What's new

miscavage micky mouses the tech some more

Mike Rinders board has some interesting comments on the new tech releases, such as ditching most of the tapes from the levels, getting rid of meter dril EM 18 - instant rudiment reads ( today has there been a suppression?) and the dating drill.

The why for getting rid of EM 18 is obvious, per the drill you can't ask your coach to do it more than once, so you need a bunch of students to ask the questions on. If you only have one or two students on course - you are screwed. So, in the interest of fast flow...

The demise of the dating drill is interesting for this reason - His Cobness wrote a Senior C/S bulletin about the dating drill, and how he watched this girl get a date on someone while he and some execs were watching - she was taking microscopic reads - and it was discovered the leads were un plugged ( or some other GAE [gross auditing error]) He was really dissing it. Of course, you have to wonder why he would let someone do the drill with an unplugged meter in the first place.

My experience with the drill is A) it can be done, B) it takes sharp TRs, C) it eats a lot of course time. What they did at flag solo course was to have "ringers" help out the metering students. There were people like Peggy that would read like you were ringing a bell - was it before 1959? X after X? was it in 1950? Small Fall. You could bang out the drill in a hurry - especially if it were wed evening when the ringers showed up to get the stats up.

“Rudiments Definitions and Patter had been revised by a random person. Rudiments procedure was completely wrong and nobody has actually known how to do them.” Now there is a release I’d like to see – if anyone can get their hands on the revised HCOB, please post it.

How could they change it? It was pretty damn simple. Go back to old school check it for a read, get some itsa, and recheck it for a read?

I guess when you are schooled in gang bang sec checks, getting ruds in isn’t a priority.

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Mike Rinders board has some interesting comments on the new tech releases, such as ditching most of the tapes from the levels, getting rid of meter dril EM 18 - instant rudiment reads ( today has there been a suppression?) and the dating drill.

The demise of the dating drill is interesting for this reason - His Cobness wrote a Senior C/S bulletin about the dating drill, and how he watched this girl get a date on someone while he and some execs were watching - she was taking microscopic reads - and it was discovered the leads were un plugged ( or some other GAE [gross auditing error]) He was really dissing it. Of course, you have to wonder why he would let someone do the drill with an unplugged meter in the first place.

My experience with the drill is A) it can be done, B) it takes sharp TRs, C) it eats a lot of course time. What they did at flag solo course was to have "ringers" help out the metering students. There were people like Peggy that would read like you were ringing a bell - was it before 1959? X after X? was it in 1950? Small Fall. You could bang out the drill in a hurry - especially if it were wed evening when the ringers showed up to get the stats up.

“Rudiments Definitions and Patter had been revised by a random person. Rudiments procedure was completely wrong and nobody has actually known how to do them.” Now there is a release I’d like to see – if anyone can get their hands on the revised HCOB, please post it.

How could they change it? It was pretty damn simple. Go back to old school check it for a read, get some itsa, and recheck it for a read?

I guess when you are schooled in gang bang sec checks, getting ruds in isn’t a priority.

Mimsey

Ah yes - the Dating Drills. Brings back memories from Solo 1. Five times through all the meter drills for me. Were it not for ringers...one particular gal at AOLA made herself available for many of us to get a Pass on the 2 dating drills. Myself and a couple folks I had twinned with were able to create reads and get others through the drills. LOL :yes:
 
When I was on OT6 meter drills there was this girl - she had only enough $ to pay for the solo course, she didn't have any OT levels paid for - some genius got her on course in what I guess was a stat push. It was pretty obvious, if she didn't remember it, she would end up redoing it when she finally raised the money for an OT level some years down the road. That aside - she read like mad on this drill. I seriously watched her like a hawk - to see if she were moving a finger, or other body motion. Nada. This girl read like there was no tomorrow. It was dead easy to do the whole track dating drill on her.

Let me tell you - she hated it. She was dragged off her checksheet so many times to 'help" someone get through the drills she was fit to kill. I got frustrated doing the drills on her because it was too easy. There was no observation of what was going on. No watching the needle to see if it loosened up as you were going the right direction, or getting tight if you were on a wild goose chase. There was nothing to learn. Of course there were those that had about as much needle response as road kill.... then you appreciated people like her.

Mimsey
 

Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
Mike Rinders board has some interesting comments on the new tech releases, such as ditching most of the tapes from the levels, getting rid of meter dril EM 18 - instant rudiment reads ( today has there been a suppression?) and the dating drill.

The why for getting rid of EM 18 is obvious, per the drill you can't ask your coach to do it more than once, so you need a bunch of students to ask the questions on. If you only have one or two students on course - you are screwed. So, in the interest of fast flow...

The demise of the dating drill is interesting for this reason - His Cobness wrote a Senior C/S bulletin about the dating drill, and how he watched this girl get a date on someone while he and some execs were watching - she was taking microscopic reads - and it was discovered the leads were un plugged ( or some other GAE [gross auditing error]) He was really dissing it. Of course, you have to wonder why he would let someone do the drill with an unplugged meter in the first place.

My experience with the drill is A) it can be done, B) it takes sharp TRs, C) it eats a lot of course time. What they did at flag solo course was to have "ringers" help out the metering students. There were people like Peggy that would read like you were ringing a bell - was it before 1959? X after X? was it in 1950? Small Fall. You could bang out the drill in a hurry - especially if it were wed evening when the ringers showed up to get the stats up.

“Rudiments Definitions and Patter had been revised by a random person. Rudiments procedure was completely wrong and nobody has actually known how to do them.” Now there is a release I’d like to see – if anyone can get their hands on the revised HCOB, please post it.

How could they change it? It was pretty damn simple. Go back to old school check it for a read, get some itsa, and recheck it for a read?

I guess when you are schooled in gang bang sec checks, getting ruds in isn’t a priority.

Mimsey

This is one of those examples where no matter how much I read about Scientology and think I know what goes on, I truly have absolutely no idea what this post is saying, and I'm not a dumb person.

It's literally like reading a foreign language, only it is English. I'm not saying anyone should translate for me, I respect that this is a site for people who are ex-Scientologists, but I can understand why someone leaving Scientology might find it hard to transition and communicate with people outside the "church", because the nomenclature is almost impenetrable to a layperson.

I do find it fascinating though, to read something like this. It is very specific information - the way I might feel, for example, if I picked up a book on electrical engineering or advanced molecular biology. What do you do with all this information when you leave Scientology?

Actually, I don't want to derail the point of this thread, so consider this an aside, please. Not an attempt to hijack.
 
This is one of those examples where no matter how much I read about Scientology and think I know what goes on, I truly have absolutely no idea what this post is saying, and I'm not a dumb person.

It's literally like reading a foreign language, only it is English. I'm not saying anyone should translate for me, I respect that this is a site for people who are ex-Scientologists, but I can understand why someone leaving Scientology might find it hard to transition and communicate with people outside the "church", because the nomenclature is almost impenetrable to a layperson.

I do find it fascinating though, to read something like this. It is very specific information - the way I might feel, for example, if I picked up a book on electrical engineering or advanced molecular biology. What do you do with all this information when you leave Scientology?

Actually, I don't want to derail the point of this thread, so consider this an aside, please. Not an attempt to hijack.

Oh God - what you say is too true. I heard the exact comment yesterday about the troops coming back from Afghanistan - they re-up since there is little call for a chopper gunner in today's corporate world and they can't find decent work. It helps to explain their high suicide rate.

Actually, many Sio's wouldn't get it either - it's auditor speak.

Mimsey
 

aegerprimo

Summa Cum Laude
This is one of those examples where no matter how much I read about Scientology and think I know what goes on, I truly have absolutely no idea what this post is saying, and I'm not a dumb person.

It's literally like reading a foreign language, only it is English. I'm not saying anyone should translate for me, I respect that this is a site for people who are ex-Scientologists, but I can understand why someone leaving Scientology might find it hard to transition and communicate with people outside the "church", because the nomenclature is almost impenetrable to a layperson.

I do find it fascinating though, to read something like this. It is very specific information - the way I might feel, for example, if I picked up a book on electrical engineering or advanced molecular biology. What do you do with all this information when you leave Scientology?

Actually, I don't want to derail the point of this thread, so consider this an aside, please. Not an attempt to hijack.
Scientology is bull-shit (and notice I rarely use the speak even though I understand it because I'm an ex-sciloon) - Electrical Engineering and Advanced Molecular Biology are REAL sciences. Just sayin' :whistling:
 

TheSpectator

Patron with Honors
The reason the dating drill didn't work is because no one believed it anymore. Not the students, sups, C/Ses, or auditors. It was like pulling teeth trying to get a whole track date because it wasn't real to ANYONE that you'd actually be able to do it. If a student had actual reads on this drill it was probably because they hadn't given up yet!

As a student doing this drill, what you became good at was "confidently" finding the date. If you were confident in your TRs and metering you could finally extract the date from you coach. It was a con job. Not too dissimilar to "The Music Man's" Think Method. After awhile people really believed you could get the exact date.

As a PC in session I had so many wrong dates (at least totally unreal dates) given to me that after awhile you just give up. Sure, that's the date! Whatever…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0HpROFEKfw
 
Top