What's new
By:
Filters

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

lkwdblds said:
I've thought about this from time to time as well. It seems to be a natural reaction to overwhelming debt. What about bankruptcy? Bankruptcies with plans for restructuring and continuing to operate have been fashioned and are common for people and corporations. A very large corporate entity, General Motors just recently went through it. If GM can do it, why not Greece? Why not the USA?

A complete reset is a lot different than a bankruptcy, right? All debt is instantly forgiven. Its hard to imagine what would happen. All individuals, businesses and governments become debt free but not only are most of their payable cancelled but also many of their major receivables. As you see, the biggest of the debtors, the USA with over 16 trillion in funded debt plus their unfunded debt, guaranteeing pension plans and retirements for the next couple of generation is instantly debt free, great for USA but not so hot for their creditors.

All the federal employees lose their pension plans instantly. What happens then? All of out trading partners would abandon us. Everything would have to start being paid in current cash from present day revenues.

Some of the "think tanks" would have to make various models to forecast what might happen if the reset was unleashed.

To me, a bankruptcy would be more realistic and more effective. Each bill owed would be analyzed. Revenues would be analyzed. A figure could be established for how many cents on a dollar could be paid to cover the bills. Some bills would not be able to be eliminated, other bills would be totally eliminated, the remainder of bills would be paid off on the basis of a certain number of cents on the dollar.

Drastic spending cuts would have to be forced on the government as part of the procedure. Various government operations. would have to be reworked so as to be more efficient.

There would have to be a drastic overhaul of the way things are done. Just an opinion, but for the United States, a bankruptcy declaration seems much more feasible than just hitting the reset button.

I don't want to enter into partisan politics but if my post has any merit, you can see that President Obama is recommending doing just the opposite of what would have to be done in a bankruptcy proceeding. His approach is to increase taxes to give the federal government more money to spend so as to create more federal jobs and stimulate the economy. This stimulation is then supposed to increase the government's income and thus enable them to "out create" the spiraling growth of the debt.

You can see from this simple example that the Obama approach, I believe it is called Keynesian economics, has no chance at all of being successful.
Lakey
Click to expand...

Obama wants to raise taxes to cover his wife's vacations. :eyeroll:
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Me and Lakey together? Others may laugh but I'm sure we'll get along just fine.

But more on this topic. The thing about pushng the reset button is that it could be set off by one country, Greece for e.g., just telling its creditors to get stuffed and declaring that it only buys for real commodities or gold in future, and then other countries like the rest of the pigs saying WTF stuff 'em all and following suit, and then all of Africa doing it and then the USA saying hell no we're not going to ge left carrying the baby with the crappy nappy and so then they join the bandwagon too. And that will tip the world. This could happen.

I'm aware of the movement of gold that has been going on - perhaps not as informed as you are on it though. Venezuala wants its American held gold back - will they get it? I doubt it. germany wants an audit on its own gold holdings and the Bundesbank is not abliging them. What lies behind that?

It seems clear that the money system as is being played around the globe at present is approaching the end-game stage. But I sit with the feeling that anyone who claims to know exactly what is going on is fooling hoimself and likely trying to fool others. The boyz at a Nuremberg trial? I doubt it (and that was all a load of bullshit too), more likely they'll get strung up in public like Mussolini was.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Leon said:
Me and Lakey together? Others may laugh but I'm sure we'll get along just fine.

But more on this topic. The thing about pushng the reset button is that it could be set off by one country, Greece for e.g., just telling its creditors to get stuffed and declaring that it only buys for real commodities or gold in future, and then other countries like the rest of the pigs saying WTF stuff 'em all and following suit, and then all of Africa doing it and then the USA saying hell no we're not going to ge left carrying the baby with the crappy nappy and so then they join the bandwagon too. And that will tip the world. This could happen.

I'm aware of the movement of gold that has been going on - perhaps not as informed as you are on it though. Venezuala wants its American held gold back - will they get it? I doubt it. germany wants an audit on its own gold holdings and the Bundesbank is not abliging them. What lies behind that?

It seems clear that the money system as is being played around the globe at present is approaching the end-game stage. But I sit with the feeling that anyone who claims to know exactly what is going on is fooling hoimself and likely trying to fool others. The boyz at a Nuremberg trial? I doubt it (and that was all a load of bullshit too), more likely they'll get strung up in public like Mussolini was.
Click to expand...

Leon, I am a complete neophyte on this topic just barely knowing something about it's A,B,C's. Roger seems to be the most expert among us.

Trying to give opinions on these types of topics on ESMB when you really know so little is a real eye opener as to the type of education we received. Just a standard K-12 education in the L.A. City Schools plus 5 years at college studying math and physics, which is what I have, does not yield someone who can talk with authority on topics such as the world's debt crisis. Like you, I do feel we are approaching an end-game stage.

For me personally, for a while I thought I was doing pretty good, holding my own in a lot of areas in a lot of spirited discussions. Then recently the topic about cattlemen in Texas and in Mexico in the mid 19th century came up and I knew next to nothing. Even worse was a following topic discussing the history of Russia and the pogroms against the Jews and the part the Tsars played in those pogroms and what part of the pogroms were brought on by the Jews themselves through questionable behavior and poor PR on their part..

Russian history is a fairly major topic and no one coming through the standard US educational system knows anything at all about it. It is really pathetic.

Now we have world gold markets, world economies and a looming meltdown and most of us (not including Roger) seem to know very little about it. As little as we know, it is probably several times as much as a typical US Citizen or voter knows. Some solace can be taken because most of the so-called experts who are supposed to know these things and are paid to know, don't know anything about it either. This might ease our hurt feelings but it is a bad thing because when those in charge don't really know what they are doing, most of us are going to end up paying the price.
Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Holy Shit! amc movie theatres and their corporate debt purchased by Chinese company. The Hollywood business moguls better learn from innovator Sumner Redstone. The Weinstein Brothers, Miramax, marketing pros.....may need to form new alliances.

http://money.msn.com/investing/latest.aspx?post=620b1e6c-fef3-4a93-82fd-555b94e46a44

http://marketday.msnbc.msn.com/_new...uying-us-cinema-chain-amc-for-26-billion?lite

My nephew's firm was purchased by a Chinese business this year. He would've had to move to LA or Chicago to continue on writing software script. The offer of a higher salary was good but he's staying where he is and has found another employer.

yarmulke.jpg

1268908938BJJw5S.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hatshepsut said:
[video=youtube;f3UszgtxDiI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3UszgtxDiI&sns=em[/video]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...uching-tribute-late-twin-brother-Maurice.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18142496

article-2147335-1335C672000005DC-988_634x847.jpg


[video=youtube;nDs68ePpAV8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDs68ePpAV8&sns=em[/video]
One Night Only at MGM Grand
Click to expand...

Seemed like a very nice family-loving man. Died too young.

זיכרונו לברכה
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

lkwdblds said:
Leon, I am a complete neophyte on this topic just barely knowing something about it's A,B,C's. Roger seems to be the most expert among us.

Trying to give opinions on these types of topics on ESMB when you really know so little is a real eye opener as to the type of education we received. Just a standard K-12 education in the L.A. City Schools plus 5 years at college studying math and physics, which is what I have, does not yield someone who can talk with authority on topics such as the world's debt crisis. Like you, I do feel we are approaching an end-game stage.

For me personally, for a while I thought I was doing pretty good, holding my own in a lot of areas in a lot of spirited discussions. Then recently the topic about cattlemen in Texas and in Mexico in the mid 19th century came up and I knew next to nothing. Even worse was a following topic discussing the history of Russia and the pogroms against the Jews and the part the Tsars played in those pogroms and what part of the pogroms were brought on by the Jews themselves through questionable behavior and poor PR on their part..

Russian history is a fairly major topic and no one coming through the standard US educational system knows anything at all about it. It is really pathetic.

Now we have world gold markets, world economies and a looming meltdown and most of us (not including Roger) seem to know very little about it. As little as we know, it is probably several times as much as a typical US Citizen or voter knows. Some solace can be taken because most of the so-called experts who are supposed to know these things and are paid to know, don't know anything about it either. This might ease our hurt feelings but it is a bad thing because when those in charge don't really know what they are doing, most of us are going to end up paying the price.
Lakey
Click to expand...

Gosh Lakey, Not knowing much about a subject has never stopped me from voicing opinions about it so why should it stop you? The worst that has ever happened is that I get laughed at for being nuts and told to shut up - so what? Most so-called experts are just bullshitters too and have particular agendas that they are trying to promote via their so-called expertness. I at least have no hidden agenda. I am impartially ignorant.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Leon said:
Gosh Lakey, Not knowing much about a subject has never stopped me from voicing opinions about it so why should it stop you? The worst that has ever happened is that I get laughed at for being nuts and told to shut up - so what? Most so-called experts are just bullshitters too and have particular agendas that they are trying to promote via their so-called expertness. I at least have no hidden agenda. I am impartially ignorant.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, Leon. There are a lot of very bright and sharp people posting on ESMB, many of them on this thread. I just feel that everyone should know what they are talking about when they post here.

Actually, there seem to be 4 basic divisions when it comes to giving out advice, opinions or simply information. We have the following:

1. The Pedantic Assertion This individual responds to someone else's post as follows, "Wrong!" this type of individual then asserts his beliefs in a pedantic manner, i.e., "Wrong! All members of such and such are totally insane. There hasn't been a sane one since Wendell Wilkie in 1944." The Pedantic individual then lectures down at you and does not cite his/her sources of information nor give any examples to illustrate his point.

2. The Unknowledgable Person with a Fixed Idea - This person doesn't have much knowledge but has taken on a cause involving a fixed idea. Anyone who is not in lock step with his/her point of view is savagely attacked, lied about, poked fun at and an attempt is made to degrade and then silence the opponent.

3. The Knowledgable Person with a Fixed Idea - This person has very strong opinions but unless you are in lock step agreement with him, you are on his shit list. The thing is that one who does not totally agree can learn something from a debate or exchange of ideas with this person. You often learn more from this person than you do from people who you usually agree with.

On this type of person, you had better know what you are talking about or this person will eat you alive in a debate and make a laughing stock of you!

4. The Knowledgable Person who does not have a Fixed Idea - This type is a pleasure to deal with. They may also be pedantic, some are and some are not. You can learn things from this type. To me it is better to know something about your topic when dealing with this type. Its okay if you don't know much because they will make no effort to degrade you but if you don't know anything, you will be on a total inflow, always listening and thanking. Its very nice to get the other flow and that is another good reason to make an attempt to know what you are talking about.

Leon, like you, I have no hidden agenda. I did my best to answer your question of why I like to know what I am talking about.
Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Open mind. Open heart. That's what I'm aspiring to. Wish me luck!
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Smilla said:
Open mind. Open heart. That's what I'm aspiring to. Wish me luck!
Click to expand...

Your doing fine, please just keep doing more of what you are doing! I don't think luck plays much of a role in your success!
Lakey
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Gee Lakey, you didn't have to tell everyone it was.Grauman's theatre . It took the sting out of my gag. You really can't see the forecourt with the stars' footprints in the photo. Can't a girl have some fun. :coolwink:

Oh, I take that back! I got off the smartphone and saw the pavement on the bigger monitor screen. Oooooops. :biggrin:
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

And then you get the pedantic analyser, who even without any fixed ideas, analyses everything. LOL.
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Hatshepsut said:
Gee Lakey, you didn't have to tell everyone it was.Grauman's theatre . It took the sting out of my gag. You really can't see the forecourt with the stars' footprints in the photo. Can't a girl have some fun. :coolwink:

Oh, I take that back! I got off the smartphone and saw the pavement on the bigger monitor screen. Oooooops. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Hat's and Carmelo are two people who deserve their own category. That would be Posters who convey their messages through Videos, Photos, Cartoons and other Graphics.
Lakey
 
Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead

Antony A Phillips said:
Pilot'sPosts Z2

[[ I have decided also to send the weekly excerpts from The Pilot's fortnightly postings here every week. But if you would like them sent weekly to your inbox You will still need to go to: http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio and sign in there. Then you will get them in your inbox in the middle of every week without you having to raise a finger further. So here is the next one, a day late., Ant]]

Pilot'sPosts Z5


A History Of Abandoning Processes

(From Post 48 - February 1999)


With the May 1950 release of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health came the idea that there was One Basic Why (engrams) which could be handled by a single technique to produce an ultimate case state which was at that time referred to as "Clear".

Of course that went by the boards when the discovery of past life incidents made it painfully obvious that there was no way to run out all of an individual's engrams.

At the same moment that the ultimate target was found to be unbelievably higher than the humanoid clear of DMSMH, the amount of material that would have to be handled had seemed to jump by a factor of about a trillion to one.

Ron mentions, on at least one tape, that he had a moment of great despair when he saw that.

Remember that this is before techniques such as mockup processing which could blow all the charge out of an area without actually running every damn incident that had ever been connected with something.

And so the search was on to find faster more powerful techniques to undercut the bank and reach the target in a reasonable amount of time.

And there was this idea of some key basic-basic which would undo everything.

By the time of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) at the end of 1952, not only was Dianetics old and abandoned but even the technique 88 processes of just a few months before were considered obsolete.

Every ACC (advanced clinical course) in those days had its own lineup of processes and most of the earlier processes were abandoned.

They were not accumulating techniques in those days, instead they were using them briefly and then dropping them in favor of the next latest and greatest super techniques.

Eventually, by mid 1954, we end up with Route 1/2 of Creation of Human Ability. And that was a great set of super techniques, probably the best single collection that was put together in the early days. But please realize that when it was truly in use, everything else was abandoned. That includes Dianetics, group processing, technique 88, fac one handling, running entities, the mockup processes of the doctorate course, the advanced OT rundown know as SOP-8C, the even more advanced roll your own OT bridge of SOP-8OT, and everything else from earlier times.

And as always, there was a new bridge the following year. But unlike all the others, CofHA was so well consolidated that in later years route 1 would sometimes be identified as what to run if the current bridge was completed. But it stopped being used in the org's processing lineup.

And then come the later ACCs [Advanced Clinical Courses], each again focusing on a limited target and trying to run the entire case that way.

And finally we have the St. Hill Special Briefing Course [SHSBC]. Again most of the processes are old and we only use a limited subset. Techniques like R2-12 are used briefly and then abandoned with the ultimate target seen as GPMs and all other processing simply being a way to get the person up to running GPMs.

If you examine the old tech volumes for the time period from the late 50s up until the grades are devised in 1965, you will see occasional HCOBs labeled as "HGC Allowed Processes". Those are complete lists of the techniques permitted in those times. All other processes could be considered to be canceled.

But up until 1965 there was also the idea that a field auditor could use any process he was trained on and even that a new HGC auditor could run whatever he was best experienced at before learning the modern lineup. In other words, the cancellations really only applied to the standard HGC lineup at a central org, Ron was always happy to hear that some old process had been dug out and used in the field and he often related stories along those lines to his students when he would lecture.

And so you wouldn't find route 1 being run in an org's HGC, but you might find a field auditor who was running it and nobody was going to make anyone wrong for doing that, any auditing was considered to be better than no auditing.

But this thirst to knock out basic-basic by means of running a handful of techniques was still permeating the subject and in 1965 Ron thought that they had finally made it.

I began training in 1966. By then KSW had come out so that all other processes were gone under pain of being declared as a suppressive and a squirrel.

At that time I was not privy to what they were running on the clearing course, but I can tell you what was permitted at lower levels because it didn't change much during 1967 as I continued my training. And of course later I found out what I was not permitted to know about the upper levels in those early days.

There were 2 assists permitted, the touch assist and the contact assist. I was threatened with being declared and having my certs pulled as a squirrel once in 1968 for using the "keep it from going away" assist on a fellow staff member.

The only permitted Dianetic technique was "66 style" dianetics. R3R of 1963 was of course forbidden. I thought that was heartbreaking. Sometime in mid 1968 a telex came down telling us that we could use R3R for making a Dianetic release in the HGC instead of 66 style. You were allowed to get one FN on locks, one on secondaries, and one on engrams. This was all single flow of course. There was an HCOB about that which came out in 1967 (up till then Dianetics was only run by students on the 66 style HDA Dianetics course and not in the HGC). The HCOB, although supposedly by Ron, disappeared when Ron decided that "you can always run an engram" around the time of the Class 8 course in late 1968.

Then you could run ARC straightwire. Just the one process, single flow. When it FNed you had a straightwire release. Of course self analysis was available to the public, and we didn't attack people for running it on themselves, but it wouldn't be run by an auditor, that would be squirrel.

And then there was a process (sometimes a few processes) on each grade, but you couldn't continue a grade past it's floating needle. These FNs were hard to get because you didn't fly the ruds (that would have been counted as a grade release because FN meant release) so there was usually a big gain when the process finally did FN.

But these were single flow processes, not even triples. So it was a few hours on each grade. This is before the true quickies of the Class 8 course.

And of course Qual used the green form (and nothing else).

And of course there were the S&Ds to handle the PTSness that was the reason for any instability in the grade releases.

That was it. Everything else was old, canceled, we don't use it anymore and if you do use it you are a squirrel and a suppressive. Note that the tech degrades policy did not come out until 1970.

The entire reactive mind, you see, was supposed to be coming from R6 and that supposedly dissolved when you ran the CC implant. So you should only run what was needed to set the case up for that.

The brightly colored rocks referred to in KSW were things like R3R, CofHA, PDC, Tech 88, and so forth.

Any process which might exteriorize somebody was seen as dangerous.

Any running of whole track was seen by many as over restimulative. Some of us (including me) ignored that one, but it was a mixed bag. There are many tales of auditors stopping pcs from running whole track in those days. Common was for an auditor to add "in this lifetime" to a command if the pc came up with any whole track in an answer.

Many were scared of restimulation. The idea was to get a good keyout and then do CC for the magical vanishment of the reactive mind.

This was the heritage of KSW and ethics and a standard lineup that included HCOBs like "all sickness equals PTS".

In the fall of 1968, the first class 8 course was delivered on the flagship and the graduates came back to the orgs and put in what we now know of as quickies.

It is only at this point in time that it was discovered that a case can be gotten to FN with rudiments. And the 8 course had the concept of setting a case up with ruds and perhaps even a prepcheck or a bit of 2 way comm, which in those days was C/Sed as "chat with pc about ...." (his job or his 2D etc.).

For the first time we were running grade processes with an FN before starting the process. And that makes it easy to get FNs while running the process. But it might be a small FN without the cognition or the big blowout. You didn't usually get those in the older days when the ruds were not flown, it usually takes a big cog to get an FN over out ruds.

Of course the "FN And EP" bulletin had not come out yet.

And then there were the situations where you got a persistent FN. If you did do a good job on the processes (usually by pretending not to see the small FNs because you would be tossed in the showers if you bypassed them), the odds were that you would turn on a persistent FN either on straightwire or on Grade 0 because you were running the key process for the grade.

And the standard tech C/S was to run all the grades in one session because faster results were more stable and because then life wouldn't interfere and knock out the ruds in the middle of the PCs grades. So it was the key process of straightwire immediately followed by the key process of grade 0 and so forth. The rest of the grades would be lost to a persistent FN as you started each one and saw that the needle was still floating broadly.

So either all the PC's EPs were chopped, or he turned on a persistent FN fairly early in the session, and in either case, there was very little processing done above grade zero. Even grade 4 might be lost on a PC feeling good and FNing while saying "I don't have any urge to make anybody wrong" (and of course most people wouldn't while they are on a persistent FN).

However some new rundowns were put in to handle the problem of people falling on their heads. This was originally the 7 resistive cases, and was renamed the 7 special cases so as not to upset the PCs and then it became what we now know of as green form 40.

I'm rambling a bit here, but it is to emphasize what the situation was in those days. The intention of the original standard tech of the 8 course was to do the minimum possible to get the person onto the clearing course to erase the bank and then get him up to OT 3 so that he could handle entities with incident 1 and 2. Those were considered the source of case and anything else was pretty rocks that might lead us from the path.

And so most of the tech was gone, forbidden, and now we had a police force (ethics, the GO, and standard tech C/Ses) to make sure that it was never used.

If people wonder why I have a bit of a dislike for KSW and the term "standard tech", this is the reason. In their original incarnation, they were used intensively to knock out what we now know to be valid tech and they made it impossible to fix what was wrong in the subject.

PCs caved in, orgs crumbled, and ethics went in hard because the why was SPs and squirreling and the world conspiracy.

1969 was probably Scientology's darkest hour.

In 1970 the tech was reinstated. They didn't bother canceling all the cancels, Ron simply said that all the tech is for use. So you can argue about what is canceled and what is not. Expanded grade zero included at least one process from an explicitly canceled HCOB which is not in the New tech volumes (it is in the old tech volumes marked as canceled even though the canceled HCOB was also, at that time, on the level zero checksheet to be star-rated).

But the hard line of standard C/Sing and following the grade chart pretty much makes it impossible to use most of the older processes legally, unless of course you call it an assist and do it without an official C/S.

As to mockup processes, they were canceled back around 1963. But around the beginning of 1968, Ron issued the money process as "mockup a way to waste money", ignoring the cancellation. That was shocking to some of the tech people.

Also, sometime in 1969 or 70 (if I remember correctly), Yvonne Gilham (later Heber's wife) came around on tour doing group processing with the old group auditors handbooks. That went very well and so group processing was put back into use.

But those old books were full of mockup commands as part of the group processing sessions. And raw public would often go to them, and so mockup processing was used on raw public in group processing (where there is the least auditor control and handling of the PC) despite the fact that it was canceled. And I'm pretty sure that this was ordered by Ron (since group processing remained in use thereafter), so here again he ignored the cancellation without actually bothering to revoke it.

By the way, most of the public loved it. The same goes for playing old group processing tapes of Ron's and letting the public do them. And he does wild things in those group sessions, some of the processes wound up on old OT 6 and 7. People coming in off the street can run these things, but it’s a hit or miss matter, one of the R-factors was that it was ok to skip a group processing command if you didn't feel like doing it.

But this was during the brief exhilaration of the 1970 reinstatement of the tech. Later I saw people smashed for using mockups in group processing.

In practice, you wouldn't find a standard C/S using mockups. And if I were C/Sing for an orthodox organization, I wouldn't dare C/S them because you can't do them by rote. I did a more extensive write-up on this awhile ago.

Also, OT drills are supposed to be up above modern OT 8. Therefore it would be mis-C/Sing to use them at lower levels.

Personally, I don't think that anything is canceled, but you would have to be prepared to argue this to get away with it in an org. Practically speaking, there are only two alternatives: Either Ron was chronically lying about the results produced in the 1950s, or those processes work and there is more than one way to skin a cat, it doesn't have to be modern standard tech. It should be obvious that I believe the latter. There is no third alternative where a process could only work in a certain year and not in other years.

As to self auditing, the early days have this continual mix of considering that public PCs who self audited had some case outness while at the same time telling professional auditors that they could audit anything on themselves that they were trained on.

The real bug in public self auditing was that they wouldn't know what they were doing and so would sit around figure figuring on a "whatsit" rather than running properly. And that was not forbidden, just seen as an outpoint. The only rule was against self auditing while in the middle of an HGC intensive because it threw in an unobserved action. The early green form had the question stated that way ("during an intensive") and did not have any question about self auditing in general.

But here again, we have the late 1960s concept that all case was R6 or OT 3 coming in and messing up the works. The whole idea was to destimulate the case rather than handle it with the handling being to go and do the clearing course. And auditing involves restimulating things so that one can blow them. Therefore any auditing was undesirable except for the tiny amount necessary (quicky grades) as a setup for CC. And so all self auditing became forbidden.

Of course there was solo auditing in those days. The PC might have had one or two intensives of auditing in their entire life, and done a solo course so that he could read a meter and run a command, and then you'd let him loose on R6EW with some real heavyweight self listing processes. Note that these were not people who were clear. These were not professionals. They had barely a lick and a promise as far as any prior case handling went. In later days, a new person who had done a self analysis co-audit (early 70s HQS course) probably had more auditing experience and had probably received more hours of auditing than the people who were being allowed to solo in 1968.

The rules and worries about all this which were introduced during the quickie era never did get reviewed or canceled when things changed.

The keynotes of 1969 were being afraid of the bank and scared of restimulation, and so of course people keyed in heavily and got restimulated like crazy.

Imagine the attitudes of a time period where simply using the word "withdraw" in an auditing command was seen as so restimulative of R6 that you would wrap the pc around the flag pole (see the forbidden word list HCOB).

And the higher trained somebody was, the more "OT" levels they had done, the more certain they were of the dangers of this and so as people moved up the line, they became greater suppressors of tech rather than greater encouragers of tech.

Without the halfway reforms of 1970, the orgs would have been gone within a few years. But we still bear the scars in terms of fixed ideas and tough policies that were meant to solve a problem that is long gone.

In a total scarcity of tech, you had better be afraid of a pin dropping because if you are only allowed one process and something goes wrong, you are dead. With an abundance of tech, that becomes silly, about like worrying about a single drop of coffee when there is an urn right next to you.

Best,

The Pilot

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Following written by Ant (Editor and relayer of this, in May 2012)

My HGC (Hubbard Guidance Centre, Org's auditing department) was considerably earlier than The Pilot's and a few details may be of interest. It was around 1959 and in London Org (The Pilot, to my knowledge, was never outside USA). At the start we did not use an e-meter (earlier editions of Dianetics '55 give an explanation of that - though the advent of transistors, used instead of valve/tubes, and electronic advances, could have been part of the reason for its reintroduction). My auditor training in 1955 had no use of e-meters. When e-meters were re-introduced (Nibs Hubbard, L Ron Hubbard Junior, was a senior in London at the time) us HGC auditors were given an emeter (by Nibs), but received no training. Thus at that time and before, the phenomenon of FN (floating needle) was unknown. I remember once having a pc who was talking about his time in the far east, and the e-meter needle was making wild slashes, which I looked at in wonderment. They continued until his attention went on to another time period, and years later I learned that I had seen a rock slam :) . A little later I read in Bulletins of a "free needle", and a little later still of a floating needle - these concepts were not there when we started using meters, and came in in what I am inclined to call a covert way.

We normally ran three hour sessions (2 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday with an hour for lunch). On Monday and Friday there was a single session, before and after testing, and the preclear had before and after interviews with the Director of Processing. Day preclears received 25 hours per week. 25 hours was regarded as an intensive, weekend and evening pcs (of which there were not many) had 12½ hours per weekend or week. There was a rule that if the first four points of the persons test (OCA/APA) were below the halfway line, s/he was run only on objectives (CCH 1-4). Otherwise new processes came in almost daily from Ron, and It once happened that I ran a preclear on the latest process, only to see in my in basket at the end of the afternoon session, a Bulletin forbidding the use of that process on any one! However, there was no atmosphere of fear of running a "bad" process - atmosphere in the 50's was different from when this thing called "ethics" came into the picture.

The Pilot's experiences at different times would have been markedly different from mine.

All best wishes, Ant.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Click to expand...
 
Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead

Antony A Phillips said:
Antony A Phillips said:
Pilot'sPosts Z2

[[ I have decided also to send the weekly excerpts from The Pilot's fortnightly postings here every week. But if you would like them sent weekly to your inbox You will still need to go to: http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio and sign in there. Then you will get them in your inbox in the middle of every week without you having to raise a finger further. So here is the next one, a day late., Ant]]

Pilot'sPosts Z5


A History Of Abandoning Processes

(From Post 48 - February 1999)


With the May 1950 release of Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health came the idea that there was One Basic Why (engrams) which could be handled by a single technique to produce an ultimate case state which was at that time referred to as "Clear".

Of course that went by the boards when the discovery of past life incidents made it painfully obvious that there was no way to run out all of an individual's engrams.

At the same moment that the ultimate target was found to be unbelievably higher than the humanoid clear of DMSMH, the amount of material that would have to be handled had seemed to jump by a factor of about a trillion to one.

Ron mentions, on at least one tape, that he had a moment of great despair when he saw that.

Remember that this is before techniques such as mockup processing which could blow all the charge out of an area without actually running every damn incident that had ever been connected with something.

And so the search was on to find faster more powerful techniques to undercut the bank and reach the target in a reasonable amount of time.

And there was this idea of some key basic-basic which would undo everything.

By the time of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (PDC) at the end of 1952, not only was Dianetics old and abandoned but even the technique 88 processes of just a few months before were considered obsolete.

Every ACC (advanced clinical course) in those days had its own lineup of processes and most of the earlier processes were abandoned.

They were not accumulating techniques in those days, instead they were using them briefly and then dropping them in favor of the next latest and greatest super techniques.

Eventually, by mid 1954, we end up with Route 1/2 of Creation of Human Ability. And that was a great set of super techniques, probably the best single collection that was put together in the early days. But please realize that when it was truly in use, everything else was abandoned. That includes Dianetics, group processing, technique 88, fac one handling, running entities, the mockup processes of the doctorate course, the advanced OT rundown know as SOP-8C, the even more advanced roll your own OT bridge of SOP-8OT, and everything else from earlier times.

And as always, there was a new bridge the following year. But unlike all the others, CofHA was so well consolidated that in later years route 1 would sometimes be identified as what to run if the current bridge was completed. But it stopped being used in the org's processing lineup.

And then come the later ACCs [Advanced Clinical Courses], each again focusing on a limited target and trying to run the entire case that way.

And finally we have the St. Hill Special Briefing Course [SHSBC]. Again most of the processes are old and we only use a limited subset. Techniques like R2-12 are used briefly and then abandoned with the ultimate target seen as GPMs and all other processing simply being a way to get the person up to running GPMs.

If you examine the old tech volumes for the time period from the late 50s up until the grades are devised in 1965, you will see occasional HCOBs labeled as "HGC Allowed Processes". Those are complete lists of the techniques permitted in those times. All other processes could be considered to be canceled.

But up until 1965 there was also the idea that a field auditor could use any process he was trained on and even that a new HGC auditor could run whatever he was best experienced at before learning the modern lineup. In other words, the cancellations really only applied to the standard HGC lineup at a central org, Ron was always happy to hear that some old process had been dug out and used in the field and he often related stories along those lines to his students when he would lecture.

And so you wouldn't find route 1 being run in an org's HGC, but you might find a field auditor who was running it and nobody was going to make anyone wrong for doing that, any auditing was considered to be better than no auditing.

But this thirst to knock out basic-basic by means of running a handful of techniques was still permeating the subject and in 1965 Ron thought that they had finally made it.

I began training in 1966. By then KSW had come out so that all other processes were gone under pain of being declared as a suppressive and a squirrel.

At that time I was not privy to what they were running on the clearing course, but I can tell you what was permitted at lower levels because it didn't change much during 1967 as I continued my training. And of course later I found out what I was not permitted to know about the upper levels in those early days.

There were 2 assists permitted, the touch assist and the contact assist. I was threatened with being declared and having my certs pulled as a squirrel once in 1968 for using the "keep it from going away" assist on a fellow staff member.

The only permitted Dianetic technique was "66 style" dianetics. R3R of 1963 was of course forbidden. I thought that was heartbreaking. Sometime in mid 1968 a telex came down telling us that we could use R3R for making a Dianetic release in the HGC instead of 66 style. You were allowed to get one FN on locks, one on secondaries, and one on engrams. This was all single flow of course. There was an HCOB about that which came out in 1967 (up till then Dianetics was only run by students on the 66 style HDA Dianetics course and not in the HGC). The HCOB, although supposedly by Ron, disappeared when Ron decided that "you can always run an engram" around the time of the Class 8 course in late 1968.

Then you could run ARC straightwire. Just the one process, single flow. When it FNed you had a straightwire release. Of course self analysis was available to the public, and we didn't attack people for running it on themselves, but it wouldn't be run by an auditor, that would be squirrel.

And then there was a process (sometimes a few processes) on each grade, but you couldn't continue a grade past it's floating needle. These FNs were hard to get because you didn't fly the ruds (that would have been counted as a grade release because FN meant release) so there was usually a big gain when the process finally did FN.

But these were single flow processes, not even triples. So it was a few hours on each grade. This is before the true quickies of the Class 8 course.

And of course Qual used the green form (and nothing else).

And of course there were the S&Ds to handle the PTSness that was the reason for any instability in the grade releases.

That was it. Everything else was old, canceled, we don't use it anymore and if you do use it you are a squirrel and a suppressive. Note that the tech degrades policy did not come out until 1970.

The entire reactive mind, you see, was supposed to be coming from R6 and that supposedly dissolved when you ran the CC implant. So you should only run what was needed to set the case up for that.

The brightly colored rocks referred to in KSW were things like R3R, CofHA, PDC, Tech 88, and so forth.

Any process which might exteriorize somebody was seen as dangerous.

Any running of whole track was seen by many as over restimulative. Some of us (including me) ignored that one, but it was a mixed bag. There are many tales of auditors stopping pcs from running whole track in those days. Common was for an auditor to add "in this lifetime" to a command if the pc came up with any whole track in an answer.

Many were scared of restimulation. The idea was to get a good keyout and then do CC for the magical vanishment of the reactive mind.

This was the heritage of KSW and ethics and a standard lineup that included HCOBs like "all sickness equals PTS".

In the fall of 1968, the first class 8 course was delivered on the flagship and the graduates came back to the orgs and put in what we now know of as quickies.

It is only at this point in time that it was discovered that a case can be gotten to FN with rudiments. And the 8 course had the concept of setting a case up with ruds and perhaps even a prepcheck or a bit of 2 way comm, which in those days was C/Sed as "chat with pc about ...." (his job or his 2D etc.).

For the first time we were running grade processes with an FN before starting the process. And that makes it easy to get FNs while running the process. But it might be a small FN without the cognition or the big blowout. You didn't usually get those in the older days when the ruds were not flown, it usually takes a big cog to get an FN over out ruds.

Of course the "FN And EP" bulletin had not come out yet.

And then there were the situations where you got a persistent FN. If you did do a good job on the processes (usually by pretending not to see the small FNs because you would be tossed in the showers if you bypassed them), the odds were that you would turn on a persistent FN either on straightwire or on Grade 0 because you were running the key process for the grade.

And the standard tech C/S was to run all the grades in one session because faster results were more stable and because then life wouldn't interfere and knock out the ruds in the middle of the PCs grades. So it was the key process of straightwire immediately followed by the key process of grade 0 and so forth. The rest of the grades would be lost to a persistent FN as you started each one and saw that the needle was still floating broadly.

So either all the PC's EPs were chopped, or he turned on a persistent FN fairly early in the session, and in either case, there was very little processing done above grade zero. Even grade 4 might be lost on a PC feeling good and FNing while saying "I don't have any urge to make anybody wrong" (and of course most people wouldn't while they are on a persistent FN).

However some new rundowns were put in to handle the problem of people falling on their heads. This was originally the 7 resistive cases, and was renamed the 7 special cases so as not to upset the PCs and then it became what we now know of as green form 40.

I'm rambling a bit here, but it is to emphasize what the situation was in those days. The intention of the original standard tech of the 8 course was to do the minimum possible to get the person onto the clearing course to erase the bank and then get him up to OT 3 so that he could handle entities with incident 1 and 2. Those were considered the source of case and anything else was pretty rocks that might lead us from the path.

And so most of the tech was gone, forbidden, and now we had a police force (ethics, the GO, and standard tech C/Ses) to make sure that it was never used.

If people wonder why I have a bit of a dislike for KSW and the term "standard tech", this is the reason. In their original incarnation, they were used intensively to knock out what we now know to be valid tech and they made it impossible to fix what was wrong in the subject.

PCs caved in, orgs crumbled, and ethics went in hard because the why was SPs and squirreling and the world conspiracy.

1969 was probably Scientology's darkest hour.

In 1970 the tech was reinstated. They didn't bother canceling all the cancels, Ron simply said that all the tech is for use. So you can argue about what is canceled and what is not. Expanded grade zero included at least one process from an explicitly canceled HCOB which is not in the New tech volumes (it is in the old tech volumes marked as canceled even though the canceled HCOB was also, at that time, on the level zero checksheet to be star-rated).

But the hard line of standard C/Sing and following the grade chart pretty much makes it impossible to use most of the older processes legally, unless of course you call it an assist and do it without an official C/S.

As to mockup processes, they were canceled back around 1963. But around the beginning of 1968, Ron issued the money process as "mockup a way to waste money", ignoring the cancellation. That was shocking to some of the tech people.

Also, sometime in 1969 or 70 (if I remember correctly), Yvonne Gilham (later Heber's wife) came around on tour doing group processing with the old group auditors handbooks. That went very well and so group processing was put back into use.

But those old books were full of mockup commands as part of the group processing sessions. And raw public would often go to them, and so mockup processing was used on raw public in group processing (where there is the least auditor control and handling of the PC) despite the fact that it was canceled. And I'm pretty sure that this was ordered by Ron (since group processing remained in use thereafter), so here again he ignored the cancellation without actually bothering to revoke it.

By the way, most of the public loved it. The same goes for playing old group processing tapes of Ron's and letting the public do them. And he does wild things in those group sessions, some of the processes wound up on old OT 6 and 7. People coming in off the street can run these things, but it’s a hit or miss matter, one of the R-factors was that it was ok to skip a group processing command if you didn't feel like doing it.

But this was during the brief exhilaration of the 1970 reinstatement of the tech. Later I saw people smashed for using mockups in group processing.

In practice, you wouldn't find a standard C/S using mockups. And if I were C/Sing for an orthodox organization, I wouldn't dare C/S them because you can't do them by rote. I did a more extensive write-up on this awhile ago.

Also, OT drills are supposed to be up above modern OT 8. Therefore it would be mis-C/Sing to use them at lower levels.

Personally, I don't think that anything is canceled, but you would have to be prepared to argue this to get away with it in an org. Practically speaking, there are only two alternatives: Either Ron was chronically lying about the results produced in the 1950s, or those processes work and there is more than one way to skin a cat, it doesn't have to be modern standard tech. It should be obvious that I believe the latter. There is no third alternative where a process could only work in a certain year and not in other years.

As to self auditing, the early days have this continual mix of considering that public PCs who self audited had some case outness while at the same time telling professional auditors that they could audit anything on themselves that they were trained on.

The real bug in public self auditing was that they wouldn't know what they were doing and so would sit around figure figuring on a "whatsit" rather than running properly. And that was not forbidden, just seen as an outpoint. The only rule was against self auditing while in the middle of an HGC intensive because it threw in an unobserved action. The early green form had the question stated that way ("during an intensive") and did not have any question about self auditing in general.

But here again, we have the late 1960s concept that all case was R6 or OT 3 coming in and messing up the works. The whole idea was to destimulate the case rather than handle it with the handling being to go and do the clearing course. And auditing involves restimulating things so that one can blow them. Therefore any auditing was undesirable except for the tiny amount necessary (quicky grades) as a setup for CC. And so all self auditing became forbidden.

Of course there was solo auditing in those days. The PC might have had one or two intensives of auditing in their entire life, and done a solo course so that he could read a meter and run a command, and then you'd let him loose on R6EW with some real heavyweight self listing processes. Note that these were not people who were clear. These were not professionals. They had barely a lick and a promise as far as any prior case handling went. In later days, a new person who had done a self analysis co-audit (early 70s HQS course) probably had more auditing experience and had probably received more hours of auditing than the people who were being allowed to solo in 1968.

The rules and worries about all this which were introduced during the quickie era never did get reviewed or canceled when things changed.

The keynotes of 1969 were being afraid of the bank and scared of restimulation, and so of course people keyed in heavily and got restimulated like crazy.

Imagine the attitudes of a time period where simply using the word "withdraw" in an auditing command was seen as so restimulative of R6 that you would wrap the pc around the flag pole (see the forbidden word list HCOB).

And the higher trained somebody was, the more "OT" levels they had done, the more certain they were of the dangers of this and so as people moved up the line, they became greater suppressors of tech rather than greater encouragers of tech.

Without the halfway reforms of 1970, the orgs would have been gone within a few years. But we still bear the scars in terms of fixed ideas and tough policies that were meant to solve a problem that is long gone.

In a total scarcity of tech, you had better be afraid of a pin dropping because if you are only allowed one process and something goes wrong, you are dead. With an abundance of tech, that becomes silly, about like worrying about a single drop of coffee when there is an urn right next to you.

Best,

The Pilot

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Following written by Ant (Editor and relayer of this, in May 2012)

My HGC (Hubbard Guidance Centre, Org's auditing department) was considerably earlier than The Pilot's and a few details may be of interest. It was around 1959 and in London Org (The Pilot, to my knowledge, was never outside USA). At the start we did not use an e-meter (earlier editions of Dianetics '55 give an explanation of that - though the advent of transistors, used instead of valve/tubes, and electronic advances, could have been part of the reason for its reintroduction). My auditor training in 1955 had no use of e-meters. When e-meters were re-introduced (Nibs Hubbard, L Ron Hubbard Junior, was a senior in London at the time) us HGC auditors were given an emeter (by Nibs), but received no training. Thus at that time and before, the phenomenon of FN (floating needle) was unknown. I remember once having a pc who was talking about his time in the far east, and the e-meter needle was making wild slashes, which I looked at in wonderment. They continued until his attention went on to another time period, and years later I learned that I had seen a rock slam :) . A little later I read in Bulletins of a "free needle", and a little later still of a floating needle - these concepts were not there when we started using meters, and came in in what I am inclined to call a covert way.

We normally ran three hour sessions (2 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday with an hour for lunch). On Monday and Friday there was a single session, before and after testing, and the preclear had before and after interviews with the Director of Processing. Day preclears received 25 hours per week. 25 hours was regarded as an intensive, weekend and evening pcs (of which there were not many) had 12½ hours per weekend or week. There was a rule that if the first four points of the persons test (OCA/APA) were below the halfway line, s/he was run only on objectives (CCH 1-4). Otherwise new processes came in almost daily from Ron, and It once happened that I ran a preclear on the latest process, only to see in my in basket at the end of the afternoon session, a Bulletin forbidding the use of that process on any one! However, there was no atmosphere of fear of running a "bad" process - atmosphere in the 50's was different from when this thing called "ethics" came into the picture.

The Pilot's experiences at different times would have been markedly different from mine.

All best wishes, Ant.

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤
Click to expand...

Thanks for all of this data Anthony! I'd never been exposed to all of this data laid out as one large post. A person would hear smatterings of it from time to time but its helpful to see it all laid out in an organized and chronological fashion.

AFTER THE FIRST 4 OR 5 YEARS, ALL THIS DOES NOT REFLECT WELL ON HUBBARD

Taking advantage of looking from a 2012 perspective, a quick thumbnail analysis might be that Hubbard, wanting to smash his name into history and wanting to be wealthy, selected the Dianetics book as his vehicle. Response to the book was far greater than he had imagined. The public took to the book in droves while the medical and psychiatric professions attacked it.

Probably, due to the success of the book plus the quality and dedication of the people who were attracted to him, Hubbard, early on began to believe that he was really on to something big. Thus a lot of research was done in the early 50's trying to find a quick way to undercut Dianetics and actually eliminate the source of aberration from each person. This was the period where being altruistic may have had some part in Hubbard's plans. Since actually helping people instead of tricking them would have generated even more fame and money than tricking them alone, he might have realized that "He could have his cake and it it too!"

A COMPANY BRINGING A COMPANY TO MARKET WHILE ITS PRODUCT IS STILL IN THE DEVELOPMENT STATE

Look at the auto industry. The cars go through an R & D stage and then a quality control stage. Only when the bugs are worked out by the factory. will the factory bring their cars to market.

The early VW bug is a good example of this as are almost all the vehicles from Toyota and Honda. The companies that follow this principle benefit from word of mouth advertising, develop a large loyal following of clients and become very successful.

Marginal companies fall behind in product development then usually invest everything they have on a new model which they hope will bail them out. The new model is developed and it looks like a winner but the quality control engineers have not had time to work the bugs out yet. Management doesn't care and they quickly bring the car to market. In essence, they are using the public as their quality control engineers!

Usually the cars sell well at first due to the work of the R & D and Manufacturing Departments. However, word quickly gets out that the products have lots of problems and are not reliable. Public perception turns against the model and the Company, in general and the company, having gambled their last reserves on this new model, either fails, gets a government bail out or is picked up by another company. Chrysler Corp of the late 70's and the 2008 and 2009 period is a perfect example of this.

From your write up, Anthony, it looks very much as if this was the case with early Dianetics and Scientology under Hubbard. Tech and Processes were brought to market which had not been through quality control and thoroughly tested as to efficacy but they were sold for full price with claims that they were fully proven.

Hubbard was in no position, financially, to spend a lot of time and money testing out his tech. He was usually in an emergency situation and needed a quick infusion of cash so he brought out variations of tech one after the other, causing the public to have to keep buying the latest version. Each release of new tech would lead to a quick infusion of cash but it also would sometimes muddy up the field and damage Hubbard's and Scientology's perception in the eyes of its own public as well as the public in general.

This same trait is currently being practiced by DM but from Anthony's post above, DM is following in LRH's footsteps. He is emulating what LRH did back in the past.

Hubbard could have been honest with his public and told them that his new processes were not yet field tested and asked for their help. He could not bring himself to operate in this way. He had to assure everyone that these processes were the latest ones and were THE processes which would set them free. He knew this wasn't true but knew that his financial future depended on him insisting that this was true. Hubbard is not alone in this. Nearly all business leaders would probably agree that if you don't paint a rosy pictures of your business, you will doom your business to failure.

THE UPPER PORTION OF HUBBARD'S BRIDGE
From Today's perspective, Hubbard's approach of doing the bare minimum to get the person onto the upper levels is seen to be 180 degrees off the mark. It seems as if whatever gains were achieved in Scientology, were achieved on the earlier rundowns. No one is going raves or ga-ga over runing years and years of the upper part of the bridge. It just isn't happening.

To back this up, you don't even see upper management availing themselves of these services and they could get them for free! Also, the Vaunted Clearing Course which was once so important to reach is not given to very many people any more because most Scios go clear on Dianetics. The old upper OT levels which were so priceless in the 70's, they are not given either, instead people audit themselves for years on Solo NOTS.

All the plannings and strategies which Anthony enumerates above have long ago been rendered meaningless. This is what happens new stuff is rushed to market without being quality control checked. People throw their money away paying full price for questionable products. Word gets out, the company doing this gets a bad name and people stop using its products. Its not a new phenomena, it happens all the time.
Lakey
Click to expand...
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[video=youtube;9spgNBEhuR8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9spgNBEhuR8&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes Hats . . .

Monti is actually a banker foisted, unelected, on the Italians by the EU Commissioners. On the Wall Street Protests thread I posted Nigel Farage doing a wonderful rant on this in the European Parliament . . .


The bad news of that results from the Montis of the world is this . . .

DERIVATIVES MARKET $1.2 QUADRILLION, 20 TIMES WORLD ECONOMY – DailyFinance

A quadrillion is a big number: 1,000 times a trillion. Yet according to one of the world’s leading derivatives experts, Paul Wilmott, who holds a doctorate in applied mathematics from Oxford University, $1.2 quadrillion is the so-called notional value of the worldwide derivatives market. To put that in perspective, the world’s annual gross domestic product is between $50 trillion and $60 trillion.

[email protected]
Click to expand...

These "derivatives" are a consequence of the vast debt creation by the baking system that the same banks then play more game with by writing what is in essence insurance contracts "guaranteeing" this debt to pay in the event of failure of the borrower . . . .

The BIS recently rejigged its computer program to recompute the count of derivatives . . . they now state is is only $800 trillion. . . . they seem to think that is a more palatable figure :duh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top