Vinaire
Sponsor
I'm too tired for a funny answer, so you get a straight one, Alanzo. I used Google.
Paul
That was funny!
.
I'm too tired for a funny answer, so you get a straight one, Alanzo. I used Google.
Paul
That's my Scientologist... Good TRs.
.
Actually, on my Golden Age of Tech Professional TRs Course, I would have been flunked for that on TR2.
It would have been labeled a "double Ack".
But thanks anyway, Vinaire.
I thought it was Hampton Wick.
That's my Scientologist... Good TRs.
.
Methinks you don't know what a double ack is, Alanzo.
Or is it the GAT Pro TRs Course that doesn't know what a double ack is?
Paul
Methinks you don't know what a double ack is, Alanzo.
Or is it the GAT Pro TRs Course that doesn't know what a double ack is?
Paul
I think it was the GAT Pro TRs Supes I had at ASHO. You don't know how many crams I wrote on them. But they kept flunking me for "double acks".
I remember bringing in a set of Pro TRs Tapes and listening to them in the course room - the tapes of LRH auditing people on the BC that USED to be used as demonstrations of how TRs are supposed to be done.
They weren't on the GAT checksheet that I was on in 99.
When I brought them in the first time, after getting flunked so many times for "double ack" like the one below, my supervisor went white. It presented a real conflict for her to enforce the orders she was given for GAT, even though the LRH tapes totally supported saying "All right. Thank You." as an acceptable ack.
It didn't matter, though.
I was never going to pass my video if I said, "All right. Thank you." on TR2.
I think this is one of the big reasons the GAT auditors I had sounded so robotic: They could only say one word acks - every time.
So yes, I swear. I know what an ack is.
GAT trained supes may know what one is, too.
They just can't pass them in the "Golden Age of Tech".
Rejoice! The Golden Age of Robotism is at hand!
But, is it lubed?
Zinj
It's auto-lubed. Absolutely everything must be on automatic.
Now if we could just pull that sump plug............................
Don't forget the Klearnex.
Zinj
Anything *at all* that causes the other participant in a two-way communication cycle to believe they have been heard, duplicated and understood - of course.
I mean "Holy Crap!" or "Wow!" can be an appropriate acknowledgment in the appropriate circumstances, you know ? A simple wave of the hand when someone lets you go first in traffic can be an appropriate acknowledgment.
So they don't teach that anymore thanks to Miscaviage? and his Golden Age of Squirreling?
A person with really great two-way comm cycle can make another person feel much better, key out whatever incident they are in, etc.... meerly by talking with them and running no other special processes!!
Almost the absolute bedrock foundation of Auditing is a good two-way communication - this is way beyond absurd!
The Sneakster
I think it was the GAT Pro TRs Supes I had at ASHO. You don't know how many crams I wrote on them. But they kept flunking me for "double acks".
I remember bringing in a set of Pro TRs Tapes and listening to them in the course room - the tapes of LRH auditing people on the BC that USED to be used as demonstrations of how TRs are supposed to be done.
They weren't on the GAT checksheet that I was on in 99.
When I brought them in the first time, after getting flunked so many times for "double ack" like the one below, my supervisor went white. It presented a real conflict for her to enforce the orders she was given for GAT, even though the LRH tapes totally supported saying "All right. Thank You." as an acceptable ack.
It didn't matter, though.
I was never going to pass my video if I said, "All right. Thank you." on TR2.
I think this is one of the big reasons the GAT auditors I had sounded so robotic: They could only say one word acks - every time.
So yes, I swear. I know what an ack is.
GAT trained supes may know what one is, too.
They just can't pass them in the "Golden Age of Tech".
In other words, "the way that Ron shows you is High Crime Out Tech."
Un-fucking-believable!
If anyone needed positive proof that David Miscaviage has supplanted L. Ron Hubbard as The Source of Scientology, that one there should be more than sufficient.
The Sneakster
This exact situation, and the exact same explanation, existed in the 1970s, long before the 'Golden Age of Tech'.
This one can't be blamed on 'GAT'.
Acknowledgment is not the sole provenance of Scn.