Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. The wishing well is outside for your convenience. A crown, why, that's a wish for a good auditor, you see? And a half crown, that's to - hoping your goal will fire quickly, you see. There's a nice scale of rates here of one kind or another. And a florin, well, that's hoping somebody won't start screaming in the rest of the room, you see. There's rates of pay on this. It's very interest - . You’ll find it's very workable.

You’ll have to pardon me for being late. It was really quite an emergency.

Anyhow, this is lecture two, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, 2 Oct. AD 12, October. And we're continuing lectures here on listing 3GA - Listing by Tiger Buttons.

You see, there was Gary Cooper and he was all by himself, you know, and he was fighting off these Indians. Gary, you know, he actually was raised next door to me in Helena, Montana. It was very, very funny to see him done up like Rudolph Valentino in the old 8 - millimeter movies, you know, from way back. I run one off for the kids every night. And even they're starting to laugh.

Now, your activity - now, hear me carefully - your activity as an auditor on a listing session has these responsibilities in an ordinary way: That you get the goal to fire and that the pc is not prevented from listing and you get the most items down that you can - it's quantitative. That you don't get him to overlist and you don't make him underlist.

Well, the subject of our lecture this evening ... This is the 2nd of October, I think. I hope you’re in the same day as I'm in. If you've been listed on these lines today, no telling what day you're in! This is the 2nd of October, AD 12. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture number one. And the subject of this lecture is "Listing by Tiger Buttons - 3GA." This replaces, and you can to all intents and purposes destroy your notes of lecture number two, 28 September, AD 12. Because since that time you have had a complete revisal.

Now, there's various ways that you could effect these various things and the first and foremost is you could get - be auditing with your rudiments out.

Male voice: 27th.

Now, let's be smart about pcs. We already know in Dynamic Assessment, if you're running any goal that has been gotten by Dynamic Assessment, you're fortunate because you have data on the pc. And I learned this myself just in the last twenty - four hours. I finally had to make up my mind about this, because, man, supposing you have a pc whose item is "floors." Now, look at this, man. The item is "floors." Now, this pc is going to run into a lot of floors. Right?

Twenty - seventh? Your notes of the 27th of September, second lecture.

Now, take somebody whose item is "people." Or somebody, you know, or somebody whose item is "rain," and it's been raining for the last twenty - four hours, and so forth. Well, now, let's be smart about it, let's get intelligent about this. It isn't - you're not an adding machine after all, as an auditor or something like that. Let's take a look at this pc - this pc look all right?

First lecture stands. I made them that way - figured there'd be something that you'd get into, and you did. Because after that lecture you asked enough foolish questions and pronounced enough imponderables that it was very obvious that the work which I had been doing slowly and casually on listing had to be done in a hurry. So you cost me my weekend. And there will be a fee.

Now, when I say that, I mean you take a look at the pc before the session begins. Go ahead and take a look at the pc. And the pc's sitting down and you're adjusting the chair and getting the can squeeze and all this sort of thing. Let's add something in there: Look at the pc!

At something on the order of 4:30 A.M., Monday, I was just finishing this work up. This was quite a sprint.

Now, that might be new and novel, but you'll find out it'll pay very heavy dividends. You'll find out it'll pay very, very good dividends indeed. Your pc doesn't look as good today as pc looked yesterday at session end.

There were many things wrong with listing. There are many things right with listing. And we must remember, first and foremost, that the old type of listing we were doing - writing down the buttons - answers, pardon me, writing down the answers to lines; on four lines - "Who or what would want goal?" "Who or what would not want goal?" "Who or what would oppose goal?" "Who or what would not oppose goal?" - brought a lot of people to free needles on these lines and made first - goal Clears. It had to be in the presence of very smooth auditing. It had to be in the presence of good auditing.

Now look, you don't have to have the pc on the meter and be studying the needle and studying the tone arm and all that. You don't have to hook him up to a battery of instruments to tell you that he looks sort of shopworn today, compared to how he looked yesterday. I mean, you already are a battery of instruments that ean detect this kind of thing, don't you see? In other words, look at your pc.

And wherever any rough auditing occurred - now, PR tell you what happened to these four lines - where any rough auditing occurred of any kind whatsoever, you got a jam - up and the tone arm started up toward 4.5 or 5.0, which is standard position for a tough stick. That's standard position: if you've got somebody's tone arm riding 4.5 or 5.0 during a listing session and it just goes on riding there and on and on and on riding there, man, that is wrong. Something is very wrong, as I will go into in this lecture.

All right. The pc looked raggle - taggled and wogged up one way or the other. Well, what are you trying to do getting in your beginning rudiments without running O/W? Why don't you just start the session, run O/W, a few commands and so forth, and get - let the pc spit it out. You know, just general O/W and get the rudiments in before you put the rudiments in. Is there anything wrong with that?

But in the presence of rough auditing, a pc suppresses. And in that suppression is able to produce sen and no longer gets pain even when he's listing on the right goal.

And if this pc is normally quite withholdy and has a hard time regurgitating items and so - so, well, run O/W, put in the random rudiment and then put in rudiment one. In other words, ask the pc if you missed any withholds while running O/W, see. You get the idea?

That's quite important, because a right goal can be listed so roughly, with the presence of sufficient rough auditing, that it’ll look like a wrong goal. And, of course, in the presence of the smoothest auditing in the world, the same phenomenon takes place when you're trying to list a wrong goal.

All right. Let's not just sit there and run some kind of a rote. Let's put the pc in a state to be audited, see. Straightaway - bang! "Is it all right with you if we begin this session now? All right. Here it is: Start of session." See? "All right, what we're going to do here now is going run a little O/W on you, just a few commands." Hope factor, see; you've already told the pc, "Just a few commands, see how it goes, so we won't have to waste a lot of time on rudiments," you know - anything you want to say. "All right. What have you done? What have you withheld? What have you done? What have you withheld? What have you done? What have you withheld?" 'Ah - ooo - wa - woo - oo.' - '

But, in other words, rough auditing during a listing session can make a goal look wrong, fire wrong, act wrong and otherwise raise the devil with the ease and everything connected with it.

All right. Now you've gotten down - the pc is in pretty good shape. All right. And you say, "Since the last time I audited you, have I missed a withhold on you? That's clean. All right."

Anyway, there is no substitute for good auditing. See? There's no substitute for good auditing and a good auditor.

"Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties? Clean." See? Clean as a wolf's tooth.

Now, what's odd is that there are lots of people in Scientology whose goals are not answered up to or compared to or measure up to or declare that they should be active in Scientology, who are in Scientology and who are doing very good auditing. It's not true that everybody in Scientology is dictated to be there because of their goal one way or the other. That's a lot of - lot of nonsense.

"Since the last time I audited, you done anything you are withholdine. You already got it. Clean. See?

But it also is true that goals very often assist people to be a good auditor. Let's say - let's have somebody with a goal "to listen to people's troubles" or something like that. He won't be as smooth an auditor as somebody who has a goal "to build mountains" or something, but he will still have some little special skills of one kind or another that pcs will find quite, quite attractive. You understand?

"Do you have a present time problem?" Well, he did have. Clean.

And then there is the broad majority of goals of people in Scientology which are just neutral. I mean they don't necessarily make them better auditors and they don’t necessarily make them worse auditors. And that is the majority.

All right. Roll up the sleeves and into a Tiger Drill. Get that goal firing.

And then there is a small group, a minority, whose goals are in opposition to Scientology, who feel desperately that if their goals were ever to be achieved it would be over the dead body of Scientology. In other words, as long as Scientology exists, why, they'll never make it, you see? In other words their oppterm is Scientology. And those people make very rough auditors. They're practically unteachable. It's terrible. And they also stop auditing and they'll do that sort of thing.

Now, I've been taking sometimes as much as thirty - five minutes to get in beginning rudiments on a pc and I finally realized that I was wasting time, because ten minutes' worth of O/W in every case had finally had to be run after the agony. And actually tremendous quantities of time were wasted in the session trying to keep the pc in - session when I should have run O/W in the first place. You understand?

You determine what people these are just with your rock slam test - you know, your HCOB that gives you the new Security Check - which would just rock slam. You know? "Consider committing overts against . . ." and then you say, "Well, Scientology, the organization, your auditor, Ron." You get rock slam on one or more of those things, you got somebody who’d be awfully hard to train and who will make a very lousy auditor until you've got that goal. You just take it from me, I’ve watched them now. I’ve watched a lot of them. I've wondered why is it that some of these people can audit and why is it that some of these people can't audit and why is it that the vast majority of people in Scientology can audit?

So your whole interest in a listing session is get the pc in some kind of shape so the pc can be in - session.

Well, the goal sometimes assists, sometimes retards, and the vast majority has no influence. Now, the rock slam test takes care of the only part of it we have great interest in, which is the people who cant audit. The reason they cant audit is just that they can never get grooved in on the subject of auditing; they’re always doing something weird in auditing. The pc says something and they jump down their throats. One way or the other they louse up what the PC does or says, you understand? And what they do is either add or omit and they never just audit. They add or omit.

Somebody here suggested the other day that "under the control of an auditor" should be added to the definition of "in - sessionness," and I think this is a very wise idea. Willing to talk to the auditor, interested in own case and under the control of the auditor.

Give you an idea. PC gives him an item: "a centipede." All right, the auditor who has an oppgoal to Scientology says, "a chrysanthemum."

Now, there's nothing better in running up havingness and that sort of thing than a good, flashing dash of O/W.

And the PC says, "No, a centipede."

Now, how much do you challenge those answers? How much do you challenge these O/W answers?

And the auditor says, "Well, how does a pc - how does a centipede answer the question: 'Who or what would have many feet?' Well, I’ve got it now: a naturopath."

You don’t, man, because you're using O/W to promote the thing. So the pc gives you six motivators and a victim. Fine! All right! Pc figures it's something they’ve done. That's all right. Because you're using O/W to get the pc to talk to the auditor about his difficulties. We don't care what the pc says just as long as the pc says something.

And the pc says, "No! A centipede! A centipede. A centipede. A centipede. A centipede!"

"What have you done?"

See, you've got a missed withhold going here, see? And the auditor says, "Have I missed a withhold on you in this session?"

'I’ve breathed." Very sarcastic, see. 'I´ve breathed."

"Well, you haven’t taken this item!"

"What have you withheld?"

"No, that couldn't be it. The missed withhold must be earlier."

"Everything."

Well, things like this happen in auditing.

"What have you done?"

Well, you start mucking that into a listing session or never acknowledging anything the PC says. He does 465 items, see, 465 items and finally he gets an acknowledgment, which is ”Mm - hm.” See? Now, that's an omission. But you can use an acknowledgment the same way to just louse it up like crazy.

"Sat here and let myself be butehered up day after day by you!"

All of a sudden the PC gets a horrible gleam in his eye, "Who or what would have many feet?" you know? And, my God, he thinks of armies and centipedes, and so forth, and this avalanche is just about ready to roar, you know? Just about ready to roar, and he says, "A centipede."

"What have you withheld?"

And the auditor says, "Thank you!"

"My better self'

The PC says, "Uh - eh - yeah, all right - uh - an arm..."

Get smart. Get smart. The pc is talking to you. Don't interrupt it for worlds for the pc will slide right on into session as nice as a fish going down a chute.

"Thank you!"

This one I gave this fellow I was telling you about, in Washington, when I suddenly said, "Well, to hell with this. There's no reason of knocking him appetite over tin cup." Made him sit down in the chair and take up the cans and you know the first quest - answers I got to my questions, "What have we failed to find out about you?" man, they didnt even vaguely resemble answers. But he was talking. He was talking. And remember, your in - sessionness; this contains that as a primary action: pc is talking to the auditor. Well, it doesn't even matter if he's bawling the auditor out, he's talking to the auditor.

And the PC says, "What was I talking about? Where did they go? What part of the roof didn't fall in?" Get the idea?

You don't recognize that the only serious condition of a pc is when they sit there too apathetic to say anything to the auditor. If you've driven a pc down to that point, you ought to be spanked. You must have done it, because at some time the pc was talking to you and then stopped.

Well, therefore, in view of the fact that errors of one kind or another can interrupt a listing session; and in view of the fact that PC protest, ARC breaks and rough auditing can make a goal simply - well, it can be found again - but it makes the goal turn on sen, look like a wrong goal, make the PC upset, not go Clear (that's the main thing that's wrong). He can list for months and months and months and months and months and he wouldn't go Clear under this type of auditing. In view of that fact, we required a type of listing which permitted a minimal chance of error on the part of the auditor. See, so an auditor's - an auditor would get minimally in the pc's road. And we have it in 114 line listing. Listing by Tiger Buttons we will call it.

Well, what did you do to stop the pc talking to you? That's what you would have to patch up. Matter of fact, you could take somebody that had finally run down and won't say another word to you and won't utter anything to you and won't say anything else to you and is never going to talk to you again and is just sitting there blaaah. They’re not mad, they're just sitting there blaaah. They're too weak; they just feel absolutely clammy on the subject of talking. They cant, and so forth. If you were to say something like this you'd be surprised; you'd surprise yourself. You'd say, "How did I stop you from talking to me?' See?

And we have that for this reason: The auditor doesn't comm lag by writing the item down, he simply makes a little strike on a card. He can't forget the auditing command because it's right on the card in front of him. And all he's trying to do is get all the items he can on the card - now, this is important to you because it isn't in the bulletin - he's trying to get all the items he can on the card without dragging the PC into an overlist. He doesn't want this PC to go into a long comm lag or feel badgered so items become missed withholds.

And the pc says, "Oh, well, you just wouldn't accept anything I said."

The only judgment the auditor has to make is: Is he demanding more items than the PC has or is he cutting the PC off before the pc has given him all he has? And that is the only point of judgment in this listing.

"All right. Good. How else did I stop you from talking?"

That is the single, most important point of judgment. Does he shut the pc off before the pc has given all items pc easily has? Or does he badger the pc into giving more items than the pc has on that line? Because he’ll drag the pc, on the second case of demanding more items than the pc has available, into a condition of invalidate. Items, when they're overlisted, feel invalidated; so, the pc becomes very doubtful and everything becomes unreal.

"Oh, you were sitting there, demanding I tell you things. I told you everything I got. There's nothing else. And . . . "

And, in the earlier case, the first case of cutting the pc off before the pc can give all of his items, the auditor introduces sen. So, you see, demanding more items than the pc has, produces invalidation, unreality on the part of the pc. You understand then? And keeping the pc from giving you all the items the pc has, produces sen.

Look, get off of the significance, scenic railway, huh? It's beautiful - those rails going around the peaks and beautiful snow - capped vistas and forests and streams and waterfalls, and so forth. The significance railway, I mean, you know? To hell with what scenery, let's have some scenery. We don't care if this railway is going to start running through garbage dumps, see? We're not going to insist on the beautiful vista. Let's at least get the railway running, you see? Let's get those cars moving. We don't care what the cars are going to go through or how much they clank.

So, if the condition of the pc degenerates on Listing by Tiger Buttons into total sensation and no pain, you know that the auditor is demanding more items from the pc than the pc has. You understand? If he's got an unreality growing up, you know that the pc is being made to overlist. Let me put it that way very straightly. Don't want to mix you up on it. 1, myself, haven't got it out here in front of me. You understand?

Some auditors are perfectionists. And they hear a screak in the wheels, you know, as the car starts up and they stop the car to oil it. And they've stopped the car, man, and that's everything there is to it. They won't get that train going again easily. See?

For instance, pc will list on a flow and he’ll list as long as the flow is flowing. But when the flow stops flowing he is then listing against a backflow which brings about a sensation of invalidation. Because the items which are backflowing against the items which he is trying to give, see, causes an unreality to take place. He doesn't think any item he's giving you is the right item for that line. Do you see that?

So the whole thing about a session is the pc's willingness to talk to the auditor. So in a listing session, this is terribly important. Because all doubt about willingness to talk to the auditor must be washed out before you start listing. That's real important. That pc shouldn't have any qualms about talking to you - no qualms at all, man, no qualms at all. Pc just talks to you.

Audience: Yeah.

You can always bring a pc out of missed withholds if the pc will give you any missed withhold or any withhold or any comment about missed withholds. If the pc will just talk, you can do something about it. It's when the pc will no longer talk that you're in trouble. So you really have to have those rudiments in for a listing session. The best way to get them in: get the pc talking to you. And you’ll probably find necessary far more often to run rudiment O/W in listing sessions than any other type of session. And it's so easy that you can overlook these things about listing sessions, see. That pc has got to be willing to sing.

So if you run this flow too long in any one direction by demanding more items than the pc has, the pc will begin to think that the items he's giving you are unreal. Because the sensation of invalidation occurs when a line has been made to flow too long in one direction.

Now, anything the auditor does that is offbeat, off - line or anything like that is going to prevent the pc from talking.

Now, on the other side of the picture - on the other side of this is, you keep the pc from giving you the items he has, then you put him on a whole string of missed withholds. He protests the session and turns on sensation.

Now, in - sessionness, then, doesn't have the importance of getting the meter to read. Its getting the pc so the pc will be terribly interested in his own items and will be able to as - is them and get rid of them, bing. And, you don't overacknowledge; you don't underacknowledge.

So the two things you can expect, principally and primarily from rough or bad auditing on a pc where the auditor is getting in the pc's road most God awfully - it has to be pretty extreme. Most of you are sitting there thinking, well, you drop your pencil once in a while and this upsets the whole session ... No, no, it - you have to stand back of a session that is really being run by somebody - just whisper Scientology at him and the ... Well, you know, it isn't the needle that rock slams, you see; the needle doesn’t rock slam. What happens is both ears rock slam and both eyeballs rock slam, see? Ah, you watch him trying to give a session; he’ll pull one or the other of these things. And it has to be awfully extreme before it starts really showing up. It's colossal. The little blunders that you make from time to time, and so forth, that isn’t going to upset anybody. You pick them up in the end ruds, and so on.

What is acknowledgment? Well, it's to let the pc know you got it. And if you were actually to sit there and say, "Got it, got that one. All right, got it. Got it, got it, got it, got it, got it," it would be very effective. Of course, you don't. You say, "Good," and "Thank you," and so forth. But you've got to give the pc the idea that you're getting these.

But you start this kind of thing, see, this big avalanche, and the pc's got centipedes, armies, so forth. And these things are just sort of stacked up in the slot and they're all ready to go down the chute, see. He just wants to hand them out to you, brrrrrrrr. See, like that. And you say to the pc - not you, but this auditor says to the pc . . .

Now, if you put your flat of your hand against the pc's nose and stop the pc while you very carefully look carefully at the pc like you're going to hypnotize him, see, and you say, "All right; all right now." Pc keeps giving you items, you see? "All right, now look at me. Now, all right. All right. Good!" I don't think you'll find that's necessary. You see, I'm being kind of hard on you, but I mean - these mistakes will be made.

The pc says, "Centi - "

Now, you want the amount - the amount of acknowledgment so the pc knows you got it. And that's how much acknowledgment you want. Well, that's how many you acknowledge. He gives you thirteen so fast you can’t go back - you already checked them off here - but you should - you don’t have to go back and count the number since your last acknowledgment and say, "Well, now wait a minute, now I'm going to give you a 'good' for each one of these." See? Those are all unusual actions. Pc has to be acknowledged.

"Thank you!"

Well, what is this? Well, it's what the pc considers being acknowledged is. Well, what is that? Well, it's being acknowledged. This is a human value. It's not a mathematical value; it's a human value. Acknowledgments aren’t one - for - one or one - for - ten or ten - for - one. Some poor pcs get ten acknowledgments for every one item, you know? You wind up as - ising the pc, not the bank.

And the pc says, "A - a - ar - armies, ar - armies, ar - armies, I think, ar - armies."

So keeping the pc talking to you is a question there of how skilled the auditor is in not getting in the pc's road and letting the pc know that the auditor has heard it. And that's the type of auditing you're looking at in listing sessions.

"Thank you very much! Now, you don't have any more items, do you for this line? We're getting awfully long on this particular list anyway. Let's see, how many do we have here? Let's see. Awful lot!"

All right. Now, this getting the goal to fire - now, let me give that a little more stress: getting that goal to fire. Now, did you ever hear a pistol "tick"? Well, when you heard it tick it didn't fire, did it? That right? Well, that's what I mean by getting a goal to fire. It's not carelessly used. See? We want rocket reads on this goal, man. Now, of course, there's this dividing line: You can put the pc into a terrific anxiety if you can't get his goal to fire. I can show you how not to do it. Sit back . . . "Well, I don’t know if it's your goal or not. I'm just taking you over from another auditor. I’ve never even ever seen the goal fire. Don't know whether it’d fire or not. Let's see, all right: to catch catfish. Well, it didn't fire that time. Heh - heh. Well, that didn’t fire, so on. Who said this was your goal?" You see? And, "Somebody say this was your goal? Have you had any sensation on it at all during your listing with your past auditor?" Oh, well, that is just plain - plain awful.

It's pretty bad. You’ll see it. You’ll start a co - audit someday and you’ll see it. You’ll actually see it with your naked, bare eyes; and you’ll be ashamed. Be fantastic. We stand back of some co - audit, untrained auditor and he’ll be trying to do this listing on somebody and, honest, they practically do everything but pull the wall off the wall and shove it in the pcs teeth.

You can slaughter a goal with the wrong Tiger Drill. Now, what you want to do with a Tiger Drill: just walk in on the goal and clean it up. See? Actually, as long as you're taking Tiger Drill buttons - it's Big Tiger that you use, by the way, at the beginning of session, not Small Tiger. On the sen side of the picture on this, why, you have three minimum and on the pain side of it you have three minimum. (PR go into that in a minute.) But you want Big Tiger - you want Big Tiger. And you want that - you want that goal firing. And just remember this: that pistols that tick haven't gone off - they’re not loaded. You want it firing. Now do you understand?

Now, what happens to the pc? The pc suppresses. He's being made to suppress. He suppresses the auditor, he suppresses the list, he suppresses everything, and so on, stacks himself up on a bunch of missed withholds, with all the consequences of the missed withholds, because each item, then, that he didn't give you becomes a missed withhold. And the next thing you know this goal that has been turning on sen once in a blue moon and pain all the time, now turns on sen all the time and pain never. And he's just going wog, wog, wog. And you can take a real goal and monkey it up this way, and you can actually have the pc getting the walls out of plumb.

Now, how much is a fire? How much is a fire? How frequent must the goal fire in the three reads?

I was fooling around with some research one day - during a demonstration session (withhold from you) - and I had been doing some research lines and I´d been trying to put some lines together and was doing some researchactually, analogous to this bulletin. But this was many weeks ago, before I went to America.

Well, let me tell you one of the things: You can work a pc up into an anxiety so you can get a rocket read, a half rocket read and a no read. You say, "To catch catfish." Rocket read. "To eatch catfish." Half a one. "To eatch catfish." No read.

I was sitting there and I had been, of course, fooling around with a bogus goal. You know, and trying to list this bogus goal. And it was actuallythe way I was working it out, you know - I got to a point trying to work out lines where I turned on motion. And you don't just turn on motion so that you sort of feel like things are moving and they're not or you get dizzy or something like that. Man, you can turn on motion which is really interesting. And while I was giving that session (it was to Reg there) why - I didn't miss any meter reads as you noticed but - well, I never have - but that - the meter was moving away from me like this suddenly. It was a little bit hard to find out where to look for the needle. And the table - the table was going swoop. And every once in a while the floor would go the opposite direction, swoop. I knew what it was so it wasn't disturbing me any; it was just where was I supposed to put my eyes.

Well, what's happened?

But pcs don't have that much equilibrium and they often get very worried when they walk down the street and have the sidewalk in the middle of the road and then back where they aren't. You got the idea?

Pc is sitting there saying, "Did it fire?" You know? "Heh? Well, did it?"

They also will become sick and nauseated if they're really roused up.

You know, you say, "To catch fish. The goal fired."

And if this is done on a wrong goal, you’ll just put the pc in the hospital. Supposing you had a wrong goal and then you wrong listed it: pc - hospital. I mean, that's about all there is to that.

And the pc says to himself, "Did it fire?" You know?

Psychiatric special. If this stuff ever got into the hands of psychiatrists, why, they’d have full institutions, brother. They'd make up their mind what goal it was.

Then you say, "To catch catfish," next time and he half hears you.

So I myself through listing wrong goals and through fooling with goals in research have a very good subjective reality on what can happen to somebody like this. It's very rough.

And he's got the goal somewhat suppressed. And then says, "Well, God almighty! It isn't firing!"

Now, the other one is not quite what you would be very familiar with.

And by the time you've read it the third time, of course, it's totally suppressed. That's the end of that.

It's sort of a hidden manifestation. But have you ever seen one of these characters walking around who is totally doubtful all the time? You've tried to sell them Scientology, I know that, from time to time. One of the ways to get to them when they do this to you; you say, "Well, now, well, you help people, see. That's what we do in Scientology; you help people. You know, you do things for them, you help people."

Then you start in again and this makes the pc very anxious.

And they say, "Well, how do you know you really help them?" You know? And, "Studies of the mind are no good, really, because, I know, because I had a brother once and it was all pretty bad, and so forth. And what do the medical doctors think of this?" You know, all this kind of stuff that goes on and on and on.

Mostly what you do wrong - and this is pretty uniform - is you don't keep a pc genned in. You run a secret on the pc. You run a withhold on the pc about what's happening. You can tell him with perfect honesty as long as you put in enough hope factor. That hope factor is quite important. You say, "Well, we'll get this thing to firing. Oh well, we'll get it to firing. Well, let's brush this one up and get it to firing so we can get going here," see.

It's very interesting. You've only got to ask them on any analogous subject, such as medicine, you say, "Well, what do you think of medical doctors?"

Now, take any of those frames of mind and oppose it to this one: "Well, I´ll see if I can get it to fire. Well, IM try. You know, oh 'to catch catf - .' Doesn't look that good to me. All right." That's a no - hope factor - a no - hope factor.

"Well, I don't know. Well, how does anybody know?" What's amusing is, is this person is so disoriented in general, is they will do the same thing with all subject. And you think they're talking about Scientology. No, they're just talking and this is the way they talk, see? And because you're interested and sincere in what you're talking about, you never - you miss the boat. All you’ve got to do is take your index finger and just shift the conversation about a degree and get them to talking about psychiatry. You get agreement, see, because the psychiatrists are no good either, see? See, and you get - they're just like the wind in the willows. You know? Any breath of air will blow that unreality around. And it's all unreal; the sensation is it's unreal. Those walls aren't real. They know that people have been kidding them. Other people pretend things are real but this only convinces them that everybody pretends. You see? They know that there are no well people. See? They know everything is bad. But, basically, it isn't real. Nothing is real.

No, you keep it riding - even if it doesn't fire. Why, you know this is the pc's goal. The pc has been getting pain on it and that sort of thing and it didn't fire. So you say, "Ah, well, all right, let's get this stuff off of it so it’ll fire." Pc sparks right up and gets the stuff off it and it fires again.

Now, although this is a phenomenon which can be produced by lessening the overt, which is how it's normally produced - things aren't real to somebody who has many overts against those things. See, the person - well, fellow's been burning houses and he's been spending lifetimes burning houses, and he's - just does nothing but burn houses. You watch him go up to the front door of a house someday and he can't even find the doorknob, you know. He tries to walk through walls - houses don't exist. There aren't any different kinds of houses. It's the most remarkable thing, you see? Tremendous numbers of overts against some object or item or type of person brings about an unreality on the overter's part for that thing, see, and it becomes totally unreal.

"Well, I don't know whether I can get this thing to fire or not. I had an awful time with it yesterday. And I don't seem to be doing very good with it." That goal won't fire. In other words, you can predetermine whether or not the goal is going to fire by your attitude of getting the goal to fire. Got that? You predetermine whether or not the thing is going to fire by your attitude toward the job of getting it to fire.

For instance, I have this to some degree on religion myself. And it traces immediately back to burning whirling dervishes. I just got into a bad habit, you know? Whirling dervishes show up, why, you execute them, you know. That kind of thing. I mean, that's the wrong thing to do, let me tell you. It produces an unreality on the subject of whirling dervishes. See, you go around whirling dervishes and they just are a blur - when they're whirling and when they're not whirling. They're thin. You can see straight through them almost. See, that's under the phenomenon of they become unreal because one has overts against them. That's the rationale back of this.

This isn't necessarily true totally, but it also applies in finding goals. You get too desperate about finding a PC’s goal and the pc will suppress all his goals. So you want to go into it sprightly. You want to go into it rapidly, brightly.

But the same exact phenomenon can be produced by causing a person to outflow too long in one direction on a goal line. See? So that he gets a backflow inevitable. You understand? You see this dramatization in life as somebody does bad things in the community until people have to do bad things to him.

And you just, "All right, let's get the suppressions and stuff off this and get this thing firing." Or maybe it is firing today. Well, let's hope; maybe it is - maybe it's firing already. All right, all right. Let's see now: To catch catfish.”

Well some dog - he goes around biting people or something like this for a long time, and eventually they'll do something to the dog.

”Mm - mm,” see?

You see this in real life that an individual committing overts has things committed on him, see. You see this in life. People enforce this one.

”To catch catfish.”

But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the simple thing of the fellow who throws a bowling ball out in front of him long enough will mentally restimulate a backflow against bowling balls. And the way to make bowling balls unreal is just to keep throwing them away from you and never recovering them. And they will eventually get totally unreal. You see why? You see that?

”Mm - mm.”

So when you make a pc overlist, what he's done is go out the flow line. Remember this is a very aberrated zone of action in the pc's mind. He's pretty spinny on these subjects. He's very identified and overflown and he jammed up. Well, if his goal was to be a pinball machine, he'd have a marvelous mess on the subject of everything was a pinball machines and the basic purpose of everybody in existence was to do things to or with pinball machines, don’t you see? And everything is identified with everything; all purposes are identified with his purpose, you see?

”To catch catfish.”

And you're going down this channel . . . You are operating now in Book One's A=A=A. You see, you're operating right where it lives. And don't be surprised sometime if the pc has some weird identification and you just can't make any sense out of it at all. Yet the pc says it's an identification. He looks at you quite blandly and says, "Well, all ashtrays are just exactly like roofs. You know that. All ashtrays are roofs," you know? Or "All women are mothers." He believes this, you see.

”Mm - mm.”

But you could understand that - how he could get into that. But now, how all ashtrays are roofs! You say, "This guy is unhinged someplace." Well, of course, you're operating in the zone and area of unhinged hinges. They’re by the gross lot on the goals channel because he's got everything identified with everything, and so on, because his flow lines have been all overflown and backflown. You see?

”What are you doing?”

He's got a whole lot of specialized flow lines - all of them overreached, all of them backflown on, and so forth. And when you're taking those things apart you must take them apart as to what's there. You can only take apart what's there. Do you understand? And although it looks to you, the auditor, as you sit there listing on a pc, that he's dreaming up these items and handing them to you. No, he's looking right straight down one groove, and it’ll be just one single bunches of file cards in the file machine, you see. There it is it's just that many items. And it goes right on down to that many items. And one more item will regenerate a backflow so that the last item he gives you he will now be doubtful about.

”Oh,” pc says, "I just had such an awful time yesterday getting the thing to fire, you know. I'm just holding my breath. You see, if I hold my breath just right, like that, the goal will fire." See? "If I don't hold my breath, the goal won't fire."

Now, he can put it down as - with perfect certainty, "a centipede." And then you cause him to list ten, fifteen more items in that direction. He hasn’t got them, man! He's got to go in past the opposite flow, which is now generated and flowing, and reach around. It's like going upstream against a roaring river, don't you see? And, after a while, he kind of says to himself, "It isn't worth it. There's nothing there." You know? The spray in his eyes and everything. So, you ask him for all these additional items and he hasn't got them: "Centipede" that he put down as totally real now seems not to belong on the list. See, he put it down as totally real and if you gave him the item back, he'd tell you, "I really don't think that that would want to walk. No, I don't think so."

Sometimes you can say, "All right, now the way to make a goal really fire is you hold that cigarette lighter in your hand there back of the can. And that's a good luck charm and that’ll make the goal fire." And sometimes it will.

Similarly the next ten, fifteen items, they just go. I mean, they're so unreal they'll just start disappearing. He won't even be able to tell you what item he has just said or anything like this when you overflow this.

You follow your natural bent of, "What the hell are you holding your breath for?” Or even if you say it, it's better than nothing. But don't say to the pc rather patiently like they're a small child, "Well, you don't have to hold your breath to make the goal fire or not make the goal fire. Now I´ll take care of that." And so forth. That's reassuring, maybe, but it's on the wrong side of the ledger. No, give them something that they will consider ridiculous or take seriously. We don’t care which way it is, now. Do something effective, in other words. You influence the firing of the goal. You know that you can make one fire through all of its suppressions and everything else? It’ll just fire - naked, all by its lonesome, right out into the blue.

But the basic thing I'm trying to get to is you can produce a total unreality on the part of the pc. You can make him feel just like he is in a world which doesn't exist. Now, there are characters around whose world doesn't exist and who don't exist in any world of anything to them. You run into brick walls but this pc never does, see. Never seems to be able to run into a brick wall. Of course he's always coming in scratched and contused, but he cant tell you how. See, brick walls are unreal. That's his difficulty. And, of course, he always runs into them - they don't exist.

You say, "Well, all right, now, I'm going to read the goal so it will fire. 'To catch catfish.' That's firing real well. Thank you very much. Now we’ll get on with the listing." That would be pretty short, wouldn't it? Well, you actually, the auditor, determine how short that will be by your attitude, your strain, your worry, and your lack of assurance, and so forth - and your lack of hope.

But his reaction toward life is uncertainty and insecurity. So, making a pc list too many items brings about a mental framework of insecurity, unreality, doubtfulness. And, of course, that extends over to the auditor, it extends over to auditing, it extends over to everything.

You want that goal to fire. All right. Then have it your intention to fire the goal. That isn't because you make the goal fire; that's because you intend to take responsibility for its firing. As long as the pc takes responsibility for the goal's firing, it wont fire because the pc is sitting there in a total, 'I’ve got to do something. I’ve got to do something. I don't know what Im supposed to do." You hear every pc say this: 'I don't know what I'm supposed to do in order to make the goal to fire. When you say this I don't know whether I'm supposed to sit here and not hold the cans, to hold the cans relaxedly, hold the cans carefully or if I'm supposed to sit up straight or so on and so on; if I'm supposed to think something, if I suppr - think something PR suppress it, if I don't think something I won't suppress it." You know the pc's frame of mind is pretty ghastly right at that point, see?

So, you could get a guy's goal and then list him wrong and have him believing at the other end of the line that Scientology was totally unreal, that it'd never done anything for him. I mean, you could list him into a hole to that degree.

But why? Its only ghastly because you're making the pc take responsibility for it.

Now, the weight factor of overweightness, and so forth, also belongs on the other side of this. That's not letting somebody give you the items. You can actually put pounds on somebody by continuing to miss the withholds. Isn't that interesting? Increase somebody's weight with this kind of auditing. Now, smooth auditing would decrease somebody's weight. Definitely.

"Now I'm take full responsibility for the goal firing. You just sit there and relax. 'To catch catfish.' That fired beautifully. All right, we’ll go on into the listing session now." That would be the shortest one on record, wouldn't it?

Now, do you see then, these are just - these are the two major factors. There are probably other things you can do. You could confuse a pc. You can get him wog - wog, so, you start in on the line "Who or what would want to catch catfish?" The pc answers "Who or what would want to catch catfish?" and you say, "No, you're answering 'not want' to catch catfish." You ask him "Who or what would want to catch catfish?" And then all of a sudden you make a mistake and the pc - he doesn't know, see. So he's sort of on a notknow. See, you can produce confusion; you can produce various things. But they're not as serious as these other two phenomena.

Nevertheless, when I say fire, I mean fire. Any goal will rocket read. Now, you can’t expect a goal to rocket read three times in a row if the pc suppresses the second one and cancels the third one. See? That's too much to hope for.

Now, therefore, this type of listing is designed to minimize the amount of time necessary to record the fact that the pc is giving you items. And that is its first advance.

So therefore and thereby, your action in getting a goal to read is in the direction of effectiveness. Don't harass the pc, don't worry the pc about it, but get that goal to fire.

A lot of you have asked me, from time to time, why we wrote them down at all. Well, we had to record them in some fashion. And I wasn't yet sure that we wouldn't have to do something about them. And I’ve become sure we don't have to do anything with these items. So, therefore, all you want is a tally system. You do have to have some check on parity to find lines are overlisted or underlisted. You do have to have this. So all you need there is a tally system. And I’ve introduced the crudest tally system there can be, which is four slants and a bar. And if you will look down at your right hand you’ll find you have five fingers and man counts ably. It's instinctive. You go slant, slant, slant, slant, crossbar.

Now the pc says, "Well, I have a whole bunch of items and let's not fool with the goal today."

You know that man's method of counting is based on five, not ten, see. You know that you can conceive five objects just like that. Science was, by the way, trying to prove fifteen or twenty years ago that a man could not conceive more than four. And I didn't go into the root of this thing, but I think it was being put out by some sociological, electronics computer man who had no thumb. Because the one thing you can count with a glance - you can count five.

You say, "Well, all right, let's not fool with the goal today. Good. Then I´ll just read it once and you just sit there. PR get it to fire. 'To catch catfish.' That fired. Fine. Give me the items." See?

As a matter of fact there are four hinges on these doors and one lock, if you consider the lock a huge lock. You can certainly grasp that number at a glance.

See, you did what you were supposed to do. You would be surprised, if you will take responsibility for the goal firing, how often it will fire. And if you take no responsibility for it and harass the pc for it, how often it wont fire. You get this?

So five is the easiest recording number. It's instinctive. Now, that's chosen not because auditors are stupid but because auditors becoming involved with a pc, and so forth, haven't got all their attention on numbers. So I’ve taken the most basic unit or cluster figure which is five, so an auditor won't be thrown by it.

I'm just telling you some of the little tricks of the trade. This is completely aside from Big Tiger, which we will have other talks about and lectures on.

He's trying to handle a pc who's having a hell of a time. PC’s squirming all over the floor and falling out of the chair and ARC breaking and writhing and all that sort of thing. Well, he's liable to get completely blooey on the subject of tallying. But if you give him an instinctive tally figure that is an idiot's figure, you know, he can keep on doing that without any attention. You got the idea? That's why that's chosen.

But, I’ve got to tell you that sen - sensation - this is the result of the pc being slowed down and not being permitted to list. And you can list a goal straight forward into total sensation. Now, I’ve already told you that. It gets to an all - sen proposition. Now, all sensation and the bank beefing up and the pc sick and nauseated are signs of a wrong goal when they're all present. But you can actually list a goal into all sensation without the bank beefing up and without the pc sick and nauseated. And when that condition takes place that is just knuckleheaded auditing. That is all. That's just preventing the pc from giving you items or being in - session. It's very easy and you can look for it.

Now, that introduces no slowdown. That introduces no slowdown, and it gives the auditor time to watch his meter and its behavior and also keep up his auditor's report and give the pc attention.

Now, pain will turn off on a goal. Now, the way if - you tell if it's a right goal is the TA is moving and it comes down and the pc is cheerful and easily put into session, the pc looks good, looks young, there's pain on it, also some sensation, and the pc's bank is getting less and the pc isn't sick or nauseated and feels pretty good. Now, that'd be the signs of listing a right goal.

Now, most listing sessions, the auditor has become so engrossed in writing things down, that he has not been able to give enough attention to the session itself and so has lost control of his pc. But if you're good at this, you can take - and you can look straight at the pc who is giving you five items, let's say, and you can go one, two, three, four, five, strike. You see, you don't need to look at what you're doing to record it. See? That, in other words, has been reduced to an idiot simplicity.

Signs of listing a wrong goal, of course, is the TA stuck up there at 4.5 or 5.0 and really stuck; pc ARC breaky, chop - chop, messed up; pc looks bad, looks old; there's no pain on it at all - it's all sensation; the bank is getting more solid and ridges are getting more solid and - outside and inside the body; pc is starting to get sick, nauseated; motion sets in - it's mainly motion - the whole physical universe starts going out of plumb and so on.

You know, it's very interesting the research I’ve done on this. It was up as high as 182 lines over the weekend. And I had one system - you can probably all think up better systems maybe, one way or the other, but I don’t think you can think up simpler ones than this. That's the one that takes genius. Anyway ...

You want to know how it sounds? Just take some goal that isn't yours and invalidate hell out of it. Think of somebody else's goal and then go off into a corner and make a bunch of invalidative, critical, snappy, snarlish remarks about somebody else's goal privately to yourself. You can actually start throwing the corners of the room out of plumb. See, it's not your goal and you're gotten - getting overts on it and you can turn on sen yourself. I don't advise it, but that's - would be one way to find out how it feels.

I thought of getting a tabulator but every time the pc said something, you stepped with your thumb on something, you see. So, all you had to do was shift your thumb every time the pc said an item, and then before you turned the card over you simply wrote the figure that was on the tabulator on your card and turned it over. See, that's very nice. There's only one thing wrong with it: it clicks. They will inevitably click. So the most silent meansand furthermore, it's a mechanical; you have to have something. Furthermore, mechanical things often break. And this requires a minimum: it requires a pencil and some cards.

Now, it's the responsibility of a listing auditor that he doesn't list a wrong goal. See, that's the responsibility of the listing auditor. You must not list a wrong goal! You must not do it!

Now, one of the big things I had trouble getting over, and it isn't totally solved: how to make a maximum number of items on one card without having to rewrite the card. See? Well, frankly, this is not totally covered in the bulletin, but you don't have to rewrite the whole card list; you can get by overstrikes with three colors of pencil, use. Because you can always see a group. You probably couldn't see the little individual slant lines if you had a black one and a red one and a green one, don’t you see, on top of each other. But you can see there's a black, red, green, you see, and the card is totally filled with black, red, green. You've still got an approximation even though it was very badly done. You get the idea? I mean ... Now, the way to do that isn’t in this bulletin.

So you get - this 114 - line setup is very carefully squared away on this basis: because it's Tiger Drill buttons, you're getting a sort of a running Prepcheck anyway which makes the goal ease up.

That card which totally fills up: You take a stapler and you staple to it another card and rewrite that one line on the face of your fresh card so they turn over two at a crack. You understand? And that doesn't let it all get separated out from underneath you. Now, that will, oddly enough, leave you rewriting only some cards. In other words, you don't have to rewrite the whole list all the way down. That's one of the easy ways to get on it.

Now, that's fine. And if you get the goal firing at the beginning of every session and at the end of every session, the possibilities of your auditing a wrong goal drop to nothing. See, just by the fact of following these rules: get it firing at the beginning of every session; get it firing at the end of every session - of course, it's just going to tiger drill out of existence.

Now, the odd part - here's another one: If you don't even want to rewrite the line, you can take a card that is less wide which still exposes the line and staple that onto the front of your filled - up card. You understand? I don't care what you do with this, but you can do this job with a stapler. Now, I wouldn't worry much about the backs of cards. If you turn the card over - if you turn the card over - you have lost sight of its overlistedness. You can make a little mistake there, don't you see? Because this card turned over looks just like any card face up until you turn it over. You follow me?

Now, a goal that disappears without producing a free needle on the meter was the wrong goal.

Audience: Uh - huh.

A goal that only rock slams and you can't turn on any rocket reads of any kind is probably a wrong goal.

Because - and it looks like it's a single card. Whereas if you've got a double width card comes up with this thing, it's immediately called to your attention that this line is awfully long. Do you see how that would be? This line is pretty doggone long if you've got a double card in your hand; whereas, this would not be observable to you if you had only one card turned over with the line written on the reverse side of it again.

A goal that ticks only when it's protested - these kind of things - when you only get the Tiger Drill buttons are out, does the goal read. These are the symptoms of a wrong goal.

Well, now these things - we probably will do things to them; you’ll probably find things change. But I’ve gone over this pretty thoroughly and tried to reduce it down through its cycle. All things go from a complex - from a somewhat complex to a more complex to a simple basis.

And you mustn't list a wrong goal. So therefore you must get a goal firing before you list. You get this? See, when we mean fire, we mean rocket reads. Now, those rocket reads will reduce in size as a goal is listed, quite rapidly. They'll come down to about half the size. A good rocket read is about an inch - three - quarters of an inch, let's say, that's a nice rocket read. Threequarters of an inch. All right.

You've seen this time and time again in Scientology. We’ll run this cycle:

Your rocket read on that goal will reduce quite rapidly by reason of being discharged to about a quarter of an inch. You - but you still got a quarter - of - aninch rocket read. It's not quite complete but it's a rocket read. It starts out very fast and decays very rapidly - the motion of the thing. And it strikes to the right on the fall side of the E - Meter. Rocket reads always strike to the right.

IM bring out something that's very simple, some auditor will be complete idiot with it, IM find out it's not totally workable, some goofball things will occur, some pcs will have some hard luck with it, and so PR make it more complicated, see, and then add the things that you mustn't do to it, and then push it on forward into more complicated, and all of a sudden the whole thing falls downstairs to becoming simpler than it was in the first place.

Those that strike to the left are just the reverse side of a rock slam. And you push them just - they're wrong goals always - you push them just a little bit further, they go into a rock slam. You push them just a little bit further and the rock slam drops out; they tick, you clean up the buttons and they’re gone. That's the usual course of a goal which at first reading strikes to the auditor's left as he faces the meter.

Well, I’ve tried to make this listing run that cycle over the last weekend.

But you actually cannot forecast whether it's the right goal or the wrong goal until it has been made to fire properly.

And I did it. One time I had it up to 182 lines. In other words, I was cutting it - it went way up; the complexities were terrific - and then cut it back to a simplicity.

Now, if you demand that a goal fires three times in a row, exactly right, with the pc sitting there without much faith in you, holding his breath like mad, worried stiff about the fact that you may take his goal away from him, you're nuts. You're just expecting the impossible. Don't you see?

Now, as you sit there listing, several questions will occur to you: How often should you use this question that is on the card to the pc? How often should you use this?

But one way to do it is to put the goal in a sentence: "On the goal to catch catfish, has anything been suppressed?" Well, it read didn't it? But just because it only ticks in that sentence is not meaningful either, because you haven't got enough intention behind saying the goal. You understand that? That's no sure cure, but you notice the goal is reading within those sentences - feel fairly safe as you're tiger drilling.

Well, you use it as often as the pc isn't answering it easily.

You’ll see a lot of peculiarities about goals. But don't expect that a real goal comes up, reads three - quarters of an inch, right on through to the day that it goes free needle, all of a sudden vanishes then and free needle ensues, because they don't. The course of a goal is more or less this way: a course of a goal is not down to tick. The course of a goal is full rocket read and often, as the pc isn’t suppressing or being careful or something else, you can tell it's a goal because it's got a nice full rocket read. You list a few sessions or a couple of sessions, and so on, you've got maybe a quarter - half a rocket read, something like that to say, "On the goal to catch catfish, has anything been suppressed, invalidated - ?" You see, right straight on down across those buttons burrrrrr. "To catch catfish," See. You got to learn to say that. Suppressed, Invalidated, Suggested, Missed - Withheld - because I've given it to you, seeand Mistaken. You got to be able to say those with no read on any one of them. See, there's no read appears on any one of them and a read does appear on the goal. And that's the - called the Instructor's check. You can always tell if it's a right goal. You get no read on any of those and a read on the goal. And that's actually, later on, the only way you can tell a goal. You’ve got to make sure there's no read on any of those, see. You can even be fooled by that occasionally. He invalidates it before you get to Mistaken.

In other words, your pc says, "A centipede, an army and a black cat."

But if you're going to give that check, remember to get Withheld, not Failed to reveal, and Mistaken or you can't say it in sensible English. You have to clean on your Tiger Drill, Withheld; and you have to clean on your Tiger Drill, Mistaken. Those are the versions that you can get all into one sentence that will make sense. lf you get no read on those and you get a read on a goal, that's the goal, man. You're all set. If you get reads on those and reads on the goal, of course, the read on the goal is the read you got on those and on one or another of them. Or the absence of read on the goal is because Suppress is hot. You s e to how this little cat’s cradle works out very neatly?

And you say, "That's fine. Thank you."

The only way you can tell a goal that's gone along the line for a long time is with an Instructor's check. That's the point I'm trying to put over to you. There's HCO Policy Letter form on it - possibly could be modernized a little bit.

And you didn't get any comm lag there, did you? No comm lag. But he stopped. He isn't still thinking, particularly, he's looking at you now; he thinks he's done his duty, don't you see? So you ask him the question again and he says, "There aren’t any more."

All right. Now, the reading of the goal must occur before listing. And this will prevent you ever listing wrong goals.

Now, you think, well, that's going to leave an unanswered auditing question, and sure enough it could, but he won't tell you there aren't any more until you really start straining him.

Well, so you listed it wrong. You listed a wrong goal three days running. Well, that meant you tiger drilled it six times. You got it to read at the beginning of session, you got it to read at end of the session. By getting it to read at the end of the session, of course, you wipe out all the nonsense that might have occurred during the session on mistakes and all of that sort of thing and suppression on items. By doing that you obviate further Prepchecking on this unless the pc is really in trouble.

Now, the question you're trying to answer is how often should you ask the auditing command, don't you see? How often should you ask this thing? How often should you repeat it? And how hard should you pound on the pc's head in order to get answers?

Now, a goal that ticks with a high tone arm - stuck. The goal ticks and the tone arm is stuck high. Well, you better explore this goal. You better look this goal over pretty darn good. And you better find out what were the conditions of its finding. That's the first thing you want to look for on some spook line like this. What were the conditions of its finding?. Did the auditor say, "That's your goal!" and the pc say, "No that isn’t my goal."

Well, in actual fact, you only want answers until he comm lags hard over them. The comm lag is going to be followed by an invalidate. His comm lag will end up with "trying to find the right one." And "trying to find the right one" will move over into an invalidation of anything. Do you see? So your symptom of the pc having been driven too far - already driven too far - is he can't get the right word. He's trying to think of the right word. Now, that isn't a phenomenon of the mind; that is an overrun of a flow. And you've already ridden him too far on that flow. You've goofed. That is classifiable as a goof, don't you see? So, where you want to stop is the comm lag which precedes that phenomenon. The pc is saying, "A centipede and - ah - ah - hmm - ah... A - ahhmm - ah . . . " And if you just let him go on with that, why, he’ll say, "Well, I'm trying to think of the right word for it," is his next stage, see? And if you let that go through and he thought of the right word for it, then the item he gives you after that is not the right item at all. See, first it's the wrong word, then it's wrong item. Comm lag, wrong word, then wrong item, see. That's the way he's going to answer you up on these things. So you got to catch him at that moment when he is just about to comm lag and hasn't done so very critically. Do you understand? That actually then requires some sensitivity on the part of the auditor.

Or just before the auditor read it off the list, the pc saw it upside down on the list and says, "You know, that's too - that's too much recent times. That's - that's - that's much too recent a time track area to be a goal."

That's why I’ve unburdened the necessity of the auditor in HCOB October 1st - unburdened the auditor's attention on the writing down lists and that sort of thing. Because that's the critical point.

And the auditor gets to it and reads it, doesn’t pick that up and said, "Well, that's your goal."

Now, if the pc says there aren't any more items on that line, this is not a balk. Do you understand something about listing. Pcs never balk. Do you understand that? Pcs never balk! They can be overdriven or distracted to the point where they're not in - session. But if they're even vaguely in - session they just never balk. They're not balking at listing. Do you understand? A pc will not balk at listing. He will always give you an item or another item or three items or four items, but he can be prevented from listing, see? The balk isn't there but the prevention is there. And if you look at it in this framework, both doing auditing and supervising auditing, you’ll see where the goofs occur. Do you follow that?

And the pc says, "No, that's not my goal."

You see a pc balking - apparently, see - just recognize pcs don't balk. Pcs have to be prevented from listing. See, the balk is just an apparency. And there's something there that's preventing the pc from listing and it isn't in the pc's head. It's either the lines are wrong - somebody's written up his lines, like "Who and - who or what would want to help, not suppress, because he didn't catch catfish?" and the poor pc is saying ... The line was never cleared with him in the first place, you see? Nobody came along and said to him, "Well, can you answer this line?" as the first time the line comes up on the pile, you see. "All right, here it is: Who or what would want to run away when centipedes aren't catching Suppress - Help?"

And the auditor says, "Yes, that is your goal."

He says, "Huh?"

And the pc says, "Huh - uh, that's not my goal." And, boy, you know that goal will read for months and years.

The lines are wrong or the auditor is actively preventing him from being in - session. Session started out like this: He got into the body of the session, the needle was free, everything was clean, got the goal firing - the goal fired beautifully, and so forth. And the pc is all sitting there and he's getting steamed up. He knows just where he is: They're going to start on the Create. See, he already knew this because he knew the bulletin or something. And he's going to start on the Create, and he's already got the first item there, see, a "candy machine," see. And he's actually been thinking of this as the next item. He's about to say ... You know, he's just waiting. All you have to do, you know - all you have to do is just open that stack of cards at the right place and you're going to get a "candy machine," see, bang!

You got to go back and get that. See, you've got to get that Assert versus the Protest. You got to get the Suggest and the Protest off of that thing. That's a mistake, man, so that has to be big tigered out. You have to take it out with Assert and Protest. Now, it could be in reverse. The auditor says, "Well it can’t be your goal because you're a woman and it says that the goal is to be a man and you're a woman and it can't be your goal. See?"

And the auditor says, "Well, now, all right, now, let's get in the middle rudiments for this session." You know that confounded candy machine will go through the rest of the session. It’ll go clear around till they get around to it again. And it’ll come up some day or another on a Suppress. He's prevented from listing.

Some auditor, way back, and he did this assessment in upper Kokono County or something and it was done by an ex - PE member, you know. Now, this thing is really goofy.

So pcs - just as a rule of thumb on the thing - from your standpoint as a Supervisor, an auditor's Instructor, and in auditing, and so forth - they just never balk, they're prevented. And you look, not for something that's wrong with the pc, you look for something that's wrong with that listing session or what's going on in it.

And by God, you run across it in a session and then this is never uncovered and nobody does anything with it - you know that goal will read. The only thing - weird looking about the goal is it never rocket reads and it always ticks with the same tick. Or it always goes squriggle - with a little dirty needle. Squriggle. Bzzzzzt, bzzzzzt, bzzzzzt. And it never does anything else.

Because, listen, you list lines on a pc, it's something like putting a button in a candy machine, see. Penny goes down the slot, hits the button in the machine, something in there whirs and some candy comes out the bottom of the machine. Only this machine never breaks.

Now, a goal which is in solely by virtue of ARC break has a constant read. Real goals have a variable read. Got that?

You can't ask him for anything on his goal line without him giving it to you. You just can’t do it! You see, it's very nearly impossible. Unless when you ask him, you won't let him give it to you. You have to get in there with a little sledgehammer and monkey up the chute, you know. You have to feed it an Irish penny or something. There ought to be ought on this. He has to be prevented because, frankly, he just will deal these things out like a professional gambler dealing cards. He just can't help himself; he’ll just deal, deal, deal, deal, deal, deal, deal, deal, deal, deal, deal. You just turn up the stack there and you read the auditing command and you're going to get answers if you're anything on the beam at all.

So you see a goal that always ticks, no matter what you do - you read it to the pc with the pc asleep and on the cans and it still ticks. No matter what you do or how you read it, you always more or less get about the same read. Boy, you'd better be awful suspicious because that is not the way a goal acts.

Once in a while you’ll get into trouble because he's got two buttons of the Tiger Drill crossed. That is to say, you should be running Suppress at this stage of the game and you aren't; and you figure it would be a Q and A to go back to the Suppress section and do anything about it, and so on. But you’ve already done something wrong if you get to that state. You've already done something wrong if you've got two buttons mixed up or something. See, something's already gone haywire with the auditing.

A goal goes in and a goal goes out, and a goal rocket reads, and a goal ticks and doesn't read. And it does this, it does that. And the pc gets very nervous. And then you read it and it doesn't read. And then you read it and it reads. And then you clean it up and it goes: tick, splash, dirty needle. "Huuuh!" you say, "That's good. That's a real goal." You got the idea?

Well, the thing to do is just sit there and list. Get your rudiments in, get the goal to fire, make the pc happy and cheerful. And sit there with your pencil alert and your stack just right and don't drop them on the floor. Just sit there and deal them off and ask the question. And the pc says, "An army, a centipede, a bulldozer, a - uh - uhm ... That's about all I can think of.”

But the one that goes - always goes a thirty - second of an inch tick and a thirty - second of an inch tick and you say, "Oh, hell, this isn't your goal," and read it again and it goes with a thirty - second of an inch tick. And you clean that up - what you just said - and it reads with a thirty - second of an inch tick. You get the idea?

And you say, "Thank you very much." And you turn the card and you ask the next question. See, just as neat as that.

Goals aren’t built that way. So the charge of "too constant" can be leveled at a wrong goal. And you get down to figure this thing out. Wen, this pc has listed it, suppressed items, done everything of this sort, has gone around trying to tell people that the goal must - this is actually a case - the goal must not be listed with "your" in the line. Actually the line would never clear; the line was protested. Every time the auditor read it, the pc protested the line. That line would never go clear until the protests were taken off of it. You understand? There was a "your" in it that shouldn't have been in it. There it was.

And then you say, "Now, who or what would oppose catching catfish?"

All right. An auditor says, "Well, I can't get this to go out. I guess that's your goal."

And he says, "Oppose catching catfish."

And the pc says, "What - I never even put it on the list. I’ve never heard of it before."

And you say, "Yes, that's right." Don't make him give himself the auditing command. Don't you see? The rules of auditing all apply in listing.

And then, of course, every time somebody tries to list this thing the pc said - tries to tell the auditor, "Look, this isn't my goal, I’ve never had this as a goal. It just came in this way, and I've just never had it."

And you say, "All right, yes, that's right. Who or what would oppose

And the auditor says, "Trying to chicken out." And consists (goes) on listing it, see. Hey, you know that confounded thing will tick and it’ll tick and it’ll tick and it’ll tick but it always ticks the same tick. See how that constancy gets built into the goal?

Say it softly so as not to blow him out of the water, but give him the command. He obviously hadn't got it, he's muttering it, see? And you say, "Who or what would oppose catching catfish?"

Now, you - it doesn't take any vast Prepcheck to strip this out of the goal. Let's just get slippery, let's be good auditors. What do you got? You got a chain? You got a basic on the chain. What's the basic on the chain? First time the goal ever appeared to the pc´s attention. When was it? What happened? Bzzzzt - bzzzzt. All right. The whole thing will rip up and it will no longer read. That goal is out. See? Nobody expects you to sit there by the hour to find out if it's a wrong goal. Let's get smart in our old age, huh? In other words, it doesn't take forever to tiger drill a goal, is what I'm trying to put across to you.

And he says, "A - ah - hm - hm - hm - hm ... Who or what would oppose catfish?"

Did you ever hear of directing the pc´s attention?

"Yeah, that's right. Who or what would oppose catching catfish?"

"What happened when this goal was originally found?"

"Hmmf' He says, "A game - I don't quite get the word - patrolman. Patrolman. Game patrolman. Patrolman. Patrolman. Warden!"

"Oh, well, a lot of auditors have gone into that. And I always tell them all the same thing: It's not my goal."

And you say (tick), "Thank you very much." And get the hell off of it, man. You got an answer to your auditing command, see, and you were lucky. Because that line was hanging fire right on the comm lag, and you opened it up on the comm lag. You understand? Get one item.

And you say, "Thank you. Thank you. Now, what happened when this goal was found?"

I sometimes ease the crush on a pc by saying, "Well, just give me one so the auditing question will be answered."

"Well, I always tell auditors it's not my goal. 'Tisn't, and so forth."

"Oh," he says very happily, "game warden." Gives you some old item. "Game warden!' You say, "All right. Well, that's fine. Thank you." Get how the thing goes?

"Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks a lot, I got that now. Now, what happened when the goal was found? When was it found? When?"

But the whole attitude of the session must be one which permits the pc to list items. And if you want to know how to list, then delete all out of it that prevents the pc from listing. And you’ll find out this is what has happened here on this Listing by Tiger Buttons. There's practically everything out of it that prevents listing, still leaving those things in it which make people Clear.

"When? Oh, it was found last summer."

Now, the whole - whole aspect, then, of a listing auditor is somebody who is in benign control. Benign control.

"All right. Good. Thank you." Got him talking. Ha - ha - ha - ha - ha. Got him to answer. We’ll take him right down to the ARC break that makes that thing read. Ha - ha - ha. They go bzzzzt - no goal. See?

Now, get this as a definite difference to Sec Checking. You say, "Now, have you ever robbed a bank?"

Or if it is the pc´s goal, even though the pc said it wasn't his goal, and so forth, it’ll start rocket reading when you get the basic disagreement off of it. In other words, a goal can read by basic disagreement as well as by rocket read, but a real goal reads occasionally by a rocket read. Once in a while it reads by a rocket read - once in a while.

And the pc goes clang! on the E - Meter.

So you'd better see a rocket read before you start to list. Got that?

And you say to the pc, "Come on, come on. Have you ever robbed a bank? I got a read here. What - ever robbed a bank?"

Now, as you sail down the line, one card at a time - you've got the cards all stacked up in front of you and your derringer laid along - oh, no, that's another game. You got the cards all stacked up in front of you and you got your pencil ready and you're reading off the line - now, the first time you go through these things take them up with the pc and. .. Doggone you, don't get in any arguments with the pc over these lines, because it’ll act just like I've been telling you about the goal. I’ve been putting on the coal about how invalidation or protest or something can make a goal read forever. Well, it’ll do the same thing with the line. And that line will never go free. And one day you’ll get back there and by golly, you've got 113 lines free, but every time you say, "Who or what would not help suppress a catfish?" the meter reads.

And he says, "Ho - ho - ho - ho - ha - ha, no, not me." Clang! "No, I ... As a matter of fact, I was the victim of a bank robber one time. Uh - uh - I was actually in a company that had a bank that was robbed and they really did me in."

You’ll have to prepcheck that line. You’ll have to big tiger the line. Now, the best thing to do is to follow it down to the first time that line ever appears and you’ll find every time, exclusively, that that line was the subject of a roaring argument that wasn't pulled in the session.

And of course, the Sec Check Auditor is not worth his salt who wouldn't have said at that time, "Done, man, done. You know, done. Have you - now listen carefully - you, have you, you, you, you, the one sitting right in the chair, you, now, you. Got that now? Now, listen carefully: robbed - robbed a bank? Now, that's the question now. Now, I'm going to ask it on the meter. Have you robbed a bank? All right, that's null. Thank you very much."

So if you get into an argument about a goal, let's get the argument off the goal. And if you get into an argument about a line, let's get the argument off of that line - both the right wording and the wrong wording.

Or clang! "All right, what is it, man? What is it now? What bank? What bank? Come on give here, man, give, give, give." You know? You know?

Well, we had a pc around here for a while that went out and told everybody his goal was plural. And his goal was actually on the list as singular. And nobody prepchecked or nobody tiger drilled both the plural and singular goals because the singular goal may have been the right one, but that being the right one was the only one that was prepchecked or tiger drilled. Do you see that as an error? You've got to take both of them. See, you’ve got to take the wrong line and the right line. You've also got to take the wrong ...

You don't do that with listing.

Supposing the pc had a misapprehension. He thought his goal was "to secure elephants." He went around telling everybody his goal was "to secure elephants," when as a matter of fact the goal was "to keep elephants." Hey, this puts a bad mistake on it. He finally finds out his goal is "to keep elephants." Well, if you let "secure elephants" ride, you're going to have the goal line messed up one way or the other, because he isn't sure now. You've got to tiger drill this goal to "secure elephants" and it’ll go out just in that much Tiger Drill. See? It's just out right now practically if you pay attention to this fact.

There are different types of auditing, appropriate to all occasions.

So you get into an argument when you're writing up lines on a pc and giving him lines and constructing lines and boy, you've had it. By the time you've added five or six versions of this line and tried to shove each one of them down the pcs throat and the pc has protested each version of this line, you have now six versions that will have to be tiger drilled in order to make the line go free at the end of processing. You got it?

Benign control: you're running an airy session where we're all pals together. And sometimes the items are funny, too. And sometimes they're very sad. Nobody is asking you, the auditor, to shed crocodile tears in sympathy with the pc, but don't go laughing like a bunch of goons when he's saying, "A dying mother, a perishing infant, a starving puppy." Don't sit there going to pieces, you see?

So, don't be a knucklehead, man. You can dig your own grave. So just don't get in arguments about lines.

Sometimes I know it exerts your control because you know what he’ll be doing a few minutes later: He’ll say, "A starving mother!" You know? "Ha - ha!"

How do you keep out of arguments about lines? Well, you’re supposed to sit down and compose the pc's lines, originally, in the first place, so they'd make sense.

Another list this will come up: "Who or what is no damn good?" you see. That’ll come up on that list. Different frame of mind.

All right. Look them over. These lines - the old lines, the create lines, the fifty lines, and so forth - were too hard for auditors to do. This has got enough lines so that a few inevitable errors that will steal into somebody's line is not going to louse up clearing.

All right. So - but the listing auditor is in benign control. Now, actually, benign control is far harder to exercise than very harsh "cop" 8 - C. Guy is in - session and doesn't even know it, doesn't even think of being out of session, auditor isn't in his way. It's a little velvet little finger that nudges him back into session when he starts steering out.

When I say that, you're going to run lines five to eight on the effect wording of the goal. See? All of you have been doing this. You've been listing those things as cause, see. You've been specialized in the cause side of the goal and never list the effect side of the goal. See? "Who or what would want to find? Who or what would want to be found?" And you’ll neglect the "Who or what would want to be found?" And you say, "Who or what would really want to find?" and think you’ve got the effect in, see. It's not, see.

Well, we - if the pc is saying, "Oh, God, I don't know, I mean, these pains through my stomach. They're just terrible. I mean, the pain ... Have we got to list any more today? Just one or two more items you know, and I thought a moment ago my heart was going to stop or my umbilical cord was going to go to pieces. Man!"

Well, you could make that mistake and it's still an answerable line and the line could still go awry and you'd still produce a Clear, see?

And you say, "All right, all right, all right. Now, look, we've just got a few more here, so forth. Just got a few more here. Let's finish those up. After all we've got a few minutes left in the session, you know." That's the way you handle people under listing, see. Persuasion, it's coaxing, it's the old smoothie.

So I've built in a bunch of possible errors. But this one can't be built into anything. Get in an argument with the pc about the lines. Oh, no! See? You come to this thing and it's - you come to this thing and it's: "Who or what would goaling (blank)?" and you're running Suppress. See? And the goal is "to be" and you say, "Who or what would 'to be' (blank)? Who or what would 'to be' suppress? To be suppress. Well, all right. Yeah, we’ll leave that in. Yeah, that looks all right." You've got to clear these things the first time you take them up with the pc.

And the way not to handle them is just to sit back . . . "Who or what would want to catch catfish?" And yet you could very easily get into an overwhelm frame of mind. The boisterousness, the behavior of the pc is very often quite overwhelming. The pc all of a sudden goes into conniption fits of one kind or another. The pc’s interest is sometimes as burning as a blowtorch, you know? Like somebody said one time, about somebody listing here early on the course. And, "And the pc told me all about - all about spaceships and exactly how they worked, and so forth." This was a girl that was auditing him that had a well - known antipathy to mechanicisms. "And the pc told me all about spaceships and how they went and how they were built and everything else; and you know, if I´d had the money right there in - session I would have bought one, you know?" They get interested, man!

Don't - you list a line - the first time you're going through these lines you take it up with the pc, you list it, then you turn it over and you take up the next line with the pc. In other words, you've got to clear those commands. You just ask him, "Is this line answerable?" And if it's not answerable don't get into a dog's breakfast on the thing. Make the changes he says unless it knocks the whole thing into a cocked hat and then delicately point this out. But, man that's delicate. And if you invalidate, run it off right there: "On this line has anything been invalidated?" You got it? Don't leave it sitting around because the line won't go clear.

Now, the only thing that can make a pc disinterested in auditing off these lines is the auditor. The auditors enter something in there.

Get in - if you do get in an argument about a line, tiger drill the argument, tiger drill the line - right now. Don't let it pile up because it won't ever list.

Now, this is a skill. This is a type of auditing. It has to be pretty well done. It has to be pretty well controlled. The more you interject into an auditing session, the sorrier you're going to be. And you just sit there and get them off and keep the pc at it and doing it and you're interested and everything is fine, the atmosphere is fine and the pc is in - session, so forth; man, he’ll just go ripping through at a high rate of speed.

You say, "Who or what would 'to be suppress?' Doesn't - isn't grammatical: 'to be suppress,' so we’ll put it down: 'Who or what to be suppressed?' No, that isn't right. Well, IM take it up with the pc because I don't understand it and maybe the pc will."

And if you sit there stopping him from listing, paying attention to a bunch of Simple Simonisms: he hasn't answered the auditing command, see? He went, "Er - ah - er - game, a game, no, not a game - uh - uh - uh - no, that wouldn't be the item anyhow; a - uh - uh - uh - uh - uh - a person who supervises fish. Uh - uh - uh - no. No, that wouldn't be the item. A person whouh - uh - a person who - uh - uh - uh - would fish. Uh - no, no, that wouldn't be it. Uh - let's see - uh - uh. . ."

Well, that's wrong thinking - you'd better take a look at that thing.

"Well, give me the item. Come on, come on, give me the item. I want the item, see. I want the item."

Many of you've turned sen on organizing some other - some pcs lines? You do to some slight degree, you know. It's all right - runs out.

"Well, a person who changed ... No, that couldn't be it. Uh - uh - who has no fi - hmmm, hmmm..." and so on.

But you can do anything you want to with a wrong goal except list it on yourself, you know, I mean. You say, "Who or what would beingness suppress? Who or what would beingness suppress? Who or what would being suppress? Who or what would being suppress? And then we've got another line here: Who or what would suppress being. Oh, well. Who or what would be suppressed by being?" And then, "Who or what would be suppressed by being - no, that's the same line. Who or what would get suppressed if you were? No, that isn't right. Who or what would be suppressed? Who or what would get suppressed if you be?"

And the auditor who just sits there and says, 'I must have the auditing question answered," see. "Give me the item. I’ve got to get it answered. It says right in the book the question has been asked and it must be answered, and so forth and so forth." He's just making a mess out of the thing, man. He's got the guy to a point where the guy is invalidate, invalidate, invalidate, and the devil himself couldn't prepcheck the pc back out of it again.

And you finally make up your mind to what it is. See? You come along and the pc takes a look at this - he's already wogged; don't give him too much of a one to run into. And he: "Who or what would get suppressed by be?"

No, the auditor's got to be slippy, got to be clever. He unfortunately due to his own stupidity, has asked one more time, "Who or what would oppose catching catfish?" He was sleepy or something, you see?

"By being," he’d say, "being is right."

And the pc has already been searching for the word, "A game - uh - uhthat wouldn't be the right word. A - uh - a park off - . Uh - no - uh - uhuh - uh - mmm - umm - umm - a - a - a game warden."

"Who or what would get suppressed by being?" All right. All right. We’ll answer it that way.

And the auditor has stupidly said, "All right. Thank you very much. Who or what would oppose catching catfish?" See? And then saying, 'I’ve got to get . . . " having made the mistake, have to compound the felony of making the pc answer the mistake, see. Idiocy.

The funny part of it is, you're not going to go too far wrong. You're going to go much further wrong if you involve it in an argument. Got the idea? Make it so that you yourself can think of an answer to it without self - auditing on the thing. And then if the pc says he can't answer it, then doctor it up so he can, but avoid arguments on the thing because this thing is listing in wealth of lines. You've got enough lines here so that you’ve got a wealth of lines. You've got lots of them. Unless, of course, you muck them all up with an argument and if you do that, then he’ll never go Clear.

No, the thing to do is to come off of it and say, "Look, we got lots of items here, I mean, on the line and so on. Just serub that one. Let's get onto the next one. You know?"

Now, if you want to know why some line isn't going clear - 113 lines are going clear but, "Who or what would worrying - who or what would worrying be?" - that line, he's always had trouble listing it. "Who or what would worrying be?" He always seems to have trouble listing it. The line isn't going clear; the line is stuck.

The pc says, "Oh, oh, oh, huh, what's the next one? Who or what would not want to ... oh! Who or what would not oppose catching ... oh, that's all right. Oh! Fishmongers. Fishwives. Safra - su - saf - ru. . ." You get the different aspects? So, you have to tune in. You have to know about this flow thing. And I spent a whole hour talking to you about this flow thing because it's the most important thing in listing. You miss that, you've missed everything. So it is very far from unimportant.

You’ll finally find out that you don't have to clear that line. What you have to do is tiger drill it: "Who or what would worrying be? On this line has anything been suppressed?" See? Tiger drill it. All of a sudden the Tiger Drill comes out and the only thing that was holding the whole line in - was not the items left on it because they evaporated out from under it on other fronts. Yeah, the only thing you had left on it was a stuck line.

It's the aspect of the pc which determines what you do in listing. Whether you ask for more or ask for less, forgive the auditing command, that sort of thing, smooth him out and so on.

Now, at the end of listing, what happens? It's just lines, one after the other, go free.

You want the pc listing easily all the time. And a perfect listing session is the pc is just sitting there, pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketapocketa - pocketa. That's all. Next card: Pocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketapocketa - pocketa - pocketa. Thank you. That's all. Next card: Pocketa - pocketapocketa - pocketa - pocketa - pocketa. Next card. See? That's a perfect listing thing. Practieally no comm lags, pc knows when the line is finished, pc in good communication with the auditor.

What do you do with a free line? Well, for the sake of formality, you can ask them to give you a single item as you go by them or you can say, "Well I'm just testing this - see if it's free and if I get a reaction here you can give me an item. Is that all right?" And you read the line, but you don't press this on past a free needle.

And on a very good session that was run today, twelve hundred items were listed in a single session. Interesting, huh? Well, that's fast clearing.

And when they're all nice and free, when all the lines are free on the thing, another phenomenon should take - took place and that is, the goal should kind of go "pop." Pc will have some cognitions concerning the goal. If these cognitions concerning the goal never occur, the goal is still in.

So you've said goodbye, I hope, to two hundred hours of listing to get a goal to clear.

"I thought it blew today." You will get so tired of hearing this from pcs, you could spit. They come into session every morning and say, 'I thought of a couple of items last night myself. I put them down here on a piece of paper and I know it blew the goal. I felt it go."

But remember, the one thing that can mess up listing is an auditor who doesn't understand it - an auditor who doesn't understand what he's doing.

You put him on the meter. The tone arm is at 7.0, you see. They're always feeling it blow. Well, when it really does go, then they don’t feel that it went - they don't. They'll say, "Well, when I was there - oh, I won't give you the cognition. Heh - heh - heh - heh - heh. I won't give you the cognition. You’ll have to find that out for yourself"

He's trying to keep that happy balance. He's trying to prevent the pc from overlisting - he is actually trying to keep the pc from overlisting because pcs sometimes will, see? Or - and he's trying to prevent the pc from withholding items, inadvertently. He's trying to keep out of the road everything in the session. The pc, for instance, all gone wog - wog; auditor doesn't get the rudiments in for his session; the pc then can't stay in - session long enough to remember what items he's supposed to tell you, or he's being distracted by the fact his wife is going to phone him at three o'clock and say whether or not he's been divorced, see? Auditor didn't clean it up, you know. Bad auditing has happened.

Now anyway, there's the extent - the extent of listing and I’ve tried to give you the conditions under which listing should be done; what you're supposed to do and the purposes of it.

And in good auditing you make fast Clears. And the cleverness of auditing takes place in goals finding.

If you find out that trying to get the goal to fire at end of the session is too confoundedly difficult and that sort of thing, well for heaven's sakes, the next time you tiger drill it, take it before the date of the session. See? Take it since Wednesday if your session that you couldn't - didn’t have time to finish really getting it to fire at the end of session - that was on Thursday. Well, the next time you tiger drill it on Friday, take it from Wednesday. See? "Since last Wednesday, on the goal, to catch catfish, has anything been suppressed?" In other words, clued the other session in that you didn't get it to firing and you’ll have very little trouble if you keep this going.

The smooth hammer and insistence and 8 - C of auditing takes place back there in Prepchecking, and so forth, see.

Now, all the preventions I can think of are in this, all of the actions. The goal itself is very meaningful to the pc, very precious to the pc. The pc figures the wording of it and so forth has got to be very exact. But in the truth of the matter you can almost have 20 percent of these lines written wrong as long as they make some kind of sense and could get some kind of an answer and the pc will still go Clear.

And then the clever, reassuring auditor - that's what it takes there in goals finding. When it gets over into listing, that takes benign control. Pc doesn't even know he's sitting on control and he just sits there and spits out items of express train, jet speed. They're all down on the list. Finished. Clear. Free needle on everything. That's all there is to it. It looks very easy.

Now, there's the Tiger Drill and tigers must be fed, so we have the rabbit effect. And the rabbit effect is, of course - the girls probably won't understand this too well, but the boys do - I mean, the rabbit effect, of course is - it's very suggestive because it breeds lines. See, that's why it's a rabbit effect. You got a rabbit. The pc is - he's had this minuteman - minuteman. You know? And does a minuteman fit here? No, it doesn't fit there. Now, a minuteman, a minuteman - he's always had this minuteman. He finally tells you that minutemen subvert. Oh well, give him a break, put subvert on the list. That's how you handle a rabbit effect.

If anybody is dead against anybody being Clear, though, he won't do it. Don't you see?

Well, what would be the relationship of a minuteman to the goal so that you can’t get it on the list?

Okay. Thank you.

Well, he'd subvert things. Wouldn't do anything else. He wouldn't damage and he wouldn't agree with and he wouldn't destroy and he wouldn't create and he wouldn't withdraw and he’d subvert.

Well, that's only when you get a spare item. Don't get inventive unless the pc gets in trouble. The rabbit effect will then take place and breed you out of existence, because it immediately and instantly gives you six more lines. One rabbit gives you six more lines.

You say, "Well, what does a minuteman do to beingness?"

"Well, he subverts beingness. That's the only thing there can be."

Now, I wish to call to your attention that a lot of old ghosts have arisen and that Routine 3 really is Routine 3. And this is all very amusing, but you're looking now at the reentrance of the Prehav Seale back into Routine 3. This is a bobtail version of the Prehav Scale and I studied the Prehav Scale for a long time to find out what buttons on it were important in goals. These buttons certainly are.

The most important buttons are, of course - are ordinary Tiger Drill button. But these buttons would be very important to run.

Now, you can change the sense of this by changing - by - well, take Agree with - Agree with: "Who or what would a rabbit agree with?" To be a rabbit's goal. "Who or what would a rabbit agree with?"

And pc: "Got to get it off - got to get that - in other words, it's to - toyeah, I can answer that. Who or what would a rabbit agree to?"

And you say, "All right. Well, give me a sample."

"Well, he'd agree to a rabbit feeder and he'd agree to this - he'd agree to various types of forms. To agree with - he wouldn’t agree with anything at all. He'd only agree to."

All right, use "agree to." See? Don't get involved in an argument on the thing - pc won't lead you too far astray.

Now, that's about the - that's actually - with the data that is in this bulletin, which hasn't been fully covered and the actual lines themselves, the actual buttons themselves, and a few other things such as your Model Session - just about wraps up how you do a listing session.

I have tried to give you the one thing the bulletin doesn't give you - that is, how you ask for them and what you do and how the Tiger Drill works and what - what you handle and then what's important about a listing session and so on.

There's only one thing I haven't said. I haven’t said whether you bring the list into parity finally or not and somebody's going to be worrying about that. Well, if the pc goes free needle on all lists without you bringing them into parity, I am very happy. But your ticks will show you that a pc, if he's jamming, is probably jamming on these items that don’t have any ticks on them at all. And the main ones that you've got to keep parity for are the first twelve. They've got to be in fair parity. They've got to be of somewhat equal length.

But you’ll find out that he inevitably scouts "oppose" all the way through. And that line on final test on 114 lines for free needle, sticks. You can go through those cards and find out, well, of course it sticks. He never listed anything on it, so there's something wrong with it or he never gave you any items for it.

So you straighten out the line. 'Is this line answerable?" you say to him.

"Well," he says, "yes," he says, "but nothing would oppose a rabbit. Nothing. Nothing - nothing would oppose a rabbit. Nothing. Nothing."

Well, give him a clue. You know? You say, "Well, all right. I´ll take that as an answer - nothing."

"Oh," he says, "that is an answer, isn't it?"

"All right. Let's give me some more," See? And coax him out and bzzzt and bow and bang and bang and bang and bang, and zoooom! And all of a sudden this hold - out line will go free - merely because you can see very clearly its wording and the fact that it wasn't listed very much, so there must have been something happen to it.

And at the end of clearing, which is the end that you’ll be worried about, you’ll find out those lines won't go free that haven't got anything on the cards. And there's something wrong with their wording, so a good auditor can take those cards and he can straighten those cards out and he can straighten those lines out and he can find anything and he can get the few items left on them. And he can actually take everything else out of the deck, except those few lines that didn’t have very much on them; bring those things up to date and they'll go free needle too. Savvy?

So you need that for your tally work. So that's the way that thing is put together. It's more complicated, perhaps, than you might have wished.

There have been people that since 1950 have been dreaming that they won't have to take any responsibility or have any auditing or get off any - I think it's to get off any withholds - in order to get a Clear.

And somebody would walk in with a horse syringe and thrust it into the gluteus maximus, press the plunger authoritatively, and they would go "Whee!" and they would be Clear.

Well, I can call your attention to the fact that man has been trying to clear man in this way and with other things for a very long time and it has yet to be effective.

Now, even though this is a little more complicated than you would ordinarily look for, compared to a horse syringe and so forth, why, you aren't spared any of the difficulties that you would be spared with a horse syringe because the pc will scream on these lines, too.

Every once in a while the pc will let out a piercing little "Yeeeep” you know. And sometimes the pc falls out of the chair and writhes on the ground.

So what? You’ll find out the pc will go Clear if listing sessions are done somewhat as I've told you tonight.

Thank you very much.