“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Critique from out-of-church Scientologists overturned (1)  or
     The position of Free Zone, Ron's Org and Independent Scientologists identified

Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

“Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension. ...
When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree.”
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)  

Critique from out-of-church Scientologists overturned  (page 1, index page)

The critique received from out-of-church Scientologists provided for an interesting opportunity mapping the position of those Scientologists that are active outside the reign of the Church of Scientology.


An introduction
(page 1)
  The situation regarding Free Zone practitioners ...
Critical responses from Scientologists active outside of the church overturned
  Critique received from out-of-church Scientologists
             - (sequence 1) “LRH into valences and case stuff?”
- (sequence 2) “your ‘LRH was exchanged by an imposter’ theory...”
- (sequence 3) “Sales pitch was not exactly foreign to LRH, was it?”
- (sequence 4)  The NED auditing routine
- (sequence 5)  Shouldn't one bother about the differences between St Dn and NED?
- (sequence 6)  Tech being interfered with not until the late ’80s & ’90s?
- (sequence 7)  Only LRH will do! or not?
- (sequence 8)  Written by Ron or not?
- (sequence 9)  Know best?
- (sequence 10) “You are right and I wish you good.”?
  (situation 1) “a number of your statements are PATENTLY FALSE”
  (situation 2) “I disagree with a great many of the conclusions you draw. Thus I warn potential visitors to your blog [sic =website] that they should be prepared to doubt your conclusions, regardless of how appealing the ‘evidence’ may be.”
      - Evaluation of the ‘Wise Old Goat’ website
- Turndown of my recommendation for websites to be included on this person's blog
- (sequence 1) ‘Standard Tech’ and ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ (KSW)
- (sequence 2) About ‘LRH ED 117 Int’: Dianetics and Scientology “COMPLETE” or not?
- (sequence 3) About NOTs, and; Looking or listening?
- The position of this blog owner
(situation 3) A questionable circumstance of affairs ...
(page 2)
         (About copying website materials without permission and/or giving credit)
  (situation 4) “Some of us have developed technologies that go far beyond anything Hubbard wrote about.”
      - My entry into an ‘Independent’ Scientology forum
- Discussion 1: The E-meter incident
- Discussion 2: Becoming an ‘Independent’ Scientologist
- Discussion 3: Authentication and signature dilemma
- Aftermath (interrogation, getting banned and a flair of dishonesty)
- The philosophy of this forum owner (1) versus L. Ron Hubbard as a person
- The philosophy of this forum owner (2) versus ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ (KSW)
- Aftermath
  A Free Zone association that actively block persons that focus on the 1972 status quo of the technology?
      - Introduction to this association; The RTC of the Free Zone?
- An applicant gets his membership rejected
- The applicant needs to give answers that comply with the demands of this group
- Reasons given for membership rejection examined in detail
- Full response from applicant to Sr C/S [FZ group] and final reply from this Sr C/S
- A reported tale of another applicant
  Now, what's up with these ‘Independents’?
Additional critique received
  Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists  (on separate page)
  Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists  (on separate page)

Back to Main Index An introduction

The sole reason why I received the various reactions that are listed here in this chapter is simply because I chose not to follow the general line of acceptance in regards to what would be the correct tech that had been adopted by the persons providing me with these critiques. Which for these persons was adherence to the Bridge that was established during 1978-82. Instead I chose to follow the line of verified research and evaluation thereof, whatever the outcome of these were or where they would take me.

      “Standing in murky waters...”
In the sense of rightness however the critique I received in this matter were thus no actual criticisms as basically all that I received were opinions and not supported pieces of critique! Valid counter-arguments were either totally missing, or they were based on faulty interpretations and beliefs. And when ever I defended my position I was faced with more opinion, and I could even be met with a particular increasing aggressivity. This puzzled me actually a bit, as after all my only concern and interest was to establish which information was proven authentic and which was not. I had no intention at any time to tell others what would be true to them. That didn't interest me. I did challenge though, simply because I wanted a counter-argument and I did receive valid information from them that I could work with myself. And so I was wondering, why were they not equally aroused by my factual findings, as I was? Why needing to defend a position that is lacking a ground for defence? You see, some of them were just not interested, where others could start a counter-attack of sorts (having perceived an attack when there wasn't).

Anyway I give here a selection of some of the reactions I got from time to time. I have divided them up in 2 categories, which are sequences and situations. The category sequences sum up brief selections extracted from discussions I have had. The category situations more particularly address a situation.

It is also interesting to see here how failures that were recorded and occurred during the late ’70s and early ’80s interim are explained away by various Free Zoners in ways as if L. Ron Hubbard was still this fallible sort of human being, still would have a reactive mind of sorts, or was (in later years) snatched by the lure of money, and more such things. That's why he did not correct matters, they confide to me.
Then I would start to wonder what the value of that technology that he had developed would actually be worth. It's aim was to become cause over such things, and to understand oneself. See, you just can't have it both ways! Or this technology works, and you turn a saner human being no longer tempted by these ordinary petty goals, and all that, or ... ah well ... you are getting the concept here. Something like “And may you never be the same again.”  LRH  (from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ (1950), page xi). Meant here is not that petty fallible blind human being.
These matters can just not be explained away, it just wouldn't do for that Scientology practitioner.

Back to Main Index The situation regarding Free Zone practitioners ...

Among these people that are active with Scientology outside the reign of the Church of Scientology, we find a persistent agreement that says that the technology was not interfered with at least not until so about 1982, at the time of the establishment of the Religious Technology Center (RTC). This is a concept that appears widely accepted by most if not all of these Scientology groups of which many at one time had been active in the Church of Scientology. Technically this is a strange notion as in actual fact the technology had already seen a complete technical turnaround during 1978-82. The members of these groups however generally fail to recognize this.
This can however be explained. See, what many of them will remember is that during 1982-83 we had seen a washout of otherwise able Scientologists. Hundreds of people were subjected to unpleasant ordeals, ethics actions taken, injustices taking place or threatened in some way. Many persons were either kicked out (declared) or just left out of free will because of these occurrences. This involved many people that had been there since 20-30 years. People that had a lot of know-how and experience. It has been suggested later on that RTC was performing a clean-up to get rid of people that could challenge or disagree with the new management that was put in place. It was seen as a take-over that was spearheaded by this RTC and led by Mr. Miscavige. (more info here, separate window)

What people thus will remember is when things turned unpleasant for them, and this wasn't during Jul 1978-Dec 81 when the main changes in the Bridge turnaround occurred. No, it was in 1982-83! We see thus that these groups adopted the Bridge as it was right before things turned unpleasant. And today they are so to say still stuck with it. Those persons that started up those groups did not leave the church because of an altered Bridge, they left because of how they were treated!
See, they were mostly not even aware of a Bridge having been altered. Pretty much for reason because these changes were presented with the sanction of L. Ron Hubbard (mostly through David Mayo), or so they believed. Because of this there was no direct reason for them to do any careful study of comparison, and only if you do that you will start to find out about things. What they didn't realize either is that the entity that later in 1982 would adopt the name Religious Technology Center already was active under the denomination Boards of Directors. (see here, separate window)  It's just that they hadn't start their witch hunt on supposed squirrels yet. So, there we have it. People will first remember when they got wronged!

Next during these early ’80s we see a rapid establishment of Scientology groups formed by the people that had left the Church of Scientology or that were kicked out. It is at this time that we see the denominations Free Zone and Ron's org being used. Free Zone was coined by Bill Robertson in 1982 representing a free zone for Scientologists not welcome anymore in the Church of Scientology. His own group shortly after adopted the name Ron's org. Then we have David Mayo creating his Church of the New Civilization and adopting the name Advance Ability Center (AAC). Many groups were popping up all over the place. And they all adopted the Bridge that had come about during 1978-82, the so-called David Mayo Bridge. (more info here, separate window)

They do acknowledge changes in the technology, but they date them much later in time. Some persons talk about the definition of a floating needle that had been altered in 1996, when we had already a serious change in that definition dating to 1978. (more info here, separate window)  Another is the introduction of the excessive drilling introduced in 1996 that is know as the Golden Age of Tech (GAT). (see here, separate window)  But here we have already arrived in the 2nd half of the ’90s which is already so much later in time.

There would be blind spots present in this tale though. Somehow people have a closed eye regarding that both the Church of Scientology and the various Free Zone groups virtually are offering and are delivering a same Bridge. A Bridge that came about when David Mayo was the top technical terminal posted as the Snr C/S Int (1978-82). In 1983 they then kicked him out, painted him up as a really evil dude, but strangely enough the Church of Scientology maintained and adopted his Bridge! Which is all rather swell, wouldn't you think?

These Free Zoners or Independent Scientologists as they generally may call themselves, do commonly persist in telling you that they deliver unaltered tech, and are then pointing a finger at the Church of Scientology saying that they do not deliver unaltered tech. Well, for crying out loud! It is virtually the same Bridge that is being had at both these places! That the Free Zone delivers the original OT Levels IV-VII besides the New OT IV-VII levels, whereas the Church of Scientology had abandoned them silently in March 1982 (see here, separate window), really doesn't put much weight in the balance of scales. It is the early Bridge that is the crucial part, and this had been disrupted in the Jul 1978-Dec 81 interim.


Now, I have attempted many times to get various of my arguments across through discussions and such, but this was too very little avail. It just didn't matter how well supported my presentation of facts and findings were. I haven't been presented with particular fully rational or well thought-out counterarguments. I was simply faced with that many of these people simply didn't want to look or consider an alternate take on matters.
A significant problem appear to be those persons that have been in Scientology for some time already and have been taught this Bridge as it was established during 1978-82. Most of them don't even know about that datum, they don't know about some earlier Bridge as it was worked out during 1950-70 and factually completed in that year and which was announced!

Then I guess it is hard to teach an old fox something new. Many a person that had started in Scientology prior to 1978, and actually were first taught that original Bridge, they as well tend to have adopted that later Bridge and today they just can't let go of it! Apparently physically having been present in these earlier days doesn't mean that you would have been blessed with seeing goggles. People follow the flock as they've always done. To be able to understand and see one is obliged to perform a thorough comparison research. As I said, there is a rather grand unwillingness to get into this.
All this as opposed to new people coming into Scientology. I find that they can see and understand this information rather easily. But then they have not been coloured yet sufficiently with the 1978-82 route paint!

Then there is an additional problem that arises with some established Free Zone groups as they actively deny people membership in their group if they choose to not embrace that later technology whole-heartedly. The argument that is being forwarded to the applicant is then that they do not have the full array of tools of the technology. Hmm, wasn't it completed in 1970?

The outcome however of all this is sort of worrisome and disquieting. I guess we probably should leave it at what L. Ron Hubbard said about this:
“I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People.
Just as they consider one another their people, so I consider them my people.
I think their errors of the past, when they existed, came about because we are new and we are finding out and I don't think any of their errors were intentional any more than mine were.”          LRH
(from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)

“Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

And last but not least:  (underlining is mine)
“And we are also fortunate that, try as they will, no squirrel is ever able to duplicate our product since one variation (that of changed brand) leads to others and they promptly have neither product nor demand–that observation is itself empirical. No squirrel has lasted more than 2 or 3 years in the past sixteen years. And there have been many. That they squirrel shows enough bad faith to drive away the public the moment the public hears of the original.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 4 Dec 66 “Expansion - Theory of Policy”)
So I guess that time will tell ... But the last I heard was that these groups had some struggle to get sufficient with clients.

So, are you getting the results that you are supposed to have per the original Bridge, or are you just getting a fraction of it? That is the question one will have to ask oneself, well, the preclear that is. The December 1970 Grade Chart is the very last to list the full end phenomena of ‘Ability Gained’ and ‘Inability Lost’, that is listing even 3 flows for the Grades. So, where are you (as a preclear) at? See for yourself here (separate window).

Go to index

Critical responses from Scientologists active outside of the church overturned

Back to Main Index Critique received from out-of-church Scientologists

Go back
(sequence 1) “LRH into valences and case stuff?”
This was a discussion about the revelations of one Dan Koon dating back to Nov 1978 and Jan 1980. He writes: “In November 1978 I was ... fired on an ... Mission ... to gather data on the effect of the Dianetic Clear announcement. I did another one about 14 months later in January 1980. The difference in data gathered on the two missions was dramatic. From the first, most of those coming in to attest to Clear were Power Releases who had stalled on the Bridge or preclears who had had many, many, many hours of Dianetics. By 1980 the demographic had switched to public who had little Dianetics, or even much Grade Chart auditing at all. Quite a large number were asserting ‘Natural Clear’ after mention of the state by LRH, though in a recorded remark to a Tech Messenger around that time he said there were probably 4 on the entire planet. I don't think that was ever made known.
Clearly, things were a mess. C/Ses didn't know what they were doing and Snr C/S Int Office was little help in straightening out the scene. The initial handling was the DCSI, the Dianetic Clear Special Intensive. This was developed by LRH in conjunction with the then Snr C/S Int, David Mayo. The DCSI was followed years later by the Clear Certainty Rundown, which itself was revised several years later. A NOTs handling was developed for cases who had gotten onto OT levels but whose Clear status was still in doubt.”  Dan Koon
Mind as well here that New Era Dianetics was released in July 1978.
I originated here in the ongoing discussion the following about it:
“Now, below [sic above] is the really interesting part of his write-up. It totally confirms the confusion at that time. The thing that bothers me though is that he seems believing that LRH was around and doing various things. It just couldn't have been the LRH that developed the original tech.”
I received the response:
“I agree though I would think along the lines of valences and case stuff not along the lines of body change...”
My answer:
“LRH into valences and case stuff? That's even more unlikely than a body change.”
My opponent:
“That's very likely, not only considering the amount of entheta, third-dynamic confusions and experimental auditing he got.”
My final response:
“You are assuming that he was unable to handle nor see through entheta and confusions? If I can as aberrated as I may be, than why couldn't he?”
Here there is also the matter of what experimental auditing ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ could have been subjected to. You would safely assume that L. Ron Hubbard would only run as a solo auditor. After all you only need someone to audit you if you had still your reactive mind intact. If the technology was correct, L. Ron Hubbard would have gotten rid of that a long time ago.
This part of the discussion ended here, I got no response past this.

I was here also asked:
“Did you know him personally? If not, what makes you think that he was not a being under the same influences as all others?”
I responded:
“We know him through his writings. What is the purpose and use of the subject of Dianetics/Scientology if you, 8 years after you announced that the tech is complete (LRH ED 117 I think), that you are still without cause over these outer influences??
You propose an illogic on all accounts. It fits in on an imposter, not on LRH.”
I received no further reaction to this from the person.

Go back
(sequence 2) “your ‘LRH was exchanged by an imposter’ theory...”
I was proposed:
“I think around 1980 we have still ‘some LRH’ on line but decreasingly so, more interference with his comm, he more distant because of vias, so him having less observation and data etc.”
My answer:
“A Thetan is a Thetan, that what you assume here is not possible. Read the EP of OT VIII on 1970 Grade Chart.”
My opponent (1):
“If you think that LRH was a OT with unlimited powers ...”
My response:
“I never said nor implied that.”
My opponent (2):
“... who was not dependent on others for his comm, data lines etc. ...”
My response:
“You should read some success stories from OTs before the time that the tech got interfered with (see Advance). You describe an ordinary human being with his engrams and aberrations still in place.”
My opponent (3):
“... then I think this collides a lot with your ‘LRH was exchanged by an impostor [sic]’ theory...”
My response:
“You assumed an OT with unlimited powers in place, where I did not imply that.
If you say ‘more interference with his comm, the more distant because of vias, so him having less observation and data etc.’ then you don't talk about an OT. Not a real one at least.”
No further response to this.

In the same discussion I was proposed:
“While I would not necessary believe a single report about someone, especially someone so unusual as LRH, if there are a series of reports from various people (that do not have a common reason for slanting the truth) going in the same direction, this has more credibility than any theory that is pure theory and has no basis in empirical fact.”
My answer:
“You first propose that you don't fall for stories, and in the next you turn this around and propose that it has credibility nonetheless because of ...
It is very very easily accounted for in fact. You just fall for the same rumours, public relation and the false tracks that have been laid out. I investigated virtually every one of these things, communicated with many people and enforced data evaluation. You don't need to have ‘a common reason for slanting the truth’, all it requires is to get people on the wrong foot and mislead them.
Are you implying that the existence of an imposter would be ‘pure theory and has no basis in empirical fact’?”
I received no further response to this.

Go back
(sequence 3) “Sales pitch was not exactly foreign to LRH, was it?”
In a discussion in where I was making comments about the way New Era Dianetics was introduced I was proposed:
“Quite a bit of sales pitch involved here, I think.”
My answer:
“Indeed, and you would think that L. Ron Hubbard would be either behind or have supported such a ‘sales pitch’ attempt? In the manner it has been done? I really wouldn't think so.”
My opponent:
“Sales pitch was not exactly foreign to LRH, was it? Read about his dozens of breakthroughs to Clear he announces in the 50s and 60s...”
To which I responded:
“Disagree, the Clear breakthroughs were about establishing a stable Clear. These were progresses and discoveries on that road, which was finalized 1969-70. The release of NED was nothing comparable to that. NED doesn't add anything, it instead reverses. It even caused Grades V-VII to become obsolete”
This discussion ended here.
This is actually interesting as I have heard this claim being made by various disrelated persons. One of them being Jason Beghe, a one time Scientologist, till he spoke out against it. Establishing the State of Clear had in fact been a process. Whomever thought that this would have been an easy thing to do?? All you can do is research and solve imperfections, and turning that into a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that hopefully will precipitate a desired result fully in alignment with the common denominator principle. Indeed there have been various announcements, but it nonetheless had been an ongoing research process that permanently ended in 1970, and which was anounced as such at that time. There had been nothing more on it not until July 1978 that wiped out Standard Dianetics and have it replaced with New Era Dianetics. And in September 1978 discrediting all this earlier Clear research (Grades V-VII) by wiping out the Scientology Clear. (see for details my Clear studies here, separate window)

Go back
(sequence 4) The NED auditing routine
I was forwarded:
“The only change in NED from R3R is that the PC now moves through the incident instead of scanning on a second or subsequent run through of the incident.”
(R3R = Routine 3 Revised is the basic Standard Dianetics auditing routine)
I responded:
“Which is a change from the 1969 procedure. Since when does LRH revert back like this and many years later? He operated on research. Meaning the tech worked as it was developed at that time.”
Which was answered with:
“Read NED Series 6RA as to why he changed it back.”
Referred here is to HCOB 26 Jun 78RA II “Routine 3RA Engram Running by Chains”, which folds out the main NED auditing routine. But it doesn't actually explain this matter, as it is only summed up with: “The search to unravel the mystery of the human mind was so long and so complex that it had many turnings. Methods were changed so as to be perfected as understanding increased in the research line. Unfortunately this was taken advantage of by some of questionable intent.” and “Probably the heaviest hat I've worn in recent years is the recovery of lost Dianetic and Scientology tech and eradicating and correcting alterations introduced into the subject by others.”.
Which statement by no standard supplies for any technical explanation! These phrases are actually referring back to HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” which reference itself displays an avalanche of clear signs of “by some questionable intent”. Consult full analysis of that reference found at link here (separate window).
This HCOB 26 Jun 78RA II is also invalidating the Standard Dianetics routine as it says: “No auditor who knew earlier than June 1978 engram running should consider he or she knows how to run engrams.”. Which in itself could be seen as a bit odd as NED puts the entire focus on postulates and not engrams.

Go back
(sequence 5) Shouldn't one bother about the differences between St Dn and NED?
I received:
“As far as I'm concerned quibbling about whether HSD is superior to NED misses the point.”
Well, is it really? We have HCOB 26 Jun 78 II “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains” that says “Those are all ways to run engrams and gave you a better grasp on it. I only wish to call to your attention that R3RA is not old-time engram running.”.
(R3RA = Routine 3 Re-revised is the basic New Era Dianetics auditing routine)
Mind here however “the danger points of the past and of the future” which is basically about “the moment that you move even a sixteenth of a millimeter sideways off of what is generally applicable to all minds, you are again into the particularities and opinions”. Which basically involves that “you eventually could then again effect a sort of a slavery out of that information”  LRH.  Consult the full references here (separate window).
Although one does not have to quibble, but at least one should be rather careful about these matters.

Go back
(sequence 6) Tech being interfered with not until the late ’80s & ’90s?
I was forwarded:
“Also you and I know the Tech has been squirreled but this happened after RTC took over in the late '80's after Ron's demise.”
But elsewhere in the same discussion the same person relates to me:
“In my opinion those who are seeking to destroy the subject seek to do so by overrunning cases which tends to invalidate any state of release. The reason for the new definition of Floating Needle and why Clears and OTs are now being forced to run hundreds of hours of objectives and redo there [sic their] grades.
It is also being done by omitting certain levels like the Original OT [sic level]s (the ones that produced the first Remote Viewers) which were never cancelled but are no longer part of the Grade Chart.”
These original OT Levels disappeared from that Grade Chart not during the late ’80s, but to be exact in March 1982. And may be they were not cancelled, but they can also not be received.
As this person tells here, part of the alteration was also “Original OT [level]s” that “are no longer part of the Grade Chart”. Now let's think with a bit of logic here. If these were part of the damage done, then why did L. Ron Hubbard not counter act act as he would supposedly would still have been alive (which this person believes he was). You see, you can't have it both ways.

Go back
(sequence 7) Only LRH will do! or not?
Here we discussed so-called Dianetic Command Training drills. I was forwarded:
“The fact is that they were developed by Ron but were compiled and issued by others just as the E-meter Drills were compiled and issued by Mary Sue (ref: the original Book of E-meter Drills Clearing Series 3) to handle the chief outness found at exam per HCOB 16 July 1969 Urgent-Important which was ‘FAILING TO GIVE THE NEXT COMMAND.’ (caps in the original).
This is explained in HCOB 17 July 1969RB New Era Dianetic Command Training Drills.
It was not until NED was released that they were issued as an an [sic] actual HCOB written by Ron personally.
Again per HCOB 24 January 1977 they get the expected result when drilled correctly and are the only Dianetic Drills I know of that were personally reviewed and re-issued by the Ol'man himself under his name personally.”
This is basically following up on the message of HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” that advised “these last few months have sharply changed my belief into total agreement with all those who have expressed some fear of reinterpretations of bulletins by others.” and “there have been a staggering number of tech sectors that have been corrupted by issues by others that alter-ised.”. Which was used as a justification for all the changes/corrections contained in the reference.
This HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” also advised: “What makes tech correct? ... When it gets the expected result it is correct.”. So, who cares then if some reference was “personally reviewed and re-issued by the Ol'man himself under his name personally”, or not. After all it is all too easy to put some signatures at the end of some piece of paper(s), and then say “LRH wrote it!”.

Go back
(sequence 8) Written by Ron or not?
In a discussion I was forwarded the following:
“You still haven't made the case that the NED Series HCOBs weren't written by Ron.
Nor has anyone else.”
Well, this is interesting. Let's mention just one thing here. If one can show a multitude of incoherences in the writing HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” which nonetheless has been attributed as having been written by L. Ron Hubbard, then can this serve as an argument that any new tech (or tech changes) that occurred after that date could be actually have been interfered with and was not devised by L. Ron Hubbard? See analysis here (separate window). And this is just for starters ...

Go back
(sequence 9) Know best?
I said:
“Turning it [NED] into a standard routine that does not cover all cases. There are area's of cases that NED does not cover. There is limited flexibility with NED. You should talk to M... (original Class VIII), I met her in Seattle. You may also wish to speak to P..., founding Scientologist from 1951.
What they revealed to me bears no significance?”
(M..., P... = only the first initial of these persons are reproduced here)
The short answer:
Later in the discussion the same person says:
“So frankly no I don't care what a bunch of know best auditors who are higher trained (remember that Mayo was a Class XII) or supposedly have done more auditing than I have to say about how much better good ol' Hubbard Standard Dianetics is over the more recent advances of NED.
Either they are just being nostalgic or they can not audit NED correctly because NED does work and works well when correctly applied.”
I will let this speak for itself.

Go back
(sequence 10) “You are right and I wish you good.”?
There appear always individuals that do like to lecture. This could go something like this. An example from October 2012. I received:
“One has to be at that level to really understand the level. I am NOTs complete, Dianetics Clear and did the CC. NOTs does not handle all the somatics and neither will NED. IF you are on that level you would understand.”
(CC = Clearing Course (Grade VII))
I responded:
“It's like saying that if you have not followed psychiatry studies you will not understand psychiatry. Scientology is about results, a fairly sane unaberrated person can perceive these things.
NED is directing postulates, not particularly somatics. NOTs is claiming to find somatics, but uses non-Dianetics techniques.
Of course you don't get rid of all somatics, as not all are in restimulation at the moment you receive auditing. However one needs to eliminate the basic bank, after that one eliminates the timetrack. Which will take care of all somatics.
You seem, for some reason, to think that I do not understand something?”
The 1978-82 route actually directs that one does NED, but one does not do Grades VI-VII. Which means you don't get rid of that basic bank. My response was pretty much an urge to have this person explain himself further. But all I got back was:
“You are right and I wish you good.”
Which is nice of course ..., but entirely useless ...

Go back (situation 1) “a number of your statements are PATENTLY FALSE”

At such time that I had finished and released my page “Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 vs A lost Bridge”, this was in August 2010. I send out a mass email carrying the following text:

“It may disturb some people as it will shake around some long since established stable datums, it thus may make them wonder a bit, or it may even acknowledge some. I fear however that for a certain majority it will present a reality that is not directly welcomed with open arms.
Responses are requested, you may throw at me anything as you feel like, corrections, criticisms, validations, your displeasements, whatever, I will try to turn it into something useful. But let the responses be constructive and to the point!”

And this I can say is indeed what I got, although very few were that harsh. The bulk of responses that I got were predominantly rather appreciative. But one particular response, coming from a rather high classed auditor, was crude to say the least.

Now, this one auditor wrote to me:

“Thank you for forwarding this to me.
It became obvious to me that you need to Word \clear and \False Data strip a number of relevant issues, as a number of your statements are PATENTLY FALSE and you seem to have already made your position BEFORE you wrote your essay and therefore try to fit any argument to fit your already preconceived idea.
There are numerous places where you say that ‘it is the only explanation’ and a number of time you assume things that are actually incorrect most probably because of your MUs and seeking to prove your pre-assumed explanations.
You probably wont like me stating this, but I stopped counting at 50, when I counted the number of outpoints in your essay and I was barely past the half-way mark.
I dont have time to go over the numerous errors and alterations, but per LRH, you should WC and/or FDS the relevant issues, and probably find them on your own.”

MUs = misunderstoods;  WC = word clear;  FDS = false data stripping

Now, do go over this carefully, because ... it doesn't actually say anything at all. I really can't do anything with this, now can I? It makes the most gruesome claims and invalidations, assuming lots of things, but does not offer even one single piece of data one can follow up on! I found thus there was reason to challenge this individual and so I wrote to him:
“It is very kind of you to share your own condition. See, you gave me NOTHING other than opinion, and haven't I requested that ‘let the responses be constructive and to the point’? You stopped counting at 50, so you claim, but you may as well have written 200, as you fail to provide for a SINGLE ARGUMENT! Now, per LRH you are to use data evaluator series. I do, so why don't you?
What you send me is actually suppressive and that what I offer really appears to worry you. If you had solid arguments you would have forwarded them...”

Well, the rebuttal that I received to that were rather nasty actually. As I said the person was an auditor and started boasting around about how many people he had helped and so on. What I received was rather lengthy, I only give some extracts of that message here below:
“I have been travelling over 300 days in the last year fixing messed up cases by both the Church and the FZ. i HAVE VERY LITTLE PERSONAL TIME left.
I spent over 1200 hours in the chair helping people in 2010 alone, I have fixed dozens of cases that were desperate and close to suicide, much of it at great sacrifice and/or my own expense and now YOUR MAJESTY FEEL I OWE to bow three times and owe him hours of typing on a laptop with a shaky Hotel Internet connection...WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE????
How much have you done except speculating, actually getting your hands dirty and helping others. It is so easy to confront a bunch of piece of papers. How about raising your confront, putting messed up cases on the meter and produce time after time a miraculous change?? ...
How many people have you actually personally saved from the brink of disaster by giving them a session???
How many Clears, OTs or completions have you produced???
And now call me a suppressive because I feel that the time spent helping others is more important that [sic] doing your own homework. ...
read hcob 23 oct 75 technical queries for starters, which i am not above to violate for the obvios [sic] reasons stated in it.
You are telling me now that your own service Facs are more important that confronting the truth and end up dubbing what prompted my answer.
Please listen to the tape the road to truth, you have missed something.
All you have demonstrated to me is that you have sunk to the level of AWARE ONLY OF ONE'S OWN EVALUATIONS.
At least, I now know behind your previous coat of veneer who you truly are.”
(FZ = Free Zone, service Facs = Service Facsimiles, here it is used derogatorily, basically I am accused here of using these Facsimiles (own shortcomings, irrationalities) to make another person wrong)
Isn't that nice, folks? All that time and effort spent to write that, that this person should have spent on forwarding valid arguments and exact data to me. No, this was really not very helpful at all.
By the way, he refers to HCOB 23 Oct 75 “Technical Queries”. Consult this reference at your own convenience, but basically my critic tries to imply that I came with this a ‘technical query’. And these, according to this reference, are dealt with (underlining is mine) “BY REFERRAL TO MATERIALS AND A CRAMMING ORDER TO FIND THE MIS-U WORDS”. So, this auditor, so he apparently states, does not want to “violate” that reference by forwarding me valid points?! Well then, where oh where am I going to find my misunderstandings? What exact materials? Where is this cramming order? As after all this individual only comes with a general make-wrong. In his first message to me he actually noted about these Mis-U's: “... and probably find them on your own”. And so according to these grounds alone he already does violate that very reference!!
Followingly, there is also HCOB 9 Feb 79 “How to Defeat Verbal Tech” that says as at step #5: “If the Mis-U won't clear, query it.”. So there we go! But again, on what exact materials do I supposedly have Mis-U's? My critic doesn't tell!
This individual also omits that “if you arrive at the technology, you still have the task of safeguarding the technology because, once more, it can easily turn and become a false technology.” . These are, or pretty much so, “the danger points of the past and of the future.” LRH (see here for sources, separate window). Well, so much for Keeping Scientology Working ...

Anyhow in I responded to my critic amongst other with:
“... You had been send an email in the capacity of me wearing the hat of preservation of tech and ensuring we still have that. The auditor hat is an entirely different one, these are DISRELATED! Please refrain from attacking me and finding wrong while mixing up these 2 disrelated hats.
I do not speculate, I enforce data evaluation on exact data and observation.
If you are unable or unwilling to forward anything concrete then refrain from responding. Invalidating and taking this onto a personal level and factually attacking without forwarding exact arguments is in fact suppressive. ...
Your reference is ‘Science of Survival’, find your tone level.”

This was the end of the communication, and I did not hear back from my critic. The tool of intimidation had been attempted, but it had backfired. So, why is my analysis a problem for this person? I probably should say that this person is known for a particular repute, one of excessive proudness. And so my analysis makes this person wrong, as after all this is one of those persons that has fully accepted, used and recommended, and for many years, the Bridge that came about during 1978-82. This basically says it all. There are persons that will never admit to any possibility being taught and having adopted an incorrect Bridge. Unfortunately this is a common problem.
At present this critic is seriously obese and even has to walk with a stick to get around. There have been a few reports about complaining preclears that showed up for auditing but that no one came to open up the door. He also makes video's, and on these you can see a head (only a head, naturally) moving around above his auditor certificate.

I shared this occurrence with a few selected persons. I received a comment about: “I spent over 1200 hours in the chair helping people in 2010 alone”. The response read:
“This was the 38th week of 2010, so 1200 divided by 38 is 31,6 hrs weekly.
In the church, this is realistic within an org for an auditor in power. But not for a field auditor without lots of staffs and an organization around him.
I can't believe that. I am happy, when I reach 25 hrs per week and that can not even be every week or in average as some announced PCs do not arrive and such.
So I can not prove that, but I bet, that he is a blatant liar regarding his stats!”
An interesting calculation and an apparent unrealistic (dishonest) boasting from my critic. It would also seem he would have been travelling more than auditing as he had “been travelling over 300 days in the last year fixing messed up cases”. The excessive travelling would cut rather significantly in the time that can be spend on auditing. It sure does make his forwarded statistic even more unrealistic and untruthful.

But isn't this all interesting? Here I am, performing these researches, trying to come down to logical conclusions and evaluations. And then we have such individuals dropping all these unreasonablenesses on my head.
By the way this individual is actually listed as a ‘certified auditor’ in that Free Zone association that I address in chapter “A Free Zone association that actively block persons that focus on the 1972 status quo of the technology?”.
Go to index

Go back (situation 2) “I disagree with a great many of the conclusions you draw. Thus I warn potential visitors to your blog [sic =website] that they should be prepared to doubt your conclusions, regardless of how appealing the ‘evidence’ may be.”

“I just follow, don't see nothin’!”

Regularly I check the Internet for instances in where my name (or Wise Old Goat) is mentioned, or places where my website is linked from. During one of these errands I came across this blog. The blog itself was started on 8 Apr 2012 in where an Introduction reveals: “I'm a Scientologist and have been for almost 36 years. I've been staff three times and currently live in the shadow of Flag.”.
The focus here is on the sayings of this blog owner. He had put out a list with evaluations of websites/blogs including mine, and I stumbled over that message (and thus the blog) in October 2012.
There was a discussion at the end of that blog entry in where I participated (sequence 1-3), then there was that addition from a later date of that evaluation of my website, and a very brief email exchange ensuing.

Go back
Evaluation of the ‘Wise Old Goat’ website

On 27 Aug 2012 a message was posted that offered “a list of some of the blogs and sites in the Independent Field, and my evaluation of them. ‘My evaluation’ is my opinions. You may or may not agree with my opinions, but hopefully this will serve as a handy guide for those who wish to pursue the continuing stories of the Church of Scientology and the Independent Field.”.

It listed a total of 39 websites/blogs and it included mine. The entry said:
Wise Old Goat. This is actually the site of a Michel Snoeck. I don't know who this is. I'm guessing he was at one time a Scientologist. The specific link I give here is to the part of the site where he spends considerable effort detailing research he's done into various aspects of Scientology and the Church. There are sections on all kinds of subjects, like how the Grade Chart changed over time, how fast flow training came about, you name it. He's probably done some research on it. Very thorough. If you're doing research on something regarding Scientology, this is an excellent place to go, because Michel has done some quite thorough research.”
Obviously a rather appreciative evaluation. I actually later replicated it and posted it on my appreciative responses page. Well, so far all good.

Then I found that this blog posting had been revised, according to Internet archive information this must have occurred somewhere during mid Jan-early Apr 2014. Amongst other the evaluation of my website had received an addition that read:
“One caveat: Michel analyzes the content and signatures of LRH works with a virtual microscope and frequently comes to the conclusion that Ron didn't write many of the things he wrote, or was deranged when he did. Take with a grain of salt. Or a full shaker.”
This now was not anymore so very appreciative. It basically gave a warning or to take caution. It was particularly the phrasing that caught my attention. Like saying “virtual microscope” (not a real microscope) and “Ron didn't write many of the things he wrote” ? Well, he did write it or he did not, you can't have it both ways. And where did I say anything about “deranged” ? It in essence questioned the accuracy of my research. My information is exact, this criticism was inexact. It made me wonder if the blog owner actually looked into matters himself, or that he just says these things because it clashes with his personal opinion?

I decided to approach the blog owner and get him to answer that. So, I send a message through the blog message system in April 2014. Thanked him for the original evaluation of my website, then pointed at the later addition and gave this rebuttal:
“I am not sure how you came to figure that I use any sort of ‘“virtual” microscope’. The microscope is real, and the published church documentation is real. Even the CoS ‘admits’ amongst other through HCO Admin Letters that a large array (hundreds) of references listing so many references that once were attributed to LRH, but that this was erroneously and therefore got cancelled.
The many BPL/HCO PLs written by others and then reissued under a new HCO PL date, disposing of the original compilers and attribute it to LRH are as well very real indeed.
We also had the faking of the ‘SO #1 Line’ or ‘You can always write to Ron’, this too is real.
Then we have HCOB 24 Jan 77 ‘Tech Correction Round-up’ even advising and forwarding a ruling policy where original compilers/writers are to be demoted to assistants.
Just that you understand that the only way to establish LRH tech is determining what has been written by LRH and what not. Tech development issues published through time is the ruling factor.
I don't care actually that you write such things, I am just curious to learn how you came to figure that I use any ‘virtual’ means as my research drive has always been the scientific one. I compared published church writings ‘then and now’ and notted down what I found, that's roughly all I did. So, do you care to explain?”
It was the blog owner that actually sliced my message. Well, this is what I received in answer to that first part of my email message:
“The language of my blog is English, probably 12th grade or college level. I gather from the fractured English of your site that this is not your first language. If there is something you don't understand about my site, then my best suggestion is to take LRH's advice and fetch a good dictionary, a piece of paper and pencil for demos, and ensure you understand the language in use.”
Indeed a very helpful response. I responded back:
“Funny, this has thus far been a rebuttal that in the past I have ONLY received from the regular anti-Scientologist. One invalidates the person through pointing at that English is not his first language. It is however not the written language that you oppose, it is what it suggests and its consequences.”
The reason why anti-Scientologists respond with that is factually that they in this way can avoid giving a proper answer. An answer that they by habit are unable to provide. Is this the case here? It would seem so. You don't address the argument but find fault with the person, it then becomes ad hominem.

Next part of my email read:
“I also resent your annotation ‘Take with a grain of salt. Or a full shaker.’. I present scrutinous research, I don't ask anyone to adopt or live by the things I say. I am very clear indeed about that on my pages.”
To which the blog owner responded:
“I disagree with a great many of the conclusions you draw. Thus I warn potential visitors to your blog that they should be prepared to doubt your conclusions, regardless of how appealing the ‘evidence’ may be. This is my prerogative, as it is my blog. You're welcome to say the same about me on your blog, and I can come over there and give you static.”
We get some better inkling here, but we do still not learn how he came to his conclusions. Was it own proper research of just plain opinion? The word “‘evidence’” comes surrounded with quotes. Well, something is evidence or it is not, you can't have it both ways here either.
Remember that offering plausible evaluations (that fit the facts found) reside in the area of research and science.
I answered to this:
“... See, I carry NO blog! A bit useless to comment that visitors should be prepared, when I say front up that my visitors should not just adopt the things I relate. I say it however gently, where you don't. Any idea how frequently people contact me questioning my evaluations, without EVER forwarding a single rebuttal I can work with? I gave you a listing of actual facts found in documents that indicate that I do not use a ‘virtual’ microscope, which you just ignore.”

Persistently he continued to refer to my website as being a blog(?), as if he would be able to give me static on my ‘blog’. Well, I don't run a blog here, a blog is a very different format.
He even seems to confuse its use himself when he wrote earlier to me: “If there is something you don't understand about my site [=blog], then my best suggestion is to take LRH's advice and fetch a good dictionary, a piece of paper and pencil for demos, and ensure you understand the language in use.”. I thus replied to him: “Sorry, I carry NO blog. An Internet dictionary may clear for you the difference.”.

I did end my last message with: “I guess your position is rather clear then... No use to further this communication.”. And he respected that. But I find this individual a rather unpleasant and exceedingly inconsequent individual. And of course, he is all about opinion. He is unable to even address or query a single one of “a great many of the conclusions” that I apparently “draw”.

Go back
Turndown of my recommendation for websites to be included on this person's blog

At the end of that posting he wrote:
“There are likely other sites I've missed. If you can think of some worthy of mention, please let me know. There are probably blog sites for any number of other active Field practitioners. I don't have much interest in these, though you may. There are lots of websites critical of Scientology which were put up by non-Scientologists and outright critics. For the most part, they aren't worth mentioning and I won't put them with this collection. They aren't worth visiting. If you are a non-Scientologist and want content with that slant, use Google.”

Here I took the opportunity to place an entry in this blog message and recommended some websites for inclusion and that I figured would fall in the required category. I suggested:
“‘Freie Scientologen’ (here)
‘Another look at Scientology’ (site of Bernie) (here)
‘Robert Dam on the Church of Scientology (CoS)’(here)
Church of Spiritual Technology (here)”
I received no response on the blog on it. I did however ask about it in an email discussion that ensued later. To that I received a very clear answer from this forum owner:
“I can see a comment where you recommend some sites. I *don't* recommend those sites; that's why they only appear in your comments, not in blog lists on my site. Again, it's my blog. I have no obligation to allow anyone's comments or take their recommendations.”
And so as it appears neither of them were found fit for inclusion. At that it also appears how subjective matters may be on that blog of this particular individual.
You see, the problem here is that, according to his own circumscription for websites to be included, that he violates his own recommendations. But, it may also expose his true position.

Go back
(sequence 1) ‘Standard Tech’ and ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ (KSW)

Blog discussions Sept-Nov 2012.

Someone wrote as a response to the blog message from 27 Aug 2012:
“An otherwise excellent site is marred by the fact that you adhere to corporate Scientology think and call everything you are unfamiliar with a ‘squirrel’ action. When you have had time to shed your indoctrination, you may wish to investigate the earlier writings of LRH and acquaint yourself with the many gems of wisdom that never made it on to the current bridge.
When KSW #1 changed the applied philosophy of Scientology to a rigid dogma that must be obeyed or else and put a paramilitary group of non-technical people in charge of the greatest technology the world had known, the slide of corporate Scientology into the gutter of oblivion was initiated. ...”
Note: Coincidentally this poster is that forum owner that I address in Situation 4 (see index). He didn't like the evaluation that this blog owner gave of his website. His response will undoubtedly have been coloured with it.
The blog owner responded:
“... However, by 1965, the Bridge had been essentially built and published, and Ron wrote KSW and Safeguarding Technology to solidify what was now ‘Standard Technology’. That ‘Standard Technology’ was the guarantor of workability Ron talks about in those issues.
You're welcome to alter or ‘extend’ the Tech as you like. At that point, per the above issues, it is no longer ‘Standard Technology’ and becomes ‘squirrel’. ...”
Then another person responded with:
“... You said the bridge was complete by 1965, Not's came out in 1978. BTW I am a CLVI ASHO/D, and Solo Nots completion. I too knew LRH and talked with him three times. I do think with the tech and I think 1) you still work for DM and are posting this crap just to confuse others 2) you drink too much kool-aid and are in need of some serious auditing.
In either case you need more data because it seems you stopped at 1965. There is so much more case above that level of 65 data it would behoove one to learn about it instead of attempting to unmock those that have.
I suggest you get in comm with someone that is willing to assist you in filling in the gaps in you[r] knowledge.
Peace Love & Harmony
Ron Bible CLVI OT VII+”
Here the blog owner responded back:
“I'm well aware that the whole Bridge was not ‘complete’ until some time in the early 80s. Nineteen sixty-five was the year KSW and Safeguarding Technology came out, and made clear what was and wasn't considered ‘Standard Technology’ and why.”
I posted here in response:
“Ah, I guess we all missed:
‘So technical progress has been:
CLASS VIII – 1968.
This is quite an achievement.’
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
Standard Tech was not established until Class VIII, thus in 1968, and not 1965.”
The blog owner responded:
“Clearly, the wrap-up of major technology is a matter of opinion. I'd peg it at some time after 1978′s release of NOTs and OT VIII. Over the next few years, the ‘Sweat Program’ became the ‘Purification Rundown’, NOTs gave way to audited and Solo NOTs. There were various other refinements, up to the point where someone (I don't believe it was LRH) removed the ‘original’ OT levels (V, VI and VII) from the top of the Bridge. And yes, the Class VIII course certificate was something along the lines of ‘Hubbard Specialist of Standard Tech (HSST)’, inaugurated in 1968. Its purpose was to make auditors who knew the basics cold, could think with the data, audit flublessly, and would be ruthless in holding the line on the Technology.
We can quibble on where Ron actually used the phrase ‘Standard Technology’ and when he used it. And yes, what was considered ‘Standard Technology’ changed over the years, as LRH refined, undercut and finalized pieces of the Bridge. ...”
The term Standard Tech was factually established with the Class VIII course in 1968.

Several topics are being touched now, for clarity reasons I selected the sections relating to some of these topics and placed them in the sequences here below.

Go back
(sequence 2) About ‘LRH ED 117 Int’: Dianetics and Scientology “COMPLETE” or not?

I had thus forwarded on his blog:
“CLASS VIII - 1968.
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
The blog owner had responded:
“Clearly, the wrap-up of major technology is a matter of opinion. I'd peg it at some time after 1978′s release of NOTs and OT VIII. ...”
To which I answered:
“... These subjects have been worked upon by L. Ron Hubbard since 1932. Are you telling here that he didn't mean what he wrote in LRH ED 117? Did he make a mistake? Wasn't it done? He would thus not have been able to establish that after 38 YEARS of research??? ...”
The blog owner responded to this:
“... , of course LRH meant what he said in LRH ED 117. Then he continued his research and the Tech continued to evolve. See 1978′s ‘Tech Correction Round-up’, for example. Other items were added, parts of the Tech were replaced. At some point, LRH ceased doing extensive technical research and moved on to writing fiction, filming movies, etc., towards the end of his life.”
This is a rather strange notion as L. Ron Hubbard never before had announced: “COMPLETE DIANETICS” and “COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY”. To me that communicates that something is actually finished. It is interesting that this blog owner (and Scientologist for 36 years) accepts later tech replacements so easily after L. Ron Hubbard had announced it was done.
The referral to HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” is interesting as well. As if this would lay any weight into the scale. See my detailed analysis about this reference here (separate window).
During 1932-50 L. Ron Hubbard wrote and published all sorts of fiction and nonfiction, but it is indicated that he did that to be able to fund his own research into what later became Dianetics and Scientology. This stopped abruptly in 1950 when it had become self-supporting. (more info here and here)  And about “filming movies, etc.” ? (more info here, all links separate window).

Go back
(sequence 3) About NOTs, and; Looking or listening?

I had responded on his blog:
“Historically NOTs is not a refinement. Rather a downgrade, in particularly when we regard all that came along with it: (1) wiping out Standard Dianetics and the higher grades V-VII; (2) new definition of Clear (wiping out the Scn Clear). And who presented NOT’s? L. Ron Hubbard was no where to be seen; (3) forbidden to run Dianetics on Clears (which previously was never a problem). ...”
The blog owner answers:
“... NOTs didn't wipe out Standard Dianetics; NED did. And since NED produced results more quickly and easily (according to claims made at the time), I wouldn't consider it a downgrade.
I'm not sure who ‘presented’ NOTs or what you mean by that.
At first, NOTs was an additional requirement for OT VIII. See LRH ED 301 Int. The original OT levels were left in place and NOTs was added to them. Nowhere in that issue does Ron refer to NOTs as a repair action, nor does he mention the idea of NOTs replacing the original OT levels. ...
I never heard of NOTs as a repair action, and have no reference to hand which states this. ...
The ‘new’ definition of Clear did not wipe out older definitions. As LRH has pointed out, earlier definitions of Clear were also valid. Clear is a definite state, which can be defined in a variety of ways but is still the same state.
I don't know that running Dianetics on a Clear was never a problem before. I suspect it was, but the problem was never noticed before. LRH doesn't specifically say this, but he does say that efforts to run Dianetics on Clears/OTs revealed it as a problem, which led to the creation of NOTs.”
Here I am flabbergasted by the gullibleness and severe uncriticalness of this blog owner. He admits here that he just swallows everything he is being presented, that is if the writing comes with a signature from L. Ron Hubbard! Information has to be evaluated, any information.
I did not write that NOTs wiped out Standard Dianetics. I only indicated “all that came along with” the installment of NOTs. It was a contributing factor in that package of changes. However if you consider here that NOTs came about because it was stated that Clears nor OTs could run StDn, here NOTs then did replace StDn with non-StDn techniques.
It was David Mayo that “presented” the release of both NOTs (1978) and Solo NOTs (1980).
NOTs was released in September 1978. By the time that LRH ED 301 Int. was published in December 1978 it had already turned into a mandatory action. The early references however indicate rather clearly that it was introduced as a repair action on those Clears and OTs that had run Standard Dianetics. One of them is HCOB 15 Sept 78 I, NED for OTs Series 1, (Confidential).
It is just not true that the definition of Clear had not changed. It is actually very absurd to do claim that it had not! HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear” states “There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.”. Here it abolished the Scientology Clear which was achieved with Grades V-VII.
Now, why would this blog owner nor anyone else not have noticed if “running Dianetics on a Clear was never a problem before” ? This after 8 whole years running Dianetics on Clears and OTs? Well, duh...! Wakey, wakey!!!
Now, why doesn't this blog owner (and Scientologist for 36 years) not know about any of these things? Where the heck has he been? I address all these matters on my website, see for NOTs here, on Scientology Clear here (separate windows).

And when I noted:
“You should do some research on this.”
He nonetheless responded:
“..., I actually have done a fair amount of research on these matters. However, I do not necessarily accept internet stories as research material in this context. Most of what I use for research is in the official LRH issues and the lectures I've listened to from the early 1950s.”
And indeed, where has he been? I have taken my argumentation all from church published materials.

Go back
The position of this blog owner

It started of rather nicely with this initial appreciation for the seriousness of my Scientology pages. In that blog entry about my website he mentions up to 4 times the word “research”, the last time he even says “quite thorough research”. This he posted on 27 Aug 2012. Research according to World Book Dictionary means “a careful hunting for facts or truth about a subject, inquiry; investigation”.

But in the discussion at this blog entry he writes on 13 Nov 2012 (just 2½ months later): “I actually have done a fair amount of research on these matters. However, I do not necessarily accept internet stories as research material in this context.”.
And this he writes in response to my forwardings about LRH ED 117 (Dianetics & Scientology COMPLETE), about “(1) wiping out Standard Dianetics and the higher grades V-VII; (2) new definition of Clear (wiping out the Scn Clear). ...; (3) forbidden to run Dianetics on Clears (which previously was never a problem).”, and so on. He also missed my analysis on HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, a reference he refers to in his blog.
I do not deal in “internet stories” nor did I forward that to him in this blog discussion. He really just does not appear to know very much at all about the things I write on my website! He probably just scanned it rather quickly without taking any depth. Nonetheless he gave that review of my website in his blog and mentions 4 times “research”. Ah well ...

Of course it turns also rather contradictorily with that later addition to that evaluation (Jan-Mar 2014). It went from “quite thorough research” to “virtual microscope” in the same evaluation. You can't have it both ways, you know.

On 7 Apr 2014 he then writes to me: “I disagree with a great many of the conclusions you draw. Thus I warn potential visitors to your blog that they should be prepared to doubt your conclusions, regardless of how appealing the ‘evidence’ may be.”. Does it still all make sense to you?

One should probably take this blog owner's gentle advice “Take with a grain of salt. Or a full shaker.”, but apply it instead on the person uttering these very words. I wish him the best of luck with his continued use of his very own “virtual microscope” !

As a final sidenote it is interesting to see what he says about the forum owner that I address in Situation 4 (see index): “Apparently, Mr. L... doesn't understand that the existing technology by Ron is workable, or believes he is qualified to improve upon it. And that you can deliver auditing over the internet. This is rightfully called squirrelling.”.
Noted is that both of these individuals disapprove of my website! And so we are all disagreeing with one another, calling each other squirrels something and are not really understanding ourselves what we actually adhere to or promote. Usually because one listened and did not look! See, everyone is just doing their own ‘thang’.



1. A composite word meaning the action of altering or changing the reality of something. Is-ness means the way it is. When something sees it differently he is doing an alter-is; in other words, is altering the way it is. (LRH Def. Notes)  2. To introduce a change and therefore time and persistence in an as-is-ness to obtain persistency. An introduction of an alter-is is therefore the addition of a lie to the real which causes it to persist and not to blow or as-is. (HCOB 11 May 65)
Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). 
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     Mis-U (MU, MU's):
Miss Understood’. Refers to an incorrectly understood word (or words).
New Era Dianetics’. Officially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
Routine 3 Revised’. R3R is the basic Standard Dianetics (St Dn) auditing routine.
Routine 3 Re-revised’. R3RA is the basic New Era Dianetics (NED) auditing routine.
Religious Technology Center’. The highest echelon within the Church of Scientology.
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)

Go to top of this page