It will be found that checking a pc’s rudiments leads to occasional arguments.

It will be found that checking a pc’s rudiments leads to occasional arguments.

Rudiments checking is done after the session by another auditor, more usually a leading auditor or instructor, using HCO Policy Letter of June 1, 1962 to find if the rudiments were in during a session just past.

Rudiments checking is done after the session by another auditor, more usually a leading auditor or instructor, using HCO Policy Letter of June 1, 1962 to find if the rudiments were in during a session just past.

The rudiments check, especially early in a pc’s auditing when the needle is rougher, or after very poor auditing, often discloses that certain rudiments were not in during the session just past.

The rudiments check, especially early in a pc’s auditing when the needle is rougher, or after very poor auditing, often discloses that certain rudiments were not in during the session just past.

Two protests sometimes occur when rudiments have been found to have been “out” on the session just past.

Two protests sometimes occur when rudiments have been found to have been “out” on the session just past.

The first is a possible protest from the auditor who did the auditing. The auditor sometimes claims loudly that the rudiments were in but that the checker mysteriously threw them out and that the checker is in error. The auditor has been known to get the pc back on the meter before friends and show one and all that the rudiments check was in fact nul – and it has been nul. But this does not mean the rudiments were in fact in in the session or that the checker erred. It means only this: the auditor’s TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are very weak and there was no impingement on the pc by that auditor. Exception: a pc early in auditing or who has been badly audited doesn’t get the rudiments check question – cure: ask the check question again if you get a read.

The first is a possible protest from the auditor who did the auditing. The auditor sometimes claims loudly that the rudiments were in but that the checker mysteriously threw them out and that the checker is in error. The auditor has been known to get the pc back on the meter before friends and show one and all that the rudiments check was in fact nul – and it has been nul. But this does not mean the rudiments were in fact in in the session or that the checker erred. It means only this: the auditor’s TR 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are very weak and there was no impingement on the pc by that auditor. Exception: a pc early in auditing or who has been badly audited doesn’t get the rudiments check question – cure: ask the check question again if you get a read.

The second is a possible protest by the pc whose rudiments have been found out by the checker. The pc seeks to “protect” the auditor and claims the rudiments were “in” in session even if found “out” by the checker. This pc is seeking to validate the stupidity of the auditor. The pc actually has something he consciously or unconsciously wishes to hide from the auditor and so wants the auditor to find the rudiments in, regardless of all evidence.

The second is a possible protest by the pc whose rudiments have been found out by the checker. The pc seeks to “protect” the auditor and claims the rudiments were “in” in session even if found “out” by the checker. This pc is seeking to validate the stupidity of the auditor. The pc actually has something he consciously or unconsciously wishes to hide from the auditor and so wants the auditor to find the rudiments in, regardless of all evidence.

Pcs have even been known to gradually raise the fingers off one can to attempt to get a rising needle and obscure rudiments reads!

Pcs have even been known to gradually raise the fingers off one can to attempt to get a rising needle and obscure rudiments reads!

A rudiments checker is more concerned with a pc’s needle getting smoother early on in auditing than in rudiments check results. But after a few days of sessions on a pc a rudiments checker must believe his rudiments check, not the protests.

A rudiments checker is more concerned with a pc’s needle getting smoother early on in auditing than in rudiments check results. But after a few days of sessions on a pc a rudiments checker must believe his rudiments check, not the protests.

Students who fight instructors are, anyway, in sufficiently low tone to be able to fight only their friends. As they come up they can have friends and fight an actual enemy, not us.

Students who fight instructors are, anyway, in sufficiently low tone to be able to fight only their friends. As they come up they can have friends and fight an actual enemy, not us.