Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified (3) (Includes: “Code of Reform”; ‘Rock Slam’; HCO PL “Suppressive Acts”)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w / i n t r o d u c t i o n :   M i s s i o n   s t a t e m e n t ,   o v e r v i e w ,   r e s e a r c h   s p e c i f i c s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   L R H K e e p i n g   S c i e n t o l o g y   W o r k i n g ,   f u n d a m en t al s S c i e n t o l o g y   i n   m e d i a   a nd   I n t e r n e t   ( +   f o r u m s ,   W i k i p e d i a ) S c i e n t o l o g y :   I t s   t r u e   h i s t o r y   e x p o s e d ? S c i e n t o l o g y   Q & A   ( F A Q ) E x t e r n a l   l i n k s M a t e r i a l s   w a n t   l i s t R e c o m m e n d e d   l i s t   o f   m a t e r i a l s 2) R e s p o n s e s   ( w i t h   a n n o t a t i o n s ) : A p p r e c i a t i v e   r e s p o n s e s   t o   m y   p a g e s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 1 )   f r o m   c h u r c h g o i n g   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 2 )   f r o m   o u t - o f - c h u r c h   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d    ( 3 )   f r o m   a n t i - S c i e n t o l o g i s t s 3) T o p i c s   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i n t e r e s t : (a): G e n e r a l   t o p i c s H o l y   S c r i p t u r e s   v s   S c i e n t o l o g y L R H   v s   D i c t i o n a r i e s L R H   v s   t h e o r y   o f   e v o l u t i o n L R H ' s   w o r k s   o f   f i c t i o n (b): O r g a n i z a t i o n a l   t o p i c s A   p r i n t i n g   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   m a t e r i a l s   o f   S c i e n t o l o g y S c i e n t o l o g y   M e m b e r s h i p :   H A S I   v s   I A S L R H   v s   p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s T h e   c o p y r i g h t s   i s s u e   a n d   l i c e n s i n g (c): T e c h n i c a l   t o p i c s H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   a )   G e n e r a l H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   b )   D e t a i l e d ‘ C l e a r ’   d e f i n e d N E D   f o r   O T s T h e   ‘ P r i m a r y   R u n d o w n ’ 4) C o n t r o v e r s i a l   t o p i c s : M i s t a k e n   i d e a s   o f   ‘ E t h i c s ’   c l a r i f i e d T h e   F a i r    G a m e   L a w P r a c t i c e   o f   D i s c o n n e c t i o n S e c u r i t y   C h e c k i n g F r e e l o a d e r s   v s   E x - s t a f f   m e m b e r s T h e   ‘ R e h a b i l i t a t i o n   P r o j e c t   F o r c e ’   ( R P F ) 5) C h a n g e s   i n   t h e   f l o w   o f   ‘ i n f o r m a t i o n ’: (a): A l t e r a t i o n s   ( L R H   o r   n o n- L R H ? ) L R H   v s   A l t e r a t i o n s N o n - L R H   t u r n s   i n t o   L R H ?   &   P r o p o s a l   t o   s o l u t i o n T h e    ‘ C r a m m i n g   S e r i e s ’   -   L R H   o r   n o t   L R H ? B a s e d   o n   L R H   p u b l i c a t i o n s (b): G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w L R H   v s   A   N e w   O r d e r   ( i n t r o d u c t i o n ) → A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d    o r g a n i z a t i o n a l   m a t t e r s S e t u p   o f   t h e   p r i n t e d   m a t e r i a l s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) T h e   R T R C ,   t h e   u n i t   t h a t   w r o t e   L R H   i s s u e s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 2 ) T h e   d a w n i n g   o f   R T C   a n d   n e w   m a n a g e m e n t   ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) → T e c h n i c a l   m a t t e r s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   t h e   e v e n t   o f   l o s i n g   a   B r i d g e ) A n a l y s i s   o f   H C O B   “ T e c h   C o r r e c t i o n   R o u n d - u p ” L o s t   B r i d g e :   T e c h   c h a n g e s   d u r i n g   1 9 7 8 - 8 2 T h e   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   O T   V I I I ‘ G o l d e n   A g e   o f   T e c h ’   ( G A T )   a n a l y s i s D r i l l i n g   i n   S c i e n t o l o g y (c): T h e   m a t t e r   o f   D a v i d   M a y o S t o r y   o f   D a v i d   M a y o ‘ S O   E D   2 3 4 4   I n t’   a n a l y s i s T r a i n i n g   d r i l l s   ( T R s ) M a y o   r e f e r e n c e   l i s t 6) C o n s p i r a c i e s   -   I n   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ' s   f o o t s t e p s S c i e n t o l o g y   v s   a   N e w   W o r l d   O r d e r → W h e r e   i s   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ?   ( c h r o n o l o g y   o f   S c n   h i s t o r y ) W h e r e a b o u t s   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   c h r o n o l o g y T h e   e r a   o f   a d o r a t i o n ;   P r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   i n t o   a r t i s t r y :   M u s i c   &   F i l m → W h e r e   i s   h i s   w i f e   a n d   f a m i l y ? S t o r y   o f   M a r y   S u e   H u b b a r d T h e   l a s t   s t a n d :   T h e   G u a r d i a n   O f f i c e 7) S c i e n t o l o g y   u n d e r   a t t a c k (a): A   p r e m e d i t a t e d   s e r i e s   o f   o c c u r r e n c e s ?   ( ’ 8 0 s   c o n s p i r a c y ) I n t r o d u c t i o n   &   R o n   D e W o l f G e r r y   A r m s t r o n g   ( ‘ a f f i r m a t i o n s ’ ) R u s s e l l   M i l l e r    ( ‘ B a r e - F a c e d   M e s s i a h ’ ) A   r e l i g i o n   c r e a t e d   f o r   t h e   m o n e y ? (b): B a t t l e s   f o u g h t   a n d   t h e   i n t e r n e t   ( 2 0 1 6 -   ) L e a h   R e m i n i :   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   t h e   A f t e r m a t h   ( T V   s h o w )

>> 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: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified  (page 3)

Go to “Scientology: Various mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified” index page

“Code of Reform” (1968)

An incidence of historical importance that is little known this day.

“Code of REFORM
On August 1st 1968 Scientology organizations in the UK began mailing a Code of Reform Questionnaire. One million questionnaires were sent out containing 4 questions as follows:
(1)What reforms if any would you like effected in what you may have heard of or know of Scientology Organizations or policies?
(2)What changes in conduct or what conduct would you suggest to Scientologists?
(3)What services would you like Scientology to perform in the community?
(4)How could Scientology better fit in with the aims and purposes of your area of interest?
The response by the general public was intelligent and constructive. Some reforms have been implemented already.”
(from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (issued 1969))

During these years issues had been raised in the form of stiffer applied ethics actions on persons and other. There was a specific reason for this to have occurred. I address this in detail on my page “Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study”, consult chapter “Events leading up to the term coming into being” here (separate window). Either way this Questionnaire will have had some effect on the following quoted changes implemented. It being noted tough that the practice of fair game already had been abandoned (per HCO PL 21 Jul 68) prior to the Questionnaire having been send out.

“Policy Changes by Scientology Organizations
1968
Cancellation of disconnection as a relief to those suffering from familial suppression.
Cancellation of security checking as a form of confession.
Cancellation of condition known as fair game.
Prohibition of any confessional materials being written down or otherwise recorded.”
(from ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (issued 1969))

It does appear here that matters (at least during these ’60s) were given appropriate attention for correction if there were indications for misconceptions, misapplications, or misinterpretations.

The turbulent late ’70s and early ’80s

• ‘List 1 Project’ (1977-78) & A new management (1982-83)
• Rough ethics and the scare factor (US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco, 17 Oct 82)

 
‘List 1 Project’ (1977-78)  &  A new management (1982-83)

 
Rough ethics and the ‘scare’ factor (US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco, 17 Oct 82)

RTC logo for‘Standard Ethics’

During the time as we got this new management with Religious Technology Center (RTC) established and all that came with it, we see increasing stiffening ethics actions taking place. Rather noteworthy in this respect is the reputed US Mission Holders Conference that was held in San Franciso on 17 Oct 1982. Various persons were speaking at this conference. Here I focus particularly on the speech of this Mr. Ray Mithoff. We find here an evident harshness and scare factor being forwarded.
We find a transcript of this conference being released the following month as ‘SO ED 2104 Int’, 7 Nov 82 “The Flow Up the Bridge, The US Mission Holders Conference, San Francisco 1982”.

Mind that this Mr. Ray Mithoff addresses here all of the attendees of this conference. It is also not all forwarded in a very gentle manner. It's like saying: “Conform to what we say, or else..!”. Personally I am not in particular fond of this way of expressing. Its product is rather that you will shut up people, them having a point in regards to Keeping Scientology Working or not. It is better then to not draw attention to oneself by opening one's mouth for anything in fear that one may become a target. In particular you will not be prone to question these speakers for what they say or claim is the right thing or not the right thing. After all you may imperil your “upper OT levels, Solo NOTs, new OT 8, new OT 9, 10, 11 -- these levels are amazing. They are amazing beyond your belief. These things are all there and it's a very bright future.”, and your future may not be so bright. Although there is this imminent danger that this harsh approach may not forward the purpose accurately!

We find this line of approach set forth in the one year later issued ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”. The person that had been posted as the Flag C/S since September 1973 and active as the Senior C/S International during Oct 78/Aug 82 after he forcefully was kicked out and defamed. This SO ED was made into a broad release issue. Coincidentally this writing as well goes into these “upper OT levels, Solo NOTs, new OT 8, new OT 9, 10, 11” matters.

	“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

“I think of an auditor as a person with enough guts to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. This quality is rare and this quality is courageous in the extreme.”          LRH (above quotations from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)

In spite of all this we see that particular during the earlier ’80s that any that practices Scientology outside of the reign and control of the Church of Scientology are ruthlessly being hunted down and persecuted. The ‘progress’ that had been made we then find proudly presented in this periodical ‘KSW* News’ published since 1983 by the Religious Technology Center (RTC).

* KSW = Keeping Scientology Working .

“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”)

The phenomena and history of the term ‘Rock Slam’ (1962-78 span)

The term Rock Slam does surface in the history of Scientology, and it does mean something bad. A so-called Rock Slammer is generally regarded synonym to a suppressive person. At times this has also been misused. Below I have put together a little chronology about the use and how it is referred to during the 1962-78 time span.

	“In a group of 400, the actual percentage of R/Sers is low. It's about 8 in 400, or 2-2½%. Those figures should seem familiar. They are the same percentage for SPs. And that gives you a clue to the identification of an R/Ser.
	Where requirements for Scn or SO Orgs have been established for R/Ses they apply to the 2-2½% of real R/Sers as these are also considered security risks for staff purposes.
	These people can of course be salvaged as pcs* using Expanded Dianetics. Letting them on staff could be disastrous, however.”          LRH

Precaution apparently should be taken though as it says also: “Staff concerned must be able to identify an R/Ser which is different from someone with an R/S.”  LRH.

	“There are, for our purposes, two kinds of R/Sers. (a) Those who R/S on subjects not connected with Scn and (b) Those who R/S on subjects connected to Scientology. The latter is a ‘List One R/Ser’ and it is of great importance to us that they be located and moved off lines when they are part of staffs as their intent is solely to destroy us what ever else they say: their long run actions will prove it.
	The definition of a List One R/Ser is anyone who has R/Sed on List One. If that is confirmed fully, that's it. Not all points on the checklist have to be present. The full list of Scientology List One items can be found in HCOB 24 Nov AD 12 ‘Routine 2-12 List One - Issue One, the Scientology List’.
	Where there is any doubt as to the validity of a List One R/S, a verification should be done. The procedure is to vigorously Sec Check the pc on the subject of the reported List One R/S. This Sec Check must be done by an Auditor who knows R/Ses and can make lists read and pull W/Hs* connected with R/S.”          LRH (from HCOB 1 Nov 74R (Revised 30 Dec 76) “Rock Slams and Rock Slammers”)

Both HCOB 3 Sept 78 “Definition of a Rock Slam” & HCOB 10 Aug 76R (Revised 5 Sept 78) “R/Ses, What They Mean” denotes that “A ROCK SLAM MEANS A HIDDEN EVIL INTENTION ON THE SUBJECT OR QUESTION UNDER DISCUSSION OR AUDITING.” (both references are quoted in ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (1983 Edition) at ‘ROCK SLAM’).

Versions analysis of HCO PL 23 Dec 65 “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

HCO PL versions index:

	HCO PL 1 Mar 65 I
	HCO PL 23 Dec 65	(Replaces ‘HCO PL 7 March 65, Issue I’ - originally misdated as 1 March 65)
	HCO PL 23 Dec 65R	(Revised 31 Dec 1979)
	HCO PL 16 May 80 II	(Cancels and replaces HCO PL 23 December 65R Rev 31 Dec 79, same title)
	HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA	(Revised and reissued 10 September 1983) (Replaces HCO PL 16 May 80 II)
	(List of High Crimes extended)
	HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA	(Revised and reissued 25 Aug 1988)
	HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB	(Revised 8 January 1991)
	(List of High Crimes once again extended)
	HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB	(Reissued 4 November 2001 with date change)
	Annotations

	HCO PL 1 Mar 65 I
Original release title: “Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists, The Fair Game Law”

	“A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON or GROUP is one that actively seeks to suppress or damage Scientology or a Scientologist by Suppressive Acts.
	SUPPRESSIVE ACTS are acts calculated to impede or destroy Scientology or Scientologists and which are listed at length in this policy letter.”          LRH

“Suppressive Groups are defined as those which seek to destroy Scientology or which specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of Mankind.”          LRH (from HCO PL 29 Jun 68 “Enrollment in Suppressive Groups” (Reissue of HCO PL 28 Dec 1965 “same title” that contains an amendment))

► As per the above 28 High Crimes “are listed at length in this policy letter”.

	HCO PL 23 Dec 65

Some paragraphs were added and other minor changes were made. Apparently due to a mistake this was issued under a new release date. It should have been made into HCO PL 7 Mar 65R (Revised 23 Dec 65). Instead it was simply given the date of the release of this revision (Note: this original release date was restored in 2001, see last version of this policy letter).

	HCO PL 23 Dec 65R

The above HCO PL notices was because of HCO PL 15 Nov 68 “Cancellation of Disconnection”. Another one (not mentioned in the revision notes) was the removal of any and all referrals to fair game (even removed from the original title of the HCO PL). This deletion was due to the HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game”, either of those 2 references you will only find in ‘The Organization Executive Course: HCO Division 1’ (1970) , reprinted till the mid ’80s.

	“..., no Committee of Evidence may be called to punish any Scientologist or person for any offenses of any kind against the Suppressive Person except to establish in cases of real dispute whether or not the person was suppressing either Scientology or the Scientologist.
	The homes, property, places and abodes of persons who have been active in attempting to suppress Scientology or Scientologists are all beyond any protection of Scientology Ethics, unless absolved by later Ethics or an amnesty.”          LRH

	HCO PL 16 May 80 II

	HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA

Please note that this policy letter in actual fact was replacing HCO PL 16 May 80 II “same title”, even if this is not specifically mentioned anywhere in this policy letter! (consult HCO PL 8 Sept 83 “Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSes”)

 
List of High Crimes extended

An analysis unfolds that we can identify 2 categories of added High Crimes. We have those that were imported from other existing references, and those that we can not trace for their origin.

Then, #47-51, 53-59, 63, 64, 66-72 were imported from other already existing HCO PLs & HCOBs. Each of them gives the source reference from which they were deriving. So if you needed additional data about them it would be easy to retrieve that.

► At this time the total count of listed High Crimes in this 1983 version of this policy letter is 73.

	HCO PL 23 Dec 65RA

True is that only 4 very minor spelling errors had been corrected. However this release still had the same RA indication as the previous version, which means you needed to have both versions to know which of the RA ones was the latest. Usually however you would find all of these filed together in the library of the organization. This should not cause a direct problem, although I can tell from personal observation that they have been confused.

During the late ’80s a variety of reissues where printed, they only incorporated very minor corrections. Now these reissues had no indications anywhere on them that this was in actual fact a reissue with some very minor correction(s), this information was only given on a separate sheet attached with a staple to the front (a so-called front-sheet). If this front-sheet was removed which usually happened as you were asked to “Please destroy your copy of this issue, and replace it with the attached”. The front-sheet would as it seems suit no purpose anymore and was discarded off. These 2 issues would seem identical, when in fact they were not.

	HCO PL 23 Dec 65RB

Please note that the version of this HCO PL as found in 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes do not have these revisions indicated in script!

List of High Crimes once again extended

The list of High Crimes was extended with 14 additional High Crimes. At least some of them appear to have been imported from other HCO PLs and/or HCOBs. This time however only of 2 of them some source references were given. In addition all the source references for the in 1983 added High Crimes were removed. That means you will not be able anymore to locate the original reference where these quotations were deriving from, also you will not know when exactly they became designated being a High Crime or how this was established. Information which could be worthwhile knowing. Then the numbering of these High Crimes as it was introduced in the previous 1983 revision was also removed.

“This is therefore a HIGH CRIME policy letter and it is an offense both to follow or obey or issue any verbal or written order or directive which is contrary to or changes or ‘abolishes’ anything set up in HCO Policy Letters or HCOBs, including the downgrade of ‘that's out-of-date’ or ‘that's been cancelled’ without showing the HCO PL or HCOB which revises or cancels.”          LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”)

This one is not particularly insignificant I dare say! Actually one can regard it as a huge flaw that this one had been missed, as that what it acts against is a main reason why things had gone awry!!!

“Neglecting, advising against the application of, failing to enforce or tolerate the omission of standard Word Clearing and star-rate checkouts on all new or newly revised HCO Policy Letters, as well as the key HCO PLs of the Basic Staff Member Hat and the key policies of the staff member. In the Sea Organization this applies to LRH CBOs and Flag Orders as well as HCO Policy Letters.”          [attributed to LRH] (from HCO PL 10 Jul 86 III “Admin High Crime”)

A bit tricky this one as this was issued a whole 4½ months after the official announcement of the passing of L. Ron Hubbard. It forwarded a new rule, and a rule that can be disputed.

One can ask what criteria were used to determine which High Crimes were to be imported into this policy letter and which not to import?

► At this time the total count of listed High Crimes in this 1991 version of this policy letter is 87.

	HCO PL 7 Mar 65RB

This is the latest release till date. This reissue did not forward any actual revisions or additions, all it did was changing the reference date.

	Annotations

An often used argument from the current Church Management of Scientology is that many revisions made are done following securely ‘LRH notes’. So what about these ‘LRH notes’, how are we going to deal with those? I have discussed this earlier on which you may want to reflect: Hidden Data Line (separate window).

	“It's hereafter firm Church policy that LRH ISSUES ARE TO BE LEFT INTACT AS ISSUED. …
	No one except LRH can revise his issues whereby changes are incorporated into the text and then reissued. …
	…, the original LRH issue (regardless of type) shall remain intact so that the original wording is kept. In this way his writings retain their integrity and there is no mystery as to what he wrote and what the revision stated and why.
	The only occasion for any revision of an LRH issue is if a typographical error was found in the original.
	Already existing issues stand intact and valid. …
	This policy will allow the integrity of Source to be reinstated.”
	Signed: “WATCHDOG COMMITTEE”

One should consider that rules and policies only have use if they are being executed and/or followed.

Well, I hope you have now some basic understanding about how this one goes. Revisions that is ... .

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.
     AD..:
‘After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.
     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.
     Committee of Evidence:
A fact-finding group appointed and empowered to impartially investigate and recommend upon Scientology matters of a fairly severe ethical nature. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 28)
     CS-4:
‘Commodore Staff-Division 4’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 4 is the Technical division of a Scientology organization. CS-4 is also referred to as ‘Training and Services Aide’.
     CS-5:
‘Commodore Staff-Division 5’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 5 is the Qualifications division of a Scientology organization. CS-5 is also referred to as ‘Qual Aide’.
     ‘Declare’ (or ‘Declare Order’):  
‘Suppressive Person Declare’ or ‘SP Declare’. Declare has grown to be an expression frequently used amongst the Scientology parishioners that means that an Ethics Order (as in official writing) in where a person(s) and/or group(s) are being declared being suppressive person(s) and/or suppressive group(s).
     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 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).
     HPA/HCA:
‘Hubbard Professional Auditor/Hubbard Certified Auditor’. An early course taught in Scientology Churches only. At one time HCA and HPA were equivalent certificates, HCA being the American designation and HPA, the British.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     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).
     pc(s):
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)
     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)
     RPF:
‘Rehabilitation Project Force’. For more detailed information see article here (separate window).
     SO ED:
‘Sea Org(anization) Executive Directive’. This is basically an ED (temporary policy) issued by the senior echelon within the Church of Scientology.
     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)
     SP:
Short for ‘suppressive person’.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     W/H(s):
‘Withhold(s). See at that entry in vocabulary.
     Withholds (W/Hs):
Something a person did that he isn't talking about. Basically, it is a no action after the fact of action in which the individual has done or been an accessory to doing something which is a transgression against some moral code consisting of agreements to which the individual has subscribed in order to guarantee, with others, the survival of a group with which he is co-acting or has co-acted toward survival. (Marriage Hats booklet)