Well, another evening. What-what’s the date?

Okay, this is Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture number two, 13

Audience: Thirteenth.

December AD 12.

Thirteen Dee., AD 12. Have you been lucky today?

Well, there’s nothing much to talk to you about now, you know everything. And I noticed at the end of the last lecture you looked a little bit disheartened.

Audience: Yes. Yeah.

And there is a direct law concerning your disheartenment. There’s a law that embraces this. It’s the more you goof the more disheartened you will get! That’s a law. We’re now not dealing with a-an area of-we hope the process can be tailor-made for the pc; we hope the process works on the pc. We’re not dealing with that type of material right at the present moment. We’re dealing with open and shut material.

Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture number one.

And it’s always very dismaying for an auditor to fool around with something like that, because there’s only one person that shows up, and that’s the auditor.

This is a lecture on 2-12, needle behavior.

Now, for a little while, an auditor who’s being shown up has a tendency to try to kick back against the material. He’s — not producing a result, he thinks, or he’s goofed up, so he doesn’t know that the material will produce a result. So on a technique such as 2-12, it is necessary that somebody be shoved hard through to a win. Actually, it requires a subjective and an objective win on the part of the auditor.

Nomenclature:a clean needle. What is meant by a „clean needle“? What is meant by „cleaning a needle“?

If he wins on a pc, and he gets a win on it himself he consistently gets some more wins, showing that it wasn’t a fluke, now, he knows very definitely that it is the matter of his auditing, and it is not the technique.

Well, not what you think. We want a free, flowing needle. We want a needle which, when it comes up the line, doesn’t go tick-tock. Not when we say anything! Now, let me get this point across, here. I’ll be calm. The auditor is saying nothing. Do you understand? The pc is sitting there. The auditor is not doing a thing. You got that? He’s not even reading the meter probably. And under those circumstances there is no faintest trace of irregular or reacting motion on the needle.

Now, this is a hard thing to confront. It’s something like somebody saying to you suddenly, „Be responsible!“ And heh-heh-heh-heh! That’s kind of a nerve-wracking situation. You could always lay it off on something else.

I knew I could get this one across. I just saw a couple of cognitions. Now, you’ve been thinking that cleaning a needle had to do with when you said something it went bop, and then when you said something again it didn’t go bop. And that’s not cleaning a needle. I make my point?

Now, R2-12 has the characteristic however, of producing results if it is done right. Now, oddly enough, it’ll produce results when it’s not done absolutely right. And therefore is fairly hard material. You will at first regard it as very critical material, and you will hear-have people around in organizations and so forth, telling everybody that it is very, very difficult, and that they have to study very, very hard, and they have to this and they have to that. And after they’ve passed 115 checksheets, and run around the block on their hands and so forth, then they will be permitted to sit in and watch a session in which an item is being found, you see. You’ll get this kind of stuff.

Audience: Yes.

Actually that is not the approach which I advocate at all. The approach I advocate is: take the guy by the scruff of the neck, throw him into the session, say, „Produce a result.“ Make sure he’s getting audited on it at the same time. So he gets a subjective and objective reality. Then his interest is piqued. He sees something is happening around here. And then he wants to know why it’s happening around here, and therefore he studies it not just as a grind or a rote, but he studies it as something that will do something.

That is just taking a read off the needle. You can clean a read off the needle, but that doesn’t give you a clean needle.

And that’s a lot different than the attitude of, „Well, if I study this very hard I will get a Class IV,“ see, or, „If I study this very hard I’ll get a Class II,“ or something like that. No, it’s „If I-there is something here. And if I study this, why, I will be successful with pcs.“

If you will watch a needle on a preclear, at some time or another in the source-in the progress of processing-at some time or another in processing, probably during listing-you will have finished a list and will not yet have Qed-and-Aed, see? And at that moment you will see a needle undergoing a slow, pleasant rise and, less usually, a slow fall. It would be flowing. That’s all it will be doing-a flow.

Therefore the pc-the auditor wants to know all about it. He will-“How does this thing work?“ You know, and obviously it just has an unlimited number of variables. It’s just obviously, when you first look at it, you’ll say, „Oh, my! Heh-heh-heh! Oh-oh-oh! This thing must have hundreds of laws, you know, and there’s all kinds of special cases, and special conditions, and there’s all kinds of this and there’s all kinds of that and how devastating, you know!“ And nevertheless, he still stays fairly willing. And just like I did on you in the last lecture, I throw something brand-new in your lap and say, „Get a clean needle before you start nulling.“

You can see that needle flow. This is particularly true of a Mark V. I-a Mark IV doesn’t even begin to express it like a Mark V. But a Mark IV will also express it. And there’s that needle, and it’s just-you can’t even begin to approximate it with your finger on the tone arm because that is too irregular a rise. You understand?

That’s pretty grim! And it’ll be grim right up to the moment when in your next session you get a clean needle. Then you take a look at the thing, and you say, „Hey, what do you know! Wha-ha-ha-ha! Here’s one of the damn things!“ And you say to the pc, „Look! Look! I cleaned your needle!“ Goes tick, tock, thud!

It is a total uniform speed. There is not the faintest tick in it! There is not the famous-faintest speedup! There is nothing. It is just like molasses pouring out of the barrel. And there it is. And that’s a clean needle! And that’s how I want you to get your needles before you start nulling, and you won’t have any more trouble.

But the process, the routine, R2-12, is specially designed in training, and its training is based on that. Walk before you read a book about walking. And then you want to know how to walk, read a book. In other words, get the auditing done. Get auditing done.

And I’ll bet you right now there’s several amongst you who don’t think it’s possible.

Now this only has one liability. You’ve got to have somebody around who has to know how to untangle a case. And that’s the subject of this lecture. If you’re going to let all these people sit there in a co-audit and audit, why they’ve got to have somebody there who’s backing it up. And who can untangle all these wild goofs that are being made. Because these goofs are going to be made, man. And this, of course, is all part of it.

Well, I can tell you that it isn’t possible to null with a needle any other way. If you put your big mid ruds in, your needle will look like that unless you clean a clean or miss a read. Absolutely faultless mid rudiments will give you that needle. And if it doesn’t give you that needle, you’ve missed one or cleaned a clean! You’ve goofed!

This person is sitting there, and it’s kind of a rock slammy kind of auditor anyhow, and he’s sitting there and he says, „Now look! Ha-ha! Heh-heh! Look, look! I-I opposed it just like you said! Ha! No item! Pc looks like hell! Ha-ha!“ You got to know the right answer. You say, „You do so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so.“ And then hover over him like ä dark, vulture shadow, make sure that he does just those things. And he finds himself sitting there looking at a result.

There isn’t a pc that you’ve been auditing lately that I couldn’t have a clean needle on in the course of fifteen or twenty minutes, no matter what they’ve been up to, with just the weapons you’re using-big mid ruds. Just that, nothing else.

This kind of surprises him. And when this happens to him and so forth, fine. But supposing several of these goofs got by, as in any large group doing a co-audit, supposing several of these goofs got by. And you’ve got a case that’s hanging its head. Well, now, the basis of the training of 2-12 is: use it; see that it produces a result; and let that auditor get a subjective reality on it. That modus operandi is totally defeated by one mucked-up case.

Look, please. You’re in over your heads on 2-12, trying to figure out what you do on 2-12. And your trouble isn’t with 2-12, see. 2-12 actually is very simple.

Well, R2-12 won’t muck up one case and be beneficial to fifteen more, providing somebody knows how to untangle them. Well, as many of you, right at the present moment, are in the stage of getting a good solid reality on R2-12, you’re not yet up to the stage of untangling a case. And I threw you an awful bomb, in the last lecture saying you’ve got to clean up a needle and that’s what a clean needle looks like. And in fact it laid you out cold. I might as well do the same thing in this lecture, and say, „Well you think you’re going to know all about R2-12, well, there’s a special technology on top of R2-12 of how do you straighten out a case that’s been goofed by R2-12.“ See, so it isn’t enough to know how to do R2-12, you got to know how to straighten out a case that has been goofed on R2-12.

There’s various things about 2-12: You always oppose a rock slamming item. Opposing is senior to representing. If you don’t get an item which is unmistakably it, you extend the list. I mean, these things-these things are easy. These things are easy.

So you’d be very interested that this whole technology consists of simply then doing R2-12 right. And the only crime that is irreparable-there is one irreparable crime-is to lose the guy’s papers and reports. Tih, you can’t do very much about it-if you do that. So that becomes the one thing you have to safeguard.

The trouble auditors have trouble with is the fundamentals of auditing, the fundamentals of auditing. And let me tell you, you start goofing up with your TRs, you start goofing up with your meter, and you now have a process that somebody looks down your throat and knows you have been.

And one of the ways of losing reports is careless labeling. You don’t have the pc’s initials and the date and the page number and the question being asked on a separate sheet of paper, see. This piece of paper then can drift. Here’s a long sheet of paper and it’s got all kinds of names on it and items on it and it goes down to the bottom, but it joins up with nothing else and you don’t know where it came from. One fine day somebody drops the folder. Hehheh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh! That’s all that can wash up a case in R2-12. Take my word for it, that’s all that can wash it up.

If there’s anything wrong with 2-12, it is so positive in its gain that anybody can tell you’ve been goofing. In other words, 2-12 starts showing up any fault you have with your TRs, your Model Session and a meter.

So it doesn’t become just a weird idea to label each separate sheet, see. It’s not the top of every page. It’s just let’s make sure that every sheet, see, every separate piece of paper, has the pc’s name, the date, and the question, even in shorthand. Let’s suppose he’s opposing roses. It’s at least-says, „W/W Op Roses.“ See. And maybe that’s a four-way sheet. One of these big folds. Well, actually, it only has to be on that sheet once, because nobody’s going to tear that sheet in half That’s-makes it an identifiable sheet. And you can get the folder back into some kind of shape.

Before, these could be submerged into the upsets and vagaries of the pc. You’d say, „Well, he’s having a hard time, but he’ll come through it.“

Now, it’s very interesting that in the last two or three days — oh, not the last two or three days, in the last week-I’ve sorted out several eases, two of them very noteworthily. Mary Sue was sorting out one last night, or night before last, rather. And let me tell you. If it hadn’t have been for those labeled sheets, why, we just would have been from nowhere, see. But because those labeled sheets existed, and the thing could be assembled back into sequence, which it had fallen out of, we could find out what the devil had gone on from the lists.

There’s only one period during 2-12 when a needle looks some other way or when a session looks awry. And that’s when you’re about a third or halfway through a list, you’re getting up toward the end. It’s hot. The pc doesn’t want to confront that next string of rock slamming items. He starts throwing little brakes on, little protests and that sort of thing, and you clean it up and it goes dirty and you clean it up and he goes dirty. Or when you are-as you inevitably will, as any auditor does-try to null an incomplete list, a list which is almost nullable. It hasn’t got the item on it, but it’s got enough charge off of it so it looks like it can be nulled if you keep your mid ruds in. When you get yourself into that situation, yeah, your needle will look rough, but you smooth it out. And then it looks rough, and then you smooth it out, and it looks rough, and you smooth it out. You should make up your mind sooner or later that that list is incomplete.

And in one of them there was a demonstration-had actually picked up a slamming item. The item had never slammed since and that was what the case was hung on. Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh! See? Just a fluke that was right there in that demonstration. There it was, R/S slant, R/S slant, R/S and then out. All right, so it went out in a demonstration, that doesn’t mean very much, because the case had several dead horses, one right after the other. So looking for a List One item, which was R/Sing.

But the point is, yeah, there are periods during 2-12 when somebody is snarling, see, and when the needle is this way. Because after all, the pc is undoubtedly going to get misemotional. Undoubtedly the pc is going to develop some somatics and say no. Undoubtedly some great big crashing rock slam is just over the horizon.

So, in patching them up you want the papers. And when-you let anybody do R2-12, as long as they’ll keep the papers. But they’ve got to keep the papers. That you got to impress people with. Because you can really goof a case, irreparably, if you haven’t got the papers.

The pc sits there and he says, „Well, that’s-that’s complete. That was the last-the last item I put on was it. Yeah. ‘Fuddy-duddies. ‘That’s the last one. That’s a-that’s it. I know it’s on the list now.“ Sell, sell, sell, sell.

This compares to goals. One case has gone on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Went on and on and on, I don’t know, the case must have written two-three thousand goals. I finally got very, very curious about it, and sent cables everyplace, and I finally picked up the terminal that gave the pc’s goal. And that was the pc’s goal. See? Finally managed to run down, in other words, the piece of data in folders, that delivered the pc’s goal into our hands. It was on another list, see.

You look at the needle-looks all right, nothing wrong with it. Make a few tests one way or the other-looks all fine. You go back and try to null the thing and now it’s dirty and it’s this and it’s that and it’s the other thing, and you’re in trouble all the way. You decide to extend the list and find out three more items later he had a dial-wide rock slam. That was what he was trying to get complete before he reached.

You will run into that too. You’ll be looking for the pc’s goal, and the pc’s goal, and it isn’t on any other list, you start going back and nulling lists. Looking and looking and looking and looking. Then you remember there was a goals list in a Handbook for Preclears. Pc’s goal appears as number one on it. See?

Oh yes, there are periods during 2-12 when the meter looks awfully, awfully gammy and messy. But when you’ve got the list complete, and when you put in those mid rudiments to test that list for completeness-which test, by the way, is only a conditional test now. You’ve got to make a full test the way I gave you in the first place to really find out. „Is it complete? Are there any more items? Have you thought of anything else that should have gone on the list? Could there possibly be anything else on the list?“ — Any of those questions produces a reaction, the list is incomplete.

You get kind of nervy when you realize that most of those Handbook for Preclears that people have been filling out over the years have been thrown away, and they’re not any longer available. There was a little goals list.

Just stating the question itself, which I gave you to try to help you out was-made it too easy for you, because it doesn’t deliver the goods.

But with R2-12 it is even more important. We now have the techniques that if you did them long enough on the pc and followed down along the track long enough, the goal would finally dump out in your lap. He isn’t totally stopped. But supposing somebody has stopped R2-12. R2-12 then becomes, in its papers and administration, becomes more important than a goals list.

We’re talking about, now, a clean needle-a clean needle. And a clean needle looks like molasses being poured out of a bucket by a statue. There’s just no slightest vestige of anything on it. So there’s another E-Meter characteristic. There’s another ;meter characteristic that has not been stressed, because one has talked about it, and it has apparently been so obvious, but there’s a lack of communication here. And I realized last night that there was a lack of communication.

Now, I was down digging through folders-some of your folders-in the last few days. I was very, very, very impressed, with the near possibility of not putting the ease back together again and in one of these cases the key list was only two pages long. Heh! The auditor had called it a complete list, see. We didn’t know what it was or what question had been asked; it didn’t appear on the auditor’s report. And that list had been picked out of the pc’s folder by the auditor and had been put in his own papers.

I’m not blaming you for this lack of communication. I mean, I’m not blaming you for not having-its not having gotten across uniformly and universally. Not blaming you much. Of course, you don’t know what the hell’s the matter with you. But it’s all right. I’m being calm about the whole thing — within reason.

We were tearing the place apart trying to find that one sheet of paper. Now, when you figure out the number of sheets of paper that go through your hands on R2-12-any one of them, you see, might contain that one piece of data. And we found out what we had to know: that that list was only two pages long and that two items had been found on it, neither one of which R/Sed. The list was not complete and we had found where the bypassed item was. Very, very interesting. Case had hung up there. That wasn’t what we immediately started to work over the case with. We started earlier than that on another bypassed item, which we got record of, which I myself had remembered. I remembered it. It was not part of the pc’s record.

There’s this thing called a clean needle. And the definition of a clean needle is something which flows at a uniform rate of speed at a period when the auditor is doing and saying nothing. That’s a clean needle. And dat’s da way they ought to look.

That’s how touchy this sort of thing can be. Mark down what happens. Mark down what R/Ses. I don’t care how many notes and scribbles that you add to sheets of paper and lists-how much data there is there. The key data that you want is: Did it R/S? Were things R/Sing when they were written down? In other words, was it a rock slamming list? Was there one rock slam on it, at least? Pain and sen isn’t as important in listing or nulling, it isn’t as important to note pain or sen because you can make a special test for that. But it’s sure important to note down when, what, which R/Ses.

Now, you should realize that there’s a reverse to this. It’s something called a needle pattern. Well, a needle pattern isn’t exactly a good statement of affairs. Pc comes in and he’s always going tick before he goes tock. And the needle’s going up and it goes tick and then it goes tock. And then it goes pit-pit. And then it goes tick and it goes tock, and then it goes pit-pit and so forth. And he always does this. Well, that’s what’s meant by a needle pattern. It is a chronic and constant needle behavior on a particular pc, when the auditor is saying and doing nothing. We have to add that. Its not a needle response, it’s a needle appearance when the auditor is saying and doing nothing.

DR is not as important as an R/S. But a DR tends to become important on a list that you’re going to represent. But what this list came from, what was being listed, how many pages does it consist of, you know, numbering those pages as you go down the line. And what did you do with it? What did you do with that item? That becomes very important. The tiger-drilled items, and this in almost every case, auditors don’t make enough notations on. When they tiger drill it what happened? Did it R/S during cleaning buttons of the Tiger Drill? And then not R/S when they said it?

Now, a needle with reaction on it is a dirty needle. And that’s why we don’t need to requalify the definition „needle pattern.“ A stage four needle is just a big needle pattern, and people will have these chronic patterns. But that’s not really what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a dirty needle.

You know, little-little pieces of data. The observation of what happened while they were tiger drilling this thing can be of considerable benefit. The auditor’s report is not as important as the list. Because you always confirm the auditor’s report by finding the list to which it relates. My auditor’s reports on 2-12 are rather sketchy. I’m usually going very fast and too-too much on the fly to get very much down on the auditor’s reports. So i tend to put it down on the lists. But I sure try to put lots of data down on lists. And then I’ll go back and summate the session as to what the results of everything was, and put any piece of data that I had on the auditor’s report. In other words the auditor’s report doesn’t become a long column of TA reads.

What is a dirty needle? You think it’s a needle that’s going bzz, bzz, bzz. It’s a needle which doesn’t look like molasses being poured out of a bucket by a statue-any tick, any roughness, any slight speedups as it goes. It’s strictly a Cadillac with an automatic shift moving off on a perfectly billiard-table-flat highway, driven by an old lady.

Matter of fact, TA reads are relatively unnecessary. We don’t much care what happened during the-during the listing or during the nulling. We really don’t care whether the TA moved or didn’t move. It’s relatively insignificant. But what is significant-the needle behavior. That’s very important. And go back at the end of the session, I’ve got the TA at the beginning of the session, I’ve got the range of the TA during the nulling, and I just make a note of that, kept it on the list, see. Just say, well, it was high and low and it was moving fast, or something like this, any kind of notation. And then very detailed results of the session. Results.

A dirty needle is any needle which departs from the appearance of a clean needle.

The auditor’s report, then, does not become an action report which is blow by blow during the session. It becomes a summation report, which is just what it is. It says „report.“ Meaning, „This is what I did during the session.“ And he writes it up with great rapidity. And he said, „We tiger drilled wedding bells and it all came to nothing. I guess the list is incomplete. We had four items in: cat whiskers, catfishes, and wedding bells and tarts. Pc couldn’t add any of them up.“ I don’t care what he says in the auditor’s report. This is the final conclusion of the session.

And we’ve got a dirty read, and it goes bzzt and bzzt and it goes-it’s a little tiny thing, and so forth. And actually a dirty needle is not just a dirty read magnified.

And then some hint as to where it should go from there in the auditor’s opinion. Future. „Tomorrow I ought to…“ See. „Case needs wedding bells tiger drilled, or the list completed.“ „Case has got to have Scientology organizations opposed.“ And even if he isn’t going to do it tomorrow, this has become obvious that this has to be done. In other words what should be done with a case should appear on the auditor’s report.

Now, a dirty needle has nothing to do with the auditor. The auditor is not doing anything. The auditor is not doing a thing. All these needle patterns and responses and behaviors and everything else I’m talking about is with the auditor sitting there totally Japanesed, withholding his foul breath from the pc’s face, you understand? Auditor doing absolutely nothing. Of course, you get a dirty needle when the auditor does absolutely nothing. But that’s beside the point.

And the results of what the person did should appear on the auditor’s reports. In other words, that auditor’s session either added up to nothing, or it added up to maybe, or it added up to a win. And it doesn’t matter what it added up to-the auditor shouldn’t be sitting there trying to give anybody a sales talk. All you want to know is, did you get anything done? And the pc says… Of course you’ve got your goals, you got your LOL, Life and Livingness, you got your gains, you got these things noted on the report. You’ve got a couple of cognitions the pc had, something like that. Generally they give you some horrendous cognition or another, generally enough to give the cognition that they recall in their gains. That-if it’s that big it’ll last over to gains, you see. Not interested in the little tiny cognitions. But basically what did we get done in this session? See.

Now, add this into your auditing. Take that meter-pc is on it-take that meter, and just hold your breath for a count of five and watch that meter. You haven’t put any question to the pc. All cycles of auditing are complete. All cycles of auditing are complete. And just watch that needle. And if that needle is doing anything but flowing at a perfect uniform rate-or could be still, but the probabilities of that are very, very faint-if it’s doing anything that has any irregularity in it of any kind whatsoever, that is a dirty needle and your middle rudiments are out! You got it?

„We nulled three quarters of the list and had a hell of a time keeping in the mid ruds. List looks like it’s incomplete.“ Now that isn’t anything more than a guess, he’ll find out tomorrow the list was complete or he won’t find it out. In other words, it doesn’t have to be a proven fact what his guesses were on the thing. In other words he doesn’t have to be right in these reports. But the report consists of basically what was accomplished and what should be done. And if you get those into the reports you’ll save a lot of pcs’ bacon.

And you want to develop this practice of just sitting there for a count of five and watching the pc’s needle. It tells you a libraryful. And that is the state of the needle. You observe the state of the needle. And the state of the needle is not where the tone arm is. It’s not how sticky the needle is. It’s not how unsticky it is. It is whether or not it has any ticks or tocks on it.

Also, an Instructor looking it over can say, „Hey, don’t-you know that-that’s a bum one. You say this ought to be represented. It’s slamming, man, it’s slamming. You never represent a slamming RI. You just never do that.“ And he can catch this up, don’t you see, on marking reports.

And if it’s got any ticks or tocks and halts and zzppps, and anything else… And you understand, those are to a microscopic degree! You under — this is a very extreme statement I’m giving you, see. Anything beyond perfect, unchanging, uniform action is observable-that is a dirty needle. And that means your mid ruds are out!

Those are the important things. The list itself stays as an integral part of the session, of course, and usually when I’m through with a list I’ll pin the report to it. You know, give it a staple or something. I know you don’t have many staplers available. But that’s when I’m all through with a list. I’ll keep a list I’m using floating on forward in the folder. It’s perfectly safe for that to happen, don’t you see.

Now, if you’ve audited 1,865 hours on a pc with the rudiments out the whole way, it’ll probably take you 25 minutes to put the rudiments in. You understand? It not only can be done, it is what I expect you to do. And if it isn’t done, it’s what I would consider a goof!

But the point I’m trying to make, here, is the first point of repairing a case is having the data with which to repair the case. And you look back, an auditor’s report, if you say what should be done with the case by end of session you’ve made up your mind what you should do with a case. The auditor’s reports of that period say… I don’t care if somebody’s D of Ping it, see. The director-somebody is-Somebody is saying, „Now, now the thing for you to do is, you’ve got to represent these three additional items which you found on List One,“ and that sort of thing.

Now, that assigns some very difficult problems to you at various times in auditing. You get this raw-meat pc or somebody who has been audited by, oh, Frank Sullivan. And you get this character, and whaaaa! Man, that-you can’t even tell which way the needle is going, because it’s going both up and down at the same time! It is a mess. Goes bzzzt and tick, tick, zzzp! tock, tick-tock pawk, as you sit there and watch it, see. Daaah. That’s going to maybe be a little bit rough now and then, until you get your first reliable item.

If the auditor thinks something else should be done, well, put it down. It doesn’t come as a source of argument. Nobody will be insulted about it. It’s on the basis of, „We’ll go ahead and represent the remaining items on List One, but I think personally that ‘cat whiskers’ should be opposed.“ At least somebody trying to put the case back together again goes back through that thing, and he says, „Hey! That auditor there thought ‘cat whiskers’ ought to be opposed at that time, it must have been quite a slamming item at that time.“ So he goes on in and investigates „eat whiskers,“ don’t you see. And he says „Aha!“ See? You could pick up a point there, with which to put the ease back together again.

On such a needle of extreme filthiness-on such a needle-you actually can’t expect too much till you get your first RI. You get a grooved-in list going, and you will see that needle go bzzrp-zzp — clean. Just, the list is going. And you’ve got the list about three-quarters complete, and you’ll start to see this needle come clean. Marvelous!

But now, lay aside the idea, as of now, that there are endless rules in R2-12-there are not. If you got the idea that there are tremendous numbers of special cases and awful variables, and all kinds of things like that, and there are special things that you do here and there, and so on, you’ll-you’ll be in a state Of defeat about putting a case back together again. Because you say, „Look at all the tremendous variables which could be done with this case.“

I must remark on that, because that is the easiest way to clean a needle. That is the easiest way. But it offers this slight difficulty: You have to assess — you have to assess before you can list it. And of course the needle is so filthy that the accessment-assessment is almost impossible. See, so it’s that period when you’re doing that first assessment on this case that is rough, rough, rough, see-that is probably your most critical time in auditing. And that period, on any pc you will do, lasts only the length of time it takes you to get an accurate first assessment. It shouldn’t last any longer than that.

First thing you start out with is there are only… Well, the chief thing that will louse up a case, really louse a case up, is to take a rock slamming item and represent it. Now, i can tell you from experience that that will louse a case up. It won’t louse all cases up. It won’t louse them up every time. You understand? But every-every few cases the thing that should have been opposed was actually represented and you get the roof coming off 1 Particularly if it’s a List One item. And that’s peculiarly true of List One items.

In other words, in the total time of auditing the pc, the tendency of the needle to be or become filthy should not last longer than the hour or so necessary for you to find the takeoff point. You know, not per session, not every assessment. Going to have this pc for fifty hours, it’s one of those fifty hours, and it’s the first hour. And you hit it right on the button, and you don’t miss with that assessment-that assessment is dead center-and as you go down listing that list, you’ll all of a sudden notice that needle, and it’s-be cleaning up. And by the time you’ve got the item you’re going to find eventually on the list, ifs a rock slamming item. And you’ve got that item on the list, and so forth, that needle-when you go back through for the nulling ifs just nothing.

You want to make your pc look like he’s eighty, and the roof has fallen in, why you just take something that’s slamming like mad, and say we’ll make the pc look good and we’ll represent it. Yaoww! You just done him in! See, that’s the tension-the attention factor, see. The pc should be watching at this fist coming toward his nose, and somebody’s saying, „Dear, do you want your coffee?“ Splits his attention up. He has kind of a feeling like he’s going nuts all the time he’s doing this represent list.

You say what happened to the dirty needle?

He knows he shouldn’t be representing it; he knows he should be staying in there with the fixed bayonets, you know? And he’ll go along with it and do it, the idiot! He’ll be-tell you he’s feeling fine, you know, and he’ll look older and older and rougher and rougher. So then naturally if that’s one of the things you mustn’t do at the highest level, then that’s the thing you should look for as having been done, in patching them up.

Now, sometimes you’ll be unlucky and you’ll hit a dead horse, and then you’ll hit another dead horse, and you’ll hit another dead horse-something like that. Well, every one of those first assessments is ghastly. Because the dead horse is doing minimal to change the needle from filthy to clean, see. It’s doing a little, but hardly anything about it.

Did we represent something we should have opposed? That’s your first question. Opposing things is senior to representing them. And that will account for a great deal. You find that somewhere along the line, it’ll stand out like a sore thumb. You look on the auditing of the second of the month, and the auditing says, „Checked out List One, HGC R/Sing.“ Or you find that old assessment and it says, „HGC R/S.“ And on the auditing of the third of the month we get the piece of paper and it says, „Who or what does HGC represent to you?“ You see?

When you find your first hot item on this pc-just in the process of listing, even before you null it out-you’re all of a sudden going to see the needle go hhhha; all the tension come out of there.

Wrong wording, messed up, what’s this? Oh my God! See. Should have been opposed, man! See? So you say, „That’s it.“

That doesn’t mean the next time you go up the line that it’s not going to charge up. But after that you find it’s very easy to get the needle clean by putting your middle rudiments in.

Now in repairing a case, always take the first List One mistake as your first repair action. List One. That has priority. Not because we’re trying to safeguard Scientology, but just because it does-has more bearing on an auditing session than any other single list. So it has priority. You patch up the List One goofs before you patch up some other goof And you’ll find out that someday this guy-oh, you’ll find a folder that will look something like this. It’s almost impossible to even estimate the number of goofs numerically, the combinations of goofs, you see. Combinations can just be infinite.

And before that time, that’s the only case that I would think-I wouldn’t make any brag of getting it in, in fifteen minutes, see. During the first hour, I would make no brag about it at all. Nor would I spend any time on it.

Auditor plunged, found something R/Sing, see. Found something going R/S, so just took this, and represented it. Well, you don’t quite know what it is. And it was his mother’s aunt. Mother’s aunt. Well, you say, that’s a hell of a mistake, see. It R/Sed. If he found it. He didn’t find it on any list. Where’d he get it? Well, he probably got it in the rudiments. Oh, well, so that’s a highly suspect item already and actually will have very little goof-up for the case as a result. We don’t know whether it was right, so on.

I’d decide, if anybody’s needle was that dirty, and he’d been around auditors that long, he probably rock slammed on List One. I’d be much more likely just to read off List One, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, looking for the-looking for the slam. And then it slams, and I might or might not even finish the list. I’d just find the slam, and I’d say it a few more times and I’d pull a suppress or two, and I’d make it slam, and I’d say, „That’s good enough for de old redhead. We going right in, right here and right now, and we gonna oppose the living daylights out of this.“ And I’d have my item, see.

But we find out that the following Monday somebody got on the auditor’s neck, and said, „List One! List One, assess out List One.“ And we find out that we had a DR on „Scientology books.“ And we look over the next folder, you know, the next list, and it says, „Who or what would Scientology books oppose?“ That? DR? Scientology books-oppose? Pwt! Nuts!

I wouldn’t waste any time on this. You start doing picky… And by the way, those two facts go together. The odds are very much in favor of this pc rock slamming on List One if that needle is that filthy and that hard to clean up. So you’re kind of saved by the bell on that one, aren’t you?

It may say, „Scientology books, sen.“ And then „Who or what would Scientology books oppose?“ See. Now, that’s a nice basket, see, of errors. DR-well, you don’t oppose DRs. The thing had sen on it, so it would, „Who or what would oppose Scientology books?“ would be right. You see how you can patch it up again. But you’ve still got „My mother’s aunt“ back here, rock slamming. Well, just brush her off. Return her to the poorhouse or wherever she came from. Because it’s your List One, your List One goof takes priority. That’s the first one you put together.

All right. Now, we go into this situation of what is a clean needle, and let me say this: There is nothing which will substitute for pure observation. Needle characteristics have a tendency to become misinterpreted. One of those needle characteristics is this: a rock slam. And you want to ask how in the name of God can anybody misinterpret a rock slam, but it has happened! People have looked at a rock slam and said that isn’t a rock slam.

The first goof you correct is a List One goof. And the biggest goof on List One is to represent when you should have opposed. Now oddly enough, you can oppose anything with less damage than reverse way to. In other words you could oppose a DR with less damage than representing an R/S. Quite interesting. But you don’t even have to know a refinement of that particular character. You know that R/Ses should be opposed. That’s just a rule. The thing R/Sed, so you opposed it.

Well, a rock slam is simply a slashing Agitation of the needle, that’s all. A dirty read is a buzzing Agitation of the needle. A rock slam’s always got a slash in it. And the dirty needle’s always got a i-zz-zzp in it. But there’s no slightest substitute for observation of one.

Now, there’s your-there’s your first rule of patch-up, is take the first goof you can find on a Scientology list. Now, how many of these goofs can there be? There could probably be an infinite number of goofs, but there are fortunately just a few things to do right. Rule-head light rule is: If it R/Sed you oppose it.

Now, there’s a rocket read. Well, I can describe a rocket read very well. Figured it out. It takes off-it always goes to the right-it takes off with a very fast spurt and does a rapid decay, like a bullet fired into water. It’s very fast. It goes psswww! It looks like it’s got all of its motive power from its first instant of impulse, with no additional motive power being imparted to it by anything. It’s kicked off and it has no further kick, so it just rapidly dies out. How wide is it? That’s a silly question. I’ve seen them from a sixty-fourth of an inch to a dial. See, they’re any width.

Now, which way you oppose it has some bearing on it. And if you can’t make up your mind which way-if it was opposed right, just tell the auditor to oppose it both ways, till one is going well, and then just keep on opposing it that way. Pcs often tell you fibs or they can’t tell the difference between pain and sen or something like this.

Now, a rock slam can have its first slash mistaken for a rocket read-if the auditor has never seen a rocket read. Because that first slash looks like a very rapid, hectic motion, and they say that must be a rocket read. But actually, it doesn’t take off with a spurt. It’s of uniform speed, and it has power put to it the whole distance of its slash. In other words, there’s a motor driving that one. It doesn’t kick off and do a rapid decay. It’s uniform speed. And it stops suddenly. It doesn’t decay; it just goes bah — stops suddenly.

Now, the closer things are to present time, the more possibly they will be coterms. See? Now a coterm is opposed both ways. „Who or what would it oppose? Who or what would oppose it?“ And you’ll find one of them after a little while will run smoother than the other one. So you use the one that runs smoother and seems to be producing more interest and action. Opposing a coterm is quite tricky. And therefore R2-12 has more of this trouble than 3GA Criss Cross because you get more coterms.

That first slash is more commonly to the left, not to the right. And you’ll hear people talking about inverse rocket reads. Well, they’re seeing the first stroke of a rock slam. There is no reverse rocket read. If you tiger drilled it up a little bit, you would see the second, third and fourth stroke occur immediately after that first stroke.

The guy’s knees are in sen, and his skull is in pain. And it’s rock slamming. All right, which way do you go about it? This is the commonest goof I’m giving you right now: didn’t complete the list. That is the commonest goof and will probably be the commonest goof to the end of R2-12’s days. And tried to figure out some way to make it oppose without completing the list-actually spend more time on trying to match it all up than in completing the list.

I was quite interested. They didn’t know whether somebody was a rock slammer or not, because all they could get was the first slash going to the left. That’s good enough, man. That’s a rock slam. It’s not a rocket read.

Now, one of the reasons the list doesn’t complete is this coterm thing. Opposition lists must be completed because there’s the perfect way to leave a bypassed item. You could actually keep on dumping represent lists without much liability. Don’t worry about how many represent lists got dumped. No, just don’t worry too much about it because the pc’s attention is not very thoroughly fixated on them. There’s lots of R/Ses to be found in the bank, there’s lots of items to come up, and that item will probably come up again on some other list. But the opposition, when you start to oppose something, you key it in. And the commonest goof on that on R2-12 is the auditor didn’t hit it both ways to-I’m talking about the commonest goof is incomplete list — but the auditor didn’t hit it both ways to.

Now, we’re into types of needle characteristics not covered in E-Meter Essentials. And these characteristics of the meter have all emerged in the past year. Not the rock slam. We have known it for years and years and years. But the importance of the rock slam-oh, we’ve known something about that. But that a rock slam could be as small as it can get and be a rock slam-well, I’m afraid we didn’t know that. It can be awfully tiny. See, you can forget your „inches of measurement tells us how-whether it’s a rock slam or not.“ A rock slam is definitely itself. I’ve been studying them lately, and they’re definitely themselves.

See, he didn’t say, „oppose it“ and „it oppose“ and sort out which one was slamming best. But just went at the thing in reverse because the pc said he had a pain in his back and neglected to mention all this sen on his skull for the excellent reason that he always has that!

The other day I saw one that was a-something on the order of about a sixteenth of an inch was its first stroke. And then it went into a dirty needle-dirty read. Sixteenth-of-an-inch rock slam stroke, and then the remainder of about a fifth of an inch, or something like that was a dirty read. I saw the two crossed right there in the same read. I was quite interested in-when I drilled these things up and did a little something or other to them-to find out that it held good-that that was what that was.

So your patch-up action so far-let me trace this for you again-is to find the earliest goof you can find on List One. That’s your-that takes priority. And get your opposition list-takes priority over represent-get your opposition list completed, and one of the reasons it didn’t get completed is that it was a coterm and it was being opposed wrong way to. And the remedy for that, of course, is just to continue the list, swapping it around the other way. And you can actually swap it back and forth.

Gives us terribly interesting point: Should we have opposed that item then or represented it?

You can do half a page on „oppose-it“ and another half a page on „it-oppose. You all of a sudden find that thing is just running like hot butter on „it-oppose“ so just don’t bother to turn it around the other way again, just let it run.

Well, we’re representing it and it’s delivering rock slams, but I don’t know but what that shouldn’t have been opposed. Time would tell.

That’s not infallible-that is not infallible, because the item may be-by this time has deaded down, so you can’t tell whether it’s R/Sing or not, or if it ever R/Sed. And it might be wrong source, don’t you see? But if it’s wrong source it never becomes nullable. That’s your infallible test for wrong source. Never becomes nullable. Nullable is different than find an item on it.

So there is a point there, which you will strike almost never, where your adjudication can become confused about it. Was it a dirty read or was it a rock slam? And the only thing that’s confusing about it is that a dirty read is quite different than a rock slam. It looks like an electric buzzer going and it doesn’t look like anything slashing. And a rock slam always slashes. It’s the difference between tickling somebody on the sole of his foot with a feather and chopping his head off with a saber. I mean, the two things are quite different.

Actually, a list which is from wrong source, if it’s a goofed-up list, you can’t get-you can’t get ten items down it. You just can’t. Just a dirty needle comes on, and it just all starts going to hell in a balloon. You’re lucky if you can get three. That’s a non-nullable list.

And there’s this business of-this business of the rocket read that should never be confused with even a one-stroke rock slam because of its fast decay. Now, this-we add to these data, here, the data of a clean needle. And that takes-that takes something-is something new that has been defined. It was one of these „everybody knew“ things up until this time-and it’s not one of these. I mean, nobody evidently understood this thing, because otherwise some people keep saying, „Clean up that needle.“ The Instructors around here have been saying, „Clean up the needle, clean up the needle.“ And the auditor, in many cases I am sure, has been saying, „Well, yeah, anything been suppressed? Yeah, there was a suppress on that.“ And pull the suppress and get the needle-gets a few things from the pc, and say, „Well, I’ve cleaned off several reads. So therefore it must now be a clean needle.“

So, extend that list. That’s high priority. And you must remember that there’s a trick in extending an opposed list, and that is you reverse it the other way to. And if the thing has gone for a thousand items of opposition, and was nullable-if it was nullable on opposition it was not wrong source, don’t you see? You can null anything that is an opposition list, if it was going up against ä rock slamming item. And you get on down the line, it’s gone a thousand items into this auditor’s hands, and it hasn’t produced any RI, well, you can just bet your bottom dollar it’s been opposed reverse way to.

He didn’t realize that the shirt on the line was not being worn or used at the time it was clean. See? I mean, there it was. It was either plastered with mud or it was snowy-Daz, Tide-water white, see? See, it was-it was the needle when nobody was doing anything that we were talking about. Nobody’s doing a thing. Just sitting there looking at the needle. And that’s what determines whether it is clean or not.

In other words, you were saying, „Who or what would oppose Scientology books?“ And the pc is a Scientology book. It should have been, „Who or what should Scientology books oppose?“ Now, what do you do with that list? Do you tell somebody to null it all over again? No. Here’s a rule: Never re-null. I see on your papers you occasionally do. Why? If the commonest error is an incomplete list, why don’t you just extend it and null what you’ve now got? Don’t say that well, the guy just missed the item.

No, all those little ticks and tocks and so forth come under the heading of your big mid ruds, plus-which also includes missed withhold-plus perhaps a very, very heavy shakedown of… Well, a case might be so anxious, the case might be so this and might be so that, you couldn’t get these things in, but nevertheless those are the buttons which make it dirty-they’re the buttons contained in the big mid ruds. That’s why they are those buttons.

Now, let’s get over into another department, now, I’d finish up what the — extend that oppose list. Represent lists, don’t pay much attention to them. Remember we’re patching this case up. So we’re going to specialize in Scientology list first, we’re going to specialize in opposition lists and the commonest thing wrong with the opposition list is somebody’s got it going backwards.

Now, there are a couple-three other buttons that have influence on this. But actually, if you clean up the main buttons you get the others too. There’s the matter of shifted attention. This is not a button that you would use. I’m giving you an example. You could have 135 buttons and all that big mid ruds, don’t you see? And it’d all be very complex. But the truth of the matter is there are none necessary. This is one of them. This is a very-a very nice one. This is a very nice one. This’ll lead you astray any day of the week. „In this session, has your attention been shifted?“ See?

So that’s not very much we have to patch up here, is it? Well, look it over. Can-you got those little points I just sketched over? That’s actually not very much to look for, and not very much to patch up. That’s what you’re going to look for.

Well, that-that’s almost valid. It’s almost good enough to be part of the big mid ruds, because you’ve get somebody whose attention was yanked off his list or yanked off the auditor, or the auditor did something unexpected; you get all the points of surprise out of a session, see.

Next thing you’re going to look at is another type of case. No, I’d better tell you the rest of the patch-up on this other case. You just keep doing just what I said. You take the next List One goof-up and the next opposition goof-up from it. See the guy had a long represent list, he had a rock-he had a reliable item on that and nobody opposed it! See?

Surprise is simply shift of attention. I’ve known that for a long time. And you can clean a couple of little ticks, and a couple of little reads off the thing, and that sort of thing. But in actual fact, it isn’t good enough, over a broad usage, to be employed as a big mid rud. It isn’t good enough. There are a lot of others this way.

So there’s goof-ups. And you just keep doing this, see. Finding the List One items that had been neglected or List One phenomena that have not been properly reported or cited or something of this sort and then patch up the opposition lists that go along with it. See? All those opposition lists, get those all patched up. That’s actually the basic fundamental of patching up a case. Just doing those things. No more than that. It’s not very complicated.

Now, every pc has a favorite button. They have a favorite. You learn this faster prepchecking than otherwise. You do an eighteen-button Prepcheck and you’ll find out that every pc you-every pc you do an eighteen-button Prepcheck on has a different favorite out of those eighteen buttons, see. This guy runs hotter than a pistol on Decided. And that bird runs hotter than the devil on Suggested. And they tend to have favorites.

Let’s take, now, a different type of case. You take any new group on R2-12, you’ll have a-several members of that group who will be-come charging in to you telling you that it doesn’t work, in one phraseology or another. And this is another type of case to be patched up. You understand this is another type of auditor; that it’s not going right. This is the not-going-right.

Now, you’re getting up toward doing a Prehav assessment just to get your mid ruds in, when you expand beyond a very small number of rudiments. You go beyond eight or nine buttons to get in mid ruds in a session and you are being ridiculous. Because if you’re going to go any further than that to get Big Tiger or big mid ruds, you see, well, why don’t you do Prehav assessment?

Now, in actual fact, you don’t have to do too much to trace this one back. The ease that isn’t going right is simply not going right because one of two things have happened: An R/S has been missed on List One and has not been opposed or somebody shifted the cycle of action. It’s just those two things that can be wrong with it. Just those two things. R/S has been missed. And the other one is, of course, that somebody has knocked off a cycle of action.

Why don’t you get the Prehav Scale out, and do a full roll-your-own-and that’ll deliver the case right into your lap. Actually the needle will straighten right out, because you’ve got the exact button now that is causing the needle to be anything. Only the difference is, is you’re-you’re no longer doing 2-12. You’re doing Routine 2. That was the earliest ancestor of 2-12, see.

Now, opposition cycles of action are always more important than represent cycles of action, so if you want to put the case back together again in a hurry, you specialize in opposition cycles of action. Which opposition cycle of action was not completed first? And you simply go back and complete that cycle of action, then take the next one consecutively and complete that cycle of action, take the next one consecutively-you get the idea.

Oh yeah, you can do Routine 2. You do a Prehav assessment and run this thing repetitively on the pc, in a fi-or, in a five-way bracket. Marvelous! A lot of cases gone right straight up the graph and everything. It’s a nice — it’s a nice process. It’s pointless. But it’s a nice process.

In other words somebody wrote up an opposition list of twenty and it should have been two thousand. Something wild like that, see? And you get those cycles of action completed consecutively’ The only thing that falls out of sequence, of course, is your List One. Maybe the guy didn’t get onto List One until the fifth list was done. Some reason or other. Yeah, well, you’re going to find all kinds of things. Didn’t do List One, said that, „Well, we’re only doing raw meat and they’ve never heard of Scientology, so therefore we’ll omit List One,“ see. Something like that. And then finally deeded to get onto List One, just to make a clean job of it, and then you see a great big goof, you see. You see „Scientology R/S“ and then you see a represent list. Well, you push that one back to the first action which you undertake. And then from that one come forward with all the other incomplete cycles of action.

You can change somebody’s graph all over the place. If you just wanted to be an HGC D of P and be able to shake paper in front of the pc’s face… The pc’ll be very excited about it too. And you just want to shake paper in front of his face and, „You want to know what gains you’ve got? Well, good, good. See, you went from the bottom to the top, see?“ Pc feels good and everything is fine. Probably be back at the bottom again next week, but that’s all right.

See, it’s just List One that spoils this rule of take the cycles of action which haven’t been completed from the first cycle of action to the-that was incomplete, till now. See, it’s just List One that pushes this out of order. If you ever get one like that you’ll be scratching your head, saying, „I wonder which one I take up first.“ Well, you answer it with List One. And if you’ve got it answered on List One, which goof on List One was first? And you do that one.

Point I’m making is you really didn’t do very much in the way of shifting mass or anything else for the pc that had any lastingness. It was lack of lastingness that sealed the fate of Routine 2. It didn’t last. You have to actually find items. You have to find items, and those have to have some mass to them for a case to get any kind of a shift.

See, it’s List One first, or the first goof on List One first, and that’s the way you put it together.

In the first place, this ease has got item one bucked into item two. And the reason item one is held in suspense in time is because it is exactly balanced against item two, which is held in suspense in time. And actually, even do Routine 2-12 badly, you have still upset that balance. You’re not going to murder anybody with this, and the case could get an enormously better gain, but sooner or later that balance is going to-going to shift. It’ll stay out, in other words.

Now, you’re going to see the dead-horse case. See, this case has been — this is dead horses, dead horses, dead horses. Nobody can see an R/S. Nobody can find an R/S on this case. And this just about drives everybody daffy. Well, this already is an incomplete-cycle-of-action case possibly. You’re getting a lot of dead horses, look for that failure to oppose, particularly on List One. That is the big, exclamation point blunder.

It’s like-it’s like the fellow’s leaning on the wall. And he could lean on the wall, and the wall lean on him, you see, for quite a while. But you take the fellow away from the wall or the wall away from the fellow and you haven’t got the status quo anymore. This situation is no longer this kind of a status quo.

Not because I say so and not because the gods say so and not because of any other authority, it just so happens, actually in this very room, there were about four cases that were laying lots of dead horses-highway was just getting stacked up with them. It was getting so the sanitary commission was going to complain-until the R/Sing item on List One was found and opposed. And at that moment the dead-horse phenomenon ceased.

Well, in view of the fact that it isn’t quite the fellow leaning against the wall, but a wall leaning against a wall, you take either wall away, the other wall will fall down. That’s more the architectural pattern of the two dumbbells of a package.

See, that was-there’s at least four cases that I know of right in this room that did just that. So that shows you that’s fairly important. So important that on one case we simply just picked it out of the hat and said, all right. So the list at some time or another must have R/Sed. We’re just going to write an opposition Scientology list. And we did and it R/Sed and it’s the first R/Ses ever seen on that pc. Hah, this was done very indelicately, by the way. If I myself had been doing it as an auditor, I would have gotten ahold of the pc and I would have sort of tiger drilled some of the key things on List One, see, and so forth. But decided we’d just do this one blundersomely. And I said, „Well just oppose Scientology,“ and they did and it’s now rock slamming like mad. Interesting huh?

So you can unsettle that status quo, and you can unsettle it in a variety of ways and it’s never the same again. It doesn’t recharge. But if you wanted to get the full benefit and never have anything hanging in your way at all, you’d, of course, neatly pick up the package. And the benefit there is ten, fifty times more than just softening up one side of it.

Now, so it isn’t because anybody has said so that this is true. If you can actually get these dead-horse cases. Now, oddly enough, the only dead-horse cases which we have are all under that category: R/Sing item on List One which wasn’t opposed. That’s every one we have. But then remember we’re kind of a special group. You’ve had lots of auditing and lots of this and been around Scientology and orgs, lots.

You soften up one side of the package and the other one tends to be unbalanced and not be as effective and hang around and aberrating the pc, but it’s still there. And you leave too many of those things, and the pc starts getting confused. He doesn’t know what he’s leaning against now. And he doesn’t feel he’s had much of a gain. And if you want to know-if the pc wants to know he’s got a gain, you actually got to find both of them.

So this is not-this is not a pure proof. So we can extend it over to saying that a case that is now laying dead horses has an R/Sing item which hasn’t been opposed. This is a raw-meat case, he was a member of the 137th infantry, and he was just sent in by his commanding officer to be processed, and he’s never heard of you or anything else, you see. And you’re trying to patch up this case, after he’s been run in a co-audit or something like that, all you’re going to do is look for the R/Sing item that was goofed. It must be in restimulation. Must be in restimulation. Remember this is a patch-up lecture, it’s not what you do with this guy. Whatever was done with him, there must have been an R/Sing item that wasn’t opposed, and the case has hung up ever since. This case is just laying dead horses now.

You’ll run into 2-12 some guy that you list the whole thing out, you think, and then you don’t find an item. And then you-you found an item, and then you oppose it, and list the whole thing out, but don’t find an item. You don’t find anything to lean against the first item. And you’ll find the case-the case tends to feel funny. Well, the case will say, „Oh, yeah! Lots of gains, lots of gains.“ And two days later he’ll say, „What gain?“ See, he’s not in the know that he’s had much of a gain.

So, if a ease is doing nothing but dead horses, one of two things is true. First and foremost is: an R/Sing item has not been opposed or if opposed was not completed. And the other one is: the auditor needed a white cane. This actually happened right here, that an auditor who was reporting no R/Ses was getting them. And wasn’t seeing them. Didn’t know what the R/Ses were. It’s happened twice here. That sounds pretty impossible, but it has happened. So it’s something that in case patch-up has to have some allowance made for, particularly in a co-audit where you don’t have highly trained people. You’d have to watch for that one. And the question you ask, „Is the case laying dead horses?“

He might have gained, you see. The two noses that he ordinarily wears — one of them might have disappeared, you see. There might have been quite a change in the guy, but he won’t know it. In other words, this doesn’t affect the knowingness to the degree that finding both sides of the package does. Now, you’ve got to go ahead and find both sides of the package in order to do that.

Now, what you do, you have to do an observation of this one. You let him extend one of the dead lists and see if it R/Ses. If you’re auditing the case to get it patched up, why, nothing is easier.

If you kept on doing that, finding just one side, and finding one side, and never finding the other one, and one side… You go up the line about six-this-six unfound, bypassed items in 2-12-you think you’ve found them but you haven’t; you know, they didn’t-nothing rock slammed on the other side, you see-you’ll find your pc starting to be nattery, starting to look kind of seedy.

Let’s take one of these so-called dead-horse lists; let’s sort it out this way: We find no evidence of any kind that the case has R/Sed on List One, we can’t pick up anything with regard to that. We’ve even opposed something on List One, and told them to. Nothing seemed to happen, and we’re just getting R/Ses, then we assume that the auditor can’t see an R/S. That’s sort of simple, isn’t it?

You go back, then, and complete those lists and find the rock slamming item in each case, and this pc takes off, and you wonder how the hell you ever considered that you’d ever seen a pc gain before. Because the gain, now“ that he-that he gets out of just extending that list a bit and finding that real item there is phenomenal. He now knows he’s gained, and the gain is terrific.

Now, how you catch up with that one to patch it up, that’s something else, because it takes observational time, and it takes this, but this nevertheless can exist. Now, you mustn’t overlook that as a point. Needle is falling off the pin, you can hear it hitting both sides of the-of the meter clear across the room. „No, the case hasn’t R/Sed,“ see?

In other words, you could make a little old gain that compares to processing of years past. Everybody’s satisfied with this gain; they’re happy with this gain and so forth, but it’s not a skyrocket gain. There’ll be a lot of people around as time goes on… They’ll be-they’ll be further out on the fringes of Scientology, you see. You’ll hear this receding as a statement: „Well-well, 2-12 is all right. It’s as good as… Oh, it’s probably better than a lot of processes we’ve had in the past.“ You’ll hear that kind of a statement, see.

You also will get complaints about cases R/Sing too much. R/S so much you can’t get the rudiments in. Now, I just answered a question on this sort. Would a case continue to R/S while you represented something they weren’t R/Sing on? And the answer is no. Fastest way in the world to turn off an R/S is just start representing on something that would become a dead horse. By the time you’ve asked the pc for three items you’ll have no R/S.

Actually, that statement will get more and more further out away from where people know how to do it, you see. Because if you do it right, and you get both sides of each package, and so forth, there isn’t any doubt left in your mind whatsoever about the power of 2-12 compared to old processes, you see. It’s tremendous.

In other words, the rule is that a case will only continue to R/S when the subject from which the R/S is coming continues to be addressed by the auditor. In other words, you have to stay on that subject to keep up with the R/S. A phantom slam doesn’t do this. You have to be listing the right list to have the R/S on it. I’ll give you that security. In other words, there aren’t a whole bunch of cases whereby somebody just continues to R/S forever, even though you’re listing peanuts. The case actually is R/Sing simply because they’re protesting listing on peanuts. No. By the time you’d gotten the third item on peanuts the R/S would be off. You see what I mean?

But you know, when you are looking at somebody making that remark, you’re looking at somebody who never completes a list. He just-he just confessed. He just signed, sealed and delivered a confession that he stops lists when the pc tells him to, and that he never finds the final item, and that he’s perfectly willing to say, „Well, they both dirty-needled, so it must have been a package.“

In other words, your rudiments won’t continue to R/S just because they are out while you’re listing on something else. In other words if there is an R/S on the list, as you’re coming down the line, you haven’t got an R/S from something else which is lousing up your list if it’s a nice continuous R/S, do you understand? There isn’t too much R/S, in other words. People don’t talk about peanuts and R/S on chimneys.

„I told the pc it was a package-didn’t have much to say. I told him, though. I was very satisfied with the intensive myself, but he was having wife trouble at the time at home, I suppose, and therefore he didn’t think he got much gains out of it. But I could tell that he got gain.“

Now, even the phantom slam tends to behave. This is what’s peculiar also. You don’t ever get a phantom slam on an uncharged list, which should be very heartening to you. The list has to be hotter than a pistol to turn the slam on. And the phantom slam may turn on, however, and louse you up here and there on the list, as to which item is rock slamming while you are trying to straighten them out. But a phantom slam always comes on and goes off, and comes on and goes off. And a phantom slam has this characteristic: that it never obeys the auditor. The phantom slam never obeys the auditor.

Any remark made like 2-12-you know, about 2-12 like that-that’s simply saying auditor didn’t complete the list, or always made a habit of representing that which rock slammed. It-oh, no-no-no, I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon. That’s another breed of cat.

Your basic impatience with this type of case is they’ll never do what you tell them, also. That’s completely aside from the phantom slam. You say, „Has anything been suppressed?“ and they don’t think about suppressing something. They think about something else, and so forth. But right along with this, a phantom slam never obeys the auditor.

If an auditor goes on representing what rock slams, he’ll have this idea of 2-12-get a little better reality here: „Oh, that process. I don’t see what you people see in it, you know? I don’t know what you see. I was running it on a pc. I was running it on a pc, and as a matter of fact, she didn’t look too bad. She just had sciatica. And when I finally finished up, she looked about ninety and had lumbosis. So I don’t see what you see in that process.“

You’ve got a rock slamming item, catfish. And you say, „catfish.“ A phantom slam does not turn on when you say „catfish.“ But „catfish“ turns on when you say „catfish.“ See, you say, „catfish“-catfish“ is a slamming item, it slams. It start-it keeps on slamming until the pc’s mind shifts, attention shifts, and the pc does a suppress. And you pull the Suppress and the Careful of off, and it slams again.

Well, that’s the direct result of doing one of two things: of representing rock slamming items-thing rock slams like crazy so you represent it (you do that very often, and particularly on List One items, and your pc just about goes around the bend) or you didn’t finish the cycle of action. You See, before you got an item on action A, you got tired and started in on action B. And before you got an item on action B, why, you started action C, hoping somehow or another it would all come out all right. Now somebody’ll have to come along sooner or later and complete action A. And it will all come out all right, long as action A is completed.

But because you’re working with present time items, you can over-tiger drill your items. You can tiger drill an item to death. Tiger Drilling must be brief on 2-12. That’s-that’s a good one to remember. You can kill an item with Tiger Drill.

That’s failure to complete a cycle of action, will produce an adverse result, particularly if the pc is very interested in the cycle of action and you didn’t even vaguely complete it. That’s the best. If you really want to cave somebody in with 2-12, that’s my strongest recommendation. They’re going there, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, and you — you’re sitting there, and you’re watching the needle, and you don’t know what a rock slam is. That’d be a good one. You think it’s pc body motion or something and say, „Well, it’s a dead horse.“

I’ve given you most of the data now, on case patch-up. Not very painful, was it?

The pc’s saying, „Waterbuck, tiger…“

Audience: No.

And you’ say, „Wait a minute, wait a minute. This whole thing’s a dead horse. We’re going to do a reassessment on some other list.“

Now, you want to get fancy, you’re going to get fancy now. And you’re going to go back, and you’re going to try to patch up this ease, case isn’t doing too badly, you’re going to look for List One oppositions, failures to complete cycle of action, incompletes. And the case that has dead horses, you’re going to assume something must have slammed at some time or another on List One has been missed-that’s your primary source of dead horses-or to some slight degree, that the auditor needs a white cane. Now, that’s patch-up. That’s not very tough.

Pc-he’s just left in a sort of a stunned state from there on. Actually, he will remain in that state until somebody comes back and says, „Well, who or what would oppose an ink pot?“ whatever it was, see. And at that moment he’ll take right off again. „Oh. You want them? Waterbuck, tiger…“ clang, clang, clang, clang, clang.

Now, you in running a case are a different situation entirely. That’s how you patch one up. How can you misrun a case? Well, I won’t, give a lecture on the subject! We haven’t got enough time! And we haven’t got enough tape. Tape costs money! Time you’ve bought forty, fifty reels of tape, you feel it. We just would have scratched the top of the subject. So it’s very lucky that case patch-up is so simple. Because the number of things that you can do wrong in 2-12 I’m sure have not been estimated. I’m sure that nobody could possibly do it. Because there’ll be variations, variations, variations, variations. And I’ve long since ceased to try to outguess the number of variations there could be of a simple procedure. They’re almost infinite.

Now, this idea of requiring a clean needle before you null-I’ve got to get it across to you. Because the beauty of a Mark V is that it expresses a clean needle much better than a Mark IV. And when you’ve really got the thing cleaned up, you can see a needle characteristic. That is to say, it’s a type of needle on the Mark V. It is visibly a type of needle. And you’ll get spoiled by a Mark V.

I have had loses on this, man, my you-my self-confidence in my imagination has been staggered by this! I think I’ve dreamed up all the reasons why, all the variations that can be done. And my God, I’m always outcreated! I don’t say that sarcastically, but it’s just a little game that I sort of play. Well, I keep my eye open. Somebody’s going to dream up a new one. And they always do.

You’ll see this thing, and it’s just like turning on the light and turning it off, you know. And you’ll see this needle, and it’s just beautiful. It’s just flowing. It’s lovely. There isn’t a ripple in the thing of any kind whatsoever. And this meter expresses that gorgeously.

But it’ll be something is real in crosswise. You know? Like opposition lists actually should dirty read. Shouldn’t they? Now if opposition lists consistently dirty read, why, then, shouldn’t you represent what dirty reads, on the biggest dirty read that you get, in order to establish whether or not it had any rock slam on… You could-you could get these things without count. You’ll have all of these things pulled on you. So you better not get an idea that there are infinite numbers of special cases to 2-12. Otherwise you will feel like you’re drowning. Because there are infinite numbers of things that can be done wrong.

And, boy, you know those rudiments are in. It’ll spoil you the next time you’ll take a look at the needle on the pc and you’ll-it hasn’t got that characteristic. And although the needle isn’t reacting in any way, you’ll start chewing on the pc trying to put it that way. You’ll be absolutely right. There will be something-something that the pc has there that is making it some other way.

This is one of them. And this is, by the way, the commonest. Somebody goes on representing and representing and representing-and this is also mentioned because this is part of case patch-up-representing and representing and representing and representing, and they get some slams, doesn’t null, they go on representing, and they never check what they are representing. And they will leave a List One, particularly, item slamming like crazy! It didn’t slam when they did the assessment. It just got a little tiny scrub. And they never, never, never go back to find out if the item that they’re representing is now slamming. Because it will, being unburdened. Of course doing that-a listing, a represent list from an item, if the item’s ever going to slam, that will make it slam better than Tiger Drilling.

In other words, the Mark V, oddly enough, expresses a rudiments-in pc. It is a way it looks. And that description is just the ne plus exclamation point ultra of the definition of a clean needle. It really looks-it looks quite different. You’ll see that needle-you’ll see that needle one day on a Mark V and say, „What do you know.“ Actually, the pc is sitting there without a thought in his skull. He’s just perfectly happy for you to go on, and not go on. It’s quite interesting that the Mark V expresses a clean needle.

If you wanted to make something-if you wanted to make something fire better, it was firing yesterday, it isn’t firing today-it wouldn’t louse up the pc if you got ten or fifteen items off of it on a represent. I don’t advocate that. I’m just saying it would do that. Instead of tiger drilling it, get ten or fifteen items off You’ll find out it produced the same effect. This thing is now slamming again.

Now, if there’s just the slightest suppress or just the slightest withhold or the slightest anything on the case-it isn’t in a needle pattern; it doesn’t go so far as to make a tickety-tock and a slickity-slock on the thing-it just doesn’t look clean. It is still flowing, but it doesn’t look clean.

So — but that’s just ignoring a slamming item. They never check it. Nothing is ever checked out. Another thing that happens sometimes, and this is something that you should do with 2-12. Well, let’s see, it’s part of the rules, is when you’re doing a represent list on something, well, check the item to find out if it is now slamming. You very often will find that the item that you’re representing is now slamming. Quite often find this!

It is a very interesting thing. I’m calling your attention to that on a Mark V because sooner or later you will-if I call your attention to it, you’ll watch for it. And you’ll suddenly say, „Hey, what do you know! This thing does. It tells you one more thing. One more thing than the Mark IV tells you. It tells you how clean the rudiments are, just by the fact that the needle is moving, and there it is.“ You want to look for that one.

You’ve got-you’ve got situations where the auditor has just gone totally knuckleheaded about anything and everything in the book. But normally false reports will give you the least difficulty. False reports. They-you very seldom get a false report. There’s only one thing the pc says that has been found out to be not too accurate. Pcs will tell you the truth in all cases but pain or sen. And they’ll do a big sell on pain or sen. They can have that dull pressure against their forehead and say it’s a pain and knowingly lie about it. See, they don’t even make a mistake. I mean there’s been too many of that. And pcs will tell the auditor lies. And also will tell the auditor lies about the fact that they’re invalidating items. We found pcs doing that.

Now, you can harass a pc in trying to clean up a needle until it looks like a game of battledore and shuttlecock. „Well,“ you say… You see a little tick on it, you see. And it’s going tick and a tock, and so on. „Well, what are you thinking about?“ This is one of those broad, wide-open-door questions that doesn’t focus the pc’s attention in any direction. He doesn’t know what he’s thinking about. If he knew what he was thinking about, it wouldn’t tick.

They don’t want to list on the thing, so they invalidate the items as they hand out-the auditor. Well, they can only do that to somebody who was not demanding a clean needle before he started nulling or something, because all that material would have to be pulled up. But in final essence, the repair of a 2-12 activity is very simple. It just follows the exact materials I’ve given you. ,Doing 2-12, of course, follows that same thing in order of importance. The more items you bypass, the more gummy the case is going to be. That’s for sure. The more times you try to represent rock slamming items, the foggier the case is going to get. The more incomplete cycles of action you stack up on the case, why, the less luck you’re going to have.

„What are you thinking about?“ you say. „Yes, well you must be thinking about something.“ And hell try to-he’ll think madly to find out what he is thinking about, you know? And he gets completely lost. He doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going.

So, running the case parallels repairing the case. That is the same rules of running the case. It’s fantastic how an auditor will sell himself on the completeness of a list, try to put together items, how the pc will go along with him, there are only six items left in, each of them were DRing, and we finally packaged them up. You did! Where’s the RI? It never occurred. And that, of course, you know right there, was an incomplete list. You never had a rock slamming item come off the list. Well, that rock slamming item never came off the list because the pc never put it on the list. Very simple explanation! List is incomplete. Which all comes under the heading of the patch-up I gave you.

So you’ll see the needle now, instead of going tick and tock, is going tick-u-tock, tick-u-hc-,tock. And you’ll say, „Well, I don’t know; I really can’t get on with this list, and I’ve just made up my mind that we will just sit right here until you tell me what you are thinking about.“

This is relatively simple once you break yourself down on the amount of randomity and importances which you think you see around in it and actually groove it down to exactly what it is. It’s a process of opposing rock slamming items and represent those that don’t, in order to get rock slamming items so as to oppose them and so take apart the GPM.

And hell say, „Oh, my God, what am I thinking about? I must be thinking about something. Must be pretty powerful if he notices it on the needle, this particular way.“ By this-this needle now is going tick-hic, tick-hic, tick-hic.

The closer you enter to the auditing session, the less PTP the pc is going to be audited over the top of, so you have R2-12. There are other things you can do with R2-12 and you’re going to get into an embarrassment someday, a horrible, horrible embarrassment, and that embarrassment will be this: Is you keep getting rocket reads on items. Supposed to be doing 2-12. Don’t get rock slams, you get rocket reads. And sooner or later somebody’s going to come to you with this terrible problem. Well, the first thing you do is establish whether or not it was a rocket read. And if it was a rocket read, a rocket read is superior to a rock slam. That’s all there is to that. So the item rocket read, so you oppose it. Simple.

And eventually, break down and ask him just the mid rudiment questions, one right after the other, and hell find out what he was thinking about. It’s much better to put in the mid ruds than it is to give them supergeneralized questions.

And then you do that and you’re very, very embarrassed by the whole thing because the pc keeps continually intruding his goal into the session. What do you do with that? Well, the best thing to do then is to get the goal checked out and tell the pc whether it is or isn’t and then go on running 2-12. That’s your best repair for that embarrassing situation.

Now, there’s one exception to this. When you’re going down a list, you’re nulling away down a list, and all of a sudden the rudiments go bzzzt! out from under-you know, more the heavily charged the list is, you know, the more a pc’s think reacts on the meter. See, the pc’s think associated with a charged list reacts more heavily than a pc’s think on a no-charged list. And as a matter of fact, on a no-charged anything a pc’s think wouldn’t register at all. So on a heavily charged list-you’re going down this list, and ifs going to have a dial-wide rock slam when you finally find the item and you hope it’s complete, you’re not sure, you’re going on down the line-you’ll notice the needle is getting less and less flowing.

If you find a rocket reading item, your first action is to oppose it, of course. And then use it to find a goal with. If the pc hasn’t already laid his goal in your lap. Or if you find a goal, get it checked out. Don’t leave it in doubt! Don’t have the pc sitting there for the next seven days wondering if that’s his goal. Because it acts just like a wrong goal, all the way. No, get it checked out, get it checked out right now, and if you can’t check it out, why, fine, clean it up a little bit more and check it out. Then the pc’s got his goal, and you’ll find out he’ll do 2-12 better.

Nothing has happened to the needle yet. It’s not doing anything peculiar. It just is less flowing. You see what I mean? It’s just less. It hasn’t done anything yet, but it’s less right than it was. All of a sudden it goes all wrong, and starts hiccupping. Well, you can’t do anything at this point.

Remember that even though you do have his goal, is no reason he can run on his goal. We’ve had case after case that couldn’t go Clear mostly because they had too much 2-12 bric-a-brac sitting in the session. And they were trying to clear across the top of a PTP. And you know that they could be forced all the way to free needle. But it never quite stays free. And that can go on for hundreds of hours-we already know-just because actually there’s a PTP connected with the sessions. PTP connected with Scientology. They can’t get across it, and it’s always still there, and it never blows clear, and it’s sort of like trying to empty a pot with the lid on. Can’t be done. We’ve Seen case after case after case. In fact about 80 percent of all eases that have tried to go Clear are hung up on that exact one right there.

Now, if you put in the mid ruds every time you did that, you would rapidly get into a great deal of trouble with the pc, because the pc just starts screaming. It’s no-auditing, don’t you see. Well now, the pc can’t see that that needle’s so dirty you can’t null with it. Pc is unaware of this fact. So a very good stunt is not throw at the pc, and not push rapidly at the pc-never push anything rapidly at a pc-but just twist your paper around, and ask the pc which of these he has had any thoughts on. And let him go down the list.

That’s how important R2-12 is. It isn’t a case of something that an HPA can do, or a simple thing, or a simple way to produce a good result on a pc, it is simply that people will never go Clear unless 2-12 is run right.

Now, show him as much of the list as the needle has been getting worse on. And hell say, „Oh, well, no, I didn’t“-usual response-“No, I didn’t have any thoughts. I didn’t have any thoughts on that one or that one… Oh, wait a minute. ‘Gladiator.’ I thought isn’t that a hell of a silly thing to have on this list-’Who or-who would cook well?’ see? ‘Who or what would cook well? „Gladiator.’ I thought that was a silly thing on the list. I don’t know what’s the matter with me, putting that on the list. That couldn’t have been it. So that’s all.“

Okay?

And you start to lean back-“Oh, yes! Oh, yes! Heh! Yes, this-this other item-this other item-I thought, by golly, you know, that-that’s it. That’s it, you see. ‘Cook.’ I said that-that-that is it. And then I thought, ‘Oh, no, that couldn’t be it.’ Yeah, and that’s all I’ve done… Except this last one that you just asked me on. This-this last one down here. This last one down here-uh-I didn’t understand what you said.“

Audience: Mm-hm.

And you say, „All right, thank you very much,“ pull the thing back, and just continue nulling from where you were. You’ll find out that is a very interesting little trick.

Thank you very much.

Now, a pc develops another allergy to that, by the way. The pc knows you’re going to do that when he-you-he sees an in, an in, an in, an in. He knows that paper’s going to turn around and come his way. But actually that does far less harm than knowing he’s going to spend the next half-hour battling with the auditor about mid ruds. It’s all in the speed of auditing.

The rudiment that goes out on checking-and particularly goals checking-the rudiment that goes out is this „Anxious about.“ And that’s really why it’s in there. You’re going to see a rebalancing of these rudiments very shortly into a very proper, better order. But it doesn’t change your small rudiments, and it doesn’t change your Small Tiger Drill. Those things are — compare one with the other.

But getting a needle clean-getting a needle clean is an operation which takes all needle pattern, all jerks and all ticks off, when the auditor is doing nothing, see. The-it has these things without the auditor doing anything, and it doesn’t have these things with the auditor doing nothing. And then you see these character-this characteristic of a clean needle. And that’s what a needle ought to look like before you start nulling anything.

That’s what gives you in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, in. And you say the list is incomplete. No, the list isn’t complete. Incomplete! You’re trying to null with a dirty needle, see? Maybe the list is incomplete too, but even if you had a complete list, if your rudiments are out and your needle is dirty you say, „waterbuck,“ and it’s — just the auditor speaking makes the needle tick. See?

The pc, in essence, has a withhold from the auditor, and thus is peculiarly vuler-vulnerable to the auditor’s actions. He’s just-even though he’s just invalidated something, you see, the auditor doesn’t know that he has. It isn’t enough to make the pc critical of the auditor, but it is enough to make the pc think extra thoughts all the time. See, it individuates the pc. So he’s not so well under auditor’s control. And you’ve got an individuated pc, and the pc thinks there, pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa, think-think-think-think-think. Every one of these things will have to be picked up.

And the more they’re out, the more the pc individuates, the more the pc thinks. So it just is a dwindling spiral. Now, you start to do a list that is complete with a pc with a missed withhold, the pc is individuated, the pc’s going to think some crashing thought every five-every five items you say, and so of course these things are now going to react and stay in, and so on.

Now, the Mark V will be cursed by pcs who believe that the thing at 128 is unfair. In actual fact, the Mark V is not one bit more sensitive than a Mark IV. In spite of the guts of the thing. The guts are much more complicated in a Mark V than a Mark IV. But in spite of this, it actually doesn’t register any more than a Mark IV does-if you’ve got fly’s eyes. All it does is take what the Mark IV is registering and amplifies it.

And whereas it’s almost undetectably tiny on a Mark IV-you don’t know whether it twitched or not, on a Mark-you see it did register on the Mark IV-on the Mark V, when you turn it up to 128, why, that confounded tick was one to two divisions wide. See, that’s what it does. All it does is amplify the read. The Mark IV always read it, providing you had fly’s eyes. See, this is nothing more sensiti-one meter is not more sensitive than the other. But the tiny manifestations that would be microscopically small on a Mark IV are visible on a Mark V, and that’s all. The Mark V is a more visible meter, not a more sensitive meter.

That’s very important to an auditor. By the time you put a magnifying glass up on top of a Mark V, man, have you got it made. You can read anything.

Now, at that level, you pick up all the analytical thoughts of the pc. You pick them all up. And the pc who has been audited on a Mark IV and has been getting away with blue murder because the auditor didn’t have fly’s eyes, gets into a Mark V and he feels like he’s going into a buzz saw, and he’s liable to start cussing the Mark V. „Yeah,“ he thinks, „well, I hope that doesn’t read.“ And the auditor says, „What was that?“

But let me tell you, if you never clean a clean, and you pick up every read and you clean those-in other words, you always clean up the needle, and don’t erroneously clean it up-a pc’s protest against mid ruds starts going out on the subject of the Mark V. It starts getting less, because the pc, of course, has less missed withholds from the auditor. And eventually they die out and stop yapping about it.

But at first, when you shift a pc over from being audited on a Mark IV to a Mark V, you can expect a little bit of trouble, because the pc’s days of liberty are at end. The day when he could think all those nasty thoughts about the auditor and get away with it are over, because the auditor can see them.

But the Mark V does give you this flowing manifestation. The Mark IV does too. But the Mark V, it becomes very, very visible. And you know that thing. „Boy,“ you say, „that’s the cleanest set of rudiments I’ve seen in many a day.“ There’s only one other way to get the same manifestation, and that’s just ARC break the living daylights out of a pc! And you’ll get the same manifestation. It has to be a very severe thing. You say, „You know that withhold that I-that you told me last week about Betsy Jo Ann-well, I — today I was on the phone to her parents, and they said…“ see, something like this, you know. Multiply that by five or ten more, and you will get a very nice, flowing needle. I don’t recommend that you do that. I recommend instead that you audit the pc.

Thank you very much.