Saint Hill Special Briefing Course — a lecture, on the subject of Routine 3 and company.

Thank you.

History! The discovery that goals could locate terminals and that terminals could be audited out of existence was followed by a discovery of the identity of the Goals Problem Mass. It was followed also by several pathetic efforts of numerous auditors to find a goal, and more pathetic efforts to find terminals.

Well, here we are. At least some of you are going to live.

Meantime, research continued forward. We got Routine 3A. Routine 3 consists solely of finding a goal. Then finding a terminal that matches the goal, and running the terminal. And then finding another terminal for that goal and another terminal for that goal, till that goal disappeared. And then finding that the goal probably had disappeared, and finding another goal then, and finding a terminal for that goal and so on, and finding and auditing that, and then finding another terminal and auditing that, and finally it disappeared. And eventually you got into a situation where you'd find a goal and it'd blow up and you find a terminal and it'd blow up, and then you just couldn't find anything and you got a free needle.

Well, now, this is the 26th of April AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

What you've done in essence was to pick off a number of pieces of the Goals Problem Mass so the pc was floating free of the Goals Problem Mass. Condition of Clear which is attained by this particular process was a very desirable condition.

Well, anybody got a bulletin on Prepchecking Get me a bulletin on Prepchecking, Herbie.

Now, on many people when it was well attained has been quite stable, but contained the liability of a key-in from the remainder of the Goals Problem Mass which had not been touched by this auditing And this was the reason Clears caved in. That's because there was still a Goals Problem Mass less just a few of its terminals, kicking around ready to kick the pc in his teeth.

All right. I'll say a few words while that's transpiring, on something that you should find very important. This is just a very little short lecture all in three seconds.

All right. So there was an effort made, then, to find the goal and a new piece was discovered: the modifier. And you took the goal and the modifier, and you found the terminal with the goal and modifier. That was Routine 3A.

They found one, all right. Thank you. This is it? All right.

Now, the goal plus modifier ended up in a terminal which was much more intimate to the Goals Problem Mass, and because we reached time finding the modifier, we did not lose the Goals Problem Mass. The Goals Problem Mass can be keyed-in at any time, merely by repeating the modifier to the pc.

I'd like to comment on something There are several things that monitor the success of auditing. And one of them is something which has remained more or less understood amongst us, and that is a professional attitude.

Why? The modifier ordinarily lies in the oppterm — new data for you. You find the goal then you find the modifier, and of course, you're going to find the oppterm. And that is a mass which is more intimately connected with the Goals Problem Mass, so although you find a terminal, all you have to do is chant the modifier at the pc a few times and you pull the Goals Problem Mass right in on the pc. Why?

The reason healing professions, even when they couldn't heal, have survived is centered around that one fact: the professional attitude. And the substance of a professional attitude is it doesn't matter whether a man is red or black or white or whether he's a Democrat or a communist or a Republican or belongs to the IX l-Arise Church or is an atheist or whether he's a friend or an enemy. It's just — that doesn't matter. A professional attitude requires from a practitioner that he is a professional. He is healing and his attitude toward healing is: there is a being and he heals him or her. And that is all there is to it. A good professional attitude simply betokens the fact that somebody is in need of healing and somebody is healed. And there are no additives.

Well, you've got your two big balls. Freud by the way would have — I'm sorry girls! But the truth of the matter is that that is how Freud thought it was all sex! That's right. That's right. He probably spotted some of these things someday and he says, "Aha! I know what that is!" Invented the libido theory.

This is a very hard-boiled professional attitude, actually. And it can possibly get you into trouble when you yourself have caused the injury because it'll do a tone curve on you, you see. you hate the man and then you come down to evident propitiation because you're now healing him. That's one of the things that gets this attitude in trouble.

Anyway. All right. Here you find the goal and then you find the terminal for that goal. But if you found the goal and the modifier, the modifier will have something to do with the oppterm. See? So, although you try to audit out this terminal, every time — you could audit it out, see. And then you just say the oppterm and you get that again — and you say the oppterm and you get that again, you see? So the Goals Problem Mass is over here quite fixed and you could always swing it in.

But an auditor is as good as he can assume a professional attitude toward the pc he is auditing. It does not matter whether that pc has overts against him or withholds from him or if there is any personal equation of any kind whatsoever here. That has nothing to do with the auditing session. The auditor is a professional and he applies his profession to that individual, regardless of that individual's condition, opinion, race, color, creed, anything else.

You can take any Routine 3 Clear and you can find their first goal, and you can find the oppterm for that goal, and bang — they're about as Clear as mud. In other words you can yank them straight into the Goals Problem Mass by merely finding the modifier.

Now, let me call to your attention that that fact alone has brought healing professions through the trillennia. They didn't even have to be able to heal. Witness the doctor today. That poor sod, man, he doesn't know a bacteria from a bacterial, you know. He's got camels and bugs, he wouldn't know which, you know? He's just adrift.

Routine 3. Well, Routine 3 was designed to be processed. You found the terminal and then you found the goal and then you found the modifier and then you found the terminal, and then you processed the thing and of course it wasn't too terribly successful — it's an experimental process to that degree — because you were always kicking away at an unidentified modifier. You were kicking away at an unidentified oppterm.

He comes in, if penicillin, sulfa won't cure it, he's had it. He sets bones and breaks them again and he doesn't know what he's doing. The amount of brutality and psychic trauma which he causes in the process of his healing should alone, actually, require that he be hanged. And the field of psychiatry, that isn't — it isn't a medical or healing practice at all. It's a practice of mayhem, pure and simple. It's the practice of mayhem and incompetence, combined. It's not even competent mayhem.

So then we got 3D, and 3D — we skipped B and C and — they went by in a half an hour of research and — actually didn't go by at all, just skipped them — and we got to where you found the goal and the modifier and a terminal and then the opposition terminal. You did this in a sequence of finding the goal, finding the opposition goal, then finding the modifier to the goal — that isn't quite right . . .

The psychiatrist is far more prone than the medical doctor to depart from the professional attitude of the healer. Far, far more prone, because he himself is less mentally stable because he's a fake! He's pretending to be able to do something about something and he hasn't a clue. And the medical doctor can tie up a finger but the psychiatrist can't tie up a trauma, that's for sure. All he can do is create them.

Female voice: The oppterm.

And yet, these professions are respected. Why are they respected? There are many sub-orders of healing. There are many splinter groups of healing that if they ever amalgamated under the one group and laid down a code, professional practice would get a long way. But they don't seem to be able to do that. And these groups are far less professional. But many of them have healing methods which are superior to those of the medical doctor, but they are not respected. Well, that hasn't anything to do with the old school tie, it's just they are not that professional.

No, you found the oppterm to the goal, and then you found the modifier, and then you found the terminal — and of course that gave you a package and that package was designed to be audited.

What do you mean professional? Well, they fall from grace all too often. They take personal attitudes towards this and that. They sometimes take advantage of their position. And they're not generally as trusted, oddly enough. That's not any condemnation of any of these groups particularly, but I'll just tell you from the ground up, that they have not built this one thing into the public consciousness — that there is a professional attitude. Public cannot send them, their fellow public, to them with a completely free heart. There's liable to be some personal attitude in this. Certainly this is true of psychiatry. I mean, that's not one of the minor groups but it's certainly very true of psychiatry.

All this material is available in bulletins as I'm just giving you a fast historical review of Routine 3. It has never ceased to be Routine 3, by the way — if you notice that carefully — it never became Routine 4, 5 or 6. All right.

A husband cannot send his wife there and expect the home to be preserved, if you get what I read between the lines, you see. There's liable to be personal interest or personal conflicts develop under the guise of professional application. We're very young, we're very new, and we point out to you that there is one blunderbuss that has blazed a wide-open path for all healing activities, whether they're Aesculapians or British Medical Association people, and that was a professional attitude. And they stuck very hard by this professional attitude and made a lot of noise about it. And they stayed by it. So that you find on a field of battle in North Africa, you find the British doctors and the German doctors, after a tank battle, equally treating British and German wounded. See, all mixed up. See, their professional attitude protected them.

Now, then came Routine 3D Criss Cross. Routine 3D Criss Cross came about because auditors had so much difficulty in finding a goal and in finding a modifier, in finding a terminal, in finding an opposition terminal — had so much trouble finding these parts, that I looked very carefully for numerous new entrances to the Goals Problem Mass.

Now, that is something you could well acquire. But it is far deeper than this. This is the reason a husband and wife team doesn't work. They don't work well. Oh, they work. you can get something done. But they don't work well because the husband has too much of a vested interest in the mental condition, attitudes and so forth of the wife, and the wife has too much of a personal interest in the attitudes and actions of a husband. There is too much personal concern. There is far too much pitch on the processing session.

Various entrances were found; the first of them were merely arbitrary entrances. You said, "Make a list of the things you like." "Who or what do you like?" "Who or what do you dislike?" You had lists, in other words and these lists came on down the line and were nulled and you got items then on these lists, and then you opposed these — got the opposition item to these lists — and you've got a package — right there, bang. In other words you're dealing totally with terminals. So you'd get any — first it was an arbitrary assignment. You just told the pc "like," and then you got a line for "dislike" and then you got a line for something else. All right.

The husband processes the wife to get her over some things which he, as a husband, objects to, and vice versa. And they will very often stand squarely in the road of each other's progress if they're covertly mad at each other. There's too much personal attitude, too little professional attitude. Therefore husband and wife teams have a hard time of it. The wife tends to Q-and-A or the husband will tend to Q-and-A with this, or slant the processing in some particular direction, and all of a sudden it is always — the husband has always objected to his wife's cold feet, you see. And this is what they will do. They start running down the list and it's got, "cold feet" on it. And the husband, by calling it out, will weight it. And the wife, by feeling guilty about it, will weight it. And you all of a sudden get a wrong item. It had nothing to do with the case. And then because they're so sure, they won't check it out, see, they know it fits, see. That's the personal attitude entering into a professional activity.

And this was succeeded by Prehav levels. You take a Prehav level and — which is assessed on the pc — and then you would list a large number of terminals for this Prehav level.

This boy is processing this girl in order to go to bed with her. Now, I myself have been going around with girls and — when I was a boy and with boys when I was a girl for some trillennia — and I never had to use processing to accomplish this particular end goal. I've sometimes had to use hospitals to cure myself of the gunshot or dart wounds that — or something like that, but we never needed processing in order to accomplish the fact, you see. We sometimes had to remedy the consequences of the act, but never the reverse. Personal — personal curve, personal onus.

Prehav level, let us say is Badly Control. "Who or what would badly control?" And you'd make a long list, and you would assess that list out and you'd wind up with a terminal. And then you would say, "Who or what would oppose — ," whatever terminal you found or whatever item you found. "Who or what would oppose that?" And you've got a pair of these things.

Now, there are auditors around HGCs sometimes that the D of P can never trust to audit a young man. Well, not because any sexual activity takes place, just because all you have to do is put this auditor sitting there confronting this young man and he goes mad. He cuts him to ribbons, ARC breaks all over the place and so forth. They very carefully never let this auditor process a young man. See, he might be an old man or something like that, you see. He just can't do it, see. Some other auditor, we don't let — dare let this auditor process an old lady. cut her to ribbons. You know, won't put up with anything

And you kept doing this on several lines, and then you got the flows, and you would assess all possible flows. And you would say, "Who or what would enforce inflow on you?" or something like that. And you would make that list and then you would make — after you had found that item — then you would make a list for the opposition terminal.

Well, you say, "There's case entering." No, there's more than case entering There's personal like, personal dislike, and it just hasn't anything to do with auditing There sits a person to be audited. There doesn't sit a young boy or an old lady or anything else, there's just somebody to be audited. And you will find out that as soon as you train yourself into that attitude exclusively with regard to pcs, you all of a sudden start to produce tremendous wins. Because the funny part of it is, is Judy O'Grady, the colonel's lady, young boys and old ladies, they're always the same under the skin. See, it's a case is a case, and that's all you can say about it.

And the object of Routine 3D Criss Cross was to continue to do this until the Goals Problem Mass was totally shaken down to a point where you were only getting a few specific terminals which were constantly repeating. And this, of course, would be a package. And then that package could be audited. That was the basic intention on which this was developed. Very good.

And that's very important to know. And a Scientologist is now coming of age, not that he is particularly a professional on whom the world is leaning, but nevertheless, it's long enough on the road now to lay that one in hard and to handle that factor because failure to do so will get in the road of your processing results. Just for that reason alone. And then push it home and try to keep it up as far as the public view is concerned. Stand by that one and you will immediately inherit the whole world of healing

A new concept of Routine 3 Processes has just arisen and that is an understanding of what we are doing Several solutions have been found. I found several solutions to problems which opposed the original Routine 3, and what was the matter with original Routine 3? You see? What was the matter with it, basically, is that we were trying to do Routine 3 when we should have been Prepchecking See?

See, where many splinter groups have not, you will, providing you have a professional attitude. That doesn't particularly mean professional appearance. You know, that doesn't mean a mock-up of some kind or another. It just means that this fellow is in need of processing and whether he's red, blue, green or white it doesn't matter, a Republican, an atheist, even a psychiatrist. He's sitting there, he needs processing, you've got enough answers now that you can process him. you can process him you see, directly. There isn't any special treatment needed. And you just sit down and you process him. And all of a sudden you will find that you have a very relaxed frame of mind, because this too can become a familiar thing to do and a familiar attitude to wear, that of just strictly a professional attitude.

We were trying to do both things at once. We couldn't keep the pc in-session, and God help us, it was all over and splattered on the ceiling, you see? Couldn't keep the rudiments in. We found out that it takes forever to find an item or a goal if the rudiments are out. I can prove that to you over and over and over again. If the rudiments are out, you will find nothing. If the rudiments are out, you will find nothing If the rudiments are out, you will find nothing. I mean, it's been proven and proven and proven. I mean there is no fact that is harder driven home than that fact.

That's all a professional attitude consists of. Now, don't try to swell it up to a bunch of other things. See, it's just whether or not when you sit down to process somebody you are capable of expressing a totally professional, wholly uncolored attitude toward the pc. So that your attitude toward the pc does not partake in any way of your personal penchants. It isn't that you have to withhold your personal penchants, it's just the fact that you just process the pc, see. We don't even process him because, you see. you never process anybody because, you just process somebody.

Of course we have Prepchecking You give CCH and Prepchecking to a pc, he'll get into a condition where the rudiments will stay in and then it becomes very easy for the auditor to do a proper job of auditing

You see how easily we can put additives onto this thing, see? We process him because. We process him, in order to — and all of that. No, no, just process him. And you all of a sudden will find your wins go up on a steep climb. And if that is broad and well-handled by Scientologists, you'll find that all by itself, being the sole tool and weapon of older healing societies and so forth, will bulldoze a wide channel through the public to such a degree that you are the only people they trust.

Furthermore, auditing skill and the skill of an auditor has been tremendously upgraded. And that skill is tremendously higher this year. you realize that this week finishes a year of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course? Actually it was Tuesday night, and if I hadn't been so busy getting audited and research and trying to tie this sort of thing up for you, why I would have given you a cake. But we will wait until we have a proper place to give a party and I will give you a party and we will just give you all a rain check on that, okay?

And that is all that trust amounts to professionally. The public doesn't even demand results. They just demand that they can trust a fellow to take a professional interest in the patient. That is all.

Audience: Okay.

How many of you have gone to an oculist or an ophthalmologist and had this ophthalmologist then try to sell you glasses. It's almost impossible to go to an oculist without — and get your eyes tested without them shoving glasses down your throat, see? Well, he's got some kind of a professional pitch right at that moment. You may have had this experience. And right at that moment you feel all is not well. This man has a vested interest in you wearing glasses. And at that moment you cease to trust him. See? He cannot maintain his professional attitude to the degree that if you need glasses he will give you glasses, if you don't need glasses he won't give you glasses. See, he never reads the meter, you see, on the lenses as to whether or not you've got sufficient aberration to need glasses or not need glasses, see. He looks in the till and finds out if he needs some money for a pair of glasses. You see that? And the public doesn't trust them.

Now, Routine 3's difficulties were basically that a pc was not in any condition to have anything found on him. And auditors were not in any condition, as far as auditing skill was concerned, to find anything on a pc. Let's just face it, we stunk. Pick up an auditor from lower South Amboy and say, "All right, show me how to operate this E-Meter."

That's all, it's just — it's processing without a pitch. Yes, there are commercial arrangements in processing. Those take place before and very well may take place after. But they have nothing to do with the session. I did make a test one time. I may — had to get a man to recover from his aberrations concerning money before he would get well because processing, he thought, was too costly, you see. And because he thought the processing was too costly then he couldn't get well because he couldn't afford it. It was very, very remarkable. It was a test case. Usually has very little to do with it. Somebody isn't paying something for your processing, they don't consider it worthwhile.

And he'd say, "Well E-Meter operation is very easy, very easy. you set it up like this . . . You make sure this switch is at 'off."' It's almost that bad.

That sort of thing has very little to do with it, see. That's something that takes place before, something that takes place afterwards. But during that session it is nothing but a session. The professional attitude is to make sure that it is nothing but a session.

One Saint Hill graduate went back to California and actually had tremendous numbers of auditors and was giving special lectures on just one thing: What is a null needle. Nobody knew what a null needle was. We had people coming in here, as original students last year — they would arrive here; they had never been on any courses or anything of the sort, and — from various parts of the world — and they'd strike the E-Meter Essentials and we would say to them in E-Meter Essentials, question on "Show me a null needle." And they'd say a null needle goes this way. And you say, "How does a null needle go?" and they say... Fantastic! The auditors didn't know anything about this box. I don't know what they thought I was trying to do. Maybe they thought I was kidding them — that it worked at all!

And then if you're very good you can put on a professional hat before the session, run a session, and then put on a livingness hat and not go on being an auditor after the session. You find people will appreciate this too, because your going on looking like an auditor after the session sort of puts the pc back into session. Sometimes it's a good thing to swat them between the shoulder blades, something like that, you know. Anything. Just don't act like an auditor after a session. Act like an auditor during the session.

Actually we were. . . This is not too mysterious. Of course they didn't think an E-Meter worked. The E-Meters of Australia, South Africa and America, as well as New Zealand, would not demonstrate a mental charge. They demonstrated electronic charges. They were perfectly good electronically and they had nothing to do with the pc's thinkingness.

You see, but there's all kinds of additives that you can put on this thing. If you're going to get people to recover from aberration, if you're going to handle pcs, if you're going to handle ARC breaks, you mustn't have opinions and curves about the case before they are demonstrated in auditing.

The last meters before that, that were of any value whatsoever, was the 1957 US. And I thought it was a very competent meter, until I was looking at one just a few months ago when I was over in the States at a congress and I found out, I found out that a Mark IV just runs rings around them. There's no sense in repairing those old meters; they've got delayed actions. They've got everything else in them they shouldn't have. It's marvelous.

See, you mustn't have items selected before the item occurs. You get the idea? I mean you're auditing that case. And then do a very reliable job of auditing. Never pretend that you've seen something or read something that you haven't seen or read on that case, you see. Never give him an item because he expected an item, give him an item only because it checks out, see? You do a professional job, do a very good technical job and you're always all right.

You know, sometimes you turn your meter over to a repairman — he will build a delay into the circuit to keep the meter action from being injured. I think it's so sweet, the knucklehead! In other words, you ask the question and one second later the meter responds. Kaw! How gruesome can it get? It's grim.

Now we've arrived at a level where a technical job today is marvelous. A person who can do good Model Session, good TRs and so on, is marvelous. One could never complain about this at all. A person is doing a good Model Session, reading the E-Meter well, TRs are in good shape, and he sits there and just gives the session and goes straight through with what he's supposed to do, man, that pc is impressed. Wow! It's the most impressive thing you can do, is to be technically letter perfect today.

Well, with no meters — and actually at that time no textbook on meters — and a few other things lacking, and with about half of the rudiments that are vital to keep a session straight up lacking, of course it was impossible to do Routine 3. How could anybody do it?

Now, Prepchecking is the first moment that you really collide as an auditor — whether in training or early activities as an auditor — really collides with whether he knows his business or not. And Prepchecking is harder to do than Routine 3-type processes. To do an accurate job of Prepchecking and to get good results with Prepchecking is infinitely more difficult than to do a Routine 3 job. But oddly enough, if you can't do a Prepchecking job you will never do a Routine 3 job. There will always be something missing

So, it was very important to realize that a tremendous number of things have happened in the last year. one of them was the Saint Hill Briefing Course. You take somebody; you set them up, and show them how it works and that sort of thing They get an understanding of it. They go back and they don't waste any time telling people how to do it right, believe me. Returned students can always be heard in here, clear to here, you know, they scream so loud. Auditing looks terrible to them when they get back home; it just looks grim. It looks too ghastly. I mean they always thought it was all right, you know, and they go back home and oh, it looks terrible. Inevitable, we get in those responses.

Prepchecking is that skill which keeps the pc in-session and which frees up the attention of the pc so that he can be audited. It also transcends this by making enormous differences in the health and presence of the pc. It'll make enormous differences if it's done right and done well. But we're not really demanding that of you. We're only demanding of Prepchecking that it sets somebody up to be in-session and be able to stay in-session without having tremendous number of present time problems and withholds and all the rest of it.

Developed the technology of an E-Meter; put it down in a very precision stated book. The book is very precisely stated. Frankly, made sure that the E-Meter stayed very stable. Wiped out all corny E-Meters that we couldn't count on. And somebody said well that was a smart commercial move. Hell, no! That wasn't any commercial move — that was a move toward the survival of Scientology. These meters, people going on using these meters — wow. And particularly when we started to get other data; how dangerous it was to audit with these meters. Wonder we ever kept anybody anyways.

Now, the facts of the case are that Prepchecking today is possible of transcending every result ever dreamed of by Sigmund Freud in a tiny fraction of the number of hours dreamed up by Sigmund Freud. It actually completes the work of any personal catharsis-type therapy, whether that's clinical psychology or anything else.

And then we developed Model Session out with many more rudiments to keep things smooth, and we developed various technologies of how to straighten this out. And then more importantly, proved conclusively that it was out-rudiments that made it impossible to find items. That was — that was a very important thing. And then developed the technology of keeping rudiments in by Sec Checking, and then eventually developed Prepchecking. And, brought it on up to where we sit now. And it's an awful long jump — just twelve months; it's an awful long jump. But it's a jump that had to be taken.

I was just reading in a clipping somebody sent me — I get lots of clippings and I appreciate them — and this clipping was very amusing It's a long dissertation on somebody from the University of Florida or New Mexico or northern North Pole or someplace, on the subject of — this will kill you — it's on the subject of making the person create the difficulty he has. And they get him to create — the man is afraid of dying, they get him to imagine and create the idea of dying And when he can do this enough . . .

Now, there are many important discoveries in this past year. one of them is the instant read. Don't pay any attention to anything that isn't an instant read, unless you're trying to spot something for the pc. He doesn't know what he's withholding and every time he goes zzzz, he thinks something, we say, "that." That helps him spot it because he looks at what he's looking at at the moment he — we said "that" and he said, "Oh, that," and then he spills it and it cleans the needle. It's just helping a pc out. Little tricks of this character are only assistive tricks. Remember there's tremendous vital data as run before this.

This is, of course, your Johnny-come-lately psychologist who is desperate. His university has said, "Good God, Higgenbottem! You've never, never, never turned in a paper? Do you realize that you — you've brought no credit to the university. We expect all of our professors to turn out learned papers. They've got to turn out learned papers at least every three months. And — and you never turn one out, Higgenbottem. And haven't any publicity. The football team's losing everything this year. why don't you turn out something on psychology?"

We have now a session that looks like a session. We have auditors that look like auditors. The thing runs well. This — it's a tremendous jump for an auditor to take, particularly when you've been auditing for years to all of a sudden be crushed into this much precision. It's a horrible thing, perhaps, to do to them, until they start getting some wins through having been pushed there. And they wonder how the hell they audited before.

And so he goes over and picks up some book on Dianetics or Scientology, sighs, and puts this thing out in the public press, you see, and turns out a monocatharsis or something that he thinks will get him. . . And they give him his gold star, you know, and Higgenbottem has still got a job. That's how they do these things in universities. You think I'm kidding. Those poor illegitimate sons are always in trouble. They haven't turned out enough papers.

Now, you've got this — you've got all of these developments and out of this comes new data now on how to clear a person all the way through the Goals Problem Mass. The matter is being given to you and on the research line, as a research activity, should be accepted as such. But nevertheless it's sufficiently good that you should do it.

They've gotten so buggy on the subject that you're a scientist if you've turned out papers, you know? I'm never quite sure what kind of paper it's supposed to be. Some of you got that. And look, look at this poor sod. He's got a whole bunch of bright-eyed students sitting down there in Florida or the North Pole or wherever this silly university is, and he's running Creative Processing on them. And he hasn't found out anything about creative processing He doesn't know what he's going to run into. He didn't bother to read the next book, you know. Step Six phenomena here we come! Marvelous.

The latest finding — I haven't enumerated all the findings which have made these things possible — but the latest finding on the thing is easily stated: Listing is auditing. Listing is not finding; listing is auditing And that changes the whole orientation of Routine 3 — just like that. I mean, all great discoveries along these lines are in the directions of simplicities, you see? Listing is auditing.

But, you see, these birds are monkeying. These birds are monkeying around. He doesn't know anywhere near as much about it as we did at the time we were. . . He didn't know anything about engrams or facsimiles. He knows nothing about what the person's liable to get into. If the person got stuck in a picture he'd never even be able to tell him to go to the end of it or come up to present time or anything because he's not . . . You know. Whooh. You know, turn a kid loose with a .45 and say, "Cut your teeth on it, sonny. Here, I'll get it at full cock for you." It's about that sensible.

Now, early on, on Routine 3 — there are some here that have seen this happen — you started getting an assessment and you would assess a goal, and then you'd assess a terminal and you didn't get a chance to run it, because it blew. And then you'd get another terminal and it'd blow. And then you'd get a goal and it'd blow. And what the hell do we have our hands on, here? Person was just assessing out through the blue.

These birds are going off and riding off in all directions, trying desperately to achieve something And it's been achieved and you mustn't overlook the fact that it has been achieved.

All right, and my effort at this time is to move assessing all the way forward and dispense entirely with the Class IV activity of auditing anything found. That is the direction we are going right at the present moment. That is what we are trying to do. I don't know that we'll be tremendously successful in this, but we certainly will be more successful in finding a final package that will run. So therefore, whether we accomplish this in its final state or not, is unimportant. We will have a more valid package, and we will have a more comfortable pc.

Prepchecking. Prepchecking is a rounded off activity. I'm never going to look at it again, just do it, see. It's a nice, rounded off activity; a very smooth activity. It's not something that's going to shift and nobody is going to change it, because I know exactly what its ceiling is. The ceiling is a total psychotherapy of this lifetime. It's a total psychotherapy of this lifetime. You can make it go back into former lives and you can make it do other things, but you actually have exceeded the purpose and limit of Prepchecking because the pc has got so many hundreds of thousands of other lives that it will take you a little too long by this process to do something about them, you see.

Now, not the least of the reason for these discoveries along this line, and the reason for my address to this is the pcs get — have gotten terribly uncomfortable running 3D Criss Cross. Man, it can really rack you up. Now, you'd run out into the clear, you would run straight through this thing, but it's pretty gruesome. It's pretty hard, and it gets very difficult to hold the rudiments in if the pc is being run too far after a line is not discharged.

So its practical limits are the limits of this lifetime, and it winds up the work of Freud, Jung, Adler, any clinical psychology hopes, or anything like that. You should be able to do this. Because if you ever set up — let's say that you've got — all of a sudden a Saudi Arabian oil company came along and wanted you to be a part of their team for lower Kingville or something, and they were going to have all of their people set up and you were supposed to go through some motions of some kind or another that were — that was something like the practice of psychology, what they would recognize, you know, as psychotherapy and so forth. This is all you'd have to do. I mean, just prepcheck people. They'd all be very happy with you, providing you did a good professional job of it.

If we fail to discharge line B and we start to do line C, we're in trouble. The pc will have a hard time staying in-session; we'll have more and more difficulty with the pc. And if we then continue the error and finally get line D going, and then we oppterm the wrong terminal on line D; you get the wrong terminal on line D and we — oh, now it's just a dog's breakfast. Of course sooner or later all this will discharge. Sooner or later we get all this down. We get enough terminals. We discharge enough, and so on. We're not going to audit any of these things till we get a final package; the possibility it'll all come down to the end, but why have the pc caved in all this time?

You could sit down there and do a good professional job of Prepchecking, and you'd pull everything this guy was really — really thought he was worried about. It'd all straighten out. Fellow would feel nice and everything would be smooth. But the funny part of it is that it does, it accomplishes more than man ever hoped of psychotherapy. See, there's more here than has ever been hoped for in the field of psychotherapy. It is a junior process, as far as we're concerned. But it is very comprehensible to the world at large. And they're scientific, you know, they've read the papers of Freud and this and that and they know which direction psychotherapy's supposed to go and this oddly enough covers the direction psychotherapy's supposed to go.

I'm not kind, I'm nowhere near as kind as you are. It's a dirty word in Scientology, "He was a kind auditor." But it isn't just kindness; it's very hard to keep a pc in-session. So I've been studying how you patched up a case that had started going out of session because he'd had some wrong items found and what you do about this and I ran into this other fact: Listing is auditing

You know, you sit there and you're supposed to pull up the traumatic experiences of the person. And of course the traumatic experiences of these people are just locks. See, you're not running engrams or anything serious like that. They don't know anything about engrams.

We sort of went through a period where we understood this. But we didn't state this, see. So listing is auditing.

And you say, "Well, you've been having trouble with your wife, you see. Well, all right. Let's see, we 11 take that up, take that up. Very good. Very good."

All right, now, there's another point about this, is the item — a wrong item found is only remedied by finding the earliest item that was wrong on a case. That's worth knowing

Look it over and get some kind of a Zero that fits in here someplace and — like, "Have you ever done anything to your wife?" Or "Have you ever had any trouble with your wife?" He'd buy that very well, you see. And you start fishing around to find out what he's done to his wife, don't you see. You'll eventually get your incident and you work it with your Withhold System, and you know, got your What question that gives you a chain. Work it with your Withhold System. Go over this thing, finally recover the lowest dregs of it all, and get it on up to PT and all cleaned up slick as a whistle. He won't have anywhere near the trouble with his wife that he used to have.

You got D wrong You opptermed it and the case is lying in splinters. You actually are not going to remedy it very well by getting D right. If D could go wrong, A is probably wrong or B. This is the discovery of what is a dirty needle.

You could also do job orientation with this sort of thing, you know. People having a hard time working for the company. They're considered valuable in some respects but they're a liability in others. Well, you could pick up what this is and straighten it up with Prepchecking Rather rapidly — a few hours. And it looks very professional. You sit there and drag over what they laughingly call a psyche. If they only knew what lay below what they think the unconscious mind is, you know. If they had any idea, you know, they wouldn't go puttering around that swamp. They'd run like a bunch of startled cottontails, you know, that had just seen a snake.

A dirty needle has two sources. Both sources are missing withholds. Well, you haven't gotten the item from the pc, so of course you've missed a withhold. But, you've actual — and you will start to get the pc dramatizing missing withholds. And you get a dirty needle, you pick up a missed withhold, you'll straighten out that dirty needle. And you get a dirty needle and you pick up a missed withhold and you'll straighten up that needle. That's just current session withholds. You can always straighten up a dirty needle by picking up enough missed withholds. But let me tell you, if you've got a wrong line sitting on that line plot earlier than the line you were doing, you're going to — liable to get a dirty needle, and you're just going to spend half your time picking up missed withholds, missed withholds, missed withholds.

But, you can take all the froth off the top of the swamp and the bubbles and so forth. And as long as you don't show the guy that it's just black from there on down, you see, why everybody's very happy with this thing. And it's a process activity that you really don't expect to pull the pc's toenails with — right up through his gullet. You don't expect it to do this, you see. Maybe polish up his teeth or get the fur off his tongue, you see, but that's about it, see. That's what you expect of the process.

What do we mean by a dirty needle? We mean a needle that's shivering and shaking and whizzling and it's got a pattern, and you can't read through the pattern, and so on. It's just hell trying to do a Routine 3 on a pc with a dirty needle. Well, you create a dirty needle with Routine 3 by getting a wrong goal or a wrong terminal; oppterming something that wasn't factual. In other words we've got line B and we — what we've got down there is "an acrobat." And what should be down there is "a dog" so we oppterm "acrobat," and by the time we're three-quarters of the way through or less, maybe a quarter of the way through oppterming "acrobat," we've got a dirty needle on our hands.

Now, if you expect too much of Prepchecking, why of course you're going to be rather upset here and there. This fellow is a total arthritic, he's in horrible condition, he can't walk, he can't sleep, he's on his death bed, and you walk in and you start to prepcheck him. And he dies. And he's still so curled up they can't even get him in a standard coffin. They have to build another kind — a corkscrew type coffin in order to get him into one, you know. You'd be very happy with Prepchecking, you'd be very happy with Prepchecking if you didn't expect too much of Prepchecking.

The way to solve this dirty needle is to go back and find the first error in Routine 3 — any Routine 3, you see? Find the first error in Routine 3 and correct it and you'll find out your dirty needle will disappear and all of these later blunders will tend to blow off.

Well, what the public expects of psychotherapy, Prepchecking more than delivers. And what you expect of it is very simple — you just want it to get this pc into some kind of shape so hell sit in session without getting his rudiments wildly out — so that you can handle his rudiments and you can do a process that does pull his toenails.

In other words it's like pulling basic-basic on a chain of engrams. You find the earliest improper Routine 3 action and you will get a relief of the later improper actions. Now, that's very well worth knowing, see? So that tells you sweepingly how to patch up a case. To patch up a case that has been misrun on Routine 3 of any kind, it is only necessary to find the earliest incorrect item and correct and complete it. That's the formula.

And you get him — you get a person prepchecked up to the point where the rudiments will stay in. Well, of course, he's had to tell you most of his basic withholds that he'd sit there dodging with, and you'll have pulled quite a few somatics — they won't get in the road of your listing, and he'll come into session, you'll get a few missed withholds. If you're on an off-line, you'll have a little trouble. I mean, if you're pushing around on some line that is a rugged line to the pc because some other line, earlier than that, is out. If there's something basically in error with the Routine 3 activity, you'll have — always have a little trouble keeping the things in, but it'd be minor. It'll be picking up last night's withhold, you know and — at the beginning of the session, you know — these little things, the missed withhold, the thing he didn't find out about. And all of a sudden the thing settles out.

How do you set up a Routine 3 case that is running around the bend? Well you just find the earliest incorrect item that you can possibly lay your hands on — not the item that you said — not the item where his headache turned on; don't pay any attention to that item — not the item that was — he's having any difficulty with currently; don't pay any attention to that. Don't go getting all scrambled up. The best way to do it is go back and find the earliest incorrect item — the earliest incorrect action. Any type of Routine 3 action that is incorrect — find the earliest one and correct it, right then, and you'll find the rest of the liabilities will blow away. Then you progress forward from that point.

You can handle the pc because you can keep it all picked up, because you're not trying to pick up everything in this lifetime while you're doing 3D Criss Cross. Now, the basic thing that has been wrong with Routine 3 processes is because the auditor, in doing a Routine 3 session, was also always trying to do a Sec Check or a rudiments session. He was trying to cross two breeds of cat. And it was something on the order of trying to mate an eagle, you know, with a shark. And you just couldn't get them to recognize each other's sex appeal.

In other words you audit the case all over again. Interesting You're liable to find things that were in, not in anymore. And you're liable to find things, so on. But you'll nevertheless find a lot of charge blowing off the case because it's been stirred up.

Here on the one hand, you see, you're supposed to be listing, and the pc is sitting there, and really, he says at least, that he really is — he's all ready to go man go, you know. He's all ready to make that list, you know. He's getting interested in all this and he's ready to — you know, and so forth. And you read this thing and he's got a present time problem and missed withholds and so forth. And anytime you say anything, the E-Meter almost jumps off the pin by the impact of your voice, don't you see. And, you start to list and you say, "Well, maybe it'll all get all right." Then all of a sudden he goes out like a light, and you say, "Have I missed a withhold on you?" which is what you should say, to pick him out of his boil-off, and so forth.

Now, do you get that as a solution to the situation? Now, you saw me doing it last night on your television demonstration. I was just taking cases, and I was just — that's all the formula I was applying to the thing It — do you recognize it now as a formula? I'd find the earliest charged lists, where I was doing it, and squaring this around.

"Well, yeah, you missed a withhold on me. Well, let's see, while I was waiting to pick up this body I thought that my father was an ugly man."

And listing is auditing That's very important, because it at once tells us when we have a complete list. All the questions of a flat process can be asked of a list, and if that list is flat then all these questions will go together.

You say, "All right, that was good. And have I missed a withhold on you?"

So a flat process no longer produces tone arm action. Okay? So that's your first conditional. You understand, this has not been broadly proven. That's a conditional test. We don't know if that will hold true forever. But flat process — flat list. When is all the charge off of this list? When we get no TA action on the list, of course.

"Well, I never told you actually . . . But that's too embarrassing."

So theoretically you would list to no TA action — that's theoretical. Next is you'd ask the meter if the list was complete. Next is by differentiation. You differentiate the first twelve items of the list and see if you have tone arm action. If you have tone arm action, the list is incomplete. This could be fascinating, couldn't it? I mean, so you just read the first thing; you read the goal and you say, "Would a (whatever item you've written down) do (whatever the goal or line you got it from)." You see? See?

What the hell kind of a session are we doing now, see? Well, we're doing a cross between an eagle and a shark, and he can't live in the sea and he can't live in the sky. And if an ornithologist ever saw him, why he'd have a hell of a time.

Should it — let's say the item you'd written down is "cat" and the "disregarded when you're trying to do something," you see, so you'd say, "Well, should a cat be disregarded when you're trying to do something?" And the pc says yes or no, we don't care what he says, but we watch that tone arm and we see that it has motion, and our list is not complete and that's all there is to it. So we don't do anything about nulling, we just go back and start listing again — carefully keeping off the ARC break for asking for more and more and more. you understand? The pc gets to understand that listing is auditing and therefore he doesn't get so anxious to find.

And you'd be surprised, that's the commonest error in doing the Routine 3 processes is that you start in to do a Routine 3 process and you wind up doing a rudiments session. Well, that accounts for most of the breakdown. This also accounts for the fact that people couldn't find goals. And that's going to get very important to you very shortly so you better know all about this. you couldn't find goals because rudiments were out. Well, you can't do a goals find ing session while you're doing a Sec Checking session and a Prepchecking session and so forth. You see, it's all crossed up.

All right, your next test is — consists of a nulling test. We null the first twelve — the first new twelve, because we can do this several times on the same list and if we find any items in, we complete the list.

Now, you can always tell a green auditor here that hasn't — nowadays — you can always tell one, because you send them up to do a Routine 3 session and they come down and they hand you a rudiments session and he spent the whole session trying to get the rudiments in. And you send him up again to do a Routine 3 session. And they always come back and give you a rudiments session. And damn little Routine 3 ever gets done because, of course, the whole ruddy lot is wound up in a — out-rudiments.

What was that? What did you say? What did you say? If you find any items in, you complete the list. I mean if they don't null out instantly — they can tick, and that's all — you complete the list. If you have one item in, you complete the list. Simple, huh? I just dropped a grenade amongst you, didn't I?

See, they start to do one kind of session and they get another kind of session. And it gives the auditor at once the idea that he has no control of the pc. And his sessioning sort of collapses at this point, you see. He's all set to charge in there and get the list, the pc's all set to charge in there and get the list, except the rudiments have busted the needle. The pc shouldn't be doing a Routine 3 type of a session, that's all. Should be doing a Prepchecking session.

All right. Here's another test. If you find more than one item alive on the list, you complete the list. you understand, we allow you — we allow you up to five chants of the item. Interesting, isn't it?

So you don't cross the eagle and the shark. You reach into the Stygian depths and you get yourself a Prepcheck session going and you pull the withholds and things like that necessary, so that the pc can be comfortable being audited and always isn't sitting there with a pair of boxing gloves on to defend his favorite misdemeanors, you know. you get that straightened out, if you're giving him CCHs at the same time, why, you're getting the pc good — under good control, getting his havingness so it's straightened out and so forth. You're getting his withholds pulled. You're just grooving him in.

Supposing you found three alive that we're going to check out? When there's three, they'll — they stay alive. Bing, bing, bing, you know. Bing, bing, bing. They just go bop, bop, bop. Bop, bop, bop. Nah — complete the list. Complete the list. It'll complete down to one. See, that's what charge means on a list.

And with Prepchecking of course, you're already grooving him in to being model-sessioned. He's getting used to being audited without being thrown for a loop, see. And he eventually gets his prediction up on this thing and he can stay more alert in the session and so on.

We're regarding now listing as auditing, you see. you — regarding it in a different viewpoint than you've been regarding it before. You've been going forward to find something and get on so that you could find something, and eventually having found a bunch of somethings you wind up with a package that you can audit. You see, that's another intention. Well this is not our intention, as will become very plain to you in about 2 minutes.

So Prepchecking is vital. I don't care whether it produces a result beyond simply getting the pc to stay in-session. I just couldn't care less. Anything that you get beyond that is a terrific bonus. And it's remarkable that you get these bonuses quite routinely if you're a good Prepchecker. You just keep getting bonuses, bonuses, bonuses. But all you want is just to get the pc so he'll stay in-session. That's all.

Remember, I told you Routine 3 would assess out. All right, that's what we're trying to do here. And you understand that I've got that "trying" underscored. You're trying to do this. So, when we complete the list, we'll find there's one item on it. It ought to be very rapid. Although listing may seem to take a long time, you're not going to spend any time nulling because they're all null. You're going to null the thing, you see, but if they're all null, well, they click and they tick and they click and then they're gone or they're not there at all.

So every time a stray thought hits him from someplace or another you don't have sixteen rudiments go out. And in view of the fact that there aren't sixteen rudiments it makes it very difficult, you see. It's hard to get in sixteen when you've only got a few, you know.

Now, this makes you have to be pretty sharp on, "Are your rudiments in or out?" So you have to run your rudiments fairly often because a lot of these items are just going to be flatter than flounders. They were hot while you were listing them but they're not hot now. you see, that's the theoretical approach that we're working on.

The difficulties which you encounter in Routine 3 are adequate and sufficient unto themselves without adding the difficulties of Prepchecking so if you get all of these it's somewhat like trying to play a barrel organ, some bagpipes and so forth while on roller skates on some slippery ice. It's embarrassing. You just haven't got that many hands and E-Meters. You begin to consider that auditing is terribly difficult, very difficult to do. Well, yeah, well, of course, you're doing an impossible job when you're trying to prepcheck while doing a Routine 3.

So, we've got "Cat, cat, cat, cat," all null, "Dog, dog, dog," all null. "Catfish, catfish, catfish," all null. "Aviator, aviator, aviator," all null. There isn't a tick. Heh-heh. This becomes spooky ground. But remember, you're expert Prepcheckers. See, you know your business by this time. Is your pc in-session or out of session? You had one last test, is did it tick once in a while? See, well that might not be present on a complete list. See, you might not even get a single tick, theoretically. We'll see how it works.

Now, the whole reason why Routine 3 got varied and moved around is because the rudiments kept going out on people and they weren't able to find items. They couldn't keep rudiments in. Here you'll find Prepchecking And that is the remedy to those difficulties that were encountered heretofore in clearing

All right. Now, when you've got your complete list, you're going to null it. And it should all null down like hot butter leaving you one item which will go tick-tick-tick. It won't go tick-tick-tick sporadically, that I guarantee you. It'll probably go microscopically tick-tick-tick.

These Prepchecking activities will set your pc up so that when you get a list you are getting a list, not getting a bunch of worries about whether or not you'll encounter his withholds, see. You're going to get a list. You're going to get a chance to do some Routine 3. Then you can find goals, find terminals, find items, find oppterms. All this becomes easy because you've already set the case up so the case can be audited. So don't skimp this. Terribly important.

Did you see "master craftsman," on that last night? Could you see the microscopic tick on that? And that was the sweetest tick I ever saw. It was meticulous, you understand? It wasn't doing anything unless I said "master craftsman," and at that moment it went tick. Did you see that? Instant tick. Tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick-tick, it didn't miss, see? It's the way an item ought to look. Not necessarily that tiny, but somewhat in that order of magnitude.

You're very lucky in that this is designed also to be very interesting to the pc. Hm, pc, yes. He's like the hypnotized bird when he gets himself . . . He sits there in great insouciance you know. He's going to sit there with his rudiments all out, defending himself appropriately in auditing, and so forth. And you sit down and you open up on him with Prepchecking

Of course the thing had been audited. But that's the way your items are liable to look on a complete list. Just one item, and it just goes tick-tick-tick. Very interesting. All right, that means you have to be pretty sharp-eyed, because if they're going to tick that microscopically you're really going to have to be looking. There's only one item in these five hundred and eighty-five that's going to tick at all, maybe. You see what a steep chance we're taking on this?

And you say, "All right, are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" That's your Zero Question. "Have you been willing to talk to auditors," or "Have you been willing to talk to people about your difficulties?" Any kind of a way that you want to vary this particular Zero to get, "Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?" We don't care how you state the Zero, it's got to be something that's real to the pc.

All right, so we find this thing. Finally we've got this item. We've got this item on this completed list. And we take this item, which, let us say, is "barrel." "A barrel." And now we're going to oppterm "a barrel." And all the rules of our oppterming "a barrel" apply, as I just gave them to you. When we get the list complete, why all of the tests I gave you, they will still apply, theoretically. See?

"But of course. Absolutely." Clang, you see.

All right, we get down to the end of this thing — you understand this is theoretical approach I'm giving you. This actually is probably 3A Criss Cross — because you're going to use goals. I haven't gone into that. You've got this one item and theoretically what should happen, if you've done your job perfectly, you find out that "bungstarter" is the oppterm. You null it down — you got your list complete — and you null it down. It nulls down just as — probably even more gruesomely flat, do you see, like handling a dead fish, you know? And you find that it is "bungstarter."

You say, "What's that? What aren't you willing to talk to me about?" and so forth. A little buzz-wuzz and a discussion here of one kind or another. And he turns kind of a beet red and . . . Believe me, at that point he starts getting interested. You eventually get a withhold off of him of some kind or another. And you — out of that withhold, why, you're in business. You've got a withhold and you bang it into a What question that will give you a chain. And he thought he could get away with just telling you about Mary Belle. And imagine his surprise when he has to tell you about . . . And eventually he gets over these pieces of nonsense and after that he isn't in this dodgy state. He can actually sit there and be a pc.

Now, theoretically this could happen. This has already happened in auditing "Barrel, bungstarter," Pssswww. "Barrel" won't go, "bungstarter" won't go. That's your theoretical approach. There would be no purpose in auditing them, would there?

Without Prepchecking we had a hell of a time. I don't mind telling you. It was rough, rough all the way. So Prepchecking is very well worth learning

Now, there's several ways we could get our foot in the door on the Goals Problem Mass, but the way we're going to try to get our foot in the door, having confidence in you all, is we're not going to try to discharge the Goals Problem Mass by door — by, pardon me — we're not going to discharge goals lists to that degree that we discharge items lists. That's very conditional. I have to learn more about this before I give you too much more about this, you see?

Now let's take up Prepchecking from the viewpoint of auditor training Routine 3 processes are too hard on a case to be done wrong. You cannot do a training activity safely with a Routine 3 process. Can't be done. you cannot set somebody to learn how to run an E-Meter while he is trying to find somebody's oppterm. That would be pretty grim. And some of you have seen this. We've set somebody out to find somebody's goal when they couldn't yet run an E-Meter, sit in session, nothing And man, that doesn't get to be a picnic. That gets to be — that makes the Roman arena, you know, look like a Sunday school picnic. It's gruesome. Absolutely gruesome. And they wind up with a mess.

It might have to happen that we have to take all the charge out of it. But listen, taking all the charge out of the goals list is pulling all of the little holes out of the balloons in the Goals Problem Mass and I don't think you're going to be able to do it. See, it's not an item list. It's a bunch of think. It's giving you the intention of masses. The intentions of valences is what that goals list is. And it's good enough to identify things with, but believe me, I don't think it's good enough to discharge a bank with; I don't think so.

So you mustn't use Routine 3 or Class III processes as training processes. Even though in the final analysis they are easier to do than Prepchecking, you must continue to use Prepchecking as a training process even though Prepchecking has a tremendous liability. You can blow somebody right out of Scientology with bad Prepchecking. Oh, it's dynamite. But you won't kill him. It's dynamite. All you've got to do is miss a withhold and you've had it.

So theoretically, we do not at this stage of the game — subject to amendation — care whether the goals list shows charge or doesn't show charge, as long as we could find a goal that goes tick-tick-tick, tick-tick-tick, tick-tick-tick and doesn't do anything else. We're going to grind it down to a point to where we've got a goal, and that goal really sticks with us. And it goes tick-tick-tick just as nice as you please.

On some cases when they're still in their early edgy states just miss a withhold or, God help you, get a case where they're walking around with an, "Everybody knows all the time." you know, this is the theetie-weetie case. That's what distinguishes the theetie-weetie case — everybody knows all the time. They run around — it's on a standard, total, "Everybody should know." And the missed withholds you pick up off of them is when you ask them a question. Any time you, the auditor, ask them a question then you should know, so of course you have missed a withhold. So we have, let us say, three auditing questions in a minute, we have then missed three withholds in a minute. I think this is very well worth looking at.

Now, that may take a much longer goals list than we ordinarily have been writing because the goals list may discharge to a better degree. But it's certainly going to take a goals list long enough that we can identify the goal.

You see somebody's graph crushed right straight across the top and the case is a perpetual missed withhold case. Somebody walks up to him and says, "What time is it, Joe?" See? Everybody should know, you see. And he has now found out that you don't know what time it is, but he knows what time it is, so you should know what he should know, so therefore you've missed a withhold on him and he gets quite cross with you. Doesn't tell you the time, either. Do you understand that phenomena?

Now, the goal was appearing in about the first hundred and fifty that the person listed. That was quite interesting The goal seems to appear early; your items always appear late. So it obviously isn't the same breed of cat. Listing goals and listing items is apparently different.

The person has the idea that everybody else should know anything they're thinking. When you get that combination, man, you've had it. The only thing that will crack a case like that is something like Prepchecking You'll run into this sooner or later. You can break this down. You'll notice everything is reacting. Of course, what you really do is clip it out with a Routine 3 process. Eventually, why it's "swami" or something, you know, it will come up as an item and after that the circuit ceases. But not until then. But you can take the edge of it off with Prepchecking

Anyway, the way we're going to tackle this, from a Routine 3 action, is going to tackle it from the goal. And we're going to isolate goal. And then we're going to find, if we possibly can, a modifier. If it is too difficult to find the modifier we will skip it. I don't say this will be routine procedure but we is certainly going to find a goal, and we is certainly going to find a terminal. And we're going to find a terminal on a totally discharged list. We're not going to find a totally discharged goals list, see. We're going to find a totally discharged item list, see.

But they are hell to prepcheck. You practically have to sit on their chest and box their ears to get an answer to anything because they're sitting there, "What are you asking them questions for?" because you know it, you see, you must know because they know. That's good enough. They know. So they don't have any withholds. So they have never done anything You get desperate with a case like that unless you know there can be cases like that and what the common denominator of that case is which is, "Everybody else should know what they know." And they've got it to a psychotic extent.

We've got this goal, "To smoke cigars." And that list is not well discharged. That goals list is still punchy. Things are still happening in that goals list, you see. So we make a list, "Who or what would smoke cigars?" see? And we finally make an item list out of that. Now, that item list has got to be complete and that's got to be discharged. That's flatter than a flounder when we finally finish it up by this theoretical approach, here. When we finish that thing up we really have got that thing finished up. And we get it, "Cigar smoker," whatever the item was, and it's going tick-tick-tick-tick-tick and it doesn't do anything else but go tick-tick-tick. Do you see? And that's all.

So you sit there and the — eventually break it down and you suddenly realize, well, "Have I missed a withhold on you?" You've always missed them by the ton. you find out what withhold has been missed: you asked them a question. All right. So you just start cleaning up a chain called, "Questions they have been asked," see, or "Questions they have had to ask," since this put it all to shame, you see. you eventually will plow in on this thing one way or the other and you'll find the case will start straightening up. They are the hardest cases in the world to prepcheck.

And then we're going to oppterm it. "Who or what would oppose a cigar smoker? And we're going to run that list down and we're going to exhaust that list. We're going to run it down flat as a tire. And we should find — we should find a condition at the end where either the terminals are very weak, or whether they blow at once. That's theoretical on its approach.

Now, that's the rough case to prepcheck, not the sinner, not the fellow who has done a great many antisocial things. Just change your sights. It's the good people who are hard to prepcheck. They're tough.

All right. Then what are we going to do? How are we going to get our next line? Ha-ha — we're going to list goals. Going to list goals. Obviously the pc has changed like the North Star to the Southern Hemisphere, see? You can get new goals off this pc now. So you ask him to list a few more goals and be happy about this sort of thing, and you'll find out that some of the goals that are — weren't kicking might be now kicking. You're going to add some more goals and then theoretically again, we're going to approach this thing by nulling the whole goals list all over again to find out what we've got now. Because goals lists pump up and slow down and do peculiar things that items lists don't do.

And nobody says that Prepchecking is an easy thing to do. I wouldn't try to sell you this for a minute. You've got to be able to develop your sensitivity for recognizing a case for what it is, getting a proper Zero Question in there, getting a Zero A Question that hits the case right where it lives. And then you've got to develop the facility of yibble-yabbling around finally until the case actually owns up to a withhold of some kind or another, an overt of some kind, around which you can build a What question. And use that What question, use your withhold system, clean up the chain. And there's a lot of disappointments in the line. you get this, and you say, "Oh God, he burned down a church. My, my we really got something here," you know. And it just sits there, it just sits there at 2.4. And you go through the whole chain, not only one church but just dozens of churches. And it sits there at 2.4. You get a needle knock on it, but the tone arm never moves and you're not doing a thing for the case.

Now, we're going to find a new goal that goes tick-tick-tick. And we're going to find a complete terminals list for that goal, and then we're going to find a complete opposition terminals list for that.

And then you eventually, accidentally find out that he gets a bad fall on buying all-day suckers. And he finally, after much embarrassment and twisting in his chair, owns up to having purchased one that very morning And it's, "What all-day sucker have you purchased?" that is your Zero Question and you get tone arm motion from 2.0 to 4.5. Those are overts. You finally get down to the fact that every time a kid in the neighborhood would buy an all-day sucker, he would sit down on him and beat the living daylights out of them until they gave it up. And maybe killed somebody doing it. And it got associated in this way and he'll finally — he all of a sudden triggers this, you get the basis of it, you pull at the big unknown strip of it that he never has known, comes to light, your tone arm motion quiets down, up to present time. Man, have you really done something for him. Now he knows you're a wizard — because that's one of his terminals too that he will learn later on.

Now, this doesn't destroy any of your ability to do 3D Criss Cross. I could look upon 3D Criss Cross as a marvelous training exercise. That's worth much more than that but I could look on it now as a marvelous training exercise.

But there is what you expect, if you prepcheck. Nobody's trying to tell you Prepchecking is easy. But Prepchecking is precise and Prepchecking, more than anything else, has to be done in a very professional way. Because your differences of expression, your "hm-hm," your expression of "yes" your personal reaction on the thing and your personal interest on the thing interjected into the session, your shockedness, your forbidedness, all of these things coming up, just wreck Prepchecking Just bzzz. That's gone. you won't get any others. Pc will sit there. And this is so prevalent that it causes a pc only to get off little tiny featherweight overts. And then lie like mad. He tells you he feels so much better having gotten over the fact that he dropped a pin that morning. Now, that's totally traceable to the auditor's nonprofessional attitude while auditing If you expect to get overts off a case, you're going to have to be very professional in your handling of it. If you're very professional in the handling of it, you're not trying to make the pc guilty, you haven't got lots of greed to hear more of this salacity, then you've got it made. And your pc will just sit there and he'll just get more and more stuff off. More and more stuff off. More and more stuff off. Sometimes he even will get into a contest to see if he can shock you. By the time he finds out that he can't, he will have gotten rid of all of his withholds and doesn't care.

We let this person do a Prehav Assessment and we let him find an item. You know, when he's getting new on this and we don't pay any attention to what he's found. See, we find an item and we oppterm it. And he — we cuss him out, we say the list is not complete, and he tries to complete the list. And he learns — he learns on something he can't hurt much with, see? See? Pc might feel uncomfortable but nothing compared to how he would do if you mucked up a Goals Assessment, you see? See the training approach on that?

But the training crucible of the auditor would be Prepchecking It's a more difficult skill than Routine 3 to really get results with Prepchecking Its topmost limits is to be able to get the pc in-session and keep him in-session. It gives you far more bonus than that. It will do remarkable and wonderful things for cases, far in excess of any psychotherapy that's ever been known here on Earth, and that makes it fine. But you're doing a terrific thing from the pc's point of view.

All right, but the actions are always the same. It doesn't matter what Routine 3 you've got, I call to your attention, you've got the same actions. You've got these certain steps and we haven't changed any of those.

Actually, what are you doing? You're clearing up one grain of sand off the Rock of Gibraltar of grains of sands. One lifetime is about all you're cleaning up. Nothing wrong with him this lifetime. He's alive and sane. That's better than he's been for billennia.

Now, because we've put so much artillery behind it now, and because we've found out so many holes in the line, and if we know exactly where Routine 3 was falling down — remember Routine 3 was your most positive clearing process but that it didn't extend to the many. But Routine 3D Criss Cross can be done on anybody. Therefore if you use a Routine 3D Criss Cross but do Routine 3, you of course, got something which is extending to the many. See?

But he gets a grip on being a pc. He gets so he can talk to an auditor, his rudiments stay in, and then eventually he is now — gets courageous enough that he can embark upon more heh-heh-heh-heh-heh difficult journeys across far rougher seas. And that's the value of this. So this is the makebreak point of the auditor. And the training emphasis should be on whether or not an auditor can do good Prepchecking

Now, if we do this right, and keep this remedied along the line, and if all this works very smoothly, and you don't develop a whole bunch of bugs that I haven't foreseen, which is always possible, because you see Routine 3 itself was thrown overboard only by auditor bugs. I can do Routine 3 to this day with the greatest of ease. If you don't develop a bunch of bugs and if there aren't a bunch of bugs in this thing, we may have our hands on, here, ample evidence, demonstrating it today, we may have our hands on a fairly rapid clearing thing. So the guy gets clearer and clearer. See, we don't have to push him straight through the knothole. Get the idea? He just gets clearer and clearer as we go, and therefore, ought to get easier and easier to audit.

There's the liability of the auditor missing withholds. That's the main liability — missed withholds, not withholds. You can miss a withhold on the pc by not asking for it and the pc doesn't know about it. Well, that isn't what we mean by missed withholds. It's what he feels you should have found out, that is a missed withhold. Heh-heh. He sits there and all of a sudden he realizes that you should have found out about something You haven't found out about it and out of session he goes. And he's mad at you and he's all upset. And if you're an expert Prepchecker all you have to do is say, "What withhold have I missed on you?" find it and get it out of the road in a hurry.

See, its basic advantage would merely be as every other development has been here, in terms of speed of final result. That's our basic advantage. Speed of final result is quite important. Auditor's tied up over one pc — even an hour saved by someone becomes important.

Very few auditors learn rapidly this interesting datum: That if the pc has an ARC break or is upset or is misemotional or in any way, shape or form is having trouble in the session, it stems from missed withholds. I mean auditors have the awfullest time learning this. Honest. It's so evident that it's in neon signs all over the billboards, you know. All you have to do is do it once or twice. Like magic. It's the most magical magic you ever cared to see. You know, here's this pc, and this pc is just about to tear strips off the ceiling. He's mad. He's solid. And he's going to blow session, everything else, and you say, "Have I missed a withhold on you?"

All right, well that's your theoretical approach, of what we will call, just for the interim, Routine 3A Criss Cross. The reason I've back-graded it is after we've got the thing totally ironed out, why, we will assign it its final designation and probably there will be a little bit of jostling around; there always is. I have learned to expect that as part of the randomity of it all. Doesn't matter how solidly you lay down these fundamentals, they can go astray.

And he says, "Oh, oh, well, yes, I guess you have."

Now, what I have just given you, by the way, aside from the fact of oppterming things, is contained in all the do's and don'ts of some of the earliest directions of Routine 3 — to show you how un-new this is. But we have the wherewithal now, so that those earliest directions can be followed. We needed things like a textbook on meters. And we needed a splendid meter like the Mark IV. We needed this data about instant reads and we needed to know without any doubt whatsoever that you cannot find anything on a pc with his rudiments out. And you see, we needed this and that and the other thing as we've gone along the line, and furthermore we needed this data about complete lists. I've given you several tests for complete lists. And, we just had one, just a few days ago, see.

And you say, "What is . . .?"

We needed these things, you see, in order to carry the thing through. But the way you're going, the only mistake which you are making and which you will have to remedy — and this mistake has been uniformly made. Even I, last week would not have called any list I have recently inspected on your 3D Criss Cross, as a complete list. This — these lists are — man, I've gone over the number of times you've been going across a list and it is many. Why, you have to cover one item four times in order to get the thing — the whole list null — I'd say right then the list was charged.

"Well, I don't know what it is. It's probably something or other."

Now, earlier, there was something else we were doing to take charge off of a list. We were differentiating a list to take charge off of the list. Well, there has been a technical discovery, and that is that a list does not discharge except by being complete. Do you see?

You say — you notice all of a sudden you've got to guide his attention in and give him a spotlight of attention. And he thinks about one thing or another. And you say, "That — that — that one there. Yeah."

So you add up all the mistakes that you could make, actually come under the heading — except a goals list — is an incomplete list. Incomplete list, incomplete list, incomplete list. So you just get used to it.

And he says, "Oh, that. Huh-uh."

What are the phenomena of an incomplete list? Well, the meter will respond to "Are there any more items on this list?" Sometimes, however, the meter doesn't respond to that question. Probably your tone arm action will be out of the listing, see, and those other tests which I've given you.

And all of a sudden, why, he's back in-session. And he's being calm and nice and everything's fine. Damnedest exhibition you ever saw.

Now, you can relegate differentiation to a test step because it'll be your most reliable test step. Just differentiate the first twelve and see if there's tone arm action. I would say offhand this possibly won't prove out to be the case broadly. But it — apparently tone arm action would be caused by charge. So the list is still charged heavily if you have heavy tone arm action by differentiation. And tone arm action by differentiation would betoken the fact that nothing is going to null. So you wouldn't have to start nulling at this stage of the game because you say this list is too heavily charged up.

All you have to do is a time or two get a subjective and objective reality on it, and after that you'll never have any trouble with pcs. But do you know auditors have a hell of a time learning this at first? They'll think it's everything under God's green earth. They'll say, "Have you got an ARC break with me?" You know. And, "Oh well, all right. Now, what have I done to you?" and "What have you done to me?" And so forth, and trying to smooth it all out, "What responsibility haven't you taken for this session?" You know, anything they could think of. And they get all nerved up and the pc's getting nerved up and everybody's going unhappy and chairs are breaking finally.

Now, I'm totally prepared to have to do something else with a list in order to discharge it properly. You're — I told you at the beginning of this lecture you're way up on the assembly line — I mean you're way up on the research line. You're not on the assembly line at all. See, that's about where you're sitting right now.

Two days before you told this auditor, "Now look, if a pc gets upset it's because you've missed a withhold on the pc. Just ask him, 'What withhold have I missed?"'

But because we have to patch up Routine 3D Criss Cross errors here and there — I've had to study those errors very carefully. And the errors which I have found in the session tests which you saw me take last night all add up to the conclusion that you might as well straighten up all the Routine 3D Criss Cross which you are doing But if you're going to have to do that, you might as well learn this Routine 3A Criss Cross. Because it's the same as straightening up what you're doing right now.

The day before this session occurred you've said to the auditor, "Now look, if the pc gets upset on you, all you have to do is ask the pc, 'What withhold have I missed on you?"' And yet at that time when the pc gets upset he'll say, "Do you have an ARC break? Let's see, what responsibility haven't your grandmother taken for this session?" Honest, he looks like a fighter plane crashing into everything in sight. Down in flames, man. Quite remarkable.

All right. You've got to do it anyway, so let's go ahead and tackle this thing called Routine 3A Criss Cross, which is really at this stage merely a patch-up of your 3D Criss Cross, plus the fact that nearly all of you have had some action on Routine 3, so we have to take that into account, see. We're in an optimum position where — just to straighten them out and take all the charge off — well let's do this other process and see what we get out of it, okay? That's were we sit, right at the present moment.

So there's evidently at some times, tough to learn Prepchecking. It's tough to get in there, to probe deeply, to really scrape up the muck on the pc and get him to talk to you and so on. It's a terrific test of an auditor, whether or not he can prepcheck. Terrific test. An auditor who can prepcheck well, marvelous. He can do anything. He can do anything from there on. And of course, a pc who's been well prepchecked runs Routine 3 processes just like that, nothing to it. They have no trouble with them at all.

I want to see faster clearing than I have seen. I don't want pcs having to be pushed through the knothole. There's too many hours being stacked up on auditing. There are many errors being committed, but all of those errors sum up to rudiments out, which we won't make a criticism on your Routine 3D Criss Cross — that's a criticism of Prepchecking. See, if the rudiments are out that's a criticism of a person's ability to Prepcheck. So just omit that. And the other error is incomplete lists and improper items.

A pc is not prepchecked, auditor can't prepcheck, auditor runs Routine 3 type process, auditor sees pc going into spin, auditor goes into spin, pc goes into spin, floor falls in, the ceiling falls in. you see these lumps of charcoal years afterwards and you wonder what happened? They've become their own Goals Problem Masses. It's murderous.

So, you've got to straighten up your incomplete lists and improper items anyhow, so let's do Routine 3A Criss Cross, find out where we land up and see if we haven't got a faster clearing process, okay?

So although Routine 3 looks very easy and the motions of it are very easy and it's very easy to do, remember it's only very easy to do if you're an expert in handling a meter, an expert in handling a pc, and you can take it all like a breeze. And you know how to set a session back together again, bang, you keep the rudiments in, bang, there's nothing to this, you just handle the whole thing of course you can do Routine 3. And therefore after that Routine 3 will look very simple to you.

Audience: Mm-mm.

And you'll look at student auditors and you'll say, "Why can't I teach them Routine 3?" You see. It's just so simple. There's nothing to it. I can do it. And all of a sudden, why, one day you're passing the classroom where they're sitting in there co-auditing, and you see this little trickle of blood coming out from under the door. And you go in, and the place is full of smoke and all there is is some few charred chairs. And you say, "Well, what possibly could have gone wrong I prepcheck easily. I run 3D Criss Cross easily. Pc's are very easy to audit. What could have happened?" Well, what happened is you tried to get them to run 3D before they could do a perfect Prepcheck. And any time you do it you'll have trouble thereafter.

Sounds to me that this might possibly give you an easier run of it with a pc.

Prepchecking demands far more of the auditor than Routine 3 ever will. But oddly enough you can never do Routine 3 unless you can Prepcheck. You see how that is? And it's perfectly safe, by the way, to teach people to prepcheck. Teach them to use a meter while prepchecking. Perfectly safe, because what they stir up anybody can handle. You see some student bolting through the door madly. He's on his way to Arcturus or something You grab hold of him and say, "What was — what was just happening?" And he says, "Oh, it's terrible. That auditor is butchering me," and so on.

I've been studying this hard, and I've — now I'll give you a few of the little items which have given us the gen on this.

"What withhold did he miss on you?"

Number one: I have discovered the dirty needle phenomena to stem from missed withholds. And at the same time an improperly procured item, that is to say an improper item, gotten and labeled and handled by the auditor gives the appearance of a huge missed withhold, which gives us a dirty needle. Now, this is one of our main difficulties, don't you see, with all Routine 3 Processes. That's a very fundamental discovery.

"Well, I . . . Heh-heh-heh."

The next discovery is that listing is auditing.

"Why don't you go in and tell him."

Next discovery is that cases that have been started on Routine 3 are still continuing to dramatize their goal and modifier in spite of a great deal of Routine 3D Criss Cross run on the case. So that tells you, as I told you in a lecture — a couple of weeks ago I guess it was — it's the one found by Routine 3, the item found by Routine 3 was more fundamental — which I think is quite, quite remarkable — more fundamental than the later items. So these later items must be shallower than the Routine 3 items, because at no time has Routine 3D Criss Cross knocked out, to my knowledge, the goal and terminal activity and dramatization of the pc. In other words we have quite a long way to go before we come around to the initial results of Routine 3. So that looks to me to be a very fine area to shorten up processing. That looks to me to be very splendid.

He'll go back and sit down. Now that we have answers of that type in the handling of beings, we can afford to be a little heroic in this level of training

And then, that the earliest items found are capable of spoiling the reaction and sequence and response of all following items. If you have one — items A, B. C, D, E, F. and an error, and it's found to be consistent in F and we can't keep the rudiments in on F. we look to G in order to correct F. and we only correct G. we'll find all of a sudden that there's going to be something a bit wrong on G. And we will find ourselves straightening out C — that we found something wrong on — and then spending quite a bit of time straightening out C. And then we find out the person didn't get the proper goal in the first place.

So actually I expect you to know Prepchecking and CCHs very well, because they establish sessions while getting terrific gains from the pc's point of view. And when you're teaching auditing please teach CCHs and Prepchecking. And don't turn anybody loose on Routine 3 type activities until you're absolutely certain that they're just a fine Prepchecker. And then you'll never have any trouble.

And we find ourselves right off the 3D Criss Cross graph, and find ourselves back assessing for a — an earlier error on a Routine 3 Process, which has apparently been able to terribly influence all the Routine 3D we were doing — 3D Criss Cross that we were doing, you see, was influenced by the earliest error.

Okay?

This is quite remarkable. In other words, you're going to run into people who have been assessed on Routine 3.

All right. Take a break.

Now, here's the other — here's the other item that makes this vital to you: You're going to find people all over the place who have been assessed on Routine 3 Processes. And then they heard there was something new, later, so somebody dropped their assessment at that point — and it's lucky they did because it probably was for the birds — and we run on down the line here and you're going to run into somebody and he's going to say, "Well, go ahead and clear me, everything's fine, and go ahead and clear me, go ahead," and you say, "Well, all right." And you're going to prepcheck them, and get them into line, and you do some CCHs and so forth, and you get all set. And if you were just going to do Routine 3D Criss Cross you're going to be sitting there looking — the second you start listing you're going to be looking at a dirty needle.

You're going to say, "It was all straight on Prepchecking, particularly when I got the mud pies out of his mother, so, and here's this dirty needle." And you say, "Well, I'll carry on; I'll get the missed withhold," and you pick up four hundred and sixty-five missed withholds. That's an exaggeration, there's probably only fifty or sixty. And you get the dirty needle all beautifully cleaned up and you start listing again, you see, and there's the dirty needle again. Why, you're going to be baffled, unless at that moment you've been trained to ask the magic question: "Who assessed you on what? When?" and follow it down with the meter. "When was your earliest Goals Assessment?" or something like that.

"Oh, well, that was a long time ago. I remember Charley Gilpen came in from an Academy course that he'd taken — I think he was expelled — and he came in from uh — uh — uh — uhhh — Central Org and so forth, and he did a complete assessment on me. And uh — actually it took him about half an hour, and he found that I was a moped." And this is very peculiar, because his had just broken down.

And you say, "Well, what was he doing"

"Well, he was — he was — he was just listing goals, just listing goals."

"Well, how many goals did you list?"

"Oh, I don't know."

"What happened to the Goals Assessment?"

"I don't know."

You've had it, you see, you'd think, otherwise. But if you just sat down there and listed his goals again, this goal will appear again. If you know this little additional question — and this we went into, oh-ho, my goodness, this must have been ten months ago — something on the basis of invalidated goals. So you have to add — if you're going to do a patch-up list — you have to ask for what goals have been invalidated and clear up every tick you find.

See, it's kind of a funny little process of Prepchecking. "Have you ever had any goal invalidated?" See? And we don't care whether his mother did it or his school teachers or it was done in a session or he's done it out of session or anything else. We've got to take every tick off of that. If we haven't got the man's list, we can get his list back, only if we take the invalidations off the goals because he's not going to give us the invalidated goal. And that's the only one he's not going to give us a second time. Isn't that interesting?

When you're redoing missing lists then, pick up invalidations of that type of list and clean that needle slicker than a whistle on invalidations of that type of list, and you'll be able to get the list back. If you don't do that you won't be able to get the list back. see how?

So, we also had earlier trouble in that everybody's goals lists were getting lost, and nobody could find their goals list, and we're having to ship them everyplace. And this did make a barrier, to Routine 3. It's just too much administration. I mean auditors couldn't keep track of all of this that — that well. And we lost too many of them. Well, without this little gimmick about invalidation and getting the list back again and working it over, you'll find enough goals doing it that way to carry on. You'll certainly find the important goals. But only if you've gotten the invalidations off of the goals. That's the only one he won't give you a second time. That's too invalidated.

Somebody halfway found on him that he wanted to murder his father and they looked at him and said, "Tsk-tsk-tsk. That's a terrible goal," you see?

And then he said, "Oh, my, that's a terrible goal," or before that he said, "Oh, I wouldn't want to have that goal." That's going to be missing on the redone list, don't you see? That will be suppressed, in other words.

Well, all right. Now, what you learn in doing this, you can apply to straightening out any case. Whether this works all the way through as a clearing process in your hands or not is totally unimportant. Recognize that. You certainly have got to know all of these things in order to straighten out a case that's gone off the rails on 3D Criss Cross, you see?

I'm giving you the added bonus that we may be pioneering a little new way through on an easy route through the GPM, see? But you've got to be able to do all these things. You've got to be able to take all these steps to patch up cases, because you're going to find them that need patching up. And you've got a lot of them right here that need patching up, at this present moment. They're not in particularly horrible writhing agony, and they'd all come out straight in the end, and all that sort of thing, but you might as well learn to patch up a case fast, early, and know how to do it.

Now, I've given you two — I gave you a demonstration two weeks ago, I gave you a demonstration — yeah, a week ago, and I gave you a demonstration last night on just reviewing cases.

Now, I wouldn't bother to try to pattern my advice to these cases and try to apply it to all cases — I mean what you saw on the screen. Because I was just talking to these people, I was interviewing, that was a research session, is what you saw. Nevertheless, that's what I would do to straighten up these cases, see? And if they don't straighten up, I'd do something else. Do you understand?

But certainly, straightening up the first item that went wrong is the inevitable step which you would take in any case. you try to find the first item that went wrong in this person's Routine 3-type processes, and make it right. And you'll find out, I'm pretty sure, uniformly, that a case will continue to hang up until you either got clear to the end of the Goals Problem

Mass, and had about sixty or ninety 3D Criss Cross items, you see — pc in misery all this time, see, till he's getting down toward the end. And you find out your best shortcut — because all that time you're going to have a hard time keeping the rudiments in, see — your best shortcut is to find that first item in.

All right, if you're going to have to find that first item in, you might as well learn this process we call Routine 3A Criss Cross and it makes a patch-up in any event, whatever else it does. Okay?

Audience: Mm-mm.

All right?

Audience: Yes.

All right. Thank you very much.