Responses in regard to NOTs

http://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/where-did-nots-come-from/

 

PIERRE ETHIER says:
July 17, 2014 at 4:10 am
ABOUT SOLO NOTS EP CHECKS
Since my name is repeatedly mentioned in this thread, I thought I would answer it. I count at least 6 different topics, so I will give the answer to one subject per message
Someone accused me of accepting Verbal tech concerning the Solo NOTS EP checks, if in different words, and coming from a person that seems to know nothing about me and who has never worked with me technically, I find it frankly offensive considering the amount of fighting and battling I had to do, even at Flag AGAINST RTC themselves, in spite of the risk, to reject their continuous attempts to indoctrinate/implant me wit their brand of verbal Tech. My mentors were two LRH TRAINED CLASS XII C/Ses who did their original training and the original Class X (XII) course long before David Mayo or Karen de la C. went to the Apollo. These people trained me be to be extra perceptive and to reject any form of Verbal Tech or Arbitrary.
In 1984, I was ordered to train of then SOLO NOTS EP checks. These issues were Highly confidential and only the SOLO NOTS C/Ses, Snr C/Ses involved and the auditors trained to do the check were allowed to see them.
These issues were in the same format as other LRH issues/orders coming through the office of LRH personal secretary were. The cover page, which was few people bothered to read, bore LRH initials and was in the identical format and form as the original HCOBs that I ran off as Mimeo operator when I was working for the Flag Bureaux in 1976.
Therefore I do not challenge their authenticity, because based on my independent experience, they matched 100% genuine LRH data issued at Flag since 1976.
The SOLO NOTS EP check consist of the following
PART A: a check to ensure the person is clean ethically and case wise. Seldom longer than 30 minutes, it has been perverted by RTC to now require several intensives.
PART B: a Special form of Rehab of the Full EP of SOLO NOTs
PART C: the actual attest at the examiner stating the SECRET EP of SOLO NOTS. ONLY the C/Ses were allowed to read it. I read it because I was asked to translate it in French, Spanish and Italian.
I did perhaps over 400 SOLO NOTS EP checks including those most celebrities such as Amanda Ambrose, Karen Black, Priscilla Presley, Chick Corea, Gayle Moran, and many others.
The assertion that 1000 hours on Solo NOTS is too many hours is a perfect example of being both an arbitrary and VERBAL TECH.
Whatever happened to the data: It takes as long as it takes. There are no references except in the warped mind of RTC personnel and those they brainwashed that a pc running a level well, with wins, cognitions and expected phenomena is a BAD INDICATOR. Only an R/Ser could possibly dream up such a datum and contaminate, typically using duress and threats that false data to otherwise good auditors.
Beside the 400 or so SOLO NOTS EP checks I did, I have audited at one point or another, over 80% of the first thousand people to have attested to SOLO NOTs, including Solo NOTs completion #1, the late Betty Filisky, so I know first hand from folder study or being at the forefront of SOLO NOTS delivery lines, the number of hours of at least 800 Solo NOTs completions.
When a person felt they may be done, the very first thing the C/S would ask is an hours count. This was based on the fact that the only “SOLO NOTS C/S ONLY” HCOB (I was the only non C/S allowed to read it for translation reasons) stated how many hours LRH did on Solo. It was verbally interpreted in true RTC style that if LRH is the best auditor, then no one could possibly audit less hours than he did.
Knowing better than this warped interpretation of tech data, I did not challenge verbally or in writing this datum, because doing so would have been the same as signing my death warrant as an auditor. However, I was not fooled by RTC cookie ideas. Read the C/S series and it will become abundantly clear that speed of auditing or length on a level is primarily a function of the case characteristics and very secondarily, the skills of the auditor.
This is why the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM before a C/S would dare programming a case of the EP checks was 900 hours. To be noted that the first 50 SOLO NOTS completions were not allowed to attest until RTC had reviewed their folders at CMO INT and given final OK to declare.
Before people start to complain, I can assure that this datum of 900 hours plus was needed in less than 5% of cases, as 95% of cases were happy to go beyond the 1000 hours mark.
Every case I saw and audited on further setups that was adamant about being done with a lot less hours had significant outpoints (unresolved somatics, or aberrations, chronic history of dramatizing evil purposes or PTSness, or quickie lower grades)
To summarize: out of the first 1000 Solo NOTS completions (I am Solo NOTS completion # 801 myself) 2% between 800 and 1000 hours 90% between 1000 and 2000 hours. 8% over 2000. The highest I know being a little over 4000 hours.
Pierre Ethier
—-
PIERRE ETHIER says:
July 18, 2014 at 4:58 am
Excellent question thetaclear!
Based on all data I know, the shortest time I have heard of someone on the level (1981-1992) (1981 is the launch of Solo NOTs, 1992 is the year I left Flag) is a little bit over a year. The SOLO NOTs D of Ps (Kathy Roberts, Alycia Danilovich and Grace Lowrance were spending the bulk of their time debugging pre-OTs so they could do the most hours possible in a week. Kathy Roberts created the “25 Hours Club” (of which I am incidentally a member – I managed to do over 50 hours on public and 25 hours solo that week – my highest ever week at over 75 hours in the chair). There were about 100 members of that club. They also had a weekly newsletter giving the names and hours of the top 10 or 20 auditors. The Highest Producer (while he was on Solo NOTs) was always Steve Edison of Edmonton: always doing 50-60 hours a week (In spite of those high hours he was on the level for nearly 3 years.
Rough estimate for the first 1000 Solo NOTS completions:
Under 1 year: 0.002%
1-2 years: 5%
2-3 years 25%
3-5 years: 50%,
5-7 years: 15%
7-10 years: 5%
as of 1990, when I moved into the Class XII HGC and stopped doing Solo NOTs EP checks except in Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, and therefore had less data on SOLO NOS statistics.
Of people still not attested to Solo NOTs in 1992 about 500 had been on the level for 4 years or more and 75 over 7 years. Another 500 were either blown, declared or deceased. Solo NOTS was launched in late 1981, so the longest someone had been on the level was about 7 1/2 years at that time.
The common denominator among those who had been on the level for over 4 years was little auditing.
In the Freezone there are vocal complaints about people being n Solo NOTS for 10 or even 20 years. Upon checking, I found in each and every case: 1- they were floundering about on Solo NOTs mainly without C/S or guidance, self C/Sing and ignoring all forms of BIs without addressing them properly and therefore grinding away over unaddressed BPC 2- Once bias, rumours and hypes were cast aside, I found that the majority of those decade long auditors had audited a total of between 200 and 500 hours top.
Pierre Ethier
—–
PIERRE ETHIER says:
July 18, 2014 at 9:11 pm
In a perfect world, I would be more than happy to provide the full names, addresses, phone numbers and credentials of all people who have had a valid input in providing materials etc.
Alas, we do not live in such a world.
For years, the most unethical elements in the Freezone, tried to pump me to find out my list of pcs so that they could funnel the information to OSA for harassment and persecution purposes.
The only time, I did such a mistake was in confiding to a psycho named Aida Thomas who is a proverbial wolf in sheep clothing, she promptly wrote a 36 pages Knowledge reports and sent copies to the entire International Freezone Association mailing list, everybody she knew, all my pcs she knew of and even my wife non Scientologist boss in an attempt to get her fired, She even sent copies of the KR to Senior Church Management and to OSA. The report was full of calumnies and shared with over 200 people. (Yet many people in the Freezone originally sided with her – the proverbial non-confront of evil, until she starting shooting herself in the foot attacking just about anyone who disagreed with her)
Among those that received her KR were people who were working as LRH direct juniors for years or some of the original Class XIIs. One commented to me was that she must be “mentally ill” for writing and spreading such a report. Another stated that in 10 years of working as LRH research auditor and auditing or C/Sing just about every psycho that came on St-Hill lines in the 1960s or the Apollo in the early 1970s, “this was worse piece of garbage (referring to the writer) that he had ever seen”.
Last year the pc of a Fake Class XII (someone who falsely claims he was ever a Class XII but had already at Flag a repute as a squirelly auditor and never went beyond Class VI – I Know for I fixed a number of his botched sessions way back when we both were in good grace with Flag) and a Charlatan auditor in the Freezone who views himself above correction, served me with papers for a Vexatious lawsuit that USED A LAWYER KNOWN TO WORK FOR OSA… The letter of demand from the lawyer beside seeking to extort money, sought for me to falsely admit I had stolen Confidential materials and falsely admit that I am practicing Medicine without a license… In other words tacit cooperation with OSA within the Independent Field. I have gotten rid of that lawsuit since.
Yet that pc and their spouse are being currently audited in the Freezone by APIS endorsed/certified/befriended auditors who dismiss any claims there is something wrong with those people. (they pay their auditors very well and viciously attack anyone seeking to expose their auditors – who never pull their witholds) So the pernicious presence of OSA can reach deep, especially when auditors have committed so many O/Ws (and refused to take responsibility for them) that they have become blinder than a bat.
If someone does not know who to trust as a tech terminal, my suggestion is that they get sufficient O/Ws off so that they may raise their perceptions to the point they can actually perceive whom they can trust. (Be careful to clearly be able to distinguish between actual perceptions and Dub-In (or Dub-in of Dub-In like a certain group of dingbats in Switzerland who claim to be in continuous telepathic communication with LRH for instructions).
In the meantime, I must decline to reveal any names, for the sake of the freedom for all to deliver auditing outside the perverted reach of the Church, as until the day David Miscavige and his minions get each and every of their Rock Slams handled, Evil will never sleep within the Church of Scientology.
Pierre Ethier
—-
PIERRE ETHIER says:
July 18, 2014 at 9:32 pm
SHORTER ANSWER: I do know the correctedness and non-correctedness concerning the NOTs/SOLO NOTs materials.
Those who view me as a friend already believe what I say without my having to provide further proof.
Those who view me as their enemy, will never believe what I say, no matter how much proof I provide.
Squirrels and unethical people in the Freezone routinely use the “hidden data line” argument to try to goad people of good will into giving them materials they will then use to spin people in or to deny their existence in order to falsely parade as an Authorities while being a complete ignoramus.
Pierre Ethier
—-
PIERRE ETHIER says:
July 19, 2014 at 8:41 am
2- ANSWER TO TOPIC #2: NOTs AUTHORSHIP and the authorship of any tech for that matter.
I often read “ONLY LRH TECH IS VALID TECH”.
While the above datum has arguable workability, the corollary of that argument is “EVERYTHING LRH EVER WROTE IS GOSPEL AND INFALLIBLE”. It tends to place LRH in the same class as Deity and transmogrify the philosophy of Scientology into a cult.
I am sorry, but at the risk of alienating fanatical followers, no one will ever convince me that the writing of the FAIR GAME LAW, was a masterpiece of philosophical writing or that the admonition to do reverse processing on traitors when they show up asking to do amends is an ethical practice.
Somehow some people have equated Scientology (a philosophy meant to transcend Man and reconcile all knowledge and being a path to spiritual Freedom) and L. Ron Hubbard (a Man). I can assure you that both are not the same.
HCOBs and other tech publications fall in roughly three categories:
1- Philosophical writings and technical procedures
2- Explanation on the application of procedures or ways to apply the tech
3- Compilations such as Confessional/FPRD lists, Grade Processes or lists of questions.
1- Having audited over 15,000 of NOTs, NOTs and Solo NOTs Reviews, by experience alone, I can easily tell what makes sense and doesn’t in the way of upper Level tech. With my training which includes passing 28 Flag Internships and doing every single auditor course available, I can tell at a glance, “tech” that violates basics, or other tech data, regardless of the name printed on the signatory.
I haven’t seen a single authentic NOTs/Solo NOTs HCOB published before 1996 (GAT) (meaning not a FREEZONE forgery like those that “Elroners” provide on some of their courses) that contradicted the tenets of standard tech, logical agreement with Upper Levels Tech or agreement with the vast array of technology that makes up Scientology. Even David Mayo, who once claimed co-authorship of NOTs, never claimed to have conceived the ideas at the root of NOTs nor its fundamental procedures. In fact, I attended several briefings at Flag, mainly given to Tech and NOTs auditors only where he described being in awe about LRH coming up with a number of NOTs concepts. David Mayo contribution to NOTs was therefore under “2″ and “3″ above. For a Snr C/S the worst sin is to “invent tech”. Therefore someone like David Mayo would have a metal block on “inventing tech”, but not on finding clever ways to apply it, whcih made his genius and made him a wizard at cracking the most difficult of cases.
2- Explanation on application a and methods of applying the tech. In KSW, LRH mention, how valuable those contributions are. Only people suffering to a measure of Robotism will insist that any application of the tech not 100% developed by LRH is to be thrown in the trash. Such people are PTS (the true cause of Robotism) and instead of applying the Verbal data checklist toward tech data (or simply quickie its step in order to align with the preconceived idea). Such people dream up complex conspiracies (i.e. the work of SPs – logical, because they are PTS themselves) and use unusual and Non-scientology tech concept to attept to De-PTS themselves.
Funnily enough, the “Big Cheese” of one such group in the Freezone has given himself the “whole track pseudonym” of Paramejian (the Sicilian way of pronouncing Parmesan)
3- While LRH would approve most compilations (Grade Checklists, correction list and other assessments, The LRH compilation unit is well know to have gone through great pains to ensure that only things that were strictly in LRH writings or directly in the tech were ever written down in their compilations, with every single item tabbed and documented to prove its provenance. LRH even urge tech to add to most of those lists, like Sec checks, or canned lists of terminals, body parts or items.
Nothing will ever supplant intelligence and UNDERSTANDING in order to apply tech correctly and decide was is in-tech and out-tech.
Only an asinine (or Rockslamming) mind would ensure that auditors have no judgment nor understanding while auditing but only learn a strict patter that trains them to become a perfect automaton when they audit. This is what we see in the Church today.
Pierre Ethier

Advertisements