From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 10 - January 1993

... Ivy 8
By Otto J. Roos, Holland

Hereby some notes on IVy 8. I realise that much of IVy contains the
opinions of others on the subjects of auditing and other technologies,
that these opinions are real to those who communicate them, and may
well be very much disagreed with by others. For reasons of length I
shall discuss only some items of tech seen in your articles.

Power of thought, Hari Seldon

On page 3, col 2, para 3, I wonder who these human beings are who have
high quality thetans inside their minds. Who are the others who do
not? The tech nowhere mentions thetans to be something human beings

Human beings, as described in para 4, who "cannot benefit from
auditing technology" apparently do exist for Hari Seldon although I in
very many years of auditing have not come across them. The definition
of "Auditing Tech" includes whatever other cycles (like medical,
dental, PTS 3 handling, purif, etc.) may have to precede the
application of objective/subjective auditing procedures. I have never
met an individual who could not, and once on tech lines, did not
benefit from auditing.

Most of the rest of Hari's article is well known data. Increasing an
individual's R by comm on the subject of Scn automatically increases
his U. That the best comm is by Training is a matter of course.

Page 4, under "making the able more able", he talks about human beings
which "cannot be reached by Scn Auditing technology". Again, in dozens
of years of auditing I have never come across such people. That there
are many whom it mightn't be viable to handle in terms of the
amount of time and money spent versus the attainable results, is quite
a different matter. That has to do with viability and is not a matter
of lacking technology. (ps: page 3, "Placebo", mentioning of the "wog"
world is invalidative.)

"You" can audit, Leonard Dunn

Page 9, column 1, the last 9 lines. During years of auditing as Case
Officer SHUK, i.e. in England, I have never noticed a pc to have
problems with the word auditor. Maybe in PT the CoS places limitations
upon its auditors. In the past the only limitations were ones as laid
down in the technical data. The -what to do when-, has always clearly
been stated, even if at times wrongly. In most cases earlier goofs in
bulletins, once spotted, were corrected at later stage. The top
auditors on Flag was supposed to know their data (and did!) to the
point of being able to compute instantaneously, i.e. without the need
to figure figure think think "what to do next". There was no
"limitation" placed upon them by the church but only by the demands of
the technology. Knowing their data and being able to use it, they also
did not need umpty unusual solutions and others practices!

Page 9, col 2, "TR's in Actual Practice". I ran the Pilot Flag modern
TR Courses in the early 70's under LRH's personal supervision. The
unsolicited success stories, even from Flag -staff!- were unbelievably
positive. (I received similar stories when several years ago I ran
such a course on and at the request of some Class 8 and 9 auditors in
the U.S.). Page 9, col 2, "TR's in Actual practice", says that " the
Church has tended to over dramatise these training routines"; so what?
Whatever a church or anybody else makes them into has nothing to do
with their validity! Page 10, col 1, talks about the poker faced
auditor. An ack (TR 2) has to be -appropriate-. On what data does the
auther of the article base his assumed need of having to be poker
faced on TRO? All the auditing data amounts to Realities another can
have. So, what is all  this nit picking and make wrong of perfect
technical data? Who says, as this author seems to think, that "one has
to sit like a stone statue for the whole sessions". I have been
audited by LRH and have also audited him! I have never been aware of
any "stone statueing". The fact that the TR's are a -training- routine
seems to be completely not-ised. The "stone face", like the flunk this
author seems to object to, are merely training to enable an auditor to
inflow anything a pc may throw his way. This anything, especially in
XII auditing, when handling the basis of insanity, can be very
restimulative indeed and -will- throw the poorly trained auditor. A
student who gets upset by a flunk is not one to sit in the chair and
be entrusted to handle a case without endless Q&A and auditor cave in!
Although flunk may not be nice, it certainly never invalidated me or
any of my students! In fact, my "wog" office and production staffs
enjoy non lovey dovey training.

Re Page 10, TR1, I'm glad the author got through by self auditing! It
makes one wonder why the author needed an auditor at all. To actually
publish that a sound TR1 is not essential explains about where
auditing went! If TR1 is not essential, why is clearing the command
essential!? With a lousy TR1 the pc is not going to receive it anyway,
so who cares about clearing it! The critique of TR3 ditto. Tech data -
does- give the clear difference between comments and originations. The
fact that the pc made a reference to a shell on a book case was not
necessarily indicative of an effort to blow session (a comment)! An
auditor whose TR0 is IN -does- see the difference and does compute
correctly! He also spots the rightness of TR3 and looks for his own
MU's before engaging in criticism. Page 11, col 1, TR6-9. I had
already done these innumerable times before running the Flag X to XII
TR training programs and thought I had a very good command of them
until LRH himself came down from the Bridge (from which he supervised
my training sessions on the forward deck), ran them on me and trained
me in their training! This was a superlative experience which I would
not have missed for anything! Not having trained on these, the author
(of course) has no reason to believe he missed out anything. Instead
of publishing what could be interpreted by new people to mean that
TR's 6-9 are not needed, it might be an idea to get himself trained.


The TR's and their application are a matter of understanding them and
their purpose. Making the data wrong for whatever a church, or others
who did not understand it, may have done with it, is going wrong

Kemp's Column

Page 13, col 2, "Something new ", Ray Kemp hits it right on the head!!

Comment on Ron, AAP

Page 17, "Comment on Ron". Indeed, the debrief was written only giving
facts about my years on Flag. It was a debrief and as such did not
give much by way of eval and opinion. However, the last lines said:
"The great tragedy of it all is not even that he got caught in his
overts to the extent that in the end virtually everything restimulated
his out ruds, but is the fact that he finally penalished himself
horribly by denying himself the only thing which could have saved him,
his -own- creation, auditing."

Personal integration by inner listening, Per Schi›ttz

Page 23, "Application". The author, I feel, invals himself when saying
he is "C/Sing in the chair", when all he is doing is exactly listening
and computing. He is duplicating the pc's mind and acting accordingly
with the correct question. He himself says that he is handling the
case in front of him, which is all an auditor could and should do!

The story of Excalibur, Ulrich

Page 28, col 2, The telepathic messages from -the boss-? As LRH was
still very much alive in those days, one could look for out points in
that story, but that's for each person him/herself to decide.

Page 29, col 2, That NOTS was supposed to be the "cure all" may well
have been someone's interpretation, but is not what the data said.
That the whole thing, "didn't make sense" may have been Robertson's
eval but is not necessarily true. Processes needed, if any, in
addition to valence tech, can be run when such is needed to handle a
particular item. That many solo auditors can't run these through lack
of training is immaterial. They should find a review auditor who -can-
! None of this invalidates the validity of OT3, old OT7, OT3X, and
NOTS data!

Page 29, col 2, I don't know how OT3 is being run today, but I was the
research auditor/Flag Case Officer in the early SO, so apart from
doing research work on it, I certainly knew how OT3 was being run back
then. In these days I was the only person there who had completed OT2.
Bill Robertson had done the Class 6 and 7 courses, but had very little
experience as an auditor. Even after having done the Flag Class 8
course, he audited very little as he was involved in ship matters
(navigational) or away on mission, setting up orgs. I had him as a
student, when supervising ships' courses for Mary Sue Hubbard who was
CS2. (I reviewed most cases, including Bill Robertson, when their solo
went awry.) He only completed the tech auditing requirements for Class
8 and had no further Tech experience.

It is also a fact that the original OT3 consisted of several fat files
(each at least 2 inches thick), none of which data was ever published
as LRH did not consider it necessary for the actual handling of the
level and considered the contents too restimulative (they were quite
heavy!). A few years later, when FESing all the LRH folders, (These
were all LRH's own pc folders, i.e. concerning LRH's own case and all
the auditing he received since 1948.) I C/Sed these files also. Again,
many years later, in the independent days, I read "Revolt in the
Stars" and large amounts of Bill's material. it is not my job to eval
the validity of Bill's data, but it wasn't the same as the unpublished

Page 30, col 1, last para, makes it very clear what happened.
"Verbose" lectures even when training mere beginners, non supervision,
etc. were, so it seems, accepted as a matter af course by the students
and C/S trainees: -out ethics, out tech, out admin, and out points-!
With that kind of irresponsibility for data emanated, and for students
and trainees, it is no wonder one would feel hunted by assassins.
Regardless of how that type of omission is justified, it is certainly
the GAE#1 (Gross Auditing Error number one. Ed.) of not being there!

Page 30, col 2, I worked under LRH as C/S and John McMaster as Qual
Sec during the development of Power as Case Officer SHUK, then senior
auditors's post W/W. On Flag - it was LRH (1967/8), not Bill R, who
brought PRPR's (PRPR (capital letters) and a number were the
designations (names) for the different power processes. Ed.) into OT3
(thus NOTS eventually!), especially PRPR6 to handle SP OT3 material!
Later I, as Flag C/S, originated, test ran and published multiple flow
Power for LRH C/S, hence consider I know PRPR data. Power processing
was NEVER lost!!


Whatever the individuals in the examples given do is their own affair.
Even if it means making the tech wrong. Others consider that those who
want it should study the same tech -as it is-. Somebody like myself
who has successfully worked with, in, and through it, also in
ethics/admin-tech/policy, in C/S, auditing & exec chairs, -and- in
life for many years, is one of these others.