Scientology pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

1) General overview/introduction:   Mission statement, overview, present-day Scientology Introduction to Scientology and LRH Scientology in media and Internet (+ forums, Wikipedia) Scientology: Its true history exposed? Scientology Q&A (FAQ) External links Materials want list Recommended list of materials 2) Responses (with annotations): Appreciative responses to my pages Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists 3) Topics of particular interest: (a): General topics Story of Mary Sue Hubbard Holy Scriptures vs Scientology LRH vs Dictionaries LRH vs theory of evolution LRH's works of fiction (b): Organizational topics A printing history of the materials of Scientology Scientology Membership: HASI vs IAS LRH vs pricing policies The copyrights issue and licensing (c): Technical topics History of Grade Chart: a) General History of Grade Chart: b) Detailed ‘Clear’ defined NED for OTs The ‘Primary Rundown’ 4) Controversial topics: Mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified The Fair Game Law Practice of Disconnection Security Checking Freeloaders vs Ex-staff members The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) 5) Changes in the flow of ‘information’: (a): Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?) LRH vs Alterations Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution The ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH? Based on LRH publications (b): General overview LRH vs A New Order (introduction) → Administrative and organizational matters Setup of the printed materials (1973-86) The RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (1973-82) The dawning of RTC and new management (1982-83) → Technical matters Introduction to the event of losing a Bridge) Analysis of HCOB “Tech Correction Round-up” Lost Bridge: Tech changes during 1978-82 The history of the original OT VIII ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT) analysis Drilling in Scientology (c): The matter of David Mayo Story of David Mayo ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis Training drills (TRs) Mayo reference list 6) Conspiracies - In L. Ron Hubbard's footsteps Scientology vs a New World Order →Where is L. Ron Hubbard? (chronology of Scn history) Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology The era of adoration; Presentation of L. Ron Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard into artistry: Music & Film 7) Scientology under attack (a): A premeditated series of occurrences? (’80s conspiracy) Introduction & Ron DeWolf Gerry Armstrong (‘affirmations’) Russell Miller ( ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’) A religion created for the money? (b): Battles fought and the internet (2016- ) Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (TV show) planned

>> 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.

Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’  (page 2)

Go to “Scientology: ‘Practice of Disconnection’ - A detailed study” index page

A prologue

• (a) The odd cancellation of HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”
• (b) HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”

To have a full understanding of the ‘Disconnection’ that made its entry in 1983 one needs to carefully examine the following 2 references:

	“POTENTIAL TROUBLE SOURCES AND DISCONNECTION
	The subject and technology of ‘disconnection’ is thoroughly covered in HCOB 10 September 1983, PTS-NESS AND DISCONNECTION, and in the basic technical materials referenced therein.”

 
(a) The odd cancellation of HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”

HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” was cancelled by HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” it did that as follows:
	“The following issues, which were not written by the Founder, are hereby CANCELLED: ...
	HCO PL 15 Sep 73            CONFIDENTIAL, HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS”

Evidently we are finding various wrong angles here. We can briefly summarize them as; that (1) if L. Ron Hubbard wrote “HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” then it still remains pretty much so a reissue of indeed very similar data and outset that originally was written by one Judy Ziff. We find however no reference to this person in the new HCOB. Is named L. Ron Hubbard taking credence here for something what some other person wrote and originated?; and (2) if L. Ron Hubbard did not write it then why did HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” had to be cancelled by another reference for given reason that it was “not written by the Founder”?

 
(b) HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”

“The following issues, which were not written by the Founder, are hereby CANCELLED:”
	HCO PL 16 May 80, Iss I	ETHICS, PTS TYPE A, POLICY ON HANDLING ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES
	HCO PL 16 May 80, Iss II	ETHICS, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS
	...
	HCO PL 15 Sep 73	CONFIDENTIAL, HANDLING DISCONNECTIONS”

A problem here is that HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” is more or less hidden, where are you going to find it, and how do you know it is this reference you are looking for? It is also obviously obscuring the tracking of the publication history of these references! Would things not have been much more clear if the cancelling references would have been as follows? If...
–	HCO PL 16 May 80 I “PTS Type A, Policy on Handling Antagonistic Sources” would have been cancelled (and directly replaced) by HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”.
–	HCO PL 16 May 80 II “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” would have been cancelled (and directly replaced) by HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83)“same title”
–	HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections” would have been cancelled and (directly replaced) by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”
It would have avoided any confusion as to publication history. Also note the publication date of each of these references.

In HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists” this was changed into:

(1): HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”

• The various reasons given for cancellation of the previous practice of disconnection examined 
          (Includes:  HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”;  HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up
• (a) The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused
• (b) ‘Self-determinism’  vs  ‘compliance required’
• (c) Writing disconnection letters!
• HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”  vs  ‘The Scientology Handbook’
  

HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is responsible for an official reinstatement of an enforced practice of disconnection. Although an unofficial reinstatement was already in place. Established by the confidential release HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”.

 
The various reasons given for cancellation of the previous practice of disconnection examined
(Includes:  HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”;  HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)

HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”

HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” and its revision from 10 Sept 1983

We find here that a similar reason had been given in HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”.

HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”

We then find that HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” tales about a different angle of the matter. This HCOB was a somewhat remarkable reference and it had been attributed to L. Ron Hubbard for having written it. The HCOB informed us that “there have been a staggering number of tech sectors that have been corrupted by issues by others that alter-ised.”. Concluding that “A very few people (3 or 4) have wittingly or unwittingly brought about outnesses which could easily make the difference between successful case handling and failed cases.”.

This reference then noted 23 outnesses and their handling, listed from “A:” to “X:”. Its author noted that “This completes 7 months of search for tech outnesses.”. The first one being addressed was: “A:  PTS HANDLING” that says:

The message thus given by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up” is that it successfully had dealt with and solved the named problem there and then, back in 1976-77. Now, if that was the case then why then did 1983 require an official reinstatement of en enforced practice of disconnection?

 
(a) The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused

	“The term ‘handle’ most commonly means, when used in relation to PTS tech, to smooth out a situation with another person by applying the tech of communication.
	The term ‘disconnection’ is defined as a self-determined decision made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to another. It is a severing of a communication line.”

The section “HANDLING ANTAGONISTIC SOURCES” goes further into to “educate” the PTS person “in the tech of PTSness and suppression” so that he arrives at a cause point. Here it is directed:

	“An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is factually connected to a Suppressive Person, in present time. This is a person whose normal operating basis is one of making others smaller, less able, less powerful. He does not want anyone to get better, at all.
	In truth, an SP is absolutely, completely terrified of anyone becoming more powerful.
	In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to ‘handle’ the person. The answer is to sever the connection.”

There is something rather wrong here. You see, the “SP” does not require handling!!! It is the “PTS” that requires handling!!! Whatever happened with the original concept of the disconnection from the late ’60s? Which is to make auditing occur! It was never about handling the SP, because you can only then achieve any success there if you handle the PTS. The PTS being handled and placed at cause will make the SP appear of not being of concern anymore.

And so this turns everything completely around, no choice is being given here.

It also would appear that the suppression is divided up here in 2 categories. First we have the “antagonistic source”, and secondly we have the real “Suppression Person”. The first situation can be handled, the second one simply demands disconnection.

Do note here that the citation as found in HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” in regards to this HCO PL appears not properly relayed! See, the HCO PL tells about: “either handle or disconnect”. The citation from HCOB 10 Sept 83 only has a focus on “to fail or refuse to disconnect”. Which obviously is not a proper use of giving reference!!

Things appear to have turned around in just a short period of time. The previous 1979 version of this HCO PL even read: (underlining is mine)

“Any PTS who fails to handle the SP who is making him or her a PTS is, by failing to do so, guilty of a Suppressive Act.”          LRH (from HCO PL 23 Dec 65R (Revised 31 Dec 79) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”)

So, how do we have to interpret this? You see, if you disconnect according to the unconditional guideline forwarded by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, then would the result be that the “SPs would shatter”?

The main message relayed by HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is that apparently you are always considered PTS or will go PTS if in some way connected with some suppressive person. Therefore it advices you to permanently and rather officially to disconnect. Which is all rather different from the original concept of the disconnection from the later ’60s. So, you may want to think this one over for a while.

 
(b) ‘Self-determinism’  vs  ‘compliance required’

	“1. That all illness in greater or lesser degree and all foul-ups stem directly and only from a PTS condition.
	2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or disconnect.”          LRH (from HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”)

Here we address thus PTS-ness itself as a condition.

	“An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is factually connected to a Suppressive Person, in present time. ...
	In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to ‘handle’ the person. The answer is to sever the connection.”

Including such ‘suppressive elements’as: “a person or a group that has been declared suppressive by HCO in a published ethics order”. Further informing: “The SP's reform is strictly in the hands of HCO.” and dictating “The PTS simply disconnects.”. Well, I guess at this point in time there is not much left of this “self-determined decision made by an individual”! You are simply are being given an order and that's about it.

Accordingly then all this is ordained by the Ethics Officer's prescription, and enforced on the person.

This is thus one step further away from Scientology being a self-correcting system. The whole point actually here is that you always may decide to not have (or least possible) communication with a particular person or persons. You will rather shun unpleasant individuals, than becoming best friends with them. But all this is your business, you decide about these things, and not someone else who enforces that upon you. And this is basically what the official reinstatement of this practice of disconnection is about.

 
(c) Writing disconnection letters!

Whereas the disconnection procedures from the late ’60s did not actually advice writing such things as personal disconnection letters (see main index on this page, chapter “Beginnings of ‘Disconnection’ and cancellation (1965-68)”, section “Writing disconnection letters?”), it would appear that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” condones it fully. And thus the actual misunderstanding and misapplication that arose during the late ’60s practice is here, now 25 years later, promoted and fully supported! Now, isn't that interesting!

“He should disconnect and, if he wants to inform the SP of the fact, he may write a letter of disconnection. Such a letter would be very straightforward. It would state the fact of the disconnection and the reason for it. It would not be misemotional or accusative, since this would only serve to stir up further antagonism. The letter would be inspected by the Ethics Officer before it was sent, and copies kept for the PTS person's own ethics file and pc folder.”

Do mind the control that is exerted on this, the close involvement of the Ethics Officer and copies send to files.

 
HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”  vs  ‘The Scientology Handbook’

It is interesting to notice that the whole of this “Further Data on PTS Handling”’ (=HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”) is not found on that website. It must have been because of the sensitivity of the subject of disconnection and the bad repute it has received in the media.

It is saying in the above that even if “the PTS person correctly carries out the standard action” that “the antagonistic source” can continue “to remain antipathetic to the PTS person and/or his activities”? Be it noted here that handling a PTS would involve that this person would be affected by that anymore. The actual problem is the “PTS person” and not the “the antagonistic source”.

(2): HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”

• The odd cancellation of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”
• (a) HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” turns HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “same title”
• (b) HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” A.D. 1983

Mind that this revision notice will only be found in the original mimeo print-off* of this reference. It is excluded from mention in the version of this same HCO PL as found in the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes.

 
The odd cancellation of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”

“Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters.”          LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

Ah well, we may as well ask here anyway: “Why did HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” not cancel HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” directly?

 
(a) HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling”  turns  HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “same title”

It is further reported that L. Ron Hubbard had added an introduction to this reference in its December 1978 revision. A full version of this BPL 5 Apr 72RC (Revised 29 Dec 78) I “PTS Type A Handling”can be consulted here (pop-up window). I have indicated here clearly the part that was being added and which was the original text from Mary Sue Hubbard.

 
(b) HCO PL 5 Apr 72 I “PTS Type A Handling” A.D. 1983  

	“If a PTS situation actually exists, the interview must result in a written program agreed upon by the person with copies to the person and to his Ethics file.
	As the person does the steps of the program he reports their accomplishment to the org officer who interviewed him.
	If the person fails to do the program or the program results in no real change in the situation, then the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject (a PTS Rundown [as per HCOB 9 Dec 71 “PTS Rundown”] given by a qualified auditor in the HGC).”          LRH   (from HCO PL 20 Oct 81 “PTS Type A Handling”)

	“If the person fails to do the program or the program results in no real change in the situation, the interviewing officer must investigate thoroughly to find out what the person is doing instead of the program and check for any communication he may have sent which continued the upset, and get this corrected at once. He must also ensure the PTS A person is handling the correct antagonistic person. (Example: PTS person Jones may have thought the antagonism was coming from Smith, whereas Smith's upset is being kept alive by Smith's associate, Doakes, who has disagreements with and/or misunderstoods on Scientology.)
	If the handling program is drawn up standardly and yet the person is sour on it or ‘doesn't want to do the handling’ or never seems to quite get around to doing the program, then the Ethics Officer would suspect that either:
	(a)	a wrong item had been found, which would require an L4BRA [assessment of auditing listing errors] done by an auditor in session to handle (Ref:... )
	(b)	the program had been misimplemented (the pc didn't really understand what he was to do, was mis-coached on the steps of the handling, or he ‘did the handling’ in such a way as to create further antagonism rather than ease it requiring a thorough review of the situation and handling of whatever is found. (Ref:... )”

Per what I have seen during the years the above addition would be rarely applicable. The PTS interview is a rather simple procedure and would give indicators quickly. Was this text implemented here because the next step would be disconnection, and mistakes then would not be permitted to be made? That is probably so.

	“If (a) and (b) above have been thoroughly checked into by the Ethics Officer to ensure that any non-standard application has been corrected, and there is still no change in the situation (i.e. the antagonism and upset continue), the PTS person would then disconnect. And if the person does need to disconnect, the HCOB 10 September 1983, PTS-NESS AND DISCONNECTION, must be followed exactly.
	Fortunately, standard PTS Type A handling does handle the majority of these situations. When disconnection is required, very often that is enough to handle the PTSness.
	Should the condition persist, however, then the interviewing officer must require the person to have auditing on the subject (a PTS Rundown given by a qualified auditor in the HGC).” (from HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”)

Noteworthy is that disconnection is placed prior to doing the PTS Rundown. What if this rundown would have solved the PTS condition? One could have chosen for the option that it would be advised to reside with friends (something) while receiving this PTS Rundown. For this no ordination of the Ethics Officer would have been required. But HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” had directed otherwise!

This line is also interesting (quoted again): “When disconnection is required, very often that is enough to handle the PTSness.”. I would comment here that disconnection is not an actual handling of the situation, it's putting it ‘off-shore’. Meaning you turn your back to it, you actually walk away from it! This would be all right to do as for a temporary relief, it does however never result in actually handling the suppression itself. A handling would involve not being affected by it negatively even if being in contact or close to any such person. And nothing says that one has to be in contact with such a person either. But factually handling the suppression itself would have de-PTSed the now previous PTS person. Him or her being in the vicinity of some suppressive person or not.

The legal consideration  vs  Newspaper coverage from early 1984

As it appears both HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” and HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling” received a notice regarding a legal consideration.

Regarding the authorship of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”

• Five technical arguments that question the validity of this reference
• The role of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC)  vs  “Lost Tech” found!
• Who wrote HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”?

 
Five technical arguments that question the validity of this reference

Reflect on the following arguments:

1.		An old procedure officially reinstated after establishing a way of handling that had made it superfluous
2.		Disconnection ‘on your own self-determinism’ and ‘by arrangement of other’ are being mixed up
3.		The use of the terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ are being confused
4.		‘We can handle’ turns ‘We can not handle’
5.		The HCOB issue-type format is the wrong issue-type format!
		Summary

	1. An old procedure officially reinstated after establishing a way of handling that had made it superfluous

The outcome of the release of HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is that it caused an old procedure, that was misunderstood and accordingly misapplied was cancelled in 1968, only to be officially reinstated in 1983 and in use till this day, which is not in the line of logic. Also it is not in the line of logic that L. Ron Hubbard would contradict himself in such a way, as he did conclude in 1970 that “man cannot be trusted with justice”.   (see chapter “Beginnings of ‘Disconnection’ and cancellation (1965-68)”, section “Cancellation of ‘Disconnection as a condition’ (Nov 68)” , chapter “The practice of ‘Disconnection’ reinstated, yet in secrecy (Sept 73)”, section “(2) HCO PL 15 Sept 73 “Handling Disconnections”” & chapter “Educating the PTS & ‘Why finding’, a solution to PTSness (1971-78)” earlier in this study)

	2. Disconnection ‘on your own self-determinism’ and ‘by arrangement of other’ are being mixed up

The year 1983 introduced a mixing up of (1) PTS-ness itself as a condition (ref. HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”) as opposed to (2) a condition that can be assigned to you by someone else and that you are obliged to comply with (ref. HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”). When these actually 2 disrelated conditions!  It then appears that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”, HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling” & HCOB 31 Dec 78R (Revised 20 Dec 83) II “Outline of PTS Handling” are a bit unclear about which is meant.   (see chapter “‘Disconnection’ A.D. 1983: (1) HCOB 10 Sept 83 ‘PTS-ness and Disconnection’”, section “‘Self-determinism’  vs ‘compliance required’” earlier in this study)

	3. The use of the terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ are being confused

		HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is mixing up the use of the terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’. L. Ron Hubbard is precise about matters, where this reference is unspecific and contradictorily in its approach.  (see chapter “‘Disconnection’ A.D. 1983: (1) HCOB 10 Sept 83 ‘PTS-ness and Disconnection’”, section “The terms ‘handle’ and ‘disconnect’ confused” earlier in this study)
		HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes” relates about various policy letters that: “sought to remove disconnection from a declared Suppressive Person as a standard action, whereas it is a vital technical tool in the handling of PTSness.” (underlining is mine).
		HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling” says: “When disconnection is required, very often that is enough to handle the PTSness.” (underlining is mine).
		HCOB 31 Dec 78R (Revised 20 Dec 83) II “Outline of PTS Handling” says: “In the rare cases where disconnection is validly indicated in order to handle the person's PTSness, ... .” (underlining is mine). This line was added in the 20 Dec ’83 revision.
		The above contradicts or at least confuses what it says in HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”: “2. That getting rid of the condition requires three basic actions: (A) Discover; (B) Handle or disconnect.”  LRH. (underlining is mine). Handle or disconnect is 2 separate issues. The references from ’60s and the ’70s do not confuse these terms. But since the early ’80s handle has started to be used as a synonym to disconnect.

	4. ‘We can handle’ turns ‘We can not handle’

		HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” itself says: “An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is factually connected to a Suppressive Person, in present time. ... In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to ‘handle’ the person. The answer is to sever the connection.”. This approach is contradicted by various statements made by L. Ron Hubbard earlier in regards to this!
		HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” says: “PTSness can be handled routinely when the tech is fully known and applied. A PTS person can be brought to cause over his situation through study of the PTS tech. ... We can handle and the person himself can handle. There is no substitute for understanding.” (text attributed to L. Ron Hubbard)
		HCOB 31 Dec 78 II “Outline of PTS Handling” stated: “These are powerful and precision tools. With them we can handle our PTS students, preclears and staffs and get resounding one-for-one successes.” (text attributed to L. Ron Hubbard). This reference confirms that as late as December 1978 that that there was an effective handling in place at a time that there no official enforced practice of disconnection in use. The official reinstatement of the practice in 1983 defies this confirmation found in this HCOB.
		HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling” reports about a “pilot was then ordered to determine the original possibility, that people could study their way out of being PTS. ... In short it appears the studiers were blowing charge on their past PTS handlings ... . All are reported to be doing well on post with no illness, roller-coaster or ethics trouble.” (text attributed to L. Ron Hubbard). It thus says (underlining is mine): “All are reported to be doing well”, and so no exceptions are noted here. This basically adjudicates that the practice of enforced disconnection had become superfluous.
		These previous statements found here above would acknowledge the correctness of “Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”)

	5. The HCOB issue-type format is the wrong issue-type format!

		HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” is a technical issue-type format. The matter of disconnection however, and its involvement of the Ethics Division (as opposed to Tech Division) is a purely administrative matter. And thus this reference should have been issued as HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”. The question is, why wasn't it?
		An observed irony here is that it would seem so that the Religious Technology Center (RTC) was aware of that, as it does persist to refer to it in their periodicals and their website as HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”. (see for further details in next section entitled “The role of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC) vs “Lost Tech” found!”)

 
Summary

There is a lot of talking within the Scientology organization about ensuring that we are continue “having the correct technology” and are “closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.”. And that really means: “any possibility”!  Well, may be some people should start looking into this. Now, a whole variety of these HCO PLs and HCOBs were handwritten. One option would be to issue HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” in its original handwriting, such has been done before. Just authenticize its authorship, as the claimed authenticity of this HCOB has been seriously questioned!.

 
The role of ‘Religious Technology Center’ (RTC)  vs  “Lost Tech” found!

Now why is there so much attention on all this? Could it be because of that some persons have not understood what PTS actually is about? “I recall years ago in handling PTSes, that none of them at first knew what PTS really meant or what it was all about even when they used the term freely!”  LRH  (from HCOB 20 Oct 76 II “PTS Handling”). Then instead of persons clearing up their misunderstanding they think up other solutions. Then someone remembers something and comes with the idea that “Well, back in the ’60s we had something that was used.” Is this why we have this official reinstatement of this enforced practice of disconnection? Well, what we do know is that it is addressed as actual “LOST TECH” in HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”!

I have printed below that whole section carrying that title:

	“LOST TECH
	Earlier, disconnection as a condition was cancelled. It had been abused by a few individuals who'd failed to handle situations which could have been handled and who lazily or criminally disconnected, thereby creating situations even worse than the original because it was the wrong action.
	Secondly, there were those who could survive only by living on our lines -- they wanted to continue to be connected to Scientologists (see the HCOBs on the characteristics of an SP). Thus, they screamed to high heaven if anyone dared to apply the tech of ‘handle or disconnect.’
	This put Scientologists at a disadvantage.
	We cannot afford to deny Scientologists that basic freedom that is granted to everyone else:  The right to choose whom one wishes to communicate with or not communicate with. It's bad enough that there are governments trying, through the use of force, to prevent people from disconnecting from them (witness those who want to leave Russia but can't!).
	The bare fact is that disconnection is a vital tool in handling PTSness and can be very effective when used correctly.
	Therefore, the tech of disconnection is hereby restored to use, in the hands of those persons thoroughly and standardly trained in PTS/SP tech.”

We have to take here in consideration that in fact we had a large amount of policy letters being issued during these early ’80s fully attributed to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard, many of which later (especially during 1990-91) were taken out of circulation with reason given that they were not written or even seen by L. Ron Hubbard (I noted this earlier). Could it have been so that an unusual solution to a problem has been looked for, instead of clarifying the misapplication or misunderstanding of some persons concerning PTS handling? And that this particular release with that solution (this being HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”) also falsely was attributed to L. Ron Hubbard as so many other now cancelled issues once were? Then this particular HCOB simply seems to have escaped the scrutiny of the LRH Technical Research and Compilations (RTRC). We indeed have very good reason to ask these questions according to my findings!

You may wish to send an inquiry to them:

Religious Technology Center International
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028 U.S.A.
Phone: (323) 663-3258
Fax: (323) 667-0960

or ...

... Would it be imaginable that if you are ordering people around like that, splitting up families and all that, then you also can exert control over them? Separating people will make them less strong. And then if you isolate people you can also easily withheld information from them which some people don't want you to have. However if this is the way you are going to go about it, people will perceive that you will be ruling with ‘fear’. Now does anything worthwhile come out of that? Is that desirable for anyone? Is that what Scientology is supposed to be about? And then we have moved on to discussing conspiracy theories.
More about conspiracy theories in my study “LRH vs A New Order” (see Scientology index page).

But then it could also be that someone simply has been a little bit overzealous about some things ...

 
Who wrote HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection”?

“I have personal knowledge that material was written and issued under the name of L. Ron Hubbard that he did not author. While working at ASI*, I personally wrote material to be issued under his name for several years. This ranged from simple messages to be sent to various organizational staff on events such as his birthday or a holiday, to my composing an entire large directive that was issued under his name. In these instances, they were done without his knowledge or consent. The directive that I wrote concerned the Scientology policy of ‘Disconnection’. The order to do this came from David Miscavige. Miscavige said that we had to reinstitute the Policy of Disconnection and that I was to write the policy for this. I wrote it and it went through several revisions. It was not sent to Hubbard for his approval, but was issued into the Church of Scientology. I might note that at the time I was not working for the Church of Scientology, but was working for a for-profit corporation.”

* ASI:  ‘Author's Services, Inc.’, these were involved with dealings concerning L. Ron Hubbard's literary legacy. Incorporated on 13 Oct 1981.

One note can also be made here in regards to Religious Technology Center (RTC) and the stress put on this non-existing HCO PL 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” in their publications (it only exists in fact under the HCOB issue-type format). It is David Miscavige that is heading the RTC as its Chairman of the Board.

Now is all this good news or bad news? All what I like to say here is that various observations do confirm my actual prognosis.

A brief overview of various references regarding disconnection

“Since we can now handle all types of cases disconnection as a condition is cancelled.”          LRH (from HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”)

	“Each PTS individual should report to Ethics and with the assistance of Ethics find a WHY as to their familial antagonism and then set about actually handling the situation. ...
	See the Data Series P/Ls (must be word cleared on the user) to find out how to find a Why.”

	Cancellation of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection” [by next]
	Revision of HCO PL 20 Oct 81R (Revised 10 Sept 83) “PTS Type A Handling”
	Revision of HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA (Revised and reissued 10 Sept 83) “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”
	Revision of HCOB 31 Dec 78R (Revised 20 Dec 83) II “Outline of PTS Handling”

‘The Way to Happiness’:
“Honor and Help Your Parents” - “Love and Help Children”

A further argument can be made with the little publication ‘The Way to Happiness’ (copyrighted 1981). It basically lays out basic rules for a happy and successful life, a self-evident collection of rules how to get along well with other people. It is generally thought that this is written by L. Ron Hubbard, but the publication itself does not actually say that it is. Although ‘LRH ED 321 Int’, 25 Dec 80 “Ron's Journal 32” notes: “I wrote a booklet, very cheap to print, for the man in the street. ... It is called ‘The Way to Happiness’”.

Point # 5 says:

	“HONOR AND HELP YOUR PARENTS.
	From a child's point of view, parents are sometimes hard to understand.
	There are differences between generations. But truthfully, this is no barrier. When one is weak, it is a temptation to take refuge in subterfuges and lies: it is this which builds the wall.
	Children can reconcile their differences with their parents. Before any shouting begins, one can at least try to talk it over quietly. If the child is frank and honest, there cannot help but be an appeal that will reach. It is often possible to attain a compromised where both sides now understand and can agree. It is not always easy to get along with others but one should try.
	One cannot overlook the fact that almost always, parents are acting from a very strong desire to do what they believe to be best for the child.
	Children are indebted to their parents for their upbringing—if the parents did so. While some parents are so fiercely independent that they will accept no return on the obligation, it is nevertheless true that there often comes a time when it is the turn of the younger generation to care for their parents.
	In spite of all, one must remember that they are the only parents one has. And as such, no matter what, one should honor them and help them.
	The way to happiness includes being on good terms with one's parents or those who brought one up.”

Obviously the above does not coincide very well with disconnecting children from parents or even parents from children. Especially not if you realize that point # 4 in the list is about: ‘LOVE AND HELP CHILDREN’.

Either way it appears that HCOB 10 Sept 83 “PTS-ness and Disconnection” does not live up to its promise: “The technology of disconnection is essential in the handling of PTSes. It can and has saved lives and untold trouble and upset. It must be preserved and used correctly.”. Instead it has split up families causing “untold trouble and upset”.

If “man cannot be trusted with justice”  LRH , then the outcome as we see in regards to disconnection is not very surprising. Would L. Ron Hubbard have reinstated some enforced practice of disconnection when he did know what reactions it created back in the late ’60s because of apparent misapplication? What do you think? Is that option plausible?

In the year 1996 ..., ‘Disconnection’ once again ...

• A first introduction and initial inconsistencies found with this re-release
• A more closely inspection of this release, and the matter of ‘Disconnection’ making its entry

 
A first introduction and initial inconsistencies found with this re-release

Earlier on this page in index section “The unofficial return of the practice of ‘Disconnection’ (1973)” I had discussed HCOB 10 Aug 73 “PTS Handling”. This HCOB could be considered to be its sister-release, hence its title. Although it was issued not earlier than April 1982, it did make the claim that it was “Taken from an LRH despatch ... 10 Aug 1973”.

At the time of HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” first being issued there was nothing remarkable or noteworthy about the writing in this reference. Then it was reissued in Oct 96, at which time it got rather seriously rewritten.

How it was published

	“HCO BULLETIN OF 16 APRIL 1982
	(Reissued 10 October 1996 to correct transcription errors)
	MORE ON PTS HANDLING
	(Taken from an LRH despatch to an executive on 10 August 1973.)”

This is how it looked on the original mimeo print-off of this reference. It thus says that it was “Reissued ... to correct transcription errors” which in reality was quite a huge misnomer for what had been done to the reference! Typographical errors or sorts could account for a reissue, and still just call it a reissue. But this rewriting consisted of adding various whole new sentences, adding several words at places, rearranging the sequence of the various paragraphs in the writing, and removing the reference list. In brief someone had a very strange notion indeed about “transcription errors”!

How it should have looked

“HCO BULLETIN OF 16 APRIL 1982R   CORRECTED AND REISSUED 10 OCT 1996”

But then we stumble over another inconsistency in the form of that at this point in time (since 1991) the practice was implemented to re-date reference dates to reflect the time that it had originally been written! More data about this you can find here (separate window). Per these adopted practices and the fact that it does concern here a revision its headings should have turned it to look something like this:

	“HCO BULLETIN OF 10 AUGUST 1973R   ISSUE II CORRECTED AND REISSUED 10 OCT 1996
	(Originally a despatch written by LRH on 10 Aug. 73.   Issued as an HCOB on 16 Apr. 82.)
	MORE ON PTS HANDLING”

It had turned an “Issue II” as we had already an HCOB carrying this reference date. If matters would have been executed as such it would not have created any misconception or confusion.

 
A more closely inspection of this release, and the matter of ‘Disconnection’ making its entry

The changes incorporated in the re-release of this reference in Oct 96 that are of particular significance are indicated here below. Realize though that the text has been rearranged rather extensively and appears in a somewhat different sequence. The added text is printed in purple here below:

“You will find that PTS policy calls for DISCONNECT or HANDLE.” ...

“The person has to either handle or disconnect. If he does so he will begin to get well and cease to have problems. ...” ...

“The whole crux of PTSes is HANDLE or DISCONNECT. And the misunderstood on it is how gently one can handle.” ...

“One tries to find what it is and then persuades them into handling or disconnecting. That's the tech.”

The question we should ask ourselves also if this original despatch really was written as we find it now published in this re-release from Oct 96? Or is this just a matter of adjusting the various already published references to reflect the exact same approach and get the exact same message across? Either way the original despatch, if available some place, should be inspected.

Changed signature

The signature area of the first original release of HCOB 16 Apr 82 “More on PTS Handling” read:

This means that the initials of the person that had compiled the version that was thus issued in 1982 were ‘BM’. In its re-release in October 1996 the text “Assisted by Mission Issues Revision 2nd” and ‘BM’ are not found anymore. This we could interpret as that this BM had rewritten the original LRH despatch and issued it. Then in 1996 it was supposedly restored in its original glory, and thus the mentioning of this other person was not called for anymore. Or at least this is the message we are given.

Another minor observation but not insignificant is that the re-release is not copyrighted for 1973 and 1982 anymore, and it does not either say anymore “L. Ron Hubbard” as the copyright holder. Instead it is copyrighted as follows: “©1987 L. Ron Hubbard Library”. An interesting change. It would indicate that it had dropped the previous copyright altogether and that it instead was re-copyrighted in 1987 under a different copyright name. I have addressed such matters in more detail on my page “The copyrights issue, licensing and related matters”.

Final comments  or  The ‘shooting’ game ...

• Consequences: Cause or effect?
          (Includes:  Reminiscences from a Founding Scientologist from 1951
• Rehabilitation, a forgotten and overlooked aspect

 
Consequences: Cause or effect?
(Includes:  Reminiscences from a Founding Scientologist from 1951)

(from ‘Advance! 38’, Jan 76)

	“Hi, Michel. My personal observation of that time is while tech people took the 1968 disconnection policy to heart, that the E.O.'s simply said that that didn't cancel any of the other policies, and when someone was declared SP by Ethics we were required to disconnect.
	‘Handle’ from a tech viewpoint is moving the person from effect of a person to some sort of relative cause.  For instance, not discussing Scientology with a person who puts it down but instead turning the conversation to earlier practices.  Or keeping a ‘good roads, fair weather’ attitude around some people.
	I'm not familiar with any 1973 policy.  I heard that later Miscavige cancelled the 1968 policy--I don't know whether this is true or not.
	There is basically nothing wrong with the Ethics disconnection policies themselves.  I'm sure if Ethics declared an axe murderer suppressive and required disconnection they would get no flack at all.  People would of course disconnect.  The problem is they kept putting good people in lowered conditions, and no one wants to disconnect from their friends.
	So the whole game turned into a big make wrong, or some sort of group pressure.”
	Pat (message dated 9 Apr 2013)

“I have concluded that man can not be trusted with justice.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 6 Oct 70 III “Ethics Penalties”)

 
Rehabilitation, a forgotten and overlooked aspect

There was this little booklet written in 1959. A confidential release and only for use by HCO personnel in the Scientology organization. It just lays out the basic approach how to deal with this thing called justice. What to do, and what not to do. It is all pretty straightforward. Here I have the dilemma again to quote or not quote from it. It was originally issued in 1959, it was reissued in 1972. I am not sure if it is still referred to till this day, it may be. It appears fairly widely available on the Internet, I find scannings and I find transcripts. That what I quote here below is quite an important aspect in relation to some enforced practice of disconnection, if ignored the consequences may turn out being disastrous.

	“When you punish a man you punish also his family and friends. Even if you slayed the man you would then still have his friends and family as your enemies. If you slay everyone he knew – why, they have friends and families, too – and at last you've a whole populace against you. You punish a man. He goes away to join the ranks of the squirrels. You swell the opposition. Don't do it. Shoot the offender for the public good and then patch him up quietly. That isn't even mercy. It's good sense. ...
	So it is mercy, not revenge, that prompts our justice. (1) We must not neglect it and (2) we must not fail to rehabilitate.”          LRH (from booklet ‘Manual of Justice’ (first released 1959))

It may speak for itself.

And this ends off my vademecum on the subject of disconnection.

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     CSW:
‘Completed Staff Work’. An assembled package of information on any given situation, plan or emergency forwarded to me sufficiently complete to require from me only an “approved” or “disapproved.”It (1) states the situation, (2) gives all the data necessary to its solution, (3) advices a solution, and (4) contains a line for approval or disapproval.
     EO or E/O:
Short for ‘Ethics Officer’.  See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Ethics Officer (EO, E/O):
The activities of the Ethics Officer consist of isolating individuals who are stopping proper flows by pulling withholds with ethics technology and by removing as necessary potential trouble sources and suppressive individuals off org comm lines and by generally enforcing ethics codes. The purpose of the Ethics Officer is to help Ron clear orgs and the public if need be of entheta and enturbulation so that Scientology can be done. (HCO PL 11 May 65, Ethics Officer Hat)
     HCOB:
‘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 Area Secretary (HAS):  (In the early days this was called ‘HCO Secretary’.)
 1. The HCO Area Secretary (HAS) has the function of establishing the org. (HCO PL 7 Jul 71)  2. The HAS establishes, forms, puts there, corrects, posts, hats, equips, org boards, stats, corrects the org. All on a long term basis. (FO 2794)  He is in charge of the HCO Division (Div. 1).
    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).
     HGC:
‘Hubbard Guidance Center’. The department of the technical division of a Scientology organization which sets you up for and delivers auditing.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     MAA:
‘Master at Arms’. Ethics Officer in the Sea Organization (senior Scientology organization). See further at ‘Ethics Officer’.
     Mimeo:
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the ’80s however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
     PTS, PTSness:
‘potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Qual (Div):
‘Qualifications Division’. 1. It could be called the correction division or the adjustment division. But qualifications would also serve. (SH Spec 77, 6608C23)  2. The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run. (BPL 22 Nov 71R)  3. The division where the student is examined and where he may receive cramming or special assistance and where he is awarded completions and certificates and where his qualifications as attained on courses or in auditing are made a permanent record. (HCOB 19 Jun 71 III)
     RTRC:
‘LRH Technical Research and Compilations’.
     Scientology Policy Directive (SPD):
Its purpose is to provide an issue type for policy for the Church of Scientology, and to distinguish from policy issued by LRH which is issued in HCO PL form. Senior to all administrative issues except HCO PLs and any other issues or advices by LRH. (‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Hat, Volume 0’ (1991), p. 729; ‘The Organization Executive Course: Basic Staff Volume 0’ (1986), p. 617)
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AOs) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     SPD:
‘Scientology Policy Directive’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     Technical Volumes:
This refers to ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. See further at that entry in vocabulary.