NOTs - thoughts.

[Div6]

They were a series of review c/s's collated together and packaged as the new "Way to OT". Thousands of people signed up and paid many millions of dollars to $cn for it.

I remember one celeb, who had 400 hours ar Flag and was pretty wello caved in. I indicated that he had had 401 hours of completely unnessessary action. He brightened right up.

My mother had a small lump in her thigh. She was under Scn doctors and was about to have it removed when the C/S from St Hill (Scumbag Doria) directed that NOT's would handle it. She was pulled out of the op and went to St Hill.

She spent all her money, plus thousands of ours and one year later had her leg removed to save her life.

Make no mistake; NOTS can and will induce cancer. She deteriorated and in her final days, St Hill continued to deliver touch assists - at NOTS rates.

I had studied the NOTS materials but refused to check out on it as I did not want to endanger people's lives by exposing them to it.

Does that put it in perspective for you?

I am just flabbergasted Dart.

That is outrageous. Completely.

 

[Div6]

They were a series of review c/s's collated together and packaged as the new "Way to OT". Thousands of people signed up and paid many millions of dollars to $cn for it.

I remember one celeb, who had 400 hours ar Flag and was pretty wello caved in. I indicated that he had had 401 hours of completely unnessessary action. He brightened right up.

My mother had a small lump in her thigh. She was under Scn doctors and was about to have it removed when the C/S from St Hill (Scumbag Doria) directed that NOT's would handle it. She was pulled out of the op and went to St Hill.

She spent all her money, plus thousands of ours and one year later had her leg removed to save her life.

Make no mistake; NOTS can and will induce cancer. She deteriorated and in her final days, St Hill continued to deliver touch assists - at NOTS rates.

I had studied the NOTS materials but refused to check out on it as I did not want to endanger people's lives by exposing them to it.

Does that put it in perspective for you?

I am wondering if you could elaborate on this a bit more. I am quite aware of the seemingly high incidences of cancer deaths amongst "OT's". I have not been able to establish if it is above the normal percentages in the general population. In your mums case, if they were going to remove that lumb, the drs must have done a biopsy, and determined it needed to go? And this was prior to her recieving nots?

Was she a smoker? I know that is a factor in some of these, as well as the death ship they all have been on.

I am simply curious where your certainty come from that NOTs was a precipitating factor, and not, for instance, "lack of normal and routine medical care."

The CoS views both the psychs and medicos as "competition" for $'s, so of course they will lie to "get the money".

 

[asagai]

Thanks for the info, but it's not a circular argument as far as I can see; the question of whether or not the Tech works is a serious question which IMO needs to be discussed and hopefully settled on here.

It's a serious question, but can never be resolved between FZers and critics because they each have different definitions of "works". Therefore the arguments are always circular and unresolved. Therefore I don't engage in the pointless activity of debating it with FZers.

Dart, I knew most of the people you are naming in your account of your mother. It is a fantastic, sad story of how mainly basically good people can have their morality corrupted by Ron's cult. We were all guilty of this to some extent while we were in the cult.

Yes when NOTs came out it was heralded as the final case handling for OTs and people were regged mercilessly. If only we had known the story behind how it had been developed!

David Mayo was, in my opinion, a good guy who as Senior C/S Int came under the thrall of LRH. This slave-devotion filtered all the way down the chain within the cult.

Here is an example of the misuse of the meter as a truth-detector, the LRH self-auditing and the MSH code-breaking from 1952 which is the genesis of NOTs and shows how it relates to Dart's mother's handling:


MSH: Where did you get the name - Targ?

LRH: That's common in a lot of theta languages. It means slave. Entheta slave.

MSH: You got a drop

LRH: Lower order slave. Body holders - horse holders - boot polishers. Entheta is really [unintelligible]. I guess there may be some other prison planets out in this galaxy.

MSH: Are there any other planets which are [unintelligible].

LRH: I think flying saucers right now that's coming to dump off more theta beings - ah, dump off more entheta, entheta-ed beings. Targs.

MSH: Mmm.

LRH: What they're dropping down here is Targ ridden. It's a disease - somebody gets Targ ridden - gets unbalanced. The thing to do is not so much how to know how to get rid of the Targs but how to straighten out Targs. - No drop?

MSH: No drop - Targ doesn't want to be straightened out.

ref: http://www.skeptictank.org/essaycos.htm

So decades later the diseased Ron is still figuring out how to straighten out "Targs" when Mayo comes along and I'm afraid dart's mother's fate is sealed!

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

It's a serious question, but can never be resolved between FZers and critics because they each have different definitions of "works". Therefore the arguments are always circular and unresolved. Therefore I don't engage in the pointless activity of debating it with FZers.

Not only FZers and critics, but even within those groups you'll find different ideas of what "works" means. A lot of FZers as well as orthodox Scnists would take issue with my view that 1 Corinthians 13 is the senior datum of spirituality, for example.

Nevertheless, I think it points to the single most important question on this board, and it's why I pursue the question so avidly. What goal are we all, despite our different views, aiming for?

Barry Long's definition of what a spiritual master is is the best I've ever seen;

"A master is always free of unhappiness, now".

http://www.barrylong.org/

Have to admit I'm not, having seen my water bill!

He also says this;

‘Emotional pain is behind all the cruelty, all the greed, and all the unhappiness in the world.’

Isn't the goal, then, to be rid of emotional pain, as much as is possible in one lifetime?

 

[Pixie]

Pixie, for once we agree!

:confused2: I don't ever recall us disagreeing about anything Cat's.. :confused2:

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I am wondering if you could elaborate on this a bit more. I am quite aware of the seemingly high incidences of cancer deaths amongst "OT's". I have not been able to establish if it is above the normal percentages in the general population. In your mums case, if they were going to remove that lumb, the drs must have done a biopsy, and determined it needed to go? And this was prior to her recieving nots?

Was she a smoker? I know that is a factor in some of these, as well as the death ship they all have been on.

I am simply curious where your certainty come from that NOTs was a precipitating factor, and not, for instance, "lack of normal and routine medical care."

The CoS views both the psychs and medicos as "competition" for $'s, so of course they will lie to "get the money".

I knew someone who developed breast cancer when on NOTs and she wasn't a smoker. Interestingly, after her treatment she finished NOTs and was very happy with the results; she told me, "life is wonderful."

I suppose having recently been (re)married made a difference though.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

:confused2: I don't ever recall us disagreeing about anything Cat's.. :confused2:

I can either argue with that, or agree and offer you a cyberhug. I choose the latter

 

[Pixie]

I can either argue with that, or agree and offer you a cyberhug. I choose the latter

Excellent! I'm still not sure why you said that, however mine is not to reason why. Thank you for the hug.

 

[Dulloldfart]

It's a serious question, but can never be resolved between FZers and critics because they each have different definitions of "works". Therefore the arguments are always circular and unresolved.

What is the critics' definition? That's unanswerable, but what is your definition? I wrote a post on this subject a week ago, which would give the FZ definition, to some extent. I pointed out that there are certain pre-requisites to a successful session, including pc sessionability and knowing what to do in session, the auditor being well-trained and knowing how to audit, the C/S for the session covering what the pc wanted to address and a few other things.

I have never seen a proper discussion of these points. The claim that "if it didn't work then it wasn't Standard tech" is self-serving, and not useful. Similarly, by "well-trained and knowing how to audit" I mean an average pre-GAT Intern graduate, not a Class VIII or XII with 10,000 hours under his belt.

So, what does it mean in a critic's view to have it work? That any process run on anyone irrespective of auditor training or pc rudiments or correct C/Sing should result in a happy pc? Or that with my points in, ANYTHING that the pc wants handled should be handled within an intensive or two, or even within a lifetime? Or what?

Paul

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Excellent! I'm still not sure why you said that, however mine is not to reason why. Thank you for the hug.

I've seen you as an opponent here, because I believe in the Tech more than you do (am I right in saying you think it's a con?), and I assume you saw me the same way.

 

[asagai]

Would LRH's and MSH's defintion of "works" be when a "Targ" has been "straightened out"? "Ping! the needle dropped there Ron!"

On such "research" is the "workability" of NOTs based!

Never mind if Dart's mother's leg didn't get medically treated in time - so long as the GI is up and a "Targ is straightened out"!

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I know Pilot mentioned Targs in one of his posts to ARS, but I skimmed that particular post pretty rapidly; it's firmly in the "too much information" zone at my current case level.

 

[Pixie]

I've seen you as an opponent here, because I believe in the Tech more than you do (am I right in saying you think it's a con?), and I assume you saw me the same way.

I find it incredibly interesting that just because we both believe in different things that you see me as an opponent. I also find this very sad. If everyone in the world thought this we would all of us be a war with each other on a daily basis. You, and everyone else here on this board are more than within your rights to believe in whatever rocks your boat, and who am I to come along and force what 'I' believe down your or anyone elses throat for that matter. Perhaps you thought we had 'disagreed' in the past as you had thought things about what I had said in your head and didn't write them down as I have absolutely no recollection of ever having had a disagreement with you.

Also, I wouldn't say that you believe in the tech more than I do, because I do not believe in the tech at all, so I'd like to get that point straight here. What you think of me and my beliefs Cat is none of my business, and neither is what I think of you any of yours. We are both free to think for ourselves at last and are entitled to think what we want, however for me, to get into what people think of me, or do not think of me, takes an important part of the real me out of the equation, it cuts across the honesty within me, so, in order for me to be honest on this forum, and indeed in life, I cannot possibly give time to worrying about what people think of me.

I learned a long time ago that no matter what you do or say, no matter how 'nice' you are, believe in whatever, if you stand on your head, beg or plead, there will always always always be people who don't like you, and that is the way the world should be because we are all uniuqe. I don't believe we should all act like robots anymore and I have no time for theetie weeties, I admire people who have the balls to speak their truth whether I agree with them or not. It's when I feel people are pretending to be something they are not, or are being dishonest with me spouting off something they read, something someone else wrote as opposed to what's in their own hearts that I see red.

I don't think $cientology is a con Cat's Squirrel, I know it is, and there is enough proof and evidence both in my experience with the cult and here on the internet after some extensive research.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[asagai]

I know Pilot mentioned Targs in one of his posts to ARS, but I skimmed that particular post pretty rapidly; it's firmly in the "too much information" zone at my current case level.

By doing so you are giving it credibility and "workability", without evaluating it for yourself. Thereby you have conceeded knowledge of yourself into Ron's hands and have become one of his suggestible slaves, that he intended to make you, per his admissions!

This is what we all did when we joined the cult. We handed over knowledge of ourselves to those (and Ron in particular) who knew us "better" than we knew ourselves. This was Ron's magic trick, to convince us he knew more about us than we did.

But I suggest you look at this reference and judge for yourself the quality of this knowledge of you that Ron assumed that he had.

http://www.skeptictank.org/essaycos.htm

Here's that extract of LRH "in session" where he decided about your case, as the extract got sort of missed by a diversion on this thread!

MSH: Where did you get the name - Targ?

LRH: That's common in a lot of theta languages. It means slave. Entheta slave.

MSH: You got a drop

LRH: Lower order slave. Body holders - horse holders - boot polishers. Entheta is really [unintelligible]. I guess there may be some other prison planets out in this galaxy.

MSH: Are there any other planets which are [unintelligible].

LRH: I think flying saucers right now that's coming to dump off more theta beings - ah, dump off more entheta, entheta-ed beings. Targs.

MSH: Mmm.

LRH: What they're dropping down here is Targ ridden. It's a disease - somebody gets Targ ridden - gets unbalanced. The thing to do is not so much how to know how to get rid of the Targs but how to straighten out Targs. - No drop?

MSH: No drop - Targ doesn't want to be straightened out.

 

[Div6]

Well, if a person didn't run OT III with any "reality" (and I am not talking about Xenu at this point) then NOTs will just be more of the same.

At any rate, (and I have said this before as well) perhaps the most complete approach to this area I have seen is in the "Last Ditch" section of Filbert's Excalibur Revisited: http://freezoneamerica.com/excal/fr_excal.html

"There is not too much one can say about "NED for OT's", except that the positive gains that hare come out of it are evidence of three areas of address (1) successful running of a secondary, (2) successful running of an overt, and (3) successful running of entities out of one's space. The latter area I prefer to run as described in the chapter "The Last Ditch". I do not care for the NED for OTs approach to the running of entities for it is an incomplete address to a complex issue. Ned for OTs is deficient in raising the reality level of the pc so high that no entity could stand being around you, which The Final Ditch does. I developed much of The Final Ditch from memory, but the majority of it was from work that Hubbard entertained and did over 30 years ago, for in reviewing that work, my memory of it opened up. Ned for OTs seems appropriate for the people getting it, but I have been noted for having an acidic sense of humour."

 

[Dulloldfart]

I've never been a Filbert fan at all, except maybe in terms of hope, but that was before I read his parvum opus.

In that quote, "raising the reality level of the pc so high that no entity could stand being around you", what kind of a person would find that a desirable state?

Paul

 

[Div6]

I've never been a Filbert fan at all, except maybe in terms of hope, but that was before I read his magnum opus.

In that quote, "raising the reality level of the pc so high that no entity could stand being around you", what kind of a person would find that a desirable state?

Paul

Is that a listing question?

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

I've never been a Filbert fan at all, except maybe in terms of hope, but that was before I read his parvum opus.

In that quote, "raising the reality level of the pc so high that no entity could stand being around you", what kind of a person would find that a desirable state?

Paul

I think he means "no negative entity." My teacher before Scientology (Vernon Howard) was like that; just being around him gave your BT's a fright, only he called them something else.

Vernon's book "Freedom from Harmful Voices" is all about entities, how to recognise them and a rudimentary handling for them.

I think Filbert rocks BTW, a friend of mine on the Isle of Wight (probably now deceased) audited people based on Excalibur Revisited, and I've got a copy of it on my hard drive. His processes are in the old style of Scn before quickie grades, and when auditors were actually expected to think with the tech instead of being robotic.

I'd like to do "The Last Ditch" sometime, probably when I come up dry on everything else (hah!). Maybe it's a subconscious reason why I chose my username on here, along with my affinity for '60's rock; he calls it "the final meow."

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

By doing so you are giving it credibility and "workability", without evaluating it for yourself. Thereby you have conceeded knowledge of yourself into Ron's hands and have become one of his suggestible slaves, that he intended to make you, per his admissions!

This is what we all did when we joined the cult. We handed over knowledge of ourselves to those (and Ron in particular) who knew us "better" than we knew ourselves. This was Ron's magic trick, to convince us he knew more about us than we did.

But I suggest you look at this reference and judge for yourself the quality of this knowledge of you that Ron assumed that he had.

http://www.skeptictank.org/essaycos.htm

Here's that extract of LRH "in session" where he decided about your case, as the extract got sort of missed by a diversion on this thread!

MSH: Where did you get the name - Targ?

LRH: That's common in a lot of theta languages. It means slave. Entheta slave.

MSH: You got a drop

LRH: Lower order slave. Body holders - horse holders - boot polishers. Entheta is really [unintelligible]. I guess there may be some other prison planets out in this galaxy.

MSH: Are there any other planets which are [unintelligible].

LRH: I think flying saucers right now that's coming to dump off more theta beings - ah, dump off more entheta, entheta-ed beings. Targs.

MSH: Mmm.

LRH: What they're dropping down here is Targ ridden. It's a disease - somebody gets Targ ridden - gets unbalanced. The thing to do is not so much how to know how to get rid of the Targs but how to straighten out Targs. - No drop?

MSH: No drop - Targ doesn't want to be straightened out.

I've read this, but frankly it's well into the "if we can sneer at it it makes us better than it" school of analysis.

Can I offer a different perspective, the view of a friend of mine who was running NOTs; science fiction writers are actually dipping into their own bank and recalling whole track when they write?

Targs may or may not exist or be useful as phenomena worth addressing in session; I'm all for keeping an open mind on this.

 

[gomorrhan]

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter whether they're real or not, so long as the person has them in his "third eye" space. If they see them, and they are something which has their attention, address them.