Well, how are you tonight?

Thank you.

Audience: Fine.

Here we are, second lecture and this is Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 19 April AD 12. And we’re going to talk to you now about processes, recommended – recommended processes. Now, I haven’t actually issued an authoritative statement on this – recommended processes – for some time. And it’s about time that we did a summary on this particular activity.

Well, you're progressing anyway. Some of the people who were sitting at the back are now sitting at the front. Must be some progress indicated here.

Now, you’re always going to run into difficulty on an interpretation. Interpretation gives you lots of difficulty, particularly if you do something else that isn’t said, but something that is apparently understood in the statement. And nobody else understands it, but – that way and so forth.

Well, we have a couple of interesting things to go into tonight on these two lectures. And the first and foremost of them concerns rudiments and the demonstration which you saw last night.

But nevertheless, in the absence of a recommended procedure, of course, you could make a lot of mistakes of one kind or another. Now, I’ll tell you an optimum method of auditing a pc, more or less, as of now. There’s some data through on this and I’ve inspected quite a few cases in the last two or three months and several things show up. Now, I told you that Prepchecking, we dropped Prepchecking out and we only drop it out in the line of a permanent gain. See, we don’t rely on Prepchecking for a long, permanent gain.

And this is what? This is the 19th — 19th of April, AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. You can always tell it's a Briefing Course lecture because somebody's knocking at that door over there.

In the first place you could make a long permanent gain, perhaps with Prepchecking, if auditors would go deeply enough. And it isn’t that the Prepchecking will not produce results, it’s just that the auditor isn’t producing a long, permanent gain with Prepchecking.

Now, you saw a demonstration last night and most of you understood what it was, although one of you thought it was a demonstration of CCHs. But it wasn't. That was a demonstration of checkouts.

Nevertheless, this does not drop Prepchecking out of your lineup, a long way from it. Let’s use Prepchecking at the depth the auditors are using it and that they’re being successful with it. Now, this is the basic formula on which I would audit a pc today. I would establish whether or not the pc was getting tone arm action and then would adjudicate my future course on that basis. I’m not even telling you how you would have established this, don’t you see? And get into 3D Criss Cross as soon as I was sure that the pc would get tone arm action and that his rudiments stayed in easily.

Now, first and foremost you should recognize that one of those demonstrations was not a good pattern. That was the one I did on Wing. And that was not a good pattern because it tended to invalidate his items even though it instructed the auditor to get the invalidations off of his items, you understand? Going over his items at that stage, when he's just now beginning to win — where are you Wing?

In other words, I’d get on 3D Criss Cross as soon as I auditorily could. See, I’d get to it as soon as I could. I’m talking now as though you were auditing a pc in an HGC or in your own practice, something or other. That’s the way I’m talking right now. I’m not talking about, necessarily, how we would audit a pc here or how you have to audit a pc.

Male voice: I'm right in back here.

I’d establish this fact and if tone arm action was liberal and present I would get into 3D Criss Cross at once and sail from there, doing just standard, flawless, 3D Criss Cross. And I would get myself at least twenty lines. And in case I forget to mention it, 3D Criss Cross items are most beneficial, apparently, if opptermed at once. In other words, if you get a line, oppterm it so that you don’t have lines without two items. In other words don’t keep letting them slide. Apparently this thing goes together better and runs better if it’s done this way.

Yeah. Ah-ha, you retreated. Going over his items at that particular stage was not an optimum action, you see, because the difficulty really did not lie with the items. But there were a couple of false items on the list. But it won't upset a pc all that much. you see? Couple of them weren't proper, because he's still in the state of getting items to join up with items, you see? And there's still a lot of things between, you know, and around, and he hasn't quite got the Goals Problem Mass item versus the Goals Problem Mass item that causes a fizzle down and a blow, you see? You see, when you get the two adjacent items, one against the other, it all tends to deintensify like mad, you know. It takes tremendous — thing to hang up. He's still getting items which are distant from items. You got the idea?

That is almost an opinion, don’t you see? I mean, that it – it’s better that way. All right, it can easily be done the other way, but apparently it’s much easier on the pc, gives the pc much better gains. His attention is right there on half of it so therefore you can get the other half rather easily and so forth. And it’ll probably save you auditing time, make the pc more comfortable and there are apparently quite a few advantages to doing this. Okay? That’s just as almost an aside.

Now frankly, the recommendation I would have made to the auditor — and this is the one thing you didn't see last night — you see, you didn't see the recommendations I would have made to the auditor, nor the inspection of the sessions. Now, those are quite important. The inspection of the session would have followed each one of those. And I could have gone in and asked the pc more of what was going on in the session. And the way'I would have done that is after I'd found what rudiments were out, I would have made a searching inquiry, perhaps, into it. And possibly the whole thing could have been located that way. I would not prefer to do that however. On auditing supervision, I would prefer to observe then, the session itself.

But you get about twenty items – twenty lines rather and then you’ve got twenty lines, you’ve got forty items, haven’t you? So you’d wind up with forty items. Now, somewhere along this line with this many lines, you would undoubtedly have reached practically every part and parcel of the bank one way or the other.

Now, I probably wouldn't do it the first time I found all the rudiments out, you see. Following that inspection of the pc and the discovery that the rudiments were out, I would have tipped the auditor off. See, I would have told the auditor to do so-and-so and so-and-so and get the rudiments in, you know, before he went on doing something and I would have been very pleasant about it. See? Gentlemanly; pleasant — at that stage. And then I would have, however, kept this — the GAE list — see, if I were running clinical actions, and so forth — a gross auditing error — GAE, you see? We haven't got enough mysterious terms. We have to invent a few more, you see.

Now, I’d go back and get the third item for the lot by assessment.-See, I’d just go over these twenty items. I’d just read them off to the pc and see which was bouncing the hardest and I would oppterm it. Neglecting that one now I’d see which one was now bouncing the hardest and I’d oppterm that until I had a line – a third rack for all of them. See? Now I’ve got three for all. See? And then I’d get four for all. Then I’d get five for all. You got the idea how it could go on?

And I would have taken this and I would have laid it aside. And after a couple of days I would have seen if I was getting a recurrence, see — three, four, five days. you know, was I getting a recurrence of all this. How long was this person staying on the GAE list? See, are we still getting a no tone arm action? That's all I would have adjudicated about it. See, in studying the report — the next day's reports — I would have looked for tone arm action. I possibly would have been very nice and given him two auditing sessions in which to get the tone arm acting, see? And by the next session after that, if I didn't see some tone arm action on that case, then I would have gone further than to have been polite with the auditor.

Certainly, with that liberal spread, I guarantee that along about this time you’ll be finding the pc. That’s a very broad look in expectancy of what would be a complete 3D Criss Cross. It’d get complete along about that time. You’d wind up – you’d wind up with a crosscut saw and it opptermed timber. And then you would get timber oppterming a crosscut saw. And everything would start to cone down to this is what you got. And these were the items. And the pc was being the crosscut saw. And about that time he’d exteriorize from the crosscut saw and he’d be able to get into his body and the… You’ve got various things that could go on from there, don’t you see.

The next thing I would have done would have been stuck my nose in that session. Because I don't care how covertly you stick your nose in a session, whether it's by a microphone situated in the room in a listening post or simply walking in and letting — while the session goes on, you see. Because I would have assumed by that time that the gross auditing error was so gross that no advice I gave the auditor had anything to do with what the auditor was doing.

But actually you’re getting down – what you’re doing is looking for the thing which the pc has been and which he has been interiorizing into as. See, he’s been this thing. He’s been this thing for ages. And really, it’s the first thing he’s been. Shades of the Rock. See, the Rock was the first thing the pc had been. You got the idea?

See, I would have assumed by that time this is terribly gross, you see, this is enormous. Any of you can get a pc with the rudiments out. Pcs' rudiments go out. you know, session ended a little bit early, they were three-quarters of the way through the list, they felt like mad. They went out of session after that and they nattered about the auditor and they ran up some overts against this and that, and they cheat-cheat on something of the sort and that made them call up their ex-wife and give her hell, don't you see? And then they decided that night they felt so bad that they'd better have a few drinks, you see? And havingness went down, don't you see? And by the time we check this pc, why we've got out-rudiments. All right, fine. Yeah, sure. But tomorrow you get the rudiments in and the pc gets to sailing again.

So, of course, if you get the thing – first thing that the pc had obsessively been, that is the last thing the pc will look at and exteriorize from.

Now, I'm talking about when the rudiments don't go in. See, then we start to get police-doggish. Now, we don't have to bark and bite and gnaw their legs off just because one time this was slated for a possible gross auditing error, you see, because we weren't getting tone arm action. Any auditor is liable to run a session with no tone arm action. See, that's liable to happen to the best of us. But three in a row without doing anything about it, no, that's not liable to happen to the best of us. one and one-half, maybe. Two — and certainly not three. See what I mean?

Now, that’s a theoretical map of 3D Criss Cross without doing any auditing of the items.

Audience: Mm-hm.

Now, you’ll find that sooner or later your situation is going to change and your early items will deintensify. They’ll start to drop out and the bank starts to fall apart and things that were reading now aren’t reading, you know, you get that idea? Only your last lineup reads. The early lineups no longer read. There isn’t enough charge left in the bank to make them wiggle. See?

Because an auditor would be a perfect stupe, he'd be a perfect knucklehead, to sit there with no waggle tone arm, and just go on and away and away it was running and feet on the window sill, you know, and having the pc light his cigarette. The thing is — the thing that must be just totally crazy, see. I mean a — because, look, look — you audit the pc in front of you, you don't audit a textbook pc, you don't audit a pc I mocked up for you — you don't audit any pc except the one who is sitting right in that chair.

Now, to do that I would use, basically, Prehav – the Prehav Assessment and lines from the Prehav Assessment. I would use all the suppressor lines – pardon me, then I’d use the flows lines and then I would use the suppressor lines. Any other kind of a line that seemed to have worked out as being a good line, I’d just get a good sampling of others – a lot. But they would be dominantly suppressors, flows and prehavs. See, they’d mostly amount to those three lines – those three types of line. That’d give you lots. That’d give you lots to work on. I can fully expect that I´ll come up with some even hotter lines, you know, that you say, “List this,” and the pc disintegrates in the chair.

And you have an oddity today — a great oddity. This has probably never happened before on the history of Earth, where the textbook solution had anything to do with reality. See, I mean, in all training — you will find all training has the common denominator of the textbook solution is never met. I remember training generals in Egypt. It was difficult. You say, "When fighting Numidians, you inevitably and invariably make very certain that your flanks are secure, because the Numidian — because of horses and that sort of thing — can very easily collapse your flanks. So one of the first things you do in fighting Numidians is make sure that both flanks are very secure. And the best way to do this is to put one flank against the seacoast. You see? And the other flank against a wadi. you see, that's the best way to do that." No general you ever taught ever fought any Numidians on the seacoast. You see, you run into these small difficulties in training.

But nothing would change with regard to the procedure. The procedure is the same, what you’re doing is the same and that’s all standard, see. Where you get your lines from, this could remain a bit of a variable, without disturbing the whole lineup at all. All right.

That's typical of Earth. They're always telling you in navigational schools that what you do is go out on the bridge and you take a shot of the star, and then you take a shot at another star. And then you come back in and you put down accurately the times and angle, and then you figure it out by some navigational system, and then you've got a position. And it's always a textbook solution. The only trouble is, they never bother to tell you that the horizon can vary at various times because of heat mirage, you know, and it can vary because sometimes you have big waves, and if a fellow isn't terribly experienced in all this, he can get as much as a thirty-minute, fifty-minute error. Oh, just like that. And that, you see, is thirty to fifty miles. And that's on a good day. And on other days, when — that aren't so good he can get an error up to three and four degrees, and every degree is sixty miles. This is something on the order of finding yourself in the middle of the Sahara when you're going through the Straits of Gibraltar, you know?

Now, that’s – that’s like this, see. We set the pc down and we look it over and the needle’s live and it isn’t scratchy and the pc’s rudiments go in and we ask him some questions about this and that and he gets some tone arm action, and we say fine and we just go right into listing and we’re off to the races and we get twenty lines and oppterm each line that we get. And that would be the way we would clear somebody, see?

Textbook solutions. They're marvelous. It disgraces all training on Earth actually, on practically every subject known to man. Because the guy on the job is always meeting conditions which are entirely different from the conditions which he has been taught to meet. Wars are full of these sort of things. All men's pursuits are full of these things. Women in all of their varied actions collide with these things.

All right, that’s fine, that’s the way I’d do it. I’d make the test to find out which way this thing went. I wouldn’t particularly depend on profiles and I wouldn’t depend on anything else. I’d just want to see that tone arm wiggle.

You take a cookbook, you go into the kitchen, and it says — and somehow or another they just never — well you get this thing about a "pinch." I saw some textbooks on cooking once and you had "pinches." Please tell me how much a pinch is, you know?

Now, I’m not telling you at this time the best method of finding out if the tone arm will wiggle. Because I wouldn’t – I don’t know it. I haven’t investigated it on a whole bunch of pc’s that have never been audited before and found what was the best way to test whether or not the line was wiggling. But fortunately you’re not faced with that very often. You generally have a bit of history on this pc that you’re doing and if you don’t have a bit of history on the pc, why, you could do several things. You could give him a – start to give him a Problems Intensive or something like that. And you’re going to find out if that thing is going to move, see? Anything that will establish whether or not the rudiments can be put in and the tone arm will move. See, any way you could establish that would tell you, “That’s fine, we’ll go on and do 3D Criss Cross,” or, “Now, let’s get to the crux of the situation – heh, we’ll do something else, heh-eh.”

Now, out in the gold rush days they used to hire bartenders with big thumbs because a drink went for a pinch of gold dust, you see? And the miner would put his poke up there to buy a drink and the bartender would reach in and take a pinch, you see, of gold dust and serve a drink. So they always got a bartender there with a thumb like a spade. How much is a pinch, you know? It comes down this far. And you get all these variations of one kind or another.

It looks something on the order of a fixed beam. It sits there and it goes beautifully from 4.75 to 5.0 and drops all the way back to 4.75 and then goes all the way up to 5.0. And this continues on, but as the session progresses the tone arm gradually drifts down so that it’s reading a bit lower. But at no time is it moving. Do you see how you’d get the idea then that movement is different than drifting? Well it is slightly. A constantly rising needle, for instance, will get you a constantly increasing tone arm, you see? You can also have constantly dropping needles. It isn’t motion. It’s just gradual, there’s nothing happening.

Well, it happens at this particular time and state in Scientology that you are actually up against this same textbook-solution proposition. You're not up against the same solution. The textbook solutions do. It's actually when you depart from the textbook solution that you get in trouble.

You might say it’s tone arm action without needle read, if you can imagine this thing. These things will drift. During the course of a two-hour session, why, the pc drifts down one division of the tone arm scale. Or he drifts up. That’s not what you would call motion. Motion is regulated every twenty minutes and is usually in different directions. It’s going up and it’s going down and it’s going up a little and it’s going down a lot and then it’s going up a lot and down a little, you got the idea? It’s not just falling, falling, falling and then it finally – this falling needle finally just sits. And if you were to continue the session to four hours it would have sat the last two hours or something like that, do you see – this is needle behavior, tone arm behavior.

Now, in view of the fact your total experience on this planet is: God help you, if you use the textbook solution. The Marines had a song of somebody — I think Toby McFlynn, or something like that, he died with a grin, because he'd used the textbook solution, you see. And he was a great man, this is very — made it — heroic death, you see? Nobody else had used the textbook solution.

The – you can tell, you can tell – it takes a little bit of observation. You can tell whether or not somebody is going to have a moving tone arm, whether their tone arm moves. It’s not a very hard thing to figure out. You get used to it. You observe it. You say that’s it. That’s a moving tone arm and that isn’t. That’s all.

Now, here's your bone of contention. You always expect to encounter something different. See? You always expect to be — have some variation in front of you, from the textbook solution, see. And you really don't expect it to work out. And because you don't, you approach all such solutions with a little bit of variation and deviation — just a little bit. And you're always looking for something else. And that's about the only mistake you can pull in auditing today. You've got to audit the pc in front of you. That is to say, when he has cognitions they're his cognitions; those are all different. When he originates physically, he originates physically in his own peculiar way. They will all originate differently. You see?

All right. What happens? What do you do? Well, frankly, it’s not enough to just give it up. I wouldn’t say, “Well, he’s had it.” Because we have a much better solution. And that’s a combination and an alternation between Prepchecking and CCHs.

When you get a string of 3D Criss Cross items, these items all have different names, see, they — from the next pc. See, they go together differently. It takes them longer to get a gain on some particular process, you see. one fellow he really gets somatics on CCH 1; somebody else gets somatics on CCH 3.

Now, you’ve got CCHs which all by themselves, if you observe the pc’s physical origin and take it up as an origination and query it – you can make mistakes on that, you know. I found out an auditor sometimes can’t see the pc’s physical origins, you know. The pc’s head falls off and rolls across the floor and the auditor says, “Give me that hand.”

This tends to give you the idea that you are looking at differences. Yeah, every pc's different, see. But truth told, what the auditor does is always the same and you miss that looking at the differences of the pcs. And you start varying much from the auditing which is being done right now and you will get into trouble because it's a tightrope walk. It's a tightrope walk that's been mapped now for a great many years. We've been getting closer and closer to walking the exact tightrope. And you've got now a situation where there are textbook solutions to everything that comes up — doesn't matter what you meet. you follow through the same way.

So, there is no vast shift of case while doing the CCHs, because the auditor isn’t really doing the CCHs, you know. He isn’t taking up the physical origins of the pc and isn’t getting the pc exteriorized out of these little somatics and so forth – isn’t doing a good job.

The amount of imagination which is required is minimal, actually. The amount of ability to communicate, almost, is the only thing that regulates the difference amongst auditors. One auditor, he's heard by the pc better than another. He's got a better ability to reach or something like that and a pc will receive these variations.

We feel a certain delicacy right now because everybody isn’t doing this uniformly all that well. You know, it’s something you got to get the hang of. I’m sure you can learn how to do it. But you haven’t all got the hang of it yet, by a long ways.

But, let me make my point here, very cleanly. We're used to having to think up some unusual solution in our old-time processes. See, get bright. You know, exert some real hot judgment right about this point. And man, you're going to be wrong every time you do. you take my word for it; you apply the textbook solution and you'll come up on top every time. And this is — makes it quite different from any training that's ever been done on this planet. See what I mean?

But even if you didn’t have the hang of it, you would eventually win. You get the idea. So we’re operating kind of with a lead-pipe cinch here – if you combine it with Prepchecking. Now, if you combine good CCHs with good Prepchecking, man, you’ve got a winner! See. But, if you combine indifferent Prepchecking – providing you miss no withholds, providing you don’t run up a bunch of missed withholds on the case – and indifferent CCHs, you still got a winner. That’s what we’ve got to count on, see. We unfortunately can’t count on a perfection all along the line.

We're going against a series of invariables and these invariables probably look much more variable to you than they are, you see? Because you see them in different guises. Auditors wear different colored suits and pcs come up with, you know, different origins and they get different items, and so forth.

See, even indifferent 3D Criss Cross gets you some gains. And similarly, in not-too-perfect and not-too-searching Prepchecking, plus not-too-good a CCH combination will still get you wins. In other words, you – we haven’t got losing processes here which is a good thing.

Now, it used to be we'd say, well, every pc is different. That's right. Every pc will have a different set of items and he'll have different things that he reacts on. But today we're up against the fact that every auditor has actually a limited number of things to do. And you just learn — one of the first things you got to learn — is that it's those things that you do. See?

But it looks to me that the CCHs have to be handled as CCHs and Prepchecking has to be handled as Prepchecking. And you don’t combine a session of CCH and Prepchecking. It looks to me like this is clumsy. This apparently is clumsy.

Now, I put 3D Criss Cross out to grass. I wrote it to somebody who's ordinarily a very good auditor, on class what-do-you-call-it — Class I Auditor — always been getting good results and that sort of thing. And I put 3D Criss Cross out to grass by just writing it to this person and having this person have a crack at a pc. you know, how well could this thing be done by minimal information? Well, oddly enough, this auditor did splendidly. That's quite remarkable, you know? Did splendidly. And the pc wound up very satisfied. Auditor got about six or eight items on about three lines and the pc did splendidly; wrote a very congratulatory letter concerning all of this and so forth.

Now, a person who can’t as-is things because he is being it all – you know, he’s being the whole universe and he can’t as-is anything – it looks to me like this person really isn’t going to as-is very much on the Prepcheck and at the same time isn’t going to as-is very much on the CCHs. But both of them will have some tiny workability. And they have a greater workability if interplayed.

However, you get a report of these sessions, you know, and it stands your hair on end. The only thing that went wrong is the auditor did practically everything but 3D Criss Cross. I don't know when they found time to do very much 3D Criss Cross. But the auditor sat there inventing processes to cope with the pc. And the pc kept getting ARC broke and bitching around about this and that and being upset about this and that. And the auditor would just sit there and in the middle of everything keep inventing processes and doing different things in order to cope with the pc. Well, of course, this is the reason the pc was ARC breaking.

Now, you needn’t be so mathematical as Prepcheck one session, CCH one session, Prepcheck one session, CCH one session, you see, because this ratio would vary from pc to pc and therefore you can’t lay it down as a textbook solution beyond this: Just what can we get done in a session? That’s the whole thing. What can we get done in a session?

This was one of the processes that was used. This is not derogatory of this auditor; I'm just showing you this auditor was perfectly willing to do this but didn't get the idea that you didn't do anything else. See, that idea was not communicated. Don't do something else too. See, it's like the pc always sitting there — hell do the process alright, but he's doing seven other things, too.

Of course, it’d be a terrible mistake to prepcheck – remember now, I’m talking about somebody you would audit, not here, just – you know, you sat down and you handed them the cans and you started the session and you did something, whatever, to establish what kind of tone arm action they were going to have, even get their past history and illnesses, see. That will establish tone arm action. You know, do your Preclear Assessment Form and keep a good record of the TA action on it – whatever you’re going to do. And you said, “This isn’t much, man. This isn’t very much. When we’re talking about the past and his thinkingness, it isn’t very much.”

All right, and one of these processes was, "Invent a worse way of baiting an auditor." Oh, these processes were off theory of one kind or another, kind of cross-pitched one way or the other. "Invent a worse way of baiting an auditor," to run out an ARC break. And there's apparently — the thing is salted down with dozens of these processes. I may exaggerate, but there's just dozens of these processes interlarded amongst the 3D Criss Cross all in an effort to keep the pc in-session. But, of course, the auditor never realized she was driving the pc out of session.

Now, you might get good TA action as long as he was talking straight to you and you were doing some kind of a two-way comm basis where he was trying to tell you about something and his attention was totally on you. You might get more TA action than you really deserve to get. So the TA action test would have to be taken on the basis of “think.” It’s TA action while he is thinking of something, not TA action while he is talking to you. See. So your TA action while he is talking to you doesn’t mean a thing except he might have to have CCHs run, see. But TA action while you’re asking him to think – that’s the important action, you know?

And probably none of these goofball processes are flat. They're all sitting there amongst 3D Criss Cross, all of them gorgeously unflat and everything else.

“How many times have you been sick in your life?” You know.

Now, even the best of auditors will all of a sudden do the banana peel. You know? He'll say to himself, "What the hell did I say that for?" You know, "Why don't I cut my own throat?" You know. He did something or other. The best of auditors will do this. See? The commonest difficulty amongst auditors is they don't realize that when the pc has said it, it is blown. See? They take up — this is the commonest difficulty — they take up what the pc said and that is very bad.

Now, he says, “So-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so.” And you’ve been getting this kind of TA action, see.

And that is why you think you're always up against something else than a textbook solution, you see, if you're doing it.

You’ve been saying, well – he’s been saying, “Oh, well uh… Let’s see. Would I – would I mind talking to you? Uh – well, I – I guess I could talk to you all right. You – you seem to be – you seem to be very – very sympathetic” – the attention square on you. All right, that tone arm action – do – hardly bother – you can note it down for the record, but don’t take that as your adjudication.

The pc said — you say, "Well, what is this present time problem?"

“Now, let’s see, what uh – what – what have you – how many brothers and sisters do you have?” See.

And he says, "Well, my mother-in-law is coming to stay with me."

“Well, brothers and sisters – yes, brothers and sisters, brothers and sisters, yes – uh – brothers and sisters. Oh, you want to know how many brothers and sisters I have. Let’s see. Hmmmm, brothers and sisters, hmmm-hmmm, hmmm-hmmmm, brothers and sisters – well I haven’t got any.”

And the auditor, God help him, says, "Well, how do you feel about your mother-in-law?" See? Oooh. No, no, his question was present time problem — did the pc have a present time problem. The pc told him the present time problem. Now, the auditor's only job at that stage of the game, whatever the pc says, particularly in rudiments, whatever the pc says — it's just whether it blew then. you see? Auditors don't give pcs credit for blowing something on mentioning it. They don't know — always are underestimating the power of two-way comm. See?

“Well, all right. Well, how many times have you been sick in your life?”

"Do you have a withhold?"

“Well, let’s see – been sick in my life, sick in my life. Mmmmmmm, been sick – oh – been sick – long time ago. Mmmmmmm, I’m very healthy. I’ve never been sick in my whole life.”

The pc says, "Yes, I was out with your wife last night." Well, that's startling enough, you see, for the auditor to go over the hills and far away, but usually it isn't quite that pertinent or peculiar.

“All right. Well, good. Now, what goals have you had?” and so on.

It's usually something very innocent as, "Oh, yes I have a withhold, I — uh — as a matter of fact — I'm not supposed to be drinking during this intensive and when I killed a quart of Scotch and I — last night, and I . . ."

“Well, oh, I’ve had quite a few goals. Not – not many recently.”

Hm. Now, the auditor doesn't go back and ask the meter, see, "All right, good. Do you have a withhold?" See? The auditor comes in and says, "Well, what about drinking Scotch?" Now, he's wound it up so it won't blow! See, he's killed his own release. See, that's the commonest difficulty in rudiments. The auditor won't let them blow.

It doesn’t matter a damn what he’s saying. Watch that tone arm, you see, when you’re asking him introverted questions. That’s what will count. And man, if you didn’t get any more than that 3.0 to 3.25 to back to 3.0 again or if it was just a big drift up, with no confront, you know, just going up, up, up, up – the more you ask him about think, you know and so on. And you notice you have to keep setting the thing and so on. Twenty minutes have gone by, you’ve gotten 7.75 in twenty minutes, you betcha you have – it’s rising. And he’s getting out of there. He’s just gone past Arcturus by about now. And you audit him for an hour and he’s up to here someplace, and so forth, and gradually comes on up. See, that’s not tone arm action, that’s drift. See, tone arm action is this way. Drift is just consistently up or consistently down. See.

This is commoner than you'd think. You've got to have something whereby the pc says what it is. The auditor has to assume, until he tests it, that that has blown it. It's that simple. You get yourself in more trouble assuming anything else than I could very easily count in terms of hours of processing and so forth. See, you get yourself in endless trouble with this thing. It all comes on this one basis: You ask the pc if he has a present time problem and the pc says, "Yes, I have a present" — of course it fell off the pin — "Yes I have a present time problem."

All right, you would say: “Brother, we’ve had it.” That’s what you’d say because you know several things. One, you know the rudiments are not going to stay in. That’s what you know. And if you have to put them in, my God, it’s like driving stakes with a candy stick, you know? Trying to lay railroad rails, you know, with chewing gum. Pssssst. You know you’ve had it there, see. So you’re not getting adequate tone arm motion.

And the auditor says, well — he can prompt the pc — and say well, "What is it?" You know?

And so you would say that we is going to do two things with this pc. We’re not necessarily going to go off and do nothing but slog CCHs. We’re going to do CCHs and Prepchecking on this pc. That’s what we is gonna do. And we’re going to do CCHs and then we’re going to prepcheck in the direction of trying to get his rudiments in. And a session of CCHs is a session of CCHs and a session of Prepchecking is a session of Prepchecking and neither the twain shall mix.

And the pc says, "Well, I don't know how I'm going to pay my room rent."

I told you a little while ago I didn’t know anything much about this. Well, I’ve seen a little bit about it, I haven’t gain – haven’t gained an awful lot of information concerning it but it just looks clumsy. I don’t know that it’s bad. But I have found out that TA action on the CCHs at first test, appears to be very good in spite of the fact that TA action is probably lessened by the tester jumping in with the E-Meter every few minutes. Apparently it’s very good on a case that ordinarily wouldn’t get much TA action. We haven’t finished that study either, but the first indicators on the thing are that it’s very good, your TA action on the CCHs. You don’t get a chance to observe it you know, because you haven’t got a long enough lead.

"All right, fine." The auditor should acknowledge that extremely well, because his acknowledgment is part of the blow mechanism, you see. And then he should ask the pc again if he has a present time problem. Not can he think he'd pay his room rent now! See, what we got going here is the pc gets rid of it and the auditor keys it in again!

The auditor down in Joburg who kept coming back to the Dir Mat and asking for a longer lead on his cans. Finally they blew up. “Longer lead? What the hell! How many feet do you need?” You know?

And that's really the chief reason why you're not cleaning rudiments easily. You're keying them in faster than the pc can key them out. you follow me? That's a commonest auditing error. I don't care whether you call this Q&A or whatever it is. But actually it inhibits the pc from blowing anything.

“Well, I have to have enough feet, because it’s going to have to reach across the room, you know, and so forth. When the pc’s doing 8-C he moves across the room, back and forth.”

Now, the correct procedure is this:

Nobody up to this time – nobody had ever told this poor auditor that he didn’t use these, see? He’d just assumed that if it was auditing you had an E-Meter and that was all there was to it. They sure were baffled around there, while he was asking for these longer and longer cords, though. Imagine it was embarrassing when the pc did a turnaround, you know, wrap them around…

"Do you have a present time problem?" Clang! goes on the needle here. Clang! All right.

But anyway – anyway this indicator is here. We’ve been just handing a pair of electrodes and getting the tone arm position of the pc and then he goes on for awhile. And we’ve been doing it against an arbitrary time period, you see – every three minutes, I think it was. And whatever the pc was being made to do, we just interrupted and handed him the electrodes. And the TA action’s pretty good.

"Good. What was that? It fell — what was that? Anything you care to say there?" That it . . . "What was it?" See?

Well, that’s fine. That’s fine. But I have found this out about the CCHs; that if CCHs turn into a wrestling match, the auditor’s missed a withhold. Simple. Interesting thing to find out, isn’t it? If it becomes a wrestling match, the auditor’s missed a withhold. Well, so there you are. How are you going to get a withhold off a pc who is doing the CCHs? Well, you’re going to do it by doing the CCHs. If it becomes a wrestling match in that session and you go out of two-way comm with the pc and you can’t talk him back into it again, it’s a wrestling match, that’s all. You finish up the session. And then you go and next session, why, you’re going to do Prepchecking – particularly on the Zero question, “Have I missed a withhold on you?” or “Has a withhold been missed on you?” And you go ahead and straighten this out.

And the pc says, "Yow-yow-yow-yow-yow," and that is the present time problem.

Now, supposing you can’t straighten this out in one session? Supposing you’re leaving him way down the track and all hung up? Well, then you, of course, do Prepchecking for two sessions. And then if you’re – got the E-Meter cord all wrapped around your neck by that time and you can’t get out of that and it just seems like you’re hanging yourself, you’d better go back to the CCHs if you didn’t clean it up in two. I wouldn’t go running a marathon, here. I think the zenith would be about three before you went back to the CCHs, because you’re handling somebody who probably has a poor ability to as-is, see? And you can bury him deep, man. You can really push him down for the third time by doing or making him think, think, think, because he isn’t getting much tone arm action.

And then the auditor says, "Good. Thank you. Swell. Fine."

Of course, you’re prepchecking against no tone arm action to amount to anything, so you’re liable to be in trouble. But nevertheless, you’ll pick up enough missed withholds so he isn’t all that mad at you and he’ll make enough gain toward present time in the CCH – next CCH session you run on him, so he isn’t all that out of present time and that seems to be going along very smoothly. And now your CCHs seem to be pretty well flattened out on this pc. You’ve done maybe three sessions and they all appear to be kind of – a little bit more even, you know, and so forth. And it looks like you get minimal change. Right? So, let’s go back to Prepchecking. See? Let’s prepcheck him. And we get something a little bit flat, feeling a little bit easier about it and so forth – actually running the Prepcheck through a change to a no-change, same way. Let’s go back to CCHs after that.

I don't care if he feels like he blows the pc out of the chair with acknowledgments — acknowledge the hell out of this thing, you see. Ends the comm. And the auditor should look at that moment satisfied that he's handled the whole thing. That's the little schoolbook tricks of the trade I'll probably never let you in on. I say there are no tricks of the trade and then I give you one, see?

Optimum, would be of course, to follow the Auditor’s Code and to prepcheck him as long as he was producing change – to CCH him as long as he was producing change. And if you get too involved or too upset on making up your mind when, well, just follow the Auditor’s Code on it and it’ll be all right.

But, let's sound awfully satisfied along about that time. Just acknowledge the living daylights out of it, even relief that you've gotten rid of this present time problem. See? I can put a pc over the rolly coaster on getting rid of out-rudiments so fast he doesn't know what happened.

That, by the way, may not be optimum. You may be burning more time up than you should be burning up, but in the final analysis that would get you there, you see. Because if you did that to – in extremis you might find yourself doing 60 hours of CCHs and then 50 hours of Prepchecking, whereas you might have been able to make the whole gain in 50 hours of Prepchecking and CCHs, instead of the 110, you see? It might be that much faster.

You saw me beat one pc to death on a missed withhold here last night. I bet that pc right now knows she got rid of that missed withhold. I was — sat there because I was very happy she got rid of the missed withhold. Did you see that last night? Did you?

In the first place, you’re treating them independently, not as two different processes. I say, the theoretical method of doing it would be to flatten the CCH approach and then flatten the Prepcheck approach and then flatten the CCH approach, and so forth. And if you’re – if you get too much in a quandary about what to do with the pc, fall back on that one, see?

Audience: Yes, hm-hm.

But you could also run it this way. Pick up a gain – here’s another way to adjudicate it, rather than arbitrary times – pick up a gain on the pc in Prepchecking and be happy about it and pick up a gain on the CCHs and be happy about it and pick up a gain on the Prepchecking and be happy about it – making a whole session, do you see? Not running half and half, but making a whole session. If you’re going to CCH, do a whole session of CCH, you see. If you’re going to prepcheck, do a whole session of Prepchecking. But try to bring the thing up to a gain. And I don’t care if it tapers off and he’s kind of restimulated at the end of the session or not.

Well, she actually did tell me what the missed withhold was. We did actually go over it. But we didn't spend any time on it, did we? Part of getting rid of it was communicating it to her, that I'd got it. And she got real convinced about this. And I must have gotten it in full, otherwise I wouldn't be so satisfied with it. Get the idea? See that? That's just auditor presence.

But nevertheless he had a win in that session, see? That’s fine, well, let’s do some CCHs. In other words, gain, gain, gain, gain. You know, alternate on the thing. You’ll probably get it fine. You find yourself sometimes doing two consecutive sessions of CCHs and three consecutive sessions of Prepchecking and one session of CCHs and two sessions of Prepchecking and you see how – what I mean? But you’re processing him toward a gain and a win.

So, we say, "Oh, good!" Don't repeat the present time problem after him. Don't say, "Oh, well good, so you, can't pay your room rent this week. Oh, well that's fine. Good." Don't do that, see. Just say — you've got to impart it without repeating it. you see?

Now, what direction are you processing him? You’re actually processing him into rudiments in. And that is your goal. Now, if you get rudiments in, you’re going to get tone arm action. And that’s the secret of it all. Not rudiments beaten in, you see, you’re not going to get tone arm action. But, if the rudiments are actually in and he’s really happy about being audited and he’s happy about the environment and he’s happy to have you as the auditor and so forth, you’re going to get tone arm action. Because you’re not getting tone arm action because the rudiments aren’t in.

And the pc says, "Well, I got a present time problem, I can't pay my — don't see how I'm going to pay my room rent this week."

His rudiments aren’t in in life. He can’t talk to people, he can’t – including you. And he can’t be in a room, he can’t – including this one! See? And people have missed withholds on him, they have. Not only his boss and his wife, but you too. See? And also the cops sometimes.

And you say, "Well, all right. All right. Good. All right. Now, we're going to start a brand-new. . ." Another use of the acknowledgment — "Well, we've gotten rid of that." See? "All right, now. Now, we're going to — we're going to get on to the next thing here. See? Do you have a present time problem?"

In other words, the rudiments of life are so wildly out that the person never really can slide into session because they’re so out in life. So of course, he can’t ever relax enough to as-is anything You know, he can’t look at anything else except what he’s in.

And you find out ninety percent of the time it's gone — ninety-five, ninety-nine percent of the time. There's no ghost of a clip on that thing.

He’s walking around in a mass and he’s so fixedly and so constantly in this mass that only the problems of the mass are the problems of life. The problems of life are the problems of the mass, don’t you see. He has a certain number of problems. Dogs bite you, wives desert you, walls fall on you, you see? And you’ve got to tell half-truths, you see, because untruths are vital to the situation, you see? And if you don’t impress everybody with the fact that you’re sane, why they’ll know you’re crazy, see. And this is life, to him. And his difficulties are simply a long parade of out-rudiments.

If you expect it to be there, if you expect it to go on being there for the next hour or two, it'll stay. This is how you do that: "Do you have a present time problem?" And the pc says, "Uh — uh — uh — yes, I do. Room, room rent — I don't — I don't know how I'm going to pay room rent."

See, they aren’t just out in the session, they’re out on the street and on the bus and at work and at home and so forth, you see. They’re just out. Well, it’d be a pretty good trick if you got the environment quite real to him and got him feeling friendly toward people and so forth. And you’d say, gee, you know, you’ve just posed, really, the highest goal – actually higher than any psychotherapy has ever had on this planet. They’ve never really had that much goal. “Get rid of all of these bugs crawling on me” you see. That’s about the highest goal psychotherapy has ever had, you know.

"Oh, your room rent. Uh, well now," — the auditor is worried about it too, see? — "Well, now — yeah, well, all right, now. Do you have any particular solutions on this? I mean, been thinking. . ." and so forth, "Who's that problem with? Oh, yeah, yeah. How much — how much money do you make? Oh, well, uh — you ever had this problem before? You had difficulties with it? Oh, yeah. Hm-hm-mm-mm. Did you ever have trouble with money?"

He’ll go on believing his wife is putting poison in his coffee. And that sort of thing is just a normal course of human events, you see. But to not only get the bugs off of him, but to get the poison out of his coffee, you see and let him actually sit down to a table, you see, instead of having to stand up at a buffet and a few little things like that.

Man, we can go on by the hour! Don't you see? See, fix it up man, you can just hang up there and you'll never get any auditing done, you know. you can go on and on and on.

You never thought about this. That would be awfully high for formal psychotherapy. And now, we’re posing this – that rooms, environment, people – he’s going to be comfortable in all of this? He’s going to be comfortable in space? And he’s not going to be bugged up all the time, every time he goes anyplace. And he’s going to feel all right in crowds and… Hey, wait a minute! We’re getting up to a higher goal than psychotherapy has ever had. Aren’t we? And yet you know you could do all those things with the routine I’m laying down for you here, you see, the CCH and the Prepcheck. You could accomplish them all, not even going very drastically into the case, just doing it by textbook.

Well now, that one percent, that one time out of a hundred, and you say, "Do you have a present time problem?" You get a knock, and you say, "Well, all right, what is that? What is your present time problem?"

Take your Prepchecking and take your Zero questions – are simply your rudiments questions. And any subdivision of them that you happen to care about as your Zero A. And then actually find a withhold before you go asking him the What. And then ask the What as a chain and clean it as a chain. You’ll find out this will work pretty good if you do it that way, see. I’m not asking you to do some extraordinary piece of this and that.

Fellow says, "Oh, well, I can't pay my room rent this week."

Now, of course this person is not going to have very much tone arm action the first time you do the prepchecking on him. It’s going to be very small. But you’re going to follow this with the CCHs. You’re going to put in that first rudiment with the CCHs, but good! Going to get him used to his environment, you see? That’s one of the rudiments. So you got to get that one going. And then you’re going to get these other Zero questions sort of cleaned up, particularly missed withholds. But missed withholds is not really part of the rudiments. Missed withholds is actually something you introduce in at odd intervals.

And you say, "Hm-mm. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right now. Do you have a present time problem?" Clang. "All right, what's that?"

Now, let’s look at this. Let’s look at this. We take a pc. We don’t care if he’s been audited or not been audited, except for this: If he’s been audited and you’ve got accurate session sheets on him, you can look at these session sheets and make a guess at whether or not he gets tone arm action on think processes. And if he doesn’t get lots of tone arm action on think processes, we know where this case has got to go. This case is going to go into Prepchecking and CCHs right away. But when I say lots of tone arm action, I mean lots of tone arm action. This tone arm action is good. see what I mean? He really got good, nice, tone arm action. No monkey business about this thing, you see. It’s not mediumly fair tone arm action I’m now talking about, you see, 0.5 divisions. Oh, by the way, in doing his past 3D Criss Cross, he might have had times, let’s say, in the fourteen sessions he has had on 3D Criss Cross that you have a record of, in eleven of these sessions he got no tone arm action and – to amount to anything, but in three he got good tone arm action. CCHs and Prepchecking for that boy. He got eleven sessions with good tone arm action and three sessions with no tone arm action, probably continue him on 3D Criss Cross and see how it goes. You see? Because you sometimes have cases hanging on a certain line.

"Well, it's my room rent."

The line – you’re taking it inopportunely. There’s no motion on that particular line to amount to anything. It’s unreal to the pc and so forth. That could cause minimal tone arm action. But, of course, this wouldn’t happen very often, would it? So just to the degree that that wouldn’t happen very often that’s acceptable action for a 3D Criss Cross, you see? Eleven in which he got fine tone arm action and three in which his tone arm action wasn’t worth looking at. See, well that’s probably 3D Criss Cross. Let’s keep it going. For sure 3D Criss Cross – fourteen sessions he has had with lovely tone arm action on all fourteen. Obviously we do the fifteenth session with 3D Criss Cross. You see? The 100 percent would be the lead-pipe cinch.

That's the one time out of — out of a hundred. See? All right, well now, don't let that defeat you so the next ninety-nine times you run into the trick you run into the same chasm. No, the thing to do at that stage of the game — I'll give it to you absolutely right this time — "Do you have a present time problem?" Clang! "All right, and what is it?" And he tells it to you. And you say, "Well all right, all right. Good. Thank you. Fine. All right. Now — do you have a present time problem?" Clang! "All right, what's that?"

Now, this is – this is adjudications of what you run. But I’m talking now about somebody that you would run where you are – are out, just auditing a pc. Pc comes in and signs up, you turn him over to a staff auditor. You expect the staff auditor to audit this on him, see. You’d adjudicate this. You’d see the pc had no tone arm action worth beans. Now you’d say, well, let’s get real clever here and let’s pull this pc up, first by lifting the right side and then by lifting the left side and then by lifting the right side and left side, even though it’s one millimeter at a time. We’re going to lift it in a somewhat balanced fashion. We’re going to get the think rudiments in, balanced against the environmental rudiments, see? Exterior rudiments are going to be balanced against the interior rudiments.

"Well, it's my room rent."

See, extrovert-introvert – the old formula of ACC 1. And they pull up kind of equally. And you’ll find out that they’ll both come up then. Of course, his havingness will run down if you make him think only. And his rudiments will start going out more and more furiously. You realize that the more a pc is having difficulty, the more difficulty he has. That’s a hell of a thing, but it actually snowballs like mad. You realize the longer it takes you to get a 3D Criss Cross item, the longer it’s going to take you to get a 3D Criss Cross item. See, the longer, the longer. Works in reverse – the shorter, the shorter! But the longer it takes you to do a 3D Criss Cross item and the longer it takes you to get an overt or something like that in Prepchecking, the less likely you are to get it. And the more likely you are to have the rudiments go out. See, the longer it takes the more the rudiments go out, is what this is all about. That’s because length drifts in the direction of no auditing.

And you say, "All right. What part of that problem could you be responsible for? Thank you. What part of that problem could you be responsible for? Thank you. What part of that problem could you be responsible for? Thank you. What part of that problem could you be responsible for? Thank you. All right, now, do you have a present time problem?" Tick. "Good. All right. What part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

You see, it’s more auditing to get an item a week, you see, than to get an item a month. That’s obvious, isn’t it? Well, if you look at an item a month session going – unthinkably enough there have been them – an item a month session – you never saw such a cat’s breakfast in your life. It’s the most ghastly looking mess. Down toward the end of the last two, three – about the last two weeks or ten days of that the pc’s – the auditor knows the pc’s rudiments are out because the pc has picked up the chair and splintered it with a crash, all over the auditor’s head, you see. He’d say, “Oh, oh, the rudiments are out.”

And the pc says, "Oh, most anything," so forth.

It’s a fact! The longer it takes the longer – the more they go out and the more violently they go out. In other words the longer it takes the less chance you have of getting it. This will become recognizable to you some day. You’ll get a big reality on this thing. You all of a sudden do an item up in three days. They’re all items with long lists, yes it takes awhile to do an item in a long list and so on. Pcs also go bang and other things happen and the bottom goes out from underneath them on some things and so forth, all in the line. It slows it down, you see.

And you say, "All right. Now, what part of that problem could you be responsible for?" And you notice you're not getting much kick, see. And you say, "All right, now. Thank you. Thank you. Now, do you have a present time problem?" Nothing. You say, "Thank you very much. Is it all right with you now if we get on with this listing?" — or this Prepchecking, or whatever else we're doing. You got the idea?

Well, when this stretches out to a couple of weeks, you’re already in bad trouble. That’s getting nasty. That’s getting real bad. Because from here on after, I’d say eight or nine days, the rudiments just go progressively out because you’re approaching a no auditing, see.

Don't start a process. Don't have the Horse Guards come out, and then the Queen's own, and then marshal the Coldstream, you see? And then get a band. And then write a letter to the Times because the Queen didn't come down and — and inspect the troops. You get the idea? That's not the place for it! That's not the place for all that. That all belongs in the body of the session. See? So let's not start and end, and mess up and so forth. You can give the last two commands for Havingness or something like that; because it isn't something you have to catch on the fly. The reason you could do that best as a present time problem or something like that, and just — you just start the process, you just end the process — that is all there is to that, is you're not giving it very much importance, don't you see. It's downgrading, and it's something you just say, "Well, this is — hell with this, we'll get it out of the road. It's good, it's important, yet at this particular time we got onto something else we're going to get. That's good."

And rudiments are most out on the least auditing. And they’re most in on the most auditing. That is to say, the more the pc feels he’s getting audited, the less the rudiments will go out. And as a session approaches this no-auditing thing, the auditor’s sitting there and the pc’s sitting there but nothing’s getting done. And as the session begins to approach that reductio ad absurdum of no auditing, why of course, similarly, the rudiments go out in proportion to no auditing, see, until the rudiments are – go more wildly out than they are out in the normal operating life of the pc, see? You know, a session can go – rudiments in a session can go further out than they are out on the person. You see?

You know, that's the whole atmosphere under which this thing is audited. Not, "Oh, well, gee-whiz you've got a present time problem. Oh, well that's too damn bad. I mean, God almighty, how am I going to get on with this session here, you see? Oh, I don't know whether I ought to take it up with you or not because, you see, we've got an awful lot of listing to do today for 3D Criss Cross. And I hate to get detoured by this present time problem, you see, because it's going to cause us so much trouble!"

The degree of responsibility he’s accepting for an environment shows that he has to put on a good show while he’s walking down the street and riding in the bus and that sort of thing. And in a session he hasn’t got that degree of responsibility restraining him and the rudiments go out further than they’re out.

If you're going into it with that frame of mind, you're going to have trouble. I can guarantee you will have all kinds of trouble, have it by the bushel-basketful .

Now, if you inspect this carefully, you’ll see then, that there is every reason to audit in the direction of wins. The pc at first is giving you extraordinary and extravagant goals. You can almost tell the state of a pc by reading the goals he sets up for the session. Not the goals for life or livingness, the goals he sets up as his session goals. Sets up as a session goal “Well, I’d like to be able to make the sun spin faster.” Yeah, that’s his session goal. That isn’t an LOL, it’s a session goal. Perfectly all right as an LOL, but that’s what he’s set up for the auditor to do! Now, this pc has got the overt of setting up loses for the auditor. Do you see that? And the pc equally will absorb loses from the auditor. See, it’s the overt-motivator sequence at play. Not that he has set up a lose for the auditor, but that he would, as represented in the goals, you see, shows that you have somebody who is just a sponge for loses. Now, we get down to the feather brush for the win. This person would at first believe that a good effect, you see, would be the basis of the house dropped on his head. Then he’d know that happened. And he actually will beg to have the house dropped on his head. He wants the big effect. He wants it all to happen now. Got to be instantaneous and it’s got to be big.

But by just downgrading the whole importance of the thing, you see. Ways of downgrading importance is just to brush off process. You get the idea? If you're unlucky enough to have that process not work, I don't know, you must have been doing something else in the session that would be wildly out. I mean, it'd be — have to be some invented-something-elseness, such as not reading the E-Meter in the first place to find — or trying to run a present time problem that isn't there, or something like that.

And do you know, when you get a pc like that the only effect he can have is the feather brushed gently back of his head; not in front of his face, but brushed gently back of his head. He can – he can just get the effect of the wind of that feather. And that will be all the effect he can have. But the funny part of it is he can have that effect.

Now, you could get that all involved, you see. Now, that's the simplest form, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?" Well, I guarantee he's got a different problem. You know and I know he's got a different problem on the second time you ask the question. And the third time you ask the question he's got a different problem than that. And the fourth time you ask the question he's got a different problem than that. And then sooner or later he comes up to present time and has the problem of getting on with the session.

In other words, the worse off the pc the tinier the gradient of win. And you’re actually raising him up little by little. And be perfectly content to raise him up little by little, because you’d be surprised what they consider wins. But they won’t actually – you could change the pc that he had the form of an angel. Wings complete! Halo in neon! Just give him an utter complete change in the session, where he was in terrific euphoria, everything else. Pc would never find out about it. You think I’m kidding, but the pc couldn’t have that much effect.

All right, well clip that one out and get going. But you see, you don't have to give it any importance. Weight: the way the auditor puts weight into the processing — w-e-i-g-h-t, you see, not: w-a-i-t — the way you weight the processing You know what you're supposed to be doing in the body of the session. This is weighted, this is heavy, this is what we are doing. Oh man, dress parade, you know — plumes and cuirasses. Let's go on with this. Let's start that process and let's keep it going, and let's keep a terrific auditing discipline the while and get in your middle ruds once in a while when you have to and give it two more commands before you end it, and — you know what I mean? Oh, that's all just as precise as hell, you see? Very important.

The pc’s told you that he has to have that much effect. Don’t ever buy it, because he couldn’t have it. Pc at the end of the session is absolutely glowing. He has some feeling in his elbow and he hasn’t had any feeling in his elbow for some time. Feeling in his elbow. He can feel his fingers on his elbow. Terrific. It’s a big gain. You’d be surprised. Terrific gain.

Get to your end rudiments, see? You've ended the body of the session. Make damn sure that those rudiments are null. See? "Have you told me any half-truths? Untruths?" You see? Make sure each one is null. It isn't, "Have you told me any. . ." Somebody was doing it this way the other day, "Have you told me half-truths? Thank you. Have you told me any untruths? Thank you. Have you..." That's too much importance. See, "Have you told me any half-truths? Untruths? Said something only to impress me? Tried to damage anyone in this session? That's all straight." You tell the pc, "That's all straight." Got away with it; that's all straight.

He has actually remembered back below the age of twelve. He has actually remembered something before the age of twelve – terrific win. Of course he tells you he wants to clear up the whole track in just this session. He can’t have that effect. Just the fact that he has said that he’s got to have that in this session tells you he can’t have it as an effect. It’s before the age of twelve. And he finally remembers a car that his father had when he was eight. And he comes out at the end of that session, Prepcheck session, absolutely glowing! Marvelous session, you see!

All right, "Have you deliberately tried to influence the E-Meter?"

You – you were trying to find a missed withhold on him, you know? You were trying to get something done! No, no. It’s that little tiny effect, but he could have that effect. Ah, he’s winning. It’s all confidence. Confidence. Confidence. And if you continue to be consistent and not surrender to this demand for the tremendous effect. And go on and get – give the pc the effects you know the pc can have and go on and give the pc his wins on the environment and go on and give the pc his wins in his thinkingness, why, man, they’ll come up by those tiny little gradients. Millimeter on the right and a millimeter on the left, millimeter on the right and that’s how you build the Empire State Building You’ve got to put up one block at a time.

"No."

Pc comes in and says, “I want this building sitting here 13,764 feet and 3 inches high, in this session!” And you get a broom and you sweep off one corner of one sidewalk block. And he says, “What do you know, maybe someday there will be a building here.” He didn’t ever think so before.

"Good; clear."

All right, so the best adjudication is win on the one, win on the other one, win on the one, win on the other one.

All right. Get the idea? "All right, have I missed any withholds on you? Have I missed any withholds on you? No. Good. Well, let me ask that again: Have I missed any withholds on you? Oh, I haven't. All right that's fine."

Now, the worse off a person is, the longer it’s going to take to get a win. But I sure wouldn’t try to prepcheck the pc session after session after session and then CCH him session after session after session. See, I wouldn’t stretch it out real long. I’d settle for little tiny wins, you know. And it might be – amount to a session of Prepchecking to a session of CCHs or a session of Prepchecking to three sessions of CCHs or two sessions of Prepchecking to one session of the CCHs, you see. That’s what it would maybe settle down to. But it would be what it would be for that pc. You’d see these little wins stacking up.

You can actually con-game the pc straight down to null end rudiments, you know?

Next thing you know, there’s two things going to happen. The pc’s going to get tremendous confidence in his auditor if his auditor is consistent. He’s going to get tremendous confidence in this auditor. And then you’re going to see tone arm action. Because he’s going to get confidence in his environment. He’s going to get some hope that something can happen. What you’ve done actually is sell him some hope. Done no more than that. He sees that the auditor’s consistent, he sees the environment doesn’t all of a sudden go out of plumb. This pc’s been expecting all of his life for all the corners of the room, you see, to get into a rhomboid tetrascrewdron! And he knows that it probably won’t happen as long as the auditor’s there.

All right. "Now, don't wiggle your neck but look around, just wiggle your eyeballs. Good — I got no reaction! Fine! All right! Good! Ah! Good. That's fine."

Whatever it is, you build this little thing up, stack by stack by stack and the next thing you know, why, your pc has got enough confidence. When you see he’s got enough confidence, he’ll actually start to look around. He will see that he doesn’t have to be all of the things he is being in order to survive; that he can look at one of them. See, out of the 8,000,000 things he is being he can now look at one, while being only 7,999,999 things, you see. That moment you will start to see tone arm action.

Now. When we ask about the goals and we ask about the gains, and we slide it out of session, and that is the end of it. Get the idea? And you know, you, the auditor, can actually sort of hold the rudiments in, but only, only if you do this, only if you do this: give a flawless session.

See, your tone arm action occurs when he’s able to observe. He’ll find out that it’s safe to look at the auditor. So you’ll see tone arm action. This isn’t as – isn’t either difficult nor complicated and you can make it easily much more difficult and much more complicated than it actually is, because the processes you’re using are absolute killers!

Now, all of us make goofs in session sooner or later. And they're always regrettable. They're completely forgivable. They only become unforgivable if you continue to make goofs. See, nobody's too interested in the absolute perfection. But we are very interested in an infrequency of goof.

I mean Prepchecking just used as Prepchecking, I mean – I mean you’re – all you’re going to use it for is to build up a little bit of confidence of talking to you about his difficulties. Thing is totally capable, if you dug deep enough and so forth, of practically resolving his case. And you’re going to use it to straighten it up so he can talk to you about his difficulties, huh?

Now, we want — we want confidence on the part of the pc. And confidence on the part of the pc is born by consistency on the part of the auditor. And any time an auditor becomes inconsistent, any time an auditor Qs-and-As, any time an auditor all of a sudden puts an odd, weird, cock-eyed variable into the middle of a set procedure, confidence goes down because consistency has dropped out. And those two things are blood brothers — Siamese twins. Confidence is born out of consistency.

And the CCHs which can blow a psychotic straight through electric shocks and bring him up the other side bright and smiling and so forth – you’re going to use them so that they can tolerate the auditing room. That isn’t asking very much of the process, is it? Something like shooting grasshoppers with atom bombs. You see? And all you have to do is do the processes right.

You give the same session to the pc over and over, he will become very, very confident. He'll be very happy with you. And that happiness drops every time you vary the situation, every time you Q-and-A, every time you refuse to let him blow something.

Now, in this particular class we have not had the consistent case win going up the line that we had while we were doing a lot of Prepchecking. See? We were getting more gain proportionately, while we were doing quite a bit of Prepchecking. There’s two reasons for that. Prepchecking gave the auditors a great deal of experience with the E-Meter and getting rudiments in. It had that virtue as a training mechanism. And it also tended to give the pcs a lot of wins of the very small win nature that they could accept. Now, you’re running into the difficulty that the pc doing the CCHs is getting his rudiments out. So you better fill that gap with the Prepchecking. That isn’t just for training reasons, that’s for the case’s reason, don’t you see.

See, here's a mousetrap sitting there and the pc comes along and he says, "There's a mousetrap." Well, ordinarily this mousetrap just moves away. He'll say, "Well, there's a mousetrap," and he's happy about it and he goes on in his session all right.

Now, how often you prepcheck this pc and how often you do CCHs on this pc on this course, we won’t adjudicate totally at this moment. But the auditor’s suggestions on any particular pc he or she is auditing, you see, are definitely invited on the auditor’s report – what they think they ought to be doing next. Be monitored perhaps by space, by room – tend to get routinized more than it ordinarily would be.

When you Q-and-A and insist on going on and on, in rudiments, over this same confounded mousetrap, you're insisting he put his fingers in it and trip it. And then he does and then you're in trouble and then you never seem to be able to straighten out rudiments.

The reason we get off of that sort of thing, is we like to have a unit for what is going on. We like to have a CCH unit and we like to have a Prepchecking unit and we like to have a 3D Criss Cross unit, don’t you see? But the difficulties of this is, is some people are all ready to do, as cases, 3D Criss Cross. And some people are all ready to grind along, you see, on a – on a Prepcheck-CCH routine of some kind or another.

And the reason you can't get rudiments straight on the pc has very little to do with the pc and has everything to do with the auditor. It is actually the tone and attitude of the auditor.

If we could just get this person’s missed withholds off on the number of things which they’ve done to pcs, you see, and other auditors have missed on them, he’d straighten out and run like a bird, you see, on the CCHs or something. You know? It’s the case put-together. Or he’ll actually straighten out and run like a bird on 3D Criss Cross. So you can’t have a total relaxation of this thing, because all auditors have to have some reality on CCHs and 3D – and Prepchecking as well as 3D Criss Cross, you see?

An auditor's lack of consistency brings about a lack of confidence; and then your rudiments start out.

You’re going to run into tougher cases off this course than you will find on it. So therefore – therefore, it’s actually comprised of two auditing units. And the two auditing units consist of the CCH-Prepcheck unit and the 3D Criss Cross unit. So that people are – can be in those grades and pushed from one to the other. And regardless of whether they had tone arm action or not, could be expected to find themselves in the Prepcheck-CCH unit early in their trainings.

Now, there is nothing like consistency of the exact procedure which we are doing at this moment — not subject to any changes to amount to anything — consistency in exactly what you're doing will breed confidence. So actually in along about the third session, the rudiments would just go in — just like that.

Now, what would happen if a pc went all to pieces on 3D Criss Cross and we got no tone arm action? They were all tied up and we didn’t know which end this thing was going we couldn’t keep the rudiments in. This would be in your own practice or here in this unit, so forth. The only one thing that you could do with him is put him back on the other routine, isn’t that right? You could transfer these things around.

A pc notices the care that is taken with him. See, he notices this. "Do you have a present time problem? Good. Let me check that again. Do you have a present time problem? Thank you. All right, that's clean." See? That's the auditor being real careful. That really makes an impression with a pc.

But if you remember the lectures on interior-exterior, introvert-extrovert and so forth, you will see that there is good reason in theory and apparently in practice here, to use the CCHs and Prepchecking as a pair. There’s good reason to do this. And I think it would speed up the progress considerably.

You're not sure this item is in. We're talking now about bodies of sessions rather than rudiments we — at this moment. This item, you're not sure of it, you know? And you say, "Cat whiskers. Cat whiskers. Cat whiskers. Let me look at that now. cat whiskers. Cat whiskers. Cat whiskers. Yeah, well, that's out. That's out. Okay. All right. Mules. Mules. Mules. Dogs. Dogs. Dogs. Dogs. Dogs. Dogs. Dogs. That's out. Okay."

Regardless how it’s used on this unit, regardless of what you’d walk into on this unit in this particular direction, that is, at the moment, how I would recommend that a pc be processed in an HGC. That’s without any training considerations involved, without any auditor skill considerations involved. If we had all that perfect and set up, I would see that pcs were audited just the way I have described in this lecture. Okay?

Care. Get the idea? He isn't saying, "Cat whiskers, cat whiskers, cat whiskers." For some peculiar reason the pc gets the idea that the auditor doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

Thank you.

So you can put another "c" on your confidence. And confidence is aided by carefulness. It depends absolutely on consistency, but it is certainly helped by carefulness.

Now, rudiments go out when unconfidence is born. you get this pc nervous about what you're going to do next. you do the unexpected. You suddenly rip a new process out of your whip — hip pocket in the middle of the pc's run. Oh, no. you do this two, three times and, my God, you couldn't keep the rudiments in with bulldozers! I guarantee it. you just couldn't keep the rudiments in. That just couldn't — wouldn't work.

In other words, we all of a sudden we're running along, we're running along and saying, "All right. What part of a government would you be willing to attack? Thank you. What part of a government would you be unwilling to attack? Thank you. What part of a government would you be willing to attack? Thank you. What part of a government would you be unwilling to attack? Thank you. All right. Now, how do you feel about my auditing there? Got an ARC break or anything of the sort?" The pc went a little groggy for a second there. "Got an ARC break? All right. Now, invent another method for baiting an auditor. Invent another method for baiting an auditor." See? And then the pc says . . .

And I tell you, the more you drive rudiments out the harder they are to get in. And they are driven out just by inconsistency, that's all. Now, I don't care how carefully you ended the process off — that you had run it at all. . . See? And we find out that isn't working too well and the tone arm has gone up to 6.0. So, of course we'd better shift it over and so forth, and say, "Well, have you ever tried to make an auditor guilty? Ah, good. Thank you. Well, have you ever tried to make an auditor guilty? Good. Thank you. Have you ever tried to make an auditor guilty? Thank you. Thank you very much. Have you ever tried to make an auditor guilty? Thank you very much. All right then. What government have you been unwilling to attack? Thank you."

Pc will get jarred, man! And I don't care what pc it is, after a while, after you've done this, just in a few sessions — it's best done at different times for different periods and sometimes for a good reason and sometimes for no reason at all. That's what's best. And then nobody can get the rudiments in on this pc. The pc is a bundle of nerves. He's run up against a — you know, what the hell? What's going to happen next? He doesn't know what's going to happen next.

You give him three sessions of Model Session and they're all nice and consistent and everything is fine. There's a few little surprises in there; he didn't know you were going to ask things in that order. By the time you give him a third session, he expects them to be asked in that order. And oh, dandy, great. And along about the fourth session, why, those rudiments are awfully in. And the fifth session the rudiments are, well, they're just in, that's all. And the sixth session, well they're very well in. Seventh session, beautifully, beautifully in. What's happening? It's just the consistency is putting the rudiments in for you, that's all.

I don't care how normally... You've always thought the rudiments as being out natively in the pc. And the auditor has everything to do with it. And you can get the most nervous and flighty pc in the world and if you were to audit the pc perfectly with perfect consistency, making no gains that would amount to anything, you know, but not getting upset about it, and just go on and give him that perfect routine. It's the auditing routine itself which is smoothing him down. After you've audited him for a little while, all of a sudden, auditing session? Well, that's dead easy, do that standing on his head, see? When he comes into the auditing session he's got tone arm action, but you didn't do anything to get him to get tone arm action. You just went over the rudiments and took up the routine process and always ran the same process with him for the out-rudiments, you see, and ran it briefly, and got him. . . And then you ran the body of the session just the way you're supposed to. By the time you've done this a few times, you don't hardly have to put them in. you check them; they're in. you see?

That's the magic of the game. That's where the textbook solution is the solution. And you'll find these rudiments do cover almost everything that can happen to a pc.

Now, of course, a pc's rudiments go out in the middle of the session. Well, actually, you want to know if he invalidated anything, and you wanted to know if there are any half-truths, untruths or tried to impress you or damage someone or if he's trying to influence the E-Meter. And that's just about all you want to know about him in middle rudiments and that's to get a list to start reading again, see?

But normally, you're the one that kicked it out. you did something You're doing something Either he can't understand what you're saying or he feels he's doing something wrong, or something or other is going on in the session that he doesn't just get the grip of. You see? But the auditor has done something flagrantly wrong, I'll guarantee you, every time, if you have to keep putting these things in. If you have to keep using middle rudiments, there's something haywire here. See, there's a lack of confidence on the part of the pc.

Well, of course, what I say is taken within limits. There's some pcs that go scrambling off the walls and a pin drops a quarter of a mile away and you can see their scalp rise. They dramatize an old scalping incident amongst the Sioux or the Blackfeet, you see. And their whole scalp lifts off, you know, a pin drops. They can hear this. That's because environment keeps going out on them all the time, environment keeps going out.

Well, actually, environment will sort of habitually start to stay in if the auditor is consistent about what he does. Because more and more the pc will permit the auditor to take responsibility for the environment, and the pc will realize that if something bad happens in the environment, the auditor will do something about it. Don't you see? He gets the idea that this environment is not a threatening environment because the auditor is auditing him.

In fact, you could get him so that the only time of the day he's calm is when he's in session. Got the idea? And then he gets less and less uncalm out of session, but the first calmness he ever discovers is in session. You see what I mean? I mean, this gradually spreads around and he's calm regardless of whether he's in-session or out of session, about the environment. See, because you've remedied a bunch of things about his case by that time.

No, rudiments aren't something that natively out with the pc. They stay in as well as the auditor is flawless. That's all there is to it. you do a perfect job; you'll have a perfect pc. you can't help it, you see? The pc has had it as far as you're concerned. You're sitting there with all the weapons . . .

If the number of factors that are being crisscrossed on the pc in an auditing session, you know — the number of factors that have to do with the human mind, contained in Model Session, were counted, you'd probably get up in the hundreds. And every one of them is a powerful factor. And if you do all of these things consistently, of course your pc responds accordingly. He can't help it.

It's something like shooting sparrows with sixteen-inch guns, let me assure you. He 11 stay in session and then he'll improve and come up along the line and his case will get straightened out; everything will get very, very fine.

Now, the auditing which you saw last night was research auditing, to that degree. I showed you how to interview a pc, yes. But as far as I was concerned I had a piece of research on this thing. I'm always discovering things. And isn't it interesting that there wasn't a person there who didn't have the rudiments out? Did you see how wildly the rudiments were out? Oh, yes, well probably they were exaggerated in their outness. Very probably exaggerated in their outness by the fact that the pc was on parade. But they weren't exaggerated in their outness because I was auditing them. If anything, that tended to slow it down a little bit. It would only be to the degree that they thought they might have to protect their auditor that would get an influence and I don't think any of these people were trying to protect their auditor.

So it wasn't any more exaggerated in the final analysis — maybe a little bit — beyond what you actually would have seen if you yourself had taken one of the pcs in session and asked them these rudiments questions, see. Did you notice I didn't ask them the rudiments questions with a consistency? Consistency belongs with auditing, not interrogation.

So I just asked them, "How do you like the room?" You notice I didn't use any of the rudiments wording That's to keep the pc from going into session to me. Because these things become a signal, "In-session." See. So we ask about the room, and, "How did you like your auditor?" You know, that doesn't sound anything like, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?"

You see. It isn't the same thing You follow that? So you — I didn't use rudiments on these things.

But I showed you something. Well, I showed you how to interview a pc. And I wish to call to your attention that this — just the asking them the rudiments in some different phraseology, checking them over and asking what they thought about it, and looking at their folder and so forth, that's what you did, you're — originally were inspecting the case because it had no TA action, not because of complaints the case was making — never listen to complaints. It's just no TA action; minimal TA action. All right, so therefore the case was inspected. How come? How come no TA action?

Well, that's why you would interview such a case if you were supervising a lot of auditing. And the next action you would take would be a consultation with the auditor. "What are you doing mutt? See. What's cooking here?" And very often he'll come down with a violent vituperation as far as the pc is concerned — you know right there that there's no ARC from the auditor. One of the best things to do is pull his overts on the pc and send him back into session. That's right.

And here you can pull all of an auditor's overts on the pc, particularly under supervised auditing, because very seldom are these people of long acquaintance. And you get yourself next day's report and you look at that and see if there's tone arm action yet, and the next day's report and see if there's tone arm action yet. And now, there's no tone arm action the next day, well, God almighty. This is auditing which is being done by the auditor hanging by his heels from the middle of the ceiling.

I mean, the gross auditing error is just by this time so magnitudinous — given any kind of a trained auditor at all — a gross auditing error is so gross that you yourself will not believe it. And then, of course, the only way to find it is not talk to the auditor, talk to the pc. But you actually have got to look at this session to find out what the billy-o is actually going on in this session. You have to look at it; there's no substitute for it at all. Because they can't imagine it. you see? Because it's — this is standard. The auditor thinks he should do this so he's not going to tell you he's doing it. And the pc probably is insufficiently in present time to find out what the auditor is doing, don't you see? You can't get your data there, you've got to get your data by a microphone inspection or by an actual visual inspection. There's no substitute for that because you find the damnedest things man, oh-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, wow. Oh, I needn't tell you to. But there's some wild ones will go on. I mean it's gross auditing errors.

But I want to point out something to you. This was the research aspect of the . . . Well, gross auditing error is the auditor just isn't looking at the E-Meter; never looks at the E-Meter. You know, it isn't that he has something wrong with the way he looks at the E-Meter — I don't mean there's a — the auditor just doesn't ever look at the E-Meter! See?

There's something like this: "All right. Do you have a present time problem? Well that's clean." See? It'll be something wild! Unbelievable. Well, the auditor's sitting there all the time eating candy bars, you know? And the pc's out of session because the crumbs and that sort of thing keep getting on her white skirt, you know?

It gets so wild — by the time it's gone four days, there's something going on there that's so wild that I guarantee you, you will not be able to imagine it. you have to go see it. It's like Barnum used to say about a circus. By that time it's getting up into the freak-show class.

Because it's too easy to do this. So a lot of new, different, strange things are happening, you see, that you wouldn't really realize were happening at all. And early in training auditors, they don't realize these things have any wrongness to them at all. So, they just go on doing them until somebody actually spots it.

But I wanted to show you something — in general, completely aside from that. These cases were selected for only one reason: no tone arm action was now occurring that you could call tone arm action. No really good tone arm action was occurring on any of the cases you saw interviewed. Although some of those cases had had good tone arm action, but suddenly wasn't occurring. And I ran down the rudiments and did you see how the rudiments reacted? See? All right.

This checkup disclosed to me this fact: that tone arm action does not necessarily take place just because the rudiments are in. But if rudiments are out — this is true, you see, that other isn't necessarily true — but if rudiments are out your tone arm action will not take place, and that is true. If the rudiments are out, your tone arm action will not take place. You could get them far enough out so that you could just have a still arm.

This means that tone arm action is proportional to the degree rudiments are in — not proportional to the case. Tone arm action is not proportional to the state of the case. Tone arm action is proportional to the degree the rudiments are in.

Now, of course that's monitored by what is being run on the case, which is the only thing that would make a liar out of this statement because you can run some line that was utterly unsuited to the pc, or some Zero A question on Prepchecking that was utterly unsuited to the pc, or you could go on running CCH 1 twelve hours and a half after it was flattened. You understand? So that's not an unlimited truth. But it's to this degree, that the tone arm action will cease when the rudiments go just so far out. you see. The further the rudiments are out, the less tone arm action you will have on the pc, regardless of the case, but with the understanding that you're running an effective process. Do you follow this?

Now, you sat there and looked at it last night. Now you've got to take my word for it because I haven't shown you the folders on these people. But tone arm action was minimal. It was your quarter of a division in twenty minutes. See? And look at those rudiments, man; they were wildly out. Now, you'd think you had to get some wild and unusual and peculiar and fantastic solution to handle any one of these cases. And that would be the natural bent. Let's find something new, strange and peculiar to handle these cases. The newness and strangeness and the peculiarness should consist entirely of the auditor doing a very consistent Model Session and getting the rudiments very nicely in. And that alone would have restored the tone arm action on any case I investigated last night — just as simple as that.

That's what I mean by the textbook solution is the solution. Now, the textbook solution of returning tone arm action to a case is to get the rudiments in. you have a reality on this. Probably any of you — many of you have seen a list go null because the rudiments went out. Well, translate that over into, "The tone arm went null, because the rudiments went out," you see, that makes it the same breed of cat. That's a little piece of research auditing you saw there. I just thought I would check across this and see if I could find a common denominator of this particular set of cases.

They aren't consistently no tone arm cases, you know. They were just taken as of that day, why, they were the low men on the totem pole. They had all gone numb just the last day or two, you see, as far as the tone arm action was concerned. Previously they may or may not have had tone arm action. You see that? They were not strange cases in other words, they were just cases of — with the tone arm motion didn't exist on. And we found the rudiments thuuuh . . . To restore the tone arm action you would — should have — might have said, "Well, the best thing to do is to — let's see if we can't audit this person with two auditors, yes, two auditors. And let's see if we can't run, uh — CCH 14 uh — that's really best," and so forth.

And you see you could have gotten a whole bunch of unusual solutions and you could have said, "Well, invent another method of baiting an auditor," or something like that, "Invent a worse method of baiting an auditor," something like this, you see. you could — all these unusual solutions.

Where, as a matter of sober, sober, sober fact, all you had to do was get the rudiments in and the cases would have gone off like a bomb. In other words a greater consistency, not a greater randomity, would have given motion to any one of these cases. Okay?

Thank you. Take a ten minute break.