Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: A ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT), A.D. 1996 (3)  or      A remarkable tool if used as originally intended (Includes a detailed historical overview of ‘drilling for technical purposes’)

(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.

The arrival of new information (7) -
A ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT), A.D. 1996  (page 3)
(An account of the implementation of an extensive ‘drilling’ system)

Go to “Scientology: A ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT), A.D. 1996”  index page

The rights of an auditor

• ‘Golden Age of Tech TIP’
• Auditor rights and recognition
          - (1) Rights
          - (2) Unmocking working installations
          - (3) Which concern in regards to field auditors?
          - (4) Permanent certification for auditors

There were this series of programs that had been devised to promote and implement this Golden Age of Tech which were attached as supplements to the so-called ‘Golden Age of Tech Series’. There were a whole variety of them, and one could not go around them. It had consequences. And it could be perceived that they were violating certain rights.

 
‘Golden Age of Tech TIP’

For the individual there was this routing form that was used. This was HCO Admin Letter 4 May 96 “Golden Age of Tech TIP Routing Form”. Purpose of this was “to get you started on your road to becoming a perfect, 100% Standard Tech auditor. It will (a) provide you with your Golden Age of Tech TIP (Technical Individual Program) - the exact sequence of training you will do to become a perfect auditor and (b) get you started!”. As in if you were not a certified and acknowledged auditor already. This is hitting at that it may be questioned that you were already a competent auditor.

All this for “to show him how these different new tools will allow him to become a perfect auditor and create a Golden Age of Tech.”.

This routing form though is rather persistent in it's message as can be seen in the below.

It appears assumed in all the above that any objections would be invalid or having no ground and could be handled as in if this Golden Age of Tech TIP is the only correct thing to do.

The idea has been put forward that if one hadn't done this Golden Age of Tech drilling and all that came with this evolution, that you were not considered being a Standard Tech auditor. Quite some pressure has been put on the lines that any auditor had to be retrained and put through this new Auditor Certainty Course, and had to start on this Golden Age of Tech TIP Routing Form. This routing form does quite clearly lay out what was to be done if it was met with objections. It does not say however what was to be done if one in the end still objected to submit to it, but this would not be hard to figure out. Various persons that I know of that have objected and did not submit have been put through various ordeals. The main question is if some solid arguments can be found in Scientology writings that would actually justify not submitting to it. Probably a good argument can be made with the things that are related about the Cramming Section in lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual” to which is made reference earlier. There is however also the issue of you having certain rights as an auditor and the credits you had earned while given good results.

 
Auditor rights and recognition

• (1) Rights
• (2) Unmocking working installations
• (3) Which concern in regards to field auditors?
• (4) Permanent certification for auditors

The mailings that were send out at the time of the release of this Golden Age of Tech indicate that there was an effort to get all auditors to do Golden Age of Tech training/drilling. It was pretty much so that it was not possible to do one's next step on the training side of the Bridge without doing the Golden Age of Tech courses up to one's training level and then doing a new Interneship.

This acts as de facto certificate cancellation and violates some since long established and used standards. It could be taken as a invalidation of the auditor himself and of past training that one had done. Further, it puts an undue financial and time burden on the auditor and, by extension, on field groups, missions and orgs. It is especially burdensome to auditors that do just a little bit of auditing, on friends and family members. To actually stop auditing, raising the necessary funds to do this training which may not be needed or wanted, then save extra money to be able to take off time from one's usual activities to do this training could mean that the auditor may not be able to audit for years or will become completely discouraged and will stop auditing altogether. For these reasons the public may not consider this new training line-up to be helpful, but rather consider it to be harmful.

What about those that have had permanent certificates and having produces excellent products for many years? They may not care to accept such blanket invalidation. They indeed may not feel that they have to prove their competence to anyone, nor may they not feel that they would be in need to do a new Interneship. It may also work as an overrun of some sort. Obviously this will not motivate very much. It is a setback.

“What makes tech correct? When it doesn't get results it is incorrect. When it gets the expected result it is correct.”          LRH (from HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”)

	“Ethics actions must parallel the purposes of Scientology and its organizations. ...
	Ethics actions are often used to handle down individual statistics. A person who is not doing his job becomes an Ethics target.
	Conversely, if a person is doing his job (and his statistic will show that) Ethics is considered to be in and the person is protected by Ethics.”          LRH (from HCO PL 1 Sept 65 VII “Ethics Protection”)

 
(1) Rights

	“The Field Auditor has a right:  ...
	7.  To respect for his training and experience.
	8.  To respect for his certificates.
	9.  To have and to hold his certificates without cancellation by anyone forever.”          LRH

The same also reissued as HCO PL 2 Oct 69 “same title” & HCO PL 28 Apr 82 “same title”.

 
(2) Unmocking working installations

Relevant are also the references relating about so-called working installations:

“But let us define a working installation now, in terms of an org. And it will make more sense to you. A working installation is any group which is delivering an adequate production of that product which they're supposed to deliver. And you leave those alone. And you don't, you don't monkey with them. And as soon as you see a working installation under those definitions being knocked down, you're going to find that you are making three steps forward, and unlike the communists who only go two steps backwards, you will be going four steps backward.”          LRH (from Flag Executive Briefing Course (FEBC) lecture #11 “As You Return to Your Org”, given on 3 Feb 71)

Sound snippet

“Sudden and unauthorized transfers of personnel for whatever reason disrupt hats and lines. Every such transfer is a failure to predict concerning personnel.”          LRH (from HCO PL 19 Mar 71 “Personnel Prediction”)

	“It takes a lot of executive time and effort to build up a Section or Dept or Division.
	For someone to then come along and scramble it up with transfers is a criminal action.
	If a unit, section, Dept or Division is operating well, don't unmock it.”          LRH (from HCO PL 11 Aug 71 II “Don't Unmock a Working Installation”)

	“Never unmock (take down or destroy) working installations.
	A working installation is something that is operational.”          LRH (from HCO PL 13 Jul 74 II “Working Installations”)

 
(3) Which concern in regards to field auditors?

“It is no real concern of ours to try to hold the field versions Standard. They mess up pcs and students. They always will. A militant org attitude to keep the field straight is silly. Let them flub as you are trying to control something you cannot. You can only do the best you can by teaching the best you can in the org.”          LRH

“OPERATING TARGETS:  ...

* OES, Organization Executive Secretary.  In charge of the Treasury (3), Technical (4) & Qualifications (5) Division in an org. The Product Officer. * HCO ES (HES), Hubbard Communications Office Executive Secretary.  In charge of the Executive (7) , HCO (1) & Dissemination (2) Division in an org. The Org Officer.

There have been utterances like: “we are only interested in PERFECT AUDITORS whether they are in the org or in the field”. Evidently these are in serious violation of for example HCO PL 10 Dec 69 “Superior Service Image”!

 
(4) Permanent certification for auditors

The 1951 take of requirements is laid out in detail in a Despatch entitled: “Certification Board Duties and Responsibilities”, typed 12 Dec 50, effective since 1 Jan 51. (found in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’, see ‘Volume I’). Briefly it unfolds that a Temporary Certificate is issued after an “oral and written examination and a check on his auditing skill” which is then valid for a period of 6 months. A Permanent Certificate would be awarded by the Chief Examiner.

“In the case of an Auditor, an Interneship or formal auditing experience is required. When actual honest evidence is presented to C&A* that he has demonstrated that he can produce flubless results his Certificate is VALIDATED with a gold seal and is a permanent certificate.”          LRH (from HCOB 13 Aug 72R (Corrected and Reissued 15 Aug 72) “Fast Flow Training”)

Learning by rote

L. Ron Hubbard told us about these “other practical drills of any kind” were not permitted because “They consume time uselessly, suppress actual processes and mess up data and cases.” (as per HCO PL 16 Apr 65 II “Drills, Allowed”). That they would consume time that can be seen. But how does it work with “suppress actual processes and mess up data and cases”? The complaint has been expressed that auditors turn robotlike because of the excessive drilling. That it turns unnatural. Of course for an auditor to be successful and actually getting results it is of vital importance that he be in actual communication with the person that is receiving processing. If you are not, you are likely to get nowhere. I recall a lecture of L. Ron Hubbard in where surprise was noted in regards to that he got results where others using the exact same processes did not achieve the same results. Flexibility, presence and alertness of the auditor appear to be quite vital.

	“If you know the basics and fundamentals of Security Checking, then you check with the basics and fundamentals of it, and therefore you can produce some interesting reactions and actions in cases.
	And this is quite, quite pertinent, then, that you shouldn't be going around security checking by ritual. There's a considerable danger in your just sitting there security checking by ritual. You should security check by fundamentals. And if you security check by definition or fundamental, then you'll have the most relaxed time of it you ever had and you won't be worrying so much about ritual. Because here's what happens to you.
	Because you don't quite grasp a fundamental, the next thing you know, somebody stiffens up the ritual. See, that's rather inevitable. And then because you don't quite grasp the fundamentals, then they again stiffen up the ritual. And the next thing you know, you're a ritualist. You're just doing everything by the count and you don't understand quite what you're doing, and so forth.
	And you—therefore you can depart a considerable distance from effective auditing in auditing by ritual only, you see?”          LRH (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #102 “Sec Checks, Withholds”, given on 10 Jan 62)

Sound snippet

Learning something by rote does not necessarily mean that one has understood the material. That's just the mechanics of it.

“Now, every once in a while, somebody'll give you a good, smart crack. It's, ‘Well, what they're doing is auditing techniques, not auditing a preclear.’ Pick out a gun, preferably one of the slower muzzle velocities, you know, that tear big holes slowly, and drill them good because that's as most inadequate statement I have ever heard. It describes nothing. Audit the technique instead of the preclear, this is, this is just dopey. It seems to think, it seems to infer that people who know techniques, thereby, in some strange fashion aren't auditing the preclear. That's actually what it adds up to. Or that if you do a technique by rote it doesn't audit the preclear. So let's put it this way. Let's audit, with techniques, the preclear. And we've got a better statement of it.”          LRH (from 3rd American Advanced Clinical Course lecture #4 “Boredom, Pace of Living, Truth”, given on 5 Jan 54)

Now, certain things are learned by rote, or done by rote. Usually these are basics, you have a foundation. You also have for example Training Routines* (TRs). Then you have some basic drills for getting in this foundation. This all does not mean however that everything should be learned or done by rote.

“Now it's either an earlier incident on the same chain or it's a false read. Somebody has said he had one when he didn't have, and it's continued to read. So you check for a false read, or you check for an earlier similar one. You don't always check for the false read because that would be a damn bore and a waste of time. That's why standard tech doesn't consist of rote procedures. When you put a nickel in the slot, then the record arm comes over, and goes down, zzzzzt, and, and then the record turns around and plays Methuselah Comes Again. You got to know what you're doing.”          LRH (from Class VIII Course lecture #2 “What Standard Tech Does”, given on 25 Sept 68)

Sound snippet

It appears that there need to be a balance of certain things. The impression may have been that the extensive drilling that was introduced by the Golden Age of Tech created an imbalance in this.

It should be reflected upon that Scientology is involved with conceptual understanding. It is not in particular about learning something blindly. If an auditor is to be effective he needs to observe and able to see what is right in front of him. He has to evaluate and make certain decisions based on these observations of what next to do. L. Ron Hubbard for that reason did issue HCO PL 24 Sept 64 “Instruction & Examination: Raising the Standard of” that says: “ALL THEORY CHECK OUTS MUST CONSULT THE STUDENT'S UNDERSTANDING.”. This reference is quite clear about these things.

The danger exists that if you get too much into drilling this and that and everything, that one may overlook that one has to be able to think with the information itself also.

Time versus Purpose ...

“Don't forget, ALL your auditors must make it through ALL the drills we've just issued ... .”
(from ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-5’, 1 May 96 “New Training Courses”).

The drills to be done are not just a few, there are rather many. Now, with this demand follow various consequences. The sheer amount of these drills could be perceived to violate basic study technology. Below quoted lecture may give you an idea where such activities might be heading to. And the result may very well be even less auditors made.

	“All right now. How about this longevity? How about this longevity? The continuing need of a purpose can then preserve a subject. The continuing need of the subject can preserve the subject. If the subject continues to be needed, it will be preserved; that's a corollary of what I just gave you a few minutes ago. But the length of time that it gets preserved is entirely dependent upon the need of and the relay of its technology. You see, you must have the technology continue to be needed and the technology must also be relayed. If it continues to be needed it will be also relayed, which is all very—very fascinating; rather obvious.
	But where you get a subject coming on down the line—where you get a subject coming on down the line across the millennia and so forth, it is only because its purpose is carried with it. Its purpose has gone along with it and its purpose is understood. Now, one could destroy that subject by destroying its purpose—no longer needed, you see—or by destroying the relay of its technology in some fashion or another or in being too insistent or too—too forceful in relaying its technology and tacking lots of other things to its technology which didn't belong on it. In other words, ‘Before you can study engineering, you must have had a grammar school education, a high school education, gone to finishing school and learned how to knit.’ I can expect that will be about the next one, see?
	You're not going to have any engineers after a while; all the bridges will start to fall down. Well, one of the reasons why you won't have any engineers after a while is very elementary, and it's contained in our own technology, but only in our own technology, the reason for this. And that is, you've given him too much take off. He's had too much of a run on takeoff and—and the longer in an—in education—let's get back on education now—the longer it takes to approach the education, the more opportunity there is for tacks on the runway. We could probably state that in a much more easily expressed way, but that's about the way it is. If this character is taking off, taking off, taking off, taking off, he's running on the runway, he's trying to get up speed, everybody is saying, ‘Well, you mustn't pull back on the stick yet. You must stay there on the runway and keep running on the runway, ready to take off, ready to take off, ready to take off, ready to take off’ Well, by the time he's done this for about forty-five years and finds out he isn't off the ground, he doesn't take off.
	The reason for that is, is the number of opportunities to fail are directly proportional to the length of the approach. That's a law: Number of opportunities to fail are directly proportional to the length of approach, or length of time that it is going to take to get up to where you're going to study this thing.
	Now, that law is balanced by the fact that if you don't study something by gradients, a person can get into a mess by going into too high a gradient as I was talking about the other day. He went too steep, too quick. So there's—somewhere there is a proper length runway for any subject. It's a runway of the right length for the subject.
	A runway of the right length for the subject, then, would not be so long that it needlessly multiplies the opportunities for failure and it had better not be so short that a person jumps a gradient and gets himself into a confusion. And what is the right length of a runway for any given subject? How much preparatory action should there be or how long should a course of study be and all of those things, those questions, are answered in this: Well, it should not be so long that it needlessly oppor—multiplies opportunities for failure and it should not be so short that it takes a person up too steep.”          LRH (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #36, renumbered 1991: #399 “Study and Education”, given on 13 Aug 64)

Sound snippet

Use of drills:  Cramming Officer  vs  Academy Supervisor

• ‘Use of Drills in Cramming’
• ‘Inspection Before the Fact’
• Fast Flow  vs  Golden Age of Tech

 
‘Use of Drills in Cramming’

“What the new Standard Tech Drills mean to a Cramming Officer is no less monumental than what they mean to the Academy Supervisor.”
(from ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165-17’, 1 May 96 “Use of Drills in Cramming”)

“Now, you say, ‘Drills?’ Well yes. Actually we are just packaging up a Drills Course which has a drill for every auditing action, the wildest thing you ever saw in your life. It hasn't been piloted out to amount to anything yet, but it's been done by experts. And that goes right in the direction of your Cramming Section regardless of whether you taught a Drills Course.”          LRH (from lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71)

“You got your drills packs coming right up. They are being mimeographed at this moment.”          LRH (from lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71)

Sound snippet

“And we find all formal training that goes down the line on a checksheet does not prosper in Qual, but prospers in the Academy or the Department of Training just like any other area even when it's irregularly timed. That is to say, if the fellow is a part time, that also applies to part time. And you have three training periods in the day or something of that sort, and it's just another part of the Academy, you don't want anything to do with it.”          LRH (from lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71)

Sound snippet

 
‘Inspection Before the Fact’

This counteracts the lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71. The main reference and in fact the only one that refers to and talks about having Drills Courses and all that. These are not referred to as for use in some Academy or the course room. In fact this lecture makes a clear distinction between which that belongs in the Academy and which in Qual. This lecture is however about Qual. If L. Ron Hubbard would have wanted all that extensive drilling from the very start in the Academy then why, why, why does he not refer to that on any HCOB, HCO PL or lecture?

It counteracts HCO PL 16 Apr 65 II “Drills, Allowed” that says: “They consume time uselessly” & “The standard drills as listed above have proven sufficient for years.”  LRH.  It is admitted however that 1969 did add some procedures, and 1971 introduced the Drills Courses for use in Qual, but this is still in no comparison to what Golden Age of Tech added and demanded since May 1996.

The stress on these Golden Age of Tech drillings is that one does them perfectly, if one does not achieve that, one simply does not receive a pass. Having to do them again in the Cramming Section would indicate that they were not done that perfectly after all. It tells that something had been missed either way. The Golden Age of Tech approach plays with the idea that the Cramming Section would be a luxury to have.

Then I also do not see the necessity of doing every drill in sequence as a reason to denote it as a skipped gradient of some sort. If your drilling is following and are done gradiently and abiding by basics it would not result in a problem. Of course you do not drill TR 4 prior to having done TR 3, as these are basic drills and they are done in sequence. Mind you that we did not have all these Golden Age of Tech drills packs and all that prior to May 1996, then how was all that dealt with between 1950 and May 1996?

Given the position that you train an auditor very well on basics. That if he fails to apply some part of something that you correct him. Then the Golden Age of Tech could be inferred as an action that aims to correct before the fact. These things that otherwise would have been corrected in the Cramming Section are being corrected prior to being in actual need of any correction (as per LRH lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”). Those drills are put right at the front end and may from that angle be seen as an alteration of LRH intention. You correct after the fact of an auditor going awry, not before the fact. It is however used as a means of prevention.

	“I looked for a long time for any flaw in the idea of organization. It does have a flaw.
	The basic flaw in organization is INSPECTION BEFORE THE FACT. That means inspection before anything bad has happened.
	Violations are so harmful they destroyed every great civilization-the Roman, the British, the lot. For every flow is slowed or stopped.
	The prosperity of any organization is directly proportional to the speed of its particles–goods, people, papers.
	World trade, world shipping, world prosperity is dying only because of the cumulative effect of inspection before the fact. Passports, customs, safety regulations, general government interference before anything bad has occurred add up to a SUPPRESSIVE SOCIETY and therefore, soon enough, a dead one.
	Penalty after the fact has occurred disciplines the criminals and does not pull down the majority to criminal level.
	Scientology organizations must never lose sight of the reason organizations have decayed.”          LRH (from HCO PL 6 Feb 68 “Organization – The Flaw” - full text of the policy letter is given)

 
Fast Flow  vs  Golden Age of Tech

This may speak for itself:

	“Administration   Flows and Expansion
	The F A S T  F L O W System
	We have introduced many new principles in administration in recent policy letters. Here is one which if left out would cause mystery.
	This is the principle of traffic flows we now use. It is called the FAST FLOW SYSTEM OF MANAGEMENT.
	A being controlling a traffic or activity flow should let the flow run until it is to be reinforced or indicates a turbulence will occur and only then inspects the part of the flow that is to be reinforced or is becoming enturbulated and inspects and acts on only that one flow. ...
	To do this one, of course, needs another principle: that of Indicators.
	An Indicator is something that signals an approaching change rather than finding the change is already present and confirmed.
	We get this from auditing. An auditor audits so long as things go evenly. He knows when they will begin to deteriorate or change by an Indicator. He acts on seeing the indicator. He doesn't wait until the collapse or total change of the pc occurs and then look it over and act, The pc could be run into the ground or a good process that was bettering the case could be neglected if an auditor could not PREDICT from indicators how it was going before it was gone.
	In supervising a number of sections or departments, it would work this way:
	The person in charge does not examine every action or decision on the lines. If all despatches of all the activities went through his or her one pair of hands the volume would be too great and would jam. The executive's ‘plate’ would be too full and this would halt any expansion of the activities as the executive would feel overworked, yet in actual fact would be getting nothing much done. The flows which needed watching would be buried in a huge volume of flows that did not need watching.”          LRH (from HCO PL 29 Mar 65 II “Administration, Flows and Expansion: The F A S T  F L O W System” )

Becoming a Golden Age of Tech auditor

• Time factor  &  ‘Auditors made’ statistic
• (1) ‘An Army of Auditors’ (May 1996)
• (2) ‘A Golden Age of Ethics to Get Tech in’ (June 1998)

Presented here are various aspects and a chronological overview of the requirements that are asked prior to becoming a Golden Age of Tech auditor. It will list the various efforts that were undertaken to implement it and to motivate both staff and public to get involved with it. I also relate about an evaluation and additional observations concerning the actual products of the Golden Age of Tech evolution. I offer this as information only.

 
Time factor  &  ‘Auditors made’ statistic

Time factor

This all gives us some indication of the time that is expected that it would take. How things would work out in reality you should find out for yourself in your own org. I personally however have seen indications that things may not work out all that smooth. Various people reported to me that problems have been encountered with especially this new E-Meter course. In fact I personally do know about various persons that have been on this particular course as it seems for ages. One of these told me that she couldn't separate the different readings and was very uncomfortable with it. Anyway this does not set the general experience, this girl may have problems of another kind. You really should check these things out for yourself! I make no claims about this here.

‘Auditors made’ statistic

 
(1) ‘An Army of Auditors’ (May 1996)

An interesting characteristic of finding the right Why is actually that as soon as such is spotted and one has properly become aware of this, then somehow things have the tendency to resolve themselves and restore to ordinary survival working conditions. If there are counter intentions towards anything that is accepted or decided upon that it is proper or good to do, then it is assumed that this is because of false purposes, misunderstoods or any such. To get someone again on the right track one then will take action for unclosing the reason for these false purposes and misunderstoods. After all you then will take away the reason why something does not work out as planned. These actions may be referred to as Ethics actions, or if ethics didn't get things into line, Justice actions.

‘The Auditor 268 (US Edition)’, [ca Jul-Aug 97] announced “Golden Age of Tech Workships”. These were at no cost and were to introduce you or to make you familiar with what the Golden Age of Tech was all about and what it had to offer. It involved amongst other “test-driving a Quantum E-Meter and Drills Simulator with a twin. You'll drill some of the E-Meter Drills from the Professional metering Course - real, hand-on experience”.

Things stepped-up since Jun 98 (see next section)

 
(2) ‘A Golden Age of Ethics to Get Tech in’ (June 1998)

	“By recent experience and tests in the Sea Org it requires a ratio of one Ethics Officer for every 20 people being handled in or by an org. This at first glance is incredible. But by actual test this got in tech and Admin in an area for the first time. ...
	NO ORG MAY EXIST WHICH HAS LESS THAN 3 ETHICS OFFICERS, and THE HCO ES* GOES INTO NONEXISTENCE IF SHE HAS LESS THAN 3 E/Os AND ONE E/FILE CLERK FULL TIME.”          LRH (from HCO PL 20 Jun 68 “Ethics Officers”)

During early Sept 98 various programs were released aiming to establish standard on-policy ethics section in the orgs, and to get people properly hatted in these area's. Simultaneously as a new and expanded edition of the ‘Introduction to Scientology Ethics’ book got released and promoted. (see ‘Int Mgmt Exec Committee ED 2503/2507’, 6/7 Sept 98 “Creating a Golden Age of Ethics to Get Tech in”)

Following this in Sept 98 was introduced the “Get Trained Go OT Campaign” which involved the “Golden Age of Tech Trainees to FLAG Program”.

Then it gets rather silent surrounding the Golden Age of Tech. It continues to be referred to and validated at various occasions and all that, but we don't see particular new projects introduced or programs being issued in regards to getting the lines established regarding Golden Age of Tech. One may have thought that enough actions had been taken, and that there was no need for such anymore. After all more than 2 years had passed since its birth in May 96.

	“Recent investigation into the local field at Flag revealed that many had in fact done this ... . However, it was also found that some still have to come in and do so. ...
	ALL PRIORLY TRAINED AUDITORS WHO HAVE STILL TO DO THE CERTAINTY COURSE FOR THEIR LEVELS NOW HAVE A 3-MONTH PERIOD TO COME IN AND GET STARTED. ...
	No - this is NOT an option.
	This IS Keeping Scientology Working.” (from ‘FSO ED 8053’, 3 Feb 2005 “A Golden Age of Tech Field, The Golden Age of Tech and Priorly Trained Auditors”)

Thus presented as an ultimatum. Obviously a lot of pressure was placed onto this. This was also related through an “I HELP Information Letter” that specifically stated that unless you do your Golden Age of Tech training that you can no longer audit professionally (i.e. charge people). This all actually would then function as a covert certificate cancellation, but without coming out and saying so. It is in fact assumed and taken as a datum at many places amongst Scientologists and within the organization that if one had not done the Golden Age of Tech training/drilling and all that jazz, that you were considered not being a Standard Tech auditor. This would mean that any that had done his training and received his certificate prior to May 96 was regarded (although mostly silently) as a non-Standard Tech auditor. Although Standard Tech in auditing as such was firmly established with the release of the Class VIII materials, and this was back in 1968. Do your calculation.

This ultimatum created a problem as it appeared that there were 500 plus trained auditors in the Flag field that had yet to do the Certainty Courses. This became clear at the Auditors Association meetings at the FSO in 2005 where they were running a call in program to get these previously trained auditors contacted. For this reason it was halted as one would have ended up with a large area where no auditing in the field was occurring.

	“One of the primary points of the GAT was ‘to create an army of auditors to the same standards of Flag anywhere in the world.’ This was repeated for the next several years in numerous mailings and promo about the GAT. Of course that ‘Army of Auditors’ never materialized and the ‘training boom’ never occurred. If you look at the stats of how many people were on training pre-GAT and the numbers of people trained since it is staggering. If you go into practically ANY class V org one will find damn few people doing levels these days. There is no ‘Army of Auditors’ - it never happened. In so far as that stated objective goes, the GAT simply did not deliver and simply can't be considered successful in that regard.
	Also, the last May 9th event was the 10th anniversary of the GAT. I was present at the event at Flag. Nothing whatsoever about the GAT was mentioned past the outer org trainee program run at FSO. Interestingly enough, the entire viewpoint was that these trainees would be trained to FLAG standards and would then take Flag standards back with them and boom their Orgs. In other words, this is the same ‘program’ that existed pre-GAT - train people perfectly at Flag and they will export the standard of perfection. This was going to be replaced by training an army to the same standard as Flag anywhere - since they are now using the same pre-GAT logic it can only be concluded that management does not see the GAT as viable when it comes to this army being created by Orgs, nor Orgs being able to achieve the ‘same standards’.
	I must say, being at that event, the TEN YEAR anniversary, I expected to hear at least a few words to follow up on the ‘success’ of the GAT in the last 10 years. I was stunned to see it completely avoided. The original objectives of the GAT are dead and abandoned.”

The person that related this to me is an old-timer Scientologist closely located to Flag in Clearwater, Florida. Various aspects that were shared I can confirm to be correct. The orgs that I know about and that I in person have visited do not give a flattering picture. A few years back I went to visit the AOSH EU (Advanced organization in Denmark), and I hardly saw a public going around there. I was greatly surprised about that. During the late ’80s I stayed there for a period of about 4 months, and I recall very clearly that there was public everywhere at virtually any time during opening on any day of the week, sitting, standing, eating, waiting, talking, walking about, going in and out the building, and so on. And I thought “Where are all the people? Now, the other side that we have of course is the PR which is promoted at those public Scientology meetings, on video's, in magazines and all that. And these, to say the least, display a very different picture. What can I say? You have to find out for yourself, and see with your own eyes. I haven't visited every org and it may very well be different at your place. Although a contact of mine that had worked for many years at the New York Foundation org as a staff auditor reported to me a year or so ago that they had 2 persons on the SHSBC, and this was about the usual scenery over a longer period of time. Considering in this case that this particular org some years back was declared being a St-Hill sized org (this equals a particular (high) expansion rate matching the old St-Hill org in England during the ’60s where L. Ron Hubbard was running the show). And I thought “How could that be?”. One might have to check up on the orgs that in previous years had been given the St-Hill size org status and see how things are today. Once St-Hill size org status may not endure through time.

Either way it is rather alarming.

	“CLOUDING UP A SITUATION
	Occasionally you'll find a scene wherein a person's or area's PR is greater to him than his production—PR, personal PR, means more than production. And that is a characteristic of a suppressive. He'll fog the situation up with big PR about how good it is so it can't be handled.”          LRH (from HCO PL 15 Mar 77R (Revised 17 Sept 77) “Evaluation: The Situation”, taken from a lecture given 2 Jan 70)

Regarding the Golden Age of Tech ...

• The “Wrong Why” exerted?  or  Inventing the wheel all over again
• About ‘no product’ and ‘arbitraries’ ...

 
The “Wrong Why” exerted?  or  Inventing the wheel all over again

	“When an evaluation is rejected, care must be taken that the criticism is correct and not capricious.
	If one gives out-tech criticisms of evaluations, no evaluator will really ever learn evaluation. He will just become confused and desperate. The quality of evaluations will deteriorate and the Data Series potential will be defeated.
	Therefore the only criteria that may be used in calling attention to outnesses in an eval, a requested rewrite or correction are: ... (it lists A. to W.)
	K.    Wrong Why.”          LRH (from HCO PL 3 Jul 74 “Evaluation, Criticism of”)

Things may turn into reinventing the wheel all over again. People always seem to operate this way. It's hard to just following some basic layout. We have to change it! We know better! We prefer our own creation or interpretation more than another that already has proven its workability. We find this phenomena all over the place in today's society. An interesting observation that baffled me is one that relates to putting together textbooks for schools. One would expect that one learns from and maintains the material in previous school/textbooks that have proven its correctness and effectiveness. Well, you may be quite in error here! Many school textbooks in use today have been newly written and are put together from scratch. The result as I have personally seen can be utterly disastrous! In history class during the ’90s I made use of a textbook from the ’40s, makes you wonder why my grades were above average. The newest or latest is not necessarily the best.

We may see this same scenario repeated also within these today's Scientology inventions. It in fact has been done during its entire existence! Old-timer Scientologists remember this from experience as they were actually there. Much proof is however also found within the Scientology writings, just scan through HCO PLs, HCOBs and LRH EDs and such. You will find many instances that some person came up with some new thing or interpretation, and guess what, it was presented so impressively or convincingly that all fell for it, and it gets printed up, distributed, and pushed through the lines. And the moment L. Ron Hubbard becomes aware of all this, and next thing you know is it gets abruptly cancelled and taken out of use. Notices from L. Ron Hubbard of these instances are recorded at many places in his published and collected writings.

“During the past few years, unbeknownst to me, a whole sphere of action built up which made students drill processes. I swear, there has been a ‘practical drill’ made out of half the processes we have.”          LRH (from HCO PL 17 May 65 “CCHs”)

“Amazingly, the reissue of Dianetics as Standard Dianetics caused about a dozen people (even in high places unfortunately) to at once assume that Dianetics wiped out any need for Power, Scientology Clearing or anything else! Even an unauthorized Policy Letter (not signed by me) and an HCO B (also not signed by me) gave this impression. They were of course cancelled the instant they were discovered to have been sent out.”          LRH (from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “ VIII Actions”)

“Note:  Neglect of this PL has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out, international effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. ‘Quickie grades’ entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases.”          LRH (from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working” (reissue notice from 15 Jun 1970))

Now, would there be any reason why we would or should believe that something like that can't still happen in 1996? May be because some tell us that it can't? The only thing that can determine that is to pursue a properly carried out evaluation. You don't listen to all the public relation (PR), the stories, or convincing arguments. (ref. HCO PL 16 Mar 72 I “Look Don't Listen”)

It is not so hard to display or present something as if it is correct. It is really not so hard. A reality can be pushed as something that seems to be like: “Yeah, that's GREAT, we need to have that! Let's promote that!”. People catch on quite quickly. They do most certainly! The data and analysis that I present on my pages, will speak for themselves. The reality we are facing is that inconsistencies have been found.

	“The end product of your evaluation could be said to be ‘What do we do about this?’ In other words, your recommendation could be said to be the end product. Actually that's a short circuit. As far as your investigation and your data analysis is concerned your first target, the Why, if skipped will defeat the end product of your evaluation. If that Why is found then you can handle.
	A Why is just this: It is the reason there has been a departure or closer approach to or an exceeding of the ideal scene. ...
	The Why is something which departed from, the reason it departed from or the reason why it bettered the ideal scene or got closer to it. It is a Why you can use and which will bring you a better scene.
	Therefore the definition of a Why is: It must be something which will permit you to bring about a better scene—not necessarily bring about the ideal scene.”          LRH (from HCO PL 15 Mar 77R (Revised 17 Sept 77) “Evaluation: The Situation”, taken from a lecture given 2 Jan 70)

 
About ‘no product’ and ‘arbitraries’ ...

The Golden Age of Tech initiative involves addressing and handling an undesired situation. However, as this study presented here on this website unfolds is that a handling for that situation already existed. Instead of using the existing remedies other solutions were being created/invented. A few more applicable references are found here below that fold out the symptoms of behaviour that can be observed, and to determine if or that causes one to revert to other solutions.

The main breakdown here is the need to organize, to organize and control excessively.

No product

“Therefore when you are getting no product, look for the misunderstood word on the subject no matter how long and arduous it is. It's there. And when it's found, the person can go on and complete a cycle of action and get a product.”

	“MISUNDERSTOODS AND TOTAL ORGANIZE
	When you see an area that is organizing only, you know that area is loaded with misunderstoods. ...
	You can tell when people have Mis-Us—they are totally involved in organize, organize, organize. They don't know what they are doing.”          LRH (from HCOB 26 Mar 79RB (Revised 2 Sept 79) “Misunderstood Words and Cycles of Action”)

Arbitraries

“Each time an arbitrary is introduced it has the effect of reducing the rationale and tone of the group as a whole and will lead to the necessity of introducing two or three more arbitraries, each one of which in turn will lead to the necessity for several more arbitraries, each one of which in turn will lead to the necessity for several more arbitraries until there is an entire network of arbitraries which have sought to correct some central evil. After a short time a complexity in the situation makes it very difficult to discover the central point of departure.”          LRH
(from ‘The Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 7’ Jan 51 “Group Dianetics”)

An interesting note can be placed here in regards to that the basic failure of the Golden Age of Tech (May 1996) to properly solidify, caused the coming into being of A Golden Age of Ethics to Get Tech in (June 1998). Then this was pounded on for a while with various programs send out and so fort, and this went on for some years. And when this also turned against expectations, this was the time one may have chosen to wanting to forget about it. And then instead of celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Golden Age of Tech it got pretty much pushed into the background and was not given any attention in particular anymore. Nonetheless during summaries of previous successes at the events of the Church of Scientology, as a rule it is then briefly noted that the whole Golden Age of Tech evolution was a huge success. But was it really? By now I know many that never came through or are having huge problems to finish for example their E-meter course as some drills seem undoable or the sort. I would figure that an excess of 2 years on learning how to operate an E-meter is a bit too long.

‘Do What Ron Says’  &  The Department of Correction

	“These handlings may sound brilliant, and indeed they are. That's because they are a real application of ‘Do what Ron says.’
	Every aspect of our handlings exists in numerous LRH references. True, there has been much effort involved in compiling the new drills, and developing the Simulator and Quantum E-Meter. But it was by continual reference to what LRH said to do that guided the investigation and spelled out the handling. Over and over—in films, HCOBs, Policy Letters, lectures and even despatches, LRH said that the handling for auditor training was DRILL! Factually, our contribution was a straight duplication of what LRH said, including how he said to drill.”

That all sounds alright, but it should be kept in the Department of Correction*. L. Ron Hubbard does not recommend or advice anywhere that everyone had to do drilling as per Golden Age of Tech right from the first course. Resorted however is to put everyone on this particular drilling right away, and thus not as just a corrective action as per the 1971 LRH lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”. It is also duly noted that ‘Inspector General Network Bulletin No. 22’ or any of the releases in the ‘Senior C/S Int Bulletin 165’: “Golden Age of Tech Series” do not make any notice or referral to HCO PL 16 Apr 65 II “Drills, Allowed”. Why is this?

So, when we think about it, are we actually doing what Ron tells us to do?

“Now, you say, ‘Drills?’ Well yes. ... a Drills Course which has a drill for every auditing action, the wildest thing you ever saw in your life. ... And that goes right in the direction of your Cramming Section ...

... the Cramming Officer can pick out from a great big, long, thick pack of drills he can pick the drills that the fellow has been flunking in his auditing and make him drill those things. ...

And, if you have got a library there that has the information in it, oh, you've got it made, flubless auditing! A piece of cake!”          LRH
(from lecture “A Talk on a Basic Qual”, given on 5 Sept 71)

Sound snippet

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.
     C/S:
‘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)
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     Department of Correction:  
Dept 15, Correction Division. Its purpose is to help LRH ensure that all Scientology and Dianetics knowledge is freely available, fully used and promptly corrected when misapplied, thus ensuring the technical honesty of the organization. Its ideal scene is an org library full of all Scientology and Dianetics materials and tapes, reference books and dictionaries of all kinds, well tabulated and cross referenced, which is used by the org staff and students. A Cramming finding real whys on a meter for staff, student and auditor flubs and alertly ensuring that materials are known, cleared of misunderstoods and drilled to confident certainty. It has a cramming section which teaches students what they have missed. (on pre-1973 Seven Div Org Boards this was referred to as the Department of Review, Dept 14). See also at cramming.
     FEBC:  
‘Flag Executive Briefing Course’. Consists of high level administration technology.
     FSO:
‘Flag Service Organization’. Senior Scientology service organization located at Flag in Clearwater, Fl. Here the highest Scientology services are being delivered.
     HCO (Division):
‘Hubbard Communications Office’. It's in charge of the org boards, personnel, hatting and communication lines. HCO builds, holds, maintains, mans and controls the organization. It's in charge of inspection and it's in charge of ethics. Has the say on all copyrights and trademarks, rights of materials and the issuance of publications.
     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).
     I HELP:
‘International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors’. It provides Field Auditors with the needed guidance and help to operate successfully as auditors in the field.
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     misunderstood(s):
Refers to a word or words that have not been properly understood, and therefore one is unable to apply or duplicate.
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     PAB:
‘Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
     pc folder:
‘preclear folder’. The preclear is the person receiving Dianetics or Scientology processing. The folder contains all information relating to the processing the person is receiving.
    P/L or PL:
‘HCO PL’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     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)
     Qual Library:
‘Qualifications Library’. Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction).  1. There is a Qual Librarian, whose duties are essentially those of a librarian, collecting up the materials, logging and storing them safely, making up cross reference files so that the material can be easily located. (BPL 21 Jan 73R, Use the Library to Restore Lost Technology)  2. Now that takes an interesting librarian because he's the Technical Information Center. (7109C05 SO, A Talk on a Basic Qual)  3. Qual is in the business of finding and restoring lost tech. (BPL 22 Nov 71R, Qual Org Officer/Esto)
     Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.
     SHSBC:
‘Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     starrate checkout:
A very exact checkout which verifies the full and minute knowledge of the student, of a portion of study materials and tests his full understanding of the data and ability to apply it. (HCOB 21 Sept 70)
     ‘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).
     Training Routine (TR):
Training regimen or routine. Often referred to as a training drill. TRs are a precise training action putting a student through laid out practical steps gradient by gradient, to teach a student to apply with certainty what he has learned. In particular these are for training of an auditor in regards to communication. The ones presently in use are OT TR 0, TR 0 confronting, TR 0 bullbait, TR 1, 2, 2½, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 100, 100-A, 101, 102, 103 & 104. (for more data see ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ & HCOB 17 Jul 69RB)