Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Re: Key to Life secret EP and the real purpose Scientology wants you to do this cours
My observations from being in ITO until early 1996:
KTL tended to take forever to do, except in extreme cases like crush pilots. The clay-table processing (not demos) might go on for 100 session hours, with weeks waiting for a simple review. The M9s went on and on; the twinning policy mandating twins suffer the same penalties meant a fast student stuck with a slow student resulted in lowest-common-denominator progress. The policy that only specialised (trained) staff could deliver it meant that if one blew the whole team was screwed, unless it went "out-tech."
One huge problem was with the policy that once you had started on KTL/LOC you weren't supposed to do anything else until you had finished. So this ground to a halt the sale/delivery of other services for peeps that had started, and since it was the key to planetary clearing <ahem> there was a big push to get everyone onto [STRIKE]and through[/STRIKE] it. My opinion on what happened was (1) Hubbard pushed it, and (2) pilot projects at Int got people through reasonably quickly; no-one wanted to say no to Hubbard and it looked doable because of the pilot projects. The problem is that delivery outside of such a controlled environment didn't have razor-sharp delivery personnel with instant (session) reviews, ethics, and spot-on supervision, so once outside the tight control it flopped badly.
It was a big enough dog's breakfast at ITO, which I assume was close to the best in the world since ITO trained all the outer org teams. Out in the wild (sorry) it must have been far worse.
Whatever benefits KTL delivered -- and there genuinely were some -- the pain outweighed them. And this doesn't even get into the "My hat in life" fiasco on LOC where a staff member would go (properly) through the lengthy analysis steps and realise he would rather be a musician than an org toilet cleaner.
So overall, I think the problem was crashing delivery stats for no good reason other than following a Hubbard bright idea. (Bright idea is a Scn technical term: it doesn't have its usual English meaning.)
Paul
Karen,
Do you know the real reason(s) why the courses aren't around?
I have my own opinion...I'd be curious if anyone has any background on this.
My observations from being in ITO until early 1996:
KTL tended to take forever to do, except in extreme cases like crush pilots. The clay-table processing (not demos) might go on for 100 session hours, with weeks waiting for a simple review. The M9s went on and on; the twinning policy mandating twins suffer the same penalties meant a fast student stuck with a slow student resulted in lowest-common-denominator progress. The policy that only specialised (trained) staff could deliver it meant that if one blew the whole team was screwed, unless it went "out-tech."
One huge problem was with the policy that once you had started on KTL/LOC you weren't supposed to do anything else until you had finished. So this ground to a halt the sale/delivery of other services for peeps that had started, and since it was the key to planetary clearing <ahem> there was a big push to get everyone onto [STRIKE]and through[/STRIKE] it. My opinion on what happened was (1) Hubbard pushed it, and (2) pilot projects at Int got people through reasonably quickly; no-one wanted to say no to Hubbard and it looked doable because of the pilot projects. The problem is that delivery outside of such a controlled environment didn't have razor-sharp delivery personnel with instant (session) reviews, ethics, and spot-on supervision, so once outside the tight control it flopped badly.
It was a big enough dog's breakfast at ITO, which I assume was close to the best in the world since ITO trained all the outer org teams. Out in the wild (sorry) it must have been far worse.
Whatever benefits KTL delivered -- and there genuinely were some -- the pain outweighed them. And this doesn't even get into the "My hat in life" fiasco on LOC where a staff member would go (properly) through the lengthy analysis steps and realise he would rather be a musician than an org toilet cleaner.
So overall, I think the problem was crashing delivery stats for no good reason other than following a Hubbard bright idea. (Bright idea is a Scn technical term: it doesn't have its usual English meaning.)
Paul