some thoughts on OSA

[TheSneakster]

not important

 

[Veda]

I was around in Scientology long before Miscaviage myself and the LRH auditing / TR's demo tapes were the final word on the Professional TRs courses in the PAC area in the late 1970's.

So far, I haven't seen anything from you to convince me you have much actual Scientology training "under your belt" or any particular in-depth study of the materials of the subject.

Of course, I don't have much in the way of formal Scientology certification myself, just a few thousand hours of personal in-depth study of the materials, working in and around training organizations in the Tech dept., etc.

If my impression of your actual Scientology experience is mistaken, please don't take offense, just point me to whatever posts of your I should read to become better informed.

The Sneakster

Since 1971, at least, there has been a conflict amongst "tech people" in "Orgs" about "acknowledgements" - per those "LRH tapes," or per "TRs" according to the written materials. No doubt, it varied from Org to Org, but the problem - for obvious reasons - existed.

The prevalent view was that "LRH is doing TR 2 correctly, that way," but he can, because he's so good. But everyone else does it this way, (per TRs bulletin.)

I've done a lot more auditing, both inside and outside organized Scientology, than have you.

Some day, I'll go into my files and take out some of the "After Session Statements," and "Completion Statements," from those I audited after exiting $cientology, and post a few, just to let the $cientologists, and the Xenu-Bridge Freezoners, see what a non-lobotomized "Success Story" looks like.

 

[Alan]

I was around in Scientology long before Miscaviage myself and the LRH auditing / TR's demo tapes were the final word on the Professional TRs courses in the PAC area in the late 1970's.

So far, I haven't seen anything from you to convince me you have much actual Scientology training "under your belt" or any particular in-depth study of the materials of the subject.

Of course, I don't have much in the way of formal Scientology certification myself, just a few thousand hours of personal in-depth study of the materials, working in and around training organizations in the Tech dept., etc.

If my impression of your actual Scientology experience is mistaken, please don't take offense, just point me to whatever posts of your I should read to become better informed.

The Sneakster

There is a problem with the LRH auditing/TR's demo tapes in that they were taken from closed circuit TV demos.

Around the later part of 1962 and during 1963 LRH did many TV demos - what is missing on the audio tapes is the ease and relaxed position of his body - also missing on the audio tapes is the fact that his sessions were as close as it is possible to get to into a comfortable chat with someone. It looked like two people in conversation - none of the artificial parade ground militaristic body positioning - nor the stiff robotic giving of commands - just gentle delivery.

As for double acknowledgements - they were used when it was obvious the pc did not fully get the first acknowledgement.

You could almost say LRH's body language was sloppy. But he was at ease and consequently so was the pc.

Alan

 

[Pierrot]

Some day, I'll go into my files and take out some of the "After Session Statements," and "Completion Statements," from those I audited after exiting $cientology, and post a few, just to let the $cientologists, and the Xenu-Bridge Freezoners, see what a non-lobotomized "Success Story" looks like.

so does it all boil down to you having a better cult and anyone not being your follower deserving an "ad hominem" derogatory name-calling?

 

[Tanstaafl]

This exact situation, and the exact same explanation, existed in the 1970s, long before the 'Golden Age of Tech'.

This one can't be blamed on 'GAT'.

Every auditing demo by LRH that I've heard I was struck by sloppy TRs and auditor's code. It's a while since I heard the Pro TRs lectures so I'd have to go back to those.

Anyone here actually received auditing from LRH personally?

Alan - what were his TRs like? (sorry Alan - just caught up with your post on this)

 

[Dulloldfart]

I think it was the GAT Pro TRs Supes I had at ASHO. You don't know how many crams I wrote on them. But they kept flunking me for "double acks".

I remember bringing in a set of Pro TRs Tapes and listening to them in the course room - the tapes of LRH auditing people on the BC that USED to be used as demonstrations of how TRs are supposed to be done.

They weren't on the GAT checksheet that I was on in 99.

When I brought them in the first time, after getting flunked so many times for "double ack" like the one below, my supervisor went white. It presented a real conflict for her to enforce the orders she was given for GAT, even though the LRH tapes totally supported saying "All right. Thank You." as an acceptable ack.

It didn't matter, though.

I was never going to pass my video if I said, "All right. Thank you." on TR2.

I think this is one of the big reasons the GAT auditors I had sounded so robotic: They could only say one word acks - every time.

So yes, I swear. I know what an ack is.

GAT trained supes may know what one is, too.

They just can't pass them in the "Golden Age of Tech".

That is remarkable. There's no HCOB that says you have to use a one word ack! (Or two words as long as they are "thank you"). What reference did the sup use for this, Alanzo? "Double ack" is not saying "OK, thanks". It's a different thing entirely. I'll quote the Clearbird version from http://freezoneamerica.com/Clearbird/Clearbird2004/sub1/class0/part1/06audcom.htm to avoid CofS copyright hassles:

'Double Ack'
In the case you have a very hesitant pc, who gives his full answers in bits and pieces, you have to be extra careful. There is a thing sometimes called 'Double Ack'. It's a special kind of premature ack phenomenon. It occurs when the pc answers... the auditor then acks, and the pc then finishes his answer, leaving the auditor with another acknowledgement to do. The ack was timed incorrectly causing the comm cycle to go to pieces. In such a case the auditor can even ask: "Did that answer the question?" and when the pc says, "Yes, I guess so...", he can go ahead and give the full ack, "Thank you!"

Paul

 

[Alan]

Every auditing demo by LRH that I've heard I was struck by sloppy TRs and auditor's code. It's a while since I heard the Pro TRs lectures so I'd have to go back to those.

Anyone here actually received auditing from LRH personally?

I did.

Alan - what were his TRs like? (sorry Alan - just caught up with your post on this)

Excellent, very comfortable - very natural - he had at that time a wonderful estimation of effort - yes, he flubbed the commands a lot - but that is because of a lack of familiarity - (just because he wrote the processes - it does not mean he knows them flublessly.)

 

[Tanstaafl]

Excellent, very comfortable - very natural - he had at that time a wonderful estimation of effort - yes, he flubbed the commands a lot - but that is because of a lack of familiarity - (just because he wrote the processes - it does not mean he knows them flublessly.)

Interesting. Thanks Alan.

 

[Alan]

'Double Ack'

In the case you have a very hesitant pc, who gives his full answers in bits and pieces, you have to be extra careful. There is a thing sometimes called 'Double Ack'. It's a special kind of premature ack phenomenon. It occurs when the pc answers... the auditor then acks, and the pc then finishes his answer, leaving the auditor with another acknowledgement to do. The ack was timed incorrectly causing the comm cycle to go to pieces. In such a case the auditor can even ask: "Did that answer the question?" and when the pc says, "Yes, I guess so...", he can go ahead and give the full ack, "Thank you!"

An acknowledgement means: I heard you - you have been understood - end of that cycle.

It is not a robotic Good or Fine or Thank you, etc. It is - I heard you - you have been understood - end of that cycle.

Sometimes pc can't receive acknowledgements - so it might take a non-robotic acknowledgement to complete the cycle

Trance inculcated auditors create trance inculcated pcs.

 

[Pierrot]

An acknowledgement means: I heard you - you have been understood - end of that cycle.

It is not a robotic Good or Fine or Thank you, etc. It is - I heard you - you have been understood - end of that cycle.

Sometimes pc can't receive acknowledgements - so it might take a non-robotic acknowledgement to complete the cycle

Trance inculcated auditors create trance inculcated pcs.

yes - emphasis should be on the function not on the form. When it's all about form it becomes a (stupid) ritual and results suffer or are absent.

 

[Div6]

An acknowledgement means: I heard you - you have been understood - end of that cycle.

It is not a robotic Good or Fine or Thank you, etc. It is - I heard you - you have been understood - end of that cycle.

Sometimes pc can't receive acknowledgements - so it might take a non-robotic acknowledgement to complete the cycle

Trance inculcated auditors create trance inculcated pcs.

DM is making PTS'es....to him!