|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | On 8 January 2016 Kenneth G. Urquhart wrote the following comment on Max Hauri's entry. [[User:AntPhillips|Antony A Phillips]] ([[User talk:AntPhillips|talk]]) 03:13, January 14, 2016 (CST) : | | On 8 January 2016 Kenneth G. Urquhart wrote the following comment on Max Hauri's entry. [[User:AntPhillips|Antony A Phillips]] ([[User talk:AntPhillips|talk]]) 03:13, January 14, 2016 (CST) : |
| | | | |
| − | In my day, LRH would develop a new rundown using the auditors to hand
| + | This has been transferred to the main page see under the heading:<br /> |
| − | locally to begin the experimental auditing.He would work with the c/s who
| + | '''From Ken Urquhart; Earlier Preparation of Rundowns,1969/75.''' |
| − | was in charge of the auditors but LRH would usually see the folders too.
| + | |
| − | And he would have daily conferences with the c/s about the folders and
| + | |
| − | what was happening with the preclears.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Now, I was directly on his communication lines from 1969 through to
| + | |
| − | 1975, when he piloted and introduced several new rundowns. Although
| + | |
| − | the pc folders in the pilots didn't come through me there were written
| + | |
| − | communications between LRH and the C/S which I saw. I knew when
| + | |
| − | they were both in consultation or briefing in LRH's office as my office
| + | |
| − | was a couple of yards from his. I became very familiar with the
| + | |
| − | process and system LRH used.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | When he was satisfied that he had a good product, he would have the
| + | |
| − | c/s write up the hcobs -- often from the c/s's notes of conferences he'd
| + | |
| − | had with LRH as the rundown developed. Once the two of them had
| + | |
| − | agreed on the form and processes and policies for the new rundown,
| + | |
| − | LRH would ask the c/s to submit a list of the most common errors he'd
| + | |
| − | seen the auditors committing on this new RD and that would be the basis
| + | |
| − | of the RD's correction list. The whole process usually occupied little more
| + | |
| − | than a couple of weeks. An exception, understandably, was the L's.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I was not on LRH's comm line when they developed the HRD and nowhere
| + | |
| − | near the door to his office, but I would bet
| + | |
| − | that the same procedure applied. Because David Mayo, who would
| + | |
| − | have been the c/s on this pilot, "wrote the issues," his initials followed
| + | |
| − | LRH's on the ascription at the bottom. Compiling the RD's issues
| + | |
| − | would have been a cooperative effort involving LRH and David Mayo.
| + | |
| − | To say that David Mayo wrote the HRD issues is a misstatement. Yes,
| + | |
| − | he sat at a typewriter and typed up the HCOBs' texts from his notes
| + | |
| − | of discussing the sessions with LRH. He would have sent these
| + | |
| − | draft issues to LRH for approval. If LRH didn't want to approve
| + | |
| − | anything he didn't. If he wanted something changed, he changed it
| + | |
| − | or had it changed. If David Mayo had had an idea of his own and
| + | |
| − | wanted it added to the RD or to an HCOB above and beyond what
| + | |
| − | LRH had uttered in their meetings, David would have run it by LRH
| + | |
| − | before sending it in for approval to issue.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I'd say that the same procedure applied to the NOTs materials
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Kenneth G. Urquhart
| + | |
On 8 January 2016 Kenneth G. Urquhart wrote the following comment on Max Hauri's entry. Antony A Phillips (talk) 03:13, January 14, 2016 (CSTChurch of Spiritual Technology (Senior to, and part of the corporate structure of the churches of Scientology)
) :
