How you doing tonight?

Vernal Equinox, Earth Colony of the Marcab Confederacy, Space Command, Planet 5. Let's be factual; stop this nonsense. Year of the Fox. Time tracks and time tracks.

Audience: Good. All right. Okay.

Okay. 21 March — for those earthlings that don't understand — AD 12.

All right.

All right. I'm going to give you a talk right now on the subject of an experimental method of establishing Zero questions in Prepchecking.

Male voice: How you doing?

The first value of this particular method is that it relieves you from a lot of fish-around, at the beginning of a case and it also removes you out of those zones and areas which you're liable to be in, which the pc doesn't consider overts but which you do.

Bad.

In other words, it takes you out of the zones of Sec Checking which, although you think they should be getting someplace, aren't really getting anyplace and the pc isn't really getting any big gains, and so forth.

Okay. This is the vernal equinox of AD 12. March the 21st for those who are unChaldean. If you've never had a past life in Chaldea, it's March the 21st. And if you've never had a past life in England . . . You ever had a past life in England?

In other words, if — you can prepcheck, you understand, on standard social aberrations that you consider social aberrations that the pc doesn't, and get a lot of withholds on this subject, which doesn't do the pc any good at all. Do you understand?

Audience: Yes.

Audience: Yes.

Every time an American goes down to the Tower to sightsee, I always like to see them as they come out. They're always going like this, you know.

Now, you are entitled to a tremendous amount of win and a tremendous amount of gain in any Prepcheck session. And I ask you first and foremost to put your sights up on the subject of what ought to happen to a pc in any one Prepcheck session.

I never knew they had that many executioners at the Tower.

Now, true enough, under training your sessions go two hours. In actual, professional practice they are much more likely to go five-and-a-half or thereabouts. Now on a five-hour-and-a-half session, on a Prepcheck, if you don't wind up with a tremendous resurgence on the part of the pc by reason of Prepchecking and so forth, you just don't know your business.

Okay. Now, you saw a demonstration last night. I'll make a comment on that before we get into the lecture. That was a very neat demonstration. Very neat. you saw the pc trying to give me a lose. I — didn't even faze me, you know. That was fine. And I think the class thanks you, too. We're going to find the other item you wanted.

Now, of course, you can't always win. Don't expect to win always. But what do I mean by a win? You understand the pc better. You know more about the mind. This is from the auditor's point of view.

But let me call to your attention a phenomenon which is very interesting here. And if you don't mind my making a comment, it's just that a pc's attention on the Goals Problem Mass can become so tied up and so concentrated on some portion of the Goals Problem Mass that they don't recognize that it has forty or fifty combinations in it.

The pc has made some part of his goals and has made some progress. Now, that's your minimal expectancy, and if you've made that inspect — expectancy, fine, dandy. Call it a win.

And trying to get the pc's attention off of the last combination you found and on to the next combination you found, sometimes has to be done with building jacks. And you saw that particular phenomenon. The pc did not like letting go of some units that belonged to the last part of the GPM we found. Don't you see?

The pc got some cognitions and knows more about himself and knows more about life and is better in-session. Yeah, that's a nice win. That's nice. The pc's gotten over something which he's always had around. That's a little bit phenomenal. That's a big-win-type thing. You don't expect those every session.

Well remember, this is a characteristic of the GPM. It's areas of stuck attention upon identities. And the pc ordinarily runs through this cycle: They didn't want it, and then they think it's fine. See? Now, they're sometimes thunderstruck and delighted with the horror of it all, but it takes them a little time for their attention to settle down into these. But sometimes some items you get are hotter than others. Sometimes they explain more to the pc than others. But you have a tremendous number of items before you get down to the middle of the Goals Problem Mass. And that, of course, is the last one — the last ones that the pc finds.

But you expect one of these minimal wins, certainly, every session. And it ought to look pretty good. And you — after a week's prepchecking of five hours and a half a day on a pc, you ought to be sitting there looking at almost a different being. You know, this pc should look different to you.

And they will be twenty or thirty combinations deep. you see, 3D Criss Cross bypasses and cuts through the running of items and it simply goes on selecting items, finding items; and by the process of finding them, getting the bank down to the point of what's holding the bank together.

I can generally prepcheck up to changing the color of their eyes in a five-and-a-half-hour session — generally.

And that is a rather difficult proposition because it's sometimes almost over the pc's dead body. you see? In fact, I would go so far as to say it is over his last few hundred thousand dead bodies.

But how do you know whether a Prepcheck session is running The tone arm moves. Just like any other process, Ollie. Just like any other process. If the tone arm, it then move, you makes progress. Ya. And if she don't move — I don't care how juicy the quality is; I don't care how marvelous this would sound from the pen of Lawrence or how forbidden and banned it would be in Boston — you're not making any progress.

Fortunately, there are only a few of these items which are remarkable. The pc has probably been, in actuality, any item he has — he ever puts on a list. Do you realize that? We're only trying to find the items he's stuck with. And by the fact of listing, you get rid of fifty or a hundred items at a crack, you see. Because they key out easily. But then you get the one that doesn't key out. Well, that's the Goals Problem Mass item, see? All these others are simply locks on that. Now, of course, what's holding the one in that's going tick-tick-tick-tick-tick consistently? Well, that'll be a deeper, more basic combination.

Just as in any activity, the movement of the tone arm gives you the degree of change on the pc.

So you can go elsewhere in the Goals Problem Mass, and you pull out a few more pins and hinges, and don't be too surprised if items that checked out, when you go to run them, haven't got a twitch in them. See?

Now, you saw a tone arm moving last night in a demonstration session on the subject of 3D Criss Cross. And you saw that tone arm flicking about, but only going from about 2.8 to about 3.25 or something like that. There was an out of — between-session-break rise to 4.0, but that didn't have anything to do with the processing. See? And that was only about a quarter of a division.

Don't be too surprised. They're not going to go on ticking forever. Some of them are. Only when you run the central package are you going to get rid of some of them. But the most horrifying ones that the pc finds early on are liable to blow as locks. Oh, man, they really explain his whole case and he's right there, and everything is fine, and the masses move around, and the chills turn on; and if you were to run them, they would run quite satisfactorily.

And you saw the old man choke it down to a point where he could get one read, that there weren't any more, and you saw him get out of there, man, like hurry, and say, "That was the end of the list. And now we're going to null this list."

And then you move on a little bit deeper in the case and these others cease to be that important. And you go on deeper, and you get these earlier items that were so important, deintensifying as importance.

And the pc's still saying, "But there are some more items."

But it's an interesting thing that the reason an auditor trying to do Routine 3 was trying to do it and failing so often, and that it was so difficult to do — sometimes getting thirteen-hundred goals and things of this character, you know — was because Routine 3 is a much better — in terms of quality but not in terms of length of time of running or accuracy or easy on the pc, and it certainly guarantees no accuracy. If you can't supervise the auditing and cross-check it and get the rudiments checked, and oh, my. It's a very difficult and complicated action to get a Routine 3 goal and then get its terminal.

And then the old man says, "That's good. I know there are. Thank you very much. Ha-ha. Well, you can give me those in due course."

But what do you know. If you get a Routine 3 goal that is really a goal and sticks there, and then the terminal and it really sticks there; do you know that after you've run or found ten or twelve items of Routine 3D Criss Cross, that you'll start colliding with the original Routine 3 package? That was how deep Routine 3 went into the bank.

All this a part of understanding, "We're going on and null this list," crash! Why?

In other words, Routine 3, if it could be done, was a very accurate method and reached very deeply into the Goals Problem Mass and reached very significantly deeply into the case.

Pc's giving you a list that only moves that much, you're not on a very hot list. Now, the next list along this line is going to be hotter. The oppterms are maybe going to be hotter, and so forth. But that list wasn't hot. Did you see that? Yeah.

Well, Routine 3D Criss Cross exists because auditors found this very hard to do, and if it was done inaccurately, it was absolute suicide for the pc to run it. It was deadly. It was worse than taking arsenic. You get the wrong terminal, man; oh, wow! And then run it. Woooh! Well, in Routine 3D Criss Cross, you can sort it out and sort it out. What I did actually — I won't go into detail because this isn't a lecture on this subject — but I just found about forty doors where we only had one door. There were several reasons — as you can learn in earlier lectures — there were several reasons why we stopped doing Routine 3. And Routine 3D Criss Cross, of course, keeps affording all these doors. I don't wish to discourage your accuracy, but frankly, if you're only indifferently accurate, why, you will eventually wind up in the middle of the Goals Problem Mass by just the law of averages, see.

And you saw me bail out of there, man. I'll actually leave questions unflat if in the process of a — four, five hours or something like that we've got no TA motion on the pc. It isn't moving. He's given us data. It isn't moving. Get out of there. Skip it. Don't argue with yourself that you've restimulated anything. You couldn't have; no TA motion. See? See how simple that is?

And when you really got it all the way down, of course, it'll run like a startled deer and everything is fine, you see? It's a much handier one to use, much better to use and the pc shows continuous progress all the way through running it.

And when you're prepchecking, if you don't get a — well, let's take the minimum amount — a half a division, from 3.0 to 3.5 to 3.0 type of swing, back and forth, half a division swing . . . Well, I'd say that would be absolute minimum that you would tolerate in a Prepcheck session.

They're a bit different, they — but they oddly enough wound up with the same goal. I merely wanted to make this comment on old Routine 3. It was auditor accuracy or inaccuracy that defeated it, rather than it wasn't arriving. Because, man, that really "arrove" when it "arrove"!

You couldn't be mining anything very hot if you weren't getting a tone arm motion — couldn't be. That's no excuse to go off and leave it because it's only moving a quarter of a dial. But after you've been at it for two hours and it has only moved a quarter of a division on the dial, ah-oh, come off of it. We must be mining asphalt from a solid bank of asphalt which has nothing to do with anything the pc ever found out about. That's for sure.

Okay. So you take somebody who was done on Routine 3, and then you take Routine 3D Criss Cross, and they're always just a little bit dissatisfied with some of their items coming up. They haven't quite got the punch that their original Routine 3 package had. And that was to some degree what you were looking at last night in that session because, of course, we were in contest with a Routine 3 item which is much more fundamental on the case than the item we found, don't you see?

The amount of case progress is directly proportional to the amount of tone arm motion.

But by finding more and more items, we will eventually find one which is much more fundamental than the Routine 3 item that we found. We'll go that much further. See, just as in Routine 3, you had to do another assessment, you know, and find more items. Well, Routine 3D Criss Cross, you just keep on finding items, of course, and you get much more fundamental items than the original Routine 3 item just as you did in Routine 3. Okay? Help you to understand that?

Now, a two-division motion in the course of a two-hour session — that's a lot of motion: 3.5 to 4.5 to 4.0 to 3.0 to 5.0 to 4.0 — oh, my God. Wow! See? We're mining with both hands all day and all night, you see; up to our necks in the roaring stream, you see. Breakers busting all around us, you know. Four — comes in at 4.0 — goes down to 3.75 during the beginning rudiments, goes to 3.9, goes to 3.8, goes to 4.0, goes to 3.8, goes to 3.9, goes to 3.75, goes to 3.9, and this goes on for two hours. Well, that doesn't have anything to do with us. Well, does it? Couldn't have.

I know you probably disagreed, most of you, with my meter reading. But did you — I want to make a comment on that: If you'll watch me reading meters, you should be — notice one thing — that I'm not reading a meter on the basis of a bulletin. I'm being very careful of the pc. Have you noticed that?

Pc isn't getting anything off that has anything to do with his case. He couldn't because it's not changing any mass.

Audience: Yes. Um-hm.

Now, there isn't any interval of time specified for which you ought to look for this motion because sometimes it goes on like this for an hour and then all of a sudden you start to get tone arm motion. Don't you see? Well, that's fine. Well, I'd say if you went on for the whole session and there was no tone arm motion — there at the end of the session — I mean the next time you picked this thing up, you would — ah, I don't know — I'd do something else.

I'm very, very careful of the pc. And you should notice, too, that on a Routine 3D Criss Cross set of rudiments, and so on, I'm only looking for the instantaneous read. And if I don't get an instantaneous read on that rudiment, I don't fool with it. That's mostly for the newcomers. Yeah, don't fool with it, man. Because when you're doing Routine 3D Criss Cross, you're supposed to be doing Routine 3D Criss Cross. You're not supposed to be straightening out withholds and everything else.

You couldn't have restimulated the case. That's for sure. It's on any — no line that he has anything to do with.

Now, a way to defeat auditing is while doing a Routine 3D Criss Cross session, do nothing but prepcheck under the guise of getting in the rudiments. See? And then the other way to defeat it, which is what we get to tonight's lecture is, when doing Prepchecking, don't ever find any withholds.

You see, this — all comes under the heading — this is brand-new; this is brand-new. This is auditing . . . This is a brand-new way to audit: auditing by the Auditor's Code. You run a process only so long as it produces change and no longer.

Now, if you can just manage this, nothing will happen with the pc. And nothing will ever be revealed. But if you — just as a further comment on that session — you should notice that I just don't take any chances with the pc from the standpoint of meter reading If it bings 1 and 3, why I leave it in. And if I've got a question about it, I'm not so tied to the ritual that I don't find out whether or not it's still in or not. I go on and find out if it's in. you notice that? And you notice when we really found the item itself, it was going pop-pop-pop. This is nice. Wasn't that — wasn't that beautiful? Pop-pop-pop. And the pc saying, "Well, I don't know. It doesn't have anything to do with me, and so forth." Pop-pop-pop. Nothing else around there was going pop-pop-pop. Well, remember the horse came up and knocked out the gris — the polar bear. Thought that was interesting. We had a rock slam on polar bear up to the moment the horse came up.

Therefore, you're guilty of running a process which is producing no change and you shouldn't do that. Well, that's how you judge it. That's how you know whether it is going or not going as the case may be.

Pc said, "I think there's another item. It's a horse."

So, is there any remedy? Because the amount of tone arm motion in Prepchecking is directly proportional to the auditor hitting the chain the pc is trying to avoid. Isn't that interesting

Fine. That was the end of the polar bear.

So if the amount of tone arm motion is directly proportional to what the pc is trying to avoid, if the auditor hasn't got any directional bearings — assistance toward what the pc is trying to avoid, they'll both sit there and avoid, won't they?

And it's just puzzled me ever since. The dramatic scene which I can pick up about horses and polar bears. They don't quite mix up, you know. But anyway, that was the way it went.

And then we find the auditor walking around in this little duck pond I was talking about. You know? Oh, he really found something — he saw a goldfish.

All right. Enough of that.

Therefore, many methods of assessment could be expected. Many methods of assessment could be expected to be developed which would orient what Prepcheck question to ask and what Prepcheck question not to ask. And the one which I'm giving you is just one of these methods.

This in essence is a lecture on. . . I could be very smoothly — and finish this off, you see, as a lecture on Goals Problem Mass, you see, and then do the other one on Prepchecking But my mind right now is on you and the sins and crimes which you were committing under the heading of Prepchecking and I want to set you right in a hurry. So this is actually a lecture about Prepchecking, and I want to give you some data on the subject of Prepchecking which you probably do not have yet.

You've got the scale already. It's the Secondary Prehav Scale for overts. Overts; Secondary Prehav Scale. I'll edit it and publish it again but it's right now available. It exists. You've probably got it. Scale for overts.

And one is: the object of Prepchecking is to find chains of withholds and release them on the pc's case. Now, I want you to get that datum, and so on. I don't think it's been in any bulletins or anything. I probably omitted giving you this datum. But the object of Prepchecking, you see, is to find chains of withholds and relieve them on the pc's case, you see. you got that? You got that? It's a new datum. A new datum.

And what you do is take your ballpoint in hand and run a standard Prehav-type assessment on that Secondary Scale. You do an Assessment by Elimination on that Secondary Scale. And you'll find you're left there with one that is ticking faintly or banging largely. Very simple, hm? All right. Well, you've got that item now.

Because when I look over your What questions or when I looked them over last night, after the air was no longer blue, I sat there and held my head in my hands for a few minutes, sighed deeply, and then threw it all overboard and audited Herbie. That was after the session, you see. That was a good session. You missed the real good session last night. That was the good one.

Now, the funny part of it is that you . . . This is not necessarily the way this thing goes together, but I'll just give you a rundown on it. you do a Dynamic Assessment now on the pc. That gives you a terminal of sorts.

Anyhow, the datum which you're missing about Prepchecking is that you don't ask a What question until you have a specific withhold delivered into your lap by the pc. Your What questions are all your Zero A questions. Now, the way you're Prepchecking is your What questions — what you're listing as What questions — are actually Zero A questions or Zero B questions.

Now, you take that overt and that terminal and combine them into a Zero question and it's hot the whole way. Won't make any sense to you. For a while it might not make any sense at all to the pc, but that's why. See? That's what the pc is trying to avoid. It's "dusting." The overt — let's be corny about it — the overt we find is dusting and the Dynamic Assessment that we do on the thing; we get fences. Sixth dynamic, and it falls out to be fences. "Dusting fences." And I guarantee that the pc will consider that about the most awful overt he can do. why we care not. But every time he's dusted a fence, he's practically plowed himself in and he's always dusting fences.

And in any folder I picked up last night, I did not find a single What question. I found nothing but Zero A — Zero B questions. Isn't that interesting

Now, what this has got to do with the price of overts — Lord knows what this goes back to! But it'll steer into some wild concatenation of events of some kind or another that will be quite aberrative and will give you quite a lot of tone arm motion. Well, you'll find out he dusted a fence day before yesterday, you see. you run this. This is the actual one. You've still got to get this What question, see? "Have you ever dusted any fences?" you know. That's your Zero.

And on a little further inquiry, I understood what was wrong, and that is: you're not waiting till you get a crashing, smashing, nice withhold right on the button before you ask the What question. Now, the Zero A — the Zero question gives you a huge generality. Your Zero A, why, it gives you slightly less generality. You could have a Zero B that gave you a little less generality, but I'll give you an example:

Now, you've fished around and found an actual fence, see, and so forth. Your What question can almost repeat the Zero questions when this goes, but you didn't put it down until you found the actual incident. It's "What about dusting small fences?" is your What question. Now, you got the idea? You didn't put that down till you actually found him dusting a fence. It was day before yesterday and he did dust a fence, you know?

"I says to this girl once, I says — I says, 'I don't think you're beautiful,' so I've damaged the beauty of women and so on. And I think I did that, and so forth."

And you'll find that tone arm will rock around, and it looks like Big Ben — round and round, man. Quite amazing. Well, you pan that thing out, it's liable to go backtrack on you. So what?

"All right."

The reason I redesigned the Withhold System with "Appear" in it was so that it would run a backtrack incident if you ran into it. I didn't want you to be running the backtrack incidents when you might stick the pc in them, but this Appear, particularly if you also run it as Not Appear, alternately . . . You know, you go When, All, Appear, Who, When, All, Didn't Appear, Who, see. It'll knock out engrams. It'll blast them out of existence. So that's fine. you won't get the pc stuck anyplace on the track. And you'll find the pc will scoot all around, and it sounds pretty wacky.

"Well, what about damaging the beauty of women?"

Now, that it can be — this has a liability — that it can be wacky, will sometimes wind you up in some kind of a situation where you've done a bad assessment. That has happened, you see. A poor Prehav Assessment and poor Prehavs Assessment are more frequent than you would ordinarily suspect. They're quite frequent. They're accidentals.

Well, we probably don't even look at that first withhold he just gave us anymore, but go racing and call that a What question. "What about damaging the beauty of women?"

Because a Prehav Assessment is a very precisely done action and lately we haven't been doing very many of them, and you don't get much practice in doing one. And of course the way you do this is just to read the items over to the pc. He just sits there, and you don't put the rudiments in halfway down the list. you don't run Havingness halfway down the list. (God, what I've seen lately on some of these cases.) You don't do anything. If the pc fell out of the chair and snored, you'd still go on doing it because it'll still register on the meter oddly enough. You're not auditing a body; you're auditing a thetan.

"1." With great triumph, you see, the auditor puts down, "1. What about damaging the beauty of women?" Oh, thank you.

All right. You go right on down the thing, and you just read each item once. Pow! pow! pow! pow! pow! And you don't read the item: Helped. Controlled. No, it's Controlled, then look at your E-Meter a minute or so later, and you don't do it that way. you don't look at the pc at all.

No, no, that's a Zero question. A Zero A or a Zero B. don't you see?

You just do, "Bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark, bark." It only — if that thing isn't reacting, you see, it isn't reacting. And you're going to be able to tell that in a quarter of a second, so the devil with it. It — actually, saying "and" between them is too long! "Helped and controlled." That's too long to wait between those things.

Now from that, you get this generality. Let me give you a better example, more definite.

You just go right down; you read the whole list, "Bark, bark, bark." one each. And you mark in every one that it looked like it reacted. Instantaneous reaction. You mark that in. put a mark after it. you only mark those that reacted. You leave the rest of them out and then you go down those you marked only. And you only mark those that now react. And then you go over the remaining ones. There's only maybe three reacted and you go over those three.

Well, the fellow says, "I've often disconcerted women." See? "I've often disconcerted women."

Sometimes you're left with two, and one reacts and then the other one reacts and it takes a moment or two reading one and then reading the other and so on and you're left with it. And then you check nothing; you don't do another thing And that is why you can get a lousy mess, because sometimes you check it and become unsure of it or you don't know or your last two readings were bad or something and you start quivering And the only reason you ever do a bad Prehav Assessment is because you quiver and doubt somewhere along the line. you have to do those assessments boldly, brashly and come what may. And maybe the pc got some incidental reads on something else. He thought of something else and you got a read and that made it look like one of them read, don't you see.

And the auditor hastily puts down, "1. What about disconcerting women?" See, these are all wrong ways of doing it.

Well, that's all right; you'll get it by elimination anyway. And you usually are down to two and you have to read one against the other and you could see that they're both reacting. There's not much question in your mind. And one of them drops out and leaves the last one and you only read it once. Well, you can read it, maybe, two more times and see if it reacts, but it wouldn't matter because if it stopped reacting on those two more times, doesn't mean you've got it wrong.

"Well, I just did. I just disconcerted them, I did."

The primary cause of a bad Prehav Assessment is the auditor's doubt of what he's seeing on the meter; the lack of boldness and brashness.

"That's good. Oh, you disconcerted them, huh?"

This is one of those slap-happy, go-to-hell, flat-out sort of actions. You know, this one you do. There's nothing to one. But you start hunting around and being a little bit doubtful and trying to keep the pc awake while you're doing it and being superchecking and supercareful about the whole thing, and you wind up in the soup every time. The pc kind of goes out of session.

"Yeah."

It's a remarkable thing how a pc will stay in-session at a brisk, machine gun, Prehav Assessment. You see, auditors that get all kinds of things and the pc will all of a sudden pop up and say, "You know, I'm still thinking about 'startle."'

"Well, all right. That's fine. When did you disconcert them?"

And the auditor — he's liable to do something about it or something like that. The auditor is liable to say, "Well, thank you," and go on with the assessment. Well, that's perfectly all right. I don't usually say — I just say, "Shut up!" He isn't supposed to be talking "What you talking for? Now, let's see, where were we?"

"Oh, the last few lifetimes."

But he only starts to help you if you look helpless. And if you want to get an auditor that gets pcs wildly out of session, why, always train the auditor to believe that the pc should help him, and then of course, the auditor will look helpless. You know. That auditor doesn't even have to exist in the level of Help as far as operating helpfully or something of this sort. If an auditor just operated briskly and interestedly, you'll find out the rudiments will stay in. You can almost take Help out of the soup.

"All right. That's good. Think that's flat now? All right. That's fine. That's null."

Pc says, "Let me see. I don't know. Let me see. What date . . . ?"

It isn't registering anymore. Wasn't registering in the first place. So we finally cleaned up that withhold, didn't we. Heh-heh-heh.

"Oh, come off of it. What date is it?"

Well, now, I just wish to tell you, that is wrong. And I wish to plead with you, plead with you, to see the error of your ways and repent because the kingdom of heaven is not at hand for any pc that you do that to.

You don't help him. But tell him to give you what date it is, you know.

You haven't even really gone so far as to miss a withhold. And you know, I think that's wading pretty shallow in the pc's bank. Now, let me show you this.

"Well, let's see if you can find out what date that is. Let's see." Let's help him out and so forth, of course. And then this immediately is liable to go into being helpless, you know? Like, "Well, let's see, now if you think about it there I'll read on the meter here, and you think about it while I read on the meter and then we'll find out, and so forth, da-da-da. You help me out here." I never act helpless when I'm auditing a pc. Because he's the one that wants the help — I don't.

Through chitter-chatter, metering, analysis, assessment — anything of that sort; through anything of that kind — we find out that this person has been making a habit of disconcerting women. So that's a Zero A. "What about hating sex?" was the Zero from which we came out, or something of this sort. Or "What about sex?" or "Why haven't you liked sex?" Well, we don't care what it is, but it had something to do with a whole dynamic, you know. And we pulled it down to the fact that he was disconcerting women. Well, that is just a Zero A. And you're going to have lots of those, and you could put that down by any way that you arrived at it; we don't care.

And there's where Prehav Assessments go completely by the boards — is the auditor acts unsure. And that's actually the only reason Prehav Assessments ever turn up as very wrong. It's just the auditor's monkey, you know, and he hasn't got much practice in doing it.

You can go ahead and do it just the way you've been doing it, but don't think you're yet into withholds of the bank. You're not. See, you're just at some high generality of some kind or another.

Well, you can always do a Prehav Assessment on somebody. See you can always practice this thing Now, you do this secondary overt list. you do that as you would do any other Prehav Scale. But you have to do it briskly, surely, snappily, on-the-bally. Then the pc sits there and he doesn't go out of session. He knows. Yes, that's right. Bang! You got it, see? That's the way you handle it.

Because what you've got to do now is go ahead and get the pc into a specific overt: a specific, clawing, screaming, acting overt. Not a "I thought an unkind thought about God." No, we don't buy this sort of thing No. Disconcerting women. All right. You've got to go at it this way.

But you start going, "Well, let's see, now. Is it kill? Blah-blah-blah, reow, reow. How's your havingness?"

This is not a What question even though it begins with what. "What's this — what's this about disconcerting women? You ever disconcert one?"

You see, you're not assessing the pc's analytical mind anyhow. That's why you tell him to shut up and you get along much better. You're not assessing him analytically. You're assessing him reactively and, of course, he hasn't any control over the reactive mind or he wouldn't have one. So the more monkey business occurs around there, why, the more analytical mind gets dragged into the setup, you see, and the further out that assessment can go.

And the pc says, "Oh, I don't know. Lots of them, you know. I, just — thousands of them. And so on, over, the last few lifetimes, I've been disconcerting an awful lot of women, as a matter of fact."

Well, that's — that would be one of the reasons it failed, and the other one would be a bad Dynamic Assessment or going too esoteric on the thing. The way you do Dynamic Assessment, of course, just read the dynamics to the person and see what — which one changes the needle pattern. If you got two, put down two, and assess two items. Then assess the two items one against each other.

And you say, "Well, good. Well, just — just one, just one now, just one, see, one — one time when you did."

All right. So you get second dynamic. Dandy. "What would represent the second dynamic to you?" And he gives you a few items, and you put those down. Well, assess them. Simple.

"Oh, well, one time when I did it. There's lots of times when I did it, you see."

"What represents the second dynamic to me? Oh, coffins."

"That's fine. Yeah. Good. Well, just — just one time. Just how — well, how would you go about con — disconcerting one?"

"Good." That's a very — that would be an almost usual response.

"Oh, I don't know, scratching her eyes out or something like that." And so on.

If that's really a nutty dynamic, the guy will give you something that hasn't anything to do with it, every time.

"Oh, really?"

"Give me something on the sixth dynamic."

Now, you see now, there you'd go with a wrong What, you see? "Oh, well, this person, you see . . ." You've got a suspicious What, you know. You've got just a suspicion there might be a What there, so you say, "What about scratching women's eyes?" You know, just because you've had tick on it. Oh, no, no, no, no. Lay off of it. Just — just put your paper aside until you've done some work! Then you can write it all up and brag to me about how good you are at this sort of thing, but only after you've done it, you see. Your paper — you haven't got anything to do with your paper or anything. You're just — you and the pc. We don't even really care whether we're doing too much with the meter at this stage, you know.

"Girls."

And he says, "Well, oh, well, that's just metaphorically speaking. I, as a matter of fact, probably never have scratched any, any women's eyes. That's just, you know, you know, that's the old cliche, 'Scratch your eyes out.' I could scratch her eyes out. I suppose I've said that a time or two. Or women have said it to me, and so forth."

A person who assesses out on the first dynamic — oh, boy, that really leaves you in the soup. "What represents the first dynamic?"

You just leave that paper alone and leave your ballpoint alone. Don't come in close to this now. you haven't got a What question yet. you understand me now? And we finally say, "Well, now, scratching women's eyes," and it goes clang you see. you say, "Any time when you have ever done this? Any time when you have ever done this?"

"Me."

"Well, I've — some past lives somewhere."

Well, you can always say immediately afterwards, "Well, who are you?"

"No. Now, any time you've ever done this? You know, scratching women's eyes. Any time you ever really have done that?"

And put down what he says. you can — it almost gets to be a 3D Criss Cross action if you let it go too far. But get something in that zone.

"No. Well, I hit a women — I hit a woman in the eye once. I — I hit her in the eye."

Now, you say, "All right.. ." You don't say, "How do you feel about — ?" ever, on these types of assessments. You just say the item. It's like in flows, assessing flows.

"All right."

Somebody who took forever and ever and ever here — I won't mention any names — to get an item on a flows assessment. Well, the flows assessment was wrong Must have been. Doesn't take you forever to get an item on a flows assessment. Pc doesn't have any difficulty giving you items for a flows assessment, for heaven's sakes — couldn't have. Because if you got the right flow, it's all on automatic.

See, you weren't quite on, see, you weren't quite on with scratching eyes out or something like that. But hitting a woman in the eye. Ah, ha-ha, that was something else, see?

"Who or what would enforce inflow?" See?

And you can still make a little notation. Well, if you're going to make any notations or you can't remember it, put it over here in the margin someplace that you did get a reaction on scratching eyes, but the only overt you can find on this, to which the pc will stand up before the judge and plead guilty, is: "punching a woman in the eye." But we want to find out if he can remember it and if it happened, and so forth.

"Cheese, cats, kings, coal heavers, da-da, da-da-da, da-da-da, da-da-da, da-da-da, da-da-da, da-da. Whada — what. I don't know what's talking — something. Da-da-da-da-da-da." Tone arm flies around and you say, "Is that all?"

So he finally said, "Well, yes, she was instructing in the Academy, and I punched her in the eye, and that's — that's right. That's right."

"Well, da-da-da-da-da."

Now, "What about punching a woman in the eye?" Now you have your What question, and you write it down there: "1. What about punching women in the eye?" Which — which is probably the best phrasing for it, see. You're going to get a knock on that, too.

"All right. Is that it?"

Now, you want to know when it was, and you want to know if that's all, and you want to know if — what might have appeared at that moment. (Your new 4.)

"Da-da."

You want to know who didn't find out about it, who failed to discover it, so forth, who he was hiding it from. Any way you want to phrase it, and so forth. And then you ask him when was it. This thing is knocking like mad, you see. It's taming down now. And was that all of it? And what didn't appear at the time, see? Run your plus and minus "is-not-is," see. What didn't appear at the time? And then who failed to find out about it? And so on and . . .

"Any more?"

You know, this thing isn't cooling off worth a nickel. Now, this is how you tell, see. This thing is just not cooling off. Well, there's several ways to handle it. The more — most accusative way and probably the most needless, early on, is to find out if the pc is telling you a half-truth or an untruth about the thing. But that's relatively needless.

"La-da-da."

No, look. The anatomy of change demonstrates that if that thing didn't cool off on a couple of rounds of When, All, Appear, Who, he has done it before.

"All right. That's fine. All right. Now, let's differentiate this list."

Now, get the idea of dramatization and habit pattern. If last year somebody socked a woman in the eye, you can absolutely guarantee that year before last he socked a woman in the eye. And you can also guarantee that it'll go clean back to kindygarten, because that's what you do. you see? That's natural and normal. And that's why that withhold won't free.

You've got it. That's the easiest one in the world to do if you got it right. But if you were to say to somebody, "Now, how do you feel about uh — um — ," let's see, it says here "enforcing inflow on self." "And how do you feel about enforcing inflow on self?" Latent read. "Well, we got that one."

And now, you just put your ballpoint aside and leave your auditor's report over there as far as any What questions are concerned. You can put down all of your tone arm reads and your times and so forth, but don't you do anything to that "1" question, because you haven't run it yet. You found one withhold before you got it, see. you found one overt and a withhold right there, bang. Now you're going to ask for an earlier one. Now, that's the magic word. you want an earlier incident when he socked a woman in the eye. And you're going to run that one back, and you're going to find that there's an earlier one, and so forth.

I mean, you could get just crazy, you know.

And he says, "Well, no. I really never socked a woman in the eye" — the needle is falling off the pin — "but I kicked one in the shins once."

You just say, "Enforce inflow on self," you know? And read it, you know? Bang, the next one. Bang, bang. Just like Prehav Assessment. And the more rapidly you do it, the more accurate it is. And the more competent you sound and look, the more accurate it is. And the more helpless and stupid you look about it, the more stupid and inaccurate the thing is going to be. Works the same way in 3D Criss Cross.

Now, I will permit you at that time to pick up your overt, and if it's not working very well — ballpoint pens and overts. Have you noticed that they don't write on greasy auditor's reports and so forth? They're always letting you down.

You want to get a wrong item? Take four days to do it. Every time. I mean, it will be off somehow. The pc's out of session. You're boxing around somehow. It just means the auditor doesn't sound positive. That's all. Long time to get the item? Incorrect Prehav Assessment? Incorrect Dynamic Assessment? Auditor doesn't sound like he knows what he's doing. Period. To that pc he doesn't sound like he knows what he's doing.

So you can go over here on the margin and you can write "Kick woman in shin." Understand? "Kick woman in shin." you can write that down here over in the margin someplace. We don't care where you wrote it. It's just a notation to you. It has nothing to do with your Withhold System, because that's a Q and A to leave that What question you got because, look, you didn't free it. And I guarantee to you ladies and gentlemen, that if it falls on, "Hitting a woman in the eye," and you can't free it by finding, "1. Sock a woman in the eye," there is an earlier one last year when he socked a woman in the eye, and there's one earlier than that when he socked a woman in the eye. You got the idea?

That's why you find me punching you along to speed you up, because sometimes you don't notice that you have ceased to look helpless. You see? And you speed up, and you all of a sudden look calm, and you get it done, and you feel competent, and that makes you competent, you see. And so I just keep booting you in that direction, without giving you much mechanics about it.

And I don't care if there were five hundred and seventy-five times when he socked a woman in the eye, you're going to run them all under that What question. You're not going to put it down — any more Whats. You're going to run a whole chain, and that chain is going to consist of a hundred percent doing just exactly what you put down, which described a specific overt — on the . . . Because look, if it only happened that once in this lifetime, it will free on two runs around. And if it doesn't free on two runs around of the "When, All, Appear, Who" — if it doesn't free — you got an earlier incident on the chain which is exactly the same incident. It's not some other incident. It's not kicking somebody in the shins, it's bopping somebody in the eye. That's all there is to it, see. And nothing more to it than that. You've just got to find that earlier one.

I don't keep saying to you, "Look competent." Because, I tell you, that is susceptible to many interpretations. But you have to be competent in order to be fast. So you can just stress speed, and you'll eventually get an appearance of competence.

Now, true enough, pcs can all be mixed up and they try to get off this, and they try to get off that and they dodge this, but you actually can stand in there because every time you run a "When, All, Appear, Who," you've shaken up that chain a little bit and he can remember earlier, you see? And he all of a sudden will give you an earlier one and he'll give you an earlier one — that's all on the same What. See? He'll give you an earlier one, "pop a woman in the eye," earlier "pop a woman in the eye," earlier "pop a woman in the eye," earlier . . . And we find this one in kindygarten. He forgot all about it.

So the faster you do one of these things, the more accurate it is. Now, it takes about twenty minutes to do the Auxiliary Pre-Have Scale all the way down the line and find the item and nail it on the button, not moving very fast, but not moving slowly either. That is a sort of an easy action. I mean, it still looks competent at that. It is not much of a rush. It can be done much faster than that. But if it's done any slower than that, you're in trouble.

What you haven't learned is that a chain can't stand there in any one lifetime unless it has a hidden beginning. And it will wash out at once on your "When, All, Appear, Who," if it has no hidden beginning. It'll wash!

You find yourself taking forty-five minutes to do an Auxiliary Pre-Have, Oh-oh-oh-oh-oh. Mm-mm-mm-mm. Probably is incorrect. Same way with the Dynamic Assessments. Same way with this Secondary proposition.

You ask him, "When was that? Is that all there is to it? What might have appeared then? Who didn't find out about it? What about popping a woman in the eye?" That's your test question. You don't get a quiver. There was only one incident; there is no chain. You get a quiver, you don't get a substantial reduction of that needle read, ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha, you've got an earlier incident. And that earlier incident is going to be part of a chain which has its anchor point in the hidden unknown of his forgetfulness. Actually, not really out of this lifetime. And that's the only reason it's stuck!

Now, the bark-bark-bark system of assessment is sometimes very hard to do through a scratchy needle. The needle is going bzzzzt-n-bzzzzzt-nbzzzzzt-n-bzzzzzt, and the pc's thinking random thoughts, and the flow terminal that you haven't found is still going off and is like a sparkler, and so forth. Dirty needle proposition, you know, and so on. And reading through that is very, very hard to do sometimes. But you'll find out that a Dynamic Assessment can still be done through it because it doesn't go bzzz-bzzz-bzzz when you hit the item. It goes blhuth. And you get a Prehav Assessment through a dirty needle. Ah, that's rough, that's all. You're looking for the change of needle pattern; that's all. You're looking for the change, whatever changed it.

Now, please get the anatomy of how a chain becomes a chain and how it gets stuck in the mind and how it gets charged up. And that is because the first part of the chain is suppressed and forgotten. It is totally out of view and therefore you get a chain. And you don't have a chain that will react consistently or go on reacting, unless it's a repetitive series of incidents which have the first incident this lifetime out of view. And that makes a chain! And nothing will hang up as a chain unless that is its anatomy.

If the item didn't change it, it hasn't got any charge on it. It's obvious. Pc is always reading at 1,000 ohms, and there it is. He's reading at 1,000 ohms and something makes him read all of a sudden at 1,500 ohms for an instant.

Don't look at it in reverse. See, you're not putting these engrams in the pc's mind. you might think you are sometimes but you're not. He's done these things. And it's that earliest lineup that is missing. And if you're really running hot as a prepchecker, you're running on actual incidents only. Generalities, never! And you're running back down the same chain of the same dramatization, because remember, that dramatization, if only done once, will wash.

Well, it doesn't matter if the reading of 1,000 ohms is bzzz-bzzz-bzzz bzzz-bzzzt. At the moment it reads 1,500 ohms, it'll be thillllop. And it'll go on saying bzzz-bzzz-bzzz-bzzz again. So when you're doing these assessments, just make up your mind that's the way the needle reads and stop worrying about it and swearing at the pc and yourself because it's a dirty needle. Just say, "Well, that's the way his needle looks," and read it occasionally.

My God, you've just taken an eight-gauge shotgun and an eighty-eight-millimeter antitank cannon — put it up against its temples and blown its brains out. I mean, this is no light thing you're doing to this withhold, you see.

You saw a needle pattern last night. Every time the auditor spoke, you got a one to two division fall on the first session. On the first session it occurred on the first time the auditor spoke. And on the second session it occurred on the second time the auditor spoke, which then had nothing whatsoever to do with the assessment. So you just avoided them, ignored them.

Well, do you realize that major engrams will key out on the early track by just finding exactly when they occurred? Fellow blew up a planet and right afterwards they put him in a box and squashed him slowly, and then they held him in a trap for a thousand years and. . . Do you know that on lots of cases you find this engram, you see, and you say, "When did it happen?" And you date it down to eight trillon, seven hundred and sixty-five million, nine hundred and fifty-five — you know — zzaa-zzaa, at two o'clock in the afternoon. And all of a sudden goes phsssst. So you're not doing any light thing when you're asking "When." And then you are asking him to confide in you, all of it, you see. That gets any hidden scraps out of the incident itself, and "Appear," well, and "Not Appear," that's going to get the suppressor out of the incident too. And "Who didn't find out about it," and you can do a — you know, you can do a whole Sec Check on "not-know"! You know, "not-know" is one of the most powerful Sec Check weapons there ever was because it's the whole constituency of individuation. This fellow knows about it and the rest of the human race doesn't — you've got a disagreement on the subject of knowingness.

You had to get something else than that before you had a read. It — actually, it didn't require any judgment. It's much less difficult than you would have imagined because after all you were reading the item three times. And if any one of the three had fell, you left it in and if you weren't sure you left it in — so what judgment was involved?

Now, two or three of these — any one of them — well, if you said all about it and then ran it as an engram a few times, it would erase. So any one of these things in the past — any one of that four has been powerful enough to take care of major incidents.

Your only — the only time you took it out is when you were sure it wasn't reacting. And you kind of occasionally made sure that it wasn't reacting by asking it a couple of more times.

And you're leveling all of this, for God's sakes against one little, tiny pebble that's sitting there, you know. Thing is totally capable of sweeping a whole mountain away, you see? So you take this little pebble and you put it up there, and you range the eight thousand-ton gravel crusher above it, you see. And then you put fifteen, twenty sticks of dynamite underneath the thing, saturate it completely in nitroglycerine, you know, wire it up to electrocute it and then charge it with treason so it can be hung, drawn and quartered. And you go back over and you push the master button and there's a large explosion of one kind or another — it's gone.

Well, you don't have a chance to do that in a Dynamic Assessment or a Prehav Assessment. There's no verification, see, beyond the fact that you're going to cover the item again if it fell, so you see? So the more rapidly you do it, why, the less chance the pc has to dream up something between reads. That's about what this amounts to.

You're using all the weapons necessary to shoot down a B-52 to hit a baby sparrow. And there it is. And look, ladies and gentlemen, if it only happened once, one pass through will find no charge on it. But if it happened before, ah-ha, we've got an earlier withhold. That's the only thing that can keep that thing reacting. So we get the earlier withhold. And we get the earlier withhold, and we get the earlier withhold. Well, if it's this much of a chain, it must have its tail — like a scorpion's tail — well hooked into the root in the sand. you see?

It's something like soldiers getting across an open field. The slower you move across, the more likely you are to get shot. And of course, the optimum way of getting across the field is to get across in instant time. And so that would be the ideal or optimum speed at which to do a Prehav Assessment.

And the fellow says, "I don't know."

See, the faster it's done, the less trouble. You know, that pervades all of auditing. You recognize that. The faster it's done, why, the less difficulty — the less MEST universe difficulty you get into while it is being done. See? So that is very true of a 3D Criss Cross item. If it takes you three days, your neck is way out, man.

This is typical of your recurring withholds.

How many present time problems can this pc get in three days? How much trouble can he get into with his girlfriend in three days, see? How many arguments can he get into in three days? Oh, wow!

Every time this fellow sits down, he says, "Well, I had a — an unkind thought about Ron," see?

Get it in one day — he didn't get a chance to get into any arguments at all, see, from the beginning to the end of the item. He didn't have a chance to get into a fight with anybody, to have a — meet a bill collector, to get sued, to pick up a missed withhold, to pick up a missed withhold. He didn't have a chance to do anything, see, except the way that he was.

And he goes to the next auditor, "Had an unkind thought about Ron," you know.

See, so that's the optimum period in which to get an item. Well, the optimum period in which to get a — the absolute optimum in which to get a Prehav or a Secondary Overt Scale item, of course, is in zero seconds. Because this assessment can be interfered with by the strains and vagaries of the fellow's mind during a session. See, it can be interfered with to this degree.

Next auditor, gets off this withhold, "Had an unkind thought about Ron, you know."

Because if it took you thirty minutes to do the thing, he's got time to pick up some invalidations. He's got time to think some thoughts. He's got time to think his usual critical thoughts of you, the auditor, see. And if you did it in fifteen minutes, he's got only half the time allowed to do this. see what I mean?

Next auditor, "Had an unkind thought about Ron."

Now, therefore, you just put the throttle on the floorboard and go through that one. And you go real quick, and the quicker you go, of course, the more accurate it is. That's — it's no kidding I mean, you can frankly start with a clean needle, if you did it in an hour and a half — let's do an Auxiliary Pre-Have Assessment in an hour and a half. You can start at the beginning of the session — I mean start at the beginning of the assessment with a perfectly clean needle, and wind up with a very dirty one if it took you an hour and a half.

Sooner or later, somebody ought to get the idea that he must have done something to Ron at some time or another. Somebody might get that idea. See? And say, "What have you done to Ron?"

The pc has just accumulated and — nyah and nyah. See, you're auditing the pc plus the MEST universe. And of course, the less time there is in it, the less MEST universe gets into the session.

And then he — then he'd say, "Well, I didn't answer a despatch he sent me once."

So your accuracy has everything to do with your speed where it comes to this. And the only place you get into trouble working this system in Prepchecking is making a bad assessment — completely unapplicable, in some way or another.

And you say, "Well, fine. That's good. That's good. That's good. That's fine. What about not answering despatches from Ron?" That auditor was working hard, wasn't he? You could just see the sweat pouring off him.

So therefore, we lay down the rule that if you can't find, after you've done an aux — a Secondary — a Prehav Scale Overt Assessment — that little section there on the Secondary Scale that's devoted to overts — after you've done that, and let's say, do a Dynamic Assessment, and after you've done that, and these two things add up, you put it down as a test Zero question and the pc can find no overt of any kind whatsoever — why, scrap the lot, get your rudiments in and do it again. That's for you, because the probability is your assessment is way out. But that's after you honestly tried and you can't get responses on the needle for any overts in that direction. Because if he's got overts on the subject, he's going to get needle responses when you ask for them.

Now, let's not wade so shallowly. Let's find out some blood. And oddly enough, if you search hard for blood — this is another mechanism you should appreciate — if you search very hard for blood and you want to know about this, and so forth; the tiniest "what the pc has done" very often explodes in the face of he didn't do anything like that, you know. I have sat and asked a pc samples just to give them a horrible comparison, see.

In other words, if you wind up with one of these and you've got a dead needle — there's nothing happening and he can't give you anything about it and he doesn't understand it and he can't get anywhere near it and all that sort of thing — well, scrub it. Get the rudiments in and do it again. That's your best answer. Do both of them again. Don't use either one of them. And then you're liable to land straight up.

Pc's saying, "Well, I . . ."

If you're doing a 3D Criss Cross list on flows and it just doesn't go all brrrrr-brrrrrr-boom-bang-thud, and there's your list — oh man, you didn't get the right flow; that's all. I mean, there's no answering to that. I mean if it didn't just — you know, pc saying, "I wonder what's giving you these items?" — you know, that kind of action. It's not going well. It's not going easily. You're having a struggle to get on with it and it's taking quite a while and all that sort of thing You just must have had a bad flows assessment.

Keep getting a fall on women, see. I'm trying to find out what he's done to a woman or something of this sort, you know. Anything, but I've got to have a specific one.

Well, similarly, you just have a bad overt scale assessment and maybe a bad Dynamic Assessment in order to make this thing go wrong. But expect that it will, occasionally. Don't worry about it if it does.

"Well, have you knifed any women? Have you strangled any for just kicks? Have you thrown any bodies in culverts? Have you stood by and seen a woman raped by four or five people?"

Don't keep arguing at the pc for an hour and a half to find the overt when you're not even getting a knock on the needle. You found out "strangling," "strangling God." And the pc can't remember any time when he ever strangled God and you get no fall on the needle on the subject, I think that you'd better leave it and get another assessment.

And the pc's going, "Oh-oh, n-n-nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing like th-th-tha-a-a-a-t. I lied about one once, and she got, got a divorce as a consequence. That's all."

Now, this is as experimental as it goes. It's mainly experimental because you haven't done it yet. And I don't . . .

"Oh," you say, "well, thank you. Now, let's see. When was that?"

There are probably many systems which would turn up types of withholds, but this is a particularly promising one which is pretty well set on the rock of experience. And if you can do the accuracy of it all, why, you can probably arrive with a type of overts that are really overts.

In other words, we scare it out by order of noncomparable magnitude. Blood running all over the place. You see. And the pc surrenders. Begins to look like a mighty small thing he's done there by comparable magnitude. Get the trick?

You might find out that "injuring cars"... You don't consider this as particular — you've been at it your whole life, and it's never done anything to you. And you'll find out the reason the pc is always clearing his throat — rrrrrrm-rrrrrrm-rrrrrrm-rrrrrrm... All of a sudden he has a hell of a cognition, "Rrrrrrm. That's a car, you know! Heh — Zoooom. Yeah. I didn't think I was getting into that when I took that hammer to that fan blade. See, adjusting the fan, you see, and I was adjusting the . . ." It's fantastic overts. It's a whole channel of overts. You don't consider them overts. He does. If he considers them overts, you'll get TA motion. If he doesn't consider them overts, you won't. And that is all there is to that.

Audience: Yes.

The pc very often runs along like this, and he says, "Oh, well, yes. Yes, I . . ." This girl says, "Oh, I committed adultery with my first husband, second husband seven times, and so forth, and the third husband four times, and so forth. And uh. . . well, as a matter of fact, I was a prostitute down on the San Francisco docks for a little while between marriages, and so forth. And uh — let's see now. And uh — the specific overts you're looking for there is actually getting a man in an alley while I was pretending to be a frail girl, hitting him over the head with a blackjack and taking all the money out of his pockets. And then the police came along and picked him up and took him to the hospital. That's the one you want." you go All — When, All, Who.

So anyhow, if you're going to get a chain, the chain is all the same action and that is what a chain consists of. And a chain is not a similar generality; a chain is a similar action. In fact, it's not really similar. It's an identical action. And that's what makes it a chain.

And you take that specific overt and you work that thing over, and you say, "Boy, I'm really getting someplace," you know, and that tone arm has just been sitting here at 3.6.

There's a chain of scratching your head on the left side, and there's another chain of scratching your head on the right side. you get the idea? See?

And you say, "Have you told me any half-truths? Untruths? Tried to damage anyone?"

And on some bruisers, there's a chain of kicking women in the left shin and a chain of kicking them in the right shin, you see? But ordinarily, we will simply accept "kicking a woman in the shin" as a chain.

"No." There isn't any motion to that. It's 3.6. It's moved down here to 3.4, and it's gone to 3.6, and it's gone to 3.4, it's gone to 3.6, it's gone to 3. . . I don't care what good material it is for books. It's not doing a thing for the case. Do you see that? You'll get fooled this way, because every once in a while you'll buy that, and you'll say, "Boy, we're really cooking with gas," you know? You're not. Tone arm tells you so.

And if you find one incident of kicking them in the shin, if there's a lot of earlier overts on the same woman, you'll have a little difficulty erasing it. The kick — the incident of kicking them in the shin — unless you go and Q-and-A with it and get off into Robin Hood's left field and forget to pay the rent, and so forth — just kicking them in the shin is going to desensitize. But that woman's name is not going to desensitize. See? Or beating her up isn't going to desensitize or something like that, but kicking in the shins, you're going to lose that.

And then you get onto this chain — this chain: "Well, I shut off the water on the hot water tap and I kept on turning it off and the handle came off." One dial drop; one division tone arm change.

All right. Now, after we've gotten all of the chain up, and we've gotten finally his sitting astride the little girl in kindergarten and pounding her repeatedly in the left eye — after we got this one up, which he had totally forgotten about — you'll find that that whole chain of hitting the women — woman in the eye is now gone and will erase clear to present time, because it's identical actions.

And you say — you're liable to say, "Well, that's so ordinary and so stupid that we don't even work that over. It's not an overt, you know. Let's pick up something else."

And then the pc is feeling so good, and he's all straight, and he's — everything is fine, and way back here, you found "kicking a woman in the shin." And you didn't take it up.

No, no. you got a nice What question, you see and you say, "Well, what about turning off hot water taps so they break?" That's what it added up to.

You then say, "What about kicking a woman in the shin, now?" See, he's all — everything's erased, you've got it all fine, and he's all straight, and he knows he's leveled with you, and will never have to take up being brutal to the female sex again, and you haul up this dead rat.

He's got a whole chain of it. He's been at it ever since he was two.

"So what — what about — what about kicking a woman in the shins?"

Find out he's had trouble with his kidneys and had trouble with his liver and had trouble. . . And it's a real series of overts. And if that's the case, then your tone arm is going to be moving, man. It's going to be flying It's going to be moving, moving, moving, moving — back and forth, back and forth. That's your only test.

"Well, there was such an incident."

There'll probably be other systems developed as you come along the line. It all depends on what turns up, but I think we'd better give this one a whirl, and you better direct them in. And, for my sake, and just to save my disposition — you have an interest in keeping my disposition mild and calm, the way it always is — and just to save — just to save my disposition, why, please stop getting the — your big toe wet in a duck pond on Prepchecking. Let's find something the pc really considers an overt, and let's really plow on down the line on that and that, you will find, is what really moves the tone arm. And if you don't find a real tone arm . . .

"All right. Well, all right. Give. Give." See, you're trying to make sure. You're not writing anything down yet. You're trying to make sure that there is an actual incident.

Now, I'll give you this. That for two, three, four sessions, learning a case and stumbling around on a case, and so forth, you may not get much tone arm motion, you know, and so forth and you can't really connect with anything. You don't quite know what makes this case tick. And all of a sudden, swing in on it, and you all of a sudden find it and it goes like an express train.

"Well I, 19 — 1952. Well, Josie Ann Marie. I kicked her in the shins, all right."

But if you didn't learn anything from — enough about the pc to finally make it go like an express train, it becomes unforgivable. Okay?

"Good. Now, what about kicking women in the shins?" See, there's a What question.

Audience: Yes. Okay.

You haven't changed your Zero A, and you've gotten rid of that first What question, see? Now, you're going to find out they not only kicked Josie Ann Marie in the shins in 1952, but there's some earlier instance of this thing occurring and you're going to get a whole chain going on this thing. But, if this thing fell and then you ran your "When, All, Appear, Who," questions, and asked the question again and it's gone, there's nothing earlier. There's nothing earlier.

All right. Well, I wish you luck with this particular one, and I would invite your attention to the fact that it's an actual overt before you write the What. And it is what moves the tone arm not what you consider antisocial or what you're particularly trying to cure in the human race that makes it an overt to the pc. Okay?

You can take a little chapter out of my book and be very careful and ask that What question before you leave it, ask if nyah-yah and then ask if you've missed a withhold on the pc; and then don't buy anything he gives you because you're prepchecking him.

Audience: Yes.

And they say, "Well, yeah, you — you — you missed the fact that I — I beat up my mother. Ha-ha-ha-ha." Well, you don't sail in on this. You're trying to clear up this other chain.

Thank you. Good night.

You say, "All right. Well, do I know about it now? That's fine. Thank you very much. All right. Now, kicking woman in the shins. All right. That's very good. All right. Got that settled. All right. N-U-L, null, L. Now, is there an actual incident of your beating up a mother? I mean, you — you did beat up your mother?"

"Well, I think I did."

Keep that ballpoint off the paper, man. Get an idea of an electric shield getting in between that paper and the ballpoint. Don't you write any What question.

"Well, I actually didn't beat her up. she beat me up."

Ah, that's getting to be an awful sure sign, isn't it. Ho-ho-ho. Oh well, all right. We don't do anything with that yet. We don't write a word yet.

And you say, "You did beat up your mother? Well, how old were you?"

"About seven."

"All right. You did beat her up?"

"Yup." Clang, you see.

"Well, what about beating up your mother?" Heh-heh. See, write your What question and you'll get a nice chain of it. Last time he beat her up, she was seventy-two. . .

You can run a whole flock of withholds off that What. And I don't care what you write in to refresh your memory or keep yourself picked up, but look over your Prepchecking questions. And I look over this "I disconcerted my mother," not as a What question, if you please; if you please.

This — didn't have any incident. You see, it's only after you've got blood that you go down to the "1" question. There's already blood dripping on the floor at the moment when you go into that.

Until that happens, you're in the broad generalities of Zeros. And you can just call Zeros the world of generality. And I don't care how many Zero As, Zero Bs, Zero Cs, Zero Ds — I don't care how many Zeros you've got sitting up there. You're in the world of generalities. You have not yet found an incident. You're still in the field of assessment. You're still in the field of grope. I don't care what you write up there particularly.

But before you leave that area, may I please lay down the law on the subject of, "Don't you dare ever write a What question until you have an actual incident of the pc doing something. And don't ever leave that type of incident until it's freed up." And then you'll stop missing withholds and you'll get the benefit out of Prepchecking.

But you keep wading around in that little duck pond that you think is the pc's reactive bank, you see — here's this little duck pond up here on the beach, and you're going around there, and it's just damp on the bottom, you know, it wouldn't even support a goldfish. And you're wading around there very carefully, and you're being very happy because you found a leaf floating in it, you see.

I ask you to look over your shoulder because as you're wading around in this duck pond, that roaring, screaming, typhoon-ridden, surging, limitless ocean, that is just behind you, is the reactive bank you should be swimming around in. And I will state that it sometimes looks like that to you, and you think you'd better not go swimming under those conditions.

Sharks darting up in all directions, you see. Typhoons and waterspouts coming in from every horizon, you see. Wreckage strewn about, dead bodies, half-eaten women, you know. The thing is untidy. And you say, "Well, I shouldn't be swimming in there. My mother wouldn't like it."

Now, if you're going to get the full benefits out of Prepchecking, why, you're going to find something the pc did, and then you're going to write a What question based on that something he did. And then you're going to clean up that whole chain before you leave that.

Now, this is sometimes hard to do and sometimes your luck is out. Now, I will add this: sometimes you're just — your luck is out.

You hit a chain just like you used to sometimes hit an engram that wouldn't erase. You will sometimes hit a chain that just seems to go forever and disappears into the Stygian deep of past lives and it just goes forever. Unfortunately, you probably have hit something related to the Goals Problem Mass, and it's just going to go forever. But that's no excuse not to run it because you could still run it all the way, but you might find yourself prepchecking the same question for three or four sessions.

And sometimes your pc throws you an awful red herring Now, this is the other lesson I must teach you. The pc goes into control of the session with present time problems and missed withholds and things of this character in the beginning rudiments. And you've got a nice chain running, of some kind, from yesterday's session. You walk into today's session and here are all these damned red fish lying all over the ground.

And you try to get into the Prepcheck session, and you can't because you keep slipping on these kippered herrings, see. So, you try to clean up the present time problem or the missed withhold or something of the sort and you find yourself on an entirely new chain that had nothing to do with yesterday's session.

All right. Tomorrow, you come in — it's now tomorrow. And you come in and you want to get this question — day before yesterday's question and yesterday's question flat — and so you go into the rudiments on this third day and the pc has an entirely different missed withhold or a present time problem and you find yourself now on a third chain.

Now, the fourth day of the week comes around and you try to get into it and the pc has a present time problem about something else. you now have four chains alive. Nothing is settled. And on the fifth day, of course, either you or the pc blow out your brains.

You see how the pc moves into control of what is being run. A pc almost does this knowingly. See? He's just gotten up to the point where he has to confess that he went to Leavenworth for five years for stealing automobiles, you know. He's almost there, you know.

And he says, "If this just goes any further, this one question that we keep running here about, 'Have you ever stolen anything,' goes any further, we'll — we'll get into that area."

He says this reactively. He hardly says it actively at all, see. He has a present time problem. Ha-ha. Has a present time — best thing to do then is have a present time problem about your wife, isn't it? Ha-ha. Nice and distant from the subject. It's a way to miss withholds, isn't it? And it's also a way to steer checking.

Now listen, aside from the fact that you must keep up — your pc has to be in-session, you do a minimal in-sessionness. You do a minimal requirement here of the rudiments. And if it looks like these rudiments are going to throw you over into the next county and on to a new chain and you've got to finish up yesterday's chain, and that sort of thing — you know somebody saw me do it in a demonstration one day.

"Do you have a present time problem?" Clang! Instant read, see. "All right. What's that?"

"Well, my girlfriend left me last night."

We're prepchecking "making saddles," see. "My girl left me last night."

We'll say, "Good. Do you have a present time problem?" It goes clang!

And you say, "Well, what's that?"

"Well, it's my girl. she left me last night."

You, fellow auditor, standeth there alone on a vast and limitless plain; a solitary intelligence with a large signpost. And on this signpost there are two pointers. And one says "right" on it and the other says "wrong" on it.

Now, we know that you cannot run a successful session with a present time problem in full restimulation. We can prove it time and time again, that this is the case. And we can also prove that cases blow up and go blooey if you continue to leave Prepcheck questions — What question chains, you know — unflat. And the only thing wrong with that right and wrong crossroad sign above your head is, because you're straight under it, you can't read what either one says.

Actually, that is the end of the lecture. Because you won't always win. Sometimes you're going to be wrong Just try to be right as often as possible. Don't be deluded or dragged out of prepchecking by a brand-new chain of some kind or another that the pc keeps presenting; otherwise you're going to go too far afield.

Sometimes it is better to ignore the out-rudiment and sometimes it is fatal to ignore the out-rudiment. And that's what I mean. But the best datum I can give you about this, that you'll find the most valuable, is don't use withholds to solve any of your rudiments.

"Are you withholding anything since yesterday's session?" And you get clang! You know — clang! Ha-ha.

"Now look. Since yesterday's session, yesterday's session — you remember when we ended the session yesterday? From that time until now, have you done anything that you're withholding" Not a motion. "Ha-ha. Grrrrrw. That's it. Ha-ha. Good."

Because that's the only thing that can louse up your session. That withhold he's given you, if it occurred earlier, also existed in yesterday's session too, and it didn't get in your road in yesterday's session, so it's not going to get in your road in today's session.

And when you do the present time problem, if you have to run it, Responsibility or something of that sort, or even Unknown, old Unknown — one of the older students here commented on to me that possibly it could be used in running a present time problem — the old Unknown method. And don't try to run it by withholds. Keep withholds out of those rudiments and you'll be all right in a Prepchecking session.

Now, a 3D Criss Cross session which has its rudiments out, once more you have the same thing, because the pc can continuously throw a 3D Criss Cross session into a Prepcheck session. And you just don't get any 3D Criss Cross done. And the rule is when you're doing 3D Criss Cross, do 3D Criss Cross. And when you're doing Prepchecking, do Prepchecking

And if you've had consistent trouble with the rudiments, then take off a couple of sessions and do nothing but rudiments — beginning rudiments, end rudiments, beginning rudiments, end rudiments. You know, just do nothing but rudiments. Just long, drawn-out proposition, you see. Just bang the rudiments in one way or the other. Take them all up and keep your Prepchecking sessions for prepchecking and your 3D Criss Cross sessions for 3D Criss Cross. And don't let the pc steer these things without rudiments, because it's been happening Hmm?

When I see a 3D Criss Cross session of two hours narrowed down to thirty minutes of 3D Criss Cross and one and one-half hours of trying to get the rudiments straight, well, I say somebody is having trouble. That's what I say. I don't say they're doing wrong or something of this sort, but they're certainly having trouble. And I can always say this with great truth: They're going to have far more trouble tomorrow. And if they do it tomorrow, they're going to have five times as much trouble than they had today, day after tomorrow. And if they do it a third day, they're not going to have any pc at all, because it comes under the heading of no auditing The pc's sitting there quivering, you know. He's gotta get that item, and one more thing, it's quivering, you know. And you start prepchecking him. Comes under the heading of no auditing And the more you try to put the rudiments in, the further you go out.

The longer it takes to do and get a 3D Criss Cross item, the more difficult it is to get. The third day is the borderline. You go over to the fourth day, and you're in trouble, and you'll be in trouble from there on out. If you go four days trying to get a 3D Criss Cross item, at two-hour sessions per day, I can guarantee you won't get it on the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, or eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth day. You've thrown the pc out of session by just not delivering an item. The longer it takes, the harder it is to get.

When you're real slippy, you get one per session. That's really — that's really moting — one per session. Poppeta-poppeta-poppeta-pop. See, you won't get in any trouble at one per session. You actually won't get in any real trouble, one every two sessions. That's pretty easy. Now, you're getting — that's awful easy — one every two sessions. One every, see — three sessions — oh, I don't know. You'd have to spend half your time sound asleep in the auditor's chair to do it that slow. But from there on, in actual fact, you're not going to get anything. See, the rudiments are going to go further and further out.

Now, I've handled a pc this way with some success. The pc says, "All right. I've had present time problem, agraaa-agraaa, missed withhold, and so forth. And I'm all ARC broken. I'm very upset with you," and so forth.

I've said, "Good. We happen to be doing a 3D Criss Cross session, and I'm going to get a list here, and we're going to carry on with this. How is that with you?"

Pc says, "Huh? Oh, you are?"

And I say, "Yes, that's right. That's what we're going to do."

And the pc said, "Well, that's fine."

In actual fact, if I at that moment asked the pc "Do you have a present time problem?" "Do you have a withhold?" or do you have anything else, I wouldn't have anything at all. I'd have a blank meter. See what the mystery of it is?

Because I've said very forcefully, "All right. Now we're going to give you some auditing." The pc then drops all of his excuses why he shouldn't have any. Do you see? There's more to this than simply the crude slug.

I have been known to make some rather interesting remarks in sessions.

You — on some of these you would have held your breath. But the funny part of it is, the pc never seems to get ARC broke. You saw me make a funny remark last night. Didn't you?

I said, "Come on, now. How are you getting these things? Well, that's for the birds. Get them some other way."

So I thought, "Sure, that would ARC break the pc." I asked for one right afterwards and I didn't have any reading. Did you notice that? The pc thought that was perfectly reasonable. Because if you're being truthful and factual, you could never ARC break the pc. It doesn't matter how mean or cross or otherwise you sound.

I've boxed with a pc sometimes for five, ten minutes, fifteen minutes trying to get them to get uncoy on the subject of withhold and finally said, "Goddamnit! Listen here. There you are. Here I am. I can sit here all night. Can you? Because we're going to until you tell me."

Funny part of it is the pc doesn't ARC break. It's maybe never warranted. Maybe that type of approach never does any good at all. you understand? Well, it keeps me from doing a withhold.

Thank you. Take a break.