Terril park
Sponsor
I didn't know instant read had been re-defined. Dis you know that GAT was originated because DM changed the def of an F/N?
Golden Age of Tech Training - from the opposite side
- Thread starter cantsay
- Start date
I didn't know instant read had been re-defined. Dis you know that GAT was originated because DM changed the def of an F/N?
Carmel
Crusader
I didn't hear about or "experience" the F/N change, till after GAT (but ANZO was often the last to cop whatever may have been going down) . When did he change the F/N definition?
Carmel
Crusader
The earliest time that I came across it was in the second half of 97, and co-incident with the time we had a three person RTC mission sent directly from DM. It may not have been "official" then, but it was certainly being applied.
Terril park
Sponsor
Read it and weep. You and others probably did on 6 months asshole inspired sec checks.
Look up fleeting F/N in red vols, check data on F/Ns with regard to ruds.
Turn off the sun, cancel the Tech Dict.
[ much apologies to Auden the poet]
bb
-------------
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1978R
Revised 8 October 2000
(Revised 8 Oct. 2000 to include the full LRH definition of floating
needle. LRH originally wrote this HCOB on July 1978. In February
1979, when updating the book E-Meter Essentials, he augmented the
definition with additional text. The full text, as it appears in
E-Meter Essentials, is hereby issued in this HCOB, Revision in
script.)
WHAT IS A FLOATING NEEDLE?
A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even
pace of the needle, back and forth, back and forth, without change in
the width of the swing except perhaps to widen as the pc gets off the
last small bits of charge. Note that it can get so wide that you have
to shift the tone arm back and forth, back and forth, to keep the
needle on the dial, in which case you have a floating tone arm.
That's what an F/N is. No other definition is correct.
L. Ron Hubbard
FOUNDER
Revision assisted by
LRH Technical Research
And compilations
Here is the definition from the Technical Dictionary:
A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace
of the needle. That's what an F/N is. No other definition is
correct. (HCOB 21 July 78)
I have read in another thread that DM found people were calling things FNs that he didnt agree with, and from that he came up with drills on everything because he thought everyone was doing such a crap job.
Can anyone verify if the FN fiasco is what created the GAT evolution?
Im not sure if it is all to do with charge or not, but at least the guy needs to have some interest in the date, otherwise I wouldnt get very far. Bracketing is how we did it as well. Doing it quickly with no faffing around helped, before the poor dude on the cans got bored.
I know the FN was redefined, but I dont know about instant reads. I think it was just applied stricter perhaps??? They put out a couple of new tech films regarding instant reads. I remember one of a model session that was brought out, and being very confused by the fact that the auditor didnt write down what the pc originated and what was going on most of the time - just "origination" on the sheet or something. The auditor also stared at the pc the whole time and never once glanced at the meter. There is no possible way you can do that and see whats going on with the metre, let alone instant reads. God knows I tried.
I remember looking over my flunked metering videos and needing to watch a read 4 or 5 times to see why it was a flunk. But to me the whole idea of instant reads made sense (Id never been told anything differnet) and I just kept plugging away til I got it. When you did EVENTUALLY pass, youd had so much experience at calling reads (youd been doing videos for over 6 months or a year at that point) that it was never an issue in session, so it was handy to that degree.
Human Again
Silver Meritorious Patron
Wow, thanks for your perspective. How do you feel about GAT now? I mean since you have left and read the ex scn materials?
Now, what I say next is not aimed at you but at the way the orgs have done this.
The PR machine still operates perfectly well in the Orgs then. What a thorough inval of everything that had gone before and a pretty good way of DAing any people who left Scientology - of course they left "they weren't getting/providing standard tech. It wasn't that Scn is hit and miss."
If they had been given standard Scn they'd still be here. 
Interesting, Ron was a pre-GAT auditor. What do post GAT people think of that?
Wow, thanks for your perspective. How do you feel about GAT now? I mean since you have left and read the ex scn materials?
Now, what I say next is not aimed at you but at the way the orgs have done this.
The PR machine still operates perfectly well in the Orgs then. What a thorough inval of everything that had gone before and a pretty good way of DAing any people who left Scientology - of course they left "they weren't getting/providing standard tech. It wasn't that Scn is hit and miss."
Interesting, Ron was a pre-GAT auditor. What do post GAT people think of that?
Thats a few very interesting questions! I guess I still feel like my GAT training was good - the only thing I ever felt was not up-to-scratch in session was my TRS at times. I never needed prompt cards for anything, everything was thoroughly memorised and you always knew what the next correct thing to do was. I never had to end a session to ask advice from the CS, or to look through packs to find what I was supposed to do to handle a situation. You always knew what to do.
Youre spot on with the dead-agenting stuff. Its beautiful PR. Those old auditors "left because of their overts in session", they "werent willing to be standard", anyone who didnt want to do the GAT (day still had an auditor who flatly refused to do it) was seen as very sub-standard.
I have to admit, reading through old sessions I can see many (of what looked to me) incorrect actions on pcs. But then, if this WAS the case, the CS and Qual Sec should have been cramming this stuff so it didnt happen again, and is more of a reflection on the org's standards at the time.
GreyLensman
Silver Meritorious Patron
I did it with ease - in a cram - after auditing for awhile and after listening to Ron audit a PC on the OT Doctorate Course. The easy conversation, being in communication with the person in front of you, knowing your meter and knowing that it works, guiding the PC, being totally willing to indicate a wrong indication, asking for the read, all the tools present and accounted for made it quick, clean, precise and monsterously accurate. It didn't matter who the coach was, as long as they weren't actively reading on something else.
Given that, on the emeter drills in training, I passed it - eventually. It works if you have all of the basics in place. As a raw auditor it is a very steep learning curve.
However, once that is overcome, and you have a couple of hundred hours of experience, the drill is truly a breeze. The key for me though was that PDC tape, and listening to the old man back in the fifties, when he was just winging it, and 90% of what he was accomplishing was just clean communication.
My experience, my opinions.
Last edited:
Megalomaniac
Silver Meritorious Patron
Thanks GreyLens!
If I hadn't been faffing about on needless word chains, I would have got to that drill and could have an intelligent conversation.
(cantsay just made me learn faff: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=27572&dict=CALD)
Human Again
Silver Meritorious Patron
Seems to be they're trying to make up for no scientific discipline in the putting together of the materials by enforcing discipline in the area of application of the non scientific who-ha voodo talk therapy.
Carmel
Crusader
I can't remember if it was Scoots or someone else recently out, but they were telling me that "tag end" was re-defined, and that instant reads were changed to be what would have been "prior" or "latent" reads in the old books (can't remember which - one is as bad as the other).
Carmel
Crusader
My opinion is that Scientology was much more fun and workable when it was a cult. Once it tried to legitimacize itself it turned to crap. I mean before it was crap but at least it was fun. Seriously...
Yes Goodtwin, and seriously fun in some cases.
My opinion is that Scientology was much more fun and workable when it was a cult. Once it tried to legitimacize itself it turned to crap. I mean before it was crap but at least it was fun. Seriously...
Actually, I understand that. Until the 80s, I *liked* cults. It's success that kills them. The more 'effective' the 'system' is, the worse it is. Sometimes in horrific ways.
I still like cults; just not 'efficient' ones.
Zinj
That makes sense.... I remember one OT being very upset on the metering course, saying that all her solo auditing was now suspect because she couldnt pass her video. She couldnt understand how she had done so well if she was dealing with things that actually read "latently" or "prior".
To answer someone elses question before, as a GAT auditor, when I listened to Ron auditing, it was obvious he was doing things MUCH differently to how we were, even in his TRs. But I always figured they were recorded while he was still researching and he had such fantastic beingness and presence that he could get away with doing something other than "model session" we were trained in.
Similar threads
