ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

The Tech Error of ’62-’63—How it Went Negative: RogerB’s FZ Presentation in Pasadena

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by RogerB, Nov 9, 2009.

  1. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Solo NOTs issues are very scarce in the FZ. Audited NOTs may be found even under Xmas trees.

    Perhaps best backchannel if you wish to comment.
  2. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    I was reading the Ls. I followed a link provided by Veda. It is not Clear to me exactly what C/S series 37R is. Can anyone provide a link to the process? The breakdown of what is done step by step? :confused2:
  3. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    Glad to see this finally getting up, Rog! :thumbsup:

    It's been a long wait. I'll have to wait a bit longer before I can see it myself. I also want to thank you again for coming out here the west coast and giving the talk. :clap:

    Mark A. Baker
  4. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    C/S 37R was issued in 1971 while I was at flag. It was intended originally to handle low TA cases - low TA being a TA position below 2.0 and was supposed to indicate that the person was overwhelmed in life.

    As I was one of these I got C/Sed onto it while it was in research mode. It consisted of some L&N actions "What could you continue doing?" and others. I got assigned a trainee from the Class 9 course (whicgh had just started) and this guy didn't know nothing about L&N. Neither did I. I was used to Dianetic auditing and this weird "making a list" stuff - WTF is this all about?

    The session went on for about three hours in the summer heat of Morocco while cooped upin a tiny cramped cabin to which the trainees were relegated. I'd reel off the items for the list and every now and again the auditor would say "Your item is ...." and I'd look at himblankly and say "But they're all my items" and he'd reply "Correction, your item is not ...." and I'd say "Fuck you, it is one of my items."

    And so we'd go on till he packed it in three hours later. Then we hadanother three hour session trying to repair the one I'd had - what I remember of that session mainly was the heat and a fly buzzing around the auiting room. I was down in such overwhelmed apathy that I just didn't give a fuck any more, I just let it all happen.

    Next day I get called for session and there's Jeff Walker and now he's going to audit me. OK, so we go into session and he says: "Your item is....." > it was the very first item I gave early and the one I repeated most often > and when he said it the bank just blew and I leapt up VVVGIs and said "That's right! That's the fucking one!" and suddenly I understood what L&N was all about.

    Not long after this the line "Was it the first item on the list?" was added to the L4B.

    And that is my story with C/S 37. It later became L-11.
  5. looker

    looker Patron Meritorious

    good story Leon.:)
  6. Been squirrel and proud of it since 1982!

    Thank you Roger, for all your work in putting this up clearly for us to see. :)

    I very much like the free sharing of ideas and open discussion of their merits and personal meaning to us each as individuals. :thumbsup:

    Leon, you should tell us some more stories about the old days...we love 'em! Good to hear from you! :)
  7. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Great Story!

    Great story, Leon!

    Reminds me of 1962-3 . . . 20 page long lists . . . but no L4!
    (Oh, yes, edit . . . and the days before we had the "Laws of L&N" figured out!)

    Jeff Walker was Senior C/S FSO when I was doing audited NOTs, his wife Sue my auditor. It was him that eventually got smart with my assertions of using the old 1962-3 screwed-up list outness of "Wrong way oppose?"

    I'm told he is "out" now. Cam anyone confirm it? And what of Sue?

    Last edited: Nov 13, 2009
  8. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader


    I use "Rise Reads" and/or "Blow ups" as well when they occur. (In the L's info I saw, the reference was to "Blow Ups."

    I.e., "Use list of terminals from folder.
    Assess on rises (blow ups) handle with itsa E/S itsa + consequences after each."

    They are simply signaling the item hit has increased mass on the case, and is a valid read like any other "change of needle characteristic." From personal experience, I'd say they can be more important in terms of case gain and PC relief than items that merely produce Fs, LFs and B/Ds.

    The "Reverse R/R" is a different monster all together. :yes:

    In the tech of 1962-3 LRH stated that R/Rs are reads produced by your own postulates . . . I have found that to be true.

    A "Reverse R/R" is well, as I have already stated. :)

  9. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    He is out, and apparently every time he tries to leave New Zealand he gets problems resulting from some nasty dirty tricks set up by COS probably re Interpol.

    If you go via Pierre Ethier you may be able to get into contact with him.
    Failing that I have another friend who may be able to make contact.

    Dunno about Sue.
  10. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Thanks, T.

    Thanks, T!

  11. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Are you kidding? That is hard to believe.
    Maybe you meant that he was just lousy at doing L&N?
    As a Class 9 intern he certainly would have had to drill quite a bit of it on the prior/lower auditor Class courses/training.
  12. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Well actually no, not necessarily. Remember many of these guys trained on quicky grades and only had to get one pc through the grades and they were then qualified. That's one pc on one L&N process on grade 3 and one on grade 4, actions where they could very easily have been "lucky" or called an F/N wrongly or even just rabitted out. This was regularly picked up in later corrective actions. Confusions on what is a list were still rampant, confusions that were only partially sorted out by the HCOB on the two complete differences between L&N lists and assessment lists.

    With just that little listing experience and a quicky briefing course in between it was quite possible to make it onto the class 8 course and from there onto the 9 course. This sort of thing really did happen. Remember too that the whole purpose of the original 9 course was to pick up and salvage those 8s who couldn't audit. Those early 8s knew nothing of expanded grades, nothing of the C/S series and had only a tiny fraction of the in-the-chair experience that 4s trained from mid 1970 onwards had. The quicky grades and quicky training problem gets referred to in some P/Ls and bulletins but it is very much in the realm of theory and concept there. If you had known the reality of the actual stuff up, the scale of it and so on - Jesus man, it brought real technical expertise very close to the brink of complete extinction in Scientology.

    The guy I had - his name and origins shall be nameless - certainly did not know the difference between the two types of list nor did he make any attempt to clear the action or commands with the preclear.
  13. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Yes, Leon is corect here.

    There was a period when many auditors had confusion between "Listing & Nulling" and "Auditing by Lists" (to use the wording of the HCOB that later went to great lengths to make the distinction.

    Crazy ideas crept into the tech in the period after the release of the first Grade Chart in 1965 . . . this was the period when the quicky grades occurred and the SHSBC relegated so much of the basic earlier tech to being mere old theory, and even dropping some of it from course requirements!:duh:

    True story, in 1981 or 2 at "Flag the Mecca of Technical Perfection":angry:

    When I was being checked out on my S/NOTs in Qual before being released to go home with my materials, I was asked the question by the FSO Dir. Review: "Do you acknowledge the answers given by the BT to the listing question?"

    I answered, "Of course. That's the standard auditing comm cycle."

    Well, our highly trained FSO Qual Div person disagreed and tried to correct me out of the use of the correct auditing comm cycle:duh:

    He referred me to the Tech Dictionary's definition on L&N and said "Where does it say you acknowledge the PC when listing a question?"

    We had a debate, then, on what a definition is and is not, and I refused to alter my procedure based on a mere description of what the subject is that was not a rendition of the actual full procedure.

    This debate went on for some time. Bless his heart, he was patient:yes: and very "standard".

    Eventually, I said, "Look, I was there doing L&N when it was first invented! And I can tell you you ack the PC when he has to his satisfaction given you his answer to the question. Let's go to the original HCOB's on the subject!"

    It came as a shock to him to read in the 1962 issues on the subject of L&N that you actually do ack the PC for his answer(s).

    It is quite telling for me to see that the tech can be so far out as to actually be knocking out the vital basics such as the auditing comm cycle!:angry: And this in the Qual Div of the "Mecca of Tech perfection!"

    So, God alone knows the tech quality of the poor guy Leon is referring to. I fired two auditors off of my case in St. Hill because they were robotic and unable to think in session. Actually, really hardly there:no:

  14. Div6

    Div6 Crusader

    Thank you for clarifying that very important distinction. And yes, I have reality on meter characteristics changing as 'state of case' changes. Funny how current scilon cases don't seem to change much..... :omg:
  15. You're not alone, I don't get it either but if you happen to get someone to finally explain it to you, send me a PM and fill me in
  16. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Err... well, I don't think I said that auditing was "great". However, I do think that there can be a lot gained through the activity. I also think it's dangerous, precisely because it is used as the bait to the "total freedom trap".

    What's great about it is that it teaches people to really listen to each other, and this is very helpful for people to break out of mental traps they've fallen into. Sadly, this doesn't mean they will become supermen, or even qualify as digital watches. I'm sorry if you don't understand me, and I'm sure you're not alone!
  17. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Oh, upon review, I did use the word "great" with regard to the aligned charts of UCP, because I think they are of "great value". True!
  18. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    The saddest thing that ever happened to me was an L4BRA where EVERYTHING was indicated to me. I got promptly sick. The auditor did not know what she was doing at ALL.
    I was already in for a repair and got worse.
    My 13th Int Rundown at ASHO Day by a student auditor got me sick also.
    Individuals who are not proficient at metering should not do the repairs.
    There should be a bulletin for Class IVs on how to tell BT reads from actual reads on lower levels. Yeah, as if...
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2009
  19. nw2394

    nw2394 Silver Meritorious Patron

    Thanks very much for this thread Roger :thumbsup:

  20. CarmeloOrchards

    CarmeloOrchards Crusader

    Auditing, doing repairs, assessment lists, and L & N, has more to do with the auditor being there, than if he can read a meter.

    Warning: I get metaphysical.

    If the auditor doesn't love the PC, the PC is in trouble no matter how well reads are read.

    If "the auditor" is rote and mechanical, it really doesn't get anyone anywhere. The session may end in EP, but it is a facade.

    PCs have knowingness. They know when someone is on their team, or just phoning it in.

    BTW: this thread is the best thing going on the internet at the moment.