false data stripping

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by robot123, Sep 18, 2008.

View Users: View Users
  1. gomorrhan

    gomorrhan Gold Meritorious Patron

    DM is a tool, no doubt, but auditing can be done without a meter, and probably to better effect, IMO. Meters are cool, I own three, but the only time I ever use them, in my practice, is to check rudiments: is the needle dirty? No? Then start major process. Is the needle dirty? No? Then end session.

    For everything else, I'm looking at the person in front of me. If you're addressing something that they have interest in (and thus, charge on, per theory), and they are willing to tell you about it, who gives a fig if it reads?
  2. Carmel

    Carmel Crusader

    Meter useful tool, but not at expense of auditor looking at person in front of them. Per reports, these days, auditing so mechanical, that couldn't/wouldn't work. I understand why you say, "who gives a fig". Better off with no meter, if ya gonna let it rule.
  3. Rene Descartes

    Rene Descartes Gold Meritorious Patron

    Many years ago I False Data Stripped a person and it was metered.

    The person F/Ned at the examiner.

    I was pleased afterwards.

    I still am lplased only because the FDS did not cover things such as activities of the Church or anything that wanted to make the person "blow".

    The person was just having serious trouble learning something. And the person was a total willing recipient of the FDS.

    Perhaps for education purposes it might be okay and this a mighty big "might".

    To be honest I think I could have achieved the same results with two-way comm and caereful questioning.

    Does anyone here think the title "False Data Stripping" is a bad term to use?

    Does the word "mindwipe" come to mind?

  4. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I'm fine with the term. I've been involved in several hundred hours of FDSing, giving, receiving, and debugging students in my courseroom when it bogged while they were doing it. In the maybe one dozen cases I debugged, I never had to resort to an FDSing Repair List. I don't think I ever even put anyone on the cans. If it seemed applicable, I would check that the person wasn't grossly short of sleep or food--but that was quite rare. In all the other cases the thing resolved by simply getting the person to answer the question, starting at a point before the trouble began and not where the person got thoroughly bogged. For example, one question is "When was this?". An approximate answer is OK. Another question is "Where exactly were you at the time?". There is an "exactly" there, which requires a more precise answer. It is not necessary to locate it to the nearest inch, but getting a vague idea of the location isn't always enough for the person to latch onto the incident fully enough to extract the needed perceptions from it.

    In every one of those sessions, well over a hundred, there was no coercion at all involved, i.e. steering the person towards a particular point of view. Except one item comes to mind of an OSA Int auditor I was FDSing, who had a cram from RTC, and we FDSed some technical point and came up with nothing pointing in the desired (i.e. would-be enforced) direction. The auditor said something along the lines of she'd get further shit on that point from RTC, but agreed nothing had genuinely come up, and I certainly wasn't willing to fake something. If she subsequently got some coercive FDSing from someone else in the name of expediency, I was not involved in it.

    "Mindwipe"? Not in my personal experience and not when I'm personally involved with it. But I'm sure it gets misused like that, especially when the "true data" one studies and compares things against is only Hubbard's.

  5. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    I was long gone when that re definition came about. I'd be interested in more info on how that went down at the time.

    Was the hoped for response that the original tech dict def was false?
  6. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    The way I heard it was that the screw ups that resulted from the new def of F/N and the subsequent effects on auditing were what led DM to institute GAT to solve his original squirrel re def.