6810C14 Class VIII TAPE 18





THE NEW AUDITOR'S CODE



Well here we are coming down to the end of the course. Down

toward the bitter end of the course. I haven't done your

folders today. So I don't know whether you will leave clean

or not. You will be happy to know that the two folders

which were offered in lieu of the examination, on one of

them the whole courses auditing was delivered by John

Purcell in a matter of one hour, to a very well done.



Very amusing on that one, the pre OT said when he went to

the examiner, "And when I started it I didn't even know if

I was a Straightwire release."



And on the other one, and on the other one I knew a bug

existed on the case, one way or the other. And I handed it

out with a completely straight face, and what needed to be

done was the full four rundown, and I knew very well the

case needed a repair action before it could be done. The

auditor did start the session, and then suddenly realized

he had better do a repair, so he ended off, did another

C/S, and carried on with it, also to get a well done.



So, very good. Now let's see. What number lecture is this?

(Eighteen) Lecture number eighteen. The Class VIII Course,

Sea Org. And the date? The last time I looked it was the

what? (Fourteenth) Fourteenth of Oct. AD 18. Very good.



This lecture starts out with a rewrite of the auditors'

code. I apologise to those who have gone to a great deal or

trouble memorizing the auditors' code. But you must realize

that the auditors' code was many, many, many years out of

date. Because it talks about flattening three comm lags of

equal length, and so forth. Whereas we have moved us into a

different strata of approach, so the auditors' code has to

be realigned into the field and area of standard tech. It

now has, the auditors' Code now has twenty five clauses,

and is in a different form. It's in the form of an oath.

And it's actually HCOB, or HCO Policy Letter of 14 October

AD 18, which will be in auditor 43. It's for you, and will

be issued to you tomorrow. And it's to all auditors in the

world, since it doesn't just apply to Class VIIIs. And you

having a copy of this can drive it home a bit.



So, I'll read it to you, and take up its' various points.

It's the auditors' code, auditors' code AD 18. In

celebration of one hundred percent gains attainable by

standard tech, it begins. And then it says, "I hereby

promise as an auditor to follow the auditors' code. Number

one. I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him

what he should think about his case in session." Now that

clarifies that. The other one, you could tell a fellow he

needed auditing. But the word evaluate is, very often gets

in the road of an academy trainee. He doesn't quite know

what it's all about, so he just passes it by.



Give you an example of evaluation. "No, that's not the

cognition you should have there, it's... " Well god, these

things do happen you know? I mean, these things do happen.



Somebody doesn't understand this, and wild things happen.

"I don't think that you have completed the list because you

should put drug fiend on it." In listing and nulling. I

have actually seen auditors sit and suggest items for a

pcs' list. Now it's quite one thing to make a prepared

list, and if it's it and if it isn't it it isn't it. But

it's quite something else under listing and nutting to

suggest that the preclear put down three or four more

items. He's listing who or what has suppressed you, and the

auditor says, "You should put your mother on the list, and

you should put so on, and you should put so on." I know it

sounds absolutely impossible, but it has happened in the

past."The usual reaction to this process is so and so, so

now you should... " "The manifestation which you're

exhibiting at this moment is normally considered insane."

It can get pretty damn wild.



Now this is best understood as being an opposite to what

was laughingly called psycho analysis, developed in the

late 20's, along with other oddities. And the psycho

analyist, he operated this way. He would say, after he'd

had the fellow talking for one hour, or four hours a week

for a year, to find out whether or not he could help him,

why the fellow would finally remember somebody who had 

suggested some sexual action to him, which was the whole 

target of the years' conversation, when he was three. And 

just about the moment he would think of this, the analyst 

was supposed to jump up and say, "That! That's what's wrong 

with you, and now this means this so and so, and it means 

this and this, and it means that and that and that! Now do 

you understand that? Now if you're very careful after this 

you will be perfectly sane. That's all." See? "Now we can 

enter on the long one, which is five years at four hours a 

week." I'm not joking. That was standard procedure.



That went so far, and entered into this, and when I taught,

I think it was something like twenty one psychiatrists

something about Dianetics in Washington D.C., they were

leading psychiatrists of that area by the way in the

nation, these birds listened very avidly, only they could

never get past the introductory lecture. They didn't, they

didn't know that they didn't know, and they were in a very

astonished sort of state. And they listened to this over

and over.



And about the third lecture, which was I was just giving

the same introductory lecture every night. And they were

supposed to then have some Dianeticists who were going to

show them how auditing was done. And how you ran engrams.

And how you really did this stuff. But they never got to

that. They just got to this introductory lecture. They were

sort of frozen state of astonishment. And finally, after

three or four lectures, one of these birds, a psycho

analyist, he went back out of the lecture, and he went back

and he used it. God knows. He used it. He'd never seen an

auditing session in his life, see? But he used it on this

paranoid that he had been dealing with for years, and he

came back, and he was madly enthusiastic. Boy, this

Dianetics really worked. "I used that return mechanism you

talked about, and I actually got him returned to an area

where he was lying in his crib. And, he had dirty diapers,

and his father wouldn't change his diapers. And I could

point out to him right at that moment that that's why he

hated his father!" What I'm telling you is actually word

for word, verbatim, an actual incident.



Now that sort of thing can go on. And people are so used to

giving advice and telling people what to thing that the

reverse is quite different from what was normal procedure.

So therefore it leads the line. Not to evaluate for the

preclear. Or tell him what he should think about his case

in session. And it is a very necessary bit. If you ever

want to see some preclear spin, it's, it's on that one. He

can spin. And that is why, by the way, in psycho analysis,

one third of the patients in the first month of processing

committed suicide. And it's probably just this evaluation

plug. And then the analyst said, "He came to me too late."

That was his standard response to this. They always came

too late. I think if they'd come at the year of one year

old it would have been too late.



What is not generally known about older practices is they

did not have the target of making somebody sane. They

didn't have any of these targets. They didn't have the

target of making somebody brighter, or more sane. They

concluded that a person, once he had an I.Q., he had an

I.Q., and it was never going to change, and it never would

change, nothing could change it.



And you would ask these birds what they were doing all this

for, and they really didn't know.



So you therefore find it's rather difficult to understand

them, and the point of difficulty in understanding is a

very simple one. It's because you are assuming that they

have a goal or target of making somebody sane or making

somebody better. And they don't have that goal.



What goals they have god knows, I have interrogated them

many times. The only trouble is, when I talk to them they

generally go into an hypnotic report of some kind or

another. They go, gong! And so forth. Weird.



They, another practice that was in that field is most of

their practitioners came from institutions.



And they would take somebody who was an institutional case

and he would become interested in the subject, and then he

would be trained. And that is, was, it. Now you think I'm

joking, but that happens to be the truth. I counted noses

on them one time or another in a certain area and found

they'd all been institutional cases. And many of them go

back into the institution after they've been practicing a

short time. That was what psycho analysis and what they

call psychiatry and so forth was all about. It wasn't a

question of making anybody better. I don't know. It seems

to have been some kind of a dramatization. Perhaps a

dramatization of R-6, Cause there is a psychiatrist in R-6.



But I will point this out to you about this particular area- I

will point this out. That the word psychiatrist is misused

and mis-named. And has been borrowed falsely, and is

falsely used. So is the word psychologist. That is false, a

false name, which is improperly used. Because the word

psyche means soul in any dictionary, and a psychologist is

a student of the soul, and a psychiatrist is one who treats

the soul. Both of those groups using those two terms at

this particular time, alike say in psychology they don't

know what it means. That's a fact. That's in the textbooks.

They don't know what this word means. And they do not treat

the soul, but in the next three minutes of play, invalidate

it. It came in with a Professor Wundt of many a year ago.

1879, Leipzig Germany. That man was, the whole modern

psychology actually came in with this fellow Wundt. And he

said man was an animal. And he had no soul. And they called

it psychology. Do you see? So the word is a complete

misnomer and they have no right to it.



Similarly, the word psychiatrist is a complete misnomer.

They have no right to it. Nowhere in the world is the title

psychiatry legalized. That is not legally held by anybody.

They hold the title by reason of a medical doctor

internship. And in most laws, anyone who is permitted to

administer medicine is permitted legally to treat the

insane. So the medical doctor who administers medicine is

the only one who is actually permitted to treat the insane.

These other fellows have to have a medical certificate. The

medical doctor, by the way, would very happily get rid of

all of these boys. He doesn't want them. That is actually

the state of mental healing as it is.



Now it shows you that we have to put this in an auditors'

code, right up to the front of the line, that there have

been fantastic abuses in this particular field. So

therefore, therefore an auditor in training should

understand that thing pretty well. And I have found

auditors being trained at level zero and so forth, who had

been over it, who had read it, who didn't know how you

could invalidate anybody, or how you could evaluate

anybody. And these fellows, these fellows were doing it.

One way or the other.



Now one of the ways of evaluation is by an expression. You

can evaluate by expression. You can hold your nose or

something, you know? Or frown in some peculiar way. And the

preclear now knows he isn't doing correctly.



Now, the second one, is "I promise not to invalidate the

preclears' case or gains in or out of session." Now

invalidation is the think level of hitting. If anybody has

any idea of what invalidation means, it's a think level of

hitting. And instead of hitting the fellow you invalidate

him. Instead of taking a maul to his skull you say "You are

a bum." So it's not very difficult to understand. But if

you go around telling people their cases are bad, they

aren't doing well because their cases are bad, and that

they haven't had any gains and so on, you can fold them up

pretty badly. I've seen them very, very badly folded up,

and I've seen where invalidation of case, coming up on

later sessions, was a very heavy hold up on the case.



Now you can find other things wrong with a person, rather

than to invalidate his case. "Yeah!" you say, "Well the

reason you aren't doing well is because your case is in

terrible condition, and why don't you get it fixed up?"

Very often husbands and wives will get involved in what

they call Scientology fights, and start using terminology

and invalidation of this particular line and so on. And if

you're very wise don't do it. But particularly that's

something an auditor mustn't do.



Now, three is "I promise to administer only standard tech

to a preclear in the standard way." That puts you in the

running. Now I decided I'd give you some big choppers, you

know? Some big teeth that you could come down with.



Now four, "I promise to keep all auditing appointments once

made." Now the reason that that is in there, is I have seen

some cases have a very bad time of it, and I know of one

case currently that is having a very, very bad time of it,

simply because the auditor said he would be there to audit

him at such and such an hour, and he drifted in late, and

this guy started to self audit, and all kinds of wild

actions have occurred from that particular point forward.

It is a bad code break. After a PC has sat around for a

half an hour, waiting for the auditor, his case is so

damned stirred up that there isn't very much you can do

about it very often. He's, he's impatient, he's angry, he's

ARC broken, he's this and that. Well the reason he gets

this way is he puts his, sort of his case on a time

schedule. Alright, it's supposed to be, it's supposed to be

nine o'clock and the auditor's supposed to be there at nine

o'clock. And he's supposed to be there at nine o'clock, and

so his case is all ready to fire at nine o'clock, see? And

then the auditor doesn't arrive Still nine twenty, and the

case actually will be found at this moment on a protest or

on a blow. And they're actually very hard to audit when

appointments are not well kept. But you notice it says

appointments once made. So the reverse of it, of course, is

damn it. Don't make appointments you don't think you can keep.



Alright, number five. "I promise not to process a preclear

who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically

tired." Now the background of this, is one time I drew a

coordination back in the Wichita Dianetic Foundation. A

tremendous influx of institutional cases were being thrown

at Dianetic orgs way back when. A Dianetic auditor of those

days got so that he could process a psychotic standing on

his head. It was easy as pie as far as he was concerned.

They all cut their teeth, because for some reason or other

a great many institutional cases came in, and there was no

proviso that they shouldn't be audited by Dianetics at that

time, and so the Foundation did audit them. And it was a

very bad show. And it messed things up most gorgeously. It

wasn't that the cases weren't handled, oddly enough. Those

cases were handled left and right and center. But very

often they were sent in as bird dogs. And they were sent in

to spin. They had already received some post hypnotic

suggestion under drugs that they were to go to a foundation

and then, when audited, were supposed to spin. This isn't

me talking through my hat. That's what was supposed to

happen to them. And we had one case where the parents of

the girl showed up about forty eight hours later expecting

if the money had been accepted and that she was being

processed, and the girl had spun, and that they could then

you know, lay it in with an egg, an axe. Well, they were so

stupid as to send in the lawyers' check as her payment. And

this girl came in and nobody could figure out where she

came from. And she was obviously spinning madly. And so, no

sign up was done of any kind whatsoever. They put the money

aside to be refunded and sent the girl off to a motel or

something like that to wait for somebody turning up,

because they figured somebody would turn up. And in forty

eight hours, sure enough, her parents turned up. Wrath, you

see? "What have you done to our daughter to drive her

crazy?" Well you see, nobody had done anything to her daughter.



Nobody'd touched the daughter, but she had spun. Not

because she was refused auditing, but because she'd been

set up to spin. Don't think that post hypnotic suggestion

and that sort of thing was not known to these guys. They

knew all about this. And I've seen at least two or three

cases directly attributable to this.



Now therefore, every once in a while a case like that will

show up. Now the funny part of it is, not that they're bird

dog type case, just the psychotic. And you don't detect it.

After all you're not supposed to be able to detect it. And

these next two are the only times I've ever seen them spin.

So I've done a coordination. I've done a coordination. And

that one, physically tired, and six, "I promise not to

process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry." And

those characters only spun when they either hadn't had

anything to eat or when they hadn't had any sleep. And that

is the trouble with a psychotic. They can't eat, and they

can't sleep. Those are the two things they have a great

deal of trouble doing.



And if you process one of them when he hasn't eaten and he

hasn't slept, you'll have very bad luck indeed. I'm not

saying you should ever process one. But I'm just saying,

whereas, if you can get them to sleep and you can get them

to rest, and you can get them to eat something, oddly

enough they can be processed. They very often present no

more problem than other preclears.



People are worried about electric shock. The only reason we

say anything about electric shock, electric shock cases

coming in. It's not that we can't process electric shock

cases. They've been given the old yo heave back into R-6,

where electric shock is gorgeously advertised. The

psychiatrist is supposed to electric shock people. He does

in R-6. See? And the society's just dramatizing this, don't

you see? Well it's tended to put the bird into R-6 to a

marked degree, and the rest of it is, is he is already

under some tremendous mental duress of some kind or

another. And very often, still while you are processing

him, unbeknownst to you, still under treatment. And you get

the wildest bing-bing of mixed therapies, which is also in

this, and so on, and there just isn't any therapy involved

with it. It's just a method of punishing somebody.



It's like the fellow who was asked, a psychotic who was

given a prefrontal lobotomy, and he was exhibited to a

medical convention, and somebody asked him on the side,

"Well, what have you learned all about?" They were just

talking about what a marvelous recovery it was. The guy was

a screaming mad man, you know, all this. And the psychotic,

who apparently hadn't been talking to anybody or other,

said out of the corner of his mouth in reply, "I've learned

to keep my mouth shut."



So anyway, it is the no sleep, no rest, is the time he'll

spin. Now if you want to really put length of time in a

session, process a perfectly sane person who hasn't had any

sleep for about twenty four hours. You're going to have a

long session, because the body is a sort of an electrical

machine anyhow, and it starts to drain down anything he can

put out. And it's a, it's a hard fight. It's a hard fight.

It lengthens the time in session if he's had no sleep. And

also, if he's ever going to get into any trouble or make an

error in the session, now he's likely to make an error in

the session, and so is the auditor, why it goes in sort of

deep. And it's very hard to repair. So the wise thing to do

is to size up your PC. Has he eaten? Has he slept? "You haven't.

Well very good. Come back some other day when you have."

And that way, you keen it up, and keen out of trouble.

Probably all the trouble you'll get into with PCs is right

in those two.



Insufficient rest and they haven't eaten.



If you were to process somebody in the morning before he'd

had his breakfast, or before he'd had anything to eat at

all, you'd find out his processing reactions were quite

different.



Processing has something to do with the electrical currents

of the body, or something like this.



And a fellow who hasn't eaten apparently isn't doing enough

with his oxygen or something.



It's ties up with basal metabolism. And you could get very

technical about the whole thing.



Actually there's a way you can test one of these on one of

these meters. If you ask the guy to take a long breath

while he's holding onto the cans, and if you then get a

long fall, he's eaten.



But if he takes a long breath and lets it out, and the

needle doesn't drop, don't audit him. He hasn't had

anything to eat. Or he's very physically exhausted.

Interesting, huh? It's just an interesting phenomena.



It's not that the machine accurately measures basal

metabolism or something like that, it's that it does react

in that fashion. Did you ever see a preclear yawn and then

see a long fall? That's why you should put yawn in your

administration. Also cough. Naturally cough would fall

because there's a physical convulsion with regard to it.

But you don't often notice that the yawn produces a

fabulous amount of surge. Well if it produces a large surge

you know your PC has eaten and he's slept very well, in

spite of the fact that he's yawning. There's somebody

yawning now.



OK. Those two, those two, when I see those two violated and

so forth, my hair stands on end.



Because it means that the auditor who violates those two is

one of these fine days going to wrap a preclear around a

telegraph pole. And one day I noted in an auditing session

that the auditor said at the end of the session, which he'd

apparently known all along, that the gains weren't very

good because the preclear had only had one hours' sleep in

the last twenty four.



He'd apparently known this the whole session, and it hadn't

affected his judgement as to what gains to expect. He

shouldn't have expected any gains at all. But what stood my

hair on end is the person he was processing had just come

to my attention as once upon a time an electric shock case

in an institution. Brother, he didn't know it, but that

auditor was riding right along the edge of that cliff in a

motorcycle at ninety miles an hour, the rocks falling down

into the chasm with every spin of the wheel. Nuts! So, best

way to stay out of trouble in that direction is, has he

eaten? Slept? Good. Fine.



Now, here's the next one. "I promise not to permit a

frequent change of auditors." The funny part of it is that

you will find, that after you've been through about three

auditors on a preclear, he may very well get sort of

nervous and queasy. And the lower the state of case the more

nervous he's going to get. And he, well a wag just starting

out, he would feel, if you gave him on his first sub-zero

levels, if you gave this guy three auditors in a row he'd

feel he'd have to get anything he was going to say off to

them all over again. He'd have to tell each one about

himself all over again. And it'd make a rather hideously

anxious sort of session. "Does this fellow know me or

doesn't he know me?" And then he would also go so far as to

think maybe he had to do all the processes over again too.

There's all kinds of kooky things happen. So insofar as

possible, particularly the worse off the case, insofar as

possible keep the same auditor. Now this mostly gets

violated in review.



Now let me show you this oddity. Review gets the worst

cases. It's only the case that's messed up and in trouble

that really gets into review, right? So he has a review on

Monday with auditor A, Tuesday with auditor B. and Thursday

with auditor C. Well now if it was all on the same cycle of

action more or less, he would find he was very confused

indeed. You've actually impeded his case gain. And once

more, if you did this to a psychotic without knowing he was

one and so on, he would probably spin. So it is actually

better, in review, if you've got three auditors in review

or something like this, or more, it is better to wait 'till

that auditor. It is better for the review receptionist to

see who was auditing him last time, and put him on that

auditors' schedule, and know when that auditor's going to

be free, and tell him to be there then. Not to backlog him,

'cause it can be done in the same afternoon.



This is, this is just good sense. But it's something you

should caution a receptionist or somebody who isn't used to

scheduling people, and so on, that doesn't mean anything to

them.



They just throw the folders around this way and that, see?

It's something to caution them about.



Now it's not good enough to maintain on duty one auditor

who does one session a week, just because somebody started

a session last year and you can't change the auditor. It's

not a good enough reason not to give a session because that

auditor's no longer in the organization. That's not, it's

not good enough for that. Well what I'm talking about is,

is a frequent. A frequent change of auditors. Every time

the guy gets a list, why he gets some different auditor.

He's always being audited by a different auditor. And next

time a different auditor. You can unstabilize him. And

actually, your processing is so swift these days that it's

very simple to schedule the same auditors. Simple, simple,

simple. And the only reason you've been shifting auditors

around in a class and so on, is to give one another

practice. And so on. And to that degree it's tolerated.

It's actually been too much, done too much, right on this

class.



So that was number seven. Number eight, "I promise not to

sympathize with the preclear, but to be effective." Notice

this is changed. Now masked under that is a custom and

habit which Saint Hill gets into periodically. Saint Hill

does alright lots of the time. But every once in a while

I've noticed that amongst the students, all missed

withholds become ARC breaks. They won't pull a missed

withhold on each other, all they'll do is run ARC breaks on

each other. In other words, as students, sort of their

mutual rudiments go out, don't you see? So you can... 



I've seen this go and happen, and then be busted up, and

then happen again, and then go again so many times that

it's a natural sort of phenomenon. A certain group starts

to get sympathetic.



It's what they do. See? So, they smash up each others'

cases actually.



Mazie Ann day after day has had this howling missed

withhold from her instructor. Her supervisor, see? Day

after day she exhibits the manifestation of an ARC break.

Day after day the guy who is auditing her pulls an ARC

break because he sympathizes with her, because he realizes

that anybody should be mad at that supervisor. It's on a

"you poor thing" basis. And will actually go on and

continue to pull ARC breaks. But there isn't an ARC break

in the lot.



It's a missed withhold. And the person doesn't recover.



Now if you start, there's a lot of this on record. If you

start sympathizing with the PC about how badly his mother

has treated him, or something like this, or sympathize with

his hard lot, you're actually admitting that you can't do

anything about it.



Because the three cycles of doing something for somebody

who is having trouble are first and foremost, be effective.

Cure it up. Handle it. Well if you can't cure it up and

handle it, you can make him comfortable. That's the second

stage. If you can't cure it up or handle it you can make

him comfortable. And if you can't make him comfortable you

can sympathize with him.



It's that low grade an action. So instead of sympathizing

with Mazie Ann about how bad off it all is, and how she's

being treated, and so forth and so on, be effective. Maybe

she is being badly treated. Well don't stand around and

sympathize with her. Make sure that the ethics is in better

in that area. And if, if it's her, well make sure she gets

audited and somebody pulls the missed withhold. You know,

be effective. Don't stand around on the beautiful sadness

of sympathy.



When auditors' start that, boy, you can just kiss your

gains goodbye. And your students no longer start making

wins in the academy, or at the Class VI course. PC's start

going up in smoke. Actually it's a marvelous method of

putting somebody at effect. "Oh you poor thing." Same thing

as saying, "You've been overwhelmed." Same thing as saying,

"You are the effect." Do you see? "You are the effect."



Alright, number nine. "I promise not to let a preclear end

session on his own determinism, but to finish off those

cycles I have begun." That means that if a PC blows the

session the auditor is remiss for not finding, noting when

it happened, the ARC break, and not handling it before it

resulted in a blow, not noting and finding the missed

withhold that is going to make him blow.



Do you understand? Those are the only reasons a PC ends

session on his own determinism.



But the same time, that precludes that the auditors' TRs

are going to be sufficiently smooth so that he can even be

understood, and so that he is auditing. Remember it is an

auditors' code.



It's a very bad thing to let a PC end a session on his own

determinism. Actually you can see an ARC break coming that

is going to wind up in a blow, for as long as an hour and

forty five minutes before it happens. Doesn't speak of a

very alert auditor. Certainly it's detectable ten or

fifteen minutes before it happens. It never happens

suddenly. And it's a flagrant session ARC break which is

handled with the list 1. So what the hell? I mean, the

auditor wouldn't be very effective if some preclear blew

session. And then when the preclear blows session, he's

just left parked, right there. And it's either got to be

picked up by somebody else, or something effective has got

to be done in some other quarter, and so on.



Once in a while a preclear'll walk out of session just

because he can't stand it anymore. There are silly auditor

errors pulled by some complete, untrained bird. Like, four

auditing commands, which are all different, all spewed out

in a row, with the PC trying to answer one or the other of

them, and then refusing to tell the PC which one he's

supposed to answer. I mean, the outness of this kind of

thing on a very, very unprofessional co-audit level and so

on, can be pretty kooky. And sometimes a preclear would end

session just on a matter of self preservation. But, this

understands that the auditor has within his power the

ability to continue to handle and continue the session. And

it is an auditors' code. Not an amateurs'.



Ten, "I promise never to walk off from a preclear in

session." Now this is one of the serious things that has

happened from time to time. The auditor simply gets up and

walks off. Leaves the preclear sitting in the middle of an

engram or an unfinished cycle or something like that.



The auditor gets up and walks off. Yes, it has happened.



Eleven, "I promise never to get angry with a preclear in

session." Now that I have seen spin PCs. And it's about the

only time I've ever seen a PC spin. The auditor became

furiously angry with the preclear in a session. He must

have been some auditor. He was up in Spokane or some place.

And this PC, this PC traveled a couple of thousand miles in

a total spin to get to the organization and get the thing

handled, and so on. But all that had happened, he'd just

gone into a rage at her in session. She wouldn't answer the

auditing command, and for no reason at all he went into a

rage. ARC broke the auditor or something. But it can have

very serious consequences.



Twelve, and here's a new one. It is, "I promise to run

every major case action to a floating needle." Gone is your

old three equal comm lags, and so forth. Number twelve, "I

promise to run every major case action to a floating needle."



And thirteen, "I promise never to run any one action beyond

its' floating needle." That catches it both ways and the

middle, doesn't it?



Number fourteen, "I Promise to grant beingness to the

preclear in session." It doesn't say I don't promise to go

on tip toe around, whenever I'm around the preclear when

I'm out of session. Let me read that one again. Fourteen,

"I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session."

Its' modified. It's in session. But I have seen auditors

treating preclears as though they were still in session

when they're out of session, and I've seen preclears sort

of hanging the auditor with the fact that they're his PC

out of session. It's unfair and goofy in both ways.



And so on. I've even gone so far as to occasionally tell a

preclear who tried to continue the session after the end of

session, "You are not now in session." And they sometimes

blink, and say, "Yeah, that's right." I didn't say, "Bug

off." But I might have. That's in session. It's in session.

Sometimes you get a PC hangs himself around your neck. God

help us.



Fifteen. And this is a different and a new one. "I promise

not to mix processes, the processes of Scientology with

other practices, except when the preclear is physically

ill, and only medical means will serve." Boy that is open

to a lot of interpretation I imagine. But the net result of

all of this is, that before you could have misunderstood it

to the degree that the guy couldn't possibly have had his

leg set if he was being processed. You see, an extremity of

that character could happen. You'd better have arteries

tied up and legs set, because bodies are rather inhuman things.



It doesn't mean that when a preclear is sufficiently ill,

and he won't recover, that you shouldn't process him at

all. Doesn't mean because he's being given medical

treatment you should abandon him. I'll tell you something

funny in this particular field. The original experiments,

way back. 1945. The original experiments on this line

determined that function monitored structure. In other

words, function ran structure. That was a big lesson.

Actually, endocrine compounds like hormones and so on,

could be given to somebody. Well that's physiological. I

mean, you know? You can give him hormones and so on. Well

he should have responded in some fashion to this. And then,

after they were mentally unburdened of their problems or

troubles, it would work. But it wouldn't work. In other

words, the wild variable was that hormones and certain

preparations, and by the way it was undertaken with people

who were just released from Jap prison camps who had been

starved during the better part of World War II in Japanese

prison camps. And they were coming in to Oak Knoll Naval

Hospital. And it was very difficult to handle these boys,

because they were very badly deranged. They had been

subjected to brutality, the like of which nobody ever heard

of. And they weren't really treated as prisoners of war at

all. They were just absolutely inhumanly butchered. And

these fellows were carrying a terrific amount of mental

stress, so that on some of them you would give them

preparations, like amino acids, which is the acids of

protein, so maybe they could begin to digest their food

again. Or something like that. Wouldn't work, you know?

Wouldn't work.



Damn little to do with it. Because there's enough

coordination there they could imagine that they were

associated. So this, this is interesting, this is

interesting from this standpoint, because it brings you up

to this one. The guy's on penicillin, but his lumbosis

won't cure up.



He's got pneumonia. He actually can be on penicillin and it

isn't handling the thing. He isn't getting any better. Or

he's getting better very, very slowly indeed.



Now he was so ill before he went on any antibiotic that he

couldn't stir. But now that he's on the antibiotic he can

stir around a little bit. Do you follow? Now, this magic

can occur. Now that he can pay attention he's not running a

high fever, or something like that. But he isn't getting

any better. He's come up Just that little bit, and he's

stuck rignt there. You can audit the engram and the

penicillin works. I've seen this. I've seen this and done

some work with this.



It's the most miraculous thing you ever cared to see. I

mean, the feilow's been hanging fire for three weeks and

they're starting to step up the penicillin to million units

an hour or something like this you know? He isn't getting

any better. He doesn't improve. They continue. This is all,

anything, you know, and then just run the engram of the

illness, or put in his Ruds, or something like this, and

all of a sudden, wham! All cures up in about four hours. So

what it is is sort of a penicillin assist. It's a reverse

flip. You say, "Well you shouldn't audit a person under

drugs." You shouldn't audit a person under soporifics,

which are sleep. Sleep drugs, you shouldn't audit a person

under those that produce wild eupnoria, or whee whee hey day.



You shouldn't process him when he's on that kind of drugs.

For the excellent reason that the processing probably

becomes part of the trip. So you try to process him later,

why then it restimulates this, and he sets into a sore of a

fog. It's wild. It's kind of a mess. He has sort of a

processing engram. You know? And he's somewhat hypnotic

when he's on this stuff. So that you say to him something

or other something or other, he's liable to come out the

other end of the session without remembering a single thing

that happened in the session. That's expressly the type of

drug.



I have people came around and say, "Mazie Ann has been on

tranquilizers for fifteen years, and does she have to come

off her tranquilizers, because she has Petit mal seizures,

so that you can audit her?" I often think the tranquilizers

didn't do her any good, they haven't even got her

tranquilized. Look at her, man. What the hell's the

difference? You're talking about some tiny thing. As far as

penicillin is concerned, or stomach pills, or something

like that, forget it.



Processing won't do anything with it or to it or apart from

it or anything. It doesn't have anything to do with

processing at all, because it doesn't produce an hypnotic

state. Doesn't produce a lowered thing that leaves you at

the end of the session with a sort of Scientology engram.

You got it?



Alright. Number sixteen is, "I promise to maintain

communication with the preclear, and not to cut his comm or

permit him to overrun in session." There's one for you.

That puts it right where it lives, boy. It doesn't say

maintain two way communication with the preclear in

session. Nobody really understood that anyhow, 'cause that

wouldn't make much of a session.



But it says, "I promise to maintain communication with the

preclear, and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun

in session." So an auditor reading that has to find the

point where you stop his talking without cutting his comm.

And that's an interesting one to learn. And it is a thing.

There is an exact point where you do this. And it's very

easily seen and very easily understood. Not very hard to.

But if it's not pointed out in any way to the auditor, he's

not likely to have much of a grip on it. He's liable to cut

his comm, cut the preclears comm without knowing he's cut

comm. You see?



Alright, and permitting a preclear to run on for another

page and a half after he has passed the F/N is just the

best way in the world to knock it in the head.



Number seventeen, "I promise not to enter comments,

expression or enturbulance into a session that distracts a

preclear from his case." Now, that covers about it all. You

can't, not supposed to enter comments, like, "Yeah boy,

that's sure great. Yeah, you're really doing groovy."

Anything, you know? Expressions includes facial

expressions. Or enturbulance. That means dropping cans,

E-meters, auditing report pages, opening and closing

drawers, looking for Kleenexes, and so forth, and it also

includes having odd objects on the auditing desk. It's a

distraction. It aiso includes making the environment safe

enough to audit in it. So that you know that the

environment is not going to be interruptive, 'cause that's

going to enter an enturbulance into the session. And this

is one of the main reasons for a false auditing report.



You get an auditing report, looks OK, the preclear falls on

his head two days later, this has been what has happened.

That's been what happened. That's very heavily the facts.



Now number eighteen. That is to say the auditor's entered,

without putting it down, he's entered comments, expression

or enturbulance into a session that distracts the preclear

from his case. Alright.



Number eighteen, "I promise to continue to give the

preclear the process or auditing command when needed." I

have seen, in actual fact, the maddest thing. I'll add to

that in the session. "I promise to continue to give the

preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the

session.' Now I've seen what that exactly means, is I have

actually seen an auditor give the orders to run back into 

an engram, and then shut up. I've actually seen this. Not 

just once. I don't know why, and I don't know what they do, 

and they haven't got any explanation for it at all. The guy 

never comes through with the second command. Never says, "Go 

through the incident." Something, just some freeze. You know? 

They freeze somehow or another. I've seen it a couple of times. 

And either the person just went blank, or was himself sufficiently

distracted, or didn't know what he was doing, but boy, does

it leave a preclear to scramble for himself. Two minds put

him down there and he's got to get back on one. And it's

definitely a very hard scene on a PC.



Nineteen, "I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly

understood command." Now if he answered it as a wrong

command, and then you caught it and then you corrected it,

you'd be in violation of number one of the code. You'd now

be evaluating. He thought he answered it right, you told

him it was answered some other way. So therefore, it means

that the things have to be cleared, and they have to be

correctly cleared. You say, "What is the definition of

that?" And the individual then gives you some definition

which is the wrong definition, and then you turn around and

give him the right definition, you are going at it all

backwards and upside down. So I guess you jolly well better

have a little old slit of paper to hand him, and have him

read the definition. "Now this auditing command I'm going

to give you is ARC breaks. And A is for affinity, and that

means..." You're going to have to go into the business of

training some preclears. It'd be nice to have a little book

that explains all of these words, wouldn't it? This is what

it means.



Now when you catch up on your homework, preclear, I will

audit you. Now the only difficulty with that, is after the

guy read the book he has some F/Ns while he was reading it.

So you'd have to check for it if that happened. But that is

one of the major sources of no auditing gain.



PC didn't know what the hell he was being asked, see? He

had the words, and totally evaluated some other way. They

were weighted. You know, he had the weight of the words all

different.



It's like the childs' dictionary comes up and says, "Source

is the starting place." He couldn't run the process on

that. Source is not the starting place. It would be the

point of origin, or it would be the originator. Or where

something was begun or dreamed up or mocked up. And then a

guy could run it.



So no source becomes a thing that doesn't have a starting

place. "Well that's a race horse wandering around in the

pasture." He isn't at the starting gate, don't you see?

It's easy.



OK. Twenty. So the way to get around that nineteen, on the

wrongly understood command, and you notice it's wrongly

understood command, is bring your preclear up right. I

wouldn't even bother to bring him up right in session. I'd

say, "Study all these definitions so I can audit you."



Now for years we've had to educate preclears, only nobody

ever admitted it. Have to educate him into what's going to

happen, what he's supposed to say, what he's supposed to

do, and so on. When you don't do this I see some of these

preclears running around being psycho analytic subjects. I

have actually had, I have actually had somebody sit down in

the session and start to run a psycho analytic session on

me. Not a psychoanalytic session, a psycho analytic I

don't know what the hell they call it. Orgy. Wing ding.

Actually. And they start to tell you about their, not just

even the words they're using. "Well when I was a little

child I did have an awful lot of trouble. We had a lot of

hired men around and about the place, and each one of them

violated me in turn. There was Joe, Bill, Pete, Tom, Oscar.

Now, you see, now these... " And I'd say, "What's going on?"

"Well, don't you want to know all about this, and so

forth?" And I'd say, "No, I don't want to know anything

about it. Have you ever told anybody else about these

thing?" "Oh yes, we always talk about these things." "Who's

we?" "Me and my psycho analyst." very good. Do you remember

a time when you first heard that you should have some

psycho analysis? That's very good. What was the date of

that? Very good. Alright. Now what is the duration of the

period? Very good." I never, I never monkey with it, boy. I

never monkey with it. That is a former therapy getting in

your road. And it would read on your seven resistive cases.

Well you don't let anybody act like that in a session.

Either educate them or scan it out, boy.



It does take the cooperation of the preclear. I don't know

if you've ever noticed that about auditing. Then there was

the auditor who was the only one in session who ever got

any gains.



(Laughter.)



Alright, and here's another one. "I promise to estimate the

current case state of a preclear only by standard case

supervision data, and not to diverge because of some

imagined difference in the case." Now I'm putting wee-pons

(weapons) into your hands. The weapons.



Alright, twenty two. "I promise never to use the secrets of

a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal

gain.' Now you know the old one of that there is never use

Scientology for personal gain, but I'd see auditors all

over the place getting rich and everything, and

organization getting rich, so it can't be well interpreted.

But this is what people worry about.



Now, you will probably see somewhere over in an ethics code

appear another one. "A person who knowingly waits until

he's in session to divulge evidence of a crime is

culpable." Because then you'll find nobody's ever

confessing unless he's in session. But anyway, regardless

of that, this is what people worry about. They worry about,

the world worries about this. They think that if we have

such power that we can get information out of people like

this, they actually have had reporters and things mention

it to me very recently. "What about all those hundred and

thousands of cases you have at Saint Hill, and all those

tremendous secrets you have on people, and all of this kind

of thing?" So they worry about it.



They think people are entitled to their secrets. In actual

fact I wouldn't give you two bits for the whole collected

lot. You know, man has a lot of crime mixed up with vanity.

Some PC, see, that comes in, and boy he gives you this long

criminal record, and so on. I feel like asking him

sometimes, "Are you bragging or confessing?" You know it's

the truth. Because it's not worth all that. It's not worth

all that. Only in their zone and area it is. We have become

more blase.



Imagine, though, imagine though, in the nineteenth century

how a fellow was made guilty his entire life because he had

once seen a photograph of a lady who was naked to the

waist. This corrupted his entire life. I don't know.



The main thing about it is, see, the value of the withhold

is this, and we could be jumped on for this. So I've

included it in the auditors' code. That's the only reason

it's there. We actually don't do anything about it.

Actually there was one hell of a crime committed not too

very long ago. And it wasn't owned up to, and it was

admitted in session. Actually nothing happened to the

fellow. He was not punished for it in any way. No. Now goes

the continued story. He wasn't punished for it in any way,

nobody did anything to him, and so on. Do you know that he

went ahead and tried to knock himself off? He then tried to

mete out his own punishment in the thing. And right this

minute is in hospital, having undergone an operation he

didn't need.



He was getting well. And it all traces back to waiting

until he was in session to admit to a crime, no punishment

was given him of any kind whatsoever. It was a very heinous

crime. No punishment was meted out. So he started meting it

out himself. And that's what he's doing right this minute.

And there is no other explanation to it. It's not a guilt

complex. It's bust he's making sure he gets his throat cut

for it, Cause he knows dog gone well it should have been.



But it was handed out in session.



Well the world worries about this, what happens to this.

And I have actually seen a PC actually made very, very ill

where his auditor suddenly trying to make him guilty in

session for what he's doing, and I have seen a PC folded up

for being charged for something which was divulged in a

session. And it, after all, the auditors' code is an

attempt to maximize case gain.



We now know this, we now know that it is only where tech is

out that ethics has to go in. You got it? You get tech in

on the guy, why it's silly to try to get in ethics. Why?

It's reverse end to.



Alright, number twenty three, "I promise to see that any

fee received for processing is refunded if the preclear is

dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the

processing, the only condition being that he may not again

be processed or trained." Now we've had this a custom for

some time, but it might as well appear in the auditors'

code, because a lot of auditors are not bound by this. It's a 

wild one, actually, because the truth of the matter is, is 

every time that I have been around and somebody was talking 

about money being refunded, not on any auditing I was doing, 

but money should be refunded for the training or processing, 

or something like that. And you gave it back to them, without 

even this last qualification, that he may not be trained or 

processed again, and so on, it's very, very rare that the 

person will take it back. I've stood around and gone to a 

hell of a fuss to make sure that somebodys' money was refunded.



And it was almost impossible to do, and when it was done

and so forth, why they went around sort of hang dog and

sheepish about it, and it made a mess. But this is

something no other profession could do. This is something

nobody else on the planet would dare do.



The manufacturer is forced to do it with his products, but

nobody in the field of healing has had enough answers. So

it's a total dare.



Now, if we have that in the auditors' code we can start to

insist that it be practiced in the field of medicine. And

we can hold it up as something wh ah is applicable to

professional ethics in general. And it could go so far as,

"Well if the patient dies there is no reason why the family

should receive a medical bill, of course." It is a

fantastic propaganda weapon. And the truth of the matter

is, you're far better off to do this. You're far better

off. If you were individually practicing and some pc comes

in and says, "That didn't do me any good whatsoever.'

You're probably practicing on somebody who is PTS, who is

connected up, messed up, she or he is a seven resistive

case to begin with, they're not going to do you any good at

all anywhere. The best thing to do is just promptly say,

"Alright. Sign this waiver that you're not supposed to be

trained or processed again anyplace. Good. Here is your

dodo." Right now. Bong. You find the person's, "Wait a minute."



In the first place they do it sometimes just trying to get

even with you. They got a missed withhold or something of

this sort, so they're trying to get even with you somehow.

And they don't mean it. The number of people who would

accept their money back on the condition they were never

trained or processed again are so few, but it is not

something another profession could do. They wouldn't dare.

All the money'd have to be returned. You actually can throw

that down the throats of people legislatively. "When other

professions are willing to adopt a clause of this

particular character, then they can talk about being

ethical." Until then they had better not talk about us.

Defense line.



And if all auditors stood back of that as a defense line it

would be a very good one indeed.



Now, twenty four, "I promise not to advocate Scientology

only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing

well it was intended for spiritual gain." That's actually

not to get anybody off the hook and not to agree with any

laws or anything else. It's, boy do you go in the soup when

you try to go any other distance than for gain for the

individual himself.



OK, and number twenty five is, "I promise to cooperate

fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and

Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding

the ethical use and practice of the subject, according to

the basics of standard tech." That should straighten out a

lot of it.



So that is the new auditors' code, good, bad or

indifferent. Right now there is a code of reform which is

being put together, but that would be the code of a

Scientologist. And I don't know what results are coming in

on this on a code of reform, but it is a very interesting

project which will probably be adventured upon again

somewhere up the line. And the project is writing every

prominent man, or every professional man in the entire

community, giving him a description of Dianetics and

Scientology, of the various things it has done and

oppositions it has met, and what it can do, and asking him

for his advice in the usages to which it could be placed,

and asking him for any recommendations he'd have as a

reform of its' practice. And there's some fantastic number

of these things being mailed out. There's about, oh I don't

know, there's about three million, or something like that

in the United States, and some vast number in other areas.

And the net result of all of this will eventually be

codified into a code of reform. But it will be the code of

a Scientologist, or in practices or organizations. And very

doubtful if anything would be added to the auditors code.

It just sort of blows the criticism that's been going around.



And at any time you find the subject's under criticism it

is a very good approach. Say, "OK. What do you want changed?" 

Nobody can complain about that.



The auditors' code which you have been going by, of course

is fundamentally correct. And as you see it has not

actually been invalidated, it's been put in a different

form. And it has been brought up to date. So that the

floating needle, and so on, is included in that.



Alright, so much for that. I hope you agree wist that. I... 

Very good.



Now there is, it's one thing to freeze a subject. A guy by

the name of Augustus, whose real name was I think Octavius,

whose real name was probably Bastardus, or... , who was

kicking around about the time of Cleopatra or something.

Anyhow, he was all mixed up with some jerk, some epileptic

by the name of Caesar...  It's all sort of confused in mind

at the particular time, because I wasn't in Rome at the

time. But this bird Augustus, he called himself, which

meant top dog or something, he froze the boundaries, he

froze the boundaries of the Roman Empire. And he said,

"Rome hereafter must not expand." And he's the man who

killed Rome.



All you have to do is say in this universe something may

not expand, and from that particular moment on, it

stagnates and will eventually fail and fall. Which was a

woeful fact. Actually he said, "Every eldest son had to

serve in the footsteps of his father." So that nobody could

get out of any profession his father was in. The boundaries

of the empire must not expand any further than they are,

but we will hold it at that point. Of course, immediately

it started to crumble. He had a lot to say.



It is a very, very bad thing to totally freeze something in

this particular universe. Now I'll point out to you that

what we know, however, we still know - And that is that we

know the basics as we come up the line. It is absolutely

amazing how little this auditors' code has changed in

fifteen years. But here is this minor change. It is adapted

to the increase of technology.



The net result of an unchanging absolutely never to be

varied situation is, of course, stagnation.



But something can continue all the way from standard

basics. In other words, you can have certain standard

basics and develop on top of those basics. More can be

found out about what you already know.



We have an already workable path. That path is very

workable. It is very swift. I reserve, and I wish to

impress this upon a Class VIII student, I reserve the right

to release further advances of technology. I can assure you

that they are not going to invalidate the things you

already know now, because everything which has been

developed has been developed forward along the exact lines

which you see them in now.



But let me give you an example. This morning I was doing

the research on 8, and I was very fascinated with a

horrible circumstance whicn took place. And I immediately

checked it up with two other auditors that I respect on the

ship. And I checked it up with these auditors as to whether

or not they'd ever really seen this phenomena. And all of a

sudden an explanation fell out of the hat about something,

and I found out they had both been wondering about this also.



And I collided with it, because somebody sent me a new

E-meter and it is not a new E-meter in design, it is simply

that somebody changed the manufacturer. And the new

manufacturer, before he can release or before they could

accent this meter, I of course have to give a pass on it.

Well I had actually already given a pass on it. I hadn't

been able to detect any vast difference in this meter. But

I had noticed that the needle of the meter was a tiny bit

thinner, and probably the movement of the meter itself

might have been a little bit smaller than in other meters.

But I had not noticed anything more than the fact that the

meter was very lively. It was lively. It's more lively than

the original Mark IV.



So, I hadn't paid any attention to this, and yesterday my

meter ran down, or had to get charged up or something like

this, and somebody put this other meter, which is the

prototype. It's not the meter which I would normally use 

anyway. It was the prototype. And they put up the prototype 

on my desk for my use, for checking something out. And what 

do you know? I turned the thing on, and I checked over something, 

and I thought you know, that should be a release point of that

action. And I got an R/S! I got a wild rock slam. Now I

looked at this meter again, and it wasn't tuned up in any

peculiar way. But I suddenly recognized why I hadn't been

aware of it before I'd turned it on and used it, that it

had l terribly faint, light, very, very thin needle, which

is off pattern, don't you see? And, so I looked at this,

and I thought, "What am I looking at here? Why should I

R/S? This is sort of mad." And so I said, "I better check

out if there's been an invalidation, because R/S,

invalidation, they go together." So I checked out, and sure

enough there was a tremendous read on an invalidation. And

I thought, "That's really remarkable. But if it's a

tremendous read on the invalidation, why doesn't it R/S?"

So I went and synthesized again the exact point and

situation on the track which had made it R/S. And it held

for a moment and then it R/Sed again. And I suddenly

realized that invalidation would read, of course. It was a

float. It was a floating needle. It was a floating needle

and the invalidation was I'd invalidated a floating needle.

But on this very, very light meter, with this very light

needle, with my case section where it is, I've stopped

floating. I R/S. I get a hair a dial wide R/S. And what it

is is a reverse rocket read. The R/S begins with a rocket

read which is backwards from right to left. And I get a

backwards rocket read as it pops.



It pops like that, and then pops the other way. And that's

all it is. It's just a, it's quite remarkable, but it took

a different meter to demonstrate the thing. And so I asked

one of the other auditors and he said, "Oh yes." And I

said, "What cases have you seen something like this on?"

And one was a 3, and one was an OT 6. An OT 3, an OT 6.



Alright. Now the datum that suddenly emerges here, this

meter was tuned up rather more sensitive than meter

normally is, and was in itself a much livelier meter. So if

you were to turn up a standard meter to maybe one hundred

and twenty eight on its' sensitivity switch knob, and then

to tune it up to four or five, or something in that

particular range, in the OT sections I think you will find

out that you get your floats become reverse rocket reads.

And if you'll watch this carefully there won't be any doubt

in your mind about a float, in the upper sections.



Now to give you a little more data on this, found out

recently that auditors didn't seem to know that after an

individual was clear that his thoughts read on a meter. And

you notice it's only recently that we have had to do

anything about this. The thoughts read on the meter. You

ask the fellow some question on the meter. All he says, you

know, on a green form. And all he says is, to himself is,

"No I don't think that I... " Says this to himself. And you

get a long surge, pow! Now an auditor who didn't know this,

but in auditing a pre-OT, he would think the thing read. So

actually what you have to do on anybody above clear, is you

have to be wary of the fact, is their thinks read no matter

what they think, it'll read. Particularly if they're

thinking against something. If they're thinking a negative

of some kind or another, up against the bank, or against

the auditor, or against the meter, or something like this,

you will get a read.



So that makes a case above clear, actually some cases down

at grade four, this lively. But very few. But a lot of

auditors would just keep on buying this, you see, from

clear on up, that every time they had a read that was a

positive. You could wreck cases that way, so we're having

to teach people how to get in suppress and false. And

because auditors have done this in the past, a good thing

to get in, false reads. And it cleans up a lot of cases,

right? Alright, now we have had a case or two in the upper

OT sections recently, who have appeared before the examiner

with a wide, wild R/S. And to show you how odd this is, we

have somebody who was comm eved because he R/Sed on

something. And in no case was it an R/S. There is such a

thing as an R/S. But it is not what we think it is.



A float at a certain high case level, with a certain tune

up of sensitivity, actually behaves at an accelerated line

it looks like an R/S. Now the least you could tell about

it, even with an ordinary meter, is the person should start

rocket reading, and reverse. This is a sort of a pop. The

needle pops backwards from right to left. And you can

usually really tell if you tune up your meter right, why

your floats become absolutely unmistakable, because they

begin with a pop.



Now as the guy goes on up the lines this phenomenon begins

to increase. And if your meter is already set up to read

this pop, why if you were auditing somebody at OT 7 or OT

8, I can assure you that his float would be a rock slam.



Well, in supervising your folders, and so on, I have

learned some new things, and so on. I'll continue to learn

them, I'll continue to publish them, and I'll continue to

make sure that you receive them. I don't expect a

tumultuously changing future. I do expect a very successful

one.



And as we move it on up in the line up, we will undoubtedly

have things which we notice, which can be incorporated. And

when they work out uniformly to the better good of all

cases, they will themselves become standard tech.



Very good? Thank you very much.



**************************************************