|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Answer to Pat ==
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | Pat, this subject is actually worth to investigate more thoroughly. I didn't make an easy decision, believe me.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Just to make sure, the bulletin 27 May 1970 ''Unreading Questions And Items'' is not at discussion at all, this one is correct, I only discredit that a quote out of context was put into the Tech Dict and taken as a reference for Read.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It is the bulletin 23 June 80R (revised 25 Feb 1982) ''Checking Questions On Grades Processes'' which is at stake. To point out clearly, 25 Feb 82 was the first time when we had to check grade processes for read. The first issue 23 June 80 was more or less a re-release of the bulletin 22 Oct 70.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | For me it is now not clear when you left the church, probably earlier then I did as you have been closer to the eye of the hurricane, and after all you were so much more experienced then I was then. So I am not sure if you read that bulletin being still in the church or after you have left. The big schism was already in progress mid '82.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This points out a big huge outpoint. Remember Mayo was removed from post Aug 1982. CBR left the church already beginning 1981. So did many others in that time. Also 1982 17th Oct the US Mission Holders' Conference, San Francisco took place. Factually several thousands if not ten-thousands left the church then.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The outpoint is that 1982 the church was already pretty suppressive, Miscavige already took over, and LRH on the other hand is happily writing bulletins and policy letters but not being aware of what is going on in the church – at least not mentioning it but discrediting publicly his earlier friend and auditor. I dare to say David Mayo is meant by that and if not, it is a generalization anyway Hubbard wouldn't have done: ''"The person who had originally approved – and even taken part in writing – this incorrect and illegally issued HCOB later sought to cover these actions by "discovering the error," attributing it to someone else, and "calling it to my attention.""''[Quote of HCOB 23 June 80RA]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I other words I doubt that LRH wrote those issues, all of them.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Next question is what is the purpose of the grade processes? To take charge off as in Dianetics or to provide the pc with abilities? If the answer is "to take charge off" because you are handling locks – then I have to deny that. You do not handle locks, for that we have other techniques, Dianetics and Lock Scanning, etc. And if to "take charge off" then I ask what's about Objectives? Don't we see pcs going through heavy charges and masses sometimes? Then why not to check those processes on the meter?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The intention is to increase abilities - does that then mean abilities are suppressed by charge? What if the ability was never there in the first place?
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Very important is to keep the runway small and simple. For example HAS Co-Auditing. Many of those processes are today part of the grades. Do we now introduce two different standards? If audited in HAS Co-Audit you don't use an e-meter but you do on the grades?
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | And last but not least the experience: It runs fine.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I don't damn the e-meter, we certainly need it, but put it where it belongs to!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Don't take Class VIII down to Class 0 or even lower.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Max Hauri, 19 March 2012
| |
