Hi,
re auditing- yes, receiving, fine. Still do. Had some just two months ago. Not interested in taking on any pcs.
I was just differentiating myself from a tech staff member who word clears or audits or C/Ses or supervises a courseroom or Academy.
Yes, I still use Scn on a regular basis. I use Hubbard's concepts. I consider that the large majority of what he wrote is still useful to me and beneficial. I only differ with him on some policy and maybe a very few tech type things, nothing major there. I once posted on a.r.s. that given the huge amount of material LRH produced, that my estimation was only 2% maybe was toxic,like disconnection, RPF, all that sort of thing, leaving 98% that was not. The howls and shrieks I got from that- I even lost a net friend over it- were amazing. An extremely well known critic kept posting that I said that 98% was "good" and kept going on about "your 98% that you think is so good". Well, in the first place, duh, news flash- Scn'ists like Scn. But in the second, my point was that with all the commentary about the innate flaws in Scn itself put there by Hubbard- which is TRUE and there ARE some- well, if you look at the stacks and stacks of lectures, PABs, HCOBs, PLs, FOs, Exec directives and god knows what else that he produced, only a little bit pertains to the shit that has done the most damage to lives and to the very cult that purveys it. Most of his stuff is about theta and mental mechanisms. Love it or hate it, that's all there is.
This is why it's very easy for me to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's not a matter of picking out teeny nuggets of something good from an ocean of crap. It's more the other way around. Big ocean of something (that I consider good and that certainly does no harm) ...x....and itty bitty nuggets of crap that shouldn't be there and that truly is harmful.