Well, now, we still I think – what date do we still have?

Thank you.

Audience: Twenty-sixth.

What’s the date?

Oh, you’re still here on the 26th! Hey! Twenty-sixth July AD 12, second lecture. Saint Hill Briefing Course. The subject of this lecture is prrrrrrrrepchecking. Prrrepchecking.

Audience: 26th.

It goes without saying that everything that you are working on – I refuse to leave any errors in it just to appear right.

Male voice: June 9th.

In other words that’s a peculiarity I have and you’ll just have to put up with it. Most scientists get enamored with an idea and they have so few – they spend the rest of their lives trying to prove it. And were they to change their minds concerning this, they would of course lose in repute. I don’t consider that repute is more important then getting the job done.

Thank you! All right. July 26, AD 12, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, lecture number one.

I don’t care what you think of my repute, I’m going to go on being honest. When I find something wrong, why, I jolly well reserve the right to say so. And when I have been wrong I have uniformly been the first to tell you. When something can be improved and make the job easier for you I don’t care what it invalidates, I’m going to tell you.

I’m going to talk to you about 3GA. Now, don’t consider this a summary lecture about 3GA, it’s a data lecture. The last two I gave you were data lectures. The basic summary lecture on 3GA was given some little time ago, and most of the data in it still applies, there have been a few changes based upon the usual reason. Yeah, it’s tough!

Now, there’s a certain amount of effort spent in the direction of trying to force me over into the other position. Every once in a while I get blamed for not having invented Scientology in the last lifetime. Somebody comes along and says, „Well, why on earth didn’t you tell us about missed withholds back in 1952?“ You see?

I don’t give you unusual solutions, I keep taking solutions out. Dianetics: Modern Science — oh, no, it was Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, talks about the introduction of an arbitrary. Every time you introduce an arbitrary into an action, you inevitably will develop a little confusion around that arbitrary. This is a law.

All right, if I had known about missed withholds in 1952 I would have told you. It’s as simple as that.

Governments basically and originally started getting in trouble with me by the number of arbitraries they can introduce. The number of government employees and that sort of thing, the tremendous expansion of units and agencies and finally, the final asininity, „the man in Whitehall knows best,“ all of these things come out of just one thing: People have introduced arbitrary after arbitrary after arbitrary. And it is very difficult to avoid the introduction of arbitraries, because people demand them of you, constantly and continuously.

You see, don’t ever assume that I am dealing you data off a stacked deck which has been in existence for Lord knows when. Although this data existed at one time or another on the track – and I don’t mean the whole body of the data – the various data and postulates were made up to remedy and solve things as people went along the track, packaging it up in one piece and so forth, just – well, let me put it this way – hasn’t been customary.

HCA/HPA — a practice, not your type of practice but the handling of Academy courses, has just been changed. Too many arbitraries have been introduced into it, and a person couldn’t get his HPA/HCA Certificate until he had done an extension course, and took him a year, and until this and until that, until the other thing, and it was sixteen weeks, and after that they retreaded, and on and on. There were all kinds of reasons why you couldn’t make an auditor. That’s all they added up to.

And a thetan got the way he is because of the introductions of arbitraries and when you find out you are dealing with a few more arbitraries than you have to, well, the thing to do is to throw them away. That’s the proper thing to do. You say, „There’s more arbitraries than we need so let’s dispense with them.“ And any time I can get two procedures to do a job that was formerly being done by fifty, well I for sure will give you the two procedures.

They were an effort, however, to get people to complete their courses and know their business. But why, then, did we have to start introducing regulations? It must have been that the instruction of Academy courses was deficient. So we introduced regulations, you see, to make the Academy course more efficient. And then, having introduced these, we introduce a few more. And then we have some demands from somebody for a clarification and a ruling. So we introduce a few more regulations. And then somebody else has a problem, and we solve that for them in the line of training, or the Academy, you see. And we have a few more arbitraries introduced, until all of a sudden we can’t make auditors. I mean, that’s the final culmination of the introduction of that many arbitraries.

And if I can find two jobs that could be done with one procedure, I’ll sure throw one of those procedures away. That’s the only sensible way to look at it. And I’ve just found a way to use middle rudiments and make them double in brass and get the job done much better in Prepchecking which is quite remarkable. And this is very embarrassing because I have just gotten out two policy letters giving you canned Prepchecks! All right, if I had wanted to appear the big man and „I’m always right,“ you know, right, right, exclamation point, right, and so forth, I would of course have to suppress this data because data which is slightly more complicated was just released at the beginning of the week. That would be good for my reputation but it’s sure hard as hell on you as an auditor and a pc, you see. So I don’t subscribe to that policy.

Now, let me show you exactly how this occurs as a cycle: I swept these away a few days ago by the issuance of a policy letter that said there would be no limit on the number of weeks that a person would be in an Academy course. In other words, I wanted to make auditors — that was the main thing. Let’s make auditors — that was the main point. And that it wouldn’t be this many weeks or that many weeks; and that there would be no extension course, you see, not make it necessary, before they get any upper — grade training, that they have to have completed their extension course or — and if they complete that, validation seal, something like that.

Now, the middle rudiments were carefully sorted out of a tremendous number of buttons which could have been used. Now oddly enough you could add another fifteen or twenty buttons with the greatest of ease and have your middle rudiments maybe twenty-three or twenty-four items long. And what you’d do – this is probably the way the session would go – in any two-hour session, you’d get in your beginning rudiments; you would ask one Prepcheck question and then, to check the thing, you’d spend the remainder of the body of the session and then, if the original Prepcheck question that you asked in the session were found to be alive, you wouldn’t have any time left, of course, to clean it, so you’d have to leave it that way, so that you can get into your end rudiments.

But let’s not make that a condition for a professional certificate and then stop people from being certified, you see? Let’s fix it up so that a person goes through — this was made possible, by the way, by the simplification of what we are doing these days with auditing — and a person should be able to go through and at the end of the time he knows his business, he can pass his examinations and so forth, and he is at that moment given his certificate. Yeah, that’s the way it ought to be.

This doesn’t appear to me to be very efficient. So I’ve carefully taken out all the stuff we knew and so forth, and believe me a tremendous amounts of stuff have accumulated as far as data is concerned. You know this research line is only something on the order of about, I think it’s about thirty-two years old right now and the most concentrated part of the area is about fifteen years; and to rack up this much data and cover this much territory in a measly fifteen years, particularly regarded from a whole track viewpoint, is not only incredible, it’s impossible.

Well, I streamlined it all down to that, by simply saying there would be no limit on the number of weeks and no arbitraries about their certificate. The person would be examined and be issued his certificate.

There’s been a certain amount of rush on it and so forth, but basically it’s just working on it that has been important and working on it without any pitch. You see there’s no pitch. I am not working for the Intergalactic Survey, you see, or something like that: „Come to Earth to civilize the natives,“ you know or something like that. That arbitrary we can delete.

Well, I said, „That’s a job well done. We’ve got our material now, our technical material is sufficiently simple that — so forth. A person can push in some sort of a job on this, and without getting people into too much trouble; and a lot of complexities dropped out of it. That’s fine.“

That doesn’t mean that I am not connected with the Intergalactic government, you see. But they don’t know about it either yet!

I dusted my hands off, feeling very, very complacent about the whole thing, and I was walking around happy as a clam this afternoon. And I walked into the telex office and here sat Peter, sitting there, hair streaming down in his eyes, pounding madly away on the telex machine answering a despatch from London. Well, actually, Peter knew better than to show me this despatch, and I probably never would have known about it if I hadn’t gone in and actually started looking over his shoulder wanting to see him about something else. Such as „Who has just dug up the grounds without permission?“ You know, some minor thing, see. And I read this, and my teeth sort of fell apart and my jaw muscles became rather slack, and I quickly buttoned this up and discussed this in an intelligent fashion with Peter, but actually I was a bit stunned!

I have my name, rank and serial number just like other people. But that’s very funny: hardly anybody can ever clear – „Have you ever worked under an assumed name?“ Clang! „Yeah, what?“ And I have to answer, you see, and I keep giving this thing – I keep giving this thing – I keep giving this thing – and it always gets cleared any time I get that Prepcheck question. Very, very funny. People wonder why it doesn’t clear. Well, it doesn’t clear because it is true! It goes on and on and on and on and on, you see? It’s present time.

Because what was demanded was a clarification of this order and some ruling so that the order could be implemented. Went like this: I said, „that anybody would go on being consecutively trained unless they left the course, and leaving the course would be defined as two weeks.“ See, gone off the course a couple of weeks, why then if they came back on the course then they could retread the course. And this applied to all old auditors who wanted to get new material, they could retread the course for 30 percent of the cost of a professional course without discount, you see. Just 30 percent of that, and that’s a retread fee, and that’s all fine and that’s all very simple. I thought it was simple, anyway.

Now, we look over this situation and we had all this bushel basket load of buttons in the human mind. You’ve seen them, a lot of principal ones in the Chart of Attitudes, a lot of other areas of data and so forth. There’s various buttons that you can push and frankly although they were announced and given to you very softly and very quietly, the middle rudiments are an assembly and a stripdown of buttons based on this fact: They consist of – when you add the word suggest, which is used in your Prepchecks – they consist of just those things which can keep one of the others from reading and which, if present, can keep a goal or item from reading. That is the whole assembly.

Nope! Apparently this is not a simple problem. „What if a student leaves course with the D of T’s permission? Now, is that included in the order? Now, what if he’s ordered to the HGC for auditing for more than two weeks? And that would cause him, if he came back, to retread, wouldn’t it? And what if he blew the course and was gone for more than two weeks, you see? Does this include blows? HGC retreads? Or people given permission to leave the course for a short while?“ you see. And Peter was saying, „Well, the wording may be ambiguous, however...“ And he threw the whole thing off, you know; and you know, sort of — on the basis — you know Peter, he’d say it very mildly — well sort of „To hell with it.“ But that was exactly what should have been said. He said this very politely.

Well, this makes them pretty powerful buttons.

But here you had an introduction of arbitraries into a simple order which was an effort to take out the arbitraries. Now we’re going in and put more arbitraries in this thing, don’t you see?

Let’s take a look at them. There’s Suppress. Now if you got all the suppress off the case, nearly everything would blow, don’t you see? If Suppress is alive, of course you don’t get a read on the remainder. So just as a rule and law you’ve got to run Suppress before you add in another series of anything. That’s the law, that’s the rule. You’ve got to put in Suppress. By getting off suppress then you will get a read on the remainder.

Now, the reason for arbitraries is the lack of judgment and the unwillingness to assume an initiative. Wherever we have a zone or action where we have an unwillingness to assume initiative or responsibility or take terrific judgment on the thing or to use one’s judgment or judgment is poor, then we get this phenomenon of the introduction of arbitraries.

Now Suggest could be translated – and sometimes, by the way, has to be – as-isness. That’s evaluation out of your Auditor’s Code. That’s evaluation. That says something is – that’s the isness of things.

Now, games consist of freedom and barriers. And remember that a game does consist of freedom and barriers. A lot of the chaps running around saying, „Three cheers, we’re going to have a revolution!“ see. This revolution which is going to come up at any moment, is going to give everybody freedom — everybody freedom. They’re all going to have freedom. Yes, sir! Of course most revolutions have the kind of freedom like the fellow says, „When it comes to revolution, we have strumberries, everybody eats strumberries.“

Now it is a very powerful button because you say something is and although it wasn’t reading before, it will now read. The auditor says, „That is still alive,“ and oddly enough he can possibly make a pc wonder about it, you see, and the pc jams on it and says, „That couldn’t be still alive,“ to himself, don’t you see, and it would create a little ridge there and it’ll just read on the meter and read on the meter and read on the meter. See? So evaluation can make something read. And that is contained in the most – it’s nearest cousin in the English language that anybody can understand in the form of Suggest.

And the guy in the audience says — the guy in the audience says, „But I don’t like strumberries.“

Now the next point would be Invalidate. And invalidation, if present, if a goal is invalidated, it will now read as the goal. It’ll make an item read which wouldn’t otherwise read. When you take the invalidation off, the item no longer reads which is very peculiar.

And the speaker on the stand says, „When it comes to revolution, you’ll like strumberries!“ See, in spite of the fact that the revolution is all in favor of freedom, we still seem to have a barrier sitting there.

Now you’ve got suppress, of course, on top of an invalidate, keeps the invalidation from showing up.

Actually, a game cannot exist without freedom and barriers. It must be and barriers. You know this old principle, we’ve had it around for quite a while.

Now „Failed to reveal“ is off the line because it gives you the dirty needle. That is – that is that little minute rock slam that is always a „Failed to reveal“ so that gives you a particular and peculiar needle read.

Now, a game ceases to exist when you have too much freedom or too many barriers. And the trick is to keep something like a practical percentage of freedom and barriers. There must be an interrelationship of these which is compatible with a game. Otherwise we never get any action at all.

The item „Careful of“ is to a marked degree another Suppress. But it has this characteristic: After the person has been having something done for a little while that is a little bit offbeat, they can hang up in the thing if they have become too careful of something or other. And they could also make something read in quite the reverse by not suppressing. „Careful of,“ that gives you an opposite flow.

You talk about M1 and fast highways and the hundred and eighty — four — pass cloverleafs that came over Telstar’s broadcast the other night. They showed a cloverleaf outside of Detroit. I don’t know why they picked that particular one because there are a lot of them bigger than that and they only had one car on it. I thought it was a rather poor choice of shots but then I guess it was just the time of day, or something like that, and the placement of TV — the camera.

So you get your – you get your middle rudiments, in short, as being something which are capable of making a goal or item read if present.

But if you look at those very carefully, that is a freedom of travel. And then they start putting stuff up at both sides of the road, see. And then they start putting „go slow“ signs up. And then they put radar traps, see, and signs about radar traps. And then they neglect the highway and let it pit nicely, and sometimes they go so far as they did down in Texas, of putting deep dips in the road; so if anybody hit one of these dips at fifty miles an hour, or above the speed limit, you see, why all the car springs broke, and so forth. And after that the road’s impassable. And then you get the total freedom of no road at all!

Now that Suggest, moving that Suggest in there, which you will find in your Prepcheck, is actually not as current or as constant as you might think. It – you wouldn’t use it in every middle rudiment that came by because you can pick it up at all one fell swoop. Mostly based on this fact: that auditors seldom suggest anything, but they might seem to some place or another, so you pick it up on a Prepcheck basis rather than a middle rud basis, every time you go by.

All you’ve got to do is imbalance the ratio of barriers and freedom and you get a complete hotchpotch and it’s no longer a game. A country does not exist well without some laws. They form basic agreements on what they’re doing, you see? And a country exists very poorly without too many — with too many laws. And of course, although perhaps just by the nature of technology, we tend to go in the political direction of anarchy — yes, that happens to be true — but of course anarchy is always something that arrives when there is no political philosophy extant in that particular time and place which is applicable or acceptable to the problems which a — the race is meeting at that particular time.

You actually then have in essence five middle rudiment buttons that could be used.

You finally get a political setup where the political solutions, called political philosophies in light moments, these political philosophies become so overwhelming as far as the individual freedom is concerned, that eventually all one can think about in the zone and area of politics is just „Let’s be free of it. See, let’s not have any more to do with it.“

Now, the way you would arrange these buttons, if you wanted the optimum service out of these buttons on – for a Prepcheck purpose, which I am about to give you because I am going to show you how to use just the middle rudiments to perform a whole Prepcheck, which is a very interesting little advance here.

Well of course, if that took place, you would have no government at all, and by Definition that’s anarchy. But that’s not saying all Scientologists are anarchists. But it says that’s the only political philosophy that you tend to approach. But there’s quite another reason why, if you thought it out very, very carefully, you would see that anarchy was a very proper and fitting target. You see anarchy has never been possible, and if every individual had judgment and good sense, there wouldn’t be much reason to have any government. So a government, you see, is a substitute for judgment and responsibility. The more government you have, why, the heavier criticism it is of a people’s initiative, judgment and responsibility.

You would say, „Suppress,“ and then you would say, „Suggest,“ you see, and then you would say, „Careful of,“ and then „Invalidate“ and „Failed to reveal.“

You’re operating in a political area which says, „The man in Whitehall knows best,“ you see, that type of philosophy. Or you should have the commissar within call at any moment to know whether or not you dare talk to your neighbor across the back fence, you see, as they have in Russia. This type of philosophy rather dims out initiative and rather dims out judgment and rather ruins one’s sense of responsibility. And that’s a poor thing — extremely poor thing.

Do you follow how those things are played together?

So when we — when we have an absence of this, you see, when you have an absence of restrictions, in a business or social or scientific group, and yet the people involved with that group are individually politically involved with a system which denies them responsibility and judgment, don’t you see, they start taking it out on you to some degree. So you get a telex saying „What is the meaning — what is the meaning of this policy letter which says students should be trained to become auditors and left on course until they are auditors, but what is ‘off course’?“ I knew that would be asked, you see. And well, „off course“ is anybody who’s gone for two weeks, you see. And that just served then as a wide — open invitation to introduce all manner of arbitraries. We promptly got an invitation for more arbitraries. „Please give us more arbitraries.“

Of course, the one which is most important and can blow the session up in bits and pieces we put at the end to occur when everything else has been beautifully swamped up. And we actually put Suppress in twice by putting its opposite in, you see, careful of.

Well, I sometimes almost explode under situations like this and I say, „All right, what have we got a D of T for?“ See, „What’s he doing’.?“

So you’d have – you’d have these arranged in that particular fashion as being very powerful. You’d have Suppress, Suggest, you would then have Careful of and Invalidate and then Failed to reveal. All right, in that order you would have two cracks at suppression.

First place, I certainly should never be expected to lay down a regulation on students who blow. What? lay a regulation down on ... Because — why? Why? God’s sakes! Somebody has just goofed, man! Somebody has just missed all the withholds in the book, don’t you see? And then some D of T didn’t get that shepherd’s crook of old, and reach, snare and yank. Well, all of this is to me quite self — evident. And I — wow! See? Wow! And — you’ve — I’m sure have heard me protest, somebody — I say, „Well all you do is, you just ask the guy — you just ask the guy how he’s doing; how he’s getting on, you know? Just ask the guy, and so forth, and that’s sufficient.“

Now that would be very interesting if these buttons could be used for the bulk of Prepchecking. Wouldn’t it?

And somebody always comes up, and says, „What words do you use?“ You know? It leaves me speechless! See. „What words do you use?“

Well, if they are that strong a series of buttons, why, they must have some value. Last night I sat down and looked at a pc – it was very late and I’d had a lot of auditing that hadn’t recommended itself to me one way or the other. I was already violating the Auditor’s Code, one of the only times I get a chance to audit, way after ten, man. You have to be good to audit after ten. Had the pc sort of gummed up and said, „What am I going to do here?“ And said, „Well, the best thing I can do with something like this is form some Zeros here before I get on about my business, form up some Zeros. I was thinking – Zeros? Why the hell should I form any Zeros? I know the pc has not been feeling very well for an exact period of time. Let’s just throw the middle ruds in as Zero questions.

I don’t know. And I’m sucker enough occasionally to say, „Well, say ‘How are you doing?“’ And, see, and after that, wow! You’ve had it.

Man! Man, I’ve seen assists in my time but that was about the wildest I’ve seen in some while. That was just about the best Zeros I ever saw. So after the session I said, „What the ruddy bleeding hell happened here? Almost blew the roof off,“ you know. And I said, „Well, of course, you idiot!“ – I seldom call myself an idiot, except – but sometimes do. You’ve carefully got together the most powerful buttons that you can possibly give, because they’re the only things that can make a goal read or not read or an item read or not read, and you summed these things together in the middle rudiments, then you don’t move them over into Prepchecking, well what can you expect will happen if you move them over into Prepchecking? Well, of course they are the main buttons that are sitting there. Crash! All hell’s going to break loose if you prepcheck these things against a period of time. Quite interesting.

You go by and somebody’s running the session, and he says — and it’s running like this: And he’s saying, „Do birds fly?“ or whatever it is, „Do birds fly? How are you doing? Do birds fly? How are you doing. Do birds fly? How are you doing“ And then some people have been known to come around to me afterwards and say, „Look at this horrible thing you have just put out! See? Look at this horrible thing you are doing there. Look at that auditor, and look at what that auditor’s doing!“

So I sat down and wrote this down for you. This would just be a sample action. This would be a sample action. This would be a Prepcheck, guaranteed to do something very interesting with a pc. This is more complicated than it need to be. I’m just giving you an idea of what you could do with this, see. This is fun. Just for you. „When did you decide to come to Saint Hill?“ You ask this guy, see. You ask this student, „When did you decide to…“ Well, he finally picks it out of the ether and you get the thing confirmed on the meter and so forth and you get the date! You write the date down in your auditor’s report. Then you ask him, „Just before – whatever the date was, see – what happened?“

„What’s he doing?“

In other words you discover an area of overts which is the prior confusion to the date. Got the idea? An area of overts.

„Well, he’s saying, ‘Do birds fly? How are you doing? Do birds fly? How are you doing? Do bird.. .’and it doesn’t make any sense!“

And then date the beginning of that prior Confusion. We’re moving it back a little earlier. Date the beginning of the prior Confusion. And now, just for the hell of it, in case he’s skidded and missed, why let’s select an arbitrary date a month earlier and let that be our date by which we head these questions. You know, your Prepcheck question has got to have a time limiter. This all starts to get very, very amusing and very interesting indeed, because you’ve moved back to a specific date now. You’ve got the beginning of the prior confusion before he made this decision, now we’re going to move back a month earlier just in case he slipped and didn’t forget the original overt, you know – didn’t remember the original overt, so we’re going to take that as the arbitrary date and then we’re going to do this with it: All we’re going to do is frame an expanded mid rud series of questions. We’re going to flatten each one repetitively and then we are going to go over this two or three times. Going to frame the questions like this: Let us say – it wouldn’t be, but let us say it was June 1st, 1955. Wouldn’t be, but let’s just say that was the date. Your Prepcheck question would be, „Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suppressed?“

Well, I have been in the process of stripping off arbitraries ever since we’ve been going forward. And to a lot of people anchored down and conditioned to a changing and a senselessly changing world, and so forth, see it as changes. It’s strictly not changes; it’s a continuous series of omissions. Not omissions on the standpoint of overts, but things are dropping out all the way along the line. The track of Scientology looks like some old Model T Ford has passed by. The nuts and bolts are strewn all over the highway.

Well now, if you don’t think that isn’t going to keep your pc running for a while you’re mistaken. And we’re just going to run this repetitive, see, just totally repetitive. „Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suppressed? Thank you.“ „Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suppressed? Thank you.“ „Since June 1st, 1955…“ – you don’t have to answer these just so I am not missing any withholds on you. „Since June 1st 1955, is there anything you have suppressed?“ See? And finally the pc says, „Huh! No, that’s – that’s all. That’s it, that’s the lot!“ And you say, „Thank you. I’ll check that on the meter.“

You — to show you what sort of a job I’m doing in this direction — you just pick up a list of bulletins that are for four years ago. And just count the number of nuts and bolts that have been taken off the machine. And look at it that way, not „How many things have been changed?“ How many nuts and bolts have been found unnecessary for the explanation and running of this machine? Because we get down to more fundamental actions. We’re always working with a more fundamental action. And the more fundamental it is, the less nuts and bolts you need to hold it together. That’s for sure.

Understand this is done terribly formally. Very formal auditing. You are not interjecting comments or running Two-way Comm. Nothing. Because it’s very easy. It’s almost automatic.

Now, we’ve just stripped one out of the rudiments — the beginning rudiments. Get along without it fine. There it is, see. And frankly, if an auditor is having a hard time reading an E — Meter and is throwing the pc out of session, he’s frankly better off to say to the pc who can’t be put in — session, he’s better off to say, „Start of session,“ you see, and start doing some action that he is doing, but only those actions which require no metering can be done this way. That’s an unfortunate fact. In other words, you could say to somebody, „Start of session,“ you see, and just start doing what you’re doing. But unfortunately no metering action can be performed in that type of session.

You get it over here and say, „All right. Going to check that on the meter. Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suppressed? That reads. That. That. That. That.“

So you could possibly — you could list goals in that type of session, or you could list items. You couldn’t do much of anything else in that type of session. Well, of course it’s quite adventurous running a session without any rudiments in, but let’s look at the practicalities of the thing. Instead of the rudiments going in, if we’re introducing a lot of new arbitraries into the session under the guise of rudiments — you see, a misread here and cleaning a clean there and that sort of thing — if that many arbitraries are being introduced into the session left and right, of course the pc’s going to go further and further out of session.

„Oh, yes, well that’s my mother…“ so forth, and so forth. You just lay the meter aside, „Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suppressed? Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suppressed?“ And you go on and on and on. Oh, honest, you’re going – you’re gonna – you’re gonna get yourself some – a bucket of answers, man!

Now, actually, the more actions and the more arbitraries are introduced by the auditor into whatever he is doing, the less he gets done.

In the first place the pc is perfectly willing to tell you things they have suppressed. In fact they practically springboard off as he remembers them. See? This is auditing with bedsprings under it. Boong, bing, boong! That’s dandy. Oddly enough a lot of somatics come off at this time. Now, what I thought would happen when I was doing this, is that everything might restimulate. But it didn’t. The somatics came off with the suppressions. A lot of them.

Let’s take some auditor, he runs along for a very short time and then he decides the pc looks bored and so he runs some O/W, you see. And he runs a few commands of O/W, the pc looks less bored, looks kind of resentful now, and he says, „Well let’s go on and list a little while longer now,“ and looks at the pc and then the pc’s sitting there and just about getting interested in listing again, or something like that, and the auditor looks up, and he says, „I think I’d better run some Change of Space on you.“ And he does. And he thought the pc was getting too introverted. And then he got down toward the end of session, you see — down toward the end of session, and he says, „Well now, you’ve been outflowing the whole session, and I just had a good idea here, and let’s inflow a little while. So I’m going to tell you everything I’ve been thinking about during the session.“ See, that’s before he ends the session. So he tells him all the criticisms he thought of the pc during the session, see, and then he ends the session.

All right. Well, let’s say the pc has come to a point of saying, „No,“ and let’s say that we have asked the pc, „I will check this on the meter. Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suppressed?“ And let’s say that we have read the meter correctly and that it was clean. Now, clean is awfully relative in this case. Man, this is relative. But it didn’t show on the meter and the pc isn’t thinking of any answers, and as far as he is concerned, as far as you’re concerned, that’s clean. All right, fine, fine, fine, fine. That sounds good.

Now, the odd part of this is that you go over all of these introduced arbitraries and that’s all you’re going to find hanging up in the session. Isn’t that interesting.? That is on a raw — meat pc too. That’s not a trained pc, or somebody who’s used to being audited or anything. You take your meter and you find all the places where he tends to be stuck in the session he just had, and each one of them will coincide with the introduction of an arbitrary.

All right. Without doing anything else extraordinary or doing anything we simply swing into the second question, „Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suggested?“

Now, Model Session is designed to repetitively introduce an arbitrary so that even the arbitrary runs itself out. We always ask, „Do you have a present time problem?“ exactly that same place in the session, don’t you see? Well, actually just asking it every session tends to run it out. But how about sessions which have wild variations in them all over the place? Well, they don’t run out that’s all. You’ll find the only place pcs hang up is on the introduction of an unnecessary arbitrary — unnecessary arbitrary.

Now the funny part of it is that you will quiver on this, if you will redecide perhaps, to run this as decided, or something like that, but that is not the meaning of it, the meaning of the thing is evaluated, don’t you see? But suggested is very mild, isn’t it?

Remember, games consist of freedom and barriers. There’re a certain number of barriers have to be introduced, or you’re not even going to get the pc to sit in the chair long enough to be audited.

„Yes, I’ve suggested to my father that he go to hell and I’ve suggested to Mamie that she buy a new hat, and I’ve suggested that we separate.“ You get the idea? „I’ve suggested that it’s better that they blow the world up,“ you know, these first little things. It’s very mild. It’s not any overts to amount to anything at all.

For instance, some of you — not after you’ve been here for a little while — but some of you when you first come here and get audited in the goldfish bowl on rudiments and that sort of thing, would just love the arbitrary of a wall to keep out the sessions to the left and right. See, that would be lovely. Well, barriers have advantages, you see, as well as — frankly, you give people too many barriers and they will do nothing but fight barriers. But remember they can fight barriers to a point where they have no game of any kind — no action of any kind. There are no activities.

Well, we follow the same repetitive on and on and on and on and on and on and on this, and we don’t care if it runs shortly or longly, we are going to run it to a point where both the pc and the meter agree utterly that that’s it. That’s clean. That’s good. All right. That’s fine. We drop that. Everything’s running along fine. It’ll probably be the second or the third Prepcheck session when it is done, but – this is actually a twenty-five-hour intensive probabilities, quite possibly, because my question last night was, „In the past two weeks…“ And it ran and ran and ran.

Now, your barriers, if kept to a minimum, and if they are stripped down to the point where they are necessary barriers, vital barriers, without which we’re not going to have anything at all — if we can strip down toward that minimum, and then not expand it out toward vast numbers of unneeded arbitraries, why we will have a rather effective and efficient session. You see, that session has got to have some arbitraries, see, there’s the arbitrary of knowing the English language if you’re being audited in English. There’s various little arbitraries set up around a session. But we start deleting too many of those arbitraries, we don’t have a session, you see. Well similarly, if we add too many arbitraries we don’t have a session. Same thing happens. What we’re seeking in the form of a session is a rather optimum balance between the freedom of the pc and the arbitraries entered into the session. And if we can get that into a nice, balanced ratio, we’re fine.

All right. So we go on and on, and now we get into this sort of a situation. We want to know now, of course, some more suppressions. So we say, since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have been careful of? Isn’t that mild and innocent, man? That’s mild and innocent. Of course all this time why, given that you are reading the meter and getting your rudiments in every session, and that sort of thing, and not goofing anywhere along the line, your pc’s ARC is building up, building up, building up, building up with the auditor. He’ll be able to blow things better and all that sort of thing.

Now, I told you the other day — the other evening, that a pc got along all right, but that in — unless he was faced with an auditor who was too slavishly following rote or was neglecting it utterly, there would be three conditions. Either the auditor would so slavishly follow rote that nothing would happen, or the auditor had so much freedom that nothing got followed. Now, there’s a third Condition where the auditor introduced so many arbitraries that Lord knows what the pc was now in. Any of those three conditions could obtain. We’re seeking a happy balance of these conditions.

So we flatten that one. Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything that you’ve been careful of? And of course we get the remaining suppressions off of this thing. And then we let the pc have it right in the eyes, see?

But the auditor could be far too fixed, too slavish in going ahead and doing what he’s doing. Let’s look at the type of impasse that an auditor could get into by being absolutely knuckleheaded. This is very important to 3GA. It’s not so much a lecture on auditing as it is 3GA, because when you get into anything like 3GA, man, any weakness along the line peaks. It looks like a signboard. Before it looked like about the size of a blade of grass, but now it’s one of these big gaudy signboards with a naked girl bathing on it, you know?

Got that all beautifully flat and so we say – got it on the meter and everything – everything’s clean, „Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have invalidated?“

And here’s your situation. Auditor starts his session, glances at the needle, and it’s going bzzzzzzzzzz! Well, he says, „Well, I have to get in rudiments one, two and three.“ So, he asks rudiment one. And the immediate response is, on the needle, throughout the whole enunciation of „Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?“ — rudiment one is goals, the effective rudiment — is bzzzzzzzz!

Well, that’s a nice quiet sort of word, isn’t it? Invalidated. Anybody’d answer that. Pow! You know, now you are going to get some somatics he didn’t dream of, you know, here and there, and this and that, various things, cognitions, that sort of thing going to come up. We run that thing on down, pc says it’s flat and the meter says it’s flat, and because we know by this time how to read our meter we know it’s flat. And we got that one all set, and all squared away and pc is feeling fine.

So the auditor says, „That read was equivocal.“

And now we say, „Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have failed to reveal?“

And by God, I think he’d come around after the session and ask me — if he would go this fixedly — ask me to introduce a new arbitrary as to how many times should you ask a question when you’re getting an equivocal read before abandoning it? And expect me to say „five and a half“

Well, what’s very interesting about this is you of course during the sessions as you went along will probably have had to use your random rudiment now and then, or something like that, you might have had this to boost along, but this will come as a totally natural action to your pc by this time. Failed to reveal, that’s very innocent, that’s very calm, that’s very nice and he’ll just walk on through and unload withholds left and right. Hardly noticing that he does so because it seems so easy and natural and everything will go fine.

You see, he shouldn’t have been asking it at all anyhow. That’s the whole thing. He should have enough judgment to know damn well that he isn’t going to be able to sort anything out on this meter. See, he — you could run into this. This would be very rare, but wow! Well, the best thing to do at a time like that, you see, best thing to do at a time like that would be to lay the meter aside — this is an unusable instrument at this moment — and let’s just run some O/W. You see, you do have a solution. Let’s treat the thing as the pc must be sick, see, or something like that.

Now, the possibility is, certainly if that becomes flat at that time we could actually skip the whole thing and not do anything further about it – don’t overlook that possibility – providing we don’t do this idiocy, of check the mid ruds on the period. Do a fast check of the mid ruds on the period. Let’s just cut our throats right there. See?

And we run some O/W, and the pc says he feels better now, and — or feels disgusted, or something, we don’t care what the pc said, but the pc feels different. That’s what we’re looking for. Let’s put him back on the meter, and if this thing is still going bzzzzzz, which it won’t be, it’ll be doing something else, now. Maybe be totally stuck, or something. We can at least ask him the random rudiment because all dirty needles are basically missed withholds. But let’s not be so knuckleheaded as to ask him the random rudiment if it is a random rudiment that he has never been able to answer. You get the idea? He’s never been able to answer this particular random rudiment, he always has trouble with it, see. He gets into arguments with this thing, or he gives motivators all the time, well let’s be smart enough to run a rudiment which still gets off the missed withhold.

„Since June 1st, 1955 is there anything you have suppressed, suggested, been careful of, failed to reveal?“ You know? Ugh. Let’s just miss all the rest of the withholds. See. If you just left it at that, went through each one of these things once, you’d have practically a different pc sitting in front of you, providing it was done in Model Session and you were reading the meter and you had your rudiments in, see.

I was into this situation the other night in an auditing session, and I had to phrase, before I was finally finished up — I had to phrase the missed withhold question about five different ways, treated as a rudiment in the middle of the 3GA run, until finally the penny dropped and that was it. And that needle quieted down. But the pc had a missed withhold but I just couldn’t get the missed withhold question answered so that the missed withhold came off. You understand? So it was a matter of bad luck,. The first four times I asked the missed withhold question — the first four times — obviously were wrong! I got them all answered. What — I got what I asked answered, but they obviously were the wrong missed withhold questions. There was a wrong wording or the wrong phrasing or the wrong something. But let’s get the slight difference here.

This would be quite interesting, this would be highly informative. You say well, you couldn’t possibly have gotten the bottom of every chain. Well, here’s what I found out, and the only reason I’m releasing the data, is because you are taking them up in this particular sequence and because these are very odd little buttons to be taking up and they appear to be very innocent, and that sort of thing, they clear away an awful lot of track without worrying about fundamentals and basics. And that, by omitting the withhold system, we left ourselves wide open. Don’t you see? Some guy just wouldn’t clear up on this subject, because we never had any method by which to get the earliest on the chain, don’t you see?

The old man was in here puppy to the root. He knew if he — in order to go on nailing a goals list, and go on nulling goals, he jolly well had to have a clean needle. So he wasn’t saying, „All right, we’ll cancel out — we’ll GAE the pc.“ See, we wont do that. Well just sit here, all night if necessary, and slug this needle out of the road till we get it, see. Now, I carefully settled such things as, „Is there anything you have done that people have failed to find out about?“ — you couldn’t read the needle anyhow — until I got a response from the pc and was able finally to check this out somehow in some haphazard fashion, and — but I wasn’t letting go of any missed withholds, you see. Who had missed this withhold? That was the thing. Who had missed the withhold?

But this doesn’t matter, whether you get the earliest on the chain or not. Because these buttons are hot enough, apparently, to wash out whatever is going on without you finding a big missed withhold sitting in your lap and that sort of thing. But you could – this is for the purposes of the establishment of a system here – you could now start in all over again. If you were running an intensive and you had lots of time or if the pc had given it a very shallow pass, you start in all over again and you could get it from the beginning to the end.

And I was cheered up by a little success, as I went along on this, by this interesting phenomenon of a half — a — dial — wide rock slam turning on occasionally, just for a moment. Brr! „No, I don’t have any missed withhold,“ no read on the meter, either, except bzzzzz! So finally, finally I found out it was other people and that they didn’t know. It wasn’t that they missed a withhold, see, that was different, yeah. That was different, see’ God knows why it was different, but it was! And just other people didn’t know. So that was that.

In other words, you do the whole cycle of those middle rudiments. Probably take you another session or two or three to get that all the way through again, but you’d pick up some deeper fundamentals along the line.

And at that moment, the needle started to sweep, up and down and around. Beautifully readable, and I went on about my business and got us some nulling done, see. But that, you might have said, was a slugfest. I was unwilling to settle for nothing, see. My job was to null a list. First to make the pc feel better, which I had to do — cured a half a dozen chronic somatics and that sort of thing, some mild job, see. Get in there, null a list. How the hell could you null a list with a dirty needle? You couldn’t. I tried, thinking it would — you know, it sometimes is just lack of auditing. All right, I got in there, thinking, „Well, we’re going to get some auditing here, and the dirty needle will clean up, you know, ha — ha.“ No. No.

However, I wish to caution you to this effect: that is cleaning a clean. You’ve already said that that’s all that he has suppressed and that sort of thing. You’d only get into trouble with this if you weren’t able to read a meter or you left one of them muddied up.

Then all of a sudden I said, „Well, we can’t go on with this any further.“ I went through this kind of a system, and this is — be an interesting system for you and it’s quite useful. First ask the pc — now 3GA you see, has its problems. I should have told you, the problems of 3GA is reading a meter — and ask the pc, „What’s going on?“ That’s number one — first action. This needle is going bzzz — bzzz — bzzz. „What’s going on?“ you say to the pc. Something like that.

Now, a couple of times on TV demonstrations here I’ve seen a Prepcheck question left unflat as though it were not very important or something of the sort. Well let me tell you, man, that – exclamation point – important. Don’t ever leave a Prepcheck question unflat whatever else you do! The Catholic church has sins of blasphemy and other types of sins for which they burn people and armies shoot men for cowardice in battle. I think they shoot them now for being brave in battle – but anyhow, armies shoot people for desertion – when they are headed by Eisenhower.

And then you get your middle rudiments in. You didn’t do anything with that, see, that’s a flop, see, he said, „Oh life is terrible and you’re doing awful things to me.“

Every group has its sins, see, but we don’t have many sins, we don’t pay attention to many sins, but there is a sin, really, is leaving a Prepcheck question unflat, because it amounts to a sinful situation. You’ve got somebody all upset and without knowing what is wrong he gets blowy and he is liable to leave Scientology and deny himself auditing. See? It’s important. It’s important.

Well, pursuing that particular course is not necessarily conducive to settling a free needle, see. First place, two — way comm may say two — way comm, but it’s a one — question proposition, see. You go more than one question and you’ve had it.

All sorts of wild things can happen by just leaving one Sec Check question unflat. The darnedest thing you ever heard of. I’ve never seen so much commotion!

For instance, somebody today should be ashamed. They were in there running the CCHs, and they were saying to the pc, apparently, I hear, „Is there any more that you wish to tell me about that? Is there any more to that? Is there any more about that?“ After the pc had originated, you see. That was TR 4. TR 4 took the shape of „Is there anything more to that?“ „Would you like to tell me any more about that?“ see. „Good TR 4“ you know, no Q — and — A, oh, nothing like that, see. In other words, the auditor never gave the character a cheery, „Aye, aye,“ and we were all set, see. But „Is there any more? Is there any more? Is there any more?“ till the poor pc, you see, is bled white and trembling and then goes up in a small bundle of smoke.

God, I’ve had telex machines going wildly in all directions and everything else, just on that one basis. So, we’ll put that down as a sin.

Now, this action of two — way comm doesn’t work, still got a messy needle. Your next action is get in your middle rudiments; just standard middle rudiments. And you still got a messy needle. It’s hard to read through, see. Well now, you’d better roll up your sleeves and put on your judgment boots, because you can’t go on, man. Now, you’ve just cleared „Failed to Reveal,“ haven’t you? Just in that many words, in the middle rudiments, as well as you could clean it. You cleared it off and it didn’t affect the dirty needle. Well, that doesn’t vary the fact that that dirty needle now must be coming from a missed withhold of some kind or another and you better find out what it is.

And you’re teaching an Academy student sometime – his is not to reason why he can’t seem to pass the missed withhold bulletin or something like that, just tell him it is a sin.

Now, there’s sixteen versions of a missed withhold question. And there’re probably several more that you could ask cats. I’m not going to give you the categories.

Now, that’s quite interesting as a clean-up little intensive for a Prepcheck area. Quite interesting. If that were run on you you would be quite amazed at some of the results and things that would come off.

What you want to know from the pc is what did he do that was criminal and sinful, that people slipped up on getting wise to, see? Is it you in the session, was it during the day, was it in the last week or so, was it now? What the hell is this thing that the pc is holding on to with all of these ski ropes and so forth that’s towing him all over the bay? See? What’s he got hold of? That’s what you want to know. Because it’s a missed withhold of some kind or another. You can count your stars on that.

Now, I have just given you a method of discovering a date, by taking a decision which somebody has obviously made. I’ll give you an obvious decision – the fellow has gotten married a couple of years ago. We don’t do a Problems Intensive to find the key problem on the track before we audit him, if we haven’t done that we are not going to spend any time doing that, something like that. You can arbitrarily pick up some obvious decision the person has made. What’s the most obvious decision with this guy? Well, he must have decided to get married. Of course the girl is probably of two opinions about that, but he must have decided this. Therefore just pick on it. And decide that if he made a decision of this character, why, there must have been a prior Confusion ahead of it. And you will always be right. Oddly enough you will always be right.

Now, some pcs will answer up and all of a sudden, terrific cognition, falls off the meter, everything else, the question’s hot as a pistol, and so on, „What didn’t they know?“ see? „Is there anything people didn’t know about you today?“ See, or something like that, see? Oh, that’s hot as a pistol. But for some reason or other, for some reason or other, you ask him, „Is there anything you didn’t tell people today that you should have?“ Well, there’s nothing to that. That’s not the question. You got the idea? I mean, peculiar reason the piano only resonates to a very, very tiny shading of meaning.

Now, if you just back up the time a month arbitrarily before the prior Confusion that you’ve spotted, of course you’ve included any little additional activities that might have occurred that he has kind of forgotten about. So you sort of have a basic to the prior Confusion. Just a method of doing it.

I ran somebody one time, had she ever done anything to X? Had she ever done anything to X? Had she ever done anything to X? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. You know, „Didn’t wipe the dinner dishes completely dry before putting them on the table.“ You know, big overts. Big overts. Man, this is colossal, see?

Now, you can also run this, wildly enough, on a – this basis – I’ll tell you the basis you can’t run it on in a minute, but you run on this basis, „In this lifetime – .“ Now let’s really shoot the moon – let’s settle in for a fifty-hour intensive, just like that. See? „In this lifetime, is there anything you have suppressed?“ Yeah, we’re settling in for the long haul here! See? Gosh you’ll get to the end of the first question you see, about three or four sessions later. See?

So I got tired of this pat — a — cake, you know, and I said, „Well, have you ever done anything that X didn’t find out about?“

Well that’s fine. That’s fine. And you just follow exactly the same action, except you don’t have to establish any arbitrary prior Confusion, don’t you see.

„Oh, well, yes. Put down things on the expense account slightly, you know, altered the household budget two cents here and there,“ and that’s about the limpest nowhere I ever saw. I could get no needle reaction, you understand.

There is one but don’t try to establish it.

And finally I said, „All right. Is there anything you have done that X never knew about at the time?“

And you just carry on exactly in that fashion. You first clear up, of course – always the same sequence: Suppress and then Suggest and then Careful of and then Invalidate and then Failed to reveal. The magic five. And you’re going to get all kinds of wild things coming up. Oddly enough, if you attacked it in that particular way, you would get withholds off pcs more or less easily and voluntarily. You wouldn’t have to be slugging for it very hard, don’t you see?

And it went bang! See?

Now, there’s only one caution on this, I talked to you a little earlier this evening. Follow the rules. Follow them right straight down the middle of the path, so forth, but don’t be an idiot.

„Oh, well yes,“ see, and equivalent of affairs, and you know, bank robbery, and sinking steamers on the high seas, and all of this sort of thing, and it was just that shade of question; that rang the bell. And it came under the heading of „didn’t know.“ See. He didn’t know. Well, „found out,“ that was different. Don’t ask me why „found out“ is different from „not — know,“ but to this pc it was that wildly different. And it was that sort of thing that finally settled up this case and got this case firing, got some tone arm action going, and that sort of thing. Case just did not respond to the exact question that one would normally would have thrown.

Failed to reveal communicates nothing to this pc, let us say. Just kind of fish around on a question before we go overboard on the thing. See? Failed to reveal means nothing to them, it doesn’t mean an overt, it doesn’t mean anything else. Failed to reveal, well, reveal, he’s never undressed in public, and this is what reveal means to him, see. So his answer is „Nothing. I’ve never failed to reveal anything,“ see? Nothing. He’s got it all backwards and somehow or another can’t realize that when he answers that way means he’s always undressed in public. He just doesn’t seem to untangle this thing.

You’d said, „Since you have been living with X, is there anything that you have failed to reveal?“ No reaction. But, „Since you have been living with X, is there anything X didn’t know about?“ Oh, man! Volcanic action. See, but on the same question, is there — “Since you’ve been living with X, is there anything that X didn’t find out?“ No action at all. You tell me, you see. What you’re into there is a very thin shading of semantics. And the pc in an almost childlike daze reactively hides behind some of the thinnest little excuses.

So you’d have to, at this point, why, any of those points you’d have to be smart enough to stay on the exact meaning, but within the intelligence of the pc.

But remember, my job as the auditor was to get the needle cleaned up. That was my job as the auditor. And if everything I was supposed to do, usual, natural and normal that we’re doing today, just as you are doing, didn’t finally accomplish this action, then I had to assume that there was some shading of meaning, there was something we just weren’t getting at here, man, and start drilling away on it.

Give you an example, you’re auditing a little kid, you know. You’ve got to translate the word around, and sometimes you can make a wild mistake. It doesn’t mean the same thing at all. But you’ve got to use the words in the meaning that will communicate to the pc.

There’s something I certainly didn’t know. Certainly there was something going on here I didn’t know about. Now, what’s going on can take in the wildest and widest of horizons. Of course, the goal you’re trying to prove out may be the very, very wrongest goal you ever heard of on the pc, at which time he’ll get very withholdy and his needle will go very dirty, and then you find yourself in the silly, silly position of trying to pull missed withholds from the guy — the missed withhold is something he knows reactively but does not know. It is not his goal.

So you might run that one, „Since early in this lifetime is there anything you’ve done that people didn’t find out about at the time?“ See? It’s what you are trying to get. See, he says, „Well, I was audited last year at the HASI, see, I was audited last year and I gave them all of my overts. So therefore there is nothing I have failed to reveal.“ If you don’t think you don’t sometimes get this answer, you ought to read some auditor’s reports sometimes. That’s pretty wild. And sure enough, the auditor pulled a lot of them, so it’s now unanswerable you see, as a question. „But people didn’t find out at the time.“ Oh, at the time, they didn’t find out about it. „Well, they didn’t find out about it at the time. Yes, they didn’t, you know. It’s true. Oh, there were quite a few of those! Oh, that’s what you mean!“ Big cognition.

And he sits right there and he says, „It’s my goal,“ and so forth, and „Yes,“ they’re very happy to have the thing checked out and so on. And, „But what are you doing? yak — yak.“ And all of a sudden natter — natter and scream — scream, and „I think I’m going to blow course tomorrow because I’m just not ever going to be audited again. Auditing is — I’m finished. There’s going to be — no more. I just don’t want any more of any kind,“ you see? And yap — yap — yap, and it doesn’t matter what the auditor does, the needle’s unreadable, everything’s going to hell, yeah, there’s a missed withhold there, but the pc doesn’t know it, and you couldn’t dig it up except by actually checking out a hundred percent the whole problem of goals with this pc, see. That’s your answer to the situation.

Well, you can run that thing but the only error you are going to get into in handling this little system I’m giving you here of using the middle rudiments doubling them in brass, the only error you’ll make is failing to get a communication established here. „Invalidated.“ Boy, he does not understand that, man.

But it might be — you see, this is where you’re hung as an auditor and where you’ve got to use some judgment — it might be that during the noon hour they were mad at you at the thought that you — they were — see, you already got missed withholds, see. It’s the little missed withholds — and they took your lunch kit, see, and threw it on the floor. See, it might be that one too, see? You get the idea? You see what you’re into here?

Of course an invalidation, you should know, is not-is and is the not-is axiom. And so you realize that translates into maybe, „tried to make nothing of“. So it’s „In this lifetime is there anything you’ve tried to make nothing of?“ See. It’s almost a direct translation. In fact, it’s possibly a little directer than „Invalidate.“ That communicates.

You’re sorting through the human jungle called the reactive mind. And in sorting through that jungle you are fortunate in having the keys, the maps, you know the blazes on the trees, but remember there are conditions here where the same white blaze occurs simultaneously on twenty different types of trees. You’ve got a missed withhold which is the guy’s goal is wrong, but he doesn’t know it, and you don’t know it, and the thing is reading on an invalidation only, that the lines are wrong or that his goal has already been nulled out early on the list! He knows that reactively, see. It was his goal. There it went.

So it goes by this rule, that if you find the pc is unable to answer or give you many, don’t blame it on the pc’s unwillingness to give up withholds or something, or the caginess of the pc; blame it on the communication. The communication is not occurring. See? You’ve got to make the communication so it does bite. It’ll be the offbeat of that communication which stomps this thing. Naturally you go to all trouble of finding out what each one of these words means and translates well to the pc. You’ve got a new-worded set of middle rudiments, haven’t you, to use on the pc. They might sound very strange but they are communicating to the pc. Don’t you see? See, that’s what it is. So anyway, if you were to do that and do just that, the bank unstacks in its natural sequence, which is always desirable in Sec Checking and Prepchecking. And you have just about the easiest job in the world which is doing a Repetitive Prepcheck. It becomes just as easy as can be.

He doesn’t know it! There isn’t anything under the sun would tell you that was his goal! You just did a little sloppy piece of metering or something, or maybe your rudiments weren’t in at the beginning of session, and the goal just before it, something like this happened: you looked up and sounded rather interested or amused on the goal just before his goal. You get the idea? It was, „to lick pots and pans of old fudge“ or something like that, you know, and you looked at this and you sort of — you know, and he says, „What the hell is he doing that for?“ you know? And the meter’s inoperative for the next couple of goals. And the time he wakes up on down the line someplace, he says, „I wonder what page we’re on. What page are we on?“ you know, reactively sort of, „What page are we on? What. . .“ He’s sort of reactively listening for „to catch catfish“ and it doesn’t come up, see? Sometimes he’ll want to look through the goals list, you know? „X!“ See, he’ll just see that, down deep someplace. And after that it’s chop — chop — Chop, nyat — nyat — nyat, yap — yap — yap.

Now, I’m not recommending that your Prepcheck assignment be immediately transferred over to this. See? That what you are doing in Prepchecking immediately be transferred over into this activity and so on. You’ve got the last two pages of the Joburg 6A. These are specialist actions which of course have to be checkable and so forth. It’s mainly done as class work and to sweeten up the tempers of your fellow students, that’s why it is, and don’t let them accumulate a lot of auditing overts and that sort of thing.

Now, he doesn’t know what happened, you don’t know what happened, you’ve got a dirty needle, and you go ahead slavishly trying to clear, „Have I missed a withhold on you?“ see. „What have you done?“ you are saying, see? „What have you done that I haven’t found out about?“ He hasn’t done a thing! And it can’t of course be cleared. You missed his goal. Of course you don’t find that out till next month, or something like that, see, when the data does you no good whatsoever.

But if you get assigned to a long stretch of Prepchecking and so on and you’ve completed your assignment, there is some more auditing that you can do in this particular line, or if you are assigned to Prepchecking and you have already completed your requirements on the thing, that’s what I would do. I wouldn’t go into any arbitrary form. Arbitrary forms have their value. They particularly have value in instruction because you can check and find out what the person did. I’d use more this type of approach.

Well, there are several trees have the same white blaze. There is no substitute for good metering, there’s no substitute for being alert all the way along the line, and there’s also no substitute for using your ruddy ‘ead once in a while. See, I can give you — I can — I can fill your arms full of charts and stuff your pockets full of good compasses, and things like this, and give you little playing records of witty sayings for the session and ways to open the petcock and drain the oil out of the pc. Give you all sorts — give you lube charts of his mental machinery. But please, I think you’re asking too much, too much, you see, to absolve you of any sense of any kind whatsoever. And that I’ve always steadfastly refused to do. Even if my goal were — and it isn’t — to overwhump you, I wouldn’t.

Now I’ll show you another way this could be used and combined and made up.

Here’s the point. We’re already along a line, you see, of your doing what Ron says, you see. We’re already along that line fine, very heavily. And that became necessary through such randomity that nobody in the world was getting audited, don’t you see? But that came into being there, all right. Now, let’s not push that forward through to the final hilt of saying, „Thou must never have any initiative.“ Let’s be worse than that. Let’s say, that — let’s not cook up things of „This is a sin and blasphemy since one is having an idea,“ see. Let’s not get that corny, see. We’re not — these aren’t the days of Buddha.

Let’s take the old style Problems Intensive the way it was finally canned up and released with its 0 and P sections and sort out, by assessment, the chief problem, by assessment, that’s a self-determined decision the person has made. Of course, that’s immediately preceded by a problem and that’s immediately preceded by a prior Confusion. And by assessment of the decisions, self-determined decisions the person has made, by assessment, discover the most charged decision in this lifetime.

Here’s the final word on the thing. Yes, there is a way. And frankly, if you put your very best efforts to it, and work like mad, with the sweat held — you have to have rain gutters across above your eyebrows to channel the sweat off — for years and years and years, you would eventually, possibly, have come up with just about what we’ve got. Because it’s been continuously monitored, not by my inventions, but by my observations, both of human behavior, the human mind, and the activities of people doing things with these items.

Now this would appear absolutely magical to a raw-meat pc and would stand a psycho-anal-yst on his ear.

Now, I’ll probably have to run some of that out as invalidation later. But anyhow — of me! But the point, the point I’m making here, is you get too slavish an adherence and you will commit as grave a sin as introducing too many arbitraries and too many barriers. Or introducing none in some wild burst of imagined freedom, and your pc practically spins in.

What you do is just take an assessment of these self-determined decisions, date the problem, date the prior Confusion, and remember now, there’s one thing everybody has missed consistently and continually in the Problems Intensive, that just drives them completely astray and makes Problems Intensive unworkable. We mean the prior Confusion to that decision. And we are talking about a period of time as little as five minutes and as great as a week or two. And we are not talking about three years before.

Now, I’m not trying to give you a distrust of what you’re doing. I’m merely saying that in 3GA, you’re confronting a pc. You’ve got a pc in front of you, you’re auditing the pc who is in front of you. Now, there are various exact, textbook reasons why this pc misacts the way he does. These have been ferreted out, and someday you’ll come to the knowledge that these are.

Auditor after auditor, I have watched them, I have read their reports and I absolutely groan. They come in from Central Orgs and that sort of thing, and I groan on this thing. They take periods of three to five years before the self-determined decision. No, that is not a prior Confusion, that’s not the prior Confusion that is meant.

You’ll know that definitely. And now let’s come to a further action, and we don’t use our good sense in handling of this situation, believe me, you’ll get no auditing done. You see, there are various directions you can go, and one of them is too fixed a fixedness, and you can become a complete idiot this way. Just completely idiotic.

The prior Confusion that is meant takes place from five minutes to a couple of weeks. It’s right there! And if you ask the pc, you’ve got this terrifically charged self-determined decision and you ask the pc for the prior Confusion. You see, it happened when he was twenty-seven and it was a decision – it was a decision to go to work for the Bide-a-Wee Soap Company. This thing is absolutely dynamite! I mean you’d get it on the meter and you’ve been going down this list, and it goes pow! See? To go to work for the Bide-a-Wee Soap Company.

We say to the pc, „Start of session.“ See, well that’s fine, we’re getting him all ready, and he’s going into session and so forth. He keeps vomiting, you see, but we’re not paying attention to that. And we say, „Are you willing to talk to me about your difficulties?“ you know, and he vomits a bit more, and so forth.

We ask the prior Confusion and the pc says, „Well, it was my mother washing my ears when I was a little boy.“ And the auditor says, „Well, all right. What were – who were the people who were present during that period?“

And we get very upset and cross with the pc because he won’t hold still long enough to see if he’s willing to talk to us about our difficulties. You get what I mean? You see it’s just stupid.

„Well, there was myself and my mother.“ And the auditor then runs overts against self, you see, to solve the whole thing. No, that is not the way you do it. I thought I had written it down plainly but apparently I missed there. Because a prior Confusion means the just prior Confusion. It could be within five minutes of the decision. But the pc will slide off of this and go anyplace else rather than face the thing. You’ve got to scramble him right in there.

All right, similarly, pc sits down, looks at us very gloweringly, and we say, „Well I shouldn’t inquire too deeply into this pc’s past because he looks dangerous.“ Now, the best thing to do with this pc is to just open up the session, not do any rudiments because they do contain this withhold question, and let’s keep out of all the trouble we can keep into, and now let’s go into an auditing session, and let’s omit Prepchecking on this pc, because we really want to get 3GA done, you see? Well, that’s way too wide. At that moment you would have had it.

You’d be surprised what’s left on a Problems Intensive! What gets left, you know? What never gets touched! The whole prior Confusion never gets touched, you know. There’s a murder and a bank robbery, see, that just happened the last Saturday before the fact. All there. That’s all clean. You say, „Well is there any prior Confusion to that?“ Oh, it falls off the pin. „Well, what was the prior Confusion to that?“

In the first place, the pc isn’t in — session, isn’t going to give us any data, isn’t going to as — is anything; it’s all going up in a balloon, and you’re operating across continuous piling up missed withholds, and you’re lucky if you can get out of it with your life, man! You get the idea?

„Well, when my mother was washing my ears when I was a little boy. An auditor and I took that all up.“

All right, but then, let’s have this other situation — have this other situation, see. That’s total freedom, the one I just gave you. And let’s get the other situation of where just to make sure he’s in — session, let’s put in fifteen or twenty extra beginning rudiments. Let’s — we know that his mother has violently opposed to his having processing. So every session before we get into the body of the session, let’s ask him a rudiment about how his mother is.

No! No, no, no, no! See? It’s just prior! So if you think of a just prior Confusion, all will be beautifully resolved.

Even the rawest — meat pc would begin to realize that a bunch of arbitraries were going here. Who wouldn’t? But the pc wouldn’t look good. Just the pc would look worse and worse, and get worse and worse, because man, he’s being run into practically every present time problem he ever heard of, don’t you see, before he is brought to the body of the session. He just can’t quite concentrate by the time he gets to the body of the session. So you wouldn’t get anything done either.

Your actions on putting one of these things together are elementary actions. You want the self-determined decision, you don’t want an other-determined decision. Like sometimes marriage and so forth is not a self-determined decision. You want something he decided. Decisions he made. And you ask most pcs this and they sometimes start off very sloppily and give you other-determined answers. See?

You can also startle pcs. You can decide that we should run several extra middle rudiments. See, middle rudiments are working all right, they’re cleaning up things when they’re used. Let’s run in several extra middle rudiments. We found out that the pc has a tendency to repress a cough. So, irrespective of the pc’s coughing, well, let’s introduce a middle rudiment, asking specifically, a we say „careful of,“ that „Have you suppressed a cough in this session?“ See, let’s get that going, and let’s get several others going, and let’s have some fancy curves in here of some kind or another. And finally the whole body of the session is taken up with middle rudiments, you know? Because you never seem to be able to clear, „Have you suppressed — in this session have you suppressed a cough?“ That’s the one that’s giving us trouble, you see? Because the guy says, „Kumm...,“ you see, and you say, „That read.“

You want self-determined changes in your life, is what you need, that you decided, you see, and if you say, „Self-determined changes in your life that you yourself decided to change on,“ you can kind of get it across, you know, across.

Just doesn’t ever seem to clean up. And we find out when we’re auditing him on the full — the whole track that he has a button called „cough,“ and you fin — you’d find out it’s funny, every time you say „cough“ to him he’ll cough, you know. Cough — cough, cough — cough. It’s very interesting. Very amusing. We find out he’s also coughing as a thetan, which is very interesting. We never seem to get that one in, but we tried. Too many wild variables.

And the pc says to you, „Well, I was ill and they changed me to the hospital.“ And you just leave your pencil in the air and you say to the pc, „All right, that’s fine. Now, thank you very much. Now, I’ll repeat the auditing question, now. I want you to answer this question. This is the question.“ You know. Until you finally get, all of a sudden, „Oh, you mean things I decided? Oh well, that’s different.“

Now, it’s amongst this tangled brier patch that we walk in order to get somebody’s list of goals and get somebody’s list done on the goal that is found, and so on, it’s our job to get the auditing done. Now, the best way to get it done is the Model Session you’ve got right here, according to various findings. And your middle ruds are pretty good. But I can, and am going to, slightly change their sequence to give you just a little more of the stuff you’re asking for, don’t you see? Just slightly change that. I have no reason to publish it at the moment. But it’s just all in the interest of let’s make it nicely — let’s get it good and patterned, and then we’re not upsetting the pc by giving him something unexpected every two minutes, and let’s get it nice and patterned, and let’s adhere to that pattern, and let’s do a minimum of rudiments and a maximum of auditing in any session. But let’s not do such a minimum of rudiments that we have the pc out of session while we’re doing the auditing. Do you see the nice balance there? Well, that is only furnished by an auditor’s judgment.

Changes in his life. Changes in his life, and so on, because sometimes it has to take a little while to dawn on the pc that he himself has effected any change in his life. When you first address him on this subject, he thinks of himself as a pawn, who was moved from one end of the board to the other. He never thinks that he himself pushed himself around. So you sometimes have to dig a little bit before you get these things.

There is no substitute for an auditor taking responsibility for his pc. There is no substitute whatsoever for an auditor using his initiative. And there’s also no substitute of any kind for an auditor, basically, getting results — there’s no substitute for that. And if I could invent something that you would say to a pc, and wouldn’t require any barriers of any kind whatsoever, and you just said „Boojum boojum boojum“ three times to the pc like that, and the pc was instantly cleared, and you didn’t even have to say it in a sudden tone of voice or anything else, you could say one word „Boojum“ and the next word „Boojum,“ it wouldn’t matter, and so forth, why you’d be all set. But unfortunately this small fact stands in your road of that: is pcs don’t go Clear when you say „Boojum boojum boojum“ to them. It takes a Model Session, it takes very accurate reading of the meter, and it takes a very set pattern that has been piloted through with vast ardure, and is a rather narrow road, actually. At the same time I think a narrow road can be followed so as to pitch over the edge of the nearest cliff, you see. And it can also be followed rather easily and comfortably. But even a mule has to have some judgment to go up one.

And you get those written down, and you make a nice list, each one, and that self-determined change, see, it’s got to be very short. Very, very short. You shorthand it.

It’s bad judgment to introduce too many arbitraries, it’s bad judgment to put in too much freedom, and it’s also very bad judgment to be so damn fixed to what you’re doing that you never look up and find what has to be done in the session, see? Your auditing actually becomes a happy mean amongst those things. And if you do that well, why you’ll really get there. You’ll really make Clears.

„Well, my wife and I, why, we owned a motel and we had been around the desert for quite a while and we-we-we-we’ve had – we had this service station first in Waco, see, and then – then we owned this motel. We owned this motel. And I went up to Montana for a little while and saw a friend of mine up there. He’s a goat hunter and I saw him for a long time and actually I brought him back down and he made a couple of insulting remarks about this motel, and that sort of thing, but that was after I went to Los Angeles. And I finally found a buyer for the motel and we – we decided to go to San Francisco.“

We’ve got several people coming up to Clear this minute. And isn’t it interesting that the people who are coming up toward Clear and so forth are being audited by the auditors who do the best Model Session and best reading of the meters. I don’t think it’s any coincidence at all. It’ll inevitably be that way.

And honest to God you will find this sometimes on the auditing report. The whole story. Honest, you’ll find the whole thing. I’ve seen some of them and – I haven’t written that hard enough, see. It’s very – you know…

But I’m also saying that in those sessions where people are going in that direction and coming up to Clear, there must have been a little judgment sitting there in the auditor’s chair. Do you follow that?

„Decided to go to San Francisco,“ you see. June 1928. Decided to go to San Francisco, June 1928. That’s all you want.

All right. So there is the razor edge we walk. And that razor edge of course spells success.

You’re going to have to read those things back and you’ve got no time. „And that was the place where we – Wayco, you know. And we had the petrol station in Wayco and then I went up to Montana and there’s a fellow up there shooting goats…“ You know, you haven’t got time to read all that!

Thank you.

Totally practical consideration – I’m not making fun of you. Actually, I thought I had originally stressed this madly. And you should see some of the old records that we have around here on that; they are quite ludicrous. We’ve corrected it and after that they get so they can really do it. But some of the first efforts have to be carefully explained to them that it had to be in two or three words with a date following it, you see, and you still get this short story, and they keep running out of forms, you know.

Let me tell you the liability of putting down an other-determined change. All you do is assess the list of engrams.

They must be self-determined changes. You must not have on that list any other-determined change or you are liable to find yourself assessing an engram.

„Well, the doctor decided I had to go to the mountains for my health,“ and the auditor writes down „Gone to the mountains for health, October 1956.“ He comes along and he’s assessing wildly here and God! „This October – mountains for health, October 1956.“ Boy, he just falls off the pin you know. You can – you can hear the air being split as the needle falls. Boy, that’s it, you know, that’s it. Now let’s look for the prior Confusion to this area. We’ve got that straight. It has to be within the last week or so before that.

All right, that’s fine. „All right. What’s the personnel in this confusion?“

„Well, there was the lorry driver, and the three children that were riding in back…“ Back of what? You know? We got a car smash, you see, and he spent the next several days in the hospital between life and death and we are running the beginning of a beautiful engram and this system, I assure you, does not handle engrams. So watch it!

There can be moments of pain and that sort of upset in there and this system will get you out of them more easily than other systems, and you mustn’t avoid an area just because there was an accident in it or something like that. As long as you are assessing self-determined decisions to change you don’t run into this difficulty and you get a proper assessment. You go on the line. But the pc has to sort this out for a while. Sometimes he really goes around in circles.

Yeah, he’ll tell you about the doctor ordering him to the mountains, and you just hold your pencil up, give him TR 4 on it.

Say, „Oh, doctor ordered you to the mountains? Thank you. Good. Yeah. Fine. Good. All right. Now let’s have a self-determined change that I just asked for. Let’s have this self-determined change. Self-determined change that you made yourself!“

„Oh, Oh. Oh! Oh! My mother took me out of prep school.“

You say, „Good. Thank you, thank you, that’s fine.“ Like that and so forth. „Now, I’ll repeat the question here. I’ll repeat the question, what I want is a self-determined change that you did yourself, on your own initiative.“

„Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! I’ve got that, I’ve got that. Well, my father and mother moved to another town when I was young.“

Don’t commit suicide. Just keep at it until you’ve got this thing grooved in. Lay down the pencil and say, „Now look, what I want from you is times when you, yourself, you, you, you yourself, decided on a change in life. Now, for instance churches, or you decided to, you know, shift something in your religion or something like that. That’s what I want! That’s what I want. You got that?“ He’s got that now. You pick up your pencil again and you sit there and look at him alertly. All right. And you’ll probably get them!

And then you get a list of that and then you make sure that every one is a self-determined change. Don’t keep challenging the pc each time he gives you one. He says, „I decided…“ That’s good enough.

You go down that list, you assess that thing out, you take the one with the greatest fall. Or assess it by elimination. Oddly enough they will assess by elimination. Just like the Prehav Scale. But you want to watch it because they will assess all the way out if you don’t grab the last one just as it disappears! Don’t sit there like an idiot saying, „Which one was the one that went out last?“

You’ve got two, you see, and you are going between these two and you go from one to the other and keep making marks and you go back and read that one and you say, „Well, it must have been the other one, but that’s gone too, so which one did you have?“

And do your assessment, take that thing, now move back, find out if there was anything happened just before that and then move it back about a month to be safe and take that as your arbitrary date. It’s an arbitrary date that is made to include a distance as close to that as a month. And that’ll include anything that happened in that period. And everything will be dandy. But if you permit that date to go back several years for the prior confusion you will miss it wildly, and you’ll get the pc all wound up in a circle.

You want that area that just happened, because let me tell you, his decision was just preceded by the recognition that he had an awful problem to which the decision is a solution. The decision is always a solution to a problem. And just before he had this awful problem, well, he was in there committing overts and people were missing withholds with both fists! He had both feet into life up to the neck, if that’s the hottest one that comes up.

But you mustn’t go back any great time period from that. Don’t go back years. Take that as your date and give it the works here just as I have been giving you here. Do those middle rud-Prepcheck type of thing. Let’s say it turned up to September the 2nd, 1951. So you’d say, „Since September 2nd, 51 is there anything you have suppressed?“ On and on and on and on and on!

Now, you get sometimes thrown by this type of action. I might tell you at this time, that I’m interested in this and interested in Prepchecking in an effort to upgrade the therapeutic value of Prepchecking. I’m quite interested in doing that. To make Prepchecking more meaningful, to make it do more for a case and what I’m giving you, I should have probably given you a better preliminary on the thing, but what I’m giving you actually makes Prepchecking pretty beefy. If it is well done the things that you can do with this will, I think, astonish even you. When you have already had results on this, I think, you will be quite astonished.

You get somebody, you only got a twenty-five-hour intensive on this person and that sort of thing, you’d be unhappy to prepcheck this person perhaps and try something desperate if it was all the money the poor bloke had and you didn’t think you’d get very far with your Prepchecking and so forth. No, if you had a little experience with this particular type of mid ruds type Prepchecking, why you’d feel comfortable about sitting there and giving it to him, because man, some things are going to fly off he never heard the likes of. And also, because you’ve achieved sufficiently high result, the possibility of your getting a dirty needle after this is quite slight. Your auditor altitude, you see, has taken a rocket ride to Venus. See? You’re amongst the stars as far as this guy’s concerned.

Well, it’s all real to him, that’s the main thing that happens. It’s all quite real. Because of course, he isn’t going to tell you anything that he doesn’t think he has. And you don’t fish for any data, you don’t push him around, you don’t try to get any overts off particularly. You wind up – make sure when you finish all this that you get your middle rudiment in, that you haven’t missed any withholds on him because that could be catastrophic, but that’s a middle rudiment type action. Fast check, see?

And you guys are going to wind up at the end of this line, or the lady involved, and I think you will find you’ll be quite happy with what you have done and actually you’ve done something rather relaxed about the whole thing.

Now, in handling – in handling Prepchecking in general, you would perhaps feel shy of doing it if you weren’t going to get a result which was a desirable result to the pc. Well, I think you’d find this – let us take an example here: Mrs. Jones has just been delivered of a nineteen-pound bouncing boy and has a slight postpartum psychosis and you think the best thing to do is to run out the birth engram. No, I can tell you that the best thing to do would be this middle ruds Prepcheck, predated on some prior Confusion Prior to that, not taking the birth as a date, but letting your date fall so that the birth is included in the period.

You are not targeting at it. You are auditing her a month and a half after the date of the delivery. Well, you fish back and find out a little bit more and talk to her about her life in that period and just take it at two months. That includes that period. And I think you’d be astonished to find the somatics fly off, without winding the pc stuck in the incident! You see? It has value, man!

This amounts to a PT problem, don’t you see? It’s just happened! You don’t get it out of the way, why, you’re going to have a mess on your hands. That gives the auditor another weapon too. And how successful it is is totally dependent upon the quality of your meter reading, and the degree the pc is in-session and the excellence with which you clean off those questions one after the other as you – I mean clean them off when you test them. I think you’d wind up at the other end of the line with a very happy pc.

Because a pc, asked permissively in this fashion, won’t pull themselves deeper into the pit than they think they can go at any given moment, and you’ve got that interesting rule that is given, I think in Book Three of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, that the mind has a self-protective mechanism. You don’t tend to overthrow that.

Now, this was necessary at this time since we have so many techniques that will overthrow the balance of the mind. We could run into somebody today like a – that’s one of the reasons you want to – „Well, my God! When auditing in the old days I never had this many ARC breaks from the pc just putting in rudiments and that sort of thing. Ah, must be my auditing is deteriorated.“ No. You’ve got a stepped-up Model Session, don’t you see? The potential of ARC is fantastic! If you don’t learn how to drive this car right – it’s like a Ferrari or a Cooper Special! Man, that thing is going to go off the curves! See? You are driving a racing car. You might as well make up your mind to it. See? This thing has got power and it has got speed. If you want to go back and drive a Mercedes-Benz 1898 model, why you won’t get anywhere near the amount of ARC breaks and upsets from a pc. You won’t get the results either! You get the difference of what you’re learning right now?

Well, similarly this is gunned-up Prepchecking. But there was a – necessary at this time to have a relatively permissive system, which didn’t overthrow the balance of the mind.

All right, let’s take an extreme example of this. This girl, never under God’s green earth ever dared go near the time she was thrown into the institution and electric shocked within an inch of her life. She begs you not to go anywhere near this! Well, that’s one thing she won’t talk about. If you guarantee not to talk about this in any way, shape or form, she’ll be perfectly happy to be audited. Select a period two months ahead of it, run it!

I think, if you audit well, you’ll be on the safe side. But if you don’t audit it well and find yourself with the feeling that you have just shot off the edge of the Grand Canyon within a racing car and it is turning over and over and over in empty space, don’t say I didn’t warn you!

The thing to do is, of course, go back to giving a Touch Assist. Can’t miss a meter read with a Touch Assist, it has that advantage.

You know, there’s some guy in practice someplace in the Middle West of the United States right now who does nothing but Touch Assists, has never been trained as an auditor and has a roaringly successful practice! So we mustn’t, we mustn’t sneer at these little things. But I just give you the word of warning. See? You put a 500-horsepower supercharged engine in an aluminum tubular-framed hull and it takes some neat driving! That’s all. The driving is neat. And if you notice on such a car, there are a number of curves in the road. I’ll just point out one little thing to you, that there are a number of curves in the road, and therefore you cannot go on the average of not missing many! You are allowed just one curve. And then they bury you. That’s pretty near the way it is.

Okay. You think that might do you some good?

Audience: Yes!

All right. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you.

Good night.