Re: Ken Ogger, The Pilot speaks from the dead
Great. You go to:
http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio
The first excerpt from the Pilot's fortnightly postings has already been made. Here is a preview:
************
Pilot'sPosts Z1
What Is Wrong With Confidentiality?
(From Post 2 - April 1997)
Pilot'sPosts Z2
[[ I have decided also to send the weekly excerpts from The Pilot's fortnightly postings here every week. But if you would like them sent weekly to your inbox You will still need to go to:
http://lists.worldtrans.org/mailman/listinfo/superscio and sign in there. Then you will get them in your inbox in the middle of every week without you having to raise a finger further. So here is the next one, a day late., Ant]]
[[This is an example of where the Pilot saw something posted in the News Group alt.clearing.technology, in this case something I wrote there, and answered it - remember he was at that point successfully in the church but hidden, Ant]]
DISAGREEMENT CHECKS
(from post 14 Nov 1997)
On 23 Oct, Antony Phillips <
[email protected]> post on
subject "security checks, disagreement checks"
> The thread on End of endless security checks reminds me of
> something I experienced as staff at Saint Hill. About 65/66.
>
> It was called a disagreement check.
> I have never seen a bulletin on it.
>
> The way it worked for me was that if I felt a bit "keyed in", sort of
> heavy/overwhelmed, I went to the staff training officer, or some title
> like that, and he would put me in session. The question asked was
> something like "Do you have any disagreements?" And as far as I can
> remember, one just itsaed.
>
> Worked well so far as I was concerend and I availed myself of it a few
> times. There was rarely any marked waiting time to get a disagreement
> check.
>
> The philosophy behind it seemed to be, help the staff member, and you
> will help the org.
>
> The philosphy behind the use of sec checks ("I am not auditing you"
> variety) seems to be that the staff member was potentially evil, and had
> to be sharply curbed.
>
> The curious thing was that I never saw a bulletin on it. I'm curious to
> know whether it ever reached what we called "outer orgs".
>
> All best wishes,
>
> Ant
> --
> Ant Antony A Phillips
>
[email protected] [[address 2012: <
[email protected]>]]
> tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
> Box 78 [2012 invalid address now]]
> DK - 2800 Lyngby
> Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy) see Home Page:
>
http://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html [[address 2012:
http://www.ivymag.org/ ]]
[Now the Pilot Pilot replies:]
The reference is HCOB 19 Jan 66 "Danger Conditions, Technical
Data for Review Auditors" in old tech volume 6 or new tech volume 8.
(begin fair use quote)
To cure a disagreement one can:
1. Locate disagreements on certain subjects by listing a question
such as "On ..... what do you disagree with? and locating the item
with assessment and blowing it by inspection (itsa).
2. Locate former similar subject the person disagreed with.
3. Locate things on the subject the person has not understood and
get them clarified.
4. Locate earlier similar subjects the person has not understood
and get them clarified.
IMPORTANT - if a person's attitude does not change after doing
one of the above, do another or find another item using the same
process (listed above) as before.
A whole case will fall apart this way.
(end fair use quote)
He then talks a bit about compulsive bypass, danger conditions,
and so forth.
This was replaced by a BTB of 22 Mar 72 called "Disagreement
Remedy" and that one has gone through a series of revisions and
eventually evolved (Ha!) into an HCOB of that date as reissued
in 1985 (see the new tech volumes).
The revised disagreement remedy went after outpoints, false
data, and so forth and wouldn't let go of the person until
he was back in agreement and unlikely to make trouble for the
group.
The original one, however, was really something (step 1 above,
listing to find the precise disagreement and blowing it by
inspection using Itsa). It did get to the outer orgs. I ran
some of these while I was auditing in review.
What would happen is that the PC would get really happy and
blow the charge on the disagreement. But he wouldn't get
stupid. If it was something that he was disagreeing with for
good reason, he would get all evangelistic about fixing up
the org and correcting what was wrong.
This tended to result in the person getting declared suppressive
within a few months. I think that that was the real EP of
these disagreement checks, certainty that one could fix the
org and getting declared as a result.
When the Class 8s hit in late 68, they stopped running
disagreement checks this way. There was much too much that
everybody disagreed with. Instead, they always CSed
method 2 above and looked for some earlier subject that the
person had confused with Scientology so that there was something
else to blame the charge on.
And finally they came up with the 1972 bulletin to really
close the door on this area.
Hope this helps,
The Pilot
____________________________
relayed by Ant Phillips <
[email protected]>
Meanwhile we have more nat gas than we can throw a stick at.
eyeroll
