clay table

demonstration can go out in the year 1968, it can go out in

the year 1975.



Other things can go out. But it is not possible to predict

what will go out. Because there can be an infinity of

wrongnesses around any rightness. There is actually no

predicting under the sun, moon or stars what any academy or

Saint Hill student will suddenly assume. Because aberration

is a bunch of stuck lies. So some teaching comes through,

the truth comes through, it misses this guy to the degree

that it restimulates some fixed idea.



Now I'll tell you how fixed an idea can go bad. Somebody

has been taught for two or three thousand years that man is

basically evil. You tell him man is basically good. He

considers that a belief, or a religious teaching and wa ha

he seze...  your idea. To put it lightly, because he's

crazy. Now you can prove that man is basically good for

this reason: overts read as overts. Not because he's been

taught that it was bad to do it. He doesn't get well unless

he gets his overts off. When we process a person he becomes

better, more ethical. His ability rises. Now look, if he

was basically evil he would get worse, more stupid. Do you

follow? So all you have to do is think the think through.

On the face of it it proves itself. There would be no

reason under the gods' green earth to process him at all if

he were evil. Because all you would do would be to run out

all the things that taught him to be good. And you would

wind up with somebody who was stupid, vicious, couldn't do

anything, did nothing but loaf. Yes, but processing

demonstrates the complete reverse.



Somebody's around feeling tired, feeling tired. And he

can't work and all that. Well that can't be a native state,

because when you process it he gets ambitious and works.

But you haven't educated him, or taught him to get

ambitious at work, you simply ran out his blunted purposes,

his betrayed intentions. He had some good intention, he was

trying to do something and he got kicked in the teeth too

often. And then he gets tired. So that auditing, is in

actual fact, a subtracting process. And the final product

of auditing demonstrates that man's basically good.



Now in Christian countries men are taught that man is

basically evil. So, you say this to this character you're

trying to teach. "Man is basically good, auditing is a

subtractive process and takes away the evil deeds and out

of valences and into evil valences." And so forth. "And the

fellow gets better and he gets more moral, and he gets more

perceptive, and he gets more able, and he has more energy,

and so forth." He knows you're...  it's impossible if it's a

subtractive process.



Now let's watch this guy in an auditing session. He

punishes the PC. He knows the only way you could make

anybody better is to punish them. And his PC becomes worse,

more tired, less able, the IQ goes down. Now this is a

direct example of a fixed idea getting in the road of truth

and auditing. So that's why I say an auditor has no case. A

student has no case. We are now above the level.



We can talk about, "It isn't true if it isn't true for you"

to an academy student, because that's true. That's the

closest touch he's got to this reality. But I'm not

teaching an academy student right now. And you have no

business receiving it at that level. These are the facts.

This is the hot dope. They're not based on my opinions. I

might have entirely different opinions, and often have had,

but I have enough self discipline not to pass them on to you.



There's a lot of things I could believe in. Lots. For

instance there are things that I would like to be doing

that are, oh my god. When I look at some of these

politicos...  The worst valences I've ever been in contact

with rise to the fore. But I don't allow that to color the

job. I have a job to do. You have a job to do.



I'm going to let you in on something. I didn't even get

R6ed. I'm not from this planet. Now. If I can take it on

that it'd be a very good thing to clean up this planet, you

who were here can damn well share the responsibility and

not say it's all up to Ron. That's an interesting thought,

isn't it?



Right away somebody comes along and tries to hang me as

responsible for all the aberrations of the human race

because I'm trying to do something for it. Well you can

expect such a thing to be passed on to you. But you find

out in the long run, if you do your job, do it cleanly,

stick to the truth, stick to facts, do those things which

exactly work and go on forward, you come out right in the

end. It's the only way you ever come out right.



When you compromise with your own reality, when you deny

your own basic goodness, when you indulge in your own stuck

ideas, you don't come out right.



So somewhere up the track somebody listening to this tape,

he was trained by a cracker jack academy supervisor, his

Saint Hill course was right on the groove, they didn't flub

clay table.



They did a great job of it all the way across the lines.

This guy really knows his business. He knows his business

backwards and forwards. He's moved through 7, he really

knows how to do Power, and he comes to 8. And he hears this

tape. Well the only thing I wish to advise him, that if he

doesn't keep doing his job and keep the data straight, it

can get as bad as it has gotten.



You see, the road out is the only road there is. The road

in and down is a total stop and stays stuck forever. It

isn't a road, it's a hole. Therefore, I enjoin upon you the

job of listening to the straight data, teaching the

straight data, using the straight data, and keeping the

road out open.



And when these wild opinions come in sideways, to knock

them out and kick them aside, with the contempt they deserve.



Holding the line, holding the road open is not an easy job.

Every suppressive that comes along the line has to

invalidate it. He has to discredit it. He goes into a

dramatization of discrediting, because he himself is

terrified. What if some other being got stronger? It's all

he can think of.



What is some other being got stronger? He in his egocentric

nonsense thinks that the other being would become more

evil, and therefore destroy him with more enthusiasm. But

why does he think that? 'Cause he knows damn well he

deserves it. And once more on this subject, how does he

know so well he deserves it?



So, when I give you this data I am not giving you a very

broad area of opinion. I'm giving you exactly what works, I

am giving it to you exactly as it works. And these are the

data which you have to know how to do. It's the data which

are stressed on the Class VIII course. You will not find

any data outside that perimeter. Not even worth paying any

attention to.



Now somewhere up the line, probably somebody will invent

something else besides LSD that is now exported with such

enthusiasm by psychiatrists, to make them drum up business.

More than one way to drum up business. The psychiatrist you

know, is just a dramatizing mad man.



By definition. There are psychiatrists in R6, and certain

people go into valences and become this thing and do it.

And they attain their public presence by the fact that

people know the symbol in R6 and so accept them without too

much objection. They're out of valence in R6.



Now when you get pushed sideways, this and that, it's

because you think some new data has come out. Now I tell

you exactly how, exactly how a case becomes unsolvable, and

exactly why an auditor squirrels. And I've told you

something about this before, but this is exactly why and

how. Standard tech is missed by about four or five miles.

Missed. And then because the case has been missed the

auditor sits there looking, or the case supervisor sits

there looking for an unusual solution, because the case now

seems unusual. 



All unusual cases are cases that have been mishandled 

under the heading of standard tech. They have already 

been mishandled by departure from standard tech, and 

then appear to be unsolvable, and then appear to need

some new solution. And the auditor, or the case supervisor,

seeing this odd phenomenon sitting there of apparently an

unresolving case, then dream up something new, or think

they have to go into some other area, and practice yogi

exercises or drill holes in his head, or something of this

sort. Do you see how that happens? But I assure you of

this, and this is the stable data, this datum right here.

Standard tech has already been missed! There's a miss in

standard tech. All unusual cases come about through a miss

in standard tech. The resolution of all such cases is to

find out where standard tech became unstandard. Do you see?



So here's this case, he's a wide-open invitation to the

auditor and the case supervisor to squirrel, because he

appears to be so unstandard. "Bu-yu-yu-yu-, he's not

solving. We did everything we're supposed to do and nothing

hasn't happened. So we have to do something else. Now let's

dream up some new... " Now the danger of this is these new

ideas usually come from stuck and fixed ideas. And they

don't apply to the case, they only apply to the guy who

thought them up. So much so that the late Volney Matheson

developed a drill. And he found out the cases that were

being audited unsuccessfully, way back when, when he was

fooling around with this, with meters and so on, he found

out what had been audited on the preclear, and then put the

auditor on the cans and found out that was what was wrong

with the auditor. You see, these failed cases, the auditor

was trying to audit his case out of the PC. Hell, that's

the introduction of fixed ideas.



You go back over a case like this. A standard flub. And

honest to Pete it is sitting there, so big and so wide,

that you wonder how in the name of god anybody could miss

it. They could just about as well miss a ten thousand watt

search light in the middle of a dark night. It is right there!



I'll give you an example. Give you an example. Unsolvable

case came up. Absolutely unsolvable. My god, you couldn't

do anything with this case. Well the reason you couldn't do

anything with him, he had been two days overrun on ARC

Straightwire past an F/N. And then this couldn't be

rehabbed because he was in the middle of a secondary. But

every effort to rehab the ARC Straightwire F/N collided

with the secondary which he had already skidded in to,

because it's the next, next step up. And the PC, through

overrun and so forth, he just slid into the next step up.

And all the time the auditor was trying to rehab the ARC

Straightwire the guy was trying to run the secondary. Which

made an interesting looking session. Auditor trying to do

one thing, the PC doing something else, you know?



Well you would have said, "By golly, that's enough, that's

enough, enough certainly, to have thrown any case out the

window right there." Yeah, yeah, yeah. The case became

unsolvable.



But going back through earlier green forms on the case an

R/S was found on missed withholds, an R/S was found on

connected to a suppressive group. And neither one had been

handled or touched by the auditor. Now how the hell could

an auditor go right past the green form, see a great, big

R/S turn on on a missed withhold, and never inquire what it

was? Not only that, but another auditor had come along

later doing a green form, and had gotten a blow down on

missed withholds, and had gotten a blow down on connected

to a suppressive group.



And had never inquired what they were. In addition to that,

in the sea check the guy had walked into the organization

so damn high on LSD that his eyeballs were Archimedes

spirals going 'round and 'round. And that was in the sec 

check.



So what happened? He sat the case down, pulled the missed

withhold. It was an over your dead body sort of a, of an

action. Got what suppressive group it was. The fellow knew.

And then rehabbed a fantastic amount of overrun and weird

release on drugs. I don't know the length of the session, I

think the total session maybe took forty five minutes.



So here where standard tech had already been passed by we

had an unsolvable case that was just sitting there. Anybody

who really didn't know his business would have immediately

accepted this invitation to do something wild, weird and

wonderful. Here was this fellow with his tone arm stuck way

up in the roof, unresolvable, couldn't be audited,

nattering, wouldn't go near Qual, hardly could be forced

into an auditing chair, reporting to the M.O., spent thirty

six hours or so in a hospital where the doctors could find

nothing wrong with him. These are all unusual solutions.

His unusual solution to his case was to stay away from

Qual. Quals' unusual solution was to send him to the

hospital. People were asking for some brand new technique

to come up and hit it. And what was it? It was a case

overrun on drugs with a missed withhold, and connected to a

suppressive group. Also, which didn't have to be resolved

to solve the case, he was also wanted by his draft board.

And was running out on it as a known present time problem,

which didn't come up in auditing.



So you see standard tech only had to be about three

quarters in to resolve the case. Case resolved beautifully.



Now when I see a folder which is about a foot thick with

mislisted lists I know there is enough there to wrap it

around a telegraph pole. When I see a tremendous number of

sessions which didn't F/N, and when I also haven't got the

case folder for the entirety of the auditing, and the case

has been overrun on a lot of early processes, I could feel

very, very sad about the whole thing. Because it's almost

an Herculean job to untangle it. The goofs have added on

top of goofs have added on top of goofs.



Now you're going to see this in case supervision. In Class

VIII you not only have to be a whiz bang auditor, you also

have to be a case supervisor. And there are two distinct

skills: To audit, you only know how to audit, but to case

supervise, you have to know exactly what is wrong with the

case in order to order what auditor. Another trick.

Entirely separate tricks. And if you think you have to know

it to audit, brother, what you have to know to case

supervise. You have to know your data. You have to know

standard tech data main line. Because in one of these

things you hand it over to only a slightly experienced

auditor who starts goofing it.



Instead of repairing the list, he's never heard of the laws

of listing. He attests that he has, he can parrot

something, but he doesn't know why you do a list, and he

doesn't know this, and he doesn't know that. And you ask

him to repair a list. Oh my god. Aaah! He doesn't know

enough about listing himself to repair a mislisted list. So

you get back a case folder where the case is more messed

up. You said the right thing. You said "Straighten out this

list." And you gave it back, you gave it to this auditor,

and this auditor, he never heard of listing. You thought he

did, but he somehow or another managed to sleep through it

all. And you get the folder back worse off. He, he didn't

even repair the existing list, he added a nine page list to

an already complete list. And the case is worse off than

before.



So, you say, "Well we will be hopeful about this", and we

direct what it is, and we get the guy grooved in on exactly

what he's supposed to do. And we give it back to him, or to

another auditor, and when we get the folder back he's

decided that it was really not lists that was worrying this

fellow, but the fact that the man hates auditors. So he has

run, "From where could you hate an auditor?" Do you see?

Ant the case is now worse off, and you as case supervisor

get the thing back. You will actually have to decide now,

that you are in a fire fight of some kind or another, and

it's over auditors' dead body. And so you have to have a

method of cutting their throats. Well the proper order is,

"Do an L1 with the prefix on lists. And just clean up each

read as it goes through." In other words, you're not going

to let anybody look at a list again. You're going to pick

up the ARC breaks which are in restimulation on the subject

of lists and let it go at that, because that's all you can do.



So your case supervision is limited by the skill of the

auditor who's doing the auditing for you.



You sometimes have to pull your shots. You know, for

instance, that this case needs to be, to get the full four

rundown, or something like that, there's something out with

the full rundown, and you've got an auditor there that you

know damn well he can't do it. Well, so therefore you have

to figure out something he can do that will still

straighten out the case. And that's the only variability

you get in case supervision. Your case supervisor orders

may be beyond the ability of the auditor to execute. That

is usually demonstrated, you never really pull your shots

on case supervision. You say exactly what he's supposed to

be doing, exactly. It's when you get into these wild fire

fights, or correcting a correction. So you give case

supervision and then they goof it. So you have to now

correct the correction. Well, you can only do that a couple

of times without all of a sudden having such a glorious

mess on your hands that you had better take some more

direct route. Obviously beyond the skill of the auditor to

do, even though it's a very standard action.



You say the case, because he feels very sad, is in an ARC

break of long duration. That's a standard statement. Sad

case, ARC break long duration. Boom, boom. Little data add

up at once. And you give it back to the auditor. And the

auditor gets in some kind of a fire fight with the PC. See?

And he puts in an R-factor. Well I had a folder today. The

auditor managed to get into a fire fight with the PC over an 

R-factor. God, I don't know how he did that. That must have 

been a masterpiece. How could you get into a fire fight? The

auditor must have said something very weird. Instead of

saying, "We're going to do an assessment on the case, this

isn't what it was, but instead of saying, "I'm going to

assess a list on your case," and so forth, "We're going to

find out what type of resistive case you are." Must have,

because he had protest on resistive case. So he must have

mentioned it. 'Course he was a good auditor, he wouldn't

evaluate! Ha.



Now, some auditor you give an, you give a case supervision,

you say, "This girl is leading a highly illegal sort of a

second dynamic existence. So therefore we're going to pull

missed withholds." You have gotten it on your intelligence

lines that this is the case with this case, don't you see?

Or you've gotten it from something or other, or the case

natters in session. All these various indicators. Or the

case is just chewing up more husbands than she can get

married to, it's a sort of assembly line, you know? So you

figure there must be some kind of an irregularity on the

second dynamic, so obviously because the case is mad at

men, or something like this...  You've got indicators,

indicators, indicators, see? And you say, "Case is living a

rather irregular second dynamic existence. Pull the missed

withholds." 



Then this auditor, he shows the case the...  We don't 

have any, we don't have any control over this, you

see, as case supervisor, but we sure can find out what

happened, 'cause the session won't come off unless it's

totally false reported. And the PC, when they go to the

examiner, isn't going to do anything, if the session didn't

come off, why it's going to show up on the examiner line.

And if it doesn't show up on the examiner line I guarantee

it'll show up on the ethics line later. You got two spots

of control here. Shows up at the examiners or it shows up

at the ethics. It'll also show in no further sign ups. See?

So these spots, if you were really doing a case supervisor

job, your admin would be to find out who is in ethics.

Who's in ethics trouble? What PCs have just gone through

here that ethics orders have been issued on? And another

one would be, from the registrar, of who hasn't signed up

for the next grade. So you'd want a leaving interview.



Now I can tell you the tech is out if over fifty percent of

the PCs going through an HGC do not show up for a leaving

interview. Now you can jump on routing, and you can jump on

this and you can say, "How the hell did that get out?" The

truth of the matter is, PCs must be avoiding it. So tech

must be out.



Now it would be very interesting then, to take such people

that didn't show up at the registrars' office when they

left the organization, and to check them back against your

folders. And then you will find out that Aloicious Q.

Zilch, HGC auditor, lies, lies, lies. If the TA is at

seven, he writes two, F/N. The lies are never slight. And

so you hang him and get on about your business.



A case supervisors' neck is always out. The false auditing

reports. So therefore there are various checkpoints by

which the false report shows up. But the basis of this is,

and must be, that the case supervisor has a certainty on

standard tech. See, he must know that standard tech,

applied standardly, works. If he's wondering, "Does this

work", or "Something that doesn't work", or "Should I go

back to yogi? I used to have such fun sitting in an ibis

position." He can't police it down like that.



Now we had one today, case supervision. I gave a little

list to be audited. A little list. One, two, three, four

items. And this was what, by understanding, with the PC

having trouble with any one of these items, or with any one

of these items charged. And one of them blew down and

F/Ned. It was just the list. Blew down and F/Ned. Well I

could tell this because the folder was, I don't know, eight

or nine feet thick. That's an exaggeration. It was only

about six inches thick. But, wow!



Now we say, "Well golly, if the guy, if the guy blew down

and F/Ned, he's got something wild. Absolutely wild! What

terrible auditing he had all the way along the line. Well

it's obviously what was wrong with the case, well it's

passed an F/N and there isn't any thing you can do about

it." Oh yeah? Oh no, as case supervisor that told me that

the person had withholds from that item, so in the next

session we're going to pull the missed withholds. Because

it was a list of people who were trying to help him. So I set 

up a list of people who were trying to help this person, and 

one of them blew down, and he said, "Oh they were absolutely

terrible," so I know then, at once, that's a critical

opinion. So we pull the missed withhold. Elementary.



It's not even very clever. It's very standard. I want to

find out where, where is this character sitting? This guy

been audited over PTPs, missed withhold, ARC breaks, what?

See? Well by ordering a prep check on a certain number of

items after assessment, I could tell from the answers where

he's been sitting. I was denied the information because on

one of the items he blew down. And went F/N. And that was

the end of that, of course. You didn't prep check beyond

that. There's still missed withholds sitting there.



So now we're going to get in suppress on missed withholds,

and pull the missed withholds, and the case'll sail. Missed

withholds don't read in a session. But they must be there.

They must be there 'cause the folder's too thick. See what

I mean? Case has critical opinions, folder too thick, blows

down on people trying to help him. Must have missed

withhold. Person isn't sad, so it isn't an ARC break. His

case rolly-coasters, so it isn't a PTP. Change, oh there's

change there. The only one's left is missed withholds. Now

that would be combined with overts, so when it comes back

and "No the person doesn't have any missed withholds",

that's great. I'm going to have overts. And we will get

around to this, sooner or later. And the case will no

longer go to review.



The case supervisor is in the business of ending off review

cycles. He is never in the business of starting them.



A case supervisor who has too many people going to review,

after he has had them supervised in the HGC must be working

with the damndest crew of bums as auditors anybody ever

heard of, or himself must be driven up the wall by

inventiveness. Something must be very out. But what you

keep your paws on is standard tech. Don't let that slip,

see? That's the thing which mustn't slip. Pcs slip,

auditors slip, reporting of cases slips, see? Various

things slip, but not standard tech. That doesn't slip.



Now unless you know that well subjectively, and so on, it

will slip. Because you just have it on my say so. So

therefore the progress is, that the auditor should be able

to get horrendous wins with standard tech. And boy, when

he's really got it in the groove. Sits down across from

that ole' PC, and he says, "Rattata-tat", and the meter

says rattly-bang, F/N. Ratta-ta-tat, booms He just sits

there. 



An auditor who can audit this by the way gets so cocky 

and insufferable he can't be lived with. He does. And

that is a frailty, because when you get hotter than a

pistol as an auditor you then automatically assume you can

case supervise. And that's another skill. That's really

calling your shots. And when case supervision, you're

saying the number three ball in the right corner pocket.

And the auditor, he doesn't even pick up a cue. He thinks

it's hit with a base ball bat. So you've entered this piece

of randomity on your auditing lines, and it tends to sort

of begin to shake you a little bit. But if you know what

can be done, then you know what he ought to be doing. And I

assure you that standard tech, correctly applied,

applied standardly, gets one zero, zero par cientum.



Variations, goof balled, mucked up application, and so

forth, are all that reduce it. So it's your business to get

it applied. Your foe is the introduction of somebody who

knows best. The bird is sitting there auditing the PC, and

the PC comes up with a wide open invitation to squirrel.



And the auditor, the knuckle head, departs from the C/S and

squirrels. Now you've got a patch up of the session.

(Sighs) Because if this auditor squirreled once, he's

liable to squirrel twice.



So you have to start nailing it in with ethics presence.



And then, the next thing you know, you get the session

folder back and he's not squirrel this time, boy he's blown

his cool from here to the north pole. Gone. He's just in a

lot of pieces.



If you were to research into this you would find out that

inadvertently you've put him to auditing his ex-girlfriend.

Or that she looks just like his mother. Something is goofed

up here of some kind or another. Something has entered into it

which has no business in the line of any kind whatsoever.



When you get into one of these fire fights whereby you're

trying to get a case supervisor instructions actually done,

and the auditor is doing other things. But every now and

then you get an auditor who will be obliging and write down

that he did what he didn't do. And he's the only guy who

can hang you. You can't straighten that out. As a case

supervisor you've got to go in through the lines, you've

got to go in to order restraining, you've got to go into

all kinds of side lines that you really have no business

in. Case supervisors' neck is out a mile on a false

auditing report. So therefore he must be absolutely

merciless when he receives one. It's the only thing that

can wreck him. If he can get the facts, and if he can

read the auditing report... 



That's another thing. It's an actual fact, if I'm auditing

for blood, as Qual here can tell you.



When I can't read the auditing report it goes back with

some asperity and velocity. I won't have anything to do... 

By the way this is a very good rule. Don't have anything to

do with an auditing report you can't read. Don't have

anything to do with it. If you get into it, you will be

over mastered, sometimes by your curiosity to know what

happened to Zilch. Sort of like One Man Stanley continued

story, you know? You want to know what happens to Zilch. So

you try to make out this. And he had a new auditor today,

and this auditor writes a script which is just a continuous

series of ee's.



And this auditor writes a script which is just a continuous

series of ee's. And you can't read it.



And the second you discover that to be the fact you take,

if you are really on the groove, and you're really clever,

you really know your business, you turn it around, without

trying to make it out, and send it back for printing in a

different colored pen over every indecipherable word.



Make him rewrite the whole thing. And then, you assign him

projects in penmanship until he can write so that he can be

read. You never go it by halves, because I'll tell you why.

You're gonna eventually start winding up with headaches as

a case supervisor. You got misunderstoods all over the

place. You're trying to find out what the hell did the PC

say, what, what is that? Looks like ee's. Is it leave,

have, boo boo, catterwamp? And you sometimes read these out

as they would actually look. And you get "butter wump mum

hip". And you keep doing this, you're gonna wind up with an

antipathy toward an auditing report. An auditor, actually

part of his training, should be to write rapidly, legibly.

Anybody can learn how to do it. Doesn't even take much

practice.



Few days ago I ordered an auditor to learn how to write.

And I'll be a son of a gun. Session came up, next session

that person did a few days later, came up, the auditor was

writing. I'm sure the session wasn't slowed up. Only took

him a few days to learn how to write.



But a case supervisor should never accept an indecipherable

folder, because he starts laying mysteries into his line.

He'll start making mistakes. And this is, what's more I

tell you. He doesn't do his job fast. See? He does his job

right now, and so forth. But that is to say he doesn't do

his job on the basis that the PC has got to be audited

'cause he's leaving for Spokane. Just out of pure

cussedness don't do the folder. "What about that pc that's

got to leave for Spokane? He's got to catch a four o'clock

plane. We've got to give him a session.



He's got his reservations, and so forth. As case

supervisor you should say, "Bubber out, bub." Let him catch

the plane next Saturday. Because I want him to go back to

Spokane right, not rushed.



What frame of mind must this guy be in during the auditing

session? Sitting on the edge of the chair, watching his

clock, "Let's see. It's a review. Awawaww." In the first

place, standard sessions are very rapid. And very, very,

very rapid. And there's no percentage in pointing the guy

wrong, as I've told you before. No percentage in it

whatsoever. Just make sure you're pointing it right. Don't

think twice about, you look at this and you wonder, "What

the hell? What, what's this? What's this? I don't know.

This case isn't acting right." And send it back to the

auditor to get an assessment done. Send it back to the

examiner to get the case looked at.



Folder looks a little bit funny to you. Looks a little bit

weird. Something a little bit weird about it. Send it back

to the examiner for another examination. Don't take chances

with it, because that's not where you save your time. Time

is saved in the case supervision being correct. And

in the auditing being expert. Do you see? And you'll learn

eventually, so that your lines smooth out, you do them very

rapidly. But when in doubt, the only time you miss, is when

you get in a rush. Or you talk, you get in such a rush you

send for the auditor. Cuts your throat, boy.



Want to sell stock? He thinks he's standing there looking a

condition of doubt in the teeth, maybe. He'll tell you

anything. It's a facts. And then, of course you're just

seeing the PC from his viewpoint. And he, perhaps is

offended. He has tried to help the PC, and the PC wasn't

helped in some fashion or another. So he's offended. So he

blames you. The fact that he forgot to start the session

and plug in his meter, he ignores.



So in the final analysis your grip on standard tech must be

so standard that you expect standard results and settle for

nothing less. And you solve the problems that you run into

in auditing on that basis.



Now you could get into some situation where a guy is in an

upper OT...  This would be the toughest situation I would

know of. The guy is in an upper OT Section classification

as you walk on the scene as case supervisor. And his TA is

at 5, and he has apparently had all known remedies. He's

been run on "What has been overrun". He has been rehabbed

on anything and everything you could think of. And he, his

TA is up there. And that, something like that will be your

first invitation to squirrel. Because, here's, here's the

facts. Somewhere in that line of all this has been done is

a false report. It hasn't... 



I found one the other day. Case was way high, "What has

been overrun" has been run on the case. Ba-ba-ba, ba-ba. I

went back. I found the session of "What has been overrun".

Do you know what the auditor did? The auditor listed a list

of what has been overrun, indicated no reading items on it,

although many of them read, and then didn't rehab any of

the things that were overrun. The right way to do this

list, is, it's, it is not a list. It is simply an auditing

question for which you are writing down the answers in

order to do something with them. So he write down the first

thing and it had a fall. Alright. Now at that moment you

take that item, which he has just put down, and you run it

back to the time it was released, and before it was

overrun. And you may not get an F/N on that one. You now

give the next item. The PC gives you the next item, and

there's no read on that, so you neglect it. The PC gives

you the next item, you get a long fall. Good. You take that

subject, you run it back, you rehab it. Good.



Now, you got the next subject. He's talking about all kinds

of things, you know? Bookkeeping's been overrun. Well you

run it back to when it was released. You'll get some charge

off of each one of these things as you try to rehab it. And

you get him down the line here, another item, another item,

six, eight items later that have read, each one of them

rehabbed to a time when they went release. The tone arm has

gradually come down, and in most of cases where this is

happening and there isn't also something else wildly wrong,

it then F/Ns. And the tone arm has been cured. Don't be

surprised if it tends to go up, because probably a lot of

his grades are overrun, because they sat on ruds, or, a lot

of his grades never went release, because he was so overrun

when he got into Scientology, and so forth, that auditors

just sort of despaired of actually getting an F/N, and

they'd give him F/Ns of 3.9, or something.



And the truth of the matter is, the guy's grades are out

and they never did go release. But you've cured the earlier

overruns. You can bring him up to a point now where he can

do something about it. Now you'd have to decide whether or

not it was audited over out Ruds or if it was because of

basic track overrun, that he never went release on his

grades. Which, which was the reason? Which was the reason?



Well, funny phenomena will occur. You can put in the Ruds.

An upper OT guy or something like this, you can put in the

Ruds before the point. Put in the Ruds before auditing. Put

in his ARC breaks, PTPs, on the whole track, and get him up

to a point. Now check, again, the release points. They

don't occur. Good. He's not flat on ARC Straightwire,

engrams, secondaries, the lot. All the way up the line he

isn't flat on a single, god damn thing. Every one of them

has to be run. You say, "Magnificent. How the hell did he

get this far?" Well, I don't know. How far could a bunch of

auditors that didn't know what they were doing push a guy?

How many false attests can you get? An infinity, of course.



But you'll see this case, and they will say, "Everything

has been done." Particularly if you're new on post.

Somebody wants to shake you down, put you in place, see?

"Well, here's this case, here's this case. Zilch. Ha-hool

Everything's been done! Ha hat Everything's been done.



The lot. The whole, yeah everything. What has been overrun,

valence shifters, confront, we've rehabbed all grades,

rehabbed drugs, rehabbed ha ha ha ha ha, education. He's

had forty five remedy Bs, one hundred and seventy two S and

Ds, we've done everything we can do. He's, we've rehabbed

all the F/Ns that ever occurred on green forms and sec

checks. We've done all of this, and there he is! Ha ha!"

And you say, "Oh my gods" You start looking through the

auditing reports on the case which you have to study very

carefully. Case supervisor always does. He looks through

these things, and he looks through these things, and they

all seem to be OK. It all seems to be done alright. Wow.

There's your whole tool bag. Heen emptied out on the

ground. Every one of them's been used. Hm! I would do

something like this. On resistive case has anything been

suppressed? Prep check the following. You don't care. You

can always prep check things. Prep check assessment lists.

Prep check S and Ds. You don't care what you're gonna

suppress. You know, prep check some things. You can't even

assess this list anymore. There's eighteen assessments of

resistive cases in it, see?



And all of a sudden something blows down. Now you can

follow what blew down back as the false report chain. Got

it? You can take and prep check everything on the resistive

cases list, including resistive cases lists. Something is

gonna BD. Something's suppressed. There's something still

out. Handle it.



Now, something else comes into view, and you find out that

you've been handed a bundle of lies. Everything hasn't been

done. I'd just compare it. The same thing. The guy, the

unresolvable case, the completely and utterly unresolvable

case, who yet R/Sed and then blew down on missed withholds,

and connected to suppressive groups. I mean, what more do

you want? I mean, how the hell, you say, can an auditor sit

there, and actually look at a meter do this? And notice it,

because he wrote it in his auditing report, and never asked

the guy a single question, What was the missed withhold?"



Well, it compares to a Power which I inspected in one of

your folders. Oh my god. Aaah. 5A.



And it says, almost direct quote, "Places. No place. PC

says no place is not the answer. PC sitting quietly

thinking. Blow down. F/N." And then he took him to 1D.

(Drums fingers on table) Blew down on what? The PC was

listing without talking! In other words, the auditing was

so god damn bad, that the PC has ceased to talk to the

auditor. He was listing to himself! Well, that's because

the item just above it hadn't been given to the PC. They

were just listed to F/N. Dadadadamm. You get it? Never

found the item, never gave it to the PC. Or it's a wrong

item. The list needs to be checked. But there's evidence,

the PC listing to himself. He wasn't giving any items, but

he had a blow down. And smiled quietly. I don't think he

smiled quietly, I think he smiled god damned sarcastically.



What was the item the PC thought of that caused the blow

down? Obviously the auditor should give it to him. Left the

PC with a withhold of one item. Not only did he not give

the PC his items on this, but he left the PC with a

withhold of one of the items, which is on 1C. This is clown

stuff. But you look back over a lineup like this, you can

find errors. Unfortunately, this person's already been

through the CC, so that is not a corrective list. Power's

not corrective.



You can get into trouble, because you, you...  You can

correct it if the person never went clear, but you can get

into trouble. How do you get into trouble? Well, when you

try to straighten it out you inadvertently start running

it. You find out the list, the Power list or commands or

something weren't complete, and you find that as the

wrongness. Now you're gonna have to run Power. And you run

Power after clear you wrap the PC around a telegraph pole.



One auditor in one thousand PCs would be able to do it and

get away with it, and thinking he'd gotten away with

something he'd find out the PC never went clear in the

first place. But then your side data comes in. "Oh well, I,

I ran a PC on Power one time after he was clear, and

nothing happened. I don't see why there's any proviso on

that." We're only dealing with all data, see? Of course you

could probably rehabilitate, rehab Power on this PC or that

PC, maybe even, when they were clear without any great

consequence, or even with a bit of a win, see? But it's 

not one of these data you could do it with every PC, 

so every time you did it you'd take one hell of a chance. 

And then the PC that it couldn't be done on, boys

Now you gonna untangle that, see? Because you can only

untangle it by rehabbing it, which...  And Power is an area

where you can get into a fire fight on your correction on a

person after he's been cleared, because you of course are

never dealing with his Power. You'll find some body thetan

on whom of course you could run Power. So you're busy

involved in running body thetan Power, Power on a body

thetan, and then the individual himself of course mis-owns

this and thinks Power isn't flat. It gets into a mess with

great rapidity.



So we're talking in standard tech on the data you can do on

every PC every time. But again, it follows the laws of

processes. On case supervision there are only so many

things that you can do. But you can only do them once. Now

when they've all been done, you have to ask the question of

"Were they done?" So this gets to be very fascinating,

because of course they haven't all been done.



Now you're, only thing you have to solve is which one is a

false resort. Not to overweigh the, or overrun the, the

object of the lesson. But this is what it takes.



Now you're probably struggling along with an infinity of

data. And you think that there is an infinity of data. And

it'd only be an infinity of data if you had an infinity of

fixed ideas. The data are very few, the overall technical

data are probably under, I don't know what they are, just

at a guess two, three four, five hundred. At the absolute

outside, I'm talking about data, in the body of data.

There's things like the axioms, and things like this, you

include these things in. As far as processes are concerned,

why there probably aren't fifty. And in the numbers of ways

to do them there's only one. So what are you talking about,

infinity of data? See? There's no infinity of data. There's

an infinity of goofiness in life. That can go to infinity

with the greatest of ease.



So whenever you see, whenever you see somebody squirrelling

you know he's already goofed. And that is the law

concerning it. A squirrel has already goofed. Now he can't

goof so seriously that he can't ungoof his goof. That's not

possible. Unless he takes a brick and hits the PC over the

head, and exteriorizes him forcibly, and buries the body

someplace and then can't find the PC. But if you can't get,

your goof would mostly consist of being unable to get the

PC to come back into session. Sometimes he has to be sort

of dragged back. But a goof always precedes the

squirrelling. And that goes clear back to 1950. If somebody

in 1950 had taken Book One, and they'd run engrams the way

Book One said, just that, and they'd done that, why they

would have found a high percentage of resolution of cases.

Just like that. And they got a high percentage of

resolution of cases. But engram running started to go out

sideways, and it went out sideways over a great many years,

until a short time ago it was reported that engram auditing

by chains was very old hat and even looked on like

squirrelling.



Brother, I sure don't know how you'd ever resolve a hung up

3 if you couldn't run engrams by chains. Couldn't. It's the

only road left open. See what I mean?



Somebody can come along and take one of the basic central

data, he can take a basic central datum, and he can say,

"Ha ha, oh it's gone now. I know we really don't do that

anymore. I just came from the Flag Ship, and so forth, and

they, they don't do that anymore." Move it off the line.

Now standard tech doesn't work anymore. And that is

normally what happens. They either take a datum or a body

of data off the line by invalidation, or they put some new

data on the line by evaluation. And, that way, the subject

goes crooked. And it's no longer a straight subject so it

doesn't work, so people have to invent all kinds of damn

things to make it work.



So you see then why I work hard to hold the line. It's very

easily made unworkable. All you have to do is throw away

the text book.



Now there are certain beliefs that certain subjects of one

kind or another have certain degrees of workability. That's

perfectly true. Natureopathy, chiropractic, to name a few

antique things, phrenology, where they told fortunes by the

bumps on the skull, which I think is, they changed its'

name after a while to psychology. They tell fortunes by the

bumps on the brain. There isn't actually any difference in

these data. Even psychology preempted the word of soul,

study of.



That's what the word means. When they start teaching

psychology, they started teaching it by saying they didn't

know what it meant. That's a great place to start a

student, isn't it? "Psychology. Well we do not know what

the word means, because a psyche means soul and we don't

have anything to do with a soul." You think I'm kidding.

But that is how the last psychology text book read that

came off the press just ahead of volume one, 1950. I was

down at the American Book Company and I saw this blue

covered books were coming off the endless belt of the

binder. And they were coming off, pocketa, pocketa. And we

were waiting because there was a big ceremony involved in

it, for Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health to

come up the first copy through the binder. And it was

following this blue book. So I turned around to a, to the

head of American Book, and I said, "What book is that?" And

he picked up a copy of it out of the bin. It was the

University of Illinois, I think it was, psychology text

book. It was their basic college textbook. And I said, "I

must have this one." And took it off the lines right ahead

of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health. And I

said, 'We will preserve this one in concrete so that the

psychologist cannot in the future lie about how much he

knew about Dianetics."



And that is the way the book starts. We don't know what

psychology means. It says, along about line four or five or

ten or something, somewhere in the volume, "Intelligence

cannot change. It is that way when the person is born. It

is the same when he dies." You look at this damn thing you

never saw such a parade of lies in your life. So I said,

"We'll keep this one." I've still got it in my library. It

shows the state of the mind just before AD 0. State of

the mind. What did they know about it? Pffft!



"Now the great discoveries that are made in universities!

Professor Humphgaw! The great professor Humphgaw has just

understood that life has something to do with affinity.

Give a Nobel Prize." The lion, see? See? They read our

textbook you see, and they...  Sometimes you can get a

textbook on philosophy or religion, or something, in the

library. And you can look through it page after page, and

you'll find somebody has marked lines. And they have looked

through this book only to find things which agreed with

their own fixed ideas. And this book, you go through a lot

of library shelves on these subjects, and you'll for sure

find one. And it's marked, you know, some obvious thing,

you know? "Men are males", you know? And you'll see over

here in the margin, "So true." (Laughter) So you could

expect for a number of years yet to come, I suppose, the

great discoveries are brought about through, somebody reads

"Handbook for Preclears" or something of this sort, and he

reads some line in there. All of a sudden he realizes that

that is the subject for a complete research foundation, and

goes ahead and investigates us. It's pretty weird.



But, they'd be much better off if they found out the line

following it, too. That also was important. So that you

actually can get subtractions from a subject. You can get

little isolated bits brought out of the subject. You can

take bits out of context. And then build these things up,

so that somebody's rather pauperized understanding can

reach into some situation and get "Men are males," and then

build the whole thing up around "Men are males," and

there's a whole bunch of technology like this. But it

doesn't work. There's no workability. Because a very few

people have that fixed idea. Most people know it already.



So the whole subject is any subject which you're trying to

hold the lines of, is then wide open to variation if the

person, one, doesn't have a variability, a factor being

entered in by some stable, fixed idea that somebody has.

And the net result of it is workability. Now people who

have had the subject work well on their cases, and they've

seen pocketa ding thud crash, and it worked just like that.

They don't have any question about this as the right way to

do it, because it has worked. But then people who have been

audited without those data, and without those laws or rules

being applied, list over listed, under listed, items not

given to 'em, Power run upside down, forgot to run grades 2

and grades 3, and before they ran grade 4, this sort of

thing, they get into a feeling of wobble, wobble. They

haven't experienced standard tech, so they consider that it

is non-standard. And it's always more difficult to teach

somebody who has been subjected to non-standard tech than

somebody who has received good, straight forward standard

tech up the lines. 



But if you really want to teach somebody the subject, and 

make him a missionary on the whole idea, is after he has 

been mucked up from A to lizzard, put him back

together again with standard tech. Zoom, thud. He's been

worrying about his case for the last three years. You put

him back together again with just straight standard tech.

And you put him back together again so fast he hardly knew

what happened. It went, pffft, pffft, pffft! Never knew.

Wow! He isn't necessarily overwhelmed. But he now has the

idea that is can be done wrong too. And I think in any

group taking a Class VIII course there will be a certain

number who have some idea and subjective reality that it

can be done wrong, there will also be some, some small

number of characters who have done it wrong and have

received it wrong, and don't quite know what they're

studying. And so don't quite know what to hold on to,

because it, haven't seen the workability, subjectively,

objectively. See? They've gotten into some back eddy of

sauirrel-ishness on the thing somehow or another, and just

left their case parked in right field and their

understanding parked some place back of home base, and

they're not quite sure what they're looking at. And they

get confused.



Now in this state, groping for some orientation, a groping

for something, why they'll hold onto some data like fury,

which may be a very minor datum. You know, like ARC contains R.



They really know it contains R. They got a subjective

reality on that. You have to spread them out from that.

They're fixed on that, because a lot of confusion is

oriented by that. And when you say there's more to it,

there's also A, and there's also C, why you're spreading

'em out to a point where the confusion starts to hit them a

little bit. And so they go back to the thing, "Well I

really am certain that R is R." You see how it happens?



So anyway, holding the line, holding the line. Trying to

get it to go straight down, right down the groove, and so

on, is subjectable to many cross currents, so that the

subject, with certain things subtracted from it ceases to

work on certain people, who then start looking for some

other way to do it, who then come in with some god damn

fool opinion, who didn't know in the first place, and blow.

And the whole subject goes up in smoke. Deteriorates. Which

is unfortunate. Men who know the laws of listing don't

follow them. Then they get some loses on cases. Now the

cases they've audited don't think, they think the laws of

listing have been applied, so they think the laws of

listing are wrong. So they invent some new idea of listing,

which is that all over listed lists must be over listed.

And that is what an auditor is up against.



Now the auditor himself is subjected to a certain amount of

invalidation, because he does what he thinks is necessary,

and what he is sure is the right thing to do. And he finds

out it doesn't straighten out the PC. This particular

instant didn't straighten out the PC. So, this makes him

feel like he's had a little bit of a lose. He sees the

examiner reports. The guy left the session apparently OK,

appeared at the examiner and there was something out. Well

how did that happen? So he feels a bit invalidated. He

feels he should do something else beyond the C/S.



Beyond the case supervision he should do something else.



So, the case supervisor sees this, and then he is subjected

to a certain amount of invalidation from the auditor. The

auditor, you know, didn't do so well that time. When he

appeared at the examiner he wasn't alright. Something's

wrong. Well, the one thing you can find to agree on in all

this, and this is the stable datum, the one thing you can

find to agree on all this, is that something is a departure

from standard tech. That gives you an orientation zone from

which to orient your disagreements. The auditor probably

busy blaming the case supervisor, the case supervisor busy

blaming the auditor, and the PC sitting back there with a

completely suppressed read on PTP. It's completely

suppressed because a present time problem doesn't

communicate to him. Every time you ask for a present time

problem, why he knows what problems are. They're solution

to things. And he hasn't got any solutions. All he's got is

worry. The communication to the PC is out. And it hasn't

emerged. Or he's got an ARC break of long duration. He's

there not on his own determinism, forced to be there. And

he suffers through it all. The idea of ARC break is

completely foreign to him, because the word doesn't

communicate. Or, because he's been asked for ARC breaks and

then had them invalidated.



You can get an infinity of wrongnesses that happened with

the guy, but the resolution of the case will be ARC breaks

are out, PTP is out, or, missed withholds are out, or he's

committing continuous present time overts, some grade is

out that was supposed to have been run but wasn't, the list

that was supposed to have been done was to wrong item, it's

falsely listed, or the general approach on TRs completely 

out of the case supervisors sight, and completely out of 

the auditors sight. Early on, why it was just constant 

invalidation. The auditing sessions. He had several auditing 

sessions in which each one of them was just a constant 

invalidation. "Well, that's not right, actually what you 

mean is so and so." See? Something weird has gone on.



Nevertheless you can untangle it all.



It's where you've had departures from these exact actions.

And some of those departures are important and some of them

are unimportant. Now I'll give you an example of what is

unimportant. I see in case summaries, which auditors do,

they're prone to list the administrative errors of the

auditor. They go through the folder and they list the

administrative errors. They raise hell. The auditor didn't

totally date the session, he didn't give the year, he just

gave the month and day, and he writes the TA down in the

wrong column, and you can't tell the difference in that,

and he doesn't give all of what the PC said, and he gave no

reason why he ended off the session, or something. These

are administrative, administrative, administrative. And an

auditor doing case summary, a case, a summary, a case

supervisors error summary of course is a thing. It is going

through every session you can get your hands on and finding

every auditing blunder in that session, and making a list

of these. Well, making this list, well, you'll find out an

auditor who's green at this, or a case supervisor who's

very green at this, he will go into this on the basis of

the administrative flubs. Do you see? You know, he didn't

date it, and he didn't write down...  There is no summary

report. Absolutely reprehensible. There is no summary

report for this session, and so forth. And he just goes on

and on and on, page after page after page. It's the wildest

listing you ever saw. Because not one of them would affect

a PC at alit The viewpoint from which case error summary

lists are done is the viewpoint of what has an auditor done

that would have messed up a PC.



Now, it could also be done from, what would mess up a case

supervisor. So you're interested basically in what would

have messed up the PC, secondarily in what would mess up

the case supervisor in trying to case supervise it. That's

why admin is tough and straight. Just so the people can

tell what's happening. That is basically what you want out

of an error summary report. What you want is what has been

done that would have affected the PC adversely? What

departures from standard tech do you find? We find PTP has

always been handled by "Invent another problem". Aaaahhh.

Therefore we know there's going to be charge on the subject

of PTPs. So we're going to have to get PTP corrected. We

can prep check it. You always got prep checks, they're, you

can prep check anything. Overrun. Check for overrun on PTP.



Check for this, check for that. See? Overrun, prep check,

do something about it. But you've got it there. Look at

this, god damn it. For one and one half years this case,

they attempted to solve this case in a review, somewhere,

and they consistently ran "Invent another problem, invent

another problem, invent another problem", and the case has

just been getting worse and worse.



What really hasn't changed... his main basic

characteristics. See, you've got your error summary. That

would have affected the case. That was important. And the

session which goes wiggle biggie zibble, zig zig, wwwww

voom. You can't understand it, so the case supervisor's

been done in. So you say, "Out admin, shoot the auditor."

That's what your folder error summary should consist of.

What affects the case? And what would affect it's case

supervision? That's all that's important. There isn't

anything else that's important. So it says "PTP, F/N".

Doesn't say the PC said anything, it just blew this and

that. It happened two years ago - The auditor's already

been hanged. It isn't gonna affect the case one way or the

other, see, so why remark it? Say the hell with it. That

way you get the important things, the very, very important

things. Mis-listed list. Lists. Fifty S and Ds done in the

same week. See? That's the stuff. That's the stuff. Now you

know, you know what to order. "Too many S and Ds. Fly the

needle on S and Ds, overrun of. Find you can't do that, do

an L-1." That'll be your case supervision. "On S and Ds do

an L-1. Fly the needle on S and D rehab. If this is

impossible, L-1, with the opening line is, 'On S and

Ds... '" Do something in this character, which is very

standard, standard list, you do it to this subject. But on

folder summary, in looking back over it, you'll find these

damned S and Ds. S and Ds, S and Ds, S and Ds. Christ, how

many suppressives are there on the planet? See? They're

over listed, under listed, wrongly executed, you know? Wow,

that must be an awful zone.



Now, but if we find out we can't do anything about it we

better stop restimulating it. And you get the other part of

the coin. You couldn't get anything done about it, so don't

do anything about it. Don't get into one of these

perpetuals, gonna take a year and a half to rehab this case.



See? Because the case is gonna get worse and worse and

worse and worse and worse. Over repair.



Do you have a better grip on this ? (Yes) If you think

there's an infinity of data then you must have confronted

an infinity of wrongnesses. And having confronted it, let

it blow. And hold on to the main line. Thank you very much.



**************************************************