Free Zone America Bulletin Board 2000 : ENGRAMS

Author: Swampfox (Swampfox)
Posted: Mon 5 Apr 1999 10:24 pm

In response to Dracaman on Apr 5,

Thank you for the tips on solo auditing Dianetics. I have been looking for information like that. Here is what I am doing in a similar vein:

First, I am learning Frank Gerbode's method called Traumatic Incident Reduction. I am taking a course next week, and they will give me assistance and advice while I practice the techniques.

Second, for my own case, I am learning to solo audit on a gradient. The most promising thing at the moment seems to be the recall exercises in "Transforming the Mind " by Peter Shepherd.

Third, after I have gotten real good at recall, and I have experience in running incidents (Engrams) on other people, I might try running out my own engrams.

So, thanks again for the tips on Solo Dianetics

Author: Dracaman
Posted: Tues 6 Apr 1999 08:43 pm

Adept,
I am not familiar with Excalibur's technique. Please post it so that I and others reading this discussion can examine it.

Author: Kevin G. Brady (Rockslam) [rockslam@hotmail.co]
Posted: Wed 7 Apr 1999 04:35 am

Dracaman, Excalibur is here http://fza.org/files.html, just scroll down to Excalibur and download it. It's comparable to SuperScio by the PILOT, in terms of it's scope. Seems like it's all there.

Check it out.

kgb

Author: Dracaman
Posted: Wed 7 Apr 1999 07:05 pm

I briefly reviewed the R3R commands in Excalibur and find then to be very similar to that of the NED R3RA. Filbert does make some changes and remarks about his changes to the Scientology R3R commands. I don't believe his comments/criticisms are warranted . For example he says

Excerpt for Excalibur:
"There are a couple of things I want to say about Dianetics. There are volumes and volumes written by Hubbard on this, and it is more controversial and more confusing and more difficult than I'd care to discuss. Such remarks are made as "If the TA goes up automatically send the PC earlier", this is absolutely wrong. Your PC should be hatted, in other words, he should understand that you are looking for the basic incident on a chain. That is what should come up on the first incident that comes up. If a chain is heavily charged, you may have to go earlier a few times, but this is at the most, 30% of the time. The rest of the time they will be going directly to the basic incident. In most cases, (70% of the time) - they will be going directly to the basic incident. In fact, a third of the PC's never have to be sent earlier, They go right to the basic incident. With a very rough case, you will have to go earlier about 30% of the time, many times the TA is going up simply because they have not gotten all of the incident that they are going through, so, it is absolutely ludicrous to send someone earlier because their TA has gone up on a couple passes through an engram. Different parts of the engram will come off on each pass."

In the statement contained in the excerpt above, he says: "If the TA goes up automatically send the PC earlier", this is absolutely wrong.

I don't think his argument is sound because as he points out 30% of the time the PC will not be at the basic incident on the chain. The process as spelled out by LRH addresses this 30%. How does Filbert address the 30% of us who find the incident too horrible to view it at the first pass?

Readers have to ask themselves whether the changes that are made to what Scientology calls "standard tech" render the tech less effective, or ineffective. In some instances applying the rules of logic will answer the question. In other instances trying both techniques may be necessary to ascertain the answer.

Author: Adept
Posted: Wed 7 Apr 1999 07:11 pm

thanks gents.. glad to hear what i've got is workable at this point (just stepping on the bridge) for me.

Dracaman.. I'm very interested to hear what you'll have to say about the rest of Excal.
have fun.

Author: Hari-jaj
Posted: Fri 21 May 1999 06:27 pm

Here are the passages from the preface to "Self Analysis in Scientology" (1954) that I referred to in my post of Feb 6, above:

Dianetics was purely a psycho-therapy. Perhaps the most fully validated psycho-therapy in existence, its modus operandi was to bring to conscious awareness the traumatic experiences of the past and through the use of various Dianetic techniques, derived from many thousands of hours of empirical research, to eradicate the command value of these undesirable past experiences over the individual so releasing the much greater potential of the basic personality.

In its twin science, Scientology, the emphasis is on the creation of new abilities. The basic personality is addressed directly and is increased in potential thus overcoming the command value of past experiences without necessarily directly contacting them. This method has been found to be much faster in practice.

Thus we have two solutions to the same problem. One, Dianetics, dealing with the erasure of past traumatic experience and the other, Scientology, building the potential of the basic personality in present time for the future, both methods being extremely workable with Scientology leading the field by producing more results in less time.

I suppose the reason this method is so much faster than Dianetics is because it doesn't merely erase engrams but expands consciousness much more. But the secret is to work at it for two hours daily for about two months, more or less, depending on the person, and preferably having some friendly person reading it out to you. Even back in the fifties, when "Self Analysis in Scientology" was available as a single volume, most people didn't realize this, so they would work at it for maybe 30 hours, and then get caught up in all the other processes that were being given out. But as the italicized footnote at the end of the chapter "Short Eight" in "The Creation of Human Ability" suggests, "Self Analysis in Scientology" is really an entire system to itself, and doesn't need those other processes.

In 1956, 43 years ago, I worked on "Self Analysis in Scientology" for two hours daily for about 6 weeks, and got to the stage where I knew three quarters of my own universe.
At that stage every step I took along the street was one of sheer pleasure - the clearest, most vivid, most vibrant, most intense ecstasy. On a scale of pleasure from zero to ten, where the joy of parenthood would be at, say, eight, and orgasm at ten, this would be about fifteen - as distinct from fifteen on the tone scale, which it also is. Knowing one's own universe completely is about twenty on the tone scale.

In my own case though, I didn't persevere with the book for two hours daily for another two weeks or so until I would have known my own universe completely, with the result that I didn't completely annihilate certain latent tendencies I had, and as I drifted away from scientology, they gradually got stronger and eventually caused me trouble. However, my experience with that book showed me what is attainable through it.

Would it be a good idea to release this book indiscriminately to the public? Maybe not. For instance, many university students would use it and almost certainly give up their studies to pursue this much more interesting subject, which would not be a very good idea. Let them do it before or after their studies, but not during. And it would break up many marriages where one partner achieved a higher level of awareness and the other was unable or unwilling to follow, which could do harm by getting bad publicity.

Author: Anonymous
Posted: Fri 21 May 1999 11:00 pm

If you could just go back and recall the thought that kept the Engram in place re: motor cycle accident, than it wouldn't be an engram, it would something like a lock. An engram by definition has to have unconsiousness & pain which untill you remove enough of the charge you won't possibly be able to see the "Postulate". You have to run enough Dianetics on others to see to what degree it applies.

Author: Dracaman
Posted: Sat 22 May 1999 09:55 pm

The word "unconsciousness" as used in Dianetics requires a little clarification. Normally when we speak of an unconscious person we conjure up an image of someone who is lying down in a totally unaware state as a result of some shock that he has just experienced. This would be an example of extreme unconsciousness. A person may in fact be at various states of unconsciousness. Some individuals drive automobiles in a semi-conscious state. A person could be in a partially unconscious state just after hearing some very bad news, etc.

Engrams are not phenomena that simply occurred to us in the past which we now must process so that we are no longer affected by them. They are something that happen to us throughout our lives. A person makes a postulate at the time of a threatening incident to protect himself from harm in the future. Once a person becomes aware of the mechanics of an engram he is quite aware when one is in the making and the associated postulate he adopted at the time of the incident.

The problem is that since the engram associated postulate was made when the being is "not totally there" (some degree of attention attenuation) it may be one that restricts his beingness, doingness and havingness. Since the engram he has just experienced is painful to face he will tend to avid confronting it and never reevaluate the possibly sub-optimum postulate he had made. With time he will forget the incident and behave in a sub-optimum fashion.

The argument posted by anonymous that: "An engram by definition has to have unconsciousness & pain which until you remove enough of the charge you won't possibly be able to see the 'Postulate'" does not appear to valid for if you observe someone's behavior that does not appear totally rational, on many occasions you will also hear them recount an incident that taught them a lesson why they should behave in that particular manner.

Author: zippy
Posted: Sun 23 May 1999 09:57 am

Hi Swampfox!

You wrote on 5.4.:
First, I am learning Frank Gerbode's method called Traumatic Incident Reduction. I am taking a course next week, and they will give me assistance and advice while I practice the techniques.

Have you done that course? I would like to hear how you liked it.

all the best

zippy

Author: Swampfox (Swampfox)
Posted: Sun 23 May 1999 10:39 am

To zippy:

Thanks for asking. I took the course, and I really liked it. I haven't practiced the technique yet (except for a short session I gave at the end of the course), but it seems like a practical method of running Dianetics type auditing without a meter. (Actually, I think they do use a meter, but that is another course. The course I took took 4 days, and there just was not time to learn to use a meter.)

If people are interested in doing a co-audit or learning to audit "Dianetics type auditing" then TIR offers an easy way to do it. And unlike Scientology, they make no attempt to suppress the co-auditing field. My main problem is that the class I took, and the group I took it with, is in Kansas City, and I am in Houston, TX.

My excuses for not doing any auditing yet include:
1) I am building and experimental aircraft, and that takes time.
2) I am studying to become a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, and that takes time.
3) I do not know anybody who wants to be my first guine pig (oops, I mean PC).

If you don't know how to do Dianetics type auditing, then I can recomend a book that the Traumatic Incident Reduction Association sells. It is called "Traumatic Incident Reduction" by French and Harris. It is much shorter and to the point than Book One, and the techniques are, to my understanding, better than Book One. (It should be better, it was published 49 years after Book One, and hindsight is 20/20, as they say.)

The course also taught how certain parts of the brain are affected by severe traumatic incidents, and how they can cause brain damage if left untreated. Somebody in the Medical field could be credited with a "Medical Breakthrough" if they just did a scientific follow up on the course. It is like this, we have known about engrams (Traumatic Incidents) for almost 50 years, but there has been no acceptance from the Scientific Community. What I learned on the course shows how to find Scientific "proof" that engrams exist and derange the human brain. A Medical Doctor with an adequate grant could "prove" engrams Scientifically, with was taught on my course. And anybody could learn to audit, as well.

Swampfox

Author: zippy
Posted: Sun 23 May 1999 11:08 pm

To Swampfox

Thanks for your answer! Too bad that I'm in Austria. I'm also looking for someone to audit. Maybe you could come over? :-)

zippy

Author: Anonymous
Posted: Sat 5 Jun 1999 06:38 pm

Well you might be able to audit each other on the phone, or is that too expensive?

Author: Adriana Hansen [jeannybtl@aol.com]
Posted: Mon 26 Jul 1999 04:35 pm

ON ANOTHER THREAD OF THIS BOARD I WAS FREFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING POST. I FIND THIS AND THE SUBSEQUENT POSTINGS QUITE INTRIGUING, ESPECALLY SINCE I HAVE WRITTEN A BOOK ON THE SUBJECT OF DIANETICS AND HAVE WORKED WITH THIS METHOD FOR MORE THAN 25 YEARS NOW.

Below, I shall quote pertinent passages and give you my views:

ENGRAMS - TO HANDLE OR NOT TO HANDLE?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dracaman on Friday, January 15, 1999 - 08:46 pm:
SHOULD ENGRAMS BE ADDRESSED (ERASED)?

It may be possible for a person to be quite successful in life without ever addressing an engram.
IMHO a person who is: extremely capable in many areas of life; comes from a harmonious family; has friends that are less powerful and therefore unable to invalidate him; has had teachers that are less powerful and therefore unable to invalidate him; is successful in almost all his endeavors and does not experience any "close family" losses due to death may be able to go through life without having an engram restimulate him for some time. Will this person experience the joy of life to its fullest? All the harmony and success this person experiences will probably weather him through the bad times at least until he starts to deteriorate physically and the death engrams start to restimulate and make him unhappy.

What about the birth engram (unless born via Caesarian section)? What about eventually losing their parents, or one of their siblings, friends, etc.? The latter, of course, are secondaries, but to have an effect on the person these still will lock onto an underlying engram.
What about accidents/injuries they sustained while only a child? I have audited quite a few "so called succesful" people. They usually come in because they're overstressed and it's beginning to affect their health. All of them had suffered engrams and in quite a few, we had to go earlier (before this life) to get to basic.

How about the individuals who are not so powerful? They are likely to have engrams key in at the prime of their life or even as children. These people may not enjoy life as much unless the engram that i

Author: Adriana Hansen [jeannybtl@aol.com]
Posted: Mon 26 Jul 1999 04:39 pm

Sorry about that, my computer locked up and I lost the rest of this posting. Need to take a p.c. in session now, but will complete this posting at my earliest opportunity.

Author: Adriana Hansen [jeannybtl@aol.com]
Posted: Mon 26 Jul 1999 04:51 pm

Hi! I'm back again. Was able to retrieve the rest of my post.Here it comes:
Dracaman wrote:These people may not enjoy life as much unless the engram that is in restimulation is addressed.
Why not just forget the bad incidents? Unfortunately once an engram is created it has the nasty habit of exerting its power (being keyed in) over the individual at the most inopportune times making the person less capable than his true potential. If its bad enough it may make the individual totally incapable of handling life (schizophrenia, manic depression, unusual fears, etc.).

Quite so!

WHAT CAN A PERSON DO ABOUT ENGRAMS?

A course of action prescribed by the Church of Scientology suggests that an individual spend all his money on auditing. Once all of the individual's funds are depleted he will cognite that he no longer has anything to lose and feel great about life again as he no longer has far to fall to reach bottom.

I agree with your first sentence and in the Free Zone this should no longer apply. (One can get auditing in the Free Zone for as little as $ 25 an hour, or with a co-audit course at whatever is charged for that.)

As to him cogniting about not having anything else to lose and feeling great about life... that may be possible, for a while, but then his engrams will start keying in again.

Dracaman: Another course of action prescribed by the Church of Scientology suggests that a person examine (via Scientology auditing) various past traumas to identify the postulate that was made during the incident in order to "as is" it (see it as it truly is in its own space and time). Once this is done the church literature claims that the engram will no longer effect the individual.

Adriana:
I, personally, have never seen this method produce a Clear, as it will only release the lock that's holding the engram and secondaries together.
Dracaman:
One problem with this approach could be that the postulate made at the time of the engram creating incident is a negative postulate, or second postulate. For example a first postulate might be "I am a great motorcycle driver". At the time of a motorcycle accident a second postulate might be "I am not good enough to drive a motorcycle safely".
Me:
In my book I mention that it is very important to replace the negative postulate found with a positive (in PT) one.
Dracaman:
When the motorcycle accident incident is run via auditing the second postulate will come into light and the person will realize that he made the postulate because of the accident. One could argue that just spotting the negative postulate will not change that person's mind and have him believe that he is now "a good motorcycle driver". Logic might dictate that unless the motorcycle accident was forgotten or the person resumed motorcycle driving and became very successful with it, the original incident will still be there to remind him that he may not be quite as good as he might wish to be. In other words, the argument may be that only a future success in the area or total abandonment of activity in the area of life that caused the Engram will render the engram ineffective.

COMMENTS?
Yes, I would like to conclude by giving you what I have obseved about postulates:
Only if the negative postulate is replaced by a new postulate that would state, for instance: I am perfectly capable of riding a motorcycle without incurring any accidents, he would have no further problems with it.

Don't forget that nothing is ever forgotten: it is all stored in that portion of the mind that Hubbard calls the reactive mind.

People may be very successful and healthy in their teens, twenties and even thirties, depending on their environment (people being pretty sane and rational or not)but sooner or later they will start experiencing stress, somatics, etc.

So, yes get those engrams located and discharged of their emotional content (erased) and find that postulate, plus replace it with a more survival one.

I'm expecting a p.c. soon but will get back to this with my comments on later postings!When I sign with Adriana, I'm wearing my auditor or C/S hat, otherwise I use my nickname: Jeanny.

Author: Dracaman
Posted: Tues 3 Aug 1999 08:14 pm

Adriana,
Thank you for your comments and most of all thank you for addressing the subject at hand by not Q&Aing into unrelated topics as happens many times in this discussion board.

I agree with the following statement you make:

"So, yes get those engrams located and discharged of their emotional content (erased) and find that postulate, plus replace it with a more survival one."

but how would one go about replacing a negative postulate with a positive one when the beingness that you one is attempting to assume required for a present time doingness is being invalidated by a prior unsuccessful attempt at the doingness as in my example of the motorcycle accident.

Author: Adriana
Posted: Wed 4 Aug 1999 12:12 am

If I understand your question correctly you want to know how one would assume the beingness of a successful motorcycle rider while this is being invalidated by the former beingness of an unsuccessful one?

Well, that's pretty simple: the old idea that one is a bad motorcyclist is no longer valid once the traumatic incident has been run out. Let me create a possible scenario for what the p.c. may realize in the session: the p.c. while running through the incident duplicates exactly what happened to cause the accident and so by avoiding these mistakes in the future will not have another accident.

Then he decides (in a new unit of time) I now know how to ride a motorcycle safely. I will be successful at riding a motorcycle, or any other postulate the p.c. comes up with.

Your question threw me for a bit, because I had to relate it to other sessions where a person would for instance not be successful in business and then (after finding the postulate that was creating this reality and changing it) become very successful. This would happen almost overnight.

Anyway, this method is what I have seen work. You must know though that this (asking the p.c. to create a new postulate) is not done in the Co$. It's my invention after reading many books on "creating one's own reality".

I hope that makes sense to you and that other auditors will try out this method for themselves.

Author: Dracaman
Posted: Wed 4 Aug 1999 08:06 pm

Adriana,
If we take your example wherein an individual identified the postulate that was making his business unsuccessful and changed the postulate to one that should result in success but he lacked the necessary skills to execute the postulate I believe the original postulate would return and take effect once again.

I am suggesting that postulates whether positive or negative are only the seeds of beingness, a sort of archetype, that needs to be nurtured until the beingness becomes a reality. Most times a beingness that one is postulating for self requires specific skills that may or may not be possessed by the individual. If the skills are not present the individual will likely suffer some sort of loss that will nurture a negative postulate made at the time of loss or re-key a negative postulate that was supposedly handled.

The implication I am making is that there should be much more to the game of clearing than mere identification of postulates. Certainly that is a most important first step, but an individual must not stop there. The individual needs learn the necessary skills and experience real life success with the beingness that is being postulated. Without the shared universe reality on individuals postulated reality (universe of self) may be easily shattered.

One might argue that an individual already possessing the necessary skills to perform a task is being impeded by an engramatic (negative) postulates. My question here might be whether the beigness was still in the formative stage when the engram was experienced. If the beingness were well developed I don't believe it could be easily shattered.

I have had the opportunity to experience potential engrams in the making after having become a trained auditor. Because I knew the mechanics of engrams I caught myself in the act of making the negative postulates and immediately desisted.

What I learned from these experiences is that for a short span of time we are well aware of the negative postulate we are making. Because of the pain associated with the postulate we relegate it outside our awareness and soon forget that we ever made the postulate thus becoming at effect when it is keyed-in. Can you recall a time of your life that you made uncomfortable (distressed) that somehow seems like it was a pleasant part of your life (We tend to remember pleasure and forget the pain).

If we accept that the negative postulate can be recalled for at least a brief time before it is relegated into our subconscious then a strong possibility exists that a well formed beingness will survive an engramatic incident. A surviving beingness will continue "to do" and experience successes that will soon invalidate the negative postulate that may have been lingering.

The intent of my discussion is not to diminish the importance of running out engrams or performing other forms of auditing. I am looking for a reality check on my thought processes that suggest that a person who goes clear in the "safe" environment of an auditing session containing no invalidation or evaluation will not maintain that state in the "shared universe" that will attempt to invalidate and certainly evaluate most actions performed by that individual unless he/she acquires the necessary skills required by his/her environment.

Author: CourJester
Posted: Thur 5 Aug 1999 06:43 am

You are right. "Doing it" against past negative postulates also has similar good effect to running it out on the meter. So says my experience, even if it is non$ci based.

It's probably easier though to take Adriana's suggestion and run it out on the meter first. Not as big a slug fest. Otherwise it is a huge effort to stay conscious enough to over-rule your jive programming. And it can take years and years instead of minutes on a meter.

Author: Hari-jaj (203.29.129.28 - 203.29.129.28)
Posted: Thur 10 Aug 2000 04:21 pm

In my post dated Feb 6 1999 in this thread I wrote "My other posts on the creative processing of Scientology 8-8008 and "Self Analysis in Scientology" are in the "Thetans" discussion dated Dec 5 and 14, 1998 ......"

Looking for them myself in the discussions list in the Archive section I found the old "Thetans" thread was divided into 3 sections none of which contain the posts mentioned. However, there is a further subdivision of Part 1 mentioned at the top of Part 1, and they're in there.

Anyway, I made a copy of them and post them here:

By Jaj on Saturday, December 5, 1998 - 09:58 pm:

I don't think the so-called "OT8" document would have been written by Hubbard. It gives too much credence to ancient mythologies and beliefs like the Serpent in the Garden, the Book of Revelation, and the 'Cabbala' Hubbard never wrote in that vein after he discovered Scientology. Nor would he have been interested in coming back as something so spiritually empty as a political leader instead of a religious one. It was probably written by some sort of sordid occultist, but not by Hubbard. Now to change the subject. In his post of 30 Sept StarSponge wrote "I would speculate that the real reason creative processing was all but abandoned was that the results obtained were too powerful to be controlled by Hubbard. SPOT ON! That is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! But consider what Hubbard himself wrote. In my copy of the seventh edition of the book "Scientology 8-8008" he wrote, in the section headed "Universes" (p.30): "Creative processing, especially where it divorces all thought from thought of the MEST universe and follows out on a line of the rehabilitation of one's own universe without attention to the MEST universe, is one level of processing which produces magnificent results, and which is a standby in any case, no matter how difficult" And in a long footnote on page 10 he says that rehabilitating the analytical mind by permitting it to use its creative ability in the construction of a universe of its own reduces (not "stiffens up") the command value of the reactive bank. And in a list of effective procedures on page 124 he labels creative processing (as in Scientology 8-8008) as "unlimited", meaning it could be audited thousands of hours and only improve a case. Why then does he say in "Create and Confront" (Feb 1960) that creative processing is limited and stiffens up the bank? The answer probably lies in the type of cases he described in "Create and Confront" and also in the lecture of that name he gave on Jan 3, 1960. They were people with severe neurotic or psychotic problems. But sufficient warning is given in the editorial to "Self Analysis in Scientology"(1953), which is the original and most important book of creative processing, that the book is intended for the comparatively normal person only, not for the severely neurotic or psychotic, and its irresponsible use by such might lead to partial insanity. It could be applied by Dianetic auditors to persons of unstable disposition, but only by Dianetic auditors. Nor is the claim that creative processing doesn't produce stable results valid. Even a champion athlete, if he gives up training and looking after his health will degenerate into flab in a few years. So it is with any beneficient form of Scientology processing. But why did Hubbard allow people to form the erroneous belief that the restrictions of "Create and Confront" applied to all, instead of only a minority? I think it was because he had come to realise that while creative processing could produce great power over oneself and others it could also be used unethically, and this is why he abandoned the process after 1960, and became obsessed with security checking everyone in sight.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jaj on Monday, December 14, 1998 - 04:37 pm:

Probably the influence of so-called "occultism" on Hubbard's work has been exaggerated. His most remarkable and distinctive book, that started all of scientology off, was the book of creative processing titled "Self-Analysis in Dianetics" first published in England in 1952 shortly before the PDC lectures, and republished in slightly improved form in America as "Self-Analysis in Scientology" in early 1953 (the mock-ups were changed from past to present and future tense) That is his greatest, most distinctive book, and I know of nothing that resembles it even remotely in any Crowley or Golden Dawn material. I know various occult exercises and concepts were introduced later, but think they were fairly superficial and peripheral. Forty two years ago, I worked on "Self-Analysis in Scientology" for two hours daily for about six weeks and got to the stage where I knew three quarters of my own universe. Unfortunately I didn't perservere with the book for two hours daily for another two weeks or so until I would have known my own universe completely, but it was still a remarkable experience. At that time I had already read Yogananda's "Autobiography of a Yogi" and I thought Scientology would be the best possible preparation for such a spiritual path. Similarly, Gareth Knight, in his book "A Practical Guide to Qabalistic Symbolism" (1964) wrote "Scientology is no panacea, but it does clear the decks for action quicker than most other therapies ...." Was Scientology in the fifties and early sixties more effective and powerful than it is today? Anyway, its only for beginners.

Author: po (63.36.142.67 - 63.36.142.67)
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2000 01:14 pm

if it doens't "clear" the decks,
you can always "swab" the decks in scientology...

Author: FZA (Fza) (207.179.15.102 - 207.179.15.102)
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2000 08:19 pm

Hi Hari-jaj,

I don't know if this will help or confuse the issue more. If you read the posts from Revenius (found elsewhere on this site) he claims that the OT8 doc you refer to is a troll.

He seems to agree with you, as do I.

ARC,

Mike

Author: Bubba (63.160.48.70 - 63.160.48.70)
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2000 08:39 pm

IF you are referring to the "Christ"document, I believe that it was fabricated in order to justify Miscavige's right to gain access to and change the other OT levels to avoid a similar public reaction.

Just an itching suspicion.

My only indication on this is that someone told me that Miscavige was editting the other upper levels "because of" the public reaction to this one. Good plan Stan.

Author: FZA (Fza) (207.179.15.102 - 207.179.15.102)
Posted: Fri 11 Aug 2000 08:41 pm

Hey Bubba,

Yes, agreed. Throw 'em a bomb Tom :-)

ARC,

Mike