Well, I hope two things from that lecture: that, one, you do not instantly assume that this can be run very sloppily because there are only a couple of important points to it. And the other one, you don't overly give value to the other processes in it. And I hope you don't do either one. There's a nice middle ground, there.

Now, I've seen them over in London sweating away on flattening SCS. It has nothing to do with clearing — nothing.

Why are you running it? Well, you're going to run a subjective process on the guy, aren't you? And you sure better have him under control. Well now, if I tell you — a good theoretician on this subject that knows some of the reasons why — just: get the preclear under control before you start running a subjective process. See, you should actually be able to proceed from that point.

But the other day an auditor was unable to do so. He didn't proceed from that point. Do you know what he did? He had a preclear who was sitting there juggling the cans of an E-Meter like they were dice boxes: The cans were banging together, the preclear was crossing his legs one way and then the other leg, and then they'd all of a sudden have to lay down one can and scratch one side of his body, and then he'd scratch another side of his body. And I took a look at this preclear, and he was just going like a whirling dervish. It's just incredible that the man could have been in this much tumultuous motion and never have noticed it.

But what was much more incredible, the auditor didn't look there and find out he had a factor which was totally out of control. In this alone, he would have seen that the preclear was not under control — preclear didn't have his body under control at all. And, actually, I had to tell the auditor, "For heaven's sakes run, 'You make that body sit in that chair' until it is flat." Horribly enough, it had to be run for — let me see, I don't know the exact period of time — it was somewhere between fifteen and twenty hours. "You make that body sit in that chair."

And after a while, the fellow could sit there and approximate the conditions necessary to auditing. So you could say all these other processes are necessary to make somebody approximate the conditions of auditing, you see?

Now, there are lots of ways you can do that. And I would be thoroughly ashamed of you if you didn't suddenly pull one out of the hat that you already knew. And you say, "Look, this guy can't create energy," you know? "He's doing something weird here, and he just doesn't — it's an automaticity of form and energy" and so forth. And you just use one of — I could think of a half a dozen processes where you could handle energy just as such. It's kind of a dangerous thing to handle, but you could handle it, don't you see? The creation of energy: You have him mock up an energy particle, you know, just a little, tiny energy particle, and know that he mocked it up. And move it around and change its color until he knew that he mocked it up. And then have him mock up a couple of energy particles. And then have him mock up some masses of one kind or another. And he would have been able to mock up energy, wouldn't he?

So this is a sentient activity, this business of clearing, isn't it? You know the important points. The important point is survival. I just covered it. And subjectively the thing that undoes a bank is, "Mock it up and keep it from going away."

Then, of course, you get the two chief methods of doing this — and he'd certainly better be good at them — which is, "Mock it up and hold it still," and, "Mock it up and make it a little more solid." You got that? Those are the two principal methods of doing it. And he's got to be good at those because those are the ones he's going to be using most of the time. But those are just drills on what he's already been doing. Right?

But you should be able to put the rest of it together. You actually shouldn't have to have — beyond the exact outlines of those processes, you shouldn't have to have a big scale that says it goes from this to that to this to that, in order to get somewhere else. You see? If you know the conditions you've got to create in the preclear or bring about in the preclear, then you certainly should be able to bring them about. Right?

If you were just going by rote and some kind of a formula, it'd be like a pilot flying blind that never knew where he came from or where he went to, you know, or what passages he should be taking in order to get there. Wouldn't it? And if you haven't got a good grip on exactly what you're trying to do, then you'll do one of two things: You will either wander over and suddenly specialize in SCS — say, "Well, it's SCS that's doing it, and we'll do SCS," see? You could do that. Or you try to do the exact clearing processes without doing any supportive processes to make a gradient scale of possibility, and you give the preclear a big lose. Get the idea?

Now, we have about the best rundown you can get of this in the procedure that you're using right now, but — pardon me, in the one you're using, the one that's been modified. And the procedure on which we are doing our best work is HGC Procedure of February 6, 1958. That contains all of these steps.

Now, that is going to suffer a modification. And we're going to drop out Union Station, Destroy. Had some careful tests made on this, and it doesn't particularly answer the situation. It's answered faster by Survive. And we find out that you never have to process Destroy if you don't want to. But spotting people and being able to brace up to doing something to them was quite beneficial. Don't you see?

Okay. Well, I'm not continuing the lecture. This is your half-hour.

Yes?

Male voice: These Clears that have already been made without having the Help bracket flattened, do you think that Help bracket will turn up null on the E-Meter with them, or will that have to be flattened?

I think it's pretty null. Because, remember, we've had the Help button here for a long time. And the fellow always hits that with CCH 0 if he's doing a thorough job. And all of these Clears have had that hit.

Now, you understand that this Help button is simply being punched up like mad . . .

Male voice: Yeah.

. . . brackets and all the rest of it. But you should realize that for eight months it has been riding in our drills. This exact process you're doing is eight months old, on Help.

Now, when an auditor at the HGC ran into a wiggle-woggle on Help, he just beat it to death, see? We didn't understand that he could beat it to death and get a Clear. You understand? That — didn't know until a relatively short time ago. But the material itself was sitting there. Evaluation of importance is what took place.

Now, I can answer that in this way: is, these people were null on Help in the rudiments. And we found that all of those cases, finally, that had been hanging up, that had fields and all of this, weren't null on the Help button. I had to do a fast look and find out what was the common denominator of no-null here. And the common denominator of no-null — I didn't do this systematically; I did this theoretically and then went and looked, and sure enough, it's the common denominator — is the Help button.

Did I answer that. . .

Male voice: Yes.

. . . clumsily, or ...

Male voice: Mm-hm.

All right.

Male voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Any other questions, here?

Oh, come, come, you don't know all there is to know about that yet, do you?

Male voice: This new procedure at the HGC of processing only with Clear as a goal — would you like to say anything on that?

Well, they shouldn't be processing — the auditors themselves shouldn't be processing with only Clear as a goal.

Male voice: Right.

They should be processing as only OT as a goal.

Male voice: Yeah. But what I mean is not accepting a preclear for anything less than Clear.

That's correct. I'll tell you why: they won't go anywhere else. That's really Q-and-Aing with the — with the people. They walk in, say, "I want a week's processing." Registrar says, "Well, what do you want to do in this week?" The guy has got a black field four or five light-years thick. He's — can't make mock-ups, gets an impression of something or other, so on. He says, "Well," he says, "a week. I'd like a week's processing so I can be cleared."

Well, now wait a minute, see? It'll take — it'll take a week or two to get this boy under control, to get his machinery straightened out, and then maybe you'll get started on a project. But he won't settle for anything else. So we have to answer up to this reality. We know this guy is going to "free-week" on through to Clear — scream, scream, scream, you know? "Well, I didn't make it this week" and so on. Well, you have to sign him up for what's real.

So, therefore, it comes about that we can only go in one direction — Clear. He's going to say Clear. Well, in order to get him to Clear, we've got to say OT.

We're going to go toward OT as far as we can go in five weeks. We therefore have two new — brand-new auditing packages. We always had one week and three weeks, didn't we? We have one, three, five and seven, now. And we even know about what the condition of case would have to be in order to boot somebody through at one of these levels — read it from the E-Meter and so forth.

The Director of Processing now takes an incoming person and boots him through a rather simple series of tests, completely aside from the APA and intelligence tests, and pegs it. And this fellow might have signed up with the Registrar at one week, but it's contingent upon acceptance by the Director of Processing. Director of Processing looks him over, knows very well he'll go for Clear.

And this has happened, every case that walks in: "Yes, well, what's your goal?" the Director of Processing will say.

"Well," the fellow says, "nothing, I ... Nothing, I just wanted to be cleared." And he's signed up for half an intensive or something. So we just let the Registrar sign him up for anything: Sign him up for an hour, sign him up for a month. It doesn't matter what. The length of time is decided by the Director of Processing. And the Director of Processing then sends the preclear back to the Registrar with a reality of sign-up, and will not accept him for auditing unless he has established the length of time necessary to clear him. Because halfway through, he's going to start talking to students, he's going to start talking to other auditors, other preclears. The next thing you know he's, "What is this thing, Clear? Oh yeah, I want to go there myself. That's where I want to go."

Well, you certainly better have enough time to put him there. Now, that's exactly what we're doing.

Yes?

Male voice: On the process "What action could you take against that body?" — that is working on the Destroy button, right?

Not necessarily. That is a command which is susceptible to tremendous rephrasing: is "With what could you touch that body?"

Male voice: Well, that's a different process.

No, it's practically the same process. It merely means willingness of inflow. The process would be better stated if it were described this way: "Increase the preclear's willingness of inflow toward the body."

Male voice: All right, that clears it up.

Got it? Okay.

Yes?

Male voice: What processes above Rising Scale do you have and recommend for above mest Clear? OT processes above mest Clear?

Well, a continuance of the exact processes that are being done will get a very long distance. The next process above that is Rising Scale, and that happens to be the highest process there is in Scientology. There is no process higher than Rising Scale because it is straight change of postulate by the pc, which basically is all there is, anyhow.

Male voice: And that then is an unlimited process?

Very much so.

Male voice: Okay.

Yes?

Male voice: I had one pc at the Guidance Center, you remember, that went awful high on throwing stuff away.

Mm-hm.

Male voice: "Mock it up, throw it away."

He took over an automaticity which, of course, gave it to him. You have to have these various adjudications. If he's got a machine that's mocking — that throws away everything that is mocked up ...

Male voice: Well, it wasn't quite that. I had to convince him that he could throw something away.

Yeah. Well, you're talking about a Remedy of Havingness. You get the same thing if you run enough "Mock it up and keep it from going away." But there are the lower harmonics. Remember when we were running Trio and we had to run the third button of "dispense with"? And one case was reported to me, I think, of two hundred times "dispense with," to five "continue its," to one "have it."

Male voice: That's about what this case ran on.

Yeah. Well, a case will run these things. A case will run these things. And my explanation for it has been that you're exercising an automaticity, and if that automaticity existed that got rid of all of his havingness and you took it over, then he would have more than he was having before. You got the idea?

Male voice: Yeah.

But because this hasn't worked out in every case, and Keep It from Going Away has worked out in every case, see, we have to decide in favor of the "Keep it from going away" as the constant denominator, and the other one as inconstant in its results. You'll find cases that will throw things away happily and apparently get much better because they were throwing them away. You'll find cases. But all of a sudden it comes and grinds to a halt. And, boy, they'd better not throw away one more pinpoint of flyspeck. See? They've had it. They're right there.

Now, you have to run the other. One of the basic discoveries been made in the last few months is that "Mock it up and keep it from going away" or "Hold it in" — he does it on his own automaticity — solves all of the throwaway processes. And that's an interesting thing to have discovered: that the common denominator was "Keep it from going away" and the sporadic was "Throw it away." You got it? Got it — okay.

Female voice: We all have some idea on how to diagnose a level of case, but is there going to be any specific information written on that?

Yes, there is. There's an FC Policy Letter of, I think, February the 8th or 10th which gives the number of weeks per case and the type of case for each one of those assignment of weeks. It hasn't been broadly publicized. As a matter of fact, it's just, I think, been issued — only two or three copies of it.

What I intended to do with this, by the way, was let this thing drift for two or three months and then cook up an exact scaled test whereby we had an exact estimation then borne out by processing. You know? When we get more data, we'll make a more accurate one. Now we've, now, have just approximated it, don't you see? And then been generous, see, and so as not to be caught in the soup.

We sell somebody three weeks, you know? And you as an auditor sell somebody three weeks, you see? And you're going to do these wonders in three weeks, and then you didn't quite make them at the end of three weeks. You all of a sudden find yourself having to give him a week, don't you? Just to complete the contract. Well, he's upset because your estimation was incorrect, and we'd better make a generous estimation and sell him the right number of weeks in the first place, regardless of whether he took them or paid for them.

This is the other thing the Registrar is ordered to do up there. It doesn't matter how much he actually buys, he must sign up, you see, for an adequate number. Therefore, his expectancy matches the reality of the situation. This is all we're trying to do.

Female voice: Thank you.

You bet.

Yes?

Female voice: A Clear would be Tone 4.0 or as good as that, wouldn't he?

Well, that was the original test of Clear, was somebody 4.0 ...

Female voice: Oh.

... or above.

Female voice: Good.

Yes?

Male voice: Can you see how a preclear in running Help could, in actual fact, be running out havingness?

No.

Male voice: By what squirrel can they be doing that?

Oh, it's easy to do. It's easy to do because when you're auditing him he starts doing some other things that aren't in the command, which would mean that your control of the preclear would be poor. Or he is doing some mass-chewing. Or because your communication with him is so as-ising — in other words, just the fact that you're communicating with him gives him an as-isness of mass. You understand that?

So any process can apparently run somebody down in havingness. Therefore in running Help, if you were suspicious of this point, it wouldn't be the Help that was running it down.

You should turn around and run Connectedness. Run a button, bridge to Connectedness. You know, run one of the bracket and bridge to Connectedness. Run Connectedness for a while or some such process — Havingness or something — objective. And then bridge back into the second button and — of the bracket, and then Connectedness. You see, there's lots of ways for this to run. This would prevent that from happening, and probably should be done on a very low-scale case.

Yes?

Male voice: Uh . . . Oh brother, it disappeared. . . Oh, yes!

As-ised, huh?

Male voice: Yeah. Would there ever be a situation or could you — would there — would it be likely to turn up a situation wherein a preclear was so relatively out of control that you would have to run SCS before you run the Help?

Hmm . . . Well, I can tell you there are a lot of preclears you're going to have to run CCH 1 before you run anything else.

Male voice: Yeah.

Now you're talking about anaten preclears, and that sort of thing.

I'll tell you a funny thing. You know the arrangement of the bracket in HGC of February 6 — Procedure of February 6 — the bracket is simply listed as itself, not in the order it's supposed to be run. "How could you help yourself?" is not the best first button to run on a cycle — he goes immediately out of control, don't you see? "How could I help you?" "How could you help me?" are easily the senior brackets to this. And you let this "How could you help yourself?" cruise on to a later point of the bracket.

You've got to — there is no substitute in auditing for knowing what you're doing! I have less and less inclination, if I ever had any, to can it all up so it could be done without understanding what you were doing. Less and less inclination. I think you could probably can up Clear Processing so that you could make a Clear without understanding it, but. . .

Male voice: Without either of them understanding.

. . . wow! Yeah, without either of them understanding it. That's very good.

Any other questions here?

Yes?

Male voice: Well, when I asked you about how we should set up Clear Procedure project for the people in the field, you said they should make technicians out of them.

Yes, you can, as long as you are standing at the backs of their necks. But remember, we're not clearing somebody without understanding it. There's somebody there who's understanding it, didn't they?

Male voice: Okay.

And namely, that'd be you, wouldn't there?

Male voice: Right.

And they run into some difficulty and you straighten it out. This is the way a clinic in the future would be organized, which is quite interesting.

I'd just love to do the US Army. Boy, wouldn't they wind up to be a fantastic organization — after you'd totally flattened Help! But supposing you were doing somebody like the army or something of this sort. And they were — well, there are just too damn many preclears, that's all. Well, you'd take some auditor that knew his business and you'd give him ten or twelve technicians. And then he could keep it monitored and keep it straightened out.

We'd probably introduce an earphone system — this is just how to get it done, you see? We'd give them a rote procedure and then we'd give them a little earphone that the monitoring auditor could talk through, you see? And he'd listen to the session on a speaker. And if he gave instructions to the auditor, he'd just tell him. You get the idea? Well, he could run an awful lot of preclears just by dropping around back of the chair. Don't you see? You'd tell him — straighten him out, tell him which way to go. Now, that's what a technician would do. And a technician, I don't think, could be trusted over the hill. That answer it?

Male voice: Yes.

There would be two ways of approaching this, but neither one of them escapes sensible auditing.

Male voice: Right.

Right.

Yes?

Male voice: Just on a point of interest — interest, on your ideas on the US Army: the British army just bought their first extinction pass. (laughter) They've agreed to get this started, in Aldershot, with Colonel White.

Oh yes?

Male voice: He bought what I'm calling a Power of Command Course.

No kidding! Tell us more.

Male voice: Well, I haven't got much more. He's writing to you on the NAAP — National Academy of American Psychology . . .

Right.

Male voice: . . . for more information.

Right.

Male voice: But briefly, it'll — / sold him on the idea of educating NCOs . . .

Right.

Male voice: . . . and my intention is to run a Comm Course and Upper Indoc . ..

Very good.

Male voice: ... on them.

Very good. I'm sure you'll be successful.

Male voice: And when I get back I'll be sorting this one out. It's one of the things . . .

Good.

Male voice: I heard last night that, you know, he's nibbling.

Good. Well, that's — that will take a lot of sorting out.

Male voice: True.

When we look over the potentialities between destroy and help, we find out that the function of an NCO toward his own troops is to help them. Oddly enough it's to help them destroy. Now, I don't know where we go from there. (laughter)

Yes?

Male voice: Start a school for people in the army and then take the graduates from that and run them onto OCS.

Oh yeah? Now, tell me this again.

Male voice: Start a school for soldiers that. . .

Right.

Male voice: . . . are in the army.

Right.

Male voice: Then run those graduates onto OCS.

Oh, sure.

Male voice: You'd have a valid point there. These people change so much in your course that they're ready for OCS.

Oh yes, yes very definitely.

Audience: What's OCS?

Male voice: Officer Candidate School.

Officers. That's where they make the "ociffers."

Okay, what else have we got here? Yes? First question for you.

Female voice: Is it necessary to bring up tone to tone on Help, as well as null to null?

A careful auditor — a careful auditor normally does. And lately I've been finding out they recovered tone rather easily on Help. And if you're having difficulty, it's because you're overrunning a part of the bracket.

Could I recommend that you read Scientology 8-80, on flows? Now, you — all of you, look over flows.

Now, here's what you can do with a fellow. It's too bad we're not running with an oscilloscope, but they're so fantastically expensive. They tell you the direction of flow. "How could you help me? How could you help me? How could you help me?" The fellow will come up to a point where the needle is very floppy, very loose. And you'll find out, if you run it much further, that the needle will start to tighten, tighten, tighten, tighten. What you've done is overrun the flow. Stuck flow is what you've run into.

So therefore, you don't flatten any part of a bracket on Help, you merely loosen the needle.

Male voice: Loosen?

Yeah, and you'll get that needle pretty floppy so that you actually have to turn down sensitivity. And then later on, you'll find out you had to turn sensitivity back up again if you overrun it. It's a nice point of judgment. And you get the needle so it's nice and floppy, you'll find out he's more or less recovered tone. And then tone will start down again and you won't get it up again on that end of the bracket. You've got to turn around and run it the opposite direction.

Let's say you're processing a pastor. He's been helping people and helping people and helping people, and nobody ever gave him any help. All right.

Now, you decide, very dully, to run him on "How could you help me?" The needle might have been fairly fluid to begin with, but it'll just freeze because you're running him on a stuck flow.

Now, the thing to run him on is quite something else: is, "How could I help you?" This will be a terrible shock to him. He's already overrun it, you see, in life. And as you run it back at him, he's liable to go anaten and everything else, but eventually the needle will get unstuck, and that is the time to leave that edge of the bracket. You don't null, null, null, null, null, null, null with this Help. You simply get it better, better, better. Every time you get the needle action better — the sensitivity is wide and so forth, he appears to be fairly free on the thing — you go on to the next side of the bracket. And what you do is run the bracket many times around rather than run each one flat.

If you could run — if you ran a bracket this way, you'd make a mistake. An hour and a half on "How could I help you?" Oh, I'm afraid that's much too long. He'll overrun it and stick the needle again, and you'll get trouble with your tone arm. Your tone arm will have risen back up to where you started, but then it will fall off again. And now you won't be able to get the thing up easily. So you say, "Well, the process that got him into it, why, huh! get him out of it, so we just run some more of it," see? But you get stuck flows.

And the idea of a flow is quite an interesting mechanism, and the fellow can overrun a flow, and it sticks. Anything running too long in one direction will eventually stick. The easiest thing about it is, if you were running water on a slight grade into a pool down here, you would eventually get the pool so full that the water would no longer run. See? Now, that's just a physical universe — a crude manifestation.

Electrically, if stuff runs too long down this line, something will happen to the line. The electricians call it electrolysis. It starts to carry away particles. It starts to chew things up. There's more and more resistance. And it's expressed in terms of heat. The line gets hot. Don't you see? The resistance rises; it's harder and harder to get a flow to go through that line.

Well, you should be able to read that on the meter because the meter suddenly starts to say, "Freeze, freeze, freeze." And I could take any one of you and freeze the needle on flows. I can just freeze it so doggone tight that somebody would say, "Boy, how did we get this low-toned character in the course?" You know? Just on a basis of, "Get the idea of pitching something at that wall. Pitch something at that wall. Pitch something at that wall." And after a while the thing would tighten.

Now, mocking something up and keeping it from going away is not a flow. Only for a while will it act as a flow, and that works itself out. But a thing like Help acts as flows. It's quite amazing. And this I was going to take up with you tomorrow, but you're running it today so I better tell you.

Run those needles loose; run them loose and switch. And as soon as I tell you run them loose, you'll see what I mean, second you get it on a needle, because it's very apparent. It means that your needle action, which was fairly mild to begin with, is now getting pretty strenuous. It means that you could actually turn down your sensitivity knob over here; see, you could turn down that sensitivity knob because the action is now too wide.

Well now, after a while, if you continue to run the same direction, see — "How could I help you? How could I help you?" gets fluid after a while, and then it starts sticking. See? And you'll find, then, that it would be necessary to turn your sensitivity back up again. You say, "What's happened here?" Well, what's happened is, is you ran through the null that — we're working with Help on a null of flows, which is quite different than a null of no needle actions.

I probably should have taken this up with you yesterday, but you got it now?

Audience: Yeah.

You're still looking a little baffled. Is there anything wrong?

Female voice: It's all right. Thank you.

You got it made?

Female voice: Yes.

You'll just have to see this action on an E-Meter to understand it. For instance, I picked up a case one day and I ran Help, "How could I help you?" and I ran it two times. That needle was sticky to begin with, and it got an awful lot sticky. And I said, "Well, at this point is it all right with you if we bridge? How could you help me?" And the needle just — plaaaah. I mean it — all of a sudden here we had a needle going all over the place. That's fine. That's fine. And I went on to other parts of the bracket, and then came back to this first part of the bracket. And this time I got it to flow, and the needle got loose on it.

Theoretically, part of clearing is to have a totally fluid needle.

Male voice: This brings up a point: At the start of the course when we were first talking about E-Meters, the idea was pretty much to set the sensitivity at one point and, by God, leave it there so that you get equal readings all through the thing.

Right. Then you would for sure see . . .

Male voice: Yes, I know.

. . . the tremendously expanded action of the needle.

Male voice: Yeah. Well, I've already seen that.

Right.

Male voice: My feeling on it now is that I could do a better job of auditing with occasional variance of the . . .

Well, do so. Do so — it's your meter.

Male voice: Okay.

You bet. It is!

Male voice: Yeah.

Just so you know what you're doing.

Male voice: Yes.

The reason you give somebody a bunch of fixed sets for a meter is so they can tell what's varying. Now, if they want to vary things after that, that's fine.

Male voice: Okay.

You bet.

Okay. Yes?

Male voice: Would you clarify a little bit for me how goals and help are connected or associated?

Well, you've just popped a question that I hadn't even had — ever examined.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

Never examined this question. Goals and help: You'll find out that the true goals of a person would be to help, I am sure.

Male voice: Mm-hm.

And goals could establish where he was on help, just by listening to him for a short time, and would be more of an indicative thing than it would be therapeutic. We've already tested goals out and found out that it's not necessarily therapeutic. It feels so good, but it isn't necessarily therapeutic.

Yes?

Male voice: Thank you.

Second male voice: Would it be the reason Help is on a flow basis because it's basically a "contribute to" and involved with other people, whereas the "create" is strictly involved with oneself?

Right. You could say that if you were clearing somebody, Help would run the dynamics, and you would get a takeoff from the first dynamic on up with "mock up" and "create." You see? I mean, that's a first dynamic rehabilitation. Help takes the higher dynamics.

The reason why cases get along better when you flatten Help first is because normally you've taken out a bunch of inversions. You haven't taken out the other at all. When he really gets up to a first dynamic he can create, and then he could take off through the rest of the dynamics just through that, and they would all work out eventually. Hardly a case around that isn't running on some inverted dynamics.

Yes?

Female voice: When you process "Action against that body," wouldn't you run into the same phenomena of the stuck flow on the meter?

"Action against that body," stuck flow on the meter — if a person was running it with the actual particles and the actual flow you would certainly get it. You would certainly get a stuck flow phenomenon. That's right.

Yes?

Female voice: You mentioned striking out the Union Station processes at the HGC. Did I get that correctly?

Yeah, that's out.

Female'voice: What about us?

Oh, you don't have to do it. It's not a bad process. It's good, it gets you acquainted with people, gets you around, gets you some air.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, if you run Help to a floppy needle on each leg. . .

Mm-hm.

Male voice: . . . where do you stop?

Your needle will eventually null.

Male voice: Oh.

You eventually get no reaction on Help at all. But the road out is the middle of the flow. See? I mean, it's not stuck this way and stuck that way, it's an unstuck needle. And then you get a more unstuck needle; eventually you get an unactive — an inactive needle, totally inactive. Floppy needles eventually cease to be there at all.

Yes?

Male voice: Would there be a relatively null point — not a stuck needle, but a relatively rising point of a relatively free needle — somewhere in the middle of that flow ?

Yeah.

Male voice: That would be the place to leave it.

Yeah. Well, you'll get a phenomenon which is quite amusing to watch, where the fellow takes a whole tone with a tone arm drop, on one single question that isn't very significant at all.

Male voice: Yeah.

And he'll get a whole tone drop, and then he will blow the charge on that, and the needle will soar upwards to a whole tone rise. Boy, that's a real floppy needle. Wow, that's wild. And that's the time to just get off of it.

Male voice: Yeah.

You say, "That's fine. Let's bridge. Let's bridge before we get into some trouble around here."

Male voice: Good.

Okay, we've had it. Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you.