This is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 11 Oct. Continuing on the subject of goals finding.

Good enough. What is this? This is the 11th Oct. AD 12, huh? The month of the octopus. And Ronnie needed eight hands to do everything he has to do.

If you've got down the fundamental that it takes an auditor and it takes a meter, then you see on goals finding there's no substitute for being there as the auditor and being accurate on the meter. Therefore, goals finding will never become the subject of sloppy auditing or sloppy metering.

We have some good news - some good news. And everybody around Sydney can be very happy with this. Of course, we're always very happy with this. Bill's just found Ian's goal.

Now listing requires more auditor presence than - that is, the listing sessions - than Prepchecking. An auditor will be able to get things done in a Prepcheck session - "Since October, 1913, has anything been suppressed?" You see, an auditor can sit there and bat this stuff off, and get a result on his pc which will be a very interesting result.

Audience: Great!

He's sitting there practically without a meter. He simply stops asking the question, you see, when the pc doesn't want to give him any more answers, and so forth. Because he isn't being pressed, why, the pe has a tendency to be rather accommodating. And it all goes off rather smoothly, without too many ARC breaks.

There are probably some more, but due to the general breakdown in the auditing department, I haven't been informed.

But the moment that you start listing... You see we'll just skip goals finding; it's absolutely impossible to find a goal without a decent auditor and decent presence and good metering. I mean, that's a foregone conclusion.

We've stopped - we probably have found many dynamics and items and all that sort of thing, but we've gotten so we don't even announce those.

It mainly requires auditor presence and auditor permissiveness. Now, the rule is a very simple one for you to lay down on anybody. Somehow or another, he has to continue his presence while never asking for more items than the pc has and never preventing the pc from giving him items.

We have an interesting datum on this: It isn't necessarily true, according to the Auditing Section, and what has been coming through the Auditing Section, that the length of time taken to find the goal indicates the goodness or badness of the auditor. That is not what indicates the goodness or badness of the auditor. It is the fact that the auditor cannot find the detested person, dynamic or item.

Now, that's the happy balance which this listing auditor maintains. Now, if you also have a circumstance whereby the listing auditor is asking a question and not getting an answer, you'll get a jam - up on the lines.

Well, according to the statistics, if an auditor can't find somebody's detested person, dynamic and item in a fair hurry, there is something wrong with his auditing. See, if he then doesn't find the goal in a hurry, this doesn't indicate much. See, if it takes a long time to find the goal after you've got the item or something like that, we have no indication of this at all. But the speed of finding the detested person, the dynamic and the item is directly related to the smoothness of the auditor. Now, that's one to put in your kit as an indication of what's going on.

So this is interesting, isn't it. There's a nice little compromise involved there. The person doesn't have any items for the line and the auditor has asked the auditing question and therefore must get an answer to it.

If the auditor can't find the detested person, the dynamic and the item in a fair hurry on the pc, then there's something fundamentally wrong with the auditing sessions. Wherever auditors have been changed on pcs here, why, we've gotten these first three things in a rush. Whereas before, we haven't gotten them in a rush. In other words, it wasn't the pc. Got that? It's the auditor. And this has just been sorted out by Mary Sue, and I think you might find it a useful datum.

Well, now, this is - gets interesting, because you'll find out that this little factor all by itself will stack up a case - unanswered auditing questions.

Now, to give you some idea, Julia out there in California, is having a ball these days. This is getting ridiculous, you know? I - it is! It's ...

So you've got an auditor who has to be smooth enough to say, "Well, just give me an old one offhand. Well, just give me any one so the question will be answered." Pc will deal him the same item that he's dealt before or something like that and you've got the auditing question answered.

I told her that - to send me a cable - because they were - had a lot of offbeat goals being found out there and so forth, I told her to send me a cable on each one found. Julia's doing all the auditing and I'm getting a cable or two every day. And operating with terrific Saint Hill altitude, don't you see, and operating with the altitude of a good auditor anyhow, she's supposed to be running the show out there, but she's actually the California Goal Finder right now. And she's supposed to be checking out goals.

But that must be done sufficiently smoothly so the pc is not ARC broke or being dragged at, don't you see. Then you've answered the auditing question and you've got the item, and that's all very slippery.

Something is going here whereby somebody sits down for a rock slam test, and they wind up with their detested person, their dynamic and their item, and then - and the length of time is spent checking out the goal. So they'll spend two hours finding the goal and two hours checking it out.

Now what, in essence here, is the thing that would happen? What is the thing that would go wrong in a listing session - is that the pc gets into a suppress or a protest, either one of which turns on sen. In other words, you ask the pc for more items than the pc has. You see, it's the pc has, you know. Auditors don't sometimes get that point, that the pc has them or he hasn't got them, see.

You're operating here, of course, without this tremendous altitude. You're just a student. And you’ll just be surprised how people stand and deliver on goals from the standpoint of altitude. You’ll also be surprised occasionally as you're auditing along, how people can stand still and not deliver occasionally. But the general situation is that goals are tremendously variable in length of time to find, even in the hands of a good auditor.

The weird part of it is, see, the pc isn't dreaming these things up. Now, this offhanded, "Well, give me one more, you know, an old one, or something, to keep the record straight," is asking the pc simply to give you one already dealt, which the pc can always do. But the pc's got them there, and if you realize that the GPM is stacked up like poker chips, you know, he's either got that many or he hasn't.

Now, finding goals - this is a lecture on goals - finding goals is a science. It is not an art. It is a science. All of a sudden it's a science. But, like all sciences, it has a bit of luck connected with it.

See, he isn't inventing them, thinking them up, creating them, or something like that. That is just the items he's got. See, that's the - that is pretty hard to realize.

I’ll give you an idea. The pc puts his goal on the end of a two hundred goals list, and there are twelve goals on that list because it's going straight down the line of the proper lineup. Going straight down the line. These goals go out hard. You know, a bit hard. Just a bit hard to get rid of those two hundred goals, you see. And you're just taking them by routine, and the goal is a little bit offbeat from what both you and the pc thought it would be, you know?

The other auditing point that auditors - poor auditors even have a bunch of trouble with, and any auditor will have trouble with some time or another, quite frequently, is the pc has said something was wrong and it sounds horrible to the auditor and the auditor believes it is now wrong.

And the item is "a target," to give you an idea - so, of course, "to be a projectile," you'd say, "Boy that must be the goal, you know?" And you and the pc are both convinced it's "to be a projectile," you know. And you get down to the two hundredth goal and it's "to be a little flower." See, you know - a curve in it.

Well, no, the pc has said it and it's been acknowledged, so it's actually no longer wrong. But the auditor feels very downcast because the pc has said this was the condition, and then the auditor adjudicates that the pc couldn't possibly get well, because the condition, you see, was so bad. You got that?

Well, that's why the speed in - with which you find the goal is not necessarily an indicator. But getting up to the goals - finding step, getting the detested person, the dynamic and the item, apparently contains less luck and more meter reading and attention and smooth auditing. These are the factors there. You get over into the goal, and there you are.

The pc said, "Well, 1 thought, 'What a monster you are! ' "

Well, the auditor says, "My God, I can't audit this pc because the pc thinks I'm a monster."

No, if the pc had thought that the auditor was a monster and hadn't told the auditor, yeah, auditing - pretty impossible. But the fact that the statement has been made is the alleviation of the condition.

Now, when a pc - when a pc is - that's the - I just added that in as the other point they have trouble with. And once in a while you yourself will say, "Ohhh God!" you know, "Look at what I’ve been looking at here!" But you're looking at past history. If the pc has said it and it's been acknowledged, it's always past history.

Now, that's with these items. When the pc says them, they're past history, see. And they deal off, just bang, bang, one right after the other. Bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. And they deal off, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

Now, the system is fairly infallible. In your hands I'm particularly proud of this system. It almost works better for you than it works for me. And that's really marvelous. Because on a couple of pcs I’ve had to take some wide tours. But I recall that this was before the system was perfected.

Now, if you demand that the pc give you more items than he has got, then the pc will have to protest what you are saying. He’ll have to protest the demand, don't you see. So that's a protest which adds sen. Sensation is added then - dizziness, misemotion, so forth. And if the pc is prevented from giving items he has - it's the way this finally works out - then the pc will have to suppress those additional items, which gives you sensation.

And then I have had bad luck recently with this system. I’ve been trying to find goals with it, and here's what keeps happening to me: After I get the detested person and the dynamic and the item, and get the goals listed very nicely - all of which proceeded with great speed - it turns up that the pc had an old goal and it is now alive.

Now, the symptom of a wrong goal is it starts out with pain and winds up with sen. Sometimes it just starts out with sen and winds up with sen. But sometimes early on in the run, you’ll have pain on a wrong goal, which then develops into sen, regardless of how smooth the auditing is or anything else. That's a symptom of a wrong goal.

You know, it's just been happening and happening, you know. Of course they got their goal, and that's fine, and it can read now and it never did before and all that sort of thing, but I haven’t found a new goal with it, which I consider quite remarkable. Anyway - and then there are some other dodges I’ve been working on and so forth to speed up goals finding. I’ve been more interested in the research line than otherwise.

Now, you can make a right goal, of course, sound like a wrong goal, in a listing session - look like a wrong goal, you see - by making the pc suppress and protest. Pc says, "Well, I just haven't got any more items that - you know, that make a mistake, you know, make a mistake being a catfish. I just haven't got any more, you know?"

But you know, it's a sort of a disappointing thing, you know, you swear and spit after the session, you know. After you spent - you spent seven hours, you see. And you've just been working like mad, you know, and you’ve got it all up and it proves up beautifully, and then the pc says to you, "Well, I know you’ll practically kill me for this but I think my original goal 'to catch catfish' should go on the front of List Six." Of course, you put it there, and that's it. You didn't find the goal with the system, you found the old goal.

You say, "Well, come on, now, come on, now. This line is way behind. We only have a few strikes on this line. I'm sure you can think up some!"

You say, "Aw, nuts!"

Indeed he could! But we're dealing with just so many chips in the bank, you see. We're dealing with just so many things. These are quantitative items. See, he has so many thousand of this and so many hundred of that and so many dozen of something else.

But of course, the pcs got his goal, and it's all fine, and it's unburdened, and it's all to the good, and it's just your own professional feeling of pride that is hurt. You feel knuckleheaded, you know, because it was sitting there in the first place. You already knew about this goal, you know. You worked seven hours on a Dynamic Assessment, and of course the Dynamic Assessment is necessary to make the old goal read. See, it wouldn't have read without it. But anyhow, it feels sort of weird. I think I’ve done this too often now. And I want to see a brand - new, bright, shiny goal sitting there.

Well, sometimes the stacks are wrong, don't you see, and you come around and ask for something he made a mistake about, and he hasn't got any mistake items right at that moment at all! He isn't even in that side of the deck! Hu - huh! He can't do a thing about it. He says, "Well, I just don't - 1 just don’t have any."

But my research auditing ... You saw a piece of research auditing last night. You didn’t see a standard session. You saw a meterless Prepcheck to match up the goal, "to know." And the reason that was meterless is because actually using the meter on the pc to test out the goal, I thought possibly was an invalidation of the goal, so the pc might prepcheck much more smoothly, you see, without the meter.

You say, "Oh, come on now, come on now!"

And I think you will notice that in each case the Suppress fell half a dial, when the pc said there was none. Did you notice that? I was quite interested in that and I thought you would be, too. And the pc is learning it for the first time.

Pc says, "But I don't have any more."

Actually then, the meter knows more about suppress than the pc quite ordinarily. And the pc knows more about the other buttons probably. I'm sorry to have to reveal that. But did you notice that? Did you actually remark that fact? So, of course, there was a meterless check, and you had the pattern of the auditing and it all would have been the same, except I just wasn't using a meter. And we did get someplace with that. And the pc felt wonderful about it.

"Oh, come on, I'm sure you can give me a couple of more. I'm sure you can give me another ten or twelve. This line's way behind."

Ordinarily in another auditing session, not a TV demonstration session, I would have gone through that again. And at that time the pc probably would have fallen into some of these suppresses, see. And possibly would have cleaned it up. But that would have had to have been completed to make a positive statement concerning the fact. The pc thought the Suppress button was cool, and actually it was still hot.

"But I haven't got them! But I haven't got them! But 1 haven’t got them!"

Only for that reason would I be willing then to go on with doing anything with that goal, see. Suppress button's that hot; well, all right. Did you see it though? I mean, did you really see that? It was about a third - of - a - dial drop when he said, "Well, that's clear, and there's not any more answers there," and so on. Now I’ll have to run it out of the pc!

You see - because that protest, protest, protest, protest - sen, sen, sen, sen, sen, see.

But I thought that was interesting. The pc then does not necessarily have any alertness to the hotness of a Suppress button. You notice that none of the other buttons that I noticed, although it was pretty hard to keep the pc on the meter, did you notice that terrific amount of tone arm action? I was always going off the pin, of course, because I didn't want to keep watching the meter because that invalidated the pc. I wasn't able to put that needle back in the center of the dial as often as I wanted to. Did you notice that?

All right. Now, let's take the reverse side of it. You say to the pc, "Well, this line is already overlisted. We've got too many on this line."

So therefore, you had a hard time following a meter on that at all. And I was trying to get it up to the middle as I said the goal, so that you could see whether or not the goal was firing or not firing. It was pretty hard to do, particularly on the askewness of that demonstration meter.

And the pc says, "And there's a - a game warden and catfish and there's fish hooks and there's - there's - streams and ponds and there's . . . "

In view of the fact that in my own auditing these days, I'm beginning to audit only with the meter over on the left side of me, with a magnifying glass and straight on - auditing with a meter over here, askew with the other hand - getting so I'm ambidextrous. And the Mark V particularly - which I dropped and bunged up a bit last night, by the way - later on. It's all right. It still operates; it's a good test. These meters - the new meter is quite indestructible. There’ll be Mark Vs available to you in about three to four weeks.

And you say, "Well, there's too many on this, you know. I mean, you know, there's already - got a full card here, it's already full, you know. And uh - can't we get off onto some other side of this?"

Audience: Good.

And the pc has to go mvvrrt - sen!

Anyway, let's hope they haven’t altered the basic structure from the one you've been watching. It's almost identical face. Face is the same almost. The only thing we did was put "rise" in with the dashes.

Well, now, with sen goes a climbing tone arm. Tone arm is a direct indicator of sensation. It's mass, but then of course sensation is symptomatic of built - up mass. The more he chokes down and the more he protests, the more mass is going to get stacked up. So, of course, you've got the symptom of the climbing tone arm. Pc tone arm at 5.0; pc lots of sen - you can say this sort of thing has happened: that the auditor has demanded more items than the pc has, and the auditor has prevented the pc from giving items that pc has. That's your first adjudication.

Anyway, auditing with the thing over here on this side, and trying to follow that confounded thing through gives you less of a throw. Some of you, by the way, were being - wondering about picking up latent reads - why I was picking up latent reads on this meter. The Mark V is slightly latent. I haven't bothered to inquire why, but the Mark V is slightly latent.

So, to that degree, you're going to have trouble with listing sessions. But in view of the fact that it does not greatly depend upon metering - in other words accuracy of metering is of no account at all in the actual listing, except to watch the tone arm.

As you think you see an instant read on a Mark IV, on a Mark V you will begin to realize that it is falling at some split second after what you thought it was falling on, on the Mark IV. And that is an instant read on a Mark V. That gives you one answer to it. And the other is, of course, that is what is known as a suppressed meter. And you will often have to do with suppressed meters.

The only thing the meter is used for is to tiger drill in, but again, if he isn't tiger drilling - if he can't tiger drill, you can always have him give a rapid Prepcheck, and as you saw last night that can be done with no casualty at all - maybe not perfectly - can be done with no casualty at all, just on a straight Prepcheck.

Pc has very heavy suppression. Well, that's proven by the fact that when I asked him Suppress, you'd see your button go and so forth. But that is a suppressed meter. In other words, that meter isn't reading dead - on. A pc with terrifically heavy suppression on the goals line and so forth reads a little early, a little late and so on. This you will get used to. You have to know this.

So, your listing auditor doesn’t even know how to tiger drill - doesn't even have to know how to tiger drill, do you see that? He could just give a Prepcheck round and do it once per session, see? Be interesting. You see what I'm driving at here?

And it breaks down the rule of the exact instant read. Whenever you have a pc who is under heavy suppression - this'd be a pc who rock slammed like mad, by the way, at half a chance - you’ll notice that there's some - often something a little peculiar.

So that's the main trouble there. Your main trouble is the lack of auditor presence - the auditor's getting in the road of the session. See, it's just the auditor won't permissively sit there and be an auditor. The auditor must be getting in the road of the session. The only thing you've got to do to remedy that is get the auditor out of the road of the session, either by making the auditor inspect the cycle of auditing or something like this, don’t you see?

Now, at the time last week that you saw this meter, you mainly noticed the latent reads were being taken on the first rudiment. Did you notice that? That's probably what first attracted your attention. And then it wasn't so latent on the other things.

That's easy to remedy! You can handle that. And now, the goals finding the goals finding here - that's something else. That's the combination of the observer and the meter. And the goals finder has got to be hotter than hot on a meter, and got to be accurate and not blurred up, and his auditing has got to be very smooth. Otherwise he’ll cause sufficient suppresses to cause the items or dynamics or persons he's trying to find - he’ll cause those things just to vanish. They just go!

Well, last night I straightened out the suppressions on the first rudiment. In other words, this pc had several sessions Jammed together on the first one, and we pulled those apart.

They show up on the list, but there's so much suppress on the session, you can't get anything to fire. You see this? So if his auditing is rough, he's not going to get any of these things. In other words, they're suppressed before they occur.

Now, you might have thought that was rather unusual to do, but remember it's the auditor's job to get the rudiment in, not to sit there like a silly idiot and Simple - Simon the pc into the ground. You understand? So I was interested in getting the rudiment in, which I then proceeded to do. And traced the rudiment back to the first time he had trouble with it.

Sometimes meters just stop slamming. And you work and you sweat and you slave and you eventually get the meter slamming again, you see, and it's always on the fact that it's a Suppress, Protest, Careful of, all these confounded things.

Well now, it was that rudiment - just to make my point here - you saw last night that that rudiment was terrifically suppressed, and a week before, saw that it was reading latent and prior and every other confounded way except dead - on. You see that?

"Careful of," by the way, peculiarly enough, seems to be the brute that turns off slams. That seems to be far more pertinent on slam turnoff than any other button. Of course, the others turn off slams too, but that one's peculiarly odd. Have you noticed that while running "Careful of," you’ll very often get slams that you didn't suspect were there?

All right. Then last night, I cleaned it up. And I don’t think you saw too much else, although there wasn't too much else in the session, because I was running a meterless test. I think you saw far less latent read, although occasionally you did possibly notice that hair - latency, but that hair - latency is the Mark V. And man, you’ll have to get used to calling a real latent read, and what is an instant read, on a Mark V. And they're slightly different. It's different than a Mark IV.

So therefore, the pc is too careful - he will turn off his slam. Now, the best way to get slams back on is with a goals Prepcheck using the eighteen buttons which of course includes the counter - button.

There's just a little bit of white space, you might say, in - just a tiny bit of white space in to the end of your statement and the beginning of the read. I don't know why that is, I haven't bothered to inquire, but I have noticed it consistently and continuously. I’m the only one who has been operating with a Mark V. And when you start operating with a Mark V, you’ll first start noticing that it gives you a lot of trouble. That's your - be the first thing you’ll notice ' that this is a lot of trouble, man.

Now - you just take the item and you just, you know, give it a goals Prepcheck, you know. The item is "a candy bar," you know. And so you just say, "On the item 'candy bar,"' you see, "has anything been suppressed?" or, any way you want to run it, but you just run it that way, and you go on down through the end. You normally will get the slam back on without any extraordinary action - particularly if you're running it against the meter quite properly.

It's like you were running fan - job aircraft, you know, and they're with a fan, and they went like mad, 197 miles an hour, and they struggle into the air, and they fly through the air. And when you first got into one, having graduated from a Tiger Moth, you see, this thing really looked like it was going, you know. Tiger Moth going 60 miles an hour and this thing is going 197 miles an hour.

The best way 1 know to turn on goals and for you to turn on goals or items or dynamics that have turned off is just that round and round and round Prepcheck.

Well, you graduated from some old type of meter to the Mark IV, and you really thought you were flying, you know, this was really flying. (Probably at the moment perfectly happy with a Mark IV.) And then you start running a Mark V. Well, that's just graduating into jets. You just suddenly and inexplicably will find yourself in the world of jets.

Actually, running it on the meter on the average pc shouldn't take more than an hour to go all the way through. But you get something that's really stacked up, you get one button per session, you know. I mean, vuuuh! It could be, almost, variable in time, but in ordinary course of auditing and so on, it's about an hour, hour and ten minutes, hour and fifteen minutes, to go all the way through that.

As Mary Sue said the other day, she can't call them. Because it's gone, it's read, before she notices it. You know? The jet plane has gone by overhead and she wakes up to the fact that it has read, you see?

Now, the auditor - the auditor has got to be sharp. He's got to be - I gave you the characteristics most desirable in auditing, in another lecture - but that auditor has got to be a sharp auditor. That auditor has got to be a good observer, he's got to be a good meter operator and he's got to have good auditing presence. And his auditing's got to be very smooth. Given those things, why, man can he find goals! Take those things away and the goals just won't occur at all.

Now, the read is very positive. Its quite a persistent read and is actually much easier to sort out than that Mark IV, but you won't think so at first. I imagine you’ll go on stumbling and blundering around for a week or so - I did - and educating your thumb all over again.

Now, oddly enough, the thing that's going to cause you the most trouble in any area you're operating in will be the lucky fluke - of course, causes you trouble occasionally. You do something that's a little bit off - line; you're being very clever, and you get a goal or you get an item, or you ... Oh, you've had it! You know? It won't happen again in another thousand years. But you keep on trying it you know, and it's just a fluke.

You just throw that tone arm up with your thumb a thousandth of an inch further than you intended to, and the Mark Vs needle goes over and hits the pin and lies there. Haah! And you've already started your sentence or something like this, you know, so therefore you have to stop your sentence and put the pc on wait, and adjust the thing, and you eventually will get your thumb educated to where you throw this thing, and it goes over and does a wobble. And you have to get so you can time the wobble.

Similarly, somebody is going to sit down in an auditing chair someday, as - he's just doing a Prepcheck, see, something like that - and all of a sudden the pc lays his goal on the line, you know, and says, "That's my goal." Or he's going over - he's listing the goals list and he's watching the meter, and all of a sudden one of those goals goes clank! brrrr! see, and he says it again and he says it again and he says it again and it checks right out, right away, right away, see.

There's no shunt. That's one of the reasons the Mark V is so terrific. On the actual meter in the Mark V there's no shunt. There is a small one in a Mark IV. And so there's nothing steadying the Mark V at all. And it goes over here and it wobbles. And then settles down and gives you the read.

Ruins him! The rest of his natural career, he’ll be sitting there, listing the first 850 goals, watching for that thing to go brrrr! See?

Well, that is the education of your thumb is what that depends on.

I think there's only one goal here for a long while that the first time it was read it rocket read three times in a row, there was no suppress on it, there was nothing on it, it was just clean as a wolf's tooth, and there it was sitting right out in the open. Trouble is I don't think it'd ever been on the pc's list before. See, the second they put it on the list it read perfectly. Of course, it checked out beautifully and that was it; and there wasn't any trouble with it, and so on.

Anyhow, that's beside the point, more or less. It has another characteristic: is that when you have a clean needle on it, it flows. That is the most flowing, smooth needle you ever wanted to see.

The auditor that found it has been ruined, slightly. I mean, that auditor is liable to be - he’ll just think back to that. Think back to the good old days, when he found that goal, you know. Next goal he finds, you know, he’ll be sweating, sweat running down, and making his - dropping onto the dial of the E - Meter, you know, and pencil's wearing out and pc’s wearing out and everything, and ...

And let's say you had a flowing, smooth needle - this is another reason for the latency. You had a flowing smooth needle. "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" See, it's flowing, it's smooth, it's nice. It just looks like honey. It's perfect, you know. I mean, it's - everything is just "Oh, my, that's very nice." And that's on its highest sensitivity or its lowest sensitivity.

Actually the reason he's having such a hard time is, of course, that he thinks a goal should do that. And of course, he's passed over the pc’s goal and the pc’s - this pc had a quarter of a rocket read and three suppresses. That was the extent this goal showed up, see. No somatics went with it to indicate it, either, you know. This should happen to him. You get how this is, see.

You normally run this on its second sensitivity - a Mark V. You run a Mark V with the additional sensitivity knob straight up, which I think is sensitivity 64. And you're running right now at sensitivity 16. There actually is that difference of multiple in the sensitivities.

But he just doesn't think you should have to work that hard for a goal.

So anyhow, it runs best with that sensitivity knob straight up, and you get your best reads out of it. And only when you're trying to pick the pc to pieces do you shove it over to a 128, see. And there it is, flowing smooth, and you say, "Now, when was the last time I audited you? When was that session? How? Yes. Well, fine now. Thank you. And since the last..." and this needle goes krup - krup, tuk - tuk, prr - brr - brr - brr - brr - brr" - gone.

Well, an auditor has got to be variable and he realizes that his luck is variable, pc to pc. And sometimes he gets up on the right side of the bed, and he reaches over, and by golly, his shoes are right there, you know, and the laces are untied and he slides into them and there's nothing in them! That's the day, see, that's the day!

Now, it actually kind of doesn't matter if it reads or not. This is a bad thing to tell you. You know there's something on the question. In other words, you can use this flow factor on a Mark V. You no longer have a flowing needle. There is something wrong with the question you are asking. And when you clean it all up you’ll have this beautiful flowing needle back. And it's very easy to get it back.

Next morning he gets up, reaches to the same location - no shoes.

But you can almost tell what question is hot by the fact that the needle is doing something, or that you have missed something in the session. Something is missed in the session. You can tell it from the unflowingness of the needle. It's going up in jerks. It's going up, bup - tek, krrp - bump, dit - du - bop, zzt - zzt, trip, thud. You know? It actually is very commotional. In other words, the Mark V to some tiny degree registers the state of mind of the pc by its character of rise. See?

Reaches under the bed - no shoes. Looks all over the house - no shoes. See's his dog worrying something in the back yard! Well, that's the way it goes!

Now, the Mark V also picks off all analytical thoughts. There isn't anything left in the pc's skull when the Mark V is clean. See, we were with the Mark IV picking off reactive thoughts only, and the pc could think an analytical thought and you wouldn't see it on the meter. With a Mark V you see every analytical thought.

There's terrific variability in this situation. Therefore, pc to pc, an auditor has to learn to be variable in his attention to the situation. Just because he found the goal on the pc in this peculiar way and this peculiar fashion, is no reason he's going to find the goal on the next pc in exactly that way and that fashion. In other words, he's got to be variable.

Pc says, "Well, I hope that doesn't read." The Mark V will go click! So therefore, you heard me asking, and have heard me asking while you've been watching me do this, if the pc thought of anything, if there are any afterthoughts in that particular case. And it wouldn't matter if the thing were very latent, I would still ask the pc what he thought of.

Oddly enough, the variability of it is best covered by a very close adherence to the textbook solution. For the first time in the history of any race on any planet, our textbook solution is the best one. That's the first time this has ever happened.

Why? Because I don’t want my needle brr, brr, brr, tick, tick, brr, thup, bup.

Textbook solution. They had a song in the Marine Corps, about McBill McGin who died with a grin, because he had used the textbook solution, you know. They’re usually quite fatal, in more subjects than one. 1 imagine in a physics or chemistry laboratory, or in the universities and so forth, the textbook solutions - I don't think you'd ever graduate if you used the textbook solution on the experiments. You just never would, that's all.

Now, actually every analytical thought is to some degree a missed withhold, if it is not uttered to the auditor. So if you want the pc - without pestering him to death - if you want the pc really sitting in - session gorgeously, so forth, why, you've just got to keep a clean flowing needle. So this gives you something new that a meter can do. Right?

1 used to look around me occasionally in a physics laboratory or measuring laboratory, and I´d find these students passing, you know, and everything panning out exactly, you know, and in the chemistry lab the precipitate always turned out to be pure potassium skoofba, you know. I didn't realize they'd just gone over to the supply cabinet and got some potassium skoofba, you know. It's marvelous, marvelous! And the acceleration tests all work out on the physics bench, providing you put the answer down first and then work back to your experimental data.

Now, this is very pertinent to goals finding. Because you're not about to find any goals on any pc whose rudiments are out. You're just not about to find any goal on a pc with the out - rudiments; that's all, man. And the Mark V puts rudiments in the like of which you never heard of before. You really get them in. You get them in including the analytical thoughts.

No, the textbook solution is never very fortunate, which is liable to give many an auditor an idea that he ought to put a big curve into finding goals, see.

In other words, you get it in reactivity and analytically and physically and every other way. You've got these rudiments in. Of course, you won't get them in as well if you are suspicious of your meter. And if your meter is not quite registering everything that it might be registering, therefore you’ll very often badger your pc and start cleaning cleans. And that throws the rudiments out.

Well, now you take Model Session. Frankly, the more you vary Model Session the more trouble you’re going to get into, because the first thing you do is throw out the predictability factor.

I know I had a bad time in the session last night. I got into the rudiments, the pc was out of session, I couldn't get the rudiments in, and we had quite a ruckus. Quite a mess. Auditing table upset and everything. This was remarkable.

See, the pc considers you unpredictable, and the more unpredictable unpredicted things you do, why, the less predictable the pc thinks you are, so therefore becomes less and less certain of you as an auditor. And therefore you as the auditor deteriorate as the pc's observer. You see, by being unpredictable you destroy the reality of the auditor as an observer. You see that?

Now, when this type of thing occurs it is - something else has happened.

It might be very clever and it might be very necessary but remember that reality as the observer, from the viewpoint of the pc, is very often more valuable to maintain than to solve that particular little problem with that particular little piece of wit. See what I mean?

And obviously I just got through missing the pcs goal. I think that was what this was all about. I couldn't really trace it to anything else. I must have gone right over the top of the pc's goal. Needle was rough and registering on "halftruth." But I think it would have registered on "Have you eaten any apple pie?" There was a lot of figure - figure going on. There was a lot of this and that going on.

You say, "Well obviously, I ought to throw the random rudiment in on this pc after every other rudiment. See, 1 do a rudiment, then I´ll throw in the random rudiment." And it might be very necessary, and it might be all right, eventually, with the pc if you did it every time.

So the meter is actually more sensitive than - for everybody's good, occasionally. You see, it's - you could get along with less. Do you understand? But yet you actually can't get along with less.

But sooner or later you're going to conceive that it isn't necessary every rudiment to also throw in the random rudiment - you're going to leave it out here and there - then the pc doesn't know what's coming up next, and therefore doesn't consider that you are predictable, so therefore he's not so certain that he is being observed. Now, the more you use a standard Model Session, and use it every time, why, there you are.

So this meter delivers back to the auditor a tremendous amount of skill in the order of auditing. It delivers back to him a lot of judgment about the thing. Is this pc doing all right, and is this pc really in - session? Well, you've got a free - flowing needle.

Now, last night, you saw me throw an unpredictability. Well, this is only justified by the degree that the pc has had a wrastling match with this particular one, and it's a source of innumerable ARC breaks on the part of the pc. See?

Now, the only thing wrong with that is you also get a free - flowing needle on a totally ARC broke pc, whether you're using a Mark V or a Mark IV or any other thing. I saw that last night, too.

All right, so we will take this rudiment up. Nevertheless it destroyed to some slight degree the predictability of the auditor - the pc's prediction of the auditor, see. You understand? 1 could get away with it that once, see, and that was fine. But let's say next time 1 take up the present time problem rudiment, and straighten it out the same way. And then I run perfect Model Session for the next two sessions and then suddenly take up the "Since the last time I audited you" rudiment and not clean this up but extend it into a full mid ruds. We would start getting an unreality on the part of the pc, on the auditor, don't you see? Well, to that degree you can get away with variability and variation.

See now, what's the point here? Well, no meter is ever going to be made, ever, which lays aside the ability of the auditor to perceive the pc. The auditor must be able to see the pc. The auditor must be able to apprehend what the pc is doing. Because he could then have a free - flowing needle on a totally ARC break pc with nothing registering anyplace.

Now, in view of the fact that you aren't going to always find detested persons and dynamics and items on this pc, this does not become a part of the picture of predictability. So you could do this different ways. As long as it was in Model Session, the pc would be perfectly happy about it.

Now, that factor will always take place because it's a characteristic of a living being; it is not a characteristic of a meter. And there's no beating that factor. I assure you of this; there's no beating that factor.

You're only going to find the detested person once, you understand, and after that you’re not going to find the detested person. But if you find this detested person and then you find the dynamic and then you find the item, all more or less in the same way, you’ll find out the item becomes much more easy to find because, you see, the pc's now got a predictable pattern, see. He's more certain of what you're doing, so therefore he's quieted down. You understand that?

So you always have two inspection systems at work. You have the auditor, and you have the meter. And if you delete either one totally, auditing doesn't become more difficult, it becomes impossible! That's with an exclamation and an underscore. You delete either one of these systems, and auditing becomes impossible.

Now, he’ll become - he’ll think his certainty has been thrown out if you don't find the goal the same way. You understand that? Maybe you could swing in on the same system, "What goal does this represent to you?" and you might find more certainty in getting it. If you could figure out how to get the goal with the same system by which you got the item, by the same system by which you got the dynamic, by the same system in which you got the detested person, see. You've set up a pattern of response here.

Now, when I say "When you delete the meter," you of course couldn't find the pc's goal. I worked and worked to find a system which would meterlessly find the pc's goal, and I have never succeeded in doing that. I don't even have a clue as to how to go about it, because everything - and I mean that everything I have put together that pointed in that direction has flopped. In other words, there has not been one hopeful sign.

Well, the only virtue of the pattern of response - well, it has two virtues: (1) Its easier to teach because it's a pattern, but that is not its main virtue. It is actually - makes the pc more certain that he has an observer. The observer always does the same thing, so therefore there's more of an observer there. See, the pcs certainty that somebody is there is compounded by the fact that he can predict the actions of this person.

Now, how do you like that? Now, you know you get on some goals channel with the pc, and if you’re on the goals channel, it - occasionally a goal will go zzzpp! and occasionally it’ll rock slam, and occasionally will go tap, tap and a rocket read, see, as you go over one goal or another. You know that's a hopeful channel. All right.

Now, IM tell you how to make yourself very unpopular with a pc. Every time you check the pc’s goal, do it differently, and do it in such a way that the pc cannot predict what you’re going to do. Make it so that the pc can't predict when you are going to say the goal, if you are going to say the goal, and then do it a different number of times, and all of a sudden the goal won't read for you.

There's been no hopeful channels of any kind in the direction of ... Well, for instance, writing up a list so that the pc would eventually write only his goal. You get the type of thing here? Writing up combinations of lists which would eventually get the pc to write his goal. Doing this or that, asking questions of, and so forth. And this has just uniformly laid an egg.

This is not a test which 1 advise you to make on somebody's goal. But you perhaps have reality on it right this minute, which is why I'm saying it. If you said, "Now I am going to test the goal 'to catch catfish' - to catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish," and you always tested it that way, it'd probably be all right - probably be all right.

I don't say that it's an impossible trail, but I do say that in quite some period of time now, two years, I have occasionally moved into that field and worked in it. And every time I’ve come out with a total skunk, pockets empty and all shells intact - skunked.

But it's corny, already. Because you've said the goal before you've said the goal, and therefore the pc suppresses the first saying of the goal, which registers then on the second saying of the goal, which is really the first saying of the goal, you understand? You get the unpredictability of this action?

I’ve thought of how about having a pc just write goals until the only goal he can think of is that. That doesn't work either. Pcs can evidently write eight million nine hundred and ninety - nine billion goals without ever only writing their own goal, you see. Well, a lot of - lot of things go into this.

So it's much better to say, "Now I'm going to say this goal." Oh, a pc knows what goal you're talking about, and if you don't think the pc will know what goal you’re talking about, you just say, "Well, what's your thoughts on this goal 'to catch catfish'?" See?

So, goals finding begins with auditing. And it requires an auditor capable of inspecting the pc who is being audited - the auditor inspecting the pc and an instrument inspecting the pc. It takes both.

The pc says, "So - and - so and so - and - so and so - and - so, so - and - so and so - and - so."

Now, sometimes you can lay the instrument aside but that's only when you're proving something up. You’ll eventually have to bring that instrument back into your lap and say, "Does that goal read?" Do you see? You eventually have to resort to the meter, no matter how many other approaches you make visually with your naked eye.

And you say, "All right. Now I'm going to test this goal - to catch catfish, to catch catfish, to catch catfish. Thank you very much."

Now, your meter is not going to detect the ARC break of the pc if it happens fast. That's interesting, isn't it? Only the auditor's going to detect that.

However, if you did that too unpredictably, it'd startle the pc enough, so that by the time you've said the second one, he'd squashed it.

And after that, the meter says, "'It's all clean, it's all clean, it's all clean." The pc is lying on the floor, writhing quietly, see. The meter says, "He's well." The meter says, "He's well and happy and in - session." You see, "Have I missed a withhold on you? Huh - huh, clean. Willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Clean. Do you have a present time problem? Clean." See? "You told me a half - truth? Clean." Everything clean, everything clean, everything clean. Pc's lying on the floor in total agony and total despair.

Now, have you - 1 see that you have had a little experience in this! Supposing you had always said it this way: "Now I'm going to test this goal. To catch catfish. To catch catfish. To catch catfish," and that's the way you've been saying the goal to the pc. You’ve said the goal to the pc this way three, four times, at different times. And now, if you do this one: "Now, I'm going to say this goal, 'to catch catfish - to catch catfish! To catch catfish. To catch catfish." You know, you're not going to get any reads. It's just splattered all over the landscape, see.

So therefore, not this instrument, but any mechanical observer I think that anybody ever cooks up will have some ceiling of limitation on its power of observation. There’ll be some limitation upon its ability to observe, which a thetan can always better. Because remember, a thetan can look, but a machine can't look unless a thetan is looking at the machine to read the answer off of the machine. This is something that the scientist uniformly overlooks.

So you see that, if unpredictability can smash a goal out of read (although that's a fairly delicate thing), you see that unpredictability can smash a session out of read, just drawing a wider bow, and of course, a listing session can be "scrushed" out of existence the same way. Do you see that? It's the predictability, predictability factor. Sometimes your cleverness defeats itself, because you become unpredictable.

The psychologist's dissertation on how the eye works is one of the damnedest pieces of buffoonery which has ever been perpetrated as a hoax - I mean, as a fact. It is! It's a piece of buffoonery. According to this, the eye looks out here, it points in that direction, and by some focal system of images - which of course he gets out of the science of optics - there is some kind of a screen back here which registers the image. And then we don't say any more about it.

What are you going to do? Let's say, one day you get in the random rudiments right in the middle of trying to clean up, "In this session have you told me any half - truth, untruth, done something only to impr ... Well, I think I'll get in the middle rudiments." He - oh, you'd possibly get away with it. Probably nothing much happen to you if you did it.

But carrying through this, reductio ad absurdum, we get a screen looking at a screen and then we would get another screen looking at a screen.

How many sessions do you think you have to audit that rudiment perfectly, before the pc stops being the gopher effect, you know, sitting up on top of his hole, you know, looking around, looking around. You're coming to the first rud. "What's he going to do? What's he going to do? What's he going to do? What's he going to do? What's he going to do? Oh! He's going to read it straight!" See, some part of his mind is doing this, see. You're unpredictable to that degree.

And then we'd get another screen looking at that screen, and another screen looking at that screen. And at no time anywhere do we have an observer. In this whole system there is no observer. I think the reason for this is the psychologist has never been able to observe. So he just discounts this very necessary thing, an observer.

Well, goals - goals finding can get very, very complicated. You could be so complicated and so nagging and so upsetting and so suppressive, and get a - such a protesty pc in goals finding that eventually you just never would find anything at all, just never find a thing. lf something is wrong with the cycle of an auditing question, yeah, something will happen to finding detested persons and dynamics - things will happen to these things. That's why one looks with horror upon the untrained auditor or the lower - level trained auditor, finding goals. Because you know that his technology is just not up to it.

You know, I did this one time with a UNIVAC, ENIAC smick - smack thingamabob whatnot that was going round and round and its wheels were churning, and its valves were popping, and I think it had cooling systems and so forth to cool off its fevered brow. And it had all kinds of instrumentations which crossed instrumentations.

He's liable to find all kinds of wrong things. In the first place, he doesn't know what a goal read looks like. In the second place, he's insufficiently smooth to even read one off. He can take any goal under the sun, moon or stars, make a mistake on it and make it read.

I busted the machine by the way. I did. I fed it "two times two equals . . . and it was unable to solve this problem. That was the end of it. The things went round, and they went round, and there was no 'W' to fall out, see?

He can take a goal that's very unpopular with the pc. Let's say he's one of these auditors - a sort of an amateur book - type auditor - who is over on the overwhelm side of the picture, see. He's got a basic philosophy that it must be true if the pc doesn't like it. That's his basic test. See, if the pc protests, that's it.

It was set up to have a more complex equation. And that was too fundamental an equation. Now, it could have said, "Two times two equals four," if you had first said, "The derivative integral of Y in its ratio to X is the distance between G and its square root of Q. And if this were true, then two plus two or two times two equals what number?" See, the machine is set up to take that many.

And then let's say he gets on some kind of a - of a sexual goal of some kind or another that in this society Somebody’d be very ashamed of, don't you see, and then reads this with a gleam in his eye. He makes a suggest on it, then tiger drills it wrongly, gets the pc to protest it, asserts then that it is the pc’s goal, as the pc is saying that it is not, builds up a nice ridge, and you know that goal will read for years. Of course, it’ll only read with a tick, but it’ll read until somebody pulls both sides of that thing off and pulls it apart.

This just left all the blank files over here, see. And the machine looked in vain, it couldn't find anything there, so it looked again. And couldn’t find anything there. And it looked again, you see, and it never would pick up the "Two times two." The cams were going mad inside the thing. They had to shut the thing off.

Well, that frightens you, when you come down to look at it. So, were not really, though, talking about that crudity of operation. We're talking about just the smoothness of finding a goal.

Spoke to me rather crossly. And they said, "This machine was not designed to solve things of that character." It was an astronomical computational machine. It had the distances to the moon, and the lunar positions thereof, as expostulated from the eclipse of something or other, you know, and this was all fed in. And of course the cams couldn't "Two times two equals four."

So, there's no substitute for good auditing and finding a goal. There's just no substitute for it. Luck we can't count on - about the only thing that would cause a person who couldn't audit well to once in a blue moon find a right goal. It'd be his undoing too!

"Well, let me point out something," I said. "Let me point out something here. The machine never has seen an answer."

The steps by which a goal is found today are very elementary, they're very simple and they all follow the same pattern. We just ask the person who or what has the pc detested. Make it who or what, because the pc is on a - is on a "things" type dynamic, here. A detested person, though we still call it, will sometimes go by the boards, don't you see? They might not have any people they detest; they only detest things, you see, and on that pc you're liable to miss most gorgeously if you say, "What person have you detested?" You understand that?

"Ho - ho - ho - ho, nah - ha - ha - ha, nah - ha - ha - ha.' nah - ha ... !'

On a large percentage of cases you’re just going to get away with "Who have you detested," see. But there's that other case that comes along and you get a thing.

I said, "Wait a minute now. That machine has never seen an answer."

Now, you could make the mistake of thinking this was so marvelous - having gotten this item - that you’ll list goals against it or something like that. Well, that hasn't proven out as a good action or a productive action over a period of time. Even though it gives you something that looks like an item if you get a thing. You know, "a burned - out radiator." You say, "Boy, that sure looks like an item," you know? Naw, it's not an item.

"Well," they said, "seeing you're just using some offhanded trickery or ... It's your writing background showing up, you know, just using semantic trickery, or . . . "

Now, your next action is always represent. Now, your action, then, is - starts out with "Who or what have you detested," you see; get your list; "Consider committing overts against _______(items on the list)." And when you get that item, it's always followed with represent.

"No, no. It never has. Who reads the answer when given up by the machine?"

Don't try to use other things. I’ve gotten an awful lot of data on this. And I’ve come a cropper every time I’ve tried to use some other form of action.

"Well," they said, "the operator."

The pc's substitutes is what we want, and we say, "What does a burned-out radiator represent to you?" So that's always your next action to get the next list. See? And now we've got our next list, and we consider committing overts against it, and we get that one off that list, and it's - a next step is always "represents." Don't you see? And we can actually go along this line until we run out of dwindling rock slams. We could actually continue this until we run out of dwindling rock slams, which is quite interesting.

I said, "Then the operator is part of the machine."

Why it works, that we only get a couple of dwindling rock slams out of this, I'm not quite sure. There are probably more dwindling rock slams available in some cases. But this works out just fine the way it is laid out now.

"No! No, no. No! No, no."

Your dwindling - first dwindling slam is, by the way, not on the detested - person point - person or item. See, that doesn’t - when you list those, you get no dwindling slam, you understand. There's no dwindling slam there at all. And there may not be a dwindling slam from that ite - that detested person or item when found. That might not be a dwindling slam.

"All right, then if the operator isn't part of the machine, then the machine has never inspected the answer."

In fact it'd kind of surprise me at times if you did get a dwindling slam. Because, may - man, that one's far out. See, that's the far out bet.

"No, that - couldn't be true."

But if you got a dwindling slam, nobody's going to argue with it. But if you didn't get a dwindling slam, nobody's going to argue with it. You see what stage of this operation I'm talking about?

You see, that just led up the garden path on this. You had - you put an observer into any of these systems and they go to pieces. You’ve got to have an observer. I mean, you take the observer out, you say to - here's this system. And it says, "Well this machine observes itself and therefore integrates what it does." Well, you can set up a machine as a servomechanism which will find out that it's nine o'clock and shut the radio off or turn the percolator on or do all kinds of things like this. But its inspection is just that. And actually it rarely inspects that it's done it.

You say, "Who or what have you detested?"

Now, some machines, much more complicated, will inspect to find out whether or not it has done this. And if it hasn't done this it will shut itself off. An automatic phonograph will do that. It’ll inspect itself to find out whether or not it's playing a record and therefore ... But its inspection is limited to that one sphere, see. It can observe no further than that.

And they say, "Sam Jones! Yes sir! And you, and . .

Now, you cant expect a meter to observe a pc. It will not. An auditor has to be there to observe the meter. And I'm stressing this point not because it's just a piece of ridiculousness, but you're going to find people around who think that the machine observes the pc and if they simply sit there and let this machine operate, they're going to be all set. And furthermore, that a machine can be developed which will observe the pc 100 percent and do everything there that is present in an auditing session. So their total action will be to develop better and better and better meters. The auditor is totally unimportant. See, the auditor will have nothing to do with it at all. It's just whether or not you have a better machine.

You say, "You? How you want that written down?"

No, sir! Although it's very laudable to develop better and better and better meters, don't develop in them the direction that they will eventually wind up with no auditor. Because that's the trouble with any auditing session that goes wrong: is no auditor. At some point in the auditing cycle there's no auditor.

"Well, you! You, you know. Bill Smith! You!"

You can actually have the commands come out of a tape recorder. See you could actually fill up a whole record - a whole tape full of "Do fish swim?" And then put it on with a foot pedal, and sit there and the tape will play and ask you the question, "Do fish swim?" and so forth, and then you get into an ARC break.

Well, you write it down as Bill Smith, not "you." And he gets down to the end of the list, and says, "myself." Well, you take these pronouns and you want to know how the pc wants them written down. You don't challenge them

Well, maybe then you could have another tape recorder and if you had an ARC break you could take your other foot and push down on it and it would say, "Do you have an ARC break?" See? And maybe if that registered "yes," you could even link that in to another machine which now said, "All right, recall an ARC break" or something, you see, and it would go on and on and on in this particular fashion.

"Oh," he says, "Myself! George Smith!"

In other words, you could get a system of complexity operated out like this. But look, no matter how many systems you have, the only observer present is the pc. So you still have an auditor present. It's the pc auditing himself. Now the question is what is he auditing? And if your observer is the pc, then what's the pc auditing? Well, he must be auditing some valence. Well, we're not trying to clear valences. We're trying to clear pcs.

You write down "George Smith," and also write down "myself," because by the time you're sorting this thing out you're going to get in trouble with pronouns. Cons - get the - get the auditor sitting there, see. The auditor says, "Consider committing overts against you." So this gives you the "myself" Do you get the tangle that comes out of this thing? "Consider committing overts against you." And you just never come off of it.

All right. Now, let's study this a little bit further in goals. It becomes much more pertinent to this than it appears at first glance. The pc must have another beingness. This is peculiar to goals. You realize you can sit there and chant to yourself, "Think of a problem of comparable magnitude," and think of the problem of comparable magnitude to something or other, and solve something. You could even audit yourself through an engram. You can do all kinds of interesting things with self - auditing. Most of them wind you up in the soup, but the point I'm making out here is things can happen because of self - auditing, see? You can.

You're having an awful lot of trouble with some other human being; you can sit there and say, "Well, think of a problem of comparable magnitude to Bill." See, "Think of a problem of comparable magnitude to Joe. Think of a problem of comparable magnitude to..." and get your answer each time, and first thing you know you feel better about it. See, that's possible. Of course, you’ll probably have a headache and so forth. But it doesn't matter.

Now, how big does a rock slam have to be? I'm going to - I'm going to - I'm going to put this in immortal fire, engraved and blazing upon the mountainside for the centuries and millennia to come, because I'm tired of answering the question! It gets asked to me almost on an average of twice a week - three times a week; this same question. How big is a rock slam? It's the same thing as: "How long is a piece of string?" How big is a rock slam? How high is the tide? You know? Popular song!

Now, it's possible. Now, because that's possible - because that is possiblethen you could extrapolate and move forward to believe that goals finding and auditing was possible. You see?

Now, I can tell you that a little dirty needle on the detested person, in spite of anything you have been told by anybody else is not enough to indicate the right one. And if you have bought the little dirty needle, you’re probably in trouble.

In research and so forth I’ve had to, and have inadvertently or on purpose, run dozens of processes on myself. It's inevitable. You say, I wonder what would be the effect of . . ." See, that's all you have to say. You answer the question. It's obviously a self - audit, see?

Now, the possibility is that you can get the thing down to a little dirty needle, and by doing a rapid Tiger Drill on the item, see whether or not the dirty needle expands to a slam.

You say, well, would these people get better if you did so - and - so? Supposing you asked them, "Think of a problem of comparable magnitude. Well, think of a problem of comparable magnitude to this building." "Yeah, there's an answer. That's answerable."

But nobody has done this and that is not what is indicated and it's a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Do I make my point? We don't want a little dirty needle. We don’t want a little dirty needle. You understand. We don't want one! It means an incomplete list! You hear me? It's an incomplete list!

Now, in actual fact, you, in dreaming up a pcs lines do a little bit of self - auditing. You say, "Well, let's see, is that answerable, or isn’t that? Yes, you could say that’d be a clear sphere, or something like that. Yeah, there's an answer to that." You know? So, you get this kind of thing.

And if nothing is left at the end of the trail, it's an incomplete list. And if nothing slammed nicely as you went by, it was an incomplete list. And if you didn't get anything, it's an incomplete list. And if your assessment didn't wind up with a proper dynamic or item, it was an incomplete list. Do you - do I make this point? See?

In other words it starts to be borne in upon you that auditing on self is possible. Well, it's possible to say, run a Touch Assist on your own leg. Yeah, you could probably cure up a sear.

And if the pc is ARC broke or calm, or something, it's an incomplete list. And the pc didn't cognite and say, "Ha, ha, ha! Ha, ha, ha! I knew it’d be a burned - out radiator! Ha, ha, ha! Yeah, burned - out radiators. Yeah, I never thought of that before. It's a very interesting thing. I had a burned - out radiator on a Ford one time. Aw, burned - out radiators. Pretty horrible!" Even if this pc is the Sphinx type - never says anything, never cognites - when you get that item, when you get that dynamic, when you get that detested person, dat pc gonna cognite. You hear me? Dat pc gonna cognite. He's gonna cognite with cogs flying!

Girl's got a scar or something like that, that she doesn't like, on her knee or something like that, why, she could probably do a Touch Assist on it ten minutes a day and at the end of a couple of months or something like that have no more scar. It's quite remarkable what can be done with a Touch Assist, see. And because that is successful, say, well, you could probably find and run a goal on yourself, see. Therefore goals running is possible.

Now, I collided with - on this on the Queen Elizabeth. And I’ve had a quite a go - around on this particular subject, and actually have let some people list their own goals. And this is what now materializes: Let me show you here: here's a person, see, and here's a valence. This flashlight, see. Now, here's the valence here. Now, this is the valence with the goal in it. Now, to find his own goal - see, you'd think it'd be like this, see - he said, "Let's see, 'to catch catfish.' I wonder if that is my goal. Let's see. Is that my goal? 'to catch catfish?" Sen.

Just make up your mind it doesn't have anything to do with the pc, man. You got that? I mean, that's the simplest test 1 know of the rightness of all of this. If the pc is interested in it, it’ll rock slam. If the pc isn't interested in it, it won't rock slam. If it doesn't rock slam, it isn't it.

"Now," he says, "I don't know, that sort of made me feel dizzy. Let's see, 'to catch catfish'. . . How about, 'to be a game warden?' Yeah, there's pain on that. That must be right." That's the oppgoal. See? That's the oppgoal. An individual has to be over here to look at the valence in which his goal exists. I'm making this point with you. And every time the individual thinks of inspecting his goal he exteriorizes from his valence into an opposition terminal. And an effort to run one's own goal or list one's own goal always finds one in the opposite lines.

Now, how wide is a rock slam and how high is the sky? Well, a rock slam isn't a dirty needle. It isn’t a little bzzt, bzzt, bzzt, bzzt. That's never enough.

Now, when one is listing opposition terminals, one of course is in one's own goal terminal. Here's the opposition terminal, see, and the thetan would come around here. Let's say these are terminals now. We’ll take the terminal situation, see. And here's the thetan, see. Now, this one contains the opposition goal - the flashlight. And this little microphone here contains the person's own goal, see.

When you go down that list the first time, you’ll see about three items on it go blam! blam! blam! And you say, "Hey! What do you know! Ho - ho!" And when the second time you go down you will see those rock slams centralize on - onto only one item. They're differentiated now and you've got it on one item. And you go by that thing and it goes blam! And you say, "Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!" See.

Now, person says, "To catch catfish. Who or what would want to catch catfish?" and inspects - goes over here to the opposition terminal, to inspect the terminal which contains the goal "to catch catfish." Savvy?

And you go on down to the end of the list. You go over the list again; it goes blam! You go over the list again, and it goes blam! Same item. Go over the list again; it goes blam! In the event you ARC break the pc and upset it, why, of course it won't go blam anymore.

Now, to inspect the opposition, "Who or what would oppose catching catfish," the person goes into the terminal in which the goal exists to look at the opposition. Do you understand?

Well, I catch these things very easily as a bra - with the brass - ring tactic. If I go over it enough to have only one item going blam with a rock slam, and dat's da brass ring. And I put it right in the pc's nose right there. And 1 say, "That's it, son," and lead him right on down the track. You got it? And you do it by elimination.

In other words, no matter what he looks at, he is always in the other side. Every time he looks at the goal or the Opposition to the goal - there's looking at the opposition - he's in the terminal with the goal. You got that? And while looking at the goal he goes into the terminal which is in Opposition to the goal. You see this?

By the time you go over that list the second time you ought to have that thing, man. You ought to have a rope dropped right around its neck. And if you haven't got it, you haven't got it! And you can unsaddle the horse, you can polish up the harness, you can fix up the brightwork, the brass, you can groom his coat, you can wash out of - his mouth, you can brush his teeth and it still won't be the item. You understand?

So there he is, always on the wrong side of the fence, because - here's the trick: you cant as - is. You're always being the thing - you’re always being the thing which doesn't have in it what you're trying to as - is. It's all exterior inspection, then. Everything is inspected exteriorly in the mind. A little bit hard to put this across.

And right away, as you go down the line, you'd ... I'd go down the thing the second time, I find there's only one thing slamming on the thing, I'd grab it right there. And 1 say, "This burned - out radiator, now, that seems to be it."

But the point I'm trying to make simply is that the individual, the person, the thetan, in the bank stack - up, can never be in what he's trying to audit. And therefore never turns the sen or the pain on in the right places. It's always in the wrong place.

And the pc says, "Ha - ha! I knew that was it! Ha - ha - ha! Burned - out radiators. Yeah, God, I hate them, that's all. Been the cause of an awful lot of difficulty with me, never really looked at it before, but burned - out radiators ... Oh, heh - heh, I'm not at all surprised, you know. Ha - ha - ha! I'm not at all surprised. Burned - out radiators! Ha - ha - ha - ha! 1 wonder why that's why I'm always having trouble drinking rusty water."

If it's lines two and four that are supposed to contain sensation, and lines one and three supposed to contain pain, why, in a self - audit, why, lines one and three will contain sensation and lines two and four will contain pain. This is real backwards, isn’t it? And he can get so loused up, because he never is in what he is trying to as - is.

Pc’s interest follows the rock slam, see. So it's inevitable that you - you’re going to get - you get both. You got the item. But this pc that just wooden Indians on you to the bitter end, you got nothing. You can go on and on and on and on and on.

He star - he's going to check out his own goal. Let's say the goal is in this microphone, that's one valence, he's going to check out this goal. So he comes over here into the Opposition to check out the goal. Now, he's being the Opposition while he's checking out the goal, but this thing isn't here ... He's not in it to find out how it thinks, so he only thinks over here in the Opposition, you see what this ... You get the idea?

Now, how many lists of detested persons and things can you do before you finally get the item? You do the exact number necessary to find the detested person or thing. You got that? That's how many lists you do. That's a very simple answer to a very burning question. You do it till you get it.

Now, he's going to check out for the opposition goal; of course, he's in his own terminal and, you know, the one that does have the goal. No, it takes an auditor.

Now, do you put on it the second time you do it, the things which it already ain't? No, you leave those off. You drop them in the spittoon or the cuspidor and let them splash gloomily. Because if they weren’t on it the first time - if they weren't it the first time, they're not going to be it the second time.

All right. Here's let us say is the auditor. And here are two terminals. Here's the auditor, and the auditor says, "to catch catfish," and the pc goes into the terminal of "catch catfish." And the auditor says, "Who or what would oppose catching catfish," and the pc goes into the terminal in opposition to catching catfish, see? In other words, he's in the right terminals for them to as - is. And so you get as - isingness. Then you get something as - ised and the bank starts caving in and he's always in the right viewpoint. But self - auditing he's always in the wrong viewpoint.

Of course, there's also no substitute for having the pc in session or for auditing or for watching the meter. There's no substitute for those things.

Because of this mechanic alone self - clearing - becomes impossible. Also, after a great deal of testing and so forth, although a person could get away with it if his auditor was sufficiently powerful and stood over his head enough and had written the lines up and so forth, for a little while the person could self - list. But he's actually not self - listing; he's listing on a - he's just writing things on a list that was given to him by another person, don't you see? And even that one, as in the main, failed - self - listing.

But the odd part of it is, the pc can be halfway ARC broke and you can still get this thing. It's almost impossible to keep him from being interested in it. It's almost impossible to keep him from slamming on it.

I’ve just received a plea from Wing Angell who took somebody with selflisting, and he says, "Please, please, please, no more self - listing, please!" He had to mop up the pc, you see? The pc was going into the wrong terminals. And after a while the pc gets so confused they don't know whether they're coming or going. See what happens?

Later on, when you’ve bled everything down and so forth, you come back to this burned - out radiator - it may not slam. You may have to prepcheck the thing like mad and even then it doesn't slam; it just dirty needles. It's now past history, do you understand. It's past history. Who cares? Who's interested in it? There's no slam on it. PA no longer interested in it. PA no longer interested in it. Don't slam. Got that?

It's just the fact that a guy on a self - audit appears in the wrong places to self - audit on goals. I hope you understand that.

Now, we go through the same old routine from there on. Only we want to know what represents a burned - out radiator to the pc, or what a burned - out radiator represents - I just don't seem to care which - and we're going to get a list of that and we're going to get lists of that and we're going to list that. And that should or should not produce a dwindling slam. We don't much care whether it does or not. If it does, why you're in.

Audience: Yes.

Something weird might have occurred. You might have hit the dynamic; you might have hit something or other, but such luck won't happen to you. You're going to find the dynamic now.

You got to have an auditor out here. And the auditor asks the questions; the pc goes into the proper places to get the as - isness of the situation. Therefore, your auditing occurs. And he gets the pain in the right places and the sensations in the right places and his viewpoints in the correct spots, and it all starts going, and that's it.

Now, "What part of existence does a burned - out radiator represent?" is the best one to find a dynamic with. That's a good one to find a dynamic with. "What part of existence - what larger part of existence does a burned-out radiator represent?" Well, "big burned - out radiators" is liable to get a ...

Well now, he starts looking for the goal "to catch catfish," he at once will exteriorize from the terminal in which the goal "to catch catfish" is residual. And then thinking quietly to himself will realize that his goal is "to be a game warden." He’ll pick for himself inevitably while he is looking for his goal, only opposition goals. This gets pretty fantastic.

Now, PR give you a rule: Don’t put "a burned - out radiator" on a list from which "a burned - out radiator" don’t - if you're making a list from burned - out radiators, don’t put "a burned - out radiator" on that list, you hear me now. Don't put it on that list! I don't care if the pc gives it to you, thank him effusively and just leave it off the list! Because it's going to slam again and that's going to give you no item!

If you inspect most terminals lists after you've . . . Let's say the first 850 goals list - which is still done, by the way - that list is quite remarkable for having on it so many opposition goals. It's got lots of them. Well, that's something that the pc listed himself.

Knuckleheads. Several of you have done this, you know! And you wind up with the first dynamic as the detested person and the first dynamic as the dynamic and the first dynamic, you see, as the item, and you ... Where have you progressed to? You have progressed to the detested person or thing. Now you list goals against it, you haven't got the dynamic, you haven't got the item, so of course you're never going to get the goal. You got it?

Now, something that is listed on the pc by an auditor is less likely to have opposition terminals on it and contains a greater preponderance of his own terminals, see? This doesn't necessarily hold true because sometimes a pc is so spattered into his item that he cant tell the difference between the item's goal and his own goal. See, they're smashed so close together, you know?

So, that's a rule, see. Never put what you’re deriving from on the list you are deriving from it. See, if it's - "a burned - out radiator" is the detested thing, well then, don't put "a burned - out radiator" down as what "a burned - out radiator" represents, you hear. Don't do it. Just omit it.

Had an example of that the other day, you know. It's quite remarkable. The lack of criteria the pc had between his own goal and the goal that would belong to the item. You’ve noticed that in doing your lists sometimes, you know.

Now, your dynamic list is assessed out, with "Consider committing overts against . Consider . . ." The same rules apply. Go down - the second time you go down through the thing, the thing ought to be slamming. If it isn't slamming, junk the whole thing, throw it away, get the pc in - session, do something, but get the item on the list. You see, it's again the incomplete list, is your main difficulty.

Let's say the goal was "to catch catfish," you know. "To catch catfish," "to bite hooks ... .. to jump out of the water," see, "to eat well," "to never be scaly again." You know? You watch these lists and you will see that the pc is actually putting down opposition goals. But that's on the item. And of course, when you haven't got any item in sight the pc rackets around inside of his bank, and so on. He will put a large number of opposition goals.

All right, and when you finally got that one sorted out, why the same rule of cognition applies. Only much more so now. The pc says, "Ho - ho - ho! Ho - ho - ho! Yo, yo! Sepulchers! Ho - ho - ho. Ho! Damp sepulchers, you know! I was always frightened of them when I was - children. Ho - ho! Yeah, yo, yo, yo, yo. With black interiors, yes, I was always frightened of them. You don't suppose that has something to do with the fact that I don’t like to look in my hat?”'

That's perfectly all right, because they won't rocket read and everything is fine. You never find an opposition goal with rocket reads. Don't worry about that. Some of you've got it tucked away in your head that some goal is firing, and it's the opposition goal, and you're now very worried.

See, thing's slamming, pc's interest there, everything is fine. Pat him on the back and hurry on, man!

Aw, stop worrying about it. Some goals will continue to fire for quite a while and then fold up, which aren't the pc's goal. You should be aware of that mechanism, but it isn't that they are opposition goals. And opposition goals won't keep on firing forever, see. That's very nice. You're saved by the bell. In the normal checkout period an opposition goal folds up, and it doesn’t rocket read.

Now, you're going to list that thing. Now, by this time you ought to be producing dwindling slams, see. From the dynamic to the item, for sure, should produce a dwindling slam. I'm sure of my ground there. I know darn well that one will if it's the right dynamic, when you procede from it to the item, it’ll produce a dwindling slam.

But sometimes you’ll get other goals rocket reading when they're quite close to the real thing. And then it fades and the rocket reads fade. And apparently a rocket read can - the reason - any goal but the goal rocket reads is because the read can possibly - and this is just suppositional - transfer to another goal. And it’ll stay transferred to the other goal for a short time.

And a dwindling slam starts wide and winds up and gets narrower and narrower. And every time they put one on the list, you have a narrower slam. And a lot of people think if it turns on on the fourth one and the eighth one and the twelfth one, and it's still slamming when they wound up, that's a dwindling slam. No, that's a wrong item - wrong; everything is wrong.

That's a supposition drawn from the fact that the rocket read will transfer from the goal to the line. Just as you can get a line rocket reading, so you might be able to get a very closely associated goal rocket reading for a very short period of time. And that accounts for your occasional rocket reads.

You're going down the list, and you get this one, you saw one on TV one night. And it was something, I think, "to be dashing." And man, that thing really rocket read. You remember that? It's a long time ago. And it really rocket read. It rocket read, it rocket read, it didn't rocket read, and it didn't rocket read, and it didn't read at all, then that was it.

Now, where'd it get that rocket read? Actually it was a transfer to the goal momentarily, and the goal itself was in there someplace, see, and it was firing, and then this thing blew off the top of it and it wasn't the goal and so you no longer had a rocket read.

And now, you take that thing, and that is the item. And the pc says, "Oh my God, coffin nails! You know. I’ve always associated it with cigarettes. And, by the way, all I remember is in 45 when I first heard them called that, is all of a sudden they give me a terrible cough. Cough! As a matter of fact, and so forth. Cough and - and cough - cough and - and so forth. And the coffin nails, cigarettes, and so on and uh - so on. I've thought about these coffins in China that they were taking tops off the coffins and so forth, and I thought that's a pretty good idea, and so forth. They ought to leave the nails out because what if you got buried in this thing, and you couldn't get out of this thing, and so forth. And do you know that that very closely associates to the whole subject of necromancy? Do you know that necromancy's a very, very interesting subject. Have you ever been interested in necromancy? I myself have been very interested in necromancy from time to time. As a matter of fact my father one time or anoth ... The last time when 1 was audited at the HASI, I had an awful lot of things that had to do with necromancy. I remember now, and they now all fade together, and so forth, and that's just fine . . ."

So, because your opposition is so close to the goal, occasionally opposition goals will rocket read momentarily. But not for hours, you know. And they don't check out. And they don't live up to anything. So you don't worry about opposition goals. It's not an obstacle.

You get the idea? See, the closer you get into that item, the more the pc is interested, man.

The only thing I'm trying to tell you here is self - audit is impossible on goals. That's just it. I just have to come to that conclusion. There is no system by which you can self - audit into your goal.

And he - then he says, "Well, us coffin nails are very often. . ." so forth.

Of course, you wake up some morning - you can wake up one morning and you can say, "My goal is ... !" Well, fine. Fine. My God, for all means, put it down on something even if the inside of a matchbox, and give it to your auditor. lf you notice, as you tried to tiger drill it on the way to school or something - if you notice - it got only sen. And it got kind of unreal. And it got kind of fogged up, and so forth.

He’ll start to get oppterm trouble, you know. He's against coffin nails, he is coffin nails. Some of them are coffin nails, that's all - slam like mad against coffin nails, but they think of themselves as coffin nails, don't you see? And some of them: "Those damn coffin nails over there," and they never even come close to those coffin nails, you get the idea. Sometimes they're never close with the item.

That's because, of course, you had to become the game warden, or you had to become something else, or you had to become the catfish, see, and then you're on the wrong side of it, and it's a valence problem, see? And you slide into the wrong valence and after that it doesn’t work. And that's goals. So it takes another observer. The machine cannot observe. It takes another observer in the session. And somebody who can sit there and issue the actual commands to a degree that a person does not self - audit to find goals. Therefore, it takes very smooth, fine auditing to find goals. Your auditor has to have presence. The pc has to know there's an auditor there. Otherwise the pc is just mucking around from - in the wrong valences, and self - auditing into this and into that, as he would do on a machine.

All right. That's it. Now you list goal one - "What goal would be an overt against and that's a dwindling slam, all the way down to dirty needle and so forth, and there it is. And very often you're lucky and the goal is on it. But the actual fact is the goal is most likely to be in the first few goals on list six. So, you do list one; you do list six. Fix up list six; you haven’t got the goal. Dandy. Let's then write up list two, list three, list four, list five. Let's get some more goals written on these other lists, and then let's cross - index it, and so forth. And the pc very often, if you’re lucky, will start putting his goal down on every one of those lists, that's it.

So it takes a machine to do detection. The human being doesn't go that far. The thetan doesn't go that far on observation. But the machine will never be an observer. And as the machine cannot be observer, then a human being would never be in the right valence to find the goal. So that's why you have to have a fine auditor to find goals. And the more presence, and the more altitude, and the more certainty the pc has on the subject of that auditor, then the easier it is to find the goal. You follow that?

He says, "Well, I hate to, but you know I'm really - act like I'm trying to sell you this goal, but in the actual fact it does belong on that list, you know," and so on. And he puts it on down and you check it out and that's it.

So the better the auditor, the easier it is to find the goal. And the weaker the auditor, the harder it is to find the goal. But the goal - the length of time of finding the goal, as I said, depends to a large degree on luck. But finding the item, finding the detested person, you know, finding the dynamic, finding that trio - of course, if the auditor has good presence, good skill, the pc's aware of him, they go into it, clank! and go outside of it, and say, "That is detested," go into the next item, bang! They say that is detested, go outside of it, go into the item, bang! That is detested, there it is, bong! And you've got it. You understand?

Now, that's if you're lucky; if you're lucky, if you have altitude, if you are considered by the pc to be a good observer, if you have altitude with the pc, if you are the auditor, if you are in control of the session, if you Can run a meter, if you are running very smooth Model Session, if you do this thing very flawlessly - if, if, if, if, if, if, if - and if that morning you got up and found your shoes in the exact right place and the laces were untied, and so forth, why, and there was nothing in them - you got the pc's goal. Got that? That's how you do it. That's a Dynamic Assessment.

In other words, the auditor's presence is sufficient and adequate to putting the pc into the valence necessary to face the valence which is the opposition. See? So it takes an auditor. The auditor is necessary. The machine is necessary. We can make better auditors. We can make machines. But we can't, I don't think, make an auditor that will totally replace the machine. And I know that we can't make a machine that will ever replace the auditor. Do I make my point?

Now, undoubtedly this can be groomed up. Undoubtedly there are various things we will learn. Undoubtedly this pattern can be expected at one time or another to change. But there are substitute patterns by which to do this already in existence which are not as good as the original pattern.

Audience: Yes.

Now, if 1 can't find any of these items, why I would write up a list, "What do you wish wasn't part of existence?" And then getting the pc oiled up, ask him, "What isn't part of existence?" Go on down the line, and treat that as an item.

Thank you.

Well, you should test out such a thing and try to list what represents what you found as "What wasn't part of existence?" Try to treat it as something else. If you get a dwindling slam as you list "What represents it?" why, dandy. Marvelous. You're going to wind up with a more pertinent item, don't you see.

Now, there's even another dodge which 1 have worked on recently, which is quite interesting, and is apparently quite good. It's not the one I've been telling you about, about the Tiger Drill button, "Would your goal - ," something or other. It's possibly not as fruitful as the other one - although that has found goals. See, "Would your goal frarumph (item)?" See? "Would your goal suppress (item)? Would your goal not suppress (item)? Would your goal - 9" and a couple that you've thrown in, see. Whatever those buttons are, the item, see.

Now that'd give us a list of goals that would do that, see. It’ll rock slam, by the way, when you find it - give us a list of goals that will do that - and you're liable to find the pc's goal.

The more a pc rock slams, the harder and more frequent the rock slams, the harder the rock slam is to turn off, the harder it is going to be to find the goal. That has been turning out to be true. If the pc is a rock slammer from away back, that darn goal has got to be exactly on the button; it's being avoided by the pc and it's rather rough to get there.

So anyhow, as far as rock slams go, there is the - there's the criteria. It doesn't necessarily hold true that you won't be lucky and the pc won't be lucky and won't get it on the list earlier, because you very often may. But nevertheless that sort of holds true.

Now, the other thing is - the one I've been working on is - "Who or what would oppose (item)?" Just do a list of who or what would oppose item.

Go over the list, you're is going to get one that slams, and that is the opposition terminal to the item, and ask the pc what goals that opposition terminal has, because that opposition terminal is the pc's terminal.

Sneaky, and it apparently, at first glance, has as much validity as the item. Interesting, huh? It's "Who or what would oppose (item)?" That's how you list it and then you assess it by "Would (it) commit overts against_________(item)?" And it's going to slam - one of them is going to slam; follows the same rule - and you wind up with an additional item, and you can ask "Who or what - what would be its goals?" or "What goal?" and then also "What goal would make it become what it is?"

In other words, there's a new way of stripping goals out. I'm still working on that end of the line. That's the latest work I've done on it and it seems to be very, very productive. Okay?

It doesn't change anything else you're doing. It's just an additional step that if you're having a rough time, why, try that one and that's marvelous. Okay?

All right, I brought you up to date on this subject. And there's no substitute for two things - no substitute for two things: There's no substitute for finding goals and there's no substitute for your being a good auditor.

Thank you very much.