PTS Type D - Whine not!

My wife, who is the wise one in our marriage had a wonderful comment to my proposed thread. I read her this:

Title: "SP Needs Advice"
I have a client who frequently blames me for the problems that come up on various jobs I do for him. He is a Scientologist, & since he is making me responsible for his condition, he is obviously PTS type D.

As a declared SP, what should I do?

She laughed, then launched in to how an indi friend of ours wants to get his nots. She asked, have you ever noticed, all of NOTs auditing (including OT 3 & 4) is about making someone else responsible for your condition? That everybody on OT 7 is really PTS type D? When we would go to FLAG for our 6 mos checks, she would notice how the 7's there would frequently whine. And look at the EP - Cause over life - couldn't that also be the EP of PTS type D handling - no longer making others responsible for your condition?

"Our indi friend," she remarked, "is abberated on the 2D, and so he is looking to auditing out the BT's that are making him that way, to solve his case. That is why I told him 'best of luck with the NOTS, I understand the urge to blame someone else' "

I had never realized that, but isn't that what many parts of Scientology's bridge is all about? Blaming somebody else? And wasn't that Hubbard's problem?

I don't know if you ever read the interview with Kima Douglas, LRH's nurse, but he really comes across as wildly PTS D.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/kima.htm

My wife's comment on reading the above post was "PTS D is crap - it is just making others responsible for the crap we don't like about our selves - Ron just had to put a label on it. The whole bridge is about being effect. He was brilliant at selling that, making everybody believe they were effect, and his bridge would solve that. It would make them cause. Everybody has a case and each one is unique. We all have to grapple with it."

Mimsey

PS: PTS type D is a person who make others responsible for his condition - you harmed me etc. In Hubbard's SP /PTS [STRIKE]tech[/STRIKE] mythology the person who is PTS has a SP who is making the person roller coaster - get gains and lose them. The person comes along and says "Scientology made me more able." and the sp says, "Really? How come you still live in a dump?" and the person caves in and runs to the org. The MAA tells the PC to disconnect from the "SP". But really - what is PTS trying to solve? The fact Scientology's gains are transitory, meaning they don't last. So, instead of saying the tech doesn't work all that well, Hubbard says it's the SP - he's making you lose your gains, and than sends you on a wild goose chase to find the SP instead of fixing the tech. Neat huh?

M
 
Last edited:

Operating DB

Truman Show Dropout
How true! It makes me think of my state of being when I was in the cult. I often felt at effect. I seem to have been indoctrinated in looking for and assigning cause to things or people that made me feel bad or was messing with my case.

And those "wins" and "gains" and how tenuous they were. It was so hard to get a win but so easy to crash afterwards.

This line cracked me up:
and the person caves in and runs to the org
LOL. We so depended on the org for help and assistance since all the answers were in the tek! NOT!

Once again, I thank my lucky stars I escaped when I did, I also thank my lucky stars for truthful sites like this one. No, I'm not into astrology. LOL
 

ClearedSP

Patron with Honors
Scientology, as an organization, has the service fac to end all service facs. KSW is the aberration itself, and PTS/SP tek is the fist in the face of anyone who triggers it.

I'd never get declared Type D for blaming a wog for my condition, or for blaming BTs. Only by blaming scientology, because scientology is always a special case, and different from everything else. It can never be wrong.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
PTS means "potential trouble source". Trouble to and for whom?

Well, just read the policies on it. They are very clear. Trouble is caused to Hubbard or Scientology. THAT is what they were trying to avoid. A person who is a potential source of trouble for Hubbard or Scientology IS a "PTS". That is the actual derivation of the term in Scientology's own policies.

If you were a dictator in some regime, a "PTS" (potential trouble source) would be any person or group who might disagree and not support your cause fully. The meaning is right there in the words. :ohmy:

How that all got tied into nasty SPs is just more smoke and mirrors by Hubbard. Hubbard says that "SPs hate betterment activities". Of course, then Hubbard defines Scientology as the ONLY valid "betterment activity". :duh:

Hubbard was always trying to head off "trouble" at the pass. His whole list of PTS types was simply one way to try and "early detect" potential sources of difficulty and trouble for hisself and the Scientology organization. It has no further or deeper significance that that. To best understand any detail of Scientology one needs to always keep in mind that the TOP priority, and the key rule against which all else was created, was and remains, "defending and expanding Scientology" (at any cost).

Hubbard would be happy to blame psychiatry for somebody's mental problems. PTS Type D is FINE in THAT case. Hubbard made sure that Scientology was always immune from being the target of ANY examination, attack, criticism or blame. He wrote that BIAS deeply into his "philosophy". :puke2:

The truth is that involvement with (organized) full-blown Scientology turns one into a mindless robot, and THAT is Hubbard's and Scientology's "fault". Sorry Ron, but YOU ARE responsible for the many bad effects that you caused in others (both as members of the cult or as recipients of your nasty GO/OSA attacks).
 

Anonycat

Crusader
Scientology, as an organization, has the service fac to end all service facs. KSW is the aberration itself, and PTS/SP tek is the fist in the face of anyone who triggers it.

I'd never get declared Type D for blaming a wog for my condition, or for blaming BTs. Only by blaming scientology, because scientology is always a special case, and different from everything else. It can never be wrong.

Blaming others for lack of results was something introduced to me at the start. In the Comm Course class I was regged to pre-pay for my next course, which I was told would be auditing. It would be over $1,000 and I was a teen. I said I didn't have that kind of money, and I was a student, remember? The guy regging me asked right off: is there anyone in your family or friends who doesn't support (he may have said: 'antagonistic toward') my being in Scientology? He told me about SPs and PTS.

I thought what? How can someone derail your classes' results?

Hubbard crazy paranoia. The government, IRS, FDA have been after him for good reason, but SPs, PTS, Counter Intention, etc., all are ridiculous paranoia, I can only compare that to black magic, and spells and so on. I don't know if that study was where he embraced warring wizards, but I can't think of anything else as similar.
 

FoTi

Crusader
PTS type D is BS.

I refused to give the reg any more money at Flag and I received a goldenrod with PTS type D on it. Since the goldenrod wasn't specific any further than telling me that I was PTS type D, I have to conclude that ...... because I wouldn't pay any more money to move on up the bridge, I wasn't being responsible for my condition in regards to moving on up the bridge and handling my case by not paying for more sec checking.:confused2:

It's a label they can stick on anybody who isn't being obedient to the CoS. They can use it on anyone who isn't filling their coffers with $ or who is speaking up about the tech being used on them that is not working, or speaking up about the unethical practices of the CoS. The tech is never wrong.....only the person receiving it is wrong. The Church of Scientology is never wrong.....only those who disagree with it, in any way, are wrong.

It's a convenient tool to use against anybody who isn't playing their game the way they want them to. :nazi:

LRH had to direct attention away from himself and the CoS in regards to anything negative.
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
PS: PTS type D is a person who make others responsible for his condition - you harmed me etc. In Hubbard's SP /PTS [STRIKE]tech[/STRIKE] mythology the person who is PTS has a SP who is making the person roller coaster - get gains and lose them. The person comes along and says "Scientology made me more able." and the sp says, "Really? How come you still live in a dump?" and the person caves in and runs to the org. The MAA tells the PC to disconnect from the "SP". But really - what is PTS trying to solve? The fact Scientology's gains are transitory, meaning they don't last. So, instead of saying the tech doesn't work all that well, Hubbard says it's the SP - he's making you lose your gains, and than sends you on a wild goose chase to find the SP instead of fixing the tech. Neat huh?

M
'"Really? How come you still live in a dump?" and the person caves in and runs to the org....'
This should have been a significant enough clue, that Scientology's "gains" are worthless as tits on a monkey's ass if that's all it would take to cave a Scilon in and send him scurrying back to the org is that someone called his abode a dump. That in itself it should have sent the entire public sprinting for the exits like I did in the late '70s. Wow, what fragile little wisps of fluff must Scilons be if they can't withstand any negativity whatsoever. So much for the real world for them, no wonder so many hide at the orgs with their heads buried in dictionaries or doing TR's to try to get their confront up so they can make it home unmolested by a rude comment and in one piece psychologically after course. When I was in it only went up to PTS type III, PTS D must have come in later.
 

Boojuum

Silver Meritorious Patron
LRH's penchant for labelling observations and calling it "technology" was a neat trick that kept the indoctrinated in line. If you can put a label on it and keep repeating it and forcing other people to read it, one finds a way to make it "truth."
PTS Types A to J or I, II and III or Suppressive who are really PTS.

It's human nature to blame one's condition on something or someone. Does anyone ever cease blaming?

LRH's apparent quest was to remove human nature from humans. LRH's real quest was to get fawning approval and obedience and money from stating the obvious with conviction.

LRH should have added "freedom from blame" to one of his magical levels.

Boy, am I glad to be out.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
When I was in it only went up to PTS type III, PTS D must have come in later.

I think maybe you just don't remember. I got involved in 1976 in Boston, and I got the standard PTS "A to J" check often. They would give it to anybody before starting ANY service.

This is taken from HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1964R, POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE, which can be found at:

Suppressive Person Defense League

These persons can be grouped under “sources of trouble.” They include:

a. Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology.

In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing, and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.

They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

b. Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so many undetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors.

c. Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or an auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure.

d. Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes for their condition too often to be acceptable. By responsible-for-condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is “wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in.” Such cases demand unusual favors, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

e. Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary, they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.

f. Persons who “want to be processed to see if Scientology works” as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited.

g. Persons who claim that “if you help such and such a case” (at great and your expense) because somebody is rich or influential or the neighbors would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance.

Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment.

h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts “to convince them.”

i. Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor’s and so, in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained, they use their training to degrade others. Thus, they should not be accepted for training or auditing.

j. Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial, as their first idea is a firm “I don’t know” and this usually ends with an equally firm “I don’t know.” If a person can’t see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps-carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them any time, contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

To summarize sources of trouble, the policy in general is to cut communication, as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction.
 

Gib

Crusader
I think maybe you just don't remember. I got involved in 1976 in Boston, and I got the standard PTS "A to J" check often. They would give it to anybody before starting ANY service.

This is taken from HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1964R, POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE, which can be found at:

Suppressive Person Defense League

These persons can be grouped under “sources of trouble.” They include:

a. Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology.

In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing, and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.

They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

b. Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so many undetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors.

c. Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or an auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure.

d. Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes for their condition too often to be acceptable. By responsible-for-condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is “wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in.” Such cases demand unusual favors, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

e. Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary, they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.

f. Persons who “want to be processed to see if Scientology works” as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited.

g. Persons who claim that “if you help such and such a case” (at great and your expense) because somebody is rich or influential or the neighbors would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance.

Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment.

h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts “to convince them.”

i. Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor’s and so, in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained, they use their training to degrade others. Thus, they should not be accepted for training or auditing.

j. Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial, as their first idea is a firm “I don’t know” and this usually ends with an equally firm “I don’t know.” If a person can’t see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps-carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them any time, contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

To summarize sources of trouble, the policy in general is to cut communication, as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction.


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I would love HH to interject his opinions on each A-J.

It's exactly as you posted in your earlier post on this thread. PTS to who, and SP to who? Why of course to hub and his organization.

I think people in the cult equate PTS and SP in themselves and not wanting to be labeled as such, why they toe the line and conform you might say. Of course the people in are never given a chance to compare scientology to other avenues of betterment, and if they did or do so why they would be labeled PTS and thus never given the chance to connect the dots that being PTS actually means PTS or trouble to the org or scientolgy because they are free thinkers, critical thinkers, and of course maybe the tech no deliver as PR's and promised. :duh:

If one can take another or opposite viewpoint of all the points above in the PL one can see clearly. And this would be called critical thinking. I do believe.
 

Gib

Crusader
PTS means "potential trouble source". Trouble to and for whom?

Well, just read the policies on it. They are very clear. Trouble is caused to Hubbard or Scientology. THAT is what they were trying to avoid. A person who is a potential source of trouble for Hubbard or Scientology IS a "PTS". That is the actual derivation of the term in Scientology's own policies.

If you were a dictator in some regime, a "PTS" (potential trouble source) would be any person or group who might disagree and not support your cause fully. The meaning is right there in the words. :ohmy:

How that all got tied into nasty SPs is just more smoke and mirrors by Hubbard. Hubbard says that "SPs hate betterment activities". Of course, then Hubbard defines Scientology as the ONLY valid "betterment activity". :duh:

Hubbard was always trying to head off "trouble" at the pass. His whole list of PTS types was simply one way to try and "early detect" potential sources of difficulty and trouble for hisself and the Scientology organization. It has no further or deeper significance that that. To best understand any detail of Scientology one needs to always keep in mind that the TOP priority, and the key rule against which all else was created, was and remains, "defending and expanding Scientology" (at any cost).

Hubbard would be happy to blame psychiatry for somebody's mental problems. PTS Type D is FINE in THAT case. Hubbard made sure that Scientology was always immune from being the target of ANY examination, attack, criticism or blame. He wrote that BIAS deeply into his "philosophy". :puke2:

The truth is that involvement with (organized) full-blown Scientology turns one into a mindless robot, and THAT is Hubbard's and Scientology's "fault". Sorry Ron, but YOU ARE responsible for the many bad effects that you caused in others (both as members of the cult or as recipients of your nasty GO/OSA attacks).

"Well, just read the policies on it. They are very clear. Trouble is caused to Hubbard or Scientology. THAT is what they were trying to avoid. A person who is a potential source of trouble for Hubbard or Scientology IS a "PTS". That is the actual derivation of the term in Scientology's own policies."

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

So if in the very beginning of a new person entering scientology, he/she is given the a-j check. If trouble, he's out of here. Falls in line with KSW, 100% in or better off dead, or however it's stated.

So with that in view, what about clearing the planet?

What about we have the tech to handle anybody?

What about the tech is 100% complete to handle all cases?

So if true to those questions, then why A-J PTS checks?
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
My wife, who is the wise one in our marriage had a wonderful comment to my proposed thread. I read her this:

Title: "SP Needs Advice"
I have a client who frequently blames me for the problems that come up on various jobs I do for him. He is a Scientologist, & since he is making me responsible for his condition, he is obviously PTS type D.

As a declared SP, what should I do?

She laughed, then launched in to how an indi friend of ours wants to get his nots. She asked, have you ever noticed, all of NOTs auditing (including OT 3 & 4) is about making someone else responsible for your condition? That everybody on OT 7 is really PTS type D? When we would go to FLAG for our 6 mos checks, she would notice how the 7's there would frequently whine. And look at the EP - Cause over life - couldn't that also be the EP of PTS type D handling - no longer making others responsible for your condition?

"Our indi friend," she remarked, "is abberated on the 2D, and so he is looking to auditing out the BT's that are making him that way, to solve his case. That is why I told him 'best of luck with the NOTS, I understand the urge to blame someone else' "

I had never realized that, but isn't that what many parts of Scientology's bridge is all about? Blaming somebody else? And wasn't that Hubbard's problem?

I don't know if you ever read the interview with Kima Douglas, LRH's nurse, but he really comes across as wildly PTS D.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/miller/interviews/kima.htm

My wife's comment on reading the above post was "PTS D is crap - it is just making others responsible for the crap we don't like about our selves - Ron just had to put a label on it. The whole bridge is about being effect. He was brilliant at selling that, making everybody believe they were effect, and his bridge would solve that. It would make them cause. Everybody has a case and each one is unique. We all have to grapple with it."

Mimsey

PS: PTS type D is a person who make others responsible for his condition - you harmed me etc. In Hubbard's SP /PTS [STRIKE]tech[/STRIKE] mythology the person who is PTS has a SP who is making the person roller coaster - get gains and lose them. The person comes along and says "Scientology made me more able." and the sp says, "Really? How come you still live in a dump?" and the person caves in and runs to the org. The MAA tells the PC to disconnect from the "SP". But really - what is PTS trying to solve? The fact Scientology's gains are transitory, meaning they don't last. So, instead of saying the tech doesn't work all that well, Hubbard says it's the SP - he's making you lose your gains, and than sends you on a wild goose chase to find the SP instead of fixing the tech. Neat huh?

M

I had just been thinking along these lines recently and although I hadn't realized the responsible for my condition aspect I thought it odd that you spend your time going Clear to realize you abberate yourself and the very next thing you learn is that BTs are the source.
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
I think maybe you just don't remember. I got involved in 1976 in Boston, and I got the standard PTS "A to J" check often. They would give it to anybody before starting ANY service.

This is taken from HCO POLICY LETTER OF 27 OCTOBER 1964R, POLICIES ON PHYSICAL HEALING, INSANITY AND SOURCES OF TROUBLE, which can be found at:

Suppressive Person Defense League

These persons can be grouped under “sources of trouble.” They include:

a. Persons intimately connected with persons (such as marital or familial ties) of known antagonism to mental or spiritual treatment or Scientology.

In practice such persons, even when they approach Scientology in a friendly fashion, have such pressure continually brought to bear upon them by persons with undue influence over them that they make very poor gains in processing, and their interest is solely devoted to proving the antagonistic element wrong.

They, by experience, produce a great deal of trouble in the long run as their own condition does not improve adequately under such stresses to effectively combat the antagonism. Their present time problem cannot be reached as it is continuous, and so long as it remains so, they should not be accepted for auditing by any organization or auditor.

b. Criminals with proven criminal records often continue to commit so many undetected harmful acts between sessions that they do not make adequate case gains and therefore should not be accepted for processing by organizations or auditors.

c. Persons who have ever threatened to sue or embarrass or attack or who have publicly attacked Scientology or been a party to an attack and all their immediate families should never be accepted for processing by a Central Organization or an auditor. They have a history of only serving other ends than case gain and commonly again turn on the organization or auditor. They have already barred themselves out by their own overts against Scientology and are thereafter too difficult to help, since they cannot openly accept help from those they have tried to injure.

d. Responsible-for-condition cases have been traced back to other causes for their condition too often to be acceptable. By responsible-for-condition cases is meant the person who insists a book or some auditor is “wholly responsible for the terrible condition I am in.” Such cases demand unusual favors, free auditing, tremendous effort on the part of auditors. Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim, and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.

e. Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism are a liability as they are forced into being processed by some other person and have no personal desire to become better. Quite on the contrary, they usually want only to prove the person who wants them audited wrong and so do not get better. Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.

f. Persons who “want to be processed to see if Scientology works” as their only reason for being audited have never been known to make gains as they do not participate. News reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited.

g. Persons who claim that “if you help such and such a case” (at great and your expense) because somebody is rich or influential or the neighbors would be electrified should be ignored. Processing is designed for bettering individuals, not progressing by stunts or giving cases undue importance.

Process only at convenience and usual arrangements. Make no extraordinary effort at the expense of other persons who do want processing for normal reasons. Not one of these arrangements has ever come off successfully as it has the unworthy goal of notoriety, not betterment.

h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s efforts “to convince them.”

i. Persons who do not believe anything or anyone can get better. They have a purpose for being audited entirely contrary to the auditor’s and so, in this conflict, do not benefit. When such persons are trained, they use their training to degrade others. Thus, they should not be accepted for training or auditing.

j. Persons attempting to sit in judgment on Scientology in hearings or attempting to investigate Scientology should be given no undue importance. One should not seek to instruct or assist them in any way. This includes judges, boards, newspaper reporters, magazine writers, etc. All efforts to be helpful or instructive have done nothing beneficial, as their first idea is a firm “I don’t know” and this usually ends with an equally firm “I don’t know.” If a person can’t see for himself or judge from the obvious, then he does not have sufficient powers of observation even to sort out actual evidence. In legal matters, only take the obvious effective steps-carry on no crusades in court. In the matter of reporters, etc., it is not worthwhile to give them any time, contrary to popular belief. They are given their story before they leave their editorial rooms and you only strengthen what they have to say by saying anything. They are no public communication line that sways much. Policy is very definite. Ignore.

To summarize sources of trouble, the policy in general is to cut communication, as the longer it is extended the more trouble they are. I know of no case where the types of persons listed above were handled by auditing or instruction.
Hmmmm, curious... I got officially in in 1972 between my 11th & 12 grades of high school and never got any kind of formal check such as this. Unless like you say I've merely forgotten. I dunno.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Hmmmm, curious... I got officially in in 1972 between my 11th & 12 grades of high school and never got any kind of formal check such as this. Unless like you say I've merely forgotten. I dunno.

I would be interested to hear from some others who were involved between say 1970-1977. Do you remember getting an "A-J check"? And, do you remember when they started?

The date of the issue is 1964.

Also, I wonder if some orgs didn't do them, or if some of the missions didn't do them. Some missions were a bit notorious for NOT following all of the policies, and doing things "their own way" (which is one of the reasons why they got hammered out of existence).
 

Div6

Crusader
I would be interested to hear from some others who were involved between say 1970-1977. Do you remember getting an "A-J check"? And, do you remember when they started?

The date of the issue is 1964.

Also, I wonder if some orgs didn't do them, or if some of the missions didn't do them. Some missions were a bit notorious for NOT following all of the policies, and doing things "their own way" (which is one of the reasons why they got hammered out of existence).


My "first contact" was in the mid-70's. A to J's were done routinely, both in HCO and the Tech Div...
 

Gib

Crusader
I would be interested to hear from some others who were involved between say 1970-1977. Do you remember getting an "A-J check"? And, do you remember when they started?

The date of the issue is 1964.

Also, I wonder if some orgs didn't do them, or if some of the missions didn't do them. Some missions were a bit notorious for NOT following all of the policies, and doing things "their own way" (which is one of the reasons why they got hammered out of existence).


I know orgs are doing them as of 1 year ago, at least the org I was at. As it was done on me again when I started a new service after not getting a service for awhile.
 
Top